Unit-V

Major Debates in Political Science

Political Obligation
The term ‘obligation’ originates from a Latin word ‘obligate’ implying something that binds
men to perform what is enjoined upon them. This has various connotations. In the realm of
ethics, it informs a man to discharge his duties, which he accepts on the basis of his rational
understanding. In the field of jurisprudence, the social life of men is regulated by law. And in
the world of politics, man is bound to live under some authority and obey his command.
Characteristic of Political Obligation
Political obligation is, thus, a frame through which people accept the commands of the “men
in authority”. This means that it has certain distinct characteristics. They are:
• Management of public affairs
• Political Legitimacy
• Resistance to authority
Management of Public Affairs: The art of running any government is not easy. It is a difficult
and extensive task and any wrong move or incorrect policy decision would entail serious
consequences. On the contrary, a positive and right step taken by the government for the people
would bring good results for the development of a nation. Thus, it becomes a duty of every
conscientious person to take serious interest in the management of public affairs, government
policies and political questions. This interaction would be for the general good. Political
obligation, thus, calls for honesty, integrity and public spirit, both on the part of the government
and the people.
Political Legitimacy: A study of the concept of political obligation necessarily leads to the
investigation of the related theme of political legitimacy and effectiveness. The stability of a
democratic political system not only depends upon economic development, but also upon its
legitimacy. Legitimacy includes the capacity to produce and maintain a belief that the existing
political institutions or forms are the most appropriate for society and is said to rest on the
general will. Effectiveness, on the other hand, is judged on how well a system performs the
basic functions of government, measured by the reaction of the masses.
Resistance to Authority: The idea of political obligation not only tells people to obey
authority, but also desires them to be critical about the way authority is exercised. The people
should scrutinize the action of their rulers and resist an invasion on their liberties. Thus, the
idea of political obligation also involves the idea of resistance to authority. But of course, the
right to protest against the state must be founded on a relation to social well-being in terms
intelligible to the masses and the consequences of disobedience should not lead to a total
breakdown of the state system.

1
DIFFERENT THEORIES OF POLITICAL OBLIGATION
Various theories have been enunciated on political obligation. These theories explain the kind
of sanctions behind the concept of political obligation.
1. Divine Theory
This theory is one of the oldest, explaining the reasons of obedience to a state’s ruler. It implied
that the ruler has derived his authority directly from God. As such, the people had no right to
rebel even against a wicked ruler. In this way, people are bound by religious injunction to obey
the authority of the king. This idea of ‘divine rights of kings’ was prevalent through-out the
Middle Ages. However, with the advent of new learning in the modern age, it lost its
significance.
The Divine Theory of political obligation received scathing criticism at the hands of eminent
thinkers like Grotius, Hobbes, Locke who rejected its metaphysical premises and traced the
source of political obligation in consent of the individuals. When the state and the church got
separated due to the growth of secularism, temporal powers became supreme to spiritual
powers. However, the growth of democracy doomed this theory.
2. Consent/Contract Theory
The idea of contract or consent as a basis of obligation is found in the 16th and the 17th century
in Europe that sophisticated theories of contract were developed to explain political obligation.
The explicit expression of this theory is found in the writings of Thomas Hobbes and John
Locke. They opine, that men who lived in the state of nature entered into a contract whereby
political authority came into being, which again was based on the consent of the people. The
idea of social contract, however, took a highly philosophical form at the hands of Rousseau,
who reposed the fact of political obligation in the “General Will”. This meant that man no
longer remains a slave to his impulses of appetite after entering into a civil society, but he
becomes bound to obey the law of the general good.
Thus, the social contract theory justifies the conception that the ruling authority, if he has to be
legitimate, must rest ultimately on the consent of the governed. If the government violates the
terms of the contract, the people have the right to resist. The implications of this theory have
been in the direction of safeguarding the rights and liberties of the people and checking the
arbitrariness of rulers.
Though the consent theory had its field day in the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries and
even now, has its own significance on account of constituting the moral basis of a democratic
order, it suffers from certain weaknesses. The theory makes the state an artificial organization.
Also, the element of consent as enshrined in some contract made in a hypothetical state of
nature is nothing else than a fiction, not at all legally binding on the existing generation.
3. Prescriptive Theory
According to this theory, political authority and reverence to it are based on the principle of
“customary rights”. Authority is legitimate, if it is sanctioned by long standing custom or
tradition. The people obey their rulers because the fact of obedience has become like a well-
2
established convention. Burke opines that it is unwise for man to totally disregard custom and
tradition. The fact of political obligation is contained in paying unflinching respect to tradition,
which is a sacrosanct affair. Thus, he supported the revolt of American colonialists, which was
in favour of traditional rights of Englishmen, but opposed the French Revolution because it
was inspired by the abstract rights of man “divorced from national traditions”.
Like other theories, the prescriptive theory has its own weaknesses. The source of political
obligation lies not only in paying reverence to well-established practices, but also in doing
away with them. People desire change and in case, their hopes are frustrated, they take to the
path of revolution.
4. Idealistic Theory
The Idealists trace the source of political obligation in the innate rationality of man. Man is
regarded as a ‘political and rational creature’ and the state as a ‘self - sufficing community’
identical with the whole society. As such, there can be no antithesis between the individual and
the state. As a consequence, an individual can seek his best possible development in society
alone by obeying the command of the state. In other words, the source of political obligation
is contained in obedience to the state. It sanctions no right to resistance. Since state gives good
life to its citizens, they should in turn obey, rather worship its authority.
The idealistic theories have been criticized on the ground of being too abstract. It places
ordinary things in a highly philosophical or metaphysical form that cannot be understood by a
man of average understanding. Also, the idea of political obligation is not only concerned with
man’s obedience to state, but is also integrally connected with his right to resist abuse of
political authority. The idealists are reluctant to accommodate the right to resistance in their
doctrine of political obligation.
5. Marxian Theory
The Marxian theory of political obligation is basically different from other theories on the
subject. It sanctions the case of political non-obligation in the pre-revolutionary stage, total
political obligation in the revolutionary stage and its eventual conversion into social obligation
in the post-revolutionary stage. In Marxian theory of politics, state is decried as a ‘bourgeois
institution’ in capitalist society. It means, after a successful revolution, the working class has
the instruments of power in their hands to consolidate the socialist order in a way preparing its
‘withering away’ in the final stage of socialism.
The starting point of Marxian theory of politics and with it of political obligation ‘is its
categorical rejection of this view of the state as the trustee, instrument, or agent of society as a
whole’. The case of political obligation arises when the ‘new state’ comes into being after the
revolution. The noticeable point in this theory is that what is forbidden in capitalist society is
ordained in the socialist order. In other words, the idea of political obligation ceases to exist
with the withering away of the state in the last stage of socialism (called communism) and finds
its final conversion into the injunction of social obligation. Thus, society will be composed of
the associations of free and equal producers, consciously acting upon a common and rational
plan.

3
A critical study of Marxian theory shows that it treats the question of political obligation in a
way far away from the real perspective. What is emphatically advocated in the phase of
capitalism is firmly denied in the next stage of social development. People who are exhorted
to disobey the ‘bourgeoisie state’ are commanded not to disobey the state at all after the
inauguration of the new social system. Thus, Marx is accused of building up a theory of
political obligation on the basis of expediency alone, and he ignores the independent individual
whose experience only counts in the determination of his obedience to the laws of state.
Conclusion
In a strict sense, the idea of political obligation is not a political, but a moral affair. However,
the norm of morality differs from time to time, place to place and people to people. The
dimensions of political obligation too vary and similarly, the injunctions of popular resistance
also differ. The state is a necessary means to the ends of justice and if it does this on the basis
of a broad consensus, then there is a kind of contractual understanding that in return for what
the state does to promote justice and good, we undertake to obey it.
Grounds of Resistance (Limits to Political Obligation)
People obey political authority in order to live peacefully and securely in their state; at the same
time, they have the right to resist it, if they find that the ruler abuses the trust. The following
grounds of resistance are presented by some of the eminent liberal thinkers:
1. According to Hobbes, the state is based on a social contract, whereby people surrender
all their rights to the ruler. The people are bound to obey every law of the state in order
to keep the horrible ‘state of nature’ away. However, they have the right to break the
contract, if the sovereign commands them to kill or wound themselves, or not to resist
those who assault them, or not to use food, air, medicine, or any other thing, without
which they cannot live.
2. For Locke, the state is a certain creation of the first or open contract; but the government
is a creation of the second or tacit contract. It implies that the ruler, being the
government, is bound by the terms of the ‘contract’ and the people may revolt against
him in case they find him acting against the terms of contract. Theus, the people may
resist the abuse of political power.
3. Green upholds the English liberal tradition and recognises people’s right to resist
political authority in the event of ‘cruel necessity’. A revolt against abuse of political
authority is justified if it is sanctioned by the force of public conscience as being in the
interest of the people as a whole.
4. Laski relates political obligation with ‘moral adequacy’. That is, people must obey the
authority of the state, if it meets their satisfaction, and they may disobey it, if they find
that the commands of the state lack the force of utility and moral adequacy. There are,
then, circumstances in which resistance to the state becomes an obligation.
5. For Gandhi, authority is legitimate when it is based on truth and non-violence. If it is
‘back’ by virtue of being violent or untrue, the people have the right to resist it by means
of ahimsa and satyagraha.
Thus, the right to obey the state and the duty to disobey it go hand in hand.

4
 Universality of Human Rights and Cultural Relativism
Human Rights
Article 1 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) says all human beings
are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Existence of human rights conveys that there are
some universally applicable standards of justice and in this sense; they may compete with state
sovereignty. Human rights are the rights that belong to all individuals by virtue of their
humanity which could potentially lead to establishment of a just society. They are capabilities
and values which protect the interests of human beings around the world irrespective of
distinctions like religion, race, sex, nationality, language etc. They are regarded as a secular
and modern version of natural rights. Human rights place human beings at the centre of
domestic and international governance.
Justifications for Human Rights
Human rights exist at both, international and national levels. Various treaties at international
level have turned human rights into international law. At the national level, human rights exist
through decisions of judiciary, legislations and customs. For ex, the US constitution prohibits
slavery and servitude. One justification for human rights is that they are inherent to human
beings as they are God-given. The interest theory approach argues that the main function of
human rights is to protect and promote necessary human interests. Its objective is to find
biological and social prerequisites which allow human beings to lead a minimally good life.
The universality of human rights is based on indispensable and some basic attributes for human
welfare across all cultures, for example, need for food.
A number of other justifications exist for human rights – dignity, fairness and equality etc. Yet
another view highlights the political role of human rights. In his book, The Law of Peoples
(1999), John Rawls has discussed human rights from a political perspective. He argued that
human rights are a special class of urgent rights which are universal and plural, like right to
security, formal equality before law, personal property etc. According to Charles Beitz, human
rights are basic requirement of global justice and they are conditions that all societies should
strive to achieve. Outside corrective interference is justified if a government did not fulfil
human rights despite having means to do so. If a country lacks local resources to achieve human
rights, other countries should assist it.
Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism is based on the fact that there is no specific ground rule for what is good or
bad. Therefore, any opinion about what is right or wrong depends on the rules of the society,
culture and belief system. Therefore, any judgment about morality or ethics depends on a
person’s cultural perspective. Ultimately, no particular ethical position can be considered the
best. A person’s beliefs and value system should be understood in the context of their own
culture, not according to the criteria of another culture.
It states that there are no universal beliefs and each culture must be understood in its own way
because cultures cannot be translated into terms that are universally available. Cultures are
important in society because they provide social and economic benefits.

5
Cultural relativism refers to the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and thus not
make judgments based on one’s own culture’s standards. Cultural relativism is good because it
allows people to practice their beliefs and enjoy their cultural heritage or religious beliefs
without fearing or fearing others for why they do what they do.
Types of cultural relativism
There are two distinct categories of cultural relativism: absolute and critical. Absolute cultural
relativists believe that everything that happens within a culture should and should not be
questioned by outsiders. Meanwhile, critical cultural relativism questions cultural practices in
terms of who adopts them and why, and recognizes power relations.
Cultural relativism challenges beliefs about the objectivity and universality of moral truth. In
essence, cultural relativism says that there is no such thing as universal truth and ethics; there
are just different cultural codes. Moreover, the code of one culture has no special status, but
only one of many.
DEBATE OVER UNIVERSALITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
There is consensus in the Western countries that human rights are universal in nature. Even the
UDHR states that all humans are free and equal with no distinction given to their race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or
other status. However, in the non-Western countries, there are views against the universality of
human rights. Supporters of such views argue that human rights are not universal, but culturally
relative and cannot override cultural differences that exist between various societies around the
world. A single document cannot claim to represent all individuals in the world when their
experiences are so different.
There are five main arguments used by various supporters who argue that human rights are
culturally relative.
First, the individuals who were involved in the process of drafting the UDHR were
cosmopolitans having international experiences and also had certain privileges in their
societies. There is a difference in the way how cosmopolitans and ordinary people interpret
human rights.
Second, human rights reflect Western values that put more emphasis on the individual and
ignore units like social groups and families.
Third, the national governments resist international norms that are against local cultural and
social values or their domestic political interests. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and
many non-Western countries gave more importance to the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights while the Western countries were in favour of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Fourth, some rights recognised by the UDHR, like marriage and religious freedom may be
against cultural norms in some non-Western countries and the policymakers in these countries
interpret certain rights as Western cultural impositions. Saudi Arabia had refused to adopt the

6
UDHR in 1948, saying that certain freedoms (like rights of men and women to marry who they
choose) were against Islamic principles.
Lastly, it is often argued that the developing countries often cannot afford human rights as the
tasks of economic development and nation building are still unfinished in such countries.
Hence, they argue that authoritarianism is more efficient in promoting economic growth and
development. For these countries, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights take precedence over the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The universalists, on the other hand, have countered the claims of cultural relativists. First,
although the universalists agree that much of the world was not represented while the UDHR
was formulated, however, they highlight representation from India, China, Chile, Cuba,
Panama, Lebanon and Philippines to show that people from diverse cultures and backgrounds
contributed while drafting the UDHR. Also, almost two-third of the endorsing votes for the
UDHR came from the non-Western countries. Second, the UDHR is not totally based on
individual rights. The UDHR highlights spirit of brotherhood, community and society as well.
Third, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are inseparable and independent, sustaining and
nourishing each other. Fourth, the culturally relative position is generally defended by
authoritarian regimes to stay in power, but they do not hesitate to domestically crush their
culture whenever it suits their interests. Rights are violated where there is coercion and
violence.

7
 Multiculturalism and Toleration
Cultural diversity is posing a challenge to states around the world as various governments are
facing demands from cultural minorities for recognition, protection and political autonomy etc
within the territory of the state. Cultural diversity has been a feature of various societies for a
long time. Different dialects and traditions existed in ancient Greece. In the Ottoman Empire,
minorities like Christians and Jews existed apart from the Muslims who were in a majority. In
the contemporary context, there are countries like India, Canada, the US, UK, New Zealand,
France etc who have cultural diversity. Diversity can be of many types and some of the main
types of diversity are:
(A) Religious Diversity: India is a good example of a country with diverse cultures. The
religious groups often differentiate from each other through factors like dress code, public
holidays, festivals and practices related to their celebration.
(B) Diversity based on Location: There may be groups who see themselves as distinct from
others due to their specific geographical location. For ex, in the UK, Scots distinguish
themselves from others due to their location in the north, although their culture is not
significantly different from others.
(C) Linguistic Diversity: Language is another basis for the existence of diversity in a country.
Some examples include Quebec in Canada, Uyghurs in China and Catalans in Spain.
(D) Racial Diversity: Existence of different physical features gives rise to diversity based on
race. However, these differences should lead to a common identity which can differentiate that
group from others. One example is Hutus and the Tutsis in Rwanda. It should be mentioned
that race has a limited role in multicultural discourse.
Multiculturalism appeared in political theory in the 1970s and the 1980s when it was used to
denote a shift in public policy away from assimilation of ethnic minorities and immigrants
towards integration and acceptance of diverse cultures in countries like Canada and Australia.
The term multiculturalism is used to describe a society in which different cultures can coexist.
It signifies attempts to balance diversity against cohesion. Multiculturalism not only recognises
cultural diversity, but also advocates that such differences should be respected and publicly
affirmed. It maintains respect for cultural differences and does not favour assimilation of
minority culture into the dominant one. From the multiculturalism perspective, the public
policy should not aim for standardization of cultural forms or any type of uniformity or
homogeneity, but instead, heterogeneity should be maintained. There are differences among
various thinkers on how this has to be achieved. Some argue that minority groups should be
tolerated by leaving them free from state interference, also called as politics of indifference.
Others argue that mere toleration of group differences falls short of treating the minority groups
as equals and there is a need for recognition and positive accommodation of minority group
practices through difference sensitive policies.
Multiculturalism has also been used as an overarching term to signify the political and moral
claims of other marginalized groups like women, people with special abilities and LGBT
(Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender). Multiculturalism is not restricted to claims of

8
culture and identity alone. Instead, it is also a matter of political power and economic interest
since it involves demands to rectify political and economic disadvantages suffered by people
due to their membership of a marginalized group.
Models of Multiculturalism
According to Andrew Heywood, there are three main models of multiculturalism: liberal,
pluralist and cosmopolitan.
(A) Liberal Multiculturalism: Commitment to freedom and toleration are two hallmarks of
liberalism. Toleration is a willingness to allow existence and expression of rival views.
Liberalism gives an individual the right to choose his/her beliefs, cultural practices and way of
life. However, toleration extends to values, views and social practices that are compatible with
autonomy and personal freedom. Practices such as forced marriages and female circumcision
will not be endorsed by liberal multiculturalists as they are against individual freedom. Will
Kymlicka’s theory on liberal multiculturalism is one of the most important, as he combines the
liberal values of equality and autonomy with the value of cultural membership. According to
Kymlicka, culture is important to individuals for two reasons. First, membership of a culture is
an important condition of personal autonomy as they serve as ‘contexts of choice’ and provide
meaningful options by which an individual frames his life and goals. Second, cultural
membership is important in shaping self-identity of an individual. A person’s self-respect is
connected to the respect that is accorded by others to his/her culture. He further argues that
since cultural minorities are disadvantaged in accessing their own culture compared to
members of majority culture, minorities are entitled to special rights.
(B) Pluralist Multiculturalism: This theory of cultural diversity is based on value pluralism,
an idea that there are many values which are equally correct and fundamental although they
may be in contradiction to each other. Isaiah Berlin is one of the main proponents of the idea
of value pluralism. In this view, liberal views like personal freedom and democracy have no
greater moral authority than their rival beliefs. This results in live and let live type of
multiculturalism. However, Berlin was of the view that value pluralism can exist only within a
society that respects individual freedom. Hence, he could not prove how liberal and illiberal
cultures could coexist in the same society. There are certain institutional preconditions that are
a prerequisite for dialogue like equal rights, freedom of expression, participatory public spaces,
an accountable authority and empowered citizens. It also calls for political virtues like
tolerance, concern, mutual respect, self-restraint, love for diversity, a mind open to new ideas
and ability to live with unresolved differences. Such a society nurtures wide range of ideas and
fosters the spirit of dialogue. By doing this, it draws a line against those who are too dogmatic
or self-righteous to participate in its conversational culture and accept its outcome.
(C) Cosmopolitan Multiculturalism: It celebrates diversity as each culture can learn from the
other and prospects for self-development are offered by a world of wider cultural opportunities
and lifestyle choices. It endorses exploration of different cultural options from an individual’s
perspective. Cosmopolitan multiculturalism embraces the idea of multiple identity and
hybridity. It is argued that irrespective of their different cultural origins, people share the same

9
planet and are facing similar experiences and challenges. Hence, global consciousness and the
idea of cosmopolitanism is a running thread in this type of multiculturalism.
Limitations of Multiculturalism
A number of drawbacks of multiculturalism have been highlighted by many experts.
Some progressive theorists believe that multiculturalism fails to address the grievances of the
disadvantaged sections of society. They say that the real problem of minorities is not lack of
cultural recognition, but their lack of economic power and social status (issues of class). By
focusing on cultural distinctiveness, multiculturalism divides the people who want social
reform and reduction in poverty. This in turn, reduces support for welfare policies as the society
is divided and forgets issues like poverty that could unite them.
According to Amartya Sen, multiculturalism is based on solitarist theory. He argues that
multiculturalism leads to miniaturization of humanity as identity is associated with a single
social group. It makes violence more likely as people identify with their own group and
sometimes fail to recognize rights of other groups. People generally are drawn to others with
whom they share their identity and they would distrust someone who is different in some ways
of life. Nationalists, therefore, would like to limit immigration and assimilate the minority
cultures to strengthen national identity instead of particular identities.
Highlighting the problem of minorities within minorities, feminists argue that group
differentiated rights are used by men to strengthen and perpetuate their power in a group and
women are marginalized in such an environment. They also say that multiculturalism reinforces
gender inequality in minority groups.

10