Q. What is Political Theory? Discuss its relevance/ nature/ significance?

-BY ABHINANDAN KAUL

ANS. The word theory refers to a body of logically collected and analyzed body of knowledge.
And Politics as we know is about many things including relationships among individuals and
groups and classes and the state, and state institutions like the judiciary, bureaucracy etc. So one
definition of Political Theory given by David Weld sees political theory as a network of concepts
and generalizations about political life involving ideas, assumptions and statements about the
nature, purpose and key features of government, state and society, and about the political
capabilities of human beings'.

A rather comprehensive definition has been given by Gould and Kolb who defined political
theory as a 'sub-field of political science which includes: (i) political philosophy - a moral theory
of politics and a historical study of political ideas, (ii) a scientific criterion, (iii) an analysis of
political ideas, (iv) the discovery and systematic development of generalisations about political
behaviour'. We can conclude that political theory is concerned basically with the study of the
phenomenon of the state both in philosophy as well as empirical terms.

Political Theory and Political Thought:

Political theory is sometimes synonymously regarded with political thought but it is important to
understand they don’t necessarily mean the same thing. Political thought is a generalized term
which comprises all thoughts, theories and values of a person or a group of persons or a
community on state and questions related to the state. Any person expressing his views that has a
bearing on our lives and that is about he state and governance and related questions then he is
engaging in political thought. His thoughts may or may not comprise a theory if it is not a
systematic logical hypothesis advanced to explain historical and political phenomenon related to
political rule of the state and governance etc.

Political Theory and Political Philosophy:

Philosophy is all thinking really on anything and everything in search of the truth and wisdom.
When this search is on political topics we call it political philosophy. Hence it may not
necessarily have a theory to propose and that is the distinction between political philosophy and
political thought. So while political theory is a part of political philosophy mostly political
philosophy is much wider and need not necessarily be comprised of any theories.
Political Theory and Political Science:

Political Science is a comprehensive subject or field of study of which political theory is only a
sub-field. Political Science includes everything: political thought, political theory, political
philosophy, political ideology, etc. Some thinkers have stressed on the science aspect of political
science and they suggest when political science is studied as a science with scientific methods
political theory to the extent it is a part of political philosophy can not be regarded as political
science because whereas there is no room for abstract intuitive conclusions or speculations in
political science, political philosophy relies on exactly those un-exact methods. Political theory is
therefore neither pure thought, nor pure philosophy, nor pure science.

Some Basic Characteristics of Political Theory:

1. A political theory is generally the creation on individual thinker based on his moral and
intellectual position. The theory may or may not be accepted as true but it always can be
regarded as one more theory. Generally we find the political theory of an individual thinker is
put forward in a classic work y the thinker like Plato did in his Republic or Rawl in A Theory of
Justice.

2. A political theory attempts to provide explanations on questions relating to mankind, the

societies he formed and history and historical events generally. It also suggests ways of resolving
conflicts and sometimes even advocates revolutions. There are also often predictions made about
the future.

3. Political theory thus is also sometimes not only providing explanations and predictions but
also sometimes actively influencing and participating in historical events particularly when they
propose political action of a particular kind and that line of action is widely adopted.

4. Political theories are often also the basis for a whole ideology. The liberal theories became the
basis for liberalism and Marx's theory became the basis for Marxian socialist ideology. That is
also the reason why when there are conflicts between ideologies it leads to debates about the
theories underlying those ideologies.

Types Of Political Theory:

Political theory can be either be Empirical or Normative.

Empirical theory is focused on explaining “What is”. In this approach scholars seek to generate
a hypothesis , which is a proposed explanation for some phenomena that can be tested
empirically.

Normative theory is concerned about how the world should be.

Political Theory can also be Contemplative, which is a contemplative enquiry into the general
condition of human kind either over a very long period or at a certain stage.

Evolution and Schools Of Political Theory:

The issues that have held prominence in political theory have changed over time.

1. Classical/ Early Political Theory:

The political theories that emerged starting from the 6th century B.C. and evolved through the
Greeks, Romans and early European Christian thinkers and philosophers is referred to as
Classical Political Theories. Classical political theory was deeply dominated by philosophy and
the whole focus was on taking a holistic gaze searching for the most general of truths. So there
was no clear distinction between philosophical, theological and political issues and political
science or thought was not separately recognised as a discipline as such. Political theory was
concerned with probing 18 into issues, asking important questions and serving as a sort of
conscience keeper of politics. The underlying quest was to arrive at the best possible form of
government. The state and government were also viewed as a tool for realising the moral goals
of man and society and for promoting the good. The common good was required as more
complete than the private good of the individual. The classical tradition also sought to search
ways for an ideal state and a stable system. The main questions that the classical tradition was
asked was what is the best form of government? and who should rule and why? , etc.

2. Liberal Political Theory:

With the historical period referred to as Renaissance and Reformation in Europe which was
followed by the Industrial Revolution, the dominance of the classical tradition came to an end.
This new philosophical wave was led by thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, Jeremy Benthem, JS. Mill
and many more. The main thrust of the liberal tradition was the individual's rights and the state
was merely regarded as a contract between individuals to benefit from the conflict resolution
mechanism that a system of rule of law provides. The main aim of the state in the liberal
tradition is to help individuals realise their fundamental inalienable rights. In fact the liberal
thinkers went so far as to propose that when the basic contractual relationship between the
individual and the state is violated, the individuals have not only the right but the responsibility
to revolt and establish a new government. Social control is best secured by law. The new liberal
theories also dismissed the idea of common good and advocated that the government should
govern less for individual rights to reign supreme and free him from political, social and
economic restraints as far as possible.

3. Marxist Political Theory:

The fundamental changes that industrial revolution brought about caused inequality and a large
class of impoverished industrial workers emerged. The basic liberal position that supported total
economic freedom was challenged by Karl Marx and Engles and their followers who in the later
half of the nineteenth century proposed what they called 'scientific socialism'. Marx offered a
new way of looking at the history up to that time and suggested that the task of knowledge is not
just to understand the world but also to change the social life of mankind for the better. For that
he suggested a revolutionary path. He suggested that to win the basics of life for their
emancipation he working class has to takeover the means of production and the means of
production should be controlled by the state. This takeover will need to happen via a revolution
he suggested because the upper classes will use the power of the state to crush any attempts for
19 liberation and emancipation of the lower classes. Marx saw societies that liberal capitalism
helped create as fundamentally unequal as a consequence of property concentration with a few
families of fortune. Hence he wanted to create a society where "man shall not be exploited by
man" and where each individual will have the full opportunity to develop his or her personality
and potential. He also was the first major thinker to stress on the historical exploitation of the
female gender and the need for women's liberation. The most important themes of Marxist
political theory are class division, class struggle, property rights, etc. Marxism also suggests that
rights, liberty, equality, justice and democracy in a capitalist liberal democracy are really only
enjoyed by the rich and properties classes because the state is controlled by the upper classes
who use the institutions of the state as a tool for class exploitation. He believed real liberty and
equality can only be achieved in a classless and stateless society. Thus whereas Liberal theory
provided the theoretical basis for a capitalist free market system, Marxist political theory
provided the basis for the establishment of a socialist state through revolutionary action.

4. Empirical-Scientific Political Theory:

In America a new kind of political theory was developed particularly in the post second world
war period that suggested relying on the scientific method (instead of philosophical) and base
theories upon facts (rather than on values). The task of political theory according to this new
school of thought is to formulate and systematize the concept of science of political behavior in
which emphasis is placed on empirical research than on political philosophy. The behavioral
scientists suggested a political theorist should clarify and criticize systems of concepts which
have empirical relevance to political behavior. Behavioral schools differed fundamentally from
all the previous schools because they suggested that the job of political theory is only to explain
political phenomenon and extrapolate from that and predict the future. It is not to make
philosophical and moral judgments. It is not at all to advocate revolutionary action. Thus
political theory is not to question or propose who rules, should rule and why but rather who does
rule and how? It should focus attention on the study of political behavior of man, group and
institutions irrespective of their good or bad character.

5. Contemporary Political Theory:

Since the 1970 the sole focus of the empiricists and behavioral scholars on science, value-free
politics and methods came under criticism and lost popularity because it failed to address
pressing political and social issues. So there has been a revival of interest in political theory in
USA, Europe and other parts of the world. Thinkers like John Rawls, made noteworthy
contributions and took up basic issues like liberty, equality, justice etc again. Theory again
regained the status of a legitimate form of knowledge and enquiry. Also on the question of what
exactly is science there emerged many views that challenged the old notions. Further many
scholars opined that social sciences throw up distinctive problems that cannot be grasped by
scientific models. This is because perceptions and resulting actions of men vary and the same
phenomenon can be viewed differently by different minds who may interpret the social issues
differently. Hence it is difficult to do an objective scientific analysis of social issues and events
with scientific rigor. David Held has opined that contemporary political theory has four distinct
tasks: Philosophical: to focus on the fundamental philosophical positions of the normative and
conceptual framework; Empirical: to empirically understand and explain the concepts;
Historical: to examine the important concepts in the historical context; and Strategic: to asses the
feasibility of moving from where we are to where we might like to be.

Relevance of Political Theory:

We humans as social beings live together and societies where we share the resources, jobs and
rewards. We are also individuals needing some basic human rights. The process of organising
state and society therefore becomes important to maximize harmony and prosperity and to allow
the circumstances for individual self-realisation. So to facilitate the unity and integrity of human
societies or the collective needs of society political theory becomes important it tries to study and
find solutions to problems in this process. The relevance lies in evolving various approaches
regarding the nature and purpose of the state, the basis of political authority and the best form of
government to practice, relations between the state and the individual in the context of his basic
rights. Apart from this political theory also seeks to establish the moral criterion for judging the
ethical worth of a political state and to suggest alternative political arrangements and practices.
To sum up in brief the relevance of political theory lies in the following:

(a) In providing an explanation and description of political phenomenon

(b) helping select the political goals and actions for a community

(c) helps in providing the basis for making moral judgments.

Also it has to be remembered increasingly at least in contemporary times states face challenges
of poverty, corruption, over-population and ethnic and racial tensions, environment pollution etc.
This is not to mention international problems like conflicts etc. Political Theory seeks to study
the present and future problems of political life of the society and to suggest solutions for dealing
with those problems. David Held has commented that the task of the political theorist is very
great in its complexity because in the absence of systematic study, there is a danger that politics
will be left to the ignorant and self-seeking people who are in pursuit of power. Thus if one has
to systematically think about the nature and purpose of the state and the problems of government
while looking at the socio-political reality and keeping in mind the ideals and political
philosophy, then one has to take the route of theoretically studying the problem. Thus political
theory is relevant. Also studying political theory at an individual level makes one aware of one's
rights and duties and helps one understand and appreciate the socio-political realities and
problems like poverty, violence, corruption etc. Political theory is also important because it can
go forward basing itself on the theories and propose the means and directions for changing
society to establish an ideal society. Marxist theory for instance is an example of a theory which
not only proposes the direction but also goes so far as to advocate a revolution for establishing an
egalitarian state. If the political theory is sound and it can be transmitted and communicated to
people then it can become a very powerful force or the advancement of society and mankind.
 Theories Of Rights
-BY ABHINANDAN KAUL

Brief History-

It had not always been felt throughout history that all human beings are entitled to rights (and
recognition). Kings and religious Clergy/Priests for instance in many societies have had more
rights than commoners. But the with the onset of early classical liberalism there had been a
demand raised for equal rights and recognition on the basis that all men are born equal
particularly by the newly rich trading bourgeois who felt that while they had the same wealth as
feudal lords and princes they did not have the same legal and social power. Later socialism
added it’s own interpretation to the concept of rights and recognition who were followed by the
Positive Liberals in the early part of the twentieth century.

Each school of thought defined rights and recognition in it’s own way. The main theories of
Rights have been-

1) Theory of Natural Rights-

The Theory of Natural Rights was the first plea for rights in the western world on the basis that
naturally by birth man is entitled to some rights and there are no requirement of birth, family
position, social position, wealth etc that can be imposed. John Locke, the classic liberal had
declared all men are born with some inherent rights that God gives them. The social contract
theorists like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau argued that man had these basic rights before the
origin of the State and he surrendered some of them to a superior authority, i.e., civil society to
safeguard his other rights from encroachment to obtain the benefits of community living.
Hobbes called the right to life a natural right, Locke the rights to life, liberty and property
whereas Rousseau said that liberty and equality are gifts of nature. They argued the individual
cannot surrender these rights to the state.

The theory of natural rights came under attack and disapproval of later thinkers. The great
utilitarians did not find the idea that man had rights before the advent of and prior to the
relationship with the state. They argued rights can only be conferred by the law.

Criticisms of Natural Rights Theory-

1) If an individual’s rights are absolute then the society cannot touch them even in conflicting
situations where the interest of the most members of society lies in restricting him from those
rights. For instance in a famine,and a man asserts his right to property on one side and hoards
food and on the other hand many others lose their rights to life as a consequence, there is
conflict.

2) The natural theory assumed one can have rights and obligations independent of society but
many thinkers have argued the question of rights emerges only in the society and in the context
of social relationships.

3) Also many thinkers have felt to use the term ‘natural right’ lands one in a tricky situation
because one cannot define and justify what ‘natural’ means.

2) Theory Of Legal Rights-

The Theory of Legal Rights was propounded by the legal philosophers, and utilitarians like
Bentham, who argued all rights of man are derived from law and law itself is based upon utility.
Law and rights he said are simply two aspects of something, which is essentially one: law the
objective aspect and right the subjective. The state draws up and lays down a bill of rights and so
the rights are not prior to the state but from the existence of the state itself.

It is again the state which changes the content of rights whenever it wants. But they accepted that
rights may not necessarily be the creation of the state but they become rights only when they are
enforced by the state.

The legal theory of rights was rejected by the later positive liberal thinkers (and others)
who argue along the following lines:

1) The legal theory did not cover the whole range of rights. There are rights we enjoy from our
society that often don’t enjoy legal recognition but they exist nevertheless.

2) If the state and the law are the sole source of rights then there is no right against the state.
Many Liberal writers like Laski had seen the need to resist the state in certain situations and
hence Laski exclaimed that the source of Rights is the society’s sense of Justice and not the Law.

3) Historical Theory Of Rights-

The position taken by these thinkers was that all rights are derived from the character of the state
and the law, which are in turn basically entirely historical in nature. They are all a product of
history. For instance that the French Revolution gave rights to the French people, which were not
a part of their historical common consciousness, and so after the revolution and the execution of
the King the system could not sustain and the revolution turned into a dictatorship.
Hence, if there is a tradition of certain rights or there are rights which people are accustomed to
having then people start assuming they ought to have those rights. It appears the historical theory
was principally an attack on the natural law theorist and on the analytical school, since does not
bother to distinguish between what would be right and wrong in customs as a source of law. If
somebody argued that he had a right to keep slaves, indulge in polygamy, apartheid etc could he
be allowed to stand his ground.

4) Moral Theory Of Rights-

It says that the basis of all rights is morals and neither nature’s actions, nor law, nor customs etc.
Every individual has a moral self and has the need to develop his personality and rights.

Since everybody in society has the same aim of developing his personality it implies that rights
arise only in the context of a society and the rights of the individual are to be in harmony with
those of others. So the individual’s rights are a part of serving the common good as well. Rights
are recognised by the society and enforced by the state and so there is no question of rights
without the state.

However, a criticism of this theory is that it implies that rights are not universal but contextual
since they are limited to only those people who have morality.

5) Social Welfare Theory Of Rights-

It was a combination of the various theories of rights that came before it like those that were
based on natural rights, legal, moral or historical theories. This theory was developed by the
positive liberals and to support the idea of a welfare state.

The central idea of this theory was that a law, custom, natural right etc should all yield to what is
socially useful or socially desirable.

Laski commented on this concept of rights extensively in one of his books-

1) The concept of Rights emerges only in the context of a society. Hence while promoting
individual rights, common good must be also taken care of.

2) An individual can claim and justify rights only in relation to the functions he performs in
society for the social good.

3) Since establishment of rights are a condition for social welfare, the state must guarantee some
rights like the right to work, a right to a minimum or adequate wage, etc.

4) The authority of the state must be limited, democratic and decentralised.

6) Liberal Theories-

In the the past few years, there has been a new wave of Liberal Theories of Rights dominated by
thinkers like John Rawls and Robert Nozic who in turn have inspired other writers in the same
tradition.

While Nozic argued for unbridled free markets and free trade capitalism, and a minimal state.
Nozic meant the right to own property and to profit unrestrictedly from using that property
through trade but the moral logic he adopted to build his theory was based on celebrating the
individualistic nature of man. He argued individuals must be the ends and not the means and
hence individual’s rights are supreme and society can not restrict them in the interest of the
common good. He negates the idea of welfare rights of the individual as held in the positive
liberal tradition. His far right concept of property rights excludes any welfare rights and their
protection by the state. Every individual lives in his own exclusive domain and must not be
disturbed. He is the owner of himself and his talents and property and he should have full
freedom with no restrictions even in the interest of societal good to put them to whatever use he
wants.

Rawls argued for the welfare state concept while preserving the capitalist system. He was of the
view rights should guarantee a fair share of economic resources. The social and economic
inequalities should be managed and such that those with the least material goods such as income
, wealth, education etc get a larger share than they have been getting. But Rawls does not wish to
change the basic structure of the market economy with it’s inevitable creation of extreme
material inequalities but wants the system of taxation for instance to be so designed that leads to
some level of redistribution of goods to the worse off in society

7) Marxist Theory Of Rights-

Marxist theory of Rights is a bit of a misnomer because the Marxists never really attempted to
propagate a separate theory of rights but offered a great critique of the liberal “bourgeious”
concept of rights.

Marx argued economic inequalities lead to political inequalities and make most constitutionally
guaranteed liberal rights meaningless. Marx made the following points in his criticism of the
bourgeois concept of rights:

1) Most rights guaranteed in a liberal constitutional set up are abstract and formal and useless
really unless institutional changes were introduced by law to make the rights a living reality. For
example the right to life means nothing if it doest mean the right to means of subsistence on
which life depends.
2) Equality of rights is an essential condition for achieving social justice but it is not enough.
That is because the rich always are protected and given justice differently from the poor due to
the influence of the money power.

3) Rights granted by the state constitutionally can never make them a reality, since they are
dependent on the economic structure and cultural development of society for a real existence.
 Liberty
-BY ABHINANDAN KAUL

Q1. What do you mean by Liberty? Describe Positive and Negative liberty.

ANS. The word liberty is derived from the word liber which means ‘free’. The concept of
Liberty has 3 connotations- The Notion of Choice, The Absence of Constraints, and the
Existence Conditions which enable one to actuate the choice.

Almost all liberal thinkers commented on liberty in various stages of history and brought their
own flavour to it, and therefore one can't assert that there is an exact uniform view of the
concept.

Also this is one concept on which the views have been more philosophical and ethical than
either political or political-economic. Claude was right in saying that- “Liberty is a concept
about whose nature men have quarreled more than any other”

Thomas Hobbes recognizes 2 different categories of freedom or liberty in Leviathan and

other works. The first category of freedom that he explains is one’s freedom to choose between
certain alternatives, uncommitted by prior decision or obligation, and the second, the freedom to
enact the choice one has made in any instance. We might regard the first freedom as Non-
commitment and the second freedom as Non-obstruction.

John Locke understands liberty as choice exercised in a Moral Framework. The Moral
Framework is based on the Laws of Nature of which equality is a major tenet. Hence, each
individual is free to exercise freedom to the extent that it doesn’t violate equality. Liberty is a
natural right according to him and is innate and inalienable in human nature.

Rousseau considered Liberty as a Collective Virtue, and as freeing oneself from the pursuit of
selfish motives and moving towards the larger good of the entire society.

Benthem being a utilitarian had seen a positive correlation between Liberty and pleasure.
Liberty for him was viewed through the Utilitarian maxim - “Greatest Happiness to the Greatest
Number”. Liberty was all about seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

For Hagel Liberty was all about Obedience to the Law. Later after the limits of liberal capitalism
became apparent, Marxist and Socialist thinkers interpreted Liberty as-

(1) Liberation from the coercive social apparatus and institutions (which the working class faces)
(2) To establish an atmosphere in which man could build a world according to the needs of
humanity as opposed the needs of capital and capitalists who own the capital.

Post the socialist period of the interpretations of liberty, the positive liberals in the early part of
the twentieth century refined the old liberal notions.

Laski for instance defines liberty as the ‘absence of restraints upon the existence of those social
conditions which in modern civilisation are a necessary guarantee of individual happiness’.
McPherson defined liberty as living life to the fullest.

So at one stage of history, liberty merely was understood to be ‘absence of restraint’ in the free
competition of men with being law being as ‘silent’ as possible and ‘state interference’ at its
least. Soon it was realized after the experience of a century or so, that liberty needs to be
‘attained’ by all and can not merely be left to the lack of impediments. The state and social
institutions need to actively help in that process of attainment it was left.

So while the earlier concept of liberty which was in the nature of least involvement of the state
was a sort of a ‘Negative liberty’ the later conception asking for the involvement of the state and
society in helping people get achieving liberty was ‘Positive liberty’.

This distinction between Positive and Negative had been formally introduced by Isiah Berlin in
his 1958 lecture- “Two Concept os Liberty”.

Negative Liberty vs Positive Liberty-

1) Negative Liberty focuses more on the personal aspect of man’s liberty and regards it as
inherent to the personality of an individual. However, Positive Liberty looks upon it in totality in
the socioeconomic and political conditions of society.

2) Negative Liberty Sees liberty mainly as absence of restraints. But, Positive Liberty
emphasizes the essential availability of positive conditions for meaningful realization of liberty
by individuals in the society.

3) Negative Liberty sees the state as an enemy of personal liberty. But Positive Liberty sees the
state as the essential responsible agency for creating socio-economic and other conditions which
will ensure the realization of liberty.

4) Negative Liberty emphasizes the personal philosophical and political aspects of liberty.
Positive Liberty emphasizes the social and economic aspects of liberty.

5) Negative Liberty does not wish to associate concepts of rights, equality, morality and justice
with the concept of liberty. Whereas Positive Liberty regards liberty, justice and equality as
mutually related and different aspects of one and the same thing.
6) Negative Liberty wants the state to be minimized and as tiny as possible. But, Positive
Liberty, wants a welfare state that will actively intervene to create adequate socioeconomic and
political conditions for a meaningful realization of liberty.

7) Negative Liberty is a believer in the concept of each man for himself. Free competition
between free men that will maximize utility for society as a whole with no special allowance or
care shown for those left behind or the losers of the free competition. But, Positive Liberty is a
believer that man is a social animal and hence collective effort for collective benefit via the
welfare state is the way forward if necessary by denying the absolute right to private property.

Negative Liberty Thinkers-

John Stuart Mill whose essay -“On Liberty”, went beyond mere liberty from the interference of
the state. It also talked of liberty for the individual from the pressures of society, public opinion
and social customs and conventions. He really saw liberty as the means to an end, the end being
self-development.

Mill draws reference to the Harm Principle and says that as long as an individual did not harm
others or interfere with others interests he should be free to pursue his own development and
interests the way he wanted or deemed good. So even if a person wanted to smoke, drink,
gamble, take drugs, watch pornographic films all day and even decide to commit suicide, he
should be free to do so because these are his personal individual decisions and he needs to have
full liberty to pursue his own path of growth.

Mill also extended his extended his theory of Liberty to the economic sphere and advocated that
the Capitalist model saw maximum benefit for all due to freedom in all operations.

Mill also believed that social and cultural development majorly depended on the originality of
the individuals and their free choice and hence encouragement was needed for each person to
assert himself in his own peculiar way. For this reason very interestingly he objected even to
state provisions for education because he feared this may lead to brain-wash or to the moulding
of each person like another.

Most importantly, he was also suspicious of democracy for he felt it could lead to the dominance
of the majority over the minority and wanted protection for the minority from the interference of
a democratic state.

Apart from Mill in more recent times, the neo-liberals like Sir Isaiah Berlin have gone back to
many of the views of the early negative liberals. Sir Isaiah for instance has commented that “You
lack political liberty or freedom only if you are prevented from attaining a goal by human
beings”. He even said that if a man is free to purchase food or go on a world tour, but can not do
so for lack of money, it his fault – he has the liberty but he himself is incapable of enjoying it.
Objections-

There can be objections to concept of Negative Liberty on many grounds like-

Philosophical- One finds it hard to believe that man is either as isolated and individualistic or
selfish or rational in choice as they assume. In fact most of us would argue that man is essentially
a social animal.

Moral- Morally freedom to do as one wills or ‘free will’ can be quite difficult to digest at times.
What if one man’s freedom is harming another and the man doing the harm cannot or fails to see
that he is harming others.

Economic- Free market leads to many ups and downs in prices of commodities that can leave
those who are poor and volatile without essential commodities for survival. Futher in free
markets over time it has been observed leads to the concentration of wealth and power in the
hands of those individuals and families who emerge the winners in the free market business
competition. There can be only a few winners in any game and there is a winner only if there is a
loser. This realisation led to the development of Socialist and Marxist thought and even to the
new school of Liberal thinking- Positive Liberalism.

Positive Liberty Thinkers-

The foremost thinker of Positive Liberty was H.J. Laski.

Laski defined Liberty as “The maintainance of an atmosphere when men and women have the
opportunity to be their best selves.” Therefore he says, Liberty is a product of Rights as without
Rights there can’t be any Liberty, because without rights men are the subjects of law unrelated to
the needs of personality.

Laski classified Liberty into 3 types- private, political and economic.

Private Liberty- Which refers to the opportunity to exercise freedom of choice in those areas of
life where results will effect only the individual.

Political Liberty- It refers to the power to be active in the affairs of the state. Political liberty
requires two conditions- a) Proper education to a point where individual can express himself in a
proper manner and b) Provision of honest news which can be used for political judgement .

Economic Liberty- It means freedom from the constant fear of unemployement and
insufficiency which reduces the whole strength of individual’s personality.

Laski also put down 3 conditions for ensuring Positive Liberty. They were-

1) Absence of Special Priviliges- No person, family or class or group od persons in a society

can be granted special privileges according to Laski for liberty to be achieved.
2) Presence of Rights- Liberty can only be enjoyed in the presence of rights. There cannot ‘be
liberty where the rights of some depends upon the pleasure of others and it is the duty of the state
to maintain equal rights.

3) Responsible Government- The government must be responsible for creating the socio-
economic conditions and political conditions so that all can realize liberty and their rights in
actual practice. Or in other words the government should be a welfare state.

Hence while Negative Liberty sees liberty in terms of absence of restraints and least
interfearance by the government, Positive Liberty sees liberty in relation to socio-economic
conditions for the realization of liberty, in which the government has a major role to play.

Q2. Write short notes on-

A) Relationship Between Liberty and Equality

The concepts of Liberty and equality tend to conflict or compliment each other depending on the
way they are defined. The most common reason for the conflict is the scarcity of resources and
the nature of their distribution.

Conflicting Relation Explaination-

For example, there is a poor family with meager resources which has to divide the scarce
resources between the education of two siblings, one of whom wants to be an engineer and other
a doctor (Both incur a lot of money). Now, the family has 2 choices, either to divide the
resources equally among both siblings but this way neither of them would have enough to
complete their education or to dedicate the resources to the education of one sibling so that he
can pursue the vocation of his choice. Hence, whichever way the resources are divided, Equality
and Liberty end up in conflict.

Therefore, Liberty and equality come into conflict, when Liberty is understood as freedom to
choose and Equality is understood as equality of outcome. Equality acts as a force leveling the
outcome and this reduces the freedom of choice as the outcome gets restricted. In the above
example, if resources are equally divided among the siblings then since both get equal resources,
there is an equal outcome. However, this equality is accompanied by the fact that neither of the
siblings can pursue the vocation of their choice and hence have no Liberty.
Liberty and equality also conflict each other when either of the two concepts are equated with
the concept of Fairness. For instance, in the above example, dedicating all the resources to the
education of one sibling may be seen as fair as it will enable at least one of them to exercise their
freedom to choose. However, this situation may also appear unfair, as it will totally deprive the
other sibling from getting any resources. An equal division of the resources can also be described
as fair, however, it can also be seen as unfair as now neither of the two siblings are capable to
exercise their freedom to choose.

Complementary Relationship Explanation-

A complementary relationship can also exist between Liberty and Equality and it depends upon
the way the concepts are defined. In see the complementary relation between liberty and
equality,

Liberty must be defined as being in control of one’s life. This implies-

1) Leading one’s life according to one’s beliefs, desires and purposes.

2) Being able to examine them and change them.

3) Being able to pursue alternate paths.

Equality must be understood as non- discrimination. Hence, equality must entail elimination of
disadvantages of those who suffer from them and the protection of interests that are harmed by
such disadvantages. Hence, here we can see that without an equal opportunity of being liberated,
neither equality nor liberty can be fulfilled.

Equality accompanies the concept of Liberty in view of many thinkers. For Locke, the Natural
Rights which includes Liberty is governed by a Natural Law of which Equality is a major tenet.

For Rawls, any method of distribution of liberties must be in accordance to the norm of equality
for Justice.
 Dimensions Of Equality
-BY ABHINANDAN KAUL

Historical Evolution-

Equality is a somewhat modern concept. Not always has humanity felt the need for equality
between men as at present.

In the western world kings and monarchs had a divine right to rule and so did feudal lords in the
areas under their rule and priests and the clergy often assumed to know the best on most matters.
Everybody else was there to serve the king and the church. In the Greek period there was a
feeble rather limited attempt made at establishing equality.

Even in our country the brahmin was at the top of the heap and had the sole right to lay down
the ultimate wisdom on all matters, the kshatriya had the sole right to armed military might and
the vaishya enjoyed a monopoly of making money and accumulating wealth through trade and
money lending. The dalit or the shudra had no superior rights, only a monopoly similarly, on all
the inferior rights and jobs of society.

It was only in the 18th and 19th century that equality was demanded. The initial demands were
raised by the newly rich among traders and businessmen, or bourgeois, who questioned why was
it that while both they and the feudal lords and monarchs had wealth and economic status but the
legal status was not the same. Hence, in the 18th century the demand for legal and political
equality was raised mainly.

But, it was in the 19th century that a more vigorous demand for social-economic equality was
made as a result of the rise of a new working class. The Capitalist (Laissez Faire) economy in the
19th century while creating great wealth for some families on one side also created great poverty
and economic inequality on the other. Hence the demand for economic equality arose and was
raised by humanists, socialists, Marxists and positive liberals. This demand for economic
equality and was a demand for positive equality as it implied a check on private property, check
on exploitation of the poor by rich, and it implied a positive role of the State with regard to the
overall economic system of society.

A very important milestone in the struggle for equality was in the early part of the twentieth
century when women got the right to vote (Political Equality) as a result of the movement.
Defining Equality is tricky. It is far more abstract than immediately apparent. H.J. Laski also had
commented ‘no idea is more difficult in the whole realm of political science than equality.

Rousseau distinguished between natural and conventional equalities. Inequalities created by

nature (one man being lame for instance or blind and another being neither) are natural
inequalities whereas inequalities created by society (like caste, gender, rich-poor, etc) are
conventional inequalities. Socialists and Marxists have argued conventional inequalities
particularly economic ones have the power to over-shadow all natural inequalities. Laski has
also set down certain conditions to equality like the End of Special Priviliges, Absence of Socio-
Economic Exploitation, Access to social benefits, etc.

Equality has 4 major dimensions-

Legal Equality:

It refers to equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The concept is all men are
created equal and hence deserve the same status before the laws. The law is blind and will make
no allowance for the person being dealt with. He may be wise or a fool, brilliant or dumb, short
of tall, rich or poor etc but he would be treated the same by the law as others.

But there are exceptions – for instance a child would not be treated as an adult man or woman
and allowance would be made to a child.

Legal equality does not necessarily mean real equality unfortunately because as we all know
legal justice is not free and the rich can hire the best lawyers and even bribe judges in some cases
and get away with injustice. In a strictly liberal set up although one has theoretical equality
before the law, they would be needing time and money to make use of it and they don’t have it
the legal equality promised to you would be meaningless.

Political Equality:

Political equality basically refers to universal suffrage and representative government. Universal
suffrage means the right to vote to all adults and one-man one-vote. Representative government
means all have the right to contest elections without distinction and contest for public service. It
does not mean however that all will be forced to vote and give his or her preference. Or that if
some people are dissuaded not to vote or vote one way or the other due to undue influence, the
state can do much about that.
Also no political inequality can be alleged, as per the strict liberal understanding of the term, if
most people or, a large segment of the population, don’t vote, thereby diluting the representative
character of the government. For instance in America, which regards itself as a democracy
offering full political freedom and equality to all its citizens, it has been found that just about half
the country usually votes in elections. The people not voting are mostly the poorer half and
blacks particularly poorer blacks. In the liberal tradition this is not a cause for particular concern
as long as constitutionally, equality is guaranteed and present for all.

Mere political equality guaranteed technically or constitutionally also does not mean real
political equality as it has been found that money power in elections come to a play major role in
liberal democracies giving people with the money power and the willingness to exert it, an
advantage in pushing their political interests. So sheer money power usually and often manages
to control the result of elections to a large extent. For instance, if a government contests the
elections and spends massive amounts of money raised from corporate and business houses, it
would difficult to imagine them resisting from taking the side of the corporate interests versus
the side of the common people, should the need to choose in a particular issue arise. Hence it is
clear political equality is a very difficult idea state that is almost never established in any liberal
democracy. It may be mentioned here that in India it can take even cruder forms where voters are
sometimes paid cash illegally or even offered a night of free drinking by candidates and parties
to vote for them. Also of course, it is an open secret that most Indian political parties have
corporate friends who donate hundreds of crores of what is usually black money paid in cash for
fighting elections etc.

It is not merely the actual money spent by candidates and parties but the whole range of money
relationships that helps. Media plays a huge role in modern day liberal democracies particularly
in those with a large middle class and even though media is supposed to be free, they in reality
cannot be so because they owe their economic survival and viability substantially to corporate
advertising and therefore they need to be sensitive to the political sensitivities and collective
business agenda. To the extent that media influences people, these agendas then get transmitted
or propagated.

Quite apart from the above, in most democracies like India, there are powerful executive
bureaucracies and members of the judiciary services, who are not elected by the people (as with
politicians) and who cannot be thrown out in elections if people are fed up with them. The
members of these groups due to educational and family backgrounds often come from higher
economic categories usually and maintain an ongoing powerful influence on policy formulation.
These groups clearly are more politically equal than others. For instance, When a judge of the
Supreme Court stops a policy measure of the government and declares it illegal, which was put
in place by elected representatives of the people in free and fair elections, from the purely
political (as opposed to the legal) point of view, he is clearly enjoying a position of greater
political equality than most other of his fellow citizens.
Economic Equality-

The notion of Economic equality implies rather differently to different people. Early liberals
meant by economic equality merely the right of choosing one’s trade or profession irrespective
of family position or economic status and the right or freedom to contract so that everybody in
the land is treated equally as far as contractual obligations are concerned.

Gradually the position began to change towards a notion of equality of opportunity for everyone
to live the life of a full human being. This was majorly because of the Socialist and Marxsist
critique of capitalism which developed great acceptance worldwide before the emergence of
Positive Liberalism.

It was understood and accepted gradually equality should mean no one in society should be so
poor that he or she lacks the basic needs and the basic opportunities for mental and physical
development. As Rosseau puts it very eloquently that by equality we don’t mean that the riches
and power with every citizen should be completely identical but that no citizen should be rich
enough to buy the other and no citizen should be poor enough to sell himself.

H.J. Laski He said the basics must be accessible to all without distinction in degrees or kind. All
men must have access to the essentials of food and shelter. He insisted equal satisfaction of basic
needs as a precondition for equality of opportunity and advocated for that creation of economic
equality by reduction of the extremes of economic inequality.

The Marxist view of equality associates equality, particularly economic equality, with property
and class-exploitation. In Marxian analysis equality is only established with the abolition of
classes or a class divided society and that is only fully achievable by the abolition of private
property. The job of distribution will be of the state.

Social Equality:

It refers to the absence of discriminations on the basis of colour, gender, caste, sexual orientation
etc. Quite apart from the legal, political, and economic aspects of equality over the years it has
been realised the residual social discriminations that have existed for thousands of years in some
societies can be very difficult to undermine even with a rapid march of constitutional political
and legal rights and economic development and removal of economic inequalities.

Women got the right to vote even in England as late as in the 1920s. Blacks in South Africa and
parts of the United States until just a few decades back were barred from large areas of their own
country. In many countries scavengers are forced to live away from society in ghettos not due to
economic or political reasons really but due to social conditionings in society. Even today there
are villages in India where members of the lower castes are treated almost like animals by
members of the upper caste and even if anybody from among them managed to get rich or
powerful he or she would not be treated differently.
 Rawls Theory Of Justice
-BY ABHINANDAN KAUL

John Rawls in his work, Theory of Justice attempted to build a theoretical foundation for the a
notion of justice that would be in the liberal tradition but not as each-man-forhimself as the early
liberals and hence help to support the notion of a welfare state that became the preferred
developmental aim of non-communist nations worldwide by the end of the second world war.

Needless to say Rawls’ theory takes a position that was opposed to that of the Utilitarian thinkers
like Bentham and Mill whose ideas of justice held great sway particularly in the legal traditions
of various countries.

Rawl draws up his theory on the basis of the notions of social contract and distributive justice.
He defines two kinds of goods-

(1) Social Goods: Such as income and wealth, opportunities and power, rights and liberties that
are directly distributed by social institutions.

(2) Natural Goods: Like health, intelligence, vigour, imagination, natural talents etc which are
not directly distributed by social institutions but may be subject to those institutions partly or
affected by them.

Notion Of Social Contract-

Since Rawl also built his theory in the traditions of Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke, he used the
hypothetical assumption of a social ‘contract’ in his analysis. Rawls assumes there was a pre-
social period in history where humans didn’t live with each other in communities or societies and
lived in the state of nature which was comprised of chaos and anarchy since there were no rules
or laws. Hence gradually humans came together after reaching a consensus among themselves as
to the form the society that they live in and agree to be members of it.

About the individual participants who all come together to form the society, for the purpose of
his theory he makes the following assumptions:

1) All the individuals are indifferent to others

2) All the individuals in agreeing to be part of one society are seeking to maximise their own
interests like rights, liberty, opportunities, income or wealth.
3) Every individual is under the “Viel of ignorance” at all times that prevents him from knowing
fully the talents of others.

If these conditions or assumptions are satisfied, then that would be what Rawl terms the
‘original position’.

Rawl believes such a society would be a just society since each person would seek to advance his
own interest but since no one is able to distinguish him self from others, he will favour principles
which allow the maximum opportunity to everyone. Also everyone will choose a kind of society
which minimises all possible losses and makes sure that even the worst of persons don’t suffer to
much. Rawl terms this the ‘maximising principle’ and says it maximises the minimum welfare.

In such a just society, according to Rawls, people would inevitably choose two principles of
justice:

1) That each person should have an equal right to the most basic liberties.

2) Social and Economic inequalities are to be so arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit
to the least advantaged and all all offices and positions are open to all under conditions of equal
opportunity.

Rawls also deals with the possibility of conflict between the two above principles of justice. For
instance it is possible that a restriction on liberty of some individuals may constitute an
inequality but it may satisfy the second principle above that is it may lead to lead to greater
benefits for everyone. But Rawls says such inequalities will not be acceptable then since people
will always give priority to the first principle – that is liberty. Thus the two principles of justice
and the priority of the liberty principle are the fundamental elements of justice.

Rawls suggests that after fixing the justice principles, the constitution needs to be decided upon
and it should be so done that the principles of justice are absorbed into the principles of liberty.
After the establishment of the constitution legislation in parliament should be such that it targets
the long-term social and economic goals. If the laws are such that they favour the privileged but
no benefit is given to the least advantaged as a consequence, then those laws have to be regarded
as unjust.

Notion Of Distributive Justice-

Rawls theory, as far as distributive justice is concerned stands somewhere in between the classic
liberal laissez faire on the one extreme and the communist or Marxist view on the other extreme.

He clearly concludes that the proper function of government is not limited to maintaining social
order but ‘the achievement of distributive justice by placing the highest social value on the need
of the neediest’. But he is not advocating complete elimination of inequalities and a fully
egalitarian distribution. According to him, natural abilities and circumstances of birth foster
privileges and since such inequalities can not be eliminated, a just society will seek to
compensate for the resulting privileges by investing its resources including the abilities of the
most talented in efforts assigned to improve the plight of the least fortunate.

Hence, Justice does not only mean rewarding those with superior abilities but compensating
those endowed with lesser ability.

Critiques Of Rawls Theory-

1) Brian Barry has argued that it is difficult to identify the least advantaged individuals or
groups in any society. He has also exclaimed that the principles of constitutional engineering
given by Rawls are to fragile to make an impact.

2) Norman P. Barry has argued the theory of Rawl is just a re-statement of the liberal-capitalist
principle and according to him it seems, ‘the pleasure of the better off, however great, can not
compensate for the pains of the worst off’.

3) MacPherson argued Rawls assumes that a capitalist society will always be badly class
divided and that inequality of income will always be necessary in such a society as an incentive
to efficient production. But this class inequality can in free market capitalist system lead to an
inequality of power as well as income and as a consequence allow one class to dominate over the
other.

Amartya Sen’s Extension-

The Rawlsian theory of Justice gives a central role to the achievement of Liberty. Amartya Sen
has some objections about the concept of Freedom Rawls supports. In his opinion, the Rawlsian
theory concentrates only on the means to freedom rather than the amount of freedom the person
actually has.

Sen would describe his approach to Justice as a Capability- Based one, where it is just not the
access to Primary Goods but the extent of capabilities that each individual has to use those goods
to life a life of value.

For instance, if we assume there are 2 individuals both with access to the same set of Primary
goods. Will this ensure both will enjoy same amount of Liberty? Sen argues that this won’t be
possible since there can be Physical Limitations and challenges that may pose restrictions on
their capabilities and hence they won’t enjoy same amount of Liberty. Hence, despite equal
access to the Primary Goods, there would be differences in the capabilities of both individuals
that would restrict them from enjoying same amount of Liberty as the amount of Liberty they
would enjoy would depend upon their capabilities to convert these goods into Freedom.

Capability thus represents freedom, but in Rawlsian theory access to primary goods are
considered as means to this Freedom. Sen argues, that equality of freedom to pursue our ends
can’t be guaranteed by equal distribution of what Rawls calls “Primary Goods”.
 Censorship - Is it justified Censorship?

Censorship is the editing, removing, or otherwise changing of speech and other forms of human
expression. It is exercised by governing authorities on mass media to stop what the authority
thinks may undermine its authority or the social and moral order of society.

The usual motives of censorship are often to stabilize, improve or persuade the society group
that the censoring organization wants to have control over. Censorship is usually applied on acts
of expression that occur in public circumstances or are meant for public dissemination, and
generally is done by criminalizing or regulating expression. Censorship also often includes less
formal means of controlling perceptions by excluding various ideas from mass communication.

What is censored generally ranges from specific words to entire concepts and is influenced by
value systems or political agendas. Also sometimes the most common real reasons for censoring
information are the particular items of interest of the news and entertainment organisations, their
owners, and their commercial and political connections.

The justification of censorship that is advanced is usually that it is an 'incitement to action' and
hence a matter of public concern. For instance in India during the emergencies of the seventies
when Indira Gandhi had ordered censorship the plea was that some people are trying to spread
chaos and disrupt democracy and hence newspapers have to be censored because they are
carrying such incitements.

As the democratic values of liberty from which flows free expression has gained momentum
world wide, censorship has come to be frowned upon. But even so recognition of free exchange
of ideas is still a relatively recent development and is not accepted in large parts of the world.
Just to give an example in all countries of the middle east and in countries like Pakistan there are
many forms of censorship. Also China censors parts of the internet and many foreign magazines
and newspapers.

Censorship can be explicit, like in laws passed to prevent select views from being published or
propagated (e.g., in China, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Australia, and The United States), or it can
be implicit, taking the form of subtle intimidation by the government functionaries, where
people are made to become afraid to express or support certain opinions for fear of losing their
jobs, their position in society, their credibility, or their lives. This latter form is prevalent in a
number of countries including the United States.

Democratic countries also carry out some forms of censorship for various reasons. For instance
adult sexual content in films and television is censored for children in most countries of the
world.
Censorship can be of many types - political censorship, military censorship, religious
censorship, corporate censorship, etc.

Democracies do not officially approve of political censorship but often endorse it privately. Any
dissent against the government is regarded as a “weakness” for the enemy to exploit.

Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and
away from the enemy and is used to counter espionage. Military censorship can also involve a
restriction on information or media coverage that can be released to the public such as in Iraq,
where the U.S. government restricted the photographing or filming of dead soldiers.

Religious censorship refers to the banning of any material which is objectionable to a certain
faith. This often happens when a dominant religion forces limitations on less dominant ones

Corporate censorship happens when editors in corporate media outlets intervene to halt the
publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light

Moral censorship is the means by which any material that contains what the censor deems to be
of questionable morality is removed. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this
rationale. In India the Censor Board censors films in advance for objectionable material.

History of Censorship-

Censorship has had a long history. In fact it can be said censorship has followed the free
expressions of men and women like a shadow through history. For instance, in China, the first
censorship law was introduced in 300 AD. In Rome, and in ancient Greece, the values of good
governance included shaping the moral values and character of the people. Hence censorship was
regarded as an honourable job. This ancient view of censorship, as a benevolent public service in
the best interest of the people, is still upheld by some countries such as China as has been
pointed out above.

Consequently, censorship became more and more rigid and punishment more severe. The
problem increased with the invention of the printing press in Europe in the middle of the 15th
Century. Although printing greatly aided the Catholic church and its mission, it also aided the
Protestant Reformation and "heretics" such as Martin Luther, thus the printed book became an
arena for a religious battle.

Even though censorship as a practice lost its traditional legal authority during and after the
18th century in Europe, governments still maintained some legal frameworks curbing freedom
of expression. The new instruments that began to be used were legislative acts of national
security, criminal acts on obscenity or blasphemy, or laws on libel.
In the United States, where formal censorship never existed, the law on defamation and thus the
courts became the testing ground for free expression. Subsequently, the courts became the
controllers in many a country embracing the principles of freedom of expression. Laws of
defamation were often subject to loose interpretations, giving license to continued restraint,
harassment, and persecution of the mounting challenges by artists, journalists and other
intellectuals to the contemporary concepts of national security, blasphemy and obscenity. This is
also the situation in India somewhat where even though there is no pre-censorship of anything
published (whether books/newspapers/magazines etc), it can be banned after publication or face
legal action under laws against defamation and national security. Also it can attract in extreme
cases criminal prosecution under provisions of the Indian Penal Code. thus authors and
publishers have to watch out and be careful which arguably is also a form of censorship.

Censorship directly violates the democratic political concepts of rights, freedom and liberty. Yet
it continues to this day and age when democracy is supposed to have triumphed

Authorities Censoring-

The most successful practitioners of censorship have been authorities, whether religious,
monarchical, dictatorial or democratic, who have invariably argued that the ideas and views that
are sought to be stopped are dangerous to the overall health of the nation or its existence (as
Indira Gandhi argued during the emergency years) and can become a cause for dangerous
incitement.

The authorities don't always use only legal authority but also employ economic and ideological
means to suppress ideas that are dangerous to the status quo and these can be more subtle but
more effective.

Economic Means-

For instance a government is a large advertiser and many newspapers depend for a large portion
of its revenues on government adverts. If the government wants it can decrease or stop the flow
of adverts to a particular newspaper or magazine that it wants suppressed.

Ideological Means-

Ideological supression/censorship is employed when the authority carries out a brain-washing

exercise to make its own ideology the only exiting ideology or set of views. This can be done by
changing school and college textbooks for instance or by carrying out propaganda on state
owned television/radio.

However, in a democracy where democratic values have taken hold and the democracy is
mature such measures are not available to the state or the authority. For instance in Britain the
BBC, the publicly owned national broadcaster is not controlled or employed by the British
government.
The Tony Blair government did try to use economic censorship though when it suddenly
proposed measures that would have made the economic existence of BBC very difficult by
withdrawing state taxation support because the government was not happy with the independent
and critical stand of the BBC on the British government's role as an ally of the USA in the Iraq
War. It is because of the strength of the British democracy that the proposed measures weren’t
carried out.

Arguement To Justify-

The argument is made that to promote true democracy and help the cause of justice including
social justice it is necessary to impose some censorship at times. For instance if an artist like
M.F. Hussain paints pictures in the nude of godesses like 165 Saraswati and Durga, it can
perhaps hurt the sentiments of some people very severely causing them to disrupt peace and
order or if upper castes ridicule and abuse Dalits in some manner it is possible that it can be
interpreted to be against the cause of social justice. Sometimes in situations like these an attempt
is made to justify censorship.

Some of the usual justifications that are offered for censorship are:

(a) That the views and ideas that are sought to be suppressed are a threat to social harmony and
law and order and peace or because they can hurt the feelings of some social/cultural groups who
can then get incited to violence.

(b) That some views can harm some people if they exposed to them because they are not ready to
understand them. This is the ground on which sexually explicit content is blocked to children in
mass media.

(c) That the views expressed can incite people to commit crimes like terrorism etc. The easy
availability of technology like internet web sites, mobile phones, bulk SMS facilities from
mobile companies etc have made such censorship ineffective. Also we need to 166 remember as
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once remarked: "Every idea is an incitement".
 NOTES ON LIBERTY
-BY ABHINANDAN KAUL

Thomas Hobbes-

Views On Liberty-

Hobbes recognizes two quite different categories of freedom or liberty in Leviathan and other
works. The first category of freedom that he acknowledges is one’s freedom to choose between
certain alternatives, uncommitted by prior decision or obligation; and the second, the freedom to
enact the choice one has made in any instance. We might regard the first freedom as non-
commitment and the second freedom as non-obstruction.

Hobbes first draws attention to his conception of freedom as non-commitment in his argument.
He exclaims that as long as one has not yet deliberated and formed a decision between certain
alternatives (formed a will, as Hobbes would put it), one is free to do one or another of the
alternatives. The very fact of deliberating and making up one’s mind means that that freedom is
lost. Deliberation, Hobbes says is the ‘alternate succession of necessity and fear. For example, a
person may pay his debts only in fear of imprisonment.

The desire that emerges successfully from deliberation represents the agent’s will and once the
will has been formed as between alternatives available, liberty is lost.

Before deliberation one is not committed to any particular alternative among those contemplated
and so one is free to do one or the other, depending on how one’s decision or will goes. This is a
freedom to choose between those alternatives that one no longer has when choice or will have
materialized.
According to Thomas Hobbes, liberty or freedom signifies the absence of all impediments to
action that aren’t contained in the nature and intrinsic quality of the agent. according to Hobbes,
liberty and freedom signifies “the absence of opposition” or “external impediments” to motion.
Such freedom applies not only to rational agents but also to “irrational and inanimate creatures.”
We may say, for example, that water is not free to flow beyond the vessel that contains it. For
whatsoever is so tied, as it cannot move within a certain space, which space is determined by the
opposition of some external body, we say it doesn’t have the liberty to go further. And so of all
living creatures, whilst they are imprisoned, or restrained, with walls, or chains; and of the water
whilst it is kept in by banks, or vessels that otherwise would spread itself into a larger space, we
use to say, that they are not at liberty, to move in such manner, as without those external
impediments they would.

Hobbes clearly distinguished freedom from power. When the impediments to motion are
external, then an entity is said to lack freedom. But when the impediments to motion are internal,
an entity is said to lack power. The fact that a stone cannot move of its own accord does not
mean that it lacks the freedom to move; rather, it lacks the power (or ability) to move. Likewise,
if a sick man is confined to a bed and unable to move about, he lacks not the freedom to walk
(since no external impediments prevent him from walking) but the power to walk. Hence
Thomas Hobbes states- ‘a Free-man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is
able to do is not hindered to do what he has a will to’

Hobbes advocated Negative Liberty-

Hobbes’s distinction between freedom (the absence of external impediments) and power (the
internal ability to do something) is frequently cited as an early formulation of negative freedom.
Moreover, since classical liberals typically defended negative freedom, Hobbes is sometimes
cited as an early proponent of that tradition.

State And Liberty-

Hobbes considers the nature of liberty under sovereign power and says that liberty means the
ability to act according to one's will without being physically hindered from performing that act.
Only chains or imprisonment can prevent one from acting, so all subjects have absolute liberty
under sovereignty. Although the contract and the civil laws mandated by the sovereign are
"artificial chains" preventing certain actions, absolute freedom and liberty still exist because the
subjects themselves created the chains. n the state of nature, liberty did not exist, because actions
were hindered by fear of death and fear of the power of others. In the Leviathan, fear and power
are still present, but because the subject has consented to give them to the sovereign to use as
tools, the subject has attained absolute liberty. That is, the subject is an author of the sovereign's
power and is accordingly responsible for the sovereign's actions. So even if the sovereign
imprisons or kills the subject, the subject has been personally responsible for his own fate.

Limitation in Hobbes theory was that his understanding of liberty was based on considerations of
fear and necessity rather than choice.

John Locke-

Views On Liberty-

For choice to be exercised in exercise of Liberty, existence conditions have to exist. Such
conditions can include material resources as well as a moral framework, both of which find place
in John Locke’s understanding of Liberty.

Locke understands liberty as choice exercised in a moral framework. The moral framework is
based on the Laws of Nature of which equality is a major tenet. The Law Of Nature according to
Locke is that no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. Hence,
according to Locke, each individual is free to the extent the exercise of freedom doesn’t violate
equality. Liberty as a natural right to Locke, it is innate and inalienable in human nature, is
universal and can be apprehended by reason.

Negative Liberty-

Locke’s theory doesn’t talk about ways to bring about the existence of conditions to facilitate
choice. The restraints on choices that are not natural caused by social inequalities, economic
inequalities aren’t addressed.

Liberty and State-

As a natural right, Liberty in Locke’s opinion precedes civil and political society and hence, the
social contract of civil society is drawn to preserve natural rights, including liberty. While the
political society (state) regulates liberty, it has no power to constrain or restrict it. Hence,
Locke’s theory suggests Liberty is alterable, flexible.

Russeau-
Both Hobbes and Locke just refer to preserving oneself or operating within a moral framework,
but neither of them address the hinderances of heiarchy and inequality in exercise of liberty.
These hinderances are addressed in Rousseau’s thought.

Thoughts On Liberty-

Rosseau considered Liberty as a collective virtue, and as freeing oneself from the pursuit of
selfish motives towards the larger good for the entire community. Hence, it appears he equates
“choice” with the right to choose the right option which is predecided. For example driving a car
causes pollution, which is harmful and hence it can be decided that right option is to ride a
bicycle rather than a car as it would lead to larger good.

His conception of liberty aims at liberating humans from the heirachial and unjust inequality of
the society which is seen as a constraint since they don’t allow exercise of liberty. Another
constraint is humans’ baser (selfish, without morals) nature that prevents them from thinking
good of all.

Liberation Of Individuals-

According to him, people are liberated only through obedience to law. Law is represented
through expression of the General Will of the community. The amalgamation of the “Real
Wills” (the will that individual takes into account in his/her interest in relation to fellow humans)
is called the General Will.

Also for Rosseau, individuals were liberated when they were free of personal servitude, which
ensures that the individual is liberated from subjection to one’s own lower nature (baser) in
uniting the whole community.

As Rosseau popularly says- “A free people obeys, but does not serve, has leaders but no
masters, it obeys laws, and it is due to the strength og laws that it is not forced to obey man.”

State and Liberty-

Russo exclaimed that human nature got corrupted because of the development of technology as
this made humans materialistic and selfish. And hence Russo suggests 2 ways to come out of
this-

1) To go back to the state of nature. This option isn’t viable, since it would lead to chaos.

2)To enter into a social contract and set up a civil society which will be ruled by a general will.
If we agree to give up our state of complete freedom in uncivilized nature and deposit absolute
power in the state over all its members in order to join civilized society, are we not merely slaves
to the state with little freedom if any? Rousseau tried to resolve this paradox by arguing that
individuals gain much more by being members of society than they ever could individually in the
isolated chaos of nature. Rousseau argues that rights like liberty, equality, and property are not
individual rights at all. They are only civil rights, that is, ones bestowed upon us by our
membership in the community. But, russo created a contradicting statement when he wrote, that
those who refuse to obey the genera will, will be forced to do so. Since, the General will is an
amalgamation of “Real wills” of an individual, this would imply that the society would force the
individual to be free. But if someone is forced to do something, how can they be free? This lead
to the paradox of freedom.

Benthem-

Views On Liberty-

Benthem being a utilitarian had seen a positive correlation between liberty and pleasure. Liberty
for Benthem hence is viewed though the utilitarian maxim of “Greatest Happiness of the Greatest
Number”. Liberty in the utilitarian context is all about seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

Criticism-

However, this notion of liberty isn’t endorsed by people in an unqualified manner since it makes
no distinction between different kinds of pleasures. For instance-

A person may be get pleasure by watching the sunset and hence should be free to watch it, but
another person may get pleasure by doing drugs and in context of Benthem’s theory of Liberty
this implies he must be free to do drugs. Hence, such a notion cannot be endorsed and there are
certain possible reasons for this, like-

1) Such a notion of liberty isn’t accompanies by a sense of moral responsibility. As in the case of
drug addict, his activities may cause pain to a large number of people.

2) Secondly, it violates the “Harm principle” (with which Locke qualifies his understanding of
liberty)- that exercise of liberty shouldn’t harm life, liberty and possessions of others.

3) Thirdly, the pleasure of one person (the drug addict) can cause pain to several people and
hence the utiliytarian maxim of the “Greatest Happiness to Greatest Number” is violated.
Karl Marx-

Views On Liberty-

Marx’s understanding of liberty is through instances of what is not liberty. According to Marx,
what defines human nature is the ability to express creativity, and the circumstances that create
situations of inability of expression of self are those that deny liberty. Marx explains denial of
liberty (alienation) as a 4 stage process. The agent is alienated from the product, from productive
activity, from one’s own human nature and from other human beings.

Marx’s understanding of the term “Liberation” is leading a life of “self realization”. Marx held
capitalism responsible for the lack of opportunities of self realization. Capitalism according to
him hinders self realization in 2 ways-

1) Formation of desires occurs through a process that individuals don’t understand or identify
with. Often one’s own desires appear to be not freely chosen.

2) Secondly, the realization of desires is often frustrated by lack of coordination and common
planning.

CONCEPTS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE LIBERTY-

The distinction was introduced by Isaiah Berlin in his 1958 lecture "Two Concepts of Liberty",
because of the issue of that arose from the argument that if being free means being self-
determined and entails control over temptations to take care of real interests, then the individuals
might not be free.

1) Negative liberty focuses on the personal aspect of man’s liberty and regards it as inherent to
the personality of the individual. Whereas, positive liberty looks upon it in totality in the
socioeconomic and political conditions of society.

2) Negative liberty Sees liberty mainly as absence of restraints. But positive liberty Emphasizes
the essential availability of positive conditions for meaningful realisation of liberty by
individuals in society.

3) Negative liberty Sees the state as an enemy of personal liberty, but positive liberty Sees the
state as the essential responsible agency for creating socio-economic and other conditions, which
will ensure the realisation of liberty.
4) Negative liberty Emphasizes the personal philosophical and political aspects of liberty,
however Positive liberty emphasizes the social and economic aspects of liberty.

5) Negative liberty wants the state to be minimised and as tiny as possible and Positive liberty
wants a welfare state that will actively intervene to create adequate socioeconomic and political
conditions for a meaningful realisation of liberty.

6) Negative liberty is a believer in the concept of each man for himself. Free competition
between free men that will maximise utility for society as a whole with no special allowance or
care shown for those left behind or the losers of the free competition, whereas Positive Liberty is
a believer that man is a social animal and hence collective effort for collective benefit via the
welfare state is the way forward if necessary by denying the absolute right to private property.
(The Socialist also supported this view.)

The Socialists (as indeed the later positive liberals) were unwilling to accept the absolute nature
of the right to property and property accumulation that the Negative Liberals advocated. They
argued that liberty has no meaning if you did not have the basics – food, clothing and shelter.
Further that there needs to be central planning and intervention in the economy and government
ownership of productive resources, either fully or substantially, for the creation of conditions that
will aid the realisation of liberties.
Copy protected with Online-PDF-No-Copy.com