MODULE II

i. STATE

The term 'State' occupies the highest place and central theme in the study of
political science. The modern term “state” is derived from the word “status” earlier
used by the German tribe 'Teutons'. The Greeks used the word 'Polis' to denote the
'city-state' and Romans used the term 'Civitas' which means state. It was the Italian
scholar Machiavelli who used the term ‘state’ in political science in the modern sense.
In political science the term ‘state’ we mean an association of people who live within
a geographical area under an organised government and subject to no outside control

State is an institution to ensure law and order and maintain harmony of social
relations. It creates those conditions, which are necessary for the development of
individual personality. It creates laws and rules to regulate human behaviour. It stand
for the welfare of society as whole and protect the rights and life of citizen from
internal and external disturbances or war.

The ordinary people usually use the word state in a wrong way. It is wrong to
equate the word state with government, nation or society. When they say ‘state aid to
industries’ ‘state bus’ etc., actually they mean ‘government aid to industries’
‘government bus’ etc. Further, the constituent units of a federation are called “states”,
for example, various states in India and the federal states in the U.S.A. But as far as
our study is concerned the term state is used in a different ways.

In the scientific sense of the term “the state means an assemblage of human
beings occupying a definite territory, organised under a government supreme within
the country and subject to no outside control”.

Definitions of state

The term 'state' has been defined differently by various political thinkers. Some
of the popular definitions are given below:

To quote Mac Iver " some writers define the state as essentially a class
structure, others regard it as an one organisation that transcends class and stands for
the whole community. Some interpret it as a power system, others as welfare system.
Some view entirely as a legal construction either in the old Austinan sense which
made it a relationship of the governors and governed or as a community organized for
action under legal rules. To some it is a necessary evil and to a very few , an evil that
will some day be unnecessary"

1. According to Bodin, the state is " an association of families and their

common possessions , governed by supreme power and by reason".

2. Dr. Garner- “A state is a community of persons more or less numerous,

permanently occupying a definite portion of territory independent or nearly so of
external control of possessing an organised government to which the great body of
inhabitants render habitual obedience"

3. Woodrow Wilson- “The state is a people organised for law within a definite
territory”.

4. H.J. Laski- “State is a territorial society divided into government and subject
claiming with its allotted physical area, a supremacy over all other institutions”.

5. Bluntschli- “The state is politically organised people of a definite territory”.

6. Holland defines the state as " a numerous assemblage of human beings

generally occupying a certain territory amongst whom the will of the majority or class
made to prevail against any of their number who oppose it ".

7. Aristotle defined the state as " a union of families and villages having for its
end a perfect and self - sufficing life by which we mean a happy and honourable life".

8. According to Marxist opinion ; " the state arose as a result of division of

society into antagonistic classes for the purpose of curbing the exploited majority. The
state is the political organisation of ruling classes which uses it for the purpose of
suppressing the resistance of its class enemies. It is an organisation for the
maintenance of the rule of one class over the other classes. To achieve this the state
possesses such instrument of power as an army , the courts, a police force, etc."
 9. The modern conception of the state, Views of Gabriel Almond and Robert
Dhal: Almond used the term " political system" instead of the state. According to him"
political system is the system of interactions to be found in all independent societies
which perform the functions of integration and adaptation ( both internally and vis-a-
vis other societies) by means of employment, or threat of employment , of more or
less legitimate physical compulsion". " The Political System" he explains, " is the
legitimate, order maintaining or transforming system in the society".

Elements of the State

The above definitions given by various writers show that there are four
elements of a state namely Population, Territory, Government and Sovereignty. The
essential four elements are discussed below.

1. Population

Since state is a human institution and highest of all human associations there
can be no state without human beings. state can exist in an uninhabited land. There is
no limit for the number of citizens in a state. According to Plato, an ideal state should
consist of 5040, while Aristotle fixed the population of state at 10.000. However, in
the modern times the scholars have not ventured to fix any upper or lower limits of
population. Their number should either be too small to be self sufficient nor too large
to be well governed. The People’s Republic of China is the largest state in respect of
population and San Marino in Italy is the smallest.

The modern state gives preference to the big size population because, the
bigger the population, the greater will be its man power. They can fight for a longer
period of time during the war period. This is the reason why Nazi Germany, Fascist
Italy, and communist Russia encouraged mothers to have more issues. Such mothers
were called “Heroine mothers”. While the problem of these countries is one of decline
of population, the problem of state like India is one of phenomenal increase in her
population. The acceptable rule, as Dr. Garner says that, population must be sufficient
to provide a governing body and number of persons to be governed and of course
sufficient to support a state organisation.
 2. Territory

A modern state cannot exist without territory. Nomadic tribes and gypsies
wandering from one place to another could not form a state. But no limit can be laid
down on territory as in population.

The largest state in size is the former U.S.S.R ,whose area covered about one
by sixth of the world, whereas Vatican in Rome has an area of about 4square miles.
The advantage of small state is that they remain compact and well governed. But at
the same time, they are at great disadvantage as in the matters of difference and
natural resources. But size is no index of greatness . Any how the modern age is
definitely of large territorial state because a large state can mobilise all its resources
for the economic and social welfare and defence.

3. Government

Government is an essential element of the state. It is the agency through which

the will of the state is formulated, expressed and realised. It is the duty of the
government to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the state, maintain law and
order, protect citizens from external aggression, solve the dispute among citizen and
work for the all round development of the people. Hence Government is indispensable
because there can be no civilised existence without it.

Government may vary from state to state. Democracy is popular in India,

England, America, France, Italy etc, communist government is popular in Nepal and
Military government in Pakistan, Turkey etc.

4. Sovereignty

Sovereignty means supremacy of the state. It is the most important element of

the state. It is sovereignty that differentiates the state from all other social
organisation. Since state is supreme in internal and external matters. Sovereignty is of
two types-internal sovereignty and external people of the state. External sovereignty
means that the state is free from the control of other states.

Theories on the Origin of State

 State is the central subject of study of political science. So political scientists
have shown keen interest in understanding the origin and development of state. Many
theories have come up on the origin of the state. But there is no precise answer to the
question how and when the state came into being.

The theories advanced so far by the political thinkers on the origin of the state
are:

• The Divine origin theory

The divine theory, also known as the divine right of kings, is a perspective on
the origin of the state that attributes the establishment of political authority to divine
sanction or will. According to this theory, rulers derive their legitimacy and authority
from a higher power, such as a deity or a sacred source.

In medieval Europe, the divine theory of state origin was closely associated
with the concept of the "divine right of kings." This belief held that monarchs were
appointed by God to rule over their subjects, and their authority was absolute and not
subject to challenge or questioning by earthly powers. Monarchs were often seen as
God's representatives on Earth, with their rule considered to be ordained by divine
providence.

The divine theory of state origin found expression in various religious and
cultural traditions around the world. In ancient Egypt, for example, pharaohs were
regarded as divine rulers, believed to be descendants of the gods and endowed with
divine authority to govern the kingdom. Similarly, in ancient China, the concept of the
"Mandate of Heaven" held that rulers were granted the right to rule by divine
mandate, but this mandate was contingent upon the ruler's ability to govern justly and
effectively. If a ruler failed to uphold his duties, it was believed that the mandate
could be revoked, leading to the collapse of the dynasty.

While the divine theory of state origin was prevalent in many societies
throughout history, it has been largely discredited in modern times. The rise of
secularism, the Enlightenment, and the advent of democratic principles challenged the
notion of divine right and absolute monarchy. The idea that political authority derives
from the consent of the governed gained prominence, leading to the establishment of
constitutional monarchies and democratic republics, where rulers are accountable to
their citizens and governed by the rule of law rather than divine mandate.

However, remnants of the divine theory of state origin can still be found in
some contemporary societies, particularly in countries where religious beliefs play a
significant role in shaping political institutions and ideologies. In these contexts, rulers
may still claim divine sanction for their authority, although such claims are often
contested and debated in the modern political arena.

• The theory of force

The theory of force, also known as the "force theory" or "conquest theory,"
posits that the origin of the state can be traced back to the use of coercive force by
individuals or groups to establish and maintain control over a territory and its
population. Unlike other theories that emphasize consent, social contracts, or divine
right, the force theory suggests that states emerged through conquest, warfare, and the
domination of one group by another.

According to this perspective, early states were often formed through the
conquest of weaker tribes or communities by more powerful groups. Through military
superiority, these dominant groups were able to subjugate and establish control over
the conquered population, imposing their authority and establishing a system of
governance to maintain order and extract resources.

Historically, examples of the force theory in action can be found in the rise of
ancient empires and civilizations. For instance, the expansion of the Roman Empire
across Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East was characterized by military
conquest and the imposition of Roman law and administration over conquered
territories. Similarly, the conquests of Alexander the Great and the subsequent
Hellenistic kingdoms spread Greek influence and established new political orders in
the regions they conquered.

In more recent history, the force theory can also be observed in colonialism and
imperialism, where European powers used military force to establish control over vast
territories in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Through colonization, European states
imposed their political, economic, and cultural systems on indigenous populations,
often leading to the displacement, subjugation, and exploitation of local peoples.

While the force theory provides insights into the historical realities of state
formation, it has been criticized for its simplistic view of power dynamics and its
neglect of other factors, such as social organization, economic development, and
cultural influences, which also played significant roles in the emergence of states.
Additionally, the force theory tends to overlook the complexities of state-society
relations and the potential for resistance, negotiation, and adaptation among both
rulers and subjects.

Overall, while the force theory highlights the role of coercion and violence in
the establishment of political authority, it is just one of many factors that contributed
to the origin and evolution of states throughout history. A more comprehensive
understanding of state formation requires consideration of multiple perspectives and
dynamics, including social, economic, cultural, and institutional factors.

• The theory of social contract

One of the most influential theories of state origin is the social contract theory,
which suggests that states emerged through a hypothetical agreement among
individuals to form a political community and establish a governing authority. This
perspective, popularized by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, posits that in the "state of nature," individuals lived in a condition
of insecurity and conflict. To escape this state, people voluntarily surrendered some of
their freedoms to a central authority, creating the social contract upon which the state
is based.

The theory of social contract on the origin of the state posits that individuals
voluntarily agree to form a society and establish a government to secure mutual
protection and advance their collective interests. This theory, popularized during the
Enlightenment period by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, provides a theoretical framework for understanding the legitimacy
and authority of the state.

According to Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal work "Leviathan," the state of

nature is a condition of perpetual conflict and insecurity, where individuals pursue
their self-interests without regard for others. In this state, life is "solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short." To escape this state of nature, individuals enter into a social
contract, surrendering some of their freedoms to a sovereign authority in exchange for
protection and the maintenance of order. The sovereign, in turn, is granted absolute
power to enforce the laws and preserve peace within society.

John Locke, in his "Second Treatise of Government," presents a more nuanced

view of the social contract. He argues that individuals have natural rights to life,
liberty, and property, and that the purpose of government is to protect these rights.
According to Locke, the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the
governed, and rulers are accountable to the people they govern. Individuals enter into
a social contract with one another to establish a government that acts in their
collective interest, and they retain the right to revolt against a government that fails to
fulfill its obligations.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his work "The Social Contract," introduces the

concept of the general will, suggesting that the state should embody the collective
interests and aspirations of its citizens. According to Rousseau, individuals must
surrender themselves unconditionally to the community, which then becomes the
sovereign authority. The general will, as expressed through democratic decision-
making, reflects the common good and serves as the basis for legitimate political
authority.

The theory of social contract on the origin of the state emphasizes the
consensual nature of political authority and the reciprocal obligations between rulers
and subjects. It provides a moral and philosophical justification for the existence of
the state, grounding political legitimacy in the consent of the governed rather than
divine right or force. While the theory has been subject to critique and debate, it
remains a foundational concept in political theory and continues to shape
contemporary discussions on the nature and purpose of the state.

• The patriarchal theory

The patriarchal theory, also known as the "patriarchal hypothesis," posits that
early human societies were organized around paternal or male-dominated systems of
governance and kinship, and that these patriarchal structures played a significant role
in the origin and development of states. This theory suggests that men held positions
of power and authority in early human societies, often as leaders, rulers, and heads of
households.

Proponents of the patriarchal theory argue that throughout history, men have
been the primary decision-makers and rulers in most societies, with women occupying
subordinate roles. They point to evidence from anthropology, archaeology, and
historical studies to support their claims, citing examples of male-dominated political
systems, inheritance practices favoring male heirs, and the relegation of women to
domestic and reproductive roles.

In many early civilizations, such as ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and

Rome, patriarchal family structures and systems of governance were prevalent. Male
rulers, kings, and emperors held centralized power and authority, often supported by
religious or divine justification for their rule. Inheritance and succession were
typically based on patrilineal descent, where lineage and property were passed down
through male heirs, reinforcing the dominance of men in political and social life.

The patriarchal theory of state origin is also influenced by broader cultural and
ideological factors, including religious beliefs and philosophical doctrines that
valorize male authority and control. For example, in Judeo-Christian traditions,
narratives of male primacy and divine mandate are often invoked to justify patriarchal
social norms and gender roles.

Critics of the patriarchal theory argue that it oversimplifies complex social

dynamics and ignores the diversity of human societies and cultures. They point to
examples of matrilineal and egalitarian societies in history and contemporary
anthropology as evidence that gender relations have not always been uniformly
patriarchal. Additionally, some scholars argue that patriarchal systems of governance
may have emerged later in human history, with early human societies characterized by
more fluid and egalitarian social structures.

While the patriarchal theory provides insights into the role of gender in shaping
political systems and social organization, it is just one of many theories that seek to
explain the origin of states. The study of state formation requires consideration of a
wide range of factors, including social, economic, political, and environmental
influences, and the role of gender in shaping human societies is an important area of
ongoing research and debate.

• The matriarchal theory

The matriarchal theory, also known as the "matriarchal hypothesis," proposes

that early human societies were organized around maternal or female-centered
systems of governance and kinship, and that these matriarchal structures played a
significant role in the origin and development of states. This theory challenges
traditional patriarchal interpretations of history and suggests that women held
positions of power and authority in early human societies.

Proponents of the matriarchal theory point to evidence from anthropology,

archaeology, and comparative mythology to support their claims. They argue that in
many prehistoric and indigenous societies, women played central roles in kinship
networks, religious rituals, and community leadership. Matrilineal descent, where
lineage is traced through the mother, was common in many early societies and is seen
as evidence of the importance of women in social organization.

Some anthropologists, such as Johann Jakob Bachofen and Lewis Henry

Morgan, proposed theories of matriarchy based on their studies of ancient societies
and comparative ethnography. Bachofen, in his work "Mother Right: An Investigation
of the Religious and Juridical Character of Matriarchy in the Ancient World," argued
that early human societies were characterized by a "mother-right" system in which
women held significant authority and power within family and community structures.
 However, it's important to note that the matriarchal theory is not without
controversy and has been subject to critique and debate within the academic
community. Critics argue that evidence for widespread matriarchal societies is scant
and that interpretations of archaeological and anthropological data are often
speculative and open to interpretation. Additionally, some scholars caution against
imposing modern notions of gender equality onto past societies and suggest that
power dynamics in early human communities were more complex and fluid than
simple matriarchal or patriarchal models suggest.

While the matriarchal theory offers a valuable perspective on gender relations

and social organization in early human societies, it is just one of many theories that
seek to explain the origin of states. Ultimately, the study of state formation requires
consideration of a wide range of factors, including social, economic, political, and
environmental influences, and the role of gender in shaping human societies is an
important area of inquiry that continues to be explored and debated by scholars across
disciplines.

• The Evolutionary theory or Historical theory

This is the most scientific theory on the origin of the state. The theory
assumes that a state is a historical growth. The state is neither the result of an artificial
creation nor it originated at a period of time. To quote Leacock “the state is a growth,
an evolution, the result of a gradual process running through all the known history of
man and reading into remote and unknown part”. John Morley, Gettel, Garner,
Burgess and Leacock are the supporters of this theory.

The evolutionary theory on the origin of the state suggests that states emerged
gradually as human societies evolved from small, kin-based groups to larger, complex
civilizations. This perspective draws on principles of social evolution and
anthropology to understand how political organization developed over time.

Key elements of the evolutionary theory include:

Band and Tribe Formation: According to this theory, early human societies
were organized into small bands or tribes, consisting of extended families or kinship
groups. These groups were characterized by egalitarian social structures, with
leadership based on kinship ties, reciprocity, and informal authority.

Settlement and Agriculture: The transition from a nomadic hunter-gatherer

lifestyle to settled agricultural communities played a crucial role in the development
of states. The domestication of plants and animals allowed for the establishment of
permanent settlements, leading to population growth, increased social complexity, and
the emergence of surplus food production.

Social Differentiation: As populations grew and societies became more

complex, social differentiation and specialization emerged. Some individuals began to
specialize in non-food-producing activities such as crafts, trade, and governance,
leading to the emergence of social classes and hierarchies.

Resource Competition and Conflict: With the growth of settled communities

and surplus production, competition over resources, territory, and power became more
intense. Conflict and warfare between neighboring groups often led to conquest,
domination, and the establishment of centralized authority under a ruling elite.

State Formation: Over time, successful conquests and consolidations of power

resulted in the formation of early states, characterized by centralized government,
formal institutions, and bureaucratic administration. These states exercised authority
over defined territories and populations, collecting taxes, maintaining law and order,
and providing public goods and services.

Examples of early state formation include the ancient civilizations of

Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, and Mesoamerica, where centralized governments
emerged to manage large populations, complex economies, and urban centers.

The evolutionary theory on the origin of the state highlights the gradual and
cumulative nature of state formation, emphasizing the role of social, economic, and
environmental factors in shaping human societies over time. While this perspective
provides valuable insights into the long-term processes of political development, it
also recognizes the diversity of state forms and trajectories across different cultures
and historical contexts.
 • Historical theory

The historical theory on the origin of the state, often referred to as the
"historical approach" or "historical school," focuses on tracing the development of
states through a careful examination of specific historical contexts and processes.
Unlike other theories that propose general principles or abstract concepts, the
historical theory emphasizes the importance of understanding the unique historical
circumstances that led to the emergence of states in different societies.

Key elements of the historical theory include:

Contextual Analysis: The historical theory begins by examining the specific

historical context in which states emerged, taking into account factors such as
geography, culture, economy, and social organization. By analyzing historical sources
and archaeological evidence, historians seek to reconstruct the social, political, and
economic dynamics that shaped state formation in a particular time and place.

Case Studies: Rather than formulating broad theories or generalizations, the

historical approach relies on detailed case studies of specific societies and
civilizations. By studying the development of states in diverse contexts, historians can
identify common patterns, trends, and factors that contributed to state formation, as
well as variations and unique features that distinguish one case from another.

Long-Term Perspective: The historical theory emphasizes the long-term

processes of state formation, recognizing that the development of states is often
gradual and multifaceted. Historians examine the evolution of political institutions,
social structures, and cultural practices over extended periods of time, tracing the
origins of states back to earlier forms of political organization and social complexity.

Comparative Analysis: Through comparative analysis, historians compare and

contrast different cases of state formation, identifying similarities and differences
across time and space. By examining how states emerged in various regions and
historical periods, historians can identify common patterns of state development and
understand the factors that shape state-building processes.
 Interdisciplinary Approach: The historical theory often adopts an
interdisciplinary approach, drawing on insights from archaeology, anthropology,
sociology, political science, and other fields. By integrating multiple perspectives and
methodologies, historians can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the origins
and evolution of states.

Overall, the historical theory on the origin of the state highlights the
importance of context, contingency, and complexity in understanding how states
emerged and evolved over time. By studying the rich tapestry of human history,
historians can uncover the diverse pathways and processes that have shaped the
development of political institutions and societies around the world.

Functions of Modern States

Essential functions and Optional functions

• Maintenance of law and order. • Protect life, liberty, property of the people. •
Determination of contract rights between individuals. • Defining and punishing crime.
• Administration of justice. • Determination of political duties, privileges and relations
of citizens. • Maintenance of foreign relations, protection of its sovereignty –internal
and external. • Financial functions like taxation, currency, and coinage etc. • Military
functions.

Optional Function

• Regulation of trade and industry. • Regulation of wages. • Management of

transportation. • Maintenance of communication system. • Maintenance of sanitation •
Providing education etc.

Theories of Nation and Nationalism

Nation

A nation is a complex and multifaceted concept that encompasses a community

of people who share common characteristics such as language, culture, ethnicity,
history, religion, or territory. Nations often have a strong sense of collective identity
and belonging, which may be expressed through shared symbols, traditions, and
values. The concept of a nation is closely linked to the idea of nationalism, which
emphasizes the importance of the nation as a primary source of political legitimacy
and allegiance.

Key elements of a nation include:

Shared Identity: Nations are characterized by a sense of shared identity

among their members, based on common cultural, linguistic, ethnic, or historical ties.
This shared identity forms the basis of a collective consciousness and solidarity
among individuals who identify as part of the nation.

Territoriality: Nations are often associated with a specific territory or

homeland, which serves as the physical space where the nation's culture, language,
and traditions are rooted. The concept of territoriality is central to the idea of national
sovereignty and self-determination.

Culture and Heritage: Nations typically have distinctive cultural traditions,

practices, and symbols that reflect their shared history and identity. This may include
language, literature, art, music, cuisine, religion, and customs that are passed down
through generations and contribute to a sense of national pride and belonging.

Political Community: Nations are often seen as political communities with a

common interest in self-governance, political autonomy, and collective well-being.
The nation-state, where a nation's political boundaries align with its cultural and
territorial boundaries, is a common form of political organization.

Solidarity and Loyalty: Nations are characterized by a sense of solidarity and

loyalty among their members, who may feel a strong attachment to their nation and its
symbols. Nationalism, the ideology that emphasizes the importance of the nation as a
source of identity and allegiance, often plays a central role in shaping national
consciousness and mobilizing support for political and social causes.

Overall, the concept of a nation is complex and contested, with different

definitions and interpretations depending on historical, cultural, and political contexts.
Nations are dynamic and evolving entities that are shaped by a variety of factors,
including migration, globalization, technology, and social change. Despite these
complexities, the idea of the nation remains a powerful and influential force in
shaping human societies and identities around the world.

Nationalism

Nationalism is a political, social, and cultural ideology that emphasizes the

importance of the nation as a central source of identity, allegiance, and political
legitimacy. It is characterized by a strong sense of loyalty, pride, and attachment to
one's nation, often accompanied by a desire for political autonomy, self-determination,
and collective well-being.

Key features of nationalism include:

Collective Identity: Nationalism fosters a sense of collective identity and

solidarity among individuals who identify as members of the same nation. This shared
identity is often based on common characteristics such as language, culture, ethnicity,
history, religion, or territory.

National Consciousness: Nationalism encourages individuals to develop a

consciousness of belonging to a particular nation, often through the promotion of
national symbols, rituals, myths, and narratives. This national consciousness shapes
how people perceive themselves and others, influencing their values, beliefs, and
behaviors.

Political Mobilization: Nationalism is often used as a political tool to mobilize

support for specific political goals, such as independence, territorial expansion, or
resistance to foreign domination. Nationalist movements may advocate for the rights
and interests of the nation, seeking to assert its sovereignty and protect its cultural and
political autonomy.

National Unity and Sovereignty: Nationalism emphasizes the importance of

national unity and sovereignty, promoting the idea that nations have the right to
govern themselves and determine their own destiny free from external interference.
Nationalists often advocate for the establishment of independent nation-states with
defined territorial boundaries and self-governing institutions.

Cultural Preservation: Nationalism is sometimes associated with efforts to

preserve and promote the cultural heritage and traditions of the nation. Nationalist
movements may seek to revive or protect indigenous languages, customs, art, music,
and literature as expressions of national identity and pride.

While nationalism can be a unifying force that fosters a sense of solidarity and
collective purpose among citizens, it can also have divisive and exclusionary effects,
leading to conflicts between different ethnic, cultural, or religious groups within a
nation or between nations. In its extreme forms, nationalism can manifest as
chauvinism, xenophobia, or aggressive nationalism, fueling intolerance, prejudice, and
violence towards perceived outsiders or enemies.

Overall, nationalism is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that has

shaped the course of human history and continues to play a significant role in shaping
political ideologies, movements, and conflicts around the world.

Theories of nation and nationalism seek to understand the origins, nature,

and dynamics of nations and nationalist movements. These theories offer different
perspectives on the complex phenomenon of nationalism and its relationship to
concepts such as identity, culture, politics, and power. Here are some key theories:

Primordialism: Primordialist theories suggest that nations are natural, ancient,

and deeply rooted in primordial ties such as ethnicity, language, culture, and religion.
According to this perspective, nations are based on innate and unchanging
characteristics shared by their members, and national identity is passed down through
generations. Primordialism emphasizes the emotional and affective bonds that bind
individuals to their nation and often portrays nations as organic entities with a strong
sense of collective belonging.

Modernism: Modernist theories argue that nationalism is a modern

phenomenon that emerged in response to the social, economic, and political
transformations of modernity. According to this perspective, nations are imagined
communities constructed through processes of nation-building, including the
standardization of language, the development of mass education, and the promotion of
national symbols and rituals. Modernism highlights the role of nationalism, state-
building, and industrialization in shaping national identities and ideologies.

Perennialism: Perennialist theories combine elements of both primordialism

and modernism, suggesting that nationalism has both enduring cultural roots and
modern manifestations. Perennialists argue that nations have historical continuity and
cultural distinctiveness that shape national identities, but they also acknowledge the
role of modern institutions, ideologies, and practices in shaping contemporary
nationalism.

Constructivism: Constructivist theories emphasize the socially constructed

nature of nations and national identities. According to this perspective, nations are
dynamic and contingent products of social interaction, discourse, and power relations.
Constructivists argue that nations are continually constructed and reconstructed
through processes of inclusion and exclusion, identity formation, and contestation
over meanings and symbols. This perspective highlights the agency of individuals and
groups in shaping national identities and challenges deterministic views of
nationhood.

Ethnosymbolism: Ethnosymbolist theories focus on the symbolic aspects of

nationalism, emphasizing the importance of myths, symbols, rituals, and narratives in
constructing national identities. According to this perspective, nations are
characterized by a shared set of cultural symbols and traditions that serve to unify
diverse populations and foster a sense of collective belonging. Ethnosymbolism
highlights the role of collective memory, cultural heritage, and symbolism in shaping
nationalist movements and ideologies.

These theories of nation and nationalism offer different perspectives on the

origins, nature, and functions of nationalist movements and ideologies. While each
theory has its strengths and limitations, together they contribute to a deeper
understanding of the diverse ways in which nationalism is imagined, constructed, and
enacted in different historical and cultural contexts.
ii. SOVEREIGNTY

Meaning and Kinds: Monistic and Pluralistic Interpretations

The term ‘Sovereignty’ is derived from the Latin word ‘superanus’ which
means supreme or paramount. The exercise of supreme power by the state is
commonly called sovereignty which distinguishes the state from other associations.
Hence the concept of sovereignty is one of the most fundamental concepts in the study
of Political Science. According to J.W. Garner, sovereignty is that “characteristic of
the state in virtue of which it cannot be legally bound except by its own will or limited
by any other power than itself”. In fact, sovereignty arms the state with supreme legal
authority in both internal and external spheres. Internal sovereignty means the power
of the state to make and enforce law throughout its territory. It is the final power to
command and enforce obedience. In this sense sovereignty is not subject to any legal
limitations. This supreme authority is absolute over all individuals or associations of
individuals within the state. External sovereignty is viewed as the freedom of the state
from subjection or control by another state. In other words it means that the will of a
state is free and independent of the will of any other external power. If the state agrees
to certain limitations on its freedom of action in pursuance of an international treaty or
law, this does not destroy its sovereignty as these are only self-imposed limitations.

Jean Bodin defines sovereignty as the ‘absolute and perpetual power of

commanding in a state’, as the ‘supreme power over citizens and subjects unrestrained
by laws’. Thus Bodin places sovereign above the law, because he himself is the source
of law. Bodin treated the sovereign above law but not above duty and moral
responsibility. He imposed two important limitations on the powers of the sovereign.
They are: a) There are some fundamental laws (such as, the Salic law of France,
which excluded females from dynastic succession) and the sovereign could not
lawfully abrogate such laws; and b) private property being granted by the law of
nature, was inviolable. Therefore, the sovereign could not tax his subjects without
their consent. However, John Austin, the English Jurist is regarded as the greatest
exponent of the Monistic theory of sovereignty.
Kinds of Sovereignty

De-jure and De-facto Sovereignty. Sovereignty being a question of fact, a

distinction is sometimes made between de-jure and de-facto sovereignty. The de-jure
sovereign is the legal sovereign and the de-facto sovereign is the actual sovereign. A
de-facto sovereign which is actually obeyed by the people whether it has a legal status
or not. De-facto sovereignty may rest purely on physical force or religious influence,
while de-jure sovereignty has the legal right to command obedience. The distinction
between the two comes out sharply in times of revolution. For example soon after the
overthrow of the Chiang Kai-Shek’s regime in China, Communist China became de-
facto sovereign. But now, the international community have recognized it. Then it
may be regarded as both de-facto and de-jure.

Titular and Real Sovereign

By titular sovereign we mean a sovereign in name only. This term is used to

designate a king or monarch who have ceased to exercise real authority and has
become a symbol of the state. The Queen in England is an example. The real
sovereign in Britain is the cabinet headed by the Prime Minister, which exercises the
real power on behalf of the Queen.

Legal Sovereign

The legal sovereign is the supreme law-making body in the state. Only its
commands are laws. It can override prescriptions of divine law, the principles of
morality. It is ‘the determinate person’ referred to in Austin’s definition of
sovereignty. The best example of such sovereign is found in England in the King-in-
Parliament. Courts recognize only those laws which emanate from such a sovereign
authority.

Political Sovereign

In a democratic country while the legal sovereign is the supreme law making
and law-enforcing body, there is behind it the will of the people which is the ultimate
and final source of all authority. It is the authority from whose verdict there can be no
appeal. In the words of A.V. Dicey, “Beyond the sovereign which lawyer recognizes
there is no sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow - that body is politically
sovereign, the will of which is ultimately obeyed by the citizens of the state”. Gilchrist
defines it as “the sum total of the influences in a state which lie behind the law”. In a
country in which direct democracy prevails, legal and political sovereignty are almost
coincident. But in a representative or indirect democracy the legal sovereign and
political sovereign are different.

Popular Sovereignty

The concept of ‘popular sovereignty’ took shape in the 16th and 17th centuries.
The idea was upheld in ancient Rome by Ciero, who was inspired by the stoic
principle of a natural law and human equality. According to the doctrine of popular
sovereignty, ultimate authority rests with the people. The doctrine became the corner-
stone of the teachings of the French philosopher Rousseau. Rousseau propounded it in
his famous concept of the ‘General Will’. His theory exercised a great influence on
the French and American revolutions. The doctrine received further impetus from the
growth of democracy in the 18th and 19th centuries, when it came to be accepted as
the logical foundation of modern democratic government. The theory of popular
sovereignty is mainly based on two fundamental principles – (a) the government does
not exist for its own good. It exists for the good of the people. (b) if people’s wishes
are deliberately violated, they can resort to revolution. Both these principles of the
theory of popular sovereignty have contributed much to the development of political
theory.

Monistic Theory of Sovereignty

Although the theory of sovereignty emerged only recently the idea of it goes
back to Aristotle, who spoke of the supreme power of the state. After Aristotle
political philosophers like Jean Bodin, Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke
and Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote about sovereignty. Bodin defined sovereignty as
“the supreme power of the state over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law”. But
the classical exposition of sovereignty is given by John Austin(1790-1859), the
famous English Jurist.
 Austin stated his theory of sovereignty in his ‘Province of Jurisprudence’,
published in 1832. According to G.H. Sabine, Austin’s primary object was to build up
“an exact juristic terminology and to present a clear outline of the organization of a
government’s legal powers”. Austin develops his theory of sovereignty on the basis of
his concept of lawas “a command given by a superior to an inferior”. Therefore, he
defines sovereignty in the following words: “If a determinate human superior, receives
habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate human superior
is sovereign in that society, and that society (including the superior) is a society
political and independent”.

Austin’s definition of sovereignty gives us the idea that in every free and
political society, there is some person or body of persons who in the ultimate analysis
can compel obedience. Thus in every independent political community there exists a
sovereign power or in other words, sovereignty is an essential attribute of an
independent political society. Secondly, the sovereign is a determinate person or body
of persons. It cannot be an indefinite body or a vague concept. Thirdly, the power of
the sovereign is legally unlimited. Fourthly, the obedience rendered to the sovereign is
habitual and not casual. Fifthly, the power of the sovereign is indivisible. And finally,
whatever the sovereign commands is law. Thus the most important characteristics of
the Austinian theory of sovereignty are absoluteness, all-comprehensiveness,
universality, permanence, inalienability, exclusiveness and indivisibility.

The sovereign state is said to be absolute and unlimited. There is no power on

earth which can bind it. It is absolutely independent of any compulsion or interference
on the part of other states. Treaties, international understandings and conventions etc
do not destroy sovereignty, in as well as there is no compelling power behind them.
The sovereign power is universal and all comprehensive. It is supreme over all
persons, associations and things within the state. No person or body of persons can
claim exemption as a matter of right. Inalienability means that a sovereign state cannot
give away any of its essential elements without destroying itself. A state may cede
part of its territory to another state. By so doing it surrenders its sovereign as such.
Further, sovereignty is as permanent as the state itself. So long as the state lasts
sovereignty lasts. The two are inseparable. Finally sovereignty is indivisible. Thus
Gettell writes “If sovereignty is not absolute, no state exists; if sovereignty is divided,
more than one state exists”.

Austin’s theory of sovereignty has been criticized by several writers.

According to Sir Henry Maine, sovereignty does not reside in a determinate human
superior. On the basis of historical evidence Maine argued that in many empires of the
East there was nothing corresponding to “the determinate superior of Austin”. He
refers to customs in India which controlled the people and rules alike. Custom is the
outcome of ages and not the command of a determinate superior and thus sovereignty
has never been absolute.

Secondly, Maine contended that Austin’s theory is inconsistent with the idea of
‘popular sovereignty’. In fact, it is an antithesis of Rousseau’s doctrine that General
Will is sovereign. Austin’s theory ignores the power of public opinion-exerted through
legislature, political parties, press etc.

Thirdly, Monistic theory of sovereignty is criticized on the ground that it

ignores the distinction between legal and political sovereign and fails to discover the
sovereign in modern states. This is mainly because in modern states governmental
powers are divided among legislature, executive and judiciary.

Fourthly, according to critics absolute sovereignty is an illusion. The sovereign

may be legally unlimited but there are always political and historical limits to what he
can do. The modern concept of internationalism has also made the Austinian theory
incompatible. In the international sphere there is no ‘determinate human superior’, for
all states are equal as well as sovereign. Thus Austin’s concept of sovereignty
becomes a glorious myth.

Finally the Pluralists criticized the Monistic notion that the various associations
are dependent for their existence upon the will of the state. It is argued on the contrary
that associations grow naturally. They have a will of their own. The Pluralists wants
sovereignty to be limited in the interest of other associations. Thus according to
Harold J. Laski “because society is federal, authority must also be federal”.
 We may therefore conclude that Austinian theory of sovereignty is unrealistic
and is not valid for political theory. As Henry Maine said, “a despot with a disturbed
brain is the sole conceivable example of such sovereignty”. It is evident that Austin
has ignored the social forces and influences which lie at the back of legal sovereignty.
However, it may be admitted that Austin’s theory remains a clear and logical
exposition of the legal nature of sovereignty.

Pluralistic Theory Sovereignty

The Pluralistic theory of sovereignty is of recent origin. It is the result of the

social and political developments of the 19th century, especially that of democracy
and industrialization. Pluralism is a reaction against the ‘absolute’ or ‘monistic’ theory
of state as given by Bodin, Hobbes, Hegel, Bentham and John Austin. The chief
exponents of the Pluralistic concept of sovereignty are Leon Duguit (1859-1928),
Hugo Krabbe (1857-1936), A.D. Lindsay (1879-1952), Ernest Barker (1874-1960),
Harold J. Laski (1893-1950) and R.M. MacIver (1882-1970). According to the
Pluralists human life is multifaceted and the state alone cannot satisfy all the needs of
man. The authority of the state is not absolute or sovereign. Thus J.N. Figgs called the
traditional theory of sovereignty as a “venerable superstition”.

According to ‘A Dictionary of the Social Sciences’ (ed. Julius Gould and

William L. Kolb) Political pluralism refers to those doctrines which assert that certain
groups in society (eg. Family, church, union, local government) embody important
social values prior to and independent of their authorization or approval by the state.
Pluralistic theory of sovereignty is broadly based on this concept of Political
pluralism.

As a pluralist Harold J. Laski, pleaded for a system which would recognize the
complete autonomy of groups and deny the state any claim to absolute sovereignty. To
him the group is real in the same sense as the state is and the theory of “unlimited and
irresponsible state is incompatible with the interests of humanity”. Laski does not use
the term ‘sovereignty’. In its place he uses the term ‘authority’. And authority in
modern democratic state is federal in nature and divisible. He was of the opinion that
the concept of the sovereignty of the state would also pass away just as the divine
right of the kings had. To him the only state to which one owe allegiance is the state in
which he discovers moral adequacy.

The modern state, according to Laski, is pluralistic, responsible and

constitutional. It is directive rather than dominating. Its power is diffused in territorial
and functional groups. Actually the state is an association of associations, with the
special function of co- ordination. In this later work “Crisis in the Theory of State”,
Laski modifies his earlier views on Pluralism. Here he say that the Pluralist theory
does not adequately take not of the state as an expression of class relations in society.
Sovereignty, he now opines, had to be accepted as necessary unless there is
socialization of means of production and classless society comes into existence. Hence
he assigns to the state, the status of a co-ordinating authority.

R.M. MacIver in his ‘Modern State’ criticizes the Legal theory of sovereignty
because it speaks in terms of power and not of service. To him the conception of
Monistic theory of sovereignty is dangerously false. He argued that the State has
‘definite limits, definite powers and responsibilities’. Associations are as native to the
soil of society as the state itself. The State is not their creator. The function of the
State is merely to give “a form of unity to the whole system of social relationship”.

As a critique of Pluralistic theory of sovereignty R.N. Gilchrist opined that the

logical consequence of Pluralism is chaos. To him “Pluralism is a doctrine of
disruption and revolution, for it implies that international groups may have powers
superior to those of national states”. Thus according to Ernest Barker, whatever rights
the groups may claim or gain “the state will still remain a necessary adjusting force”.

In short, the pluralist theory sought to redefine the nature of the state as one of
the several associations of human beings operating in society to secure the
multifarious interests of individuals. In view of this, it encouraged a new role for the
state as an arbiter over conflicting claims of different associations. It also repudiated
the exclusive and the absolute claim of the state to an individuals’ allegiance. It
insisted that the state should compete with other human associations to establish its
claim to superior authority.
 iii. POLITICAL SYSTEM

System Analysis System analysis emerged after the Second World War with
Behaviouralist movement in political science. It was some leading American social
scientists like David Easton, Gabriel Almond and Morton A. Kaplan who introduced
systems analysis in social sciences. They got inspiration from the natural sciences.
Systems analysis is different from systems theory. Systems theory consists of various
concepts such as political system, inputs, outputs feedback, environment etc. When
the systems theory is applied to a specific situation it becomes systems analysis. In
other words, systems analysis is systems theory in action.

The term ‘system’ has been defined differently by different thinkers. Ludwig
Von Bertalanffy defines a system as “a set of elements standing in interaction.” Arther
D. Hall and Robert E. Fagen defines it as “a set of objects together with relations
between the objects and between their attitude”. In the opinion of Morton A. Kaplan, a
brief and nontechnical description of the object of systems analysis would include “the
study of a set of inter-related variables as distinguished from the environment of the
set and of the ways in which this set is maintained under the impact of environmental
disturbances”. Thus a system is a whole consisting of parts or elements which have
some characteristic relationship with one another and which interact with one another.
A system is a set of interactions taking place within itself. It means that if the
properties of one component change all the other components and the system itself
will be affected. Again there is the existence of boundaries in a system. The system
starts somewhere and stops somewhere. It operates within an environment. It is also
comprehensive in the sense that it includes all the interactions; inputs as well as
outputs. The system also has a tendency towards equilibrium.

System analysis identifies the field of politics as an independent system i.e

independent of the remainder of the society. The remainder of the society is viewed as
constituting the environment for the political system. A system consists of all those
elements or variables which remain inter dependent on each other. This means that a
change made at some points brings about changes in other parts. A system remains in
a state of equilibrium which means that it has a tendency to maintain itself through
various processes whenever if meets with some disturbance. System analysis is an
approach which considers politics as a set of interactions which take place within an
environment, but the system is analytically distinct from the environment. It is a
particular method of describing and analyzing political behavior and while doing so it
has evolved a number of concepts like systems, subsystem, boundary, environment,
input output conversion, process, feedback etc.

The basic concepts of the General Systems Theory fall under three categories.
They are concepts of a descriptive nature, concepts intended to highlight the factors
which regulate and maintain systems and concepts concerning dynamics of the
system. Concepts of a descriptive nature include those concepts which differentiate
between open systems or closed systems or between organismic systems and
nonorganismic systems. The understanding of the working of the internal organization
of the system, concepts of boundary, inputs and outputs etc. come under this category.

The second category of concepts deal with factors responsible for regulating
and maintaining the various systems. It includes notions of stability and equilibrium.
These concepts are connected with the progress of regulation and maintenance of
systems. It also includes feedback repair and reproduction. Finally there are concepts
which focus on change or dynamics. They fall under the third category. Change is
both non-disruptive and disruptive. Non disruptive change occurs due to responses to
altered environmental conditions. This may lead us to study purposes, goals and
technology of the systems. The understanding of disruptive change involves fine
distinctions between notions of disruption, dissolution and breakdown along with the
study of such concepts as systemic crisis, stress and strain, overload or decay.

In the analysis of political phenomena, political scientists can use the concepts
that have been developed in the general systems theory. The stability of a political
system depends on equilibrium. The equilibrium itself may be stable or unstable. The
understanding of the stability of a system necessarily involves the study of other
variables which tend to strengthen or weaken stability. The systems analysis can also
be used to understand systemic changes or systemic breakdowns. The survival
capacity of a system depends on its adoptability. Again systems analysis is useful for
normative purposes. Remedial steps can be taken in time for saving a system from
collapse.

The purpose of systems analysis is political science is to make description more

scientific and to use it for theory building. In a society there are different kinds of
interactions. A particular set of such interactions constitute the political system. What
distinguishes the political system from the non-political system is binding nature of
political decisions. The most important political theorist who formulated theories
about political system is David Easton. According to Easton politics deals with the
authoritative allocations of values of society. By this Easton means that the political
decisions are of overriding validity and are accepted as binding on all subjects of the
political system. The family, political parties, students organizations etc., are also
making authoritative allocation of values for their members. But Easton calls them
political sub-systems. He is concerned with the authoritative allocation of values for
the society as a whole. This is the function of a political system.

Outside the political system there exist other systems such as social,
psychological, economic etc. All these outside systems constitute the environment of
the political system. The political system is in constant interaction with its
environment and yet it is different from other systems. The environment may be
divided into two parts – the intra-societal and the extra-societal. The intra-societal
environment consists of those systems in the same society other than the political
system. The systems other than the political system are not engaged in the
authoritative allocation of values. The intra societal system includes economy, culture,
social structure or personalities. They shape and influence the conditions under which
a political system itself must operate. The extra societal environment includes all
those systems which lie outside a given society. It includes international political
systems and the international economic systems. Really they have their impact on a
given political system. Thus the intra societal and the extra societal constitute the
environment of a political system.

The system manages stability and change as a result of the balance between
inputs and outputs. The inputs are the factors which affect the working of a political
system. They are in the form of demands and supports. Demands affect the policies of
the system while supports enable a political system to carry out its goals. For the
smooth running of the political system there should be proper balance between
demands and supports. The outputs of a political system are the authoritarian
decisions and actions of the leaders of the system that bear on the allocation of values
for the system. Feedback is the conversion of outputs into inputs. Feedback really
completes the cycle of political system and makes it a dynamic and regenerative
operation.

Every political system possesses regulatory mechanisms of its own which

prevent the excess demands from entering the system. First of all there are informal
political structures which serve as gate keepers in the political system. The political
parties and pressure groups screen the demands flowing from environment and decide
which of them should be acted upon. Secondly every society has certain cultural
mechanisms and socio- cultural norms, and demands which are not in harmony with
them remain unacceptable. Thirdly a political system can develop a number of
communication channels through which demands may get scattered widely and thus
get diluted. These mechanisms really regulate at a given time does not exceed the
handling capacity of the political system.

It is David Easton in his article “An Approach to the Analysis of Political

Systems” (1957) first developed a systematic framework for the study of politics on
the basis of the systems analysis approach. His systems analysis can be use for
studying all kinds of political systems, democratic and otherwise. Thus according to
Oran R. Young “Easton’s systems analysis is undoubtedly the most inclusive
systematic approach so far constructed specifically for political analysis by a political
scientist.

Political System: Characteristics and functions

The concept of System came to Political Science from biology through

anthropology and sociology. Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton exercised great
influences on the use of the concept of system in political analysis. They influenced
political scientists like Gabriel Almond, David Easton, Karl Deutsch and Abraham
Kaplan and others.

The concept of political system has assumed great importance today because it
refers to the study of government in the empirical dimensions and also from a strictly
interdisciplinary standpoint. This new term, Political System, reflects a new way of
looking at political phenomena. In the past, the focus of study of political science was
on formal institutions like state and government. Extra political factors or conditions
which affect political events and institutions were completely ignored. Later, political
scientists became aware of the fact that in all societies the formal governmental
institutions are shaped and limited by informal groups, their attitude and behavior.
Since these informal factors influence the political processes the study of it is also
necessary. In this context the study of political system offers more comprehensive
framework for political analysis.

According to the system analysts, society is characterized by the existence of

different systems. According to Robert A. Dahl, “Any collection of elements that
interact in some way with one another can be considered a system: a galaxy, a football
team, a legislature, a political party”. Political system is only one such system and can
be identified by “any persistent pattern of human relationships that involves to a
significant extent control, influence, power or authority.” A model of political system
was first developed by David Easton, an American political scientist. Easton defined
politics as the “authoritative allocation of values” which broadly constitute the
political process. It is in this sense, that Political system has been described as an open
system. In other words, “allocation of values” is made because there are
corresponding ‘demands’ from the society or environment. Easton says “a political
system is a system which is part of the total social system and yet which for purpose
of analysis and research is temporarily set apart.” Further to Easton “a political system
is that system of interaction in any society through which binding and authoritative
allocations of value are made and implemented” Again he says that all those kinds of
activities involved in the formulation and execution of social policy and the policy
making process constitute the political system.
 Max Weber defines the Political System as “a human community that claims
the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given society.” In the
opinion of Max Weber legitimate force is the thread that runs through the actions of
the political system. When we say that political system is concerned with the use of
legitimate force it doesn’t mean that the political system is concerned only with force
violence or compulsion. It is also concerned with goals such as national expansion or
security, social welfare and such other developmental programmes. But all these relate
to law making and law enforcement. For example demand for public recreation
facilities which is an input is supported by taxation and any violation of this regulation
is a legal offense. The input functions and output functions are the functions
performed by a political system. Political socialization, interest articulation, interest
aggregation and political communication are input functions, whereas rulemaking,
rule application and rule adjudication re output functions.

Almond defined a Political system as “that system of interactions to be found

in all independent societies, which performs the functions of integration and
adaptation (both internally vis-à-vis other societies) by means of the employment or
threat of employment of more or less legitimate physical compulsion”. Thus Political
system is not the only system that makes rules and enforces them. But it is the only
system that uses compelling force or coercive force. Almond further explains that the
Political system includes not only governmental structures such as legislatures, courts
and administrative agencies, but all structures in their political aspects. Among these
are traditional structures such as kinship ties, caste groupings and anomic phenomena
such as demonstrations, riots, assassinations as well as formal organizations like
political parties, interest groups and communication media.

According to Gabriel Almond, a political system has the three main properties.
They are:

a) Comprehensiveness: It implies that a political system includes all the

interactions – inputs as well as outputs – that affect the use of the threat or the use of
physical coercion.
 b) Interdependence: It implies that a change in one subset of interactions
produces changes in all other subsets as the working of political parties and pressure
groups and the functioning of the legislative and executive departments.

c) Existence of Boundaries: It implies that there are certain points where the
political system ends and other systems begin. It must also be noted that the
boundaries between society and polity differ from one political system to another.

Almond also elucidates five essential characteristics of a political system they

are:

1) Universality of Political Systems: It implies that all political systems

whether primitive or modern or whether developing or developed have political
structures. This means that they have a legitimate pattern of interaction by means of
which internal and external order is maintained.

2) Universality of political structures: All Political systems are characterized by

some political structures. These structures perform same functions, though with
varying degrees of frequency. It is a different thing that in advanced system political
structures perform specialized functions as compared to those where traditional
structures in the form of kinship or lineage groups still operate.

3) Universality of political functions: Every political system is characterized by

certain political functions. In every political society these structures perform political
functions. These may be in the form of proper structures like legislature, executive
and judiciary or these may be in the form of infrastructures as political parties, interest
groups, mass media agencies etc.

4) Multifunctionality of political structures: The political structure is

multifunctional. What is peculiar to modern political system is a relatively high degree
of structural differentiation. This may be seen in different parts of political structure
such as the legislative, the executive bureaucracy, the courts, the election system, the
political parties and organized interest group.
 5) Culturally mixed character of political systems: All political systems have a
mixture of formal and informal structures. Even the modern political systems have
many traits of a traditional system. For instance, the proceedings of the British
Parliament start after short prayer. Similarly, even the most primitive political systems
have some traits of a modern system like codification of law and administration of
justice through courts.

Robert A. Dahl gives us an eightfold classification of the characteristics of a

political system such as:

(i) Uneven control of Political Resources

In all political systems, control over political resources is distributed unevenly.

Political resources are the means by which one person can influence the behavior of
other persons. This uneven distribution is the result of many factors. Specialization of
functions really creates differences in access to different political resources. For
example in America a secretary of state has more access to information about the
foreign policy than an ordinary citizen. Again because of inherited difference all
people do not start life with the same access to resources. Differences in motivation
also lead to differences in skills and in resources. Because of these reasons it is
impossible to create a society in which political resources can be distributed with
perfect equality among individuals.

(ii) The Quest for political influence

Some members of the political system seek to gain influence over the policies,
rules and decisions enforced by the government. People seek political influence
because control over the government helps them to achieve their goals.

(iii) Uneven distribution of political influence

Political influence is distributed unevenly among the members of a political

system. Some people may have more political resources with which they can
influence the government. People with more influence over the government can use
their influence to gain more political resources.
 (iv) The Pursuit and Resolution of Conflicting Aims

School of Distance Education Members of a political system have conflicting

aims, which are dealt with by the government of the political system. Conflict and
consensus are the important aspects of political systems. People who live together
never agree about everything, but if they are to continue to live together they cannot
wholly disagree in their aims.

(v) The Acquisition of legitimacy

Leaders in a political system try to ensure that the governmental decisions

should be widely accepted not only from fear of violence or punishment but also from
a belief that it is morally right and proper to do so. The government is said to be
legitimate if the people believe that the structure, procedures, acts and policies of
government possess the quality of rightness of propriety to make binding rules. When
the influence of the leaders is clothed with legitimacy it becomes authority. Really
leaders in a political system try to convert their influence to authority.

(vi) Development of an ideology

Leaders in a political system usually formulate a set of doctrines to explain and

to justify their leadership in the system. A set of such doctrines is called a political
ideology. By formulating doctrines, they can endow their leadership with legitimacy
and thus they can convert their political influence into authority. Some of the leaders
formulate doctrines to justify the political system itself.

(vii) The impact of other political systems

A political system is influenced by other political systems. A system does not

exist in isolation. The actions of one system are affected by the part or probable
actions of other systems. A city cannot ignore the existence of a national government.
A national government should adjust its activities with other national governments.

(viii) The Inevitability of change

All political systems undergo change. In fact all political philosophers have
pointed out the mutability of political system. There is no permanent political system.
It changes according to the need of time. Thus in the history of political system no
political system has even been immutable.

Structural Functional Analysis

Structural functional analysis was originated in the sphere social anthropology,

in the writings of Radcliffe-Brown and B. Malinowski. Then it was developed in the
field of sociology by Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton and Marion Levy. Gabriel
Almond and his associates developed it into a tool of political analysis.

In this framework of analysis the focus of attention are the ‘structures’ and
‘functions’. Structures are patterned behavior and need not necessarily be formalized
and located in concrete institutions. Functions are the relevant consequences of
activity. In structural-functional analysis one identifies the important structures in a
political system and then seeks to discover the functions of those identified structures.

Social theorists subscribing to this approach lay emphasis on this point that,
indeed, no society “can survive or develop unless it has a political system performing
such a function, that is, we might hold that a political system is a functional requisite
of a society.” “The survival and maintenance of a social system require that society
must be having a well-functioning economic system, a legal system, a system of
values and so on. In this scheme, the political system “would appear as that sub-
system performing the distinctive function of making legitimate policy decisions, or to
use shorter expression, the function of goal attainment’ for the society of which it is a
part.

With a view to understand the implications and nature of the structural

functional analysis, we should look at its basic assumptions and postulates.

1) It takes the society as a single, interconnected system each element of which

performs a specific function. The basic feature of such a system is the interaction of its
components for the maintenance of its equilibrium. As Carl Hempel says: “The kind
of phenomenon that a functional analysis is involved to explain is typically some
recurrent activity or some behavior pattern in an individual or a group. And the
principal objective of the analysis is to exhibit the contribution which the behavior
pattern makes to the preservation or development of the individual or the group in
which it occurs. Thus, functional analysis seeks to understand a behavior pattern on a
socio-cultural institution in terms of the role it plays in keeping the given system in
proper working order and thus maintaining it as a going concern”

2) If society is a system as a whole, it has its parts that are interrelated. A social
system has a dominant tendency towards stability that is maintained by virtue of build
in mechanism. If there are deviations or tensions, they are resolved. Thus, change in a
social system is not sudden or revolutionary but gradual and adjustive.

3) Underlying the whole social structure there are broad aims and principles
that are observed by the members of the society. Thus comes the factor of value
consensus with its ongoing usefulness even if this was unrecognized by those who
were involved in them.

As its very name suggests, the structural functional analysis revolves round two
key concepts – structures and functions. Let us, therefore, study the subtle
implications of this approach after studying the key concepts separately.

Concept of structures

While functions deal with the consequences involving objectives as well as

processes of the patterns of actions, structures refer to those arrangements within the
system which perform the functions. Single function may be fulfilled by a complex
combination of structures. Just as any given structural arrangement may perform
functions which might have different kinds of consequences for the structure. For
instance, a political party is a structure within the political system that performs many
functions, including those of communicating the wishes of the electorate to the
government, reforming the electorate on important political issues and allowing for
wider participation by more people in the political system. The party helps to maintain
the system because it performs these tasks but other structures such as pressure groups
or formal institutions of the government may also carry out these functions, and in
other political systems may carry out these functions in the absence of political parties

Concept of functions
 The basic questions are involved in the concept of functions; what basic
functions are discharged in any given system, by what instruments those functions are
performed and under what conditions the performance of these functions is done.
Defining this term Young says “functions deal ultimately with objective
consequences, but they may be perceived as objectives, processes or results from
various points of view and for various purposes.” Abetter and more precise definition
is thus given by Robert Merton “Functions are those observed consequences which
make for the adaptation or readjustment of a given system, and dys-functions those
observed consequences which lessen the adaptation or adjustment of the system”

As a model adapted from the natural sciences, functionalism accepts the

‘organismic’ analogy that a social or political unit will have certain adaptive qualities
in contrast to a cybernetic or mechanistic analogy. Living organisms inherently
possess organismic properties including the capacity to reproduce themselves, the
capacity to perceive and learn, and the capacity to adapt and adjust to new
circumstances or changes in the environment. David E. Apter dwells on these
interpretations and then affirms that the functional analysis of politics “begins by
assuming that these properties which inhere in human beings have their counterparts
in communities. Societies produce themselves. They perceive and learn. They can
within limits, adapt to problems. Societies also adjust to change by means of
collective problem solving. They have a built-in tendency of politics and this is
certainly the most ambitions claim that has been made for functionalism by political
scientists.”

It is therefore, clear that structural functionalism implies an applied form of

empirical functionalism to the study of political phenomenon. While in ec lectic
functionalism, the concept of functions remains merely one of several equally
significant categories and in empirical functionalism functions become the focus for
the analysis of a limited range of phenomena structural functionalism aims at
providing a scientific theory of the political system. It is structural functionalism that
sets out in search of the particular structures that perform requisite functions. It is on
account of this that the major descriptive take of structural functionalism is said “to
indicate what structures contribute to satisfaction of what functionally requisites.” As
such, structural functionalism becomes a ‘requisite analysis’ in an analytic framework
that “specifies a set of functions as necessary and sufficient for the persistence of a
system”.

Almond and his associates argue that all political systems regardless of their
type, must perform a specific set of tasks if they are to remain in existence as systems
in working order or equilibrium, i.e, as ‘ongoing systems’. These are the functional
requirements of the system. They pointed out that in various political systems, these
functions may be performed by different kinds of political structures and , sometimes
even by structures which are not overtly recognized as being, primarily political.

Accordingly, Almond and his associates discerned four input functions and
three output functions. Input functions are:

(i) Political socialization and recruitment: Political socialization is the

process whereby an individual acquires attitudes and orientations
towards political phenomena. It also implies the process whereby
society transmits political norms and beliefs from one generation to the
next. Recruitment stands for the process whereby political groups obtain
members for various important roles in the political process. This may
be either by way of addition to the existing members or as replacement
for other members.
(ii) (Interest articulation: It implies the process whereby, opinions, attitudes,
beliefs, preferences etc. are converted into coherent demands on the
political system, interest groups are more suited to perform this function.
(iii) Interest aggregation: It is the process whereby various divergent
interests are collated and translated into concrete demands of a very
large section of society, policy proposals and programmes of action etc.
Political parties are most suited to perform this function.
(iv) Political Communication: it is the process whereby components of a
political system, such as, individuals, groups and institutions, transmit
 and receive information regarding the functioning of the political
system. Mass media is most suited to perform this function.

Almond enumerated the output functions as:

(i) Rule making

(ii) Rule application, and
(iii) Rule adjudication

It can be also seen that the input functions link the political system to the non-
governmental sub-systems in a society such as family, schools parties and pressure
groups etc. the output functions are wholly governmental. In fact he formulation here
looks like a reiteration of the traditional separation of powers – legislature, executive,
judiciary – theory.

So it should be emphasized that structural functional analysis is a

distinguishable approach primarily because of the selective aspects of social reality
that it seeks to describe, explain and predict. It describes social reality largely in terms
of structures, processes, mechanism and functions, and these four concepts are of
particular importance in the laws and theories that are developed.

Structural functional analysis has opened up a new mode of political analysis

without being unduly restrained by institutional concerns. It has been particularly
found useful for comparative politics. On the other hand, structural functional analysis
has been criticized on the ground that it is ideologically inclined towards
conservatism. It is primarily concerned with systems survival. Further, it is alleged
that the structural-functional analysis projects western-type liberal-democratic-system
as a standard for institution building in developing societies rather than encouraging
them to build their institutions according to their own requirements.

Input-Output Analysis

System analysis has its own derivatives in structural-functional and input-

output analysis. Input-output analysis is associated with the name of David Easton of
the Chicago University. In Easton’s view there can be a theoretical study of politics to
explain the conditions of survival (persistence) of political systems. The problem of
explaining the general question of “how political systems generally persist” raises the
issue of devising a theoretical system for the interpretation of the “life processes” of
the system. It is in this context that Easton develops his input-output analysis.

Easton views the Political system as basically an input-output mechanism –

“just a means whereby certain kinds of inputs are converted into outputs.” Inputs can
be seen as the ‘demands’ made upon the system and the supports of the system itself.
Easton characterized demands as the raw materials out of which finished products
called decisions are manufactured. Supports constitute those structures and processes
that enable the system to cope with the various demands made upon it. Easton views
supports as the energy in the form of actions or orientations enabling the political
system to convert the demands into authoritative decisions and policies.

As demands are processed ‘outputs’ flow out of the system into environment.
Demands can come as a result of the ‘feedback’ process in response to earlier system
outputs. Also, from within the political system itself influences can be brought to bear
on the system. Easton calls these ‘with inputs’. In Easton’s terminology the political
system receives ‘inputs’ from the ‘environment’ in the form of ‘demands’ and
‘supports’. It produces ‘outputs’ in the form of ‘policies’ and ‘decisions’. The
‘outputs’ flow back into the environment through a ‘feedback’ mechanism, giving rise
to fresh ‘demand’ etc.

Feedback is essentially a communication process which produces action in

response to information about the state of the political system or its environment, to
structures within the system in such a way that the future action of those structures is
modified in consequence. The results of such modification may, in turn, produce
further modifications, and so on. The feedback channel helps the political system in
approaching its goals.”.

In this context Almond classified demands into:

(i) Demands for allocation of goods and services such as demands for wages,
and hour laws, educational opportunities, road and transportation.
 (ii) Demands for the regulation of behaviours such as provisions for public
safety, controls over markets and rules pertaining to marriage, health and sanitation.

(iii) Demands for participation in the political system as the right to vote, hold
office, petition government bodies and officials and to organize political associations,
and

(iv) Demands for communication and information such as demands for the
affirmation of norms and communication of policy intent from political elites.

Examples of support classifications are:

(i) Material supports such as the payment of taxes, labour on public work or
military service.

(ii) Obedience to law and regulations

(iii) Participatory support such as voting, political discussions and other forms
of political activity.

(iv) Attention paid to governmental communication and the manifestation of

respect to public authority, symbols and ceremonials.

A proper balance should be maintained between the demands and supports for
the smooth running of the political system.

Outputs are the authoritative decisions and actions of the system’s leaders so
that they bear on the allocation of values for the system. The outputs are the results of
the conversion process acting upon a great variety of demands and supports. In simple
words, outputs are the transactions initiated by the departments of the political system
that usually correspond too closely to the supports list above, though they may or may
not respond to demands depending on the kind of the political system obtaining there.
In this regard four processes may be pointed out:

(i) Extractions which may take the form of tribute, booty, taxes or personal
services.
 (ii) Regulations of behavior which may take a variety of forms and affect the
whole scope of human behavior and relations.

(iii) Allocation or distribution of goods and services, opportunities, honours

and the like and

(iv) Symbolic outputs, including affirmation of values, displays of political

symbols, statement of policy intents etc.

In short outputs are primarily means of generating specific support for the
political system.

Easton’s concern for system persistence logically raises the problem of coping
with ‘stress’. Two main types of stress identified are: (a) demand stress and (b)
support stress. Demand stress arises when the system is subjected to ‘demand-input
overload’. The concept of overload has to be related to the volume of demands, the
content or nature of the demands, or the sudden inflow of demands at some particular
point of time straining the system. Support stress refers to loss or at least an erosion of
the support given to the system by its members. Variability of support is bound to
affect the destinies of the political authorities often called governments and the
political community. Such form of stress may be due to conflicts and divisions among
system members, system failure to produce outputs in response to demands, or
structural (institutional) failures to cope with demands. According to Easton, for any
system there is ‘critical range’ beyond which stresses upon it affect its functioning in
such a way that the system tends to disintegrate.

The system model and its derivative input-output analysis marks an

improvement on earlier approaches to political analysis. It has great explanatory value
when applied to the analysis of functioning political systems. But at the same time
critics points out that, like structural-functional analysis input-output analysis also
tries to maintain status quo. It seeks solutions to the problems concerning persistence,
adaptation and regulation of a political system. All these general characteristics of
input-output analysis are well summed up by Oran Young in these words. “Above all
the political system is seen as a conversion process performing work, producing
outputs, and altering its environment, with a continuous exchange between a political
system and its environment based on the steady operation of the dynamic processes.
At the same time, the approach provides numerous concepts for dealing both with
political dynamics in the form of systemic adaptation processes and even with
purposive redirection in the form of goal-changing feedback. With this perspective it
is possible to deal with changes in the system itself, although the approach focuses
mainly on changes whose principal results are only to modify or streamline the
system. It is, therefore important to observe that the input-output approach does not
dwell extensively on a third level of change and dynamics focusing on broader- scale
and more far-reaching alterations. Revolutionary change is hardly mentioned and even
the possibilities of evolution to new systemic forms are not covered in detail. Though
the adaptive consequences of phenomena like growth could certainly be treated under
this approach, their broader aspects of qualitative change do not find much place
therein