politics and society - amazon...

32 Call: 09540865705, Email: [email protected], Visit: www.sociologyias.com

Unit-VII (Politics and Society)

Politics and Society

Sociological Theories of Power

(i) Constant Sum Theory – Marx (ii) Variable Sum Theory – Parsons (iii)Elite Theory – Machiavelli, Pareto, Moska, C.W. Mills

1) Constant Sum Theory – Constant Sum Theory of power believes that the quantity or amount of power remains constant or unchangeable, hence in any society those who are powerful they are always at the cost of others. Marx believes that source of power in any society comes from the control over economic resources. Ideally, the resources of society belongs to all or community but illegitimately one group has established control over surplus production and by the virtue of their economic position they have controlled other institutions like law, religion, government etc.. Marx called this class as haves’ whereas those who do not have control over economy they also lose control over other institutions and hence they are have-nots. Marx believed that in any society those who become powerful are always at the cost of other because power is a constant phenomena. Ralph Dahrendorf also supported the constant sum theory and believed that there are two groups in every society - One who holds the authority, second, those who do not have. Those who have the authority tries to maintain it over those who do not have. He believes the scarcity or constant nature of authority is responsible for conflicts in all societies. 2) Variable Sum Theory – This theory supported by Talcott Parsons contrary to Marx, he believes that power is a variable phenomena. Since the source of power is values and values are not constant and keeps on varying, hence power is a variable concept. Unlike Marx, he believes that in any society individual gets power independently and not at the cost of others. For example, during medieval age, security of life and property was the value and usually king used to conform this and hence he was the only source of power. But over the period, education, culture, technology, religion, etc. emerged as the values. These values led to emergence of multi-dimensional power and those who conformed these values better than others became powerful. Hence in any society one does not get power at the cost of others because power is a variable phenomena.


3) Elite Theory - This theory was first proposed by the political Philosopher Machiavelli. By ‘Elite’, we mean a group of individual in minority found on the top in any respective field and capable enough to influence the whole respective sector on their will and wish. Machiavelli believes that the power always circulate between two sets of elites – Lion and Foxes. ‘Lions’ are brave, courageous, leadership, initiator, risk taking and lazy. And ‘Foxes’ are cunning and opportunist, he believes that power circulates between lions and foxes. The lion elites grab the power by the virtue of their mass appeal and leadership but over the period they lose their enthusiasm from the power and become lazy. During this time, foxes grab the opportunity and take away the power from the lion. Hence, the power circulates between the lion and the foxes and common man never gets chance to play any role at the power centre. Pareto in his book “The Circulation of Elites” identified two sets of elites - First, Speculators (lion) and second, Rentiers (Foxes). He identified these two sets of elites in economic field. The economic dominance circulates between the speculators and rentiers. He stated that “history is the graveyard of the aristocracies.” Mosca identified two set of elites i.e. Governing elites and Non-governing elites. The power circulates between two elites.


Power Elites C.W. Mills, an American sociologist, studied the power structure of US in 1940s and his book “The Power Elites” stated that American society is ruled by the power elites. He identifies three types of power elites in America. 1) Political Elites 2) Economical Elites 3) Military Elites These control the “command post”. He believed that though America is a democratic society but it is ruled by the elites because they have very strong nexus with each other because:

1) They all come from the eastern part of US 2) They all have middle class background 3) They all belong to Protestant faith.

He believed that the decision of bombing at Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II was the decision of power elites and not the common American. They took this decision to consolidate their own position because the political elites took the decision, economic elites made the bomb and military elites implemented it. This has strengthened their position in power. Criticism: In democratic American society, the theory of power elites seems to be an exaggeration of the influence of power elites. In a developed, aware America democracy, it is not an easy job for any authority to do anything against the wishes of the Americans. How C.W. Mills can say that the bombing of Hisroshima and Nagashaki was not the decision of Americans?

- If this decision was against the wishes of common American then how that political party got landslide victory in the next general election.

- In America as Tocqueville said there is no moral right of any individual to rule As, it is free for all and even the common can reach to the top post of America. Abraham Lincoln, Obama, Bobby Jindal, Condolezza Rice, are some of the examples which prove that American society is not ruled by the elites.

- It seems that C.W. Mills got confused with the power elites and pressure groups. Elites may influence the government but they cannot rule in democracy because it is based on taking care of the wishes of majority.

Conclusion - C.W. Mills theory is considered as a very important theory from elite perspective. He believed that even in democracy, the real power lies with the elites which though does not seem to be completely true but it cannot be rejected also. For example, during the US-Iraq War, it was believed that the oil lobby of US compelled US to attack Iraq and after the war the major oil contracts were given to the oil firms. Hence, partially the theory of C.W. Mills still holds relevance. But in any democracy, the wish of majority people cannot be ignored because they finally choose their government on the basis of


their commitment and performance. Thus, C.W. Mills theory is more applied in monarchy and despotic societies than the real practicing democracy.


Pressure Groups The concept of pressure group got its ground from the pluralistic theory of power which emphasize on dispersal of power. It is a hallmark of an open society. It is defined as a voluntary organization meant to voice their own interest or those who are outside the political circumference. In other words, a pressure group is an organized group of people that aims to influence public opinion or policies/actions of government. It acts as a channel of communication between the people and government. Almond and Coleman have divided pressure group into four types:

(i) Anomic pressure group: It rest on violation of law to make its demand heard. Example, ULFA.

(ii) Identity focused pressure group: It promote the parochial interest. Example, Caste group.

(iii) Institutional pressure group: It is present in recognized institutions with well established reputations. Example, University teacher’s association.

(iv) Associational pressure group: It is an association of members of a group having same features in common. Example, Bar association.

Maurice Duverger has divided them into promotional and protective pressure group. Reflecting on their role in democracy, Anthony Gidden term them as carrier of democracy and face of democracy. He doesn’t shy from reflecting on the dysfunctional role it can play at hands of parochial group. Thus, though pressure group reflects the maturation of political system of a nation but is a double edged sword. Types of pressure groups: There are various ways to classify pressure groups on the basis of their structure and organization. One of the ways has been given below. i. Interest Groups and Cause Groups ii. Insider and outsider groups i. Interest and Cause Groups The interest/cause classification is based on the purpose of the group in question. It therefore reflects the nature of the group’s goals, the kinds of people who belong to it, and their motivation for joining. Interest groups (sometimes called ‘sectional’, ‘protective’ or ‘functional’ groups) are groups that represent a particular section of society: workers, employers, consumers, an ethnic or religious group, and so on. Interest groups have the following features:

They are concerned to protect or advance the interests of their members


Membership is limited to people in a particular occupation, career or economic position

Members are motivated by material self-interest Trade unions, business corporations, trade associations and professional bodies are the prime examples of this type of group. They are called ‘sectional’ groups because they represent a particular section of the population. Some of the examples of interest groups are FICCI, CII, AITUC etc. Cause groups (sometimes called ‘promotional’, ‘attitude’ or ‘issue’ groups) are groups that are based on shared attitudes or values, rather than the common interests of its members. The causes they seek to advance are many and various. They range from charity activities, poverty reduction, education and the environment, to human rights, transparency in governance etc. Cause groups have the following features:

They seek to advance particular ideals or principles Membership is open to all Members are motivated by moral or altruistic concerns (the betterment of others)

Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan can be cited as a prime example of a cause group as it seeks to promote transparency in governance by creating pressure for the introduction of right to information to citizens. Other examples could be PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), India against Corruption. ii. Insiders and Outsiders The insider/outsider distinction is based on a group’s relationship to government. It therefore affects both the strategies adopted by a group and its status i.e. whether or not it is considered ‘legitimate’ or ‘established’. Insider groups are groups that are consulted on a regular basis by government. They operate ‘inside’ the decision-making process. They may also sit on government policy committees and agencies and have links to parliamentary select committees. Given all of the above insider pressure groups have a better chance creating an impact on how the policy shapes up as they are consulted at various stages of policy formulation. Some of the examples of insider groups are National Advisory Council, CII. Outsider groups on the other hands are the ones that are not so closely involved with the decision makers and who find it harder to get their voices heard in the higher echelons of policy making. They are kept, or choose to remain, at arm’s length from government. They therefore try to exert influence indirectly via the mass media or through public opinion campaigns. One of the examples of an outsider group is the association for democratic reforms or ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms) which has been pushing for reforms in the way representatives are elected by the citizens of India. But at times many groups employ both insider and outsider tactics. This certainly applies in the case of high-profile insider groups, which recognize that the ability to mount


public-opinion and media campaigns strengthens their hands when it comes to bargaining with government. Role/Functions of Pressure Groups Pressure groups carry out a range of functions. These include: Representation Political participation Education Policy formulation Policy implementation

Representation Pressure groups provide a mouthpiece for groups and interests that are not adequately represented through the electoral process or by political parties. This occurs, in part, because groups are concerned with the specific rather than the general. Whereas parties attempt to broaden their appeal, trying to catch (potentially) all voters, pressure groups can articulate the views or interests of particular groups and focus on specific causes. Some have even argued that pressure groups provide an alternative to the formal representative process through what has been called functional representation. However, questions have also been raised about the capacity of groups to carry out representation:

Groups have a low level of internal democracy, creating the possibility that they express the views of their leaders and not their members.

The influence of groups on government does not always reflect their membership size or their popular support.

Political Participation Pressure groups have become an increasingly important agent of political participation. Of UK citizens, 40–50 per cent belong to at least one voluntary association, and a large minority (20 per cent) belong to two or more. Moreover, a range of pressure groups, mainly outsider groups, seek to exert influence precisely by mobilizing popular support through activities such as petitions, marches, demonstrations and other forms of political protest. Such forms of political participation have been particularly attractive to young people. Education Much of what the public knows about politics it finds out through pressure groups of one kind or another. Many pressure groups, indeed, operate largely through their ability to communicate with the public and raise political consciousness. Groups therefore often devote significant resources to carrying out research, maintaining websites, commenting on government policy and using high-profile academics, scientists and even celebrities to get their views across. An emphasis is therefore placed on cultivating expert authority.


Policy Formulation Although pressure groups, by definition, are not policy-makers, this does not prevent many pressure groups from participating in the policy-making process. In particular, pressure groups are a vital source of information and advice to governments. Many groups are therefore regularly consulted in the process of policy formulation, with government policy increasingly being developed through policy networks. An example of such group is Observor Research Foundation, which works on policy issues primarily related to Foreign affairs. Policy Implementation The role of some pressure groups extends beyond trying to shape the content of public policy to playing a role in putting policy into practice. Not only do such links further blur the distinction between groups and government, but they also give the groups in question clear leverage when it comes to influencing the content of policy. However, questions have also been raised about the role of groups in implementing policy: Some have criticized such groups for being over-close to government, and therefore for endangering their independence. Others have argued that policy implementation gives groups unfair political leverage in influencing policy decisions. How Pressure Groups exert Influence Pressure groups are confronted by a wide range of ‘points of access’. Their choice of targets and methods, however, depends on two factors. First, how effective is a particular strategy likely to be? Second, given the group’s aims and resources, which strategies are available? Pressure groups can exert influence in a variety of ways. These include:

Ministers and civil servants Parliament Political parties Public opinion Direct action

Ministers and Civil Servants Ministers and civil servants work at the heart of the ‘core executive’, the network of bodies headed by the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which develop and make government policy. This is where power lies. Many groups therefore aspire to get in touch with senior civil servants and ministers to get some sort of influence over the policies while they are being implemented. Although such influence may involve formal and informal meetings with ministers, routine behind-the scenes meetings with civil servants and membership of policy committees may be the most important way of exerting influence. Parliament Groups that cannot gain access to the executive may look to exert influence through Parliament. In other cases, groups may use parliamentary lobbying to supplement contacts with ministers and civil servants. Although less can be achieved by influencing Parliament than by influencing the executive, changes can nevertheless be made to the details of legislation or the profile of a political issue. This can happen through influence


on, for instance, private members’ bills, parliamentary questions (written and oral) and select committee enquiries. Political Parties The most obvious way in which groups influence parties is through funding and donations. Public Opinion These strategies are adopted by outsider groups, although high-profile insider groups may also engage in public-opinion campaigning. The purpose of such strategies is to influence government indirectly by pushing issues up the political agenda and demonstrating both the strength of commitment and the level of public support for a particular cause. The hope is that government will pay attention for fear of suffering electoral consequences. Association for Democratic Reforms has helped in shaping public opinion to some extent by putting up details of political representatives of various political parties from each constituency on websites. Direct Action Direct action as a political strategy overlaps with some forms of public-opinion campaigning. However, whereas most political protests take place within the constitutional and legal framework, being based on established rights of freedom of speech, assembly and movement, direct action aims to cause disruption or inconvenience. Strikes, blockades, boycotts and sit-ins are all examples of direct action. Direct action may be violent or non-violent. A non-violent example of direct action is the protests organized at Ramleela Maidan by India against Corruption. People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy protested against the setting up of Koodankulam nuclear power plant. Are pressure groups becoming more powerful? Not all debates about pressure-group power focus on the power of individual groups. Others address the overall power of groups, and whether or not they have generally become more powerful. Commentators increasingly argue, for instance, that pressure groups have become more influential in recent years, perhaps even more influential than political parties. The rise of pressure-group power Those who argue that pressure groups have become more powerful usually draw attention to one of three developments: 1. The growth of cause groups. Looked at simply in terms of political participation, groups certainly appear to be becoming more important. This is best demonstrated by the growth of cause groups in particular. Some of the reasons cited for increase in the number of pressure groups are: i. Increased leisure time, both in terms of the shorter working week and more early retirement, has increased the number of people with time to devote to such activities


ii. Higher educational standards have increased the numbers of people with the organisational skills to contribute to pressure groups. iii. Changes in gender roles have removed many of the barriers to participation by women in pressure group activity iv. Membership of political parties has declined. It has been argued that this reflects the failure of the political parties adequately to reflect the needs of different groups of people in society, and that cause groups offer a more promising route for bringing about political change. 2. The widening of access points through devolution 3. Globalization. Globalization has strengthened pressure groups in a number of ways. In particular, there is general agreement that business groups have become more powerful in a global age. This is because they are able more easily to relocate production and investment, so exerting greater leverage on national governments. Such trends have strengthened pressures on governments to, for instance, cut business taxes and reduce corporate regulation. Another feature of globalization has been the emergence of NGOs, such as the World Development Movement and the World Social Forum, as major actors on the global stage. Some 2,400 NGOs, for example, took part in the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The decline of pressure groups: However, not everyone believes that pressure groups have become more important. Some even talk in terms of the decline in pressure-group power in recent years. Such arguments are usually based on one of two developments: 1. The end of corporatism. For some, the high point of pressure-group influence came in the 1970s (Especially in the case of developed countries). This was a period of so-called tripartite government or corporatism. Economic policy was therefore developed through a process of routine consultation and group bargaining. However, corporatism was dismantled in the 1980s and it has never been re-established. 2. A decline in meaningful and active participation. An alternative explanation of the decline of pressure groups challenges the idea that recent years have witnessed an upsurge in group activity. This suggests that while group membership may have increased, these members have become increasingly passive. Pressure Groups and Democracy How do pressure groups promote democracy? Pressure groups promote democracy in a number of ways. They: 1. Supplement electoral democracy 2. Widen political participation 3. Promote education


4. Ensure competition and debate Supplementing electoral democracy Pluralists often highlight the advantages of group representation over representation through elections and political parties. Pressure groups may either supplement electoral democracy (making up for its defects and limitations) or they may have replaced political parties as the main way in which people express their views and interests:

Pressure groups keep government in touch with public opinion between elections. One of the weaknesses of elections is that they only take place every few years. By contrast, pressure groups force the government to engage in an ongoing dialogue with the people, in which the interests or views of the various sections of society cannot be ignored. IAC’s anti-corruption movement was one such example where the pressure groups made the government aware of rising sentiment in general public against corruption in public life. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan led the people’s movement which got the government to bring about the law on ‘Right to Information. ’

Pressure groups give a political voice to minority groups and articulate concerns

that are overlooked by political parties. Elections, at best, determine the general direction of overnment policy, with parties being anxious to develop policies that appeal to the mass of voters. Pressure groups are therefore often more effective in articulating concerns about issues such as the environment, civil liberties, global poverty, violence against women and the plight of the elderly. Women’s organizations such as SEWA, NCW have campaigned for women-friendly laws such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the North-Eastern State of Manipur, many groups including ‘Just Peace’,Apunba Lup (students’ organization) and Meira Paibis (women’s groups) are trying to influence the government to listen to people’s genuine grievances. Together, these groups are associated with Irom Sharmila, a civil rights activist known as ‘the Iron Lady of Manipur’ who has been on a hunger strike since November 2000. 'Corporatism' refers to the close relationship between the government and economic interest groups (trade unions and employers' organisations) in decision making on economic matters.

Participation The level of political participation is an important indicator of the health of democracy. Democracy, at heart, means government by the people. If this is the case, declining electoral turnout and steadily falling party membership highlights a major ‘democratic deficit’ in politics. This, however, is very effectively combated by the growth in the number and size of pressure groups. Pressure groups have become increasingly effective agents of political participation. Not only has single-issue politics proved to be popular but the grass roots activism and decentralized organization of many campaigning groups


have proved to be attractive to many young people and those who may be disillusioned with conventional politics. Education Pressure groups promote political debate, discussion and argument. In so doing, they create a better-informed and more educated electorate. This, in turn, helps to improve the quality of public policy. Benefits of competition Pressure groups help to promote democracy by widening the distribution of political power. They do this, in part, because groups compete against one another. This ensures that no group or interest can remain dominant permanently. How do pressure groups threaten democracy? Some political scientists and politicians have taken the view that pressure groups are nondemocratic, or even anti-democratic, in the sense that they intervene in the political process based on electoral accountability. Some of them have been listed below: 1. Increase political inequality 2. Exercise non-legitimate power 3. Exert ‘behind the scenes’ influence 4. Lead to the tyranny of the minority Political Inequality A central argument against the pluralist image of group politics is that, far from dispersing power more widely and empowering ordinary citizens, pressure groups tend to empower the already powerful. They therefore increase, rather than reduce, political inequality. Pluralists argue that political inequality is broadly democratic, in that the most successful groups tend to be ones with large membership, and which enjoy wide and possibly intense public support. This is very difficult to sustain. In practice, the most powerful pressure groups tend to be the ones that possess money, expertise, institutional leverage and privileged links to government. Non-legitimate Power Critics have questioned whether pressure groups exercise rightful or legitimate power in any circumstances. This is because, unlike conventional politicians, pressure-group leaders have not been elected. Pressure groups are therefore not publicly accountable, meaning that the influence they exert is not democratically legitimate. This problem is compounded by the fact that very few pressure groups operate on the basis of internal democracy. Leaders are very rarely elected by their members, and when they are (as in the case of trade unions) this is often on the basis of very low turnouts. Indeed, there has been a growing trend for pressure groups to be dominated by a small number of senior professionals. Some pressure-group leaders may, in fact, be little more than self-appointed political spokespeople. ‘Behind the scenes’ influence


Regardless of which groups are most powerful, pressure-group influence is exerted in a way that is not subject to scrutiny and public accountability. Pressure groups usually exert influence ‘behind closed doors’. This particularly applies in the case of insider groups, whose representatives stalk the ‘corridors of power’ unseen by the public and away from media scrutiny. No one knows (apart from occasional leaks) who said what to whom, or who influenced whom, and how. This is unaccountable power. Not only does this contrast sharply with the workings of representative bodies such as Parliament, but it also diminishes Parliament and undermines parliamentary democracy. Insider links between groups and the executive bypass Parliament, rendering elected MPs impotent as policy is increasingly made through deals between government and influential groups that the Parliament does not get to discuss. Tyranny of the minority Pressure groups, by their very nature, represent minorities rather than majorities. For pluralists, of course, this is one of their strengths. Pressure groups help to prevent a ‘tyranny of the majority’ that is, perhaps, one of the inevitable features of electoral democracy. However, pressure groups may create the opposite problem. Minority views or ‘special’ interests may prevail at the expense of the interests of the majority or the larger public. Pressure groups and Political parties Pressure groups and political parties greatly resemble each other. Both of them are channels through which public can communicate with the government. Prima facie, both of them carry out representation, facilitate political participation and contribute to the policy process. However, in reality, groups and parties are very different from each other. Conventionally, political parties are the bodies which are regarded as providing the way through which people’s interests are represented in the political system. They also function as a means of political communication, since individuals can express their own views to politicians by becoming members of political parties and can represent their party’s viewpoint to others in the community. On the other hand, pressure groups can be seen as providing an additional form of representation within the political system and an additional channel of political communication. Some of the differences between Political parties and the pressure groups have been mentioned below: Political Party

Main aim is to attain political power in Government Directly the control and conduct of the government. It can combine heterogeneous interest to secure majority in the election.

Pressure Group


Main aim is to influence decision of those in political power. Indirect control over the conduct of the government It has people with homogenous interest.

There are several reasons why political parties are often confused with the pressure groups. Firstly, many small political parties resemble pressure groups in that they have a narrow issue focus. For example, the British National Party (BNP) is primarily concerned with issues of race and immigration. The Green Party, despite developing wide-ranging manifestos, places greatest emphasis on environmental issues such as pollution, economic sustainability and climate change. Secondly, some pressure groups use elections as a tactical weapon. Any group that puts candidates up for election is technically a party, not a pressure group. But some pressure groups use elections as a means of gaining publicity and attracting media attention, with little or no expectation of winning the election, still less of winning government power. The relationship between the pressure groups and political parties is also an interesting one. A pressure group with a close relationship to a political party may work to its advantage. But this can be harmful at times especially when the opposing party comes to power, the pressure group’s influence is bound to decrease on policy. National Students Union of India (NSUI) provides future leadership to the Congress while the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) does so for the Bharatiya Janata Party. While some pressure groups are linked to particular political parties, there are many which have no linkage to any political party.


Political Parties A political party is a social group with the prime goal of acquiring legitimate political power subject to a background of common ideological belief of its members. In other words, Political parties are organization formed consciously with aim of capturing power. Though, the concept gained currency in sociological horizon by the efforts of Max Weber, it was Robert Dahl who reflected on its functional aspect as a communicating channel between its state and its people. Political parties mitigate the gap between state and its people by virtue of interest articulation, interest aggregation, political socialization, political communication and political communication functions. Political parties in multi-party systems have some typical characteristics, which can be discussed as under: 1. Goals: Early political thinkers had conceived party as an ideological

group. Party goal, according to them, is to pursue the fulfilment of certain ideals. However, most scholars today refute this view. The prime goal of a party is to grab power. Ideology is an instrument of rationalization of their motives.

2. Membership: Political parties are open to the recruitment of new members and non-activist supporters. They are always keen to grab as much clientele as possible so as to broaden their mass base. This way, parties are highly heterogeneous.

3. Organizational structure: Political parties are always marked by a hierarchical structure. Few individuals at the top of the hierarchy form a 'political elite' within the party. As the party grows, it becomes more bureaucratic. However, parties are not always bureaucratic in nature. The heterogeneity of membership makes centralized-control difficult and even unwise. In most parties, there is substantial autonomy, local inertia, and local initiative at the bottom of the pyramid.

4. Functions: Constitutional and legal structure in a country are usually

inflexible. Some amendments need to be made to change law. Legal elasticity with changing social climate is low. Political parties, on the other hand, are informal and dynamic. Since parties function informally, their activity reflects the constant flux of interest formation in society.

One view of the party is that parties are necessary secondary organizations that form an interface between citizens and government. Politics is the process of bargaining and competition. Political parties compete with each other to influence state power in favour of sections of citizens and pressure groups that


they represent.

Dysfunction of Political Parties in third word (developing) countries: (i) Political parties lack internal democracy, thereby deceiving the very purpose

of its creation, and making individual patronage above ideals and principles. (ii) Prominence of dynastic rule in political parties. As a result the functioning of

parties becomes ascriptive and prescriptive. (iii) Muscle and money power is criteria during election in third world countries as

altogether marred the very purpose of it creation. (iv) No clear cut ideological difference between the various parties, thereby

restricting the choice of the public.

Political Parties in India Indian state has been a multi-party polity since independence. However, the social base, nature, ideology, and influence of parties have undergone significant changes since independence. These changes can be analyzed as under: 1. Parties at independence: Major political parties at independence were

Congress, Communist Party, and Swatantra Party. They represent the centrist, leftist and rightist ideological orientations respectively. One major aspect of these parties was that they were all national parties and the issues they catered to were all national issues.

2. Period of one-party dominance: The Congress Party dominated the national scene from independence till the 1970s. The opposition it got from other political parties was minimal. Besides, the Nehru-Gandhi family commanded high charismatic authority from the people.

What was the reason for such high popularity of a single party? It is reasoned that Congress party maintained an 'umbrella' character (Ali Ashraf, 1995). It tried to build consensus and in this process, accommodated various shades of opinions and interests. Social base of the party was large. It was only in the late sixties, when Indira Gandhi pursued centralized leadership decision making that many interest groups in Congress fell out with it. Other political parties catering to sectional interests came up in the provinces. First non-congress national government came in late 1970s.

3. Rise of identity based parties: In the sixties, many parties came up

catering to regional and sectional interests. They were driven not by any


national ideology but by regional and factional interests. These parties were led by pragmatic and opportunistic leaders. They thrived because of the fact that though Indian polity is based on modern democracy, the society is beset by feudal mentalities. A patron-client relationship existed between these political parties and the sections (caste, religion or region) they catered to. In contrast to ideology-based parties, these were identity-based parties. Caste identity and religion-identity have been the most popular tools of mobilizing people. In certain places, such as Maharashtra and Assam, language-identity and ethnic-identity have also been used to mobilize people.

4. Present Scenario : In the midst of numerous regional parties with identity-based political ideologies, we can recognize three major national parties today :

Indian National Congress, with a centrist orientation CPI and CPI(M) with leftist orientation BJP with a rightist orientation

Congress Party no longer dominates the whole gamut of political space; its social base in the Hindi heartland is on the decline. Its ideology is moderate and has some degree of ambiguity. This ambiguity of congress ideology has been in some ways its strength, since it helps draw support from the most diverse social groups (Kaviraj, 1999). Hence, Sudipta Kaviraj coins the name "pluralistic nationalism" for Congress ideology. The party mostly concentrates on the width of coalitions it could put together within the party. Communist Parties have mostly concentrated on working class for political support. They have been most energetic in building trade union movements. Around this core of working class support, they seek support from other rural and non-proletarian groups. Their success has been limited to only a few areas, mostly because working class in India is not a cohesive group. The major trade unions of India are ranked as under as per their membership: (a) Bharatiya Majdoor Sabha (BMS) affiliated to RSS (b) Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) affiliated to Congress (c) Hindustan Majdoor Sangh (d) CITU affiliated to CPM The membership strength of AITUC and CITU put together is less than that of RSS affiliated BMS. Now let us discuss the rightist party, Bharatiya Janata Party. According to Sudipta Kaviraj, the fortunes of BJP is one of the most perplexing problems of modern Indian politics. She contends that though communal in character, it is not a fundamentalist force; the heterogeneity of Hindu literature and philosophy negates the use of fundamental ideas to mobilise masses. BJP draws support from its


hostility towards Muslims as a community. When BJP got a chance to form government, it found that it did not have absolute majority in the centre. It beautifully mutated its ideology to Vajpayerian moderation to accommodate coalition partners with varied ideologies to form government (Kaviraj, 1999). Traditionally, the Jana Sangha (fore runner of BJP) could not mobilize the whole Hindu vote support for its politics came from small traders and lower government employees. In recent years, BJP has tried to widen its social base to other groups/particularly the urban middle class professionals and industrialists. This has resulted positive for BJP; and in 2014 election under charismatic leadership of Narendra Modi BJP was able to form government with full majority. This is first non-Congress political party since independence, to form government with full majority, without dependence on any other political party.


Nation It is derived from the Latin word ‘NASCI’ which means to be born. Literally, in terms of its origin it means the group in which you are born. However, today the concept of nation is understood at various levels. So, culturally a nation is a group of people bound together by a common language, religion, history & tradition. In strict cultural terms nation is a community which is culturally homogenous. Various attributes like language, religion, customs, and tradition are shared.

But none of these definitions can explain the existing reality. Pakistan has one religion, but it has more killings & violence when compared to India which is a multi-cultural state. There is a saying that, Her Majesty and English is the common language which keeps U.K & U.S.A separated. So, same language is also not suitable attribute to be together. Various nations today are culturally heterogeneous. Total cultural homogeneity in terms of these attributes are rare to find. Nation is only one level of community.

Politically a nation is a group of people who are organized together as a political community state. As members of that political community they share certain rights in common, essentially rights of citizenship.

Psychologically a nation is a group of people having a shared loyalty & deep sense of belongingness to each other. So, they enjoy a vicarious sense of pride & attachment.

When it comes to social sciences, various approaches have been adopted for identifying national communities. The various approaches are (1) Objective (2) Subjective

In terms of objective criteria, people have a shared culture, a common territory & a common history. In this view nations are supposed to be real & tangible entities which are seen as embodifying certain distinctive characteristics & political aspirations.

Conceived in this way nations are perceived as real, which can be identified in objective terms. But, there are numerous problems with this definition. Particularly this definition runs into trouble when we take the example of Kurds;

Kurds are an ethnic group distributed in Iran/Iraq/Turkey. In objective terms they are in three different nations, but they don’t’ identity with any of these nations. They conceive themselves as a separate nation. Even Sikhs in India believed to be a separate nation. People in Kashmir treat Indian army as an occupational army but not as a national army. Even take the example of Pashtun. Half of Pashtun are in Pakistan and half are in Afghanistan due to Durand line. They don’t today form a nation of their own as they are in two different countries. Thousands of Pakistani Pashtun volunteered to fight for Taliban against U.S.A. So, it shows a deep sense of belongingness exists between them. So, objective criteria doesn’t suit for definition of a nation.

Another approach to study national communities is subjective criteria. According to this approach, nations can only be conceived with reference to people’s subjective states.


They say that, it is the subjective state of belongingness, mutual identification & loyalty that forms the basis of national community. So, when a majority of people in a community consider or behave as if they form one nation, that should be the basis of identifying a nation. According to this approach, a nation in essence is a psychological bond that joins people & differentiates it in the sub conscious conviction of the members from other people in a vital way. This psychological bond is the most important basis of a nation according to subjective approach. In India, we feel proud of Tendulkar's/Bhindra’s achievement because we are psychologically bonded.

But even this definition has a problem. There are nations which are ethnically diverse. U.S.A has people from Asia/Spanish/Europeans/Germans/Catholic/Protestants. They don’t have a psychological bond. They don’t identify themselves with America. These are the melting pot nations.

The third approach is the most recent advocated by Ernest Gellner. According to him, neither are nation real entities nor they are psychologically bonded. Members do have certain degree of attachment and belongingness without.

According to them nations are imagined communities. It is manufactured /invented to fulfill a certain need. Nations are structural transformations brought about by modernization process especially industrial capitalism. Industrial capitalism gave rise for new basis of belongingness. Earlier basis of belongingness was family/kinship/caste etc. Today it is broken by industrial capitalism. Due to this, there is a need for identification. Along with this there are also structural needs like law and order, judiciaries etc.

It is not totally unreal due to conditioning or indoctrination process. Mass media, political processes etc tend to create a sense of belongingness.

Generally, among the various approaches, we see them divided into two parts:

(a) Enlightenment (b) General Romanticism

Johann Gottfried Herder was one of the earliest advocates in the late 18th century of the idea that nations are cultural communities & that they have similar & shared character & attributes essentially, it is was characterized by cultural homogeneity. This approach was adopted by Nazis, BJP etc. They believed in creating monolithic society characterized by homogenous culture.

As opposed to this view, there emerged a view that nations are a natural cultural community. This kind of definition is suitable to small European nations. This view was propagated by German romanticism.

Another view was given by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This advocates multiculturalism. He feels that nations are essentially political communities.


Eric Hobbs Brown agreeing with Gellner says that, as far as cultural distinctiveness is concerned, nations are more an aspect of deliberate invention. He says belief in historical continuity & political purity argued by political parties is a myth. Gellner says that mass media & political socialization are reasons for emergence of political communities.

Anderson talked of multination. As a political community a nation is characterized by common basis of citizenship & that identity of citizenship is more important than their ethnic identity.

In this sense 3rd world societies are overwhelmingly political nations as they never developed organically. Even in case of India, it was politically united only in periods of Ashoka and Aurangzeb. But culturally it was very diverse. Shared history is very short, political nations also in 3rd world societies emerged due to anti-colonial struggle. So, these political nations are characterized by multiculturalism. Loyalty is to constitution & law. Basis of citizenship is obedience to law rather the ethnic/culture groups.

Why did nations develop?

Nations are a product of modernization. Idea of nation & ideology of nationalism are seen as integrative responses to the community dissolving effect of industrial capitalism. So, they are by-products of industrial capitalism. Nations fulfill the structural requirements of industrial capitalism & ideology fulfills the interest of bourgeoisie.

Sometimes it is said that Nationalisms proved to be greatest failure of Marxism. Marxists believed that nation-states would dissolve. Marxists say that, nationalism is a way of camouflaging the inequality.

Feudal societies are based on subsistence production. But capitalism requires market for their products. So, wider markets with common currency, common laws are required. All this needs to be organized under single state. Nationalism is a product of capitalism.

But early capitalism created nation-states where as late capitalism is destroying nation-states. With globalization, boundaries are getting perforated. Late capitalism is going to undermine nation-state as world would turn into a global village, Sovereignty getting effective.

Does Nations have a future?

Nations are not going to vanish in near future. In fact 20th century has witnessed spread of national consciousness in entire globe.

Nations developed in Europe in 17th & 18th century. Through Balkanization, by 19th century, nations developed in Eastern Europe. Early 20th century gave rise to nations in Asia & by end of World War II, entire Asia, Africa & Latin America developed into nation-state, structurally entire world witnessed rise of nationalistic consciousness, but nation states are not eternal basis for, they only belong to a certain epoch. It was only one phase of human history that saw nationalism.


But with globalization, there is dilution in autonomy of nation states. EU is an example. Nuclearization of world & wars were product of nationalism. Nationalism glorifies all kinds of crimes against humanity. For example: Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombing. Many Vietnamese were killed by Americas is name of national interest. So, it is not the best possible ideology for survival of human society. The nation states are going to remain, but downhill journey already began.


State Nation is a community. State refers to political associations. Although today state & nation are interchangeably used, there are multicultural nations but still they are nations. States today are nation’s states. But this is characteristic feature of world only from 19th century. In early 20th century, large parts of Europe were multinational states. The entire Balkan Peninsula was organized as an empire consisting of many nationalities. Even, U.S.S.R. was a multinational state. Many states walked out of U.S.S.R. & formed independent nation states. State & nation always don’t tend to be coterminous. But in the 21st century overwhelmingly all are nation-sates.

What is a State?

State refers to a centralized political authority. It is an entire body of institutions associated with political authority, political executive, civil service, military, judiciary etc.

A formal definition of state was first given by Weber. He defined sate as “the political association which successfully claims the legitimate monopoly of use of force within a definite territory.”

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale by sitting in chair of Akal Takht wanted to use force when terrorists entered golden temple. But the state responded by operation ‘Blue star’ clarifying who could use power.

Today, political associations are present everywhere, but these institutions always are not states. In simple tribal societies, there are political associations based on kinship groups which regulated the functioning of society. ‘Nuer’ tribe of Sudan & ‘TIV’ tribe of Nigeria are stateless societies.

But all modern societies are characterized by presence of state. In 20th century general trend has been to organize states along national boundaries. Earlier, Roman Empire & Ottoman Empires were multinational states.

Even in Europe, though state existed, it was not a centralized state prior to capitalism. Feudal state was a decentralized state. There were multiple agencies to use force. With modernization there has been trend towards centralization of state where only single agency use force, other agencies use force based on delegation of authority. The ultimate font of all coercive authority is a single center. Such a centralized state is pre-requisite of capitalistic industrial society.

Characters of State:

Centralized nation state emerged only with rise of capitalism. Marx while talking about nature of state said that state is a committee of bourgeoisie apparently claiming to be


protecting national interest. But Marx says this committee protects interest of bourgeoisie.

This view has been further supplemented by Ralph Miliband on his study from 1899-1949, in Britain, he said that 60% of members of British Cabinet are businessmen. Even the civil servants are committed to capitalists as they are trained in capitalistic institutions. Action of political/ruling elite primarily benefits ruling class. But, they often claim to be acting in national interest.

So, there is an attempt by capitalists to legitimize their domination of the state. So, they try to persuade society. Entire society not only accepts policies formulated by state but also follow the ethos & values advocated by the state which are actually the values & ethos of bourgeoisie. So, to propagate these values & ethos, mass media & education are controlled by state.

Nicos Poulantzas, has further argued that, though, apparently there is relative autonomy of state, (those who man the state are not directly drawn from capitalist class), but this relative autonomy is to camouflage the reality that they manage state apparatus in favor of bourgeoisie. And by maintaining relative autonomy they are able to protect interest of capitalists in a more effective way, because if bourgeoisie are to directly compete with each other, it would only weaken their class solidarity. So, Marxists still claim that state is a class structure.

C. Wright Mills also through power elite theory said that state is a small cohesive group. But Robert A. Dahl took a different view in his book ‘who governs’. He said that undoubtedly power is exercised by elite, but it is a plurality of elite.

Broadly we can classify state into different types.

(1) Liberal Democratic State: These kinds of states have constitutional limitations. (2) Totalitarian State: It is a highly interventionist state. There is no limit on state

power. State can regulate every aspect of life. Mao in China prescribed of wearing a common Olive green dress in whole of china.

(3) Welfare State: Moderately interventionist state which tries to ensure equality to all.

(4) Development State: Here state is interventionist where it is primarily concerned with development.


Citizenship Idea of citizenship today implies that members of a state are not mere subjects who have only duties to perform rather they enjoy certain inalienable rights.

In medieval times, when there was a monarchial system, members of the state were subjects. As subjects, all those who stay in a territory are duty bound to obey & they can’t make any claims on state. As Gabriel Almond says, in those states, there was high output but low input awareness.

High Output: Subjects confirm to what state order.

Low Output: Don’t raise demands as people aren’t aware of their rights.

There are varieties of rights and based on this, we are entitled to make demands on state. So, citizenship develops with process of modernization & growth of democracy, where members of a territory based political community, acquires consciousness of certain rights & makes demands. Such members who enjoy these rights are called citizens.

The concept of citizen existent in Greece & not anywhere else, those who were citizens had right to equality before law. Ancient Greek was divided into two city-states. ‘Zen’ refers to member in Greece. So, those members who belonged to city were referred to as citizens. The membership was highly restricted. Only the elite had a right to membership. Slaves, aliens, women didn’t have citizenship. In England, which is mother of democracy, women got voting rights only in 1928. So, these rights have been conferred in different societies at different times.

So, two questions arise?

(1) What is the basis of access to these rights? (2) What is the nature/content of these rights?

The basis of access varies. There are two principals involved, what in Latin is called:

(a) JUS SOLI (b) JUS SANGUINE Rights by birth Rights by descent

Every country has different laws. In India citizenship can be acquired by birth, naturalization or descent. Art 7, Art 8 & Art 9 of constitution deals with these provisions, also, we have single citizenship.

Content also varies. There are not only rights, there are also duties. Those who enjoy the membership of a political community also enjoy these.

Thomas Humphrey Marshall made a systematic study of citizenship. He identifies civil, political & social rights.


Civil Rights: Those rights & duties that are derived from legal institutions. For example: Right to equality before law, Right to contract, Right to property etc.

Political Rights: Right of participation in political process especially, Right to vote, Right to contest for election etc.

Social Rights: Right to a minimal level of material being. These rights are linked to welfare states. In U.S.A, there is right to welfare, unemployment allowances, old age pensions etc.

In recent times, the concept of green citizenship is developing. It has come to be realized that natural resources are limited & many of them are non-renewable. These resources are not only for those citizens who are alive, but they also belong equally to our future generations for whom these resources should be protected.

Some environmentalists have even gone to the extent, saying that trees, animals & water bodies also should be given rights to avoid deforestation & pollution of water bodies. Right to safe & healthy environment is another right being added for those citizens who are alive.

Another issue emerging today is, due to globalization, there is massive migration of population. So, composition of population is becoming heterogeneous. Now, human rights activists are fighting for assimilation of citizen rights into human rights. Any person, by virtue of being a human should enjoy certain rights in any part of the world. This is now a major issue under consideration.


Democracy Today democracy is being seen as a value. It is being considered to be the ideal & most desirable form of government. All systems of governance in order to claim legitimacy try to call themselves a democracy. In sociology, democracy has come to be associated with aspects of political mobilization. So, democracy is an indispensable form of government for any society today. That is how we have too many competing models of democracy. For example: Stalinist Russia: Democratic centralism, Mao’s China: peoples Democracy, Iran: Islamic democracy, Marcuse phillipness: guided democracy. So, there are different varieties. Democracy is the world used today in the most promiscuous way.

Nehru said: “Socialism is a hat which has lost its shape, because everyone wants to wear it.” Same statement holds true for Democracy also.

However, for sociological view, democracy is identified with certain attributes. For sociological purposes, democracy means a liberal democracy. Francis Fukuyama in his book, “End of history” claims that, liberal democracy is the inevitable form of government for all industrial societies. He said this statement, in the wake of fall of communism. This kind of system is waiting to be adopted in china also. It is already adopted in South Korea which was earlier an authoritarian state.

Attributes/Features of a liberal Democracy:

(1) Liberal Democracy is an indirect & representative form of government in which political office is gained through success in regular elections that should be free & fair and are conducted on the basis of political equality based on universal suffrage. So, it is characterized by representative bodies like parliament with a power base that is independent of political executive.

(2) Liberal Democracy is a pluralistic system. Political pluralism is another sign of democracy. Wide range of groups can contest for power. There is tolerance of diversity of beliefs. So, rival political parties with different ideologies can contest for power. (Promote value consensus)

(3) In a democracy, there is principle of rule of law. There is accountability & responsibility of political executive to these elected bodies. No anomie of society empowerment & education. Exploitation & elimination.

(4) In a liberal democracy, there is a clear demarcation between state & civil society. For example: Indira Gandhi was disqualified from contesting election by Allahabad High court as she used official air carrier for canvasing.

(5) Sub-System autonomy is a feature of a liberal democracy. There exists a wide variety of organizations/associations which are autonomous of states. For example: BBC wanted to air & story which was critical of Margaret Thatcher. In spite of her best attempts she failed to stop BBC. So, media is an autonomous system with mild regulation.


(6) There are certain rights & freedoms vested in the citizen that needs to be honored by the state.

Basis of Democracy:

Liberal democracy has not worked everywhere; Liberal democracy is not successful in Africa/Pakistan etc.

Today liberal democratic form of government is equated to economic development. In fact, according to Lipset, countries which are characterized by high per capital income, high degree of industrialization & urbanization, good levels of literacy invariably tended to be a liberal democracy. In societies, where agricultural population is large, where functioning of state is ineffective, they all tended to be non-democratic state. In India, though democracy is not functioning in the desirable way, at least it survived although with member of distortions.

Among all the variables, levels of economic development are considered to be one of the most crucial factors. According to Diamond, in his book, ‘Re-Examining, Democracy’, he tried to see a correlation between per capita GNP & world banks ranking in terms of HDI, with smooth functioning of liberal democracy. He found that all the top 17 countries in terms of HDI were liberal democracies, while bottom 11 countries in terms of HDI were non-democratic.

Eddie Van Halen conducted an empirical study of 172 countries in 1997. He argues that democracy emerges & functions when large masses of population acquire resources that can be used to force autocratic states to open themselves to universal suffrage & political rights.

What are the resources?

(1) No agriculture population (2) No excessive concentration of agricultural land in few hands (3) Education including high enrollment ratios (4) Large size of urban population.

Similarly other scholars like Sanderson & Rueschemeyer also conducted in recent times (2004), a comparative historical study. They considered high level of industrialization, large size of working class, a sizeable middle class as essential for effective functioning of democracy. Once these conditions are fulfilled, it is bound to become a pluralistic liberal democracy. By that logic, in another 10-15 years, china should be a liberal democracy.

What should facilitate functioning of democracy?

(1) A liberal democracy pre-supposes a centralized nation state, which can exercise the authority effectively.


(2) Break down of rigid & closed system of stratification (3) Break down of primordial groups & liberation of hold of individuals from hold of

such groups. (4) Wide spread diffusion of secular & scientific education leading to a process of

secularization of social life. (5) Growth of industrialization & urbanization leading to formation of secondary

group relationships which are based on contractual & impersonal relations. (6) Creation of a minimal degree of equality to all in terms of access to food,

clothing, shelter etc. (7) Growth of participatory civic culture which tolerates dissent. (8) Rationalization of social life leading to institutionalization of legal rational

authority. (9) Societal differentiation leading to emergence of diverse interest groups which in

turns develops a fertile ground for emergence of plurality of political parties to contest for political power.

(10) Basic value consensus among all sections of society in spite of differentiation.

(11) Sub-Systems should enjoy degree of autonomy so that government in concerned with routine regulatory functions.

Democracy in India Democracy didn’t grow organically in India through historical process. Rather it

was adopted through the preference of western educated elite in Constituent Assembly.

India didn’t have a long history of a cohesive nation state. In fact in India, nationalism & democracy are born together. But in west, nationalism preceded democracy by 100 hundreds of years. They had a history of nation-states for a long time.

Political modernization (Democracy) is a consequence of social & economic modernization. Sequence in India has been invested.

Democracy in India is based on popular consent. While social & economic modernization demands rational means, political modernization demands populist means. Often rational means tend to be unpopular. So, if we entrust social & economic modernization to political modernization, it becomes a hamstring. So, state becomes a ‘soft state’.

In India, other condition like minimum equality is not there. By the revised criteria of 1.25 billion a day, 46% of population in India will be BPL.


As Individual is not liberated from primordial groups, vote bank politics continue. In India, vote is cast on caste lines. Institutions like political parties haven’t developed on equality; there is a frequent & increasing reliance on primordial ties like ethnicity. Due to competitive politics, apparatus of state becomes ineffective.

Atul Kohli said that there is a crisis of governability in India. There is an anti-incumbency trend in India as democracy is not able to deliver with raising expectations.

In India, though democracy survived, it was achieved at high cost, slow growth, poor socio-economic development, rampart corruption, various kinds of ethnic conflicts. These are all by products of democracy in India.


Civil Society In context of globalization & liberalization, there is increasing talk on roll back of state. It is in this context that the concept of civil society is gaining importance & being assigned an importance role.

This concept of civil society is understood as a kind of defence against excessive state power, creating an authoritarian regime & facilitated by atomized individuals.

In modern industrial societies, there is no bulwark against state intervention. It is because traditional autonomous micro communities have broken. Earlier, affairs were managed at local level. Local issues were managed by village Panchayats etc. This ensured freedom of people from excessive state power. But today, through modernization process, a loose mass of atomized individuals came to the force who exist all by one self.

Atomized mass conducive for growth of a powerful state. So, it robs people of their freedom. So, concept of civil society is seen as an intermediary between atomized individual & excessive state power.

Civil Society protects individuals from over dependence on state. That is how it is seen as bulwark against authoritarianism.

Although this term dates back to ancient Rome, its contemporary use is related to those associations based on contractual relations. Rise of public opinion, notion of freedom & inalienable rights of citizens & plurality of community of citizens. These are the contemporary demands related to civil society.

In this form, civil society first surfaced in 17th century in the writings of Thomas Hobbes, but he didn’t use the word civil society parse. He said that civil society can’t exist by itself & that a sovereign state is unavoidable for sustenance of civil society.

John Locke also dwelt on this idea. He said that civil society refers to the social space consisting of associations & relations based on contract & institution of property regulated by law. He also said that civil society contracted away rights to state, but state so created is not absolute but answerable to people.

State authority becomes limited & gets accountable to civil society. That is how there is advance towards democratic form of government.

In enlightenment Era, Adam Ferguson developed this idea. In the crystallization of civil society, civil society was that of social life, which lay outside the state political institutions. So, crystallization of civil society is a sign of human progress. Now there is differentiation & separation between state & civil society. Same thought was there even in ideas of Spencer, Comte & Durkheim.


However this process of social differentiation can also weaken the social fabric & create conflict. It is because civil society has the potential to establish a new social order. So, civil society can become independent of the state & come into conflict with the state.

Civil society is not only based on contractual relations, but they are also based on moral principles which regulate social life. They are moral but not legal. So, morality is sphere of civil society. In this case, civil society also acts as the basis of social integration by creating a new moral order. So, civil society creates both conflict & stability.

What Osama bin Laden operated, is also civil society. Laden was not entirely what we have seen in 9/11. He successfully organized protests against autocratic & totalitarian governments of Sudan, Saudi Arabia & Egypt. Even Bajrang Dal is ostensibly a civil society organization. All these are at logger heads with legally established governments. But the first duty of any state is protect law & order & thus they both are in conflict.

Hegel in his writings once again revived the idea of civil society. He said that civil society consists of egotistical self interest (individualism) and therefore involves contractual relations & ethical regulation of life. Hegel, well before Marx anticipated possibility of conflict between civil society, vast wealth & vast poverty which turns into utmost dismemberment of rebellion started. That is why he thought state is indispensable & role of state is to bring harmony in civil society.

Subsequently it was Antonio Gramsci who raised this issue. He used the term state in a comprehensive manner. He said that state includes both Civil & Political society. He also said that civil society is sphere of culture in which workers must struggle against hegemony of bourgeoisie. So, workers must not only fight against political society but also bourgeoisie at cultural level. That sphere of culture is sphere of civil society.

In more recent times, the issue of civil society has been revived, that civil society is the sphere lying outside the competence of state & it is being realized that civil society is being increasingly dispensable. So, the modern view is that civil society supplements the state. This realization is in the wake of state failure.

There has been a period of excessive reliance on state. But we find that states have failed miserably & in this context it is being realized that excessive interventionist state is ineffective. So, there should be state initiation & support of civil society for all policies.

Ernakulam district collector in Kerala launched Total literacy campaign. States role was only to co-ordinate. Civil society & body of youth from colleges were mobilized on massive scale where state was only providing funds. An environment for learning was created. It became the first district in the country with 100% literacy. Later on this programme was extended to Kottayam district also.

State is not well adapted to perform all functions, but state is still required. But increasingly cooperation between state & civil society is required.


Ideology An ideology is a coherent body of ideas that provides the basis for organized action. Organized action may be either to preserve the existing order (conservative ideology) or may be aimed at overthrowing the existing system (revolutionary ideology).

Ideology performs multiple functions. It provides an explanation for existing social order. It shapes the world view. It may also provide a model of the desired future i.e. a vision of what is a desirable society. The desirable society may be different from existing one or may be an idealized version of existing one.

Ideology becomes a source of action for change. It may be progressive, reforms or evolutionary ideology depending on nature of change. Ideology also becomes a basis of unity, solidarity & integration in society. For example: Nationalistic ideology.

In case the vision of desired future happens to be different from present/existing order, ideology also suggests the means to change. So, it may be terrorism/Naxalism/fundamentalism etc, ideology becomes a basis for legitimizing action or it legitimizes action.

Ideology, besides being a frame work of consciousness, it is also a framework of legitimizing action.

According to Marx, ideologies are a way of legitimizing class interests. Marx talked of capitalistic societies which are characterized by internal differentiation. Due to these internal differentiations, societies develop into different classes. So, the ideology of class that dominates process of production becomes the ruling ideology. It is because; the class that has control over means of material production also has control over intellectual production. Ideology here primarily seeks to legitimize interests of dominant classes as long as societies remain divided on class lines. So, ideology for Marx is false consciousness.

Even Gramsci emphasized importance of ideology. He is a Neo-Marxist. He believed that nationalism is an ideology. But he says that ideology plays a role of maintaining hegemony. He agreed that ownership class rules, but it doesn’t dominate purely by force, but it dominates by seeking willing consent of those who are ruled. The process of seeking willing consent is called hegemony. Karl Heinrich Marx disagreed with Marx. He took a more detached view point. He said that, different classes tend to have different ideologies. He said that, our world view depends on where we are located in social structure; there is no single truth about society. Different classes tend to have different viewpoints & there would be plurality of ideologies in society. So, various types of ideologies are: Millenarian/Revolutionary/Religion/Secular/Conservative. So, ideology is considered indispensable for any sustained mobilization or action.


Protest Political protest has a long, albeit uncertain, history in the repertoire of political action and the course of political development. From DeToqueville's description of the French Revolution to Gurr's Why Men Rebel (1970), some analysts have described protest as a tool used by the voiceless and the politically frustrated to pressure the government. In contrast, other scholars claim that contemporary protest has become an extension of conventional politics by other means (Norris 2002), used by those who are generally active in politics.

In simple words, protest is a form of political expression that seeks to bring about social or political change by influencing the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of the public or the policies of an organization or institution.

Protests often take the form of overt public displays, demonstrations, and civil disobedience, but may also include covert activities such as petitions, boycotts, lobbying, and various online activities. Protesters engage in protest activities motivated by both individual rewards (including a variety of personal benefits and gratifications) and collective incentives (benefits that are realized by a large class of individuals that does not necessarily include the individual protester).

Most protests represent the collective interests and issues of activist groups, coalitions, or social movements that challenge mainstream institutions. In the process, they serve a number of important democratic functions, including providing opportunities for participation and expression for individuals, and as a potential engine of social change for communities and nations.

Unaddressed protests may grow and widen into agitation, social movement, collective action and political and/or social revolution.

Three Perspectives on the Sources of Protest Since the inception of modern social science, scholars have pursued an answer to the elusive question: Why do people protest? Perhaps because of the breadth of the phenomenon itself, there is no single answer or dominant explanation in the literature. Instead, three major theoretical frameworks have emerged:

(i) Grievances/Resources, (ii) Political Opportunity Structures, and (iii) Cultural Explanations.

(i) Grievances versus Resources There are two distinct theories in the literature on protest that use similar variables to construct contrasting explanations of protest. Grievance theory argues that deprivation and dissatisfaction stimulate protest. In contrast, resource theory claims that affluence and a resource rich environment provides a context where contentious groups might flourish, and thus protest is more common.


Because these two theories converge on a similar set of explanatory variables, albeit with opposite hypothesized effects, it is better to discuss them together. Grievance Theory: Grievance theory views protest as a response to societal problems and unmet citizen grievances. Ted Gurr’s Why Men Rebel (1970) provided a modern introduction to grievance theory. He argued that when changing social conditions cause people to experience ‘relative deprivation’ the likelihood of protest and rebellion significantly increases. That is, feelings of grievances or dissatisfaction are a prime cause of political action. When people have significantly less than what they think they are entitled to, they experience relative deprivation, which Gurr argues is a “general spur to action”. Gurr further identified a range of societal factors that might produce feelings of relative deprivation, and thereby predict the occurrence and intensity of political rebellion across nations. These factors included short-term changes the national economy, inflation rates, and GNP growth rates, as well as long-term economic and social deprivation. These indicators were positively related to Gurr's measure of turmoil, which is the combination of demonstrations, strikes, riots and other forms of political protest. Moving beyond Gurr, poor people's movements, demonstrations by racial minorities, and the student protests of the 1960s and 1970s were explained in terms of unsatisfied grievances (Lipsky, Cloward et al). Auvinen found that poor economic performance (measured by inflation rates) significantly increased political conflict in developing nations. Schock (1996) demonstrated that income inequality is a significant predictor of cross-national levels of political conflict. In short, the logic that grievances--especially poor economic conditions--underlie the use of protest and other challenging activities is a prominent explanation in the historical and empirical literature on political protest. Resources Theory. Resource mobilization theory provides virtually a mirror image of why people protest. From this perspective, protest movements require more than a collective experience of deprivation. McCarthy and Zald argued that a resource base facilitates protest activity by social movements. The existence of social movement organizations to mobilize the public is a crucial variable linking dissatisfaction to political action. In short, where a rich civil society exists and citizens freely engage in a variety of voluntary associations, there is a greater propensity towards involvement in SMOs that might organize protest activities as well as other forms of political action. More broadly, the socio-economic development of a nation creates a resource environment that might stimulate collective action. Extensive non-governmental organizations and other civil society groups are more likely exist in affluent nations that


possess the resources to support a large voluntary sector. A nation's socio-economic development produces dense communication structures, mass education, urbanization, and high degrees of social mobility-- factors that can increase the resources available to protest groups. Thus, a nation's economic development level can strongly influence group access to resources that facilitate political action. (ii) Political Opportunity Structure Political Opportunity Structure (POS) is a second framework used to explain why people mobilize outside of conventional channels of participation. It explains reason for protest with three themes. First, some scholars stress the open/closed nature of the political process. Closed systems are more likely to push actors outside conventional channels and onto the streets, increasing levels and degrees of unconventional political action. Thus, argues that protest is more likely when groups lack access to institutionalized channels of political influence. According to this theory, we should see more protest in societies where there are fewer channels for citizen access to politics, or in repressive societies because institutional channels are closed off to influence ‘from below’. In contrast, Open political systems encourage higher rates of protest, albeit in less contentious forms. Political openness exists when individuals can make demands and express their opinions without fear of reprisal; and decision-makers are willing to listen (and perhaps even sympathetic) to the demands made by groups. Openness increases the use of protest because the cost of protest is lower and the opportunities more numerous, as compared to the costs and opportunities in more repressive situations. Other studies maintain that political systems with a mixture of open and closed characteristics are most conducive to protest (Meyer 2004). This curvilinear hypothesis holds that contentious protest is low in the most open societies because of the easy availability of influence through conventional channels and low in the most closed societies because these states do not facilitate public action or suppress such activity. This hypothesis expects protest to be highest in countries with mid-level openness. A second approach to political opportunity structures considers the potential restrictions on protest. Ted Gurr (1970), for instance, argued that the repressive capacities of the state, as measured by the size of the police or military forces, can retard the use of challenging actions by critics of the state. Third, POS theory suggests that the effectiveness of government may affect the likelihood of protest—although the direction of this effect is unclear. On the one hand, citizens may protest under conditions of institutional incompetence (or low state capacity) because they are frustrated by the incapacity of the state to deliver. On the other hand, citizens may protest more under conditions of institutional competence because they have the opportunity to engage institutions that can better process their demands.


(iii) Political Culture and Protest Another theme stresses the impact of values and ideology on political action. In the broadest terms, there are frequent claims that the political culture of a nation shapes the repertoire of citizen action. For instance, protest is seemingly embraced by the French political culture, while in Britain protest is gentrified and less common. In broader terms, several authors have argued that protest is more tolerated, and more common, in Western democracies (Norris, Welzel et al). Other cultural traditions also seem to restrict the use of protest; for example, it appears less compatible with the Confucian traditions of East Asia. Another cultural explanation builds upon modernization theory. In addition to the socioeconomic changes that accompany modernization, modernization also produces a political culture that is more willing to question authority, to emphasize self-expression and participation, and more willing to challenge established political elites. These changing citizen orientations encourage protest activity. Inglehart, for instance, claims that the presence of post-materialist culture (characterized by a questioning of authority and a new emphasis on quality of life and self-actualization) produces higher levels of protest. Advanced industrial societies also experienced the emergence of new social movements and a more active civil society, which advocates protest and other forms of direct action. These processes thus produce a "social movement society" where protest represents a conventional form of action. A final cultural variable is the distribution of ideological orientations in a nation. Typically, scholars maintain that leftist extremism or rightist extremism stimulate contentious politics. Bingham Powell (1982) showed that support for extremist parties was positively related to the incidence of protests, riots and deaths from political conflict. Extremism of the left or right might provide a mobilizing environment for protest, and indirectly may tap the extent of political grievances in a nation. In addition, a highly polarized nation may find it more difficult to agree on peaceful political outcomes, so protest and violence follow.


Agitation Bowers and Ochs define agitation as following - “Agitation occurs when people outside the normal decision-making establishment advocate significant social change and encounter a degree of resistance within the establishment such as to require more than the normal discursive means of persuasion. Another key point of the definition is that agitation only occurs when steps are taken beyond "normal" persuasive rhetoric. For instance, distributing flyers that urge students to vote against an increase in fees is considered within ordinary persuasive means. However, if the students have a sit-in to oppose unfavorable measures taken by the administration, they are participating in a form of agitation. In other words, Agitation is defined as:

social agitation in and by people outside the decision-making corridors of power agitation for significant levels of or kinds of social change that may be structural

change, legal change or other kinds of significant change continued agitation against the establishment of decision-makers who resist to

such an extent that extreme measures are required that acceptable channels of discourse and persuasion are exceeded.

Agitation Strategies/Stages: Although they are not technically considered agitation, normal persuasive measures often precede agitation. This stage is referred to by Bowers and Ochs as petition. This stage is crucial to an agitation movement because it establishes credibility and gives the establishment an early opportunity to comply with their demands.

If the establishment does not comply but rather has met the agitators with avoidance or suppression, then the agitators often escalate to the promulgation stage. Tactics included in this stage include all tactics designed to win social support for the agitators position, including informational picketing, posters, distribution of pamphlets, or a mass protest meeting. Two strategies often employed at this point are the exploitation of the mass media and finding legitimizers, or credible spokespersons. Both of these serve to raise the public's awareness of the issue, while hopefully gaining respect for the agitators' ideology.

Next, the agitators often use solidification tactics, which occur within the movement rather than outside. Solidification tactics produce or reinforce cohesiveness of members, thereby increasing responsiveness. This includes plays, songs, slogans, esoteric and expressive symbols and in-group publications. An example of this would be the ‘upraised fist’ used by the Black Panthers.

The strategy of non-violent resistance is often referred to by the names of famous agitators who were known for this strategy-- Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. Non-violent resistance places agitators in a position in which they are violating laws or customs they consider to be unjust or destructive of human dignity. This includes sit-ins


and school boycotts. The agitators participate in activities that would be legal or accepted if the establishment conceded. An example of this is when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. She was non-violently protesting laws and customs that the civil rights movement wanted to see changed. When the protested laws are perceived to be very unjust, this stage often turns violent when the establishment continues to resist. The theory behind non-violent protest, according to Jr.King, is that all of the resister's energy is directed to the policy he is violating, and not in the destruction of the perpetrators.

A second aspect is that the resistance does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, rather to win its friendship and understanding.

Another strategy used is called escalation/confrontation and it is designed to make the establishment overreact to threats of disruption, and then looks foolish to the public. The agitators then hope this will lead to reforms instituted by the larger society witnessing the disproportionate action taken by the establishment. For example, Anna Hazarre’s agitation at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi.

Control Strategies: Bowers and Ochs came up with four rhetorical strategies for control: avoidance, suppression, adjustment and capitulation:

One of the most widely used avoidance tactics is counter-persuasion. This occurs when the establishment tries to convince the agitators that they are wrong. If they are successful, the threat is minimized. If they are unsuccessful, the establishment has still gained time without changing their ideology or structure.

The second strategy is suppression, which institutions usually do not resort to until all avoidance tactics have failed. This tactic focuses on weakening or removing the agitators' spokespersons. This is often done by harassment, denial of the agitators' demands, or banishment. Banishment can terminate a movement by removing its leaders and spokespersons.

A third control strategy is adjustment. Establishments may do this by adapting, modifying, or altering their structures, goals or personnel. One tactic is to accept some of the means of agitation. In essence this tactic serves to take away the attention received when the establishment instead reacts to the agitation. A movement may likely gain momentum if the establishment reacts to its agitation strategies by calling attention to its ideology.

The last strategy in the rhetoric of control is capitulation. This can be seen as the last resort of an establishment and has been known to be used when total destruction by the agitators is imminent.


Social Movements “When a group of individuals tries to bring or resists Social Change fully or partially on the basis of ideology it is known as movement.” When these changes or resistance are desired in social sphere of life it is known as ‘social movement.’ There are following characters of Social Movement-

- A group of individuals - Ideology - Organisation - Goal (Change / resistance)

All above features are necessary for a social movement. Theories of Social Movements 1) Relative Deprivation Theory – Emmanuel Stauffer in his book “American Soldiers” propounded the theory of ‘relative deprivation.’ He believes that when a group of people feel relatively deprived than other group of individuals in terms of power, privilege and prestige, unitedly they take mass action to end up their deprivation is the cause of Social Movement. He studied the American soldiers in which black soldiers were not paid well like white soldiers and their jobs were also derogatory than the whites. This always led to a sense of deprivation among the black soldiers who went for mass action. Hence, he believed that feeling of relative deprivation is the cause of Social Movement. Criticism:

- Gurr and Aberley believe that merely relative deprivation is not enough for Social Movement because many groups and communities conditioned their mind that for their deprivation, their luck or god’s will is responsible hence they do not overcome in the form of Social Movement.

- Oscar Lewis believes that in those communities where “culture of poverty” is developed, the theory of relative deprivation cannot be applied.

- M.S.A. Rao believe that unless or until group does not realize that other groups are responsible for their suffering and they can come out of it through their mass action, Social Movement cannot take place.

2) Strain Theory - Neil J. Smelser believed that the stability it social system depends upon “value consensus” that is, the general agreement in all sections of society about the desired things in the society. Till the consensus remains the social stability order remains maintained. But when society comes in contact in set of new values which is in contradiction with old one, brings strain it social structure. Those who support the old values support the


reactionary movement whereas the supporters of new values support reform, revolutionary and other pro-change movements. Hence, Smelser believed that new value system is responsible for Social Movement in the society. Criticism

- Smelser is a structural functionalist who seems to be supporting status quoism because for him new values always bring disturbances in the society, which may not be true.

- New values cannot essentially bring Social Movement because many a times the new values are so powerful and logical that old values simply become irrelevant and new system emerges on the basis of new values without bringing ups and downs in the society. For example, Modern education is enriching new values and generally the reactionary forces in modern societies have also given up. Hence it cannot be said that it always bring strain in social structure.

3) Revitalisation Theory – Wallace criticized relative deprivation and strain theory by calling it a negative theory. These two theories believe that only due to wrong reasons Social Movement take place in society, whereas Wallace believes that Social Movement aims at bringing a new social order which will provide more satisfaction to the masses. He identified four stages of Social Movement

i) Period of cultural stability ii) Period of ups and down iii) Period of cultural degeneration iv) Effort for revitalization

This theory was criticized for not being anything new rather it is the extension of previous two theories. Conclusion - Social Movement is almost a universal phenomena, though generally not found in stereotype tribal and primitive society. Though in early sociology, Social Movement was not a part of sociological subject matter because evolutionary perspective of Social change was dominant. Social Movements is a very complex phenomena which takes place due to various reasons. Hence, to understand any Social Movement it is important for a sociologist to consider all the three theories at a time. These theories are not contradictory to each other rather these theories explain three different stages of Social Movement. Relative Deprivation theory explains the cause, Strain theory identifies the awareness of the cause or suffering, whereas Revitalization theory focuses upon the goal of the Social Movement. These theories have their own validity, hence a single theory of Social Movement is not enough understand any Social Movement in its complexity.


Types of Social Movement Herbert Blumer, Jonathan Turner, M.S.A. Rao are some of the main sociologists who identified the types of Social Movement in sociology. Blumer identified three types of Social Movement

1) General Social Movement 2) Specific Social Movement 3) Expressive Social Movement

Jonathan Turner identified four types of Social Movement 1) Reform movement 2) Revolutionary 3) Reactionary 4) Expressive

MSA Rao, Gurr & Aberley, etc. have also discussed the types of Social Movement and on its basis following types of Social Movement identify

1) Reform movement – It aims at partial changes in society in form of abolishing or changing some traditional practices, customs or pattern. They believe that society as a whole is good but only due to these customs society has become dysfunctional. Hence, they try to abolish some of the customs. Prarthna Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, RamKrishna Mission are examples.

2) Revolutionary Movement – With violence means, structural change Example, Naxalbari, PWG.

3) Reactionary Movement – Anti-change movement Example, Arya Samaj, Deoban 4) Expressive Movement – Withdrawal from the society. Example, Hippie

Movement in US 5) Migratory Movement – Migration based on ideology. Example, Partition of India,

Israel movement. 6) Millennium Movement - Complete change of society due to heaven’s

interference. Example, Heaven’s gate movement in US into 1970s, Falun Gong movement in late 1980s in China and Japan (They go for mass Suicide)

7) Redemptive Movement – It is anti-worldly/materialistic movement which believes that happiness lines in denounced of worldly affairs. Example, ISKOCON, Art of Living

8) Alternative Movement – It focuses upon alter (little change) in behaviours of Individual. Example, Anti tobacco movement, Say no to plastics

9) Utopian Movement – Considered as non-realistic movement which tries to establish an ideal society. Example, Communist

Stages of Social Movement Herbert Blumer identified five stages-


1) Agitation 2) Development of ‘we feeling’ 3) Development of morale 4) Development of group ideology 5) Development of operating tactics

Horton & Hunt identified five stages- 1) Unrest 2) Heightened stage of excitement 3) Formalization 4) Institutionalization 5) Dissolution

Dawson of Gattis identified four stages- 1) Primary stage 2) Popular stage 3) Formal stage 4) Institutional stage


Collective Action Much of the recent relevant work on ‘collective action’ has been done by 'social movement' scholars, principally in sociology and political science. But there is also a longstanding interest in the dynamics of 'collective action' among economists and historians, or historically oriented social scientists. The term ''collective action'' is hopelessly broad. Taken at face value, it could plausibly refer to all forms of human behavior involving two or more people. For sociological purposes, collective action refers to emergent and at least minimally coordinated action by two or more people that is motivated by a desire to change some aspect of social life or to resist changes proposed by others. While many aspects of collective action have been the subject of theory and research, we organize the entry around the two questions that have received the most scholarly attention. The first concerns the origins of collective action. Strain theories presume that collective action is a response to some form of disruption in the normal functioning of society. In contrast, resource mobilization theorists argue that there is always sufficient ''strain'' in society to provide the motivation for collective action; what varies are the organizational capacity and resources required to do so. The distinctive contribution of political process theory has been to reassert the fundamental political character and origins of collective action. The main emphasis has been on the role of catalytic events that weaken established regimes, thereby creating new ''opportunities'' for successful action by challenging groups. The second question focuses on differential participation in collective action. Why does one person come to take part while another does not? The oldest accounts of activism are psychological. The emphasis is on character traits or states of mind that presumably dispose an individual to participate. Running very much counter to these psychological theories is an important rationalist tradition in the study of collective action. More specifically, we can expect individuals to participate when: (1) they receive selective incentives for doing so and (2) effective systems of monitoring and sanctioning work are operating to deny benefits to those who fail to take part. A third perspective holds that strong attitudinal support for the aims of a movement compels individual activism. All of the previous accounts of participation can be thought of as ''dispositional.'' The final theory rests on a very different assumption. People participate not simply because prior dispositions impel them to, but because their network location in the world puts them at ''risk'' for participation. The causal emphasis is on existing ties to others in the movement that serve to pull them into collective action even as various dispositions are pushing them in that direction.


Revolution When unorganized masses spontaneously bring structural changes in the society through violent means (usually) is known as revolution. There are following characteristics of revolution

1) Structural change in society 2) Through violent means generally 3) With effort of unorganized masses 4) Spontaneous or sporadic

But some changes are structural and multi-dimensional in its impact, though not through violent means are also called as revolution like Industrial Revolution, Green Revolution, IT Revolution etc. Hannah Aurant in her book “On Revolution” wrote that when a group of people develop a feel of camaraderie or belongingness and try to participate for the general social satisfaction than only a revolution becomes successful. Craig Brinton in his book “An Anatomy of Revolution” wrote that certain collective situations are responsible for revolution.

1) Acute situation of relative deprivation 2) Intellectual bankruptcy of state 3) Insensitive administration 4) Extreme level of dissatisfaction among the masses

Tooly identified five collective reasons responsible for revolution- 1) Feeling of relative deprivation 2) Arbitrary nature of state 3) Spread of consciousness 4) General will among the masses for political participation 5) A will of creating a better society.

Karl Marx believes that the acute oppression by the capitalist in industrial society will lead to consciousness among the proletariats who will organize themselves to overthrow capitalism and will establish communist society via socialism. Lenin believes that merely “class consciousness” is not enough for revolution and recognized the importance of intellectual leadership for a successful revolution in society. He himself led the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Whereas Mao-Tse Tung supports ‘cultural revolution’. Without changing the culture, the purpose of revolution cannot get accomplished. Barrington Moore identified three types of revolution-


1) Bourgeoisie revolution – Those revolutions which are led by urban middle class are known as bourgeoisie revolution. In this revolution, middle class provides the leadership for the structural change Example, Industrial and French revolution.

2) Upper Class revolution – Led by state or bureaucrats to bring revolution in the society. Example, Green revolution

3) Peasant Revolution – The peasant class is more aware than the other classes and their participation is more than others. Example, Chinese revolution.

Primarily, revolution is a subject matter of political science because it is generally considered as overthrowing of a government by the others through violent means. Hence it is political phenomena but 18th century onward except French, Russian and Chinese Revolution which was mainly a political change violently other revolutions like Industrial revolution, Green revolution, IT revolution were more socio-economically than political. Though the socio-economical changes certainly have impact over the political system but primarily these revolutions did not aim at changing political leadership. In contemporary sociology, revolution is considered as very progressive phenomena and it is considered as aiming at structural changes smoothly. Education, health sector, employment requires revolutionary efforts to overcome these problems especially in Third World societies.

politics and society - amazon...

Documents