Module – II: Political Concepts and Theories

Rights
Introduction
One of the important works of the modern state has been related to redefining the relation
between the individual and the state. All the ideologies before liberalism had sacrificed the
individual on the state i.e., they took state as the devotion and the individual as the means. But
liberalist on the contrary declared that state and society are for the individual means that they
are just the means to fulfil the aims of the individual liberalism has stressed on absolute moral
worth of the human individual and personal freedom. In order to strengthen this new
individualism liberalism aimed the freedom of the individual and secured this freedom by
keeping control over the power of the state as well as through the development of the concept
of rights, equality, wealth, justice, democracy etc. As we have seen in the practice of citizens,
with the rise of the modern democratic liberal state rights became the strong basis of the
citizenship. The implementation of their rights, their working and their security became the
measurement of the goodness or badness of a state. Today along with the rights of the citizen,
we also talk about the rights of the women and children and rights of minority as well. In 1948,
the universal declaration of Human rights by UNO popularized the concept of human right in
the western countries which gradually spread Asian and African countries and has become a
critical issue in the contemporary political dialogue.
Rights: Meaning and Nature
On the broader aspect right is a “Group of opportunities” which secure the man’s personal
dignity. These are the fundamental terms of a good life which are recognized by the state.
According to Laski, “Rights are those circumstances of human life without which, usually a
person cannot do the best development of his personality.” According to T.H. Green, “This is
that power of working of a man to achieve his objectives which is defines by the social
community on the condition that he will do the welfare of the community also through these
works.” According to Salmond, “Legal right is such a benefit which is recognized and secured
by the legal rule and to follow it is a legal duty.” According to Bosanke, “Right is such a claim
of the individual which is recognized by the society and is implemented by the state” According
to Baker, “To help in the development of the personal power of the individual is the ultimate
goal and supreme political value of the state. The law of the state remains right and just till the
time they guarantee the security to the people for the development of their personality from the
external circumstances. All these circumstances fixed and guaranteed by the state are rights.”
On the basis of the above definition, we can take some common inferences about the nature of
rights. First, rights are the result of the right and just normal arrangement of any society on
which state and laws are based. Infact rights are a portion of right. Thus, without the concept
of “right and just”, we can’t even imagine the rights. Right secured from the legal view point
cannot be just till the basis of the law is not right on which they are based. Apart from that,
rights are given on two levels — temporary and permanent. Temporary basis means that rights
in society are based of the notion of right on which the legal structure is based. Permanent
means that rights are those circumstances that fulfil the objective of society related to notion
of right e.g. maximum development of the individual. Rights are those demands of the
individual from the society which are protected by the law because these are necessary for the
personal development of the man.
Second, Speciality is about the sources of the rights. There are two sources. First source is the
personality of the individual. Rights are the results of the moral personality and his social
nature. In these contexts, rights can be called natural or human. But this is not the complete
answer. Despite being involved in the personality of an individual if the state does not
implement and secure then, then these rights cannot be attained. Thus, these are two sources of
the rights — (i) Personality of an individual and the condition to develop it. (ii) State and its
law which secures and implements them.
Third, in reality, rights are joined with the human relationships on the social level. The use of
rights demands to follow some fundamental rules for social welfare. These rights are never
unlimited and uncontrollable. These are influenced by some social welfare. They expect some
moral duties from the individual while using the rights, a person should always keep in mind
that these rights are equally applicable for the other persons also. So, the rights should be used
with a view point that they contribute in the social welfare along with the personal benefits.
Rights and duties are complementary to each other. Every right is a duty from the social view
point. These are the two sides of the same coin. The importance of rights can be identified in
the context of rights only. Rights are not the selfish demands of a person. Rights are equally
given to everybody in the society.
Fourth, Rights are subject to change development is a part of their nature. New demands
emerge in the society as a result of social and economic development which conflict from
time to time to get recognition as the right. When these demands get the guarantee of
security from the law of the state, these became rights. Some of the rights which got
recognition in 20th Century are social security, work, strike, rest etc.
Fifth: Mostly rights are limited to the time and circumstances because their reality is in a special
society i.e., the society which was neither in past and will not be in future; For example, the
rights obtained by the citizen of India had been in existence before the independence and
will neither remain the same in the next 100 years. Similarly, the subject matter of the same
right can be different for the different country. For example, the limitations and subject,
matter of the right of property given by India and America are totally different. There is no
doubt that some rights are acceptable every everyone, but their implementation is a big
question. Answer to this question will be given under human rights.
Basis of Rights
The development of rights took place in the context of criticism and strong reaction against the
medieval social political arrangements and rise of modern nation state. The ways to obtain them
were aggressive and their subject matter was revolutionary. From the historical view point, the
demand for the personal rights was raised first of all by middle class which came in existence
due to the result of the first Industrial Revolution. This was the fundamental ideology of
revolutionaries of America and France which was later on materialized as ‘Bill of Rights of
America and Declaration of Rights of Man in France. Since the time of the beginner scholars
like Lock to Bentham, Rousseau, J.S. Mill,
T.H. Green, Laski, Barker etc. have considered the demand of the rights to be right. After the
second world war, the development of the concept of the rights was done through the writers
like Rolce, Nauzile, Darkin etc.
On what basis a man should get the rights? —There is no commonly acceptable answer to it.
Many answers have been provided for the last 300 years. Various rights have been justified on
the various basis. We knew all these bases as theories some of the important theories in this
context are as follows:
1. Theory of natural rights.
2. Theory of legal rights.
3. Theory of historical rights.
4. Theory of moral rights.
5. Social welfare theory of rights.
6. Contemporary liberal-individualistic theory of rights.
7. Marxist theory of rights.

Theory of Natural Rights

The first basis of the reason of the rights is known as natural rights. Since the seventeenth and
Eighteenth century a strong idea had been popular in Europe that inspite of the existence of
social legal and political institution, individual has got some rights from the nature which can
be exhibited by the human tolerance. John Lock, the main supporter of this theory declared that
an individual is boar with certain rights by birth. This means that these are not dependent on
society or state. These rights are given by the God to his children as he gives them eye, nose,
ear, hand etc. Man has taken birth as the earth to live and if he has to live life with all
capabilities, he has to be given some freedom. God not only give life to the man but also gives
internal power to get the best benefits in life. “Right is the same internal and born power.”
Rights given by any state are infact natural rights of a person and wherever he lives these rights
cannot be denied because these are not given by any institution or group.
The source of natural rights is the Natural Law. This theory was propagated by the writers like
Hobbs, Lock and Rousseau etc. These writers believed that before the origin of the state man
had saved rights from the nature and after the origin of the state, he gave some of these rights
to society so that it can guarantee the rest of the rights. What are these natural rights? Various
writers had difference of opinion about it. Hobbs considered the right to live as the natural right.
Lock considered life, freedom and wealth – these three rights to be the natural rights. Rousseau
gave provenance to the right to freedom and equality. These writers believed that man cannot
give these rights to the state. These rights are non-transferrable because whatever the God
gives, remains throughout the life. If a man gives up these rights or these rights are taken away
from him, then the man cannot be considered a human being. State which tries to snatch away
these rights of the people, creates such situation in which instead of being citizens, people came
under the condition of slaves.
Criticism
The theory of natural rights was not accepted by the liberalist writers who came later on.
Berk even hampered on the fundamental concept of the natural rights and declared that the
basis of rights could only be the tradition and feelings of any society. Bentham criticized all
such rights which are before the state or against it. Rights can be given only by the law.
Actually, there were many drawbacks in the natural rights. First, if the rights of a person
are unlimited and insecure, then we cannot resolve the opposition of individual and society.
For example, in the condition of a famine or epidemic if one person collects the grain and
does not give to the others inspite of being asked, then due to this other right to live can be
damaged and if people snatch it from him forcibly then his right to wealth is in danger.
This means that if two natural rights conflict with each other, then there is no solution. As
Ben and peters write that social rules are a continuous process to bring propriety between
various claims of society and the theory of natural rights makes the process impossible.
Second, criticism is regarding the serious difference in opinion about the definitions of the
natural rights. What is the meaning of ‘Natural’? Various thinkers have used this word as
per their own wish. For instance, natural in the sense of ‘universe’, in the sense of ‘non-
human part of this world”, as an ideal, in the form of an ordinary man etc. As a result, the
concept of the natural rights remains unclear in various writers.
Third, rights are intermingled in the nature of the individual. This logic also has not been
accepted by many writers. Any right can never be without any rule or law. Rights also expect
same duties and they create some human relationship on which duties are based. As Green
has written, “Every right has to prove its reason in some such objectives of the society
which cannot be achieved without rights.” Apart from it, rights are also influenced by the
community welfare of the society. But theory of natural rights considered these included in
the individual and separated them from state and society.
Fourth, by separating the benefits of individual and society, theory of natural rights separates
all those bases on which they have reason. This theory assumes that rights and duty are free
from society. This was a wrong idea because the question of rights sizes only in society and
social context.
Even then, the theory natural right was a special theory influenced by the contemporary
circumstances. This laid the foundation of the values like the freedom of individual, self-
reliance, expression of thought and labour in the opposition of an authority based on traditions
and blind religious beliefs. Being the ideology of the upcoming middle class, this theory tried
to save the individual from the interference of the state in economic field and in its
contemporary context, this remained as an inspiration for many revolutionary movements.

Theory of Legal Rights

In nineteenth century, the legal rights took the place of the natural rights. The theory of legal
rights believes that rights instead of being natural are given by the state. Only the rights given
by the state are the rights. Rights are not included in the man but these are artificial because no
demand of a person can become right, till it is fixed and secured by the state. Parts of this theory
are found in the thinking of Hobbs who believed that every person has a right of self-defence
(natural) but this right can be secured in the best way only by the state. Clarification and
description of this theory is evident in the ideas of the legal thinkers like Bentham, Austin and
others.
Bentham has rejected the theory of natural rights propagated by the preliminary liberalist
writers and by the supporters of American and French revolutions. He considered this theory
to be foolish, useless and illogical. May be this theory limits the dictatorship of majority
theoretically, but on the practical aspect, declaration of rights of man, could not save any such
person from capital punishment who was presented before the revolutionary Court of France.
Neither, this theory could free the people of America from slavery. Thus, the practical utility of
the natural rights was almost nil. According to Bentham, the basis of rights is only law which
itself is based on the concept of utility. Bentham called natural rights as the nonsense upon
stilts. According to him law and rights are compulsorily one – Law is objective and right is
subjective.
The theory of legal rights has three specialities;
(i) State defines the rights and finalise them in the form of Bill of Rights. Rights are not
before state instead state is the source of rights.
(ii) State provides that legal and institutional structure which is necessary to use these
rights. State implements these rights and
(iii) As the creation and implementation of the rights is done by state, so whenever the
change in law comes, then these comes a change in rights also.
Legal theory believes that it is not necessary that the state should be the source of rights, but in
the deficiency of the recognition nod safely of the state, rights are not valid. These are
implemented by the state because these are rights and not because these are rights so these have
to be implemented. All these demands are necessary for the moral development of the man, but
they do not have the recognition and security of the state. At the most they can be called
probable rights. They can only be the basis of the rights and not complete rights.
Rights given by the state are called ‘Positive Rights’ also. In the modern state, citizens have
only these positive rights for example rights of life, freedom, property, education old age
pension etc. which are all recognized by the state. Apart from it, these rights are contextual i.e.,
these are given to only those citizens who came under their area. These rights exist till the
related laws exist or till the court declares them against law.

Criticism
Like natural rights, the theory of legal rights is also incomplete. First, legal theory has not
included all rights in it. It describes only those rights which have been recognized and secured
by the state through its law. This was incomplete from the view point that it did not clarify that
the rights which have been secured are valid and as per the law and they really wanted
recognition. This theory assumes the fact that those who have been given recognition by the
state must be right.
Second, legal theory has not taken care of the rights of various groups. As Laski has written,
people use right, not only as the members of the state but as member of society also. Thus, to
limit the right to only state is to destroy the personality of an individual and its protection.
Third, state does not create rights, it only gives them recognition and security and coordinates
them. As wild writes, existence of rights remain, whether state gives them recognition or not.
The concept of right and wrong remains above the law of the state. The basis of the rights
should be the concept of correct right on the social level.
Fourth, if the state and its legal rights are consideral supreme then there will be no right against
the state. Green and Laski believed that in some circumstances it becomes necessary to oppose
the state. The obedience to state is also limited and prohibited. Obedience is to the reason of
the state and not due to the power and strength of the state. This is in its legal concept and not
in its power. So, the materialistic legal foundation of the rights is the concept of the society and
not only law. Law is only a solid form of that legal concept.

Theory of Historical Rights

As a result of the opposite reaction of intellectualism of eighteenth century, historical branch
of law, philosophy and legal was originated. This ideology was a strong reaction against the
paper constitution, traditional political institution and disobedience to these circumstances and
to the belief that a magical transformation can be brought in society by the law made by the
human intellect. This historical branch of thought was mainly popularized by Savigny and Puta
of Germany, Berk and Henry Maine of ‘England and James Carter of America. There was one
common thought among all these that the character of state and law is historical and the same
implies to the rights also.
According to this idea, state, law and rights are neither based on the human wish nor are given
by nature on the contrary; these are the results of the origin of the historical circumstances.
These are the expression of the special talent of the specific national awareness. According to
Puta, “All humanitarian rights imagine about a collective awareness as source. Right takes the
form of reality when it becomes a part of the group awareness of those people on whom it is
implemented. Through the medium of this collective awareness like language and religion,
people of society unite in one thread. This awareness which flows in these social members in
a collective form and is born with them, then this is called national feeling. This national feeling
is infact the source of human rights.
Similarly, while differentiating the formless and historical rights, Berk has written that the
French Revolution was influenced by the formless theories of freedom, equality and
brotherhood whereas the golden revolution of England in 1688 was based on the traditional
rights, on those rights which were being used by the citizens of England for a long time. The
rights declared by the French Revolution were not the part of the group awareness of the people,
so inspite of giving capital punishment to the kind and declaring the rights; people were not
able to get them. As a result, this revolution gradually turned into dictatorship.
According to this theory, the foundation of rights is history. Rights are the essence elements of
the customs. These essence elements become rights with the passage of time. According to
Reechae, those rights which people think to be theirs are actually rights for which they have
been habituated or which they have used earlier. The first law of rights is traditions. If we
analyse many of the rights then it would be found that they are in continuation for a long time
in the form of customs and tradition. On the contrary, those demands which have no historical
rights are not useful inspite of being rights.
  In short, rights are the result of historical development. All those rules which are
implemented on the historical theory of law can be implemented on the rights.
According to them:
 Rights are not universal, these are limited to the time and circumstances and are related
to the specific social group.
 The basis of rights is a historical process instead of intellect and tolerance and a specific
individual has no role in its construction.
 The concept of public right should be changed with the historical rights of French and
German.
 It is impossible to reform and it is better to give chance to the historical process without
any interference.
 It is right to replace the idea of transcendent natural order to the concept of order
eminent in historical process.

Criticism
It is evident from the above discussions that theory of historical rights was a reaction against
the theory of natural and legal rights. Even then, in totality, this theory has presented the
traditional view point of history. Its main drawback was that this theory did not differentiate in
good and bad tradition. If rights are the results of the history and tradition then the question is
that if in any society slavery, polygamy, sati or apartheid are considered tradition, then should
all these be considered to be the rights? Should the society keep on waiting till the day when
the social awareness will arise and people will give these a new meaning which will be called
right. In short, if traditions are the basis of the rights then there is no doubt in the fact that no
society can snatch its relationship with its traditions and culture, but it is also equally true that
these are not reliable. Aggressive social transformation of society demands for a new
description of history as has been told by the Marx and Angel and their disciples. Similarly, to
take help of the law to end the old narrow customs is also not wrong. Theory of historical rights
has limited the basis and description of the rights by limiting them to the development of the
traditions. It has not given need towards the continuing and changeable nature of the rights.

Theory of Moral Rights

According to this theory rights take their validity from that moral collection in which the
members of one particular group are mutually partners. Rights are implemented by the inner-
self of the man. Though T.H. Green has combined it with liberalism. The main propagators of
this theory were Rousseau in France, Hegel in Germany, Bosanko Green in England. Theory
of moral rights joins the rights to that moral freedom which a person obtains as a member of
society. According to this theory there is only one fundamental basis of the rights the
personality of a person. Whether it is the right to live or freedom, or property, or education or
health, all these ultimately are inspired by the development of personality. So, rights are those
powers which a person demands from the society on moral grounds and which are implemented
and secured by the state through its law. The internal development of a person does not depend
upon the state; this is a personal matter of a person state’s work is only to create those external
circumstances in which an individual can obtain his moral freedom. Rights are the external
circumstances of the internal development of a person which are secured by the state through
its law. According to Green, Rights are the essential powers to fulfil the capabilities of an
individual as a moral creature. This concept of Green in different from the concept of Lock.
Rights on one side are the demand of the intellectual nature of the individual so that he could
give solid form to the capabilities. These demands are rights because on the social level this is
a group awareness that man should get the rights. Rights instead of being natural are ideal. So
as the change comes in the group awareness, these rights also change with the time and
circumstances. In this awareness so many changes which came as a result of this development
which used to be legal, lose their importance with the passage of time. Apart from it, every
right of an individual should coordinate with the common welfare of the society because
ultimately social welfare and not the humanity, decides the rights of the man. Like Kant, Green
also had the same opinion, that there could be no right against state. The opposition of the state
will give rise to anarchy and the destruction of state like this will be harmful
for the individual. Before opposing state, it will be necessary to compare between the freedom
of individual and the anarchy rising due to it.
According to moral concepts, the basis of rights is moral instead of being natural or legal rights
are those demands which are helpful in bringing the personality of an individual to the highest
position. As the development of the personality is the objective of every individual, so the
question of the rights becomes social instead of being just personal and it becomes necessary
to coordinate the rights of a person with the rights of the other persons also rights are the
combination of personal and social welfare. The objectives of the rights are not the fulfilers of
the selfish benefits of the individual but it is to raise his moral level. Rights have the recognition
by the society and state implements them through its laws. There is no question of the existence
of rights in the absence of society and state. By combining the personal benefits with social
benefits, the foundation of welfare state was laid down in twentieth century by the moral theory
of rights.
Like historical theory, moral theory of rights was also contextual and not public because this is
infact is the right of those people who believe in the same moral code of conduct. There is no
doubt that there could be same facts common in various code of moral conduct but this a subject
of discussion and the unanimity could be established on this.

Social Welfare Theory of Rights

In 20th Century all the basis of rights like natural, legal, historical, idealistic got included in
one broad theory which was called the concept of rights related to social welfare. This concept
of social welfare was recognized in the last decades of nineteenth and in twentieth century by
the liberalise writers like
T.H. Green, G.D.H. Kole, L.T. Hobhouse, Laski, Barker etc. According to this concept, law,
customs traditions natural rights etc. have the same measurement and that is social welfare. As
Hobhouse writes, “Real rights are the conditions of the social welfare and the reason of the
various rights is one the fact that what role they play for the coordinated development of the
society”. The best description of the social welfare theory of rights is found in Laski’s book,
“A Grammar of Politics”. According to him, “Rights are those circumstances of social life,
without which a person cannot attain his best.” The existence of the state is to help. The
individual to obtain this and the state can do this work in a better way by securing the rights.
While describing the specialties of this theory, Laski writes that the question of rights rises only
in the context of society. Through rights are the demands of an individual yet these demands
are common with the others. Thus, rights get combined with the common welfare and similar
objectives. State helps in doing good for both individual and society by securing these rights.
Personal benefit is an integral part of social benefit.
Second, rights are combined with the welfare work in society. The meaning of the rights are in
the beneficiary works done on the social level. The use of the rights of the individual can be
considered right only in the context of the works contributing to the social welfare.
Third, rights are some demands of the individual from the state and this is the duty of the state
that it collects the circumstances so that the benefit can be taken from these rights. In this
context Laski’s idea is that rights are not dictator, while considering the social benefits, state
can put some limits on these rights. But these limits should be logical. If these are as per the
whims and fancies then they lose their validity and then their opposition of these not only
become the individual’s rights but his duty as well.
Fourth, due to the condition of the social life, Laski gives special importance to economic and
social rights along with political and legal rights e.g. right to work, right to rest, right hours of
working partnership of labour class in the management of industries, education, right of limited
property etc.
Fifth, according to Laski, for the security of these rights, it is necessary that state is of
democratic, limited and decentralized because due to this there could be better and more
believable coordination between the individual and the state.
In short, the concept about the social welfare believes that (i) Rights are the condition of the
social life. (ii) The question of rights arises only in the society. (iii) No person can get any right
against social welfare. (iv) Rights are given to an individual so that he can contribute to the
social benefits. If every state is known by the fact that how many rights does it give to its
citizens then rights are also known by the fact that upto what limit, social welfare was obtained
through them.

Contemporary Liberal-Individualistic Theory of Rights

In the last thirty years, contemporary liberal individualistic theory of rights has been affected
by the ideas of two writers. These writers are John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Both the writers
had been very famous under the tradition of liberalization and have inspired many other writers;
like Derolic, Galstone, Ekman, Berry etc. to propagate the optional theories of rights. These
thinkers represent the two important contemporary social economic viewpoints. Robert Nozick
supports the free market free commercial capitalism, liberalization and minimal state. On the
contrary, Rawls supports the tradition of Keans of equality-based liberalism. This is influenced
by the effectiveness of capitalist economy but because this economy gives birth to many types
of inequalities, thus without ending the fundamental basis of the capitalist economy, they tell
the ways to minimize its inequalities by welfare and state directed work.
According to Nozick, the main source of rights is the rule of Natural Right of self-ownership
which means that every individual should be considered as a means in itself. The first sentence
of his book is, “Individuals have rights and there are no things persons or group may do to then
(without violating their rights). Society has to compulsorily honour these rights because
individual is a not means it in itself. Rights are the mark of the independent existence of the
individual and if taken seriously their meaning is that man is not the source to fulfil others
selfish deeds. To honour the rights means to honour the claim of being everyone equal. By
honouring the individual of a free will society it infact honours the individual and it also gives
the freedom to every individual to finalise the objectives or to select the ways in life either on
individual level or along with others.
As far as the subject matter of the rights are concerned, Nozick supports only the pure personal
rights specially the freedom to obtain and keep the property and to do mutual agreements. In
Nozick’s concept of property, there is no place of the welfare rights of the individual and their
security by the state. According to him each individual is his own lord of himself and his
capabilities and is free to use his capacities. Every person has a personal free area in which
there should no interference without his consent. All the political institutions are basically
suppressive, so they should obtain the common acceptance of those who are ruled. These
institutions should be based on free will. State has no appropriate work except arrangement,
security and justice. Rights are before the citizen laws and the law of the state is for their safety.
Rolls uses, the words ‘Rights’ and ‘Justice’ in the similar meanings. According to him, rights
should be intermingled in the justice. In his book, ‘A Theory of Justice’ while describing the
process of the creation of the state, Rolls writes that rights are before the veil of ignorance of
all individuals, but people had no natural rights except for those rights which they unanimously
chose while creating the state. These rights were also accepted because this was the unanimous
decision of the people. The rights which were selected at time of agreement of the people, were
of the two types.
(i) the fundamental right of everyone for maximum equal freedom which matches with
the others right for the same.
(ii) Social and economic inequalities should be managed in such a way that (a) they
give maximum benefit to the people with minimum facilities in the society and (b)
Equal and unbiased opportunity should remain the basis for all posts and situation.
By fundamental freedoms Rolls means all the citizen and political rights which are given in
today’s liberal countries e.g. voting right, right to obtain political position, rule to the law, right
to speech and expression of thought etc. But for Rolls, the importance of the rights, is in the
fact that the justified
part of the economic sources of the society should be obtained by everyone. Thus, the second
part of the rights talks about giving the citizens some equality-based rights. According to it,
social and economic inequalities are to be regularized in such a way that all those people who
have minimum materialistic means like in income, wealth and education, they should be given
more part. Thus Rolls, imagines for such a market arrangement where materialistic inequalities
work as the motivators and help to increase the store of the goods for distributors. On practical
level, the tax-process of the state is arranged in a proportionate manner that the lowest people
should get the maximum benefits. Rolls believes that the rights of the common men on the
social things does not depend only on their capabilities. Capable people have no right for the
more income. Income and facilities of the capable people can be justified only when they go
for the benefit of the lowest people.
Rolls and Nozick both have rejected the theory of utilitarianism. Both have the opinion that
man its itself is a means. Though whereas per Nozick, the most important right is the right to
self-ownership; these as per Rolls this right is “the appropriate part in the social sources.”
According to Nozick, there is no need to do welfare of the poor from the things produced by
the able people because” if I have complete right on myself, then a sole owner of my capability
and the produce made by my capability.” Thus, it is wrong to re-distribute these sources by tax
process. According to Rolls, the right of the ownership of the capabilities does not mean that
there should be right for the unequal result of these capabilities because capabilities are
unevenly distributed by nature. Thus, this is the duty of the state that it gives the assurance that
there will no harm to the incapable people due to the capable people.
Ronald Dworkin has described another theory of Rights in his book ‘Taking Rights Seriously.”
Dworkin tries to establish a new political theory based on the moral rights. According to him a
man has only two rights which can be justified on the moral level;
(i) the right of equality for every individual and
(ii) the right of respect to the human status. This theory is not based on history,
philosophy or tradition
and is an imaginative theory based on the logic. Dworkin’s theory is different from the view
point of the liberalist writers that they do not accept any common right of freedom. According
to it, the idea of the right of freedom is a wrong conception, which has brought harm to the
political thinking. There is no doubt that the freedoms are very important but just because they
are based on the right to equality. He writes, “Citizens have specific rights of some freedom
like expression of thought and freedom in their personal sex relations but they do not have a
freedom to use the wealth.” Another speciality of the Dworkin’s theory is their aggressive
individualism. In context of the freedom to expression, he writers that in any public
demonstration there should be no ban as the loudspeakers even in the name of security because.
This can hinder the expression of thoughts of any individual or the demonstrators. Similarly,
in the name of equality and human states he considers it right to give admission to the Blacks
in university inspite of their law scores.
In short, after 1960, under Liberalism, many conceptions of personal rights were presented.
But the question is that can a new theory of the fundamental rights be made on the basis of
these theories. According to Birch, this does not seem possible because in these new
conceptions lack of clear ideas about the nature of individual, view point about society or the
works of the stated. Similarly, Peter Johns also writes that “What is the meaning of rights?
There are still fundamental differences in the various philosophers on this question. In the
present time, if there had been any progress in the context of rights, then this progress is towards
variety and not towards any only truth.

Marxist Theory of Rights

Despite the variety of definition, description and validity, existence of the rights of individual
is the fundamental concept of liberalism. Rights are such demands of an individual on the social
level which are safeguard by state through its law. The basis of these rights may be natural, or
legal or historical, moral or welfare, these are the fundamental rights of the individual. On the
contrary, in Marxism we find lack of any fixed theory. The ideas related to the rights of
Marxism are connected to the concept of
personal wealth. The main objective of Marx had been the criticism of capitalist society and
economy. He has not presented any definite theory about the relations between state and the
individual. Even then, his ideas on rights have highlighted the hollowness of the Bourgeois
rights and this tradition was followed by the later Marxists writers. After the revolutions in the
constitutions of Soviet Union and China, new chapters were added but on the practical level
obtaining their remained a dream.

Criticism of Bourgeois Rights

In his primitive writing, Marx has analysed the nature of rights given in Bourgeois state. His
idea was that economic inequalities give rise to political inequalities. As a result, instead of
being in majority, labour class could never get the standard of ruling class in the government
and their rights remained hollow. In his book ‘The Jewish Question 1843’ while analysing the
human rights given in French and American constitution, Marx says that human rights were
political rights up to a great extent which can be used with the other people in the society. Their
subject matter and nature depend upon the nature of the state. These came under the “political
freedom’ and ‘citizen freedom’. But apart from them, there are some human rights also which
can be differentiated from the citizen rights e.g. freedom of soul or religious freedom. In
Bourgeoisie society 'Rights of Individual’ and 'rights of citizen' are differentiated. An individual
is an individual being the member of a citizen society. So why should we call the rights of the
individual as human rights? According to Marx, these can be described in context of the relation
of state with the citizen society and the nature of political freedom.
Rights of an individual are due to being the member of the citizen society which means that
these are the rights of a selfish person of such a person which is different from other individuals
and groups. French constitution of 1793 declared the equality, freedom wealth and security as
the rights of an individual. According to it the meaning of freedom was the freedom any person
to do what he wishes provided he does no harm to others. According to Marx, this was the
freedom of such a selfish person which was limited to himself. This right of freedom was not
to unite people but to separate them. Similarly, the meaning of the right to wealth was to use
buy or sell. Our labour, things and income as per our own wish and without caring for the
society i.e. the right of clear selfishness. Freedom and wealth are the basis of the citizen society.
These rights consider other individuals as obstacles in the personal freedom. Similarly, equality
is also another form of freedom. This means every will be considered as an aim in himself
without any disparity. This means that law is equal for everyone whether it gives security or
punishes. The meaning of security is the security of life and wealth of every person in society.
The concept of security does not give chance to the society to rise above its selfishness instead
it is a surety to strengthen the selfishness. In short, according to Marx, no right can rise above
the concept of a selfish person. These are the right of such a citizen who is limited only to his
personal benefits and selfishness and is totally cut off from the citizen society. These are not
the rights of a person as a part of the human race. In these society is an artificial institution and
is an obstacle in his self-reliance. The means to unite the people together are nothing apart from
natural necessities personal benefit and security of wealth.
Marx found this situation very conflicting that liberalism which had taken the task to break the
walls of differences between the various classes of the society; is appropriating the nature of
such an individual who is selfish and is cut-off from the society. Liberalism has not cared for
the community side of the individual. In short, in the context of liberalism, individual is a real
individual only in the form of Bourgeois individual’ and not in the form of citizen.
Apart from it, modern state claims that this is a society not based the special rights but rather
it is such a society which has special rights. This has free the individual from the special rights,
but according to Marx, liberalism has started a conflict in individual to individual. In this every
individual considers the other individual as an enemy to his freedom and wealth and is in the
tension to save them. Infact this is taking the individual towards the inhumanity and slavery.
Here rights have taken the form of special rights.
In short, the criticism of Bourgeois rights of Liberalism are as follows:
Right remain formless and informal till such institutional changes are not made in which these
rights are possible. For example, the meaning of the right to live is the achievement to live the
life and nourishment. Marx was quite sure about the fact that is our social relations, wealth is
not only a power above the things but this a power to control the people as well. This the
ownership of the production means to devoid a large part of the society to use them. The power
of wealth is the real wealth which compels the people to be dependent on others. This
compulsion effects the use of rights in a negative way.
Though the right to equality is a necessary condition for social justice but even them it is not
satisfactory in itself. Where liberalist writers declared that individuals are equal in front of law,
Marxist had a logic that with the economic inequality, the legal equality can neither provide
security equally to everyone and nor it can punish those who prohibit it. In the class divided
society; the equality of rights demands that in this reconstruction of the society is very essential.
Similarly, when Marx said that every right from the core is the right to inequality, then he does
not deny the validity of the right to equality.
Every right, whether is the right to education or the right to education or the freedom to love;
is affected by the circumstances of its management. Apart from this, rights are never above the
economic structure and cultural development of the society but are rather effective of them.
From the economic view point, in order to conflict for the establishment of a class devoid
society; which will emphasize on social and economic democracy; it is necessary to abide by
the rules of the political democracy. In the context of the high aim of the establishment of
communist society, rights are only formal and if they became obstacles in the way of the class
conflict, then there is nothing wrong in prohibiting them.

Rights in Communist Societies

While discussing about the change in the communist society after revolution, Marx talks about
the “Dictatorship of lowest class”. The political demands of the dictatorship of the lowest class
will not be different from the old democratic states like adult voting rights, direct making of
law, favourite right, public army etc. All these are infact Bourgeois demands which have been
obtained up to a great extent. The only difference will be that if after the revolution such kind
of state will be demanded then these will be no Bourgeois state. In this primitive condition of
communism, everyone will get wages as per his labour. This is possible that are individual is
better than the other from physical or mental view point and can give comparatively can
contribute more time and labour. Thus, here the meaning of the equal rights will be unequal
rights for unequal labour. Here instead of class-difference, unequal productive capacity and
talents of the individual will be given importance. In short, all rights of equality will infact be
the rights of inequality. Similarly, one labour could be unmarried and the other could be a
family man. Thus, inspite of equal labour and equal portion from the social store, an individual
can obtain more than the other and become rich. These drawbacks can be rectified only when
rights are unequal.
But these kinds of drawbacks are obvious in the first phase of communism because this will be
such a society which has emerged from capitalism. As discussed above, rights can never be
above the economic structure of the society and the cultural development made by it. Only in
the last condition of the communism, when the difference between the physical and mental
labour of the individual will finish, and when productive powers will be completely developed
only then in society. The rule that every individual will work as per his capability and will be
paid as per his requirement; can be implemented. In a communist society, this will be the basis
of rights.
In Russia, China and Eastern European countries, chapters about the rights and duties were
includes in their constitution after the communist revolution. Following the Marxist theory,
more priority was given to the economic rights than the political rights in these states. Rights
and duties were considered in the conflicting relation. This means that duties are included in
rights and in duties there are rights. For example, to work is a right as well as duty. Whosever
will work has a right to eat and one who eats, has a duty to work. In the constitution social and
cultural rights were the main similarly, citizen rights like expression of thought, to make groups
to demonstrate etc. were also added. The right to have private property was almost finished.
All these rights are joined with the duties in which to safeguard the public property,
compulsory; defence service, security of ‘Soviet Fatherland’ etc. were included. Even then,
same negative aspects also came forwards in context of these rights specifically political and
citizen obstinance right. Complete authority of communist party on the state, society and
economy, common use of oppressive means by state, unity of structures of party and state,
absence of citizen freedom, ban on the difference of opinion etc. were some such specialities
which converted the rights into mere relaxations given by the state. From the economic, social,
political and cultural viewpoints, these states could not obtain much in the direction of making
the life of common man prosper.
Human Rights
In order to prove the importance of the rights, many adjectives life ‘natural’ fundamental and
‘human’ etc. are being added to them from time to time. In twentieth century the concept of
human rights has become very popular. This century is called the century of human rights
because the concept of human rights has become very popular in liberalist – democratic and
communist countries. On the practical level, all states have a believer in one or the other
concept of the human rights which declares their society and political institution as justified.

Human Rights: Meaning and Characteristics

The meaning of the concept of human rights is that every members of the human society
possesses same fundamental rights due to his humanity. Instead of being legal or national, these
are universal rights which have to be given to the people in every state under any circumstances
or deficiency. These are included in the individual himself rather than being given by the state
or the society. If seen from the philosophical view point, then these rights are influenced by the
concept of natural rights of seventeenth century but in twentieth century these were called
human rights because today
they are believed to be based on the human needs rather than human intellect. The inspiring
source of these human rights is the reality that an individual who is hungry, is behind the bars,
is illiterate, is not getting appropriate wages for work, is exploited; this individual is living a
life not appropriate for a human being.
According to Macfarlane, “Human rights are those moral rights which a male or a female gets
for being human.” These rights can be identified on the basis of the five specialities:
(i) Universality
(ii) Individuality
(iii) Paramountary
(iv) Practicability and
(v) Enforceability.
While describing these specialities, Macfarlane writes that they are universal in the sense that
these rights are for all people at all times and under all circumstances. The declaration of human
rights by the UNO, is for the entire human race in whatever kind of rule or circumstances they
are living. Individuality means that the concept of human rights is based on the belief that man
is a free creature; he has his own prestige, is master of his own conscious and logic and is able
to take his own decision on the social level. So, where these values of the personality of the
individual are not given recognition, then these right no longer remain rights and remain just a
part of the customs and tradition. Rights are paramount also from the view point that any person
can prohibit these rights only at the cost of injustice. The meaning of paramountary is that the
human rights represent “some such work which should not be done, some such freedoms which
should not be at risk and some such values which are sacred”. According to Dworkin, human
rights are those rights which cannot be prohibited in the name of public benefit and they can
be utilized even in the absence of law of the state. Practicability means that human rights are
some such demands which are impossible and cannot be limited only to some countable
number of societies. But this does not mean that everyone can be made equal. Any ordinary
person of the undeveloped country can lead a life like a person of developed country. Even
then, the right for the security of the minimum facilities of living life is a right of every
individual. Practicality means that the state arrangement is managed in such a way that the
minimum economic and social necessities are fulfilled. Last speciality is enforceability.
Though there are many conflicts regarding this speciality but this fact is also clear that with
enforcing these rights, no demand of the people can be fulfilled. On the practical level, the
human rights can be followed only under the legal structure of the state which grants some
rights to its citizens.
Human rights are that safety jacked which try to save a person from violence and disobedience.
An individual need one or the other structure of the safety because nature had made him very
weak. Though this safety is never complete, yet in the beginning of modern age, this fact started
emerging that individual has got some rights by birth which safeguard him morally from the
other persons and the dictatorship of the government. These natural rights have been given the
name human rights in twentieth century.
Human rights are infact rights against the state means that it is the duty of the state to respect
these rights. Infact it is a measurement through which the works of the government can be
accounted. After second world war, developed human rights can be divided in two parts –
pessimistic and optimistic.
Pessimistic rights are those rights which impose some bindings on the Government of any
country even other country even other persons like no man will be mistreated without doing
any crime against the law of the state, he is not be made disable by cutting off any part of his
body, he will not be put in prison, nor will be murdered or will not be stopped to get security
under the legal rule. State will not ban on the expression of thought of an individual and his
religious freedom. There could be difference in the quality of enforcement of these differences
on the basis of the state’s political, social and economic conditions, but fundamentally these
are every person’s universal rights.
From the optimistic view point, human rights mean that only equality is not enough in front of
law right to live means that food, cloth house and medicines etc. are available to the individual
in the quantity that he could make his life meaningful. Similarly, right to expression demands
education so
that individual can increase his knowledge. These rights mean that state through its optimistic
works should provide these facilities of an individual’s life.
In short, human right means:
 Rights are by birth for an individual and are included in his personality.
 These are necessary for the fundamental human life and its development.
 They expect such social circumstances in which these can be obtained.
By considering these to be the fundamental demands, these have to be made the part of the
constitution and law of the state.

U.N. Declaration on Human Rights

In the large history of the concept of rights, the idea of human rights is the contribution after
the second world war. It immediate context was the strong hatred against the massacre by the
Fascist rule of Hitler during war. As a result of this hatred, the Victorian countries had criminal
cases against many German leaders which has no mention in the legal books of the nation but
which were based on judgement of International Court of Justice. These crimes were called
Crimes Against Humanity and in order to finalise the standards for the future, UNO created a
special committee in 1948 for universal declaration of human rights. This declaration suggested
a same standard for the achievements of all citizens of all countries. According to this, all
people are born with the same prestige and rights so all the rights which are written in the
“Declaration of UNO” should be obtained by the people irrespective of any caste, colour,
language, sex, religion, opinion, variety, national wealth and birth etc.
Which rights can be called human rights? The declaration letter of UNO talks about two types
of rights — (i) Citizen and political right; (ii) Economic, social and cultural rights. Among the
citizen and political rights, the significant ones are the rights of life, freedom, security, freedom
from slavery, same legal security, freedom to move, expression, conscious and religious
freedom, make groups, participating in election on the basis of adult voting rights etc. On under
social, economic and cultural rights came the rights of social security, work, to rest, minimal
life standard, education and to participate in the cultural heritage of their community. The
declaration letter also recognizes the fact that every person has a right to live in such a national
or international arrangement in which these freedoms can be utilized effectively.
This declaration letter of UNO expresses its strong belief in the human race and talks about
these rights to be universal so that there can be obtained by a person inspite of the deficiency
the national laws of the specific state. This discusses about important aspects of human freedom
and circumstances of life and requests the government that they try to implement them. This
letter is based on the rule that rights are the means to obtain a good life for a person on the
social level and it is the duty of the Government is to manage their claims in such a way that
the circumstances of good life become possible for everyone.
Justification of Rights: A Critique of Human Rights
How far are human rights valid? Is the declaration regarding the human rights is a self-
proclaimed truth which does not demand any validity? Critics of human rights do not accept
them as partial concepts. Natural rights were considered right on the basis of Natural Law but
human rights were differentiated from the concept of natural law. Contemporary political
thinkers consider human rights valid on the basis of freedom, equality, self-reliance and human
welfare. Even then in various nation
– states, the problem of human rights become more complete due to the different kinds of
political, social, economic and cultural circumstances. Inspite of being popular, these are not
accepted equally in all the countries of the world. Some countries have rejected them even on
the theoretical basis. Whereas some other countries do not stop criticizing some special rights.
Some of the logics about the criticism of the human rights and the problems in their validity
are as under:
Utilitarian writers think that we talk about the existence of human with such faith that these are
the part of legal rights. There is a fundamental difference between the human rights and legal
rights and we accept this difference then the human right is nothing more than a moral demand.
From the view point of the practical utility the claim of the human rights is very weak because
in most of the countries of the world still there is dictatorship and memorandum of the UNO
could not stop these states to prohibit these rights. The appeal made in the name of declaration
has merely remained a hollow one. Human rights have been proved more like a means of cold
war by the super powers and some strong nations.
Lot of importance has been given to the social, economic and cultural rights like education,
work, social security, rest and minimal life style. But some critics have put a question of doubt
not only on the social justice obtained by these rights but also on the intelligence of their being
human rights. According to Morris Keranston, economic and social rights seem to be invalid
because most of the backward and developing nations, these are not more than any imagination.
Their inclusion the memorandum, compels the other rights also to be imaginative. Most of the
developing countries lack the favourable condition for these rights and it becomes very abstract
to say their citizens that though then have got the rights but they cannot use it, whereas in the
other corners of the world there are countries where the citizens have been utilizing the rights
for a long time. As a result, inspite of claiming to be universal and equal, human rights become
unequal for various countries. Apart from it, one more questionable speciality of the social and
economic rights is that it is the government’s responsibility to provide these facilities to
everyone which means rights are humanitarian and the duty to provide facilities is national. In
other words, rights were made universal but there was no economic source according to these
rights on the worldly level.
Another important criticism is that behind the universalities of the human rights the sovereignty
of cultural imperialism is also hidden. Most of the rights given under memorandum are those
rights which had been the integral part of western liberal democratic values, institutions and
traditions. Many developing and backward states have put a question mark on the inspirational
source and meaningfulness of these rights. They claim that through the medium of human
rights, western countries are imposing their value systems on the social cultural structure of the
undeveloped states. For example, the right to express has not much importance for an
uneducated, unemployed and hungry person. In such societies, the need of food, cloth, shelter
and education are more important than the political or moral rights (Though there is no doubt
that in many countries, taking economic development as an excuse, many times citizen freedom
has been tried to be suppressed). If all the citizens of the world are given these human rights,
then this will an authority of the European culture on other cultures which
do not accept the “European concept of a good and just society.” Apart from this, the concept
of human rights has disobeyed the group rights like of class nations and caste. Liberal democrat
has given less importance to the question of class exploitation, national self-decision and caste
discrimination.
Another criticism of the human rights is a contribution of Marxist writers. According to Marxist
writers, along with the freedom, equality is also an important human value. They call this liberal
individualist concept of rights as Bourgeois Illusion. Due to a wide gap in the rich and poor
class, income of liberal capitalist societies, life standard, inequality in the economic and
political power, these rights have become very hollow. Thus, this western concept of human
rights infact promises to give equal opportunities to every person to be unequal for example,
the right of every person to remain richer than his neighbour. Similarly, this opportunity for
equality also remains as a myth as the money, power and speciality remains limited to some
people. This centralization gives opportunity to one specific group to control the common
people and so the exploitation of the majority by minority is considered justified. In these
circumstances, human rights can never be more than a myth.
Economic Rights
In democratic states, citizens have economic rights also for the economic development. Mostly
citizen have the following rights:
 Right to get work: Right to get work implies that citizen demands to get the paid job. It
is the duty of the state to provide work to every citizen so that citizen can earn their
livelihood.
 Right to get proper wages: It is not enough to get work but they should get proper wages
 for their work. In Russia right to get proper wages is given by the constitution. In
capitalist countries, minimal wages laws are being made.
 Right to get leave: Labors have a right to get leave after work in order to safeguard their
health. In Russia, this right is constitutional. During leave period, salary is gives.
 Right to have fixed hours of working: In the modern states, working hours are fixed so
that capitalist cannot exploit their labours. Before fixing the hours of work, labourers
were forced to work for 12 to 15 hours. Now-a-days, labourer use only 8 hours.
 Right to economic security: Citizens have right to economic security also. Under this
right if any person becomes handicapped or blind while working, then government
gives him economic help. Due to this arrangement, the person is dependent on the other
and nor he has to beg. A person can use the political freedom properly after being free
from the economic worries.
 Right to property: Usually in all the modern states citizens have right to property. This
right implied that a citizen can either buy, sell or give his property to anyone. Citizen
also have right to ancestral property. According to Lock, right to property is a natural
right and it is the first duty of the state to protect this right of its citizens. Many people
think that citizen should not have a right to property because due to this right capitalist
exploit the poor. Those who have property, control the government and they use all the
governments’ power for their own benefits. In Russia state has a right on the means of
production.
 Changing form of Rights: Change is the rule of nature and every creature is developing.
Human society is also developing. It is natural to have changes in the rights along with
the changes in the human society; so, it is very difficult rather impossible to call the
rights of a person to be definite and permanent. Subject area of the rights depends upon
the social economic, political and cultural circumstances and time. Rights of a 20th
Century man are different from that of a 19th Century. In 19th Century, individualism
was very popular and democracy had not developed property. Life of an individual
depended upon the mercy of the tyrant rulers, so in 19th Century, people did not have
the right to education, social security and right to work etc. But twentieth century is the
age of democracy, internationalism and welfare states so every welfare state has
provided such rights to its citizens through which a person can develop all aspects of
his personality. In the modern democratic state, citizens not only have political rights
but they are given social, religious and economic right as well. But in the communist
countries like Soviet Russia and China, right to work is the first and foremost. But in
India, all economic rights have not been given completely. Thus, the form of the rights
keeps on changing as per the political, economic and social circumstances of the
country.

Social Rights
In civilized states, citizen usually have the following social rights:
 Right to live: The most important social right is the right to live. Every state gives the
right to live to its citizens. According to Aristotle, state is formed for the security of life
and is working for a good life.
 Prof. Laski has written about this right: “If the man will not have this right, then he will
his entire life for safety.” According to Hobbs, people left the natural conditions
because their life was not safe. According to him right to live is the most important
 right.
 King can even give capital punishment. A murder is usually given the capital
punishment, but many people believe that the objective of the state is to secure the
human life and not to end it. So, capital punishment should not be given. Today this
idea is supported by many people.
 Right to Education: Education is very essential for the personality development.
Illiterate person is considered backward or like animal. Without education, he does not
know anything about his rights and duties. It is the duty of the state that it should make
proper arrangement for the education of the citizens. If possible, citizens should be
given free and compulsory education to the citizens. In the constitution of India, right
to education has been given. Citizens cannot be denied admission in schools and
colleges on the basis of caste, creed, poor-rich, colour etc. In many states of India,
education is free up to a particular level. In Jammu Kashmir, education is free upto
M.A. In Russia, England and America also people have been given the right to
education.
 Right to have family: Family is an important unit of society. Man has a right to make
family so every citizen has complete freedom to marry with whom he wants and has
complete freedom to manage his family. But state creates some rules regarding family.
Indian Government has fixed the age for the civil marriage as 21 years for male and 18
years for female. It is to be noted that consent of both bride and groom is essential for
the marriage.
 Right to speech and expression of thought: Man has freedom to express thoughts for
the development of personality. He can express his thoughts by speech. J.S. Mill was
in favour of giving complete freedom to the individual. According to him, a person
should have complete freedom to express his thoughts, there should be no control on
this freedom. According to his opinion when a man expresses his thoughts, then that
thought can either be completely right or completely wrong or can be some right and
some wrong. Today, usually in all democratic countries, citizens have right to express
thoughts and give speech. But this right should be used for the welfare of the country
and society. No man has a right to find faults in the other and to spread rumors.
 Right to make institution and gather peacefully: usually, all the countries have given
right to their citizens to make institutions and assemble peacefully. Citizens can use
their right to speech only when they will have the right to assemble peacefully. But they
cannot assemble with arms. They have right to make institutions also. He establishes
political, economic and social institutions also. He can establish these institutions but
the objective of these institutions should not be against the welfare of the country. Apart
from this, these institutions should use the peaceful means.
 Right to personal freedom: Right to personal freedom means that a person has a
freedom to develop his personality. Personal freedom also means that a person should
not be arrested or house arrest without any reason. If anybody is imprisoned without
any reason, then that person can defend himself by giving application in the court. In
many countries, people have been given right that he or his relatives can apply for an
arrest warrant. Under this warrant, Government has to present the criminal in the court
and if the reason for him arrest is not appropriate then court can give order to leave him.
During emergency Government can ban this right.
 Right to Religious Freedom: Right to religious freedom implies to the fact that every
person is completely free to have faith in whatever religion he wants, to worship
 whichever god or goddess he wishes and in whatever manner he wants. State should
not interfere in the religious matters of the citizens. State should not compel the citizens
to follow a particular religion. State should not declare any specific religion as the state
religion. Disciples of all the religion should get equal opportunity for growth. In India
this is a constitutional right. India is a state which means India has no religion but
Indians have religion. In India, citizens cannot be denied admission in schools and
colleges on the basis of religion. But no one can spread the unmoral things in the name
of religion. No person has a right that he should spread hatred about other religions.
 Right to Equality: All citizens should have equal rights. Every person should be
considered equal in the state. There should be no disparity in the name of religion,
language, colour, caste or creed among the citizens.
 Right to more freely: Citizens have right to move freely inside the boundaries of the
country. They can live, or go for tour to any part of the country. Without the freedom
to move, man considers himself imprisoned. Indian constitution has given its citizen
freedom to move. But if any citizen misuses this right then Government can put a ban
on his freedom.
 Right to cultural freedom: Citizens have a right to have faith and to develop their
culture. They can develop their language, customs and morality. Indian citizens have
been given this right by the constitution. Every community has a right to develop their
culture.

Liberty

Introduction
Liberty is the central concept and fundamental social recognition of the liberalism. From the
beginning the main slogan of the liberalism has been liberation from all those authorities which
do what they want and liberty to develop his capabilities for every human being for being an
individual. To obtain this liberty for the individual and to limit the tyrant power of the tyranny
of the state, liberalism demanded for the liberty in every field of human beings. For example,
personal, social, economic, political, religious and intellectual freedom. Thinkers of the
liberalist tradition have been searching the answers to the questions that what are the justified
limitations and nature of the liberty. In the western political thinking concept of freedom and
its importance had been so strong that its supporters and critics both agree to the fact that liberty
is the essence of all political, economic and social relationships.

Meaning of Liberty
Inspite of being the central element and essence of the liberalist thought, liberty is a vogue and
indefinite, but an important concept. Its meaning has remained different for various thinkers.
What is liberty? What is those limitation which end the liberty? Does liberty do what it desires
without any prohibition? There is no any universal answer to such questions. There is no doubt
that on social level, liberty is impossible without any limitations. Inspite of being unanimity on
the definition of liberty, there had been strong differences regarding its limitations. Kodwell
has rightly said that freedom is such a concept whose nature has always remained very
conflicting among the people. Similarly, another writer thinks that liberalist tradition has made
liberty as the central concept but every writer perceives it with his own perspective.
If we try to understand liberty according to definitions, then as per Hobbs, by liberty, we mean
“absence of external obstacles — those obstacles which minimize the working capacity of an
individual”. According to Rousseau liberty is in following the “Public Wish”. According to
Hegel Liberty means to follow the laws of the state. According to Mill, Liberty is “an
opportunity to find one’s happiness till it does not obstructs the others happiness”. According
to Laski Liberty is “The deficiency of any kind of obstacles in social circumstances necessary
for the happiness of the individual.” According to MacPherson, Liberty means, “liberty to work
in the form of a complete human being”. Marxist tradition saw the liberty in two phases: (i)
freedom from those social institutions and institutions which compel and (ii) to establish such
social circumstances in which man can live as per the necessities of humanity.
In a special phase of history, liberty is considered as an absence of any bindings on the
individuals who are in the competition to get their own happiness and on the free economic
competition in the society. In this context liberty meant an environment “Where law is quiet
and where interference of the state is minimal. But very soon the conflict of the liberty was
removed and this was considered in a wider perspective. With the changed in circumstances,
we started being attracted towards those means which state and social institution could provide
to obtain this liberty. As a result, the concept of liberty become vaster though the old concept
of liberty did not finish. In the context of the development of liberty, these are known as
negative and positive aspects. We shall discuss these in details.
In order to understand the concept of liberty in right background, it is necessary that we
understand it in the context of “problems included in liberty.” Mainly there are three such
problems:
(i) Nature of liberty.
(ii) Safety of liberty and
(iii) Obstacles in obtaining liberty. Primitive liberalism took the meaning of the
liberty with the liberty of an individual which means that every individual the
liberty to work as per his wishes and to find his own happiness.
According to primitive liberalist writers, every person is influenced by his own welfare and
happiness. These writers were working hard against the medieval fame conservative,
feudalism, ignorance and customs and they believed that these obstacles and difficulties can be
faced by personal experience. So, they did not give any importance to the social aspect of the
liberty. They believed that if once we get freedom from the cruel power of dictatorship
government then the human race can find out the way for its happiness and prosperity. To obtain
this liberty, they supported all those institutions which can express the political, economic and
cultural desires. Thus, they stressed on the institutions like representative government, rule of
law, political rights, decentralization of power and liberty of judiciary, economic liberty and
free-market economy.
In the cause of time, political parties were accepted as an important means of security of liberty.
The most important things in the field of liberty is the bill of rights of constitutional law and
rule. Citizen, economic and political rights given in the modern states are not the ancestry of
the liberalism but these are also the standards of the liberty given by any state. Liberalist
Institutions are the means of the safety of the ‘people’. But unfortunately, in any liberalist
country this no. of the ‘people’ only a small portion of the total population. This is a major fault
of the liberalism in the context of liberty. Socialism claims to develop a new society after
getting rid of these faults.
Marxist concept of liberty is materialistic. This starts the beginning of the problems of liberty
by the obstacles in his way. According to this, the list of obstacles coming in the way of liberty
does not finish on getting rid of exploiter, dictator and tyrant Government. In the way of the
happiness of a man
there are so many bigger and more difficult problems like poverty, ignorance, disease, hunger,
and migration etc. To have victory over these obstacles’ Marxism expect the group efforts of
the human race more than the individual efforts. In this process, people might lose the liberties
which liberalism considers supreme and sacred. This had remained the similar irony as that of
the liberalist theory.
How is the life we are leading from the perspective of quality? In the present age, this is the
fundamental question of the liberty related thinking. Man does not have to just live his life, but
he has to live his life completely. This means those circumstances which can make life
meaningful from both quantitatively and qualitatively. Contemporary concepts of liberty and
moving around these questions.

Two Views of Liberty: Negative and Positive

There had been a change in the concept of liberty for the last three hundred years. According
to a writer, from Adam Smith to Hobhouse, this changing concept of the liberty is one of the
best ways to understand the development the political thinking of last 150 years. We call this
change as ‘Negative’ and ‘Positive’ aspects, in which the concept of freedom slowly changed
from “Silence of law” to the “presence of Socio-Economic-Political conditions”. Let’s study
these in details.

1. Negative Liberty
The concept which emerged due to the primitive liberalist theory and behaviour is called
Negative Liberty. This was clearly expressed in the creations of the writers like John Lock,
David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Pen, Herbert Spencer, Bentham, James Mill and J.S.
Mill. In twentieth Century, the supporters of this concept are Michael Oakeshott, Isaiah
Berlin, Milton Friedman, Hawyek and Nozick etc.
The basis of the primitive liberalism was individualism. This considered every person as self-
living unit and to society as self-satisfied, self-wishes and a group of people involved in the
competition of selfish motifs. In this context liberty meant as deficiency of bindings. These
bindings were considered economic, political, religious and moral. On the political level this
meant the binding of the desired wish of the state non-interference of state is the economic and
social works and the idea of minimal state. On the economic level, liberty meant laissez-faire
which means leaving the individual free in the economic matters, deficiency of any kind of
state interference in the economy based on the natural rule of demand and supply and in believe
in the idea that “economic world is self-regulatory and it should be left alone.” On the
individual level, liberty means every person should be left freely in his personal affairs and
state and society should not interfere in the personal matters. There is no conflict in the personal
liberty and social welfare fulfilment of social benefit is included in the fulfilment of personal
benefits. Social welfare is in the individual welfare.
Hobbs considered liberty as 'silence of law’ which means as far as no law of the state binds,
individual can do what he wishes. Lock also viewed doubtfully state as sovereign and the power
and tried to put limitation by law on this. According to this law and liberty are not contradictory
to each other, the objective of the law is to increase and secure the liberty of the individual. We
cannot expect liberty where there is no law. Similarly, Benjamin idea was that at least liberty
of religion, ideas and property should be defended against the state. Montesquieu accepted such
a liberty that state gives obey. Here one thing is to be considered that when in eighteenth and
nineteenth century stress was being given to safeguard the liberty through law, then at that time
the role of law was comparatively limited
which means at that time there were neither any parliamentary sessions were held to make law
and nor any optimistic works were expected through law. Parliament was the dominated by the
wealthy people of the society which had no interest in the interference in the daily life of
common people. Many writers have given their ideas about the negative liberty but its clear
expression is found in the ideas of J.S. Mill.

Contemporary Exponents of Negative Liberty

Though the negative concept of liberty changed into the positive concept in twentieth century,
yet some contemporary thinkers have tried to re-establish this negative concept. In these
Oakeshott, Berlin, Friedman, Nozick and Hayek etc. are these. According to Oakeshott, “rights
are liberties”. Thus, they are in the “Silence of the law” rather than in the law. According to
Berlin, the essence of liberty is infact negative which means absence of any kind of
interference. Every request made for the citizen or individual’s rights, every demonstration by
public authority the prohibition of public tradition, infact originates from the feeling of personal
liberty of an individual. No society is liberal till
(i) Not the power but the rights are considered so supreme that people can oppose the
inhumane behaviour.
(ii) Those limits are not made clear in which a person can line by his own ways. In
short, liberty means, “absence of forcibility”. To use force against any person means
to avoid hike of liberty.
In the simple language, that working place where an individual can work without any
interference. As much the place will be large, greater will be the liberty. In this context Berlin’s
idea was that liberty has a relationship with democracy, equality or law. He writes, “Liberty is
liberty. Neither it is equality nor it is law, culture, human happiness or self-consciousness. If
my liberty is minimized then its compensation can be done with law, or happiness or with the
law and order, but even then, this deficiency remains. Liberty cannot be redistributed in the
name of the redistribution of welfare, justice, property etc. Law and social welfare can be
related to the liberty but they cannot take their place.
Similarly, Friedman in his book “Capitalism and Freedom” writes that the meaning of the
liberty is that “Absence of forcibility on any individual by every individual.” His idea is that in
economic matters interference of the state is harmful for the economic liberty of the people.
Economic liberty means free-market capitalist economy liberalist writers have also considered
the freedom as the absence of social and legal bindings. According to Nozick, liberty means,
natural right to self-ownership. Legal liberty can be obtained only under the limitation of
natural rights which can be understood only in the context of ownership. Though, they believe
in the writers equal right of the ownership but they do not support liberty in the name of
equality. They support equal liberty because they believe in liberty and because every person
can be free and he should be free. Along with that, it is also believed that only capitalist in free
economy and state’s non-interference can increase the liberty.

Characteristics of Negative Liberty

On the basis of the above discussion, following specialties of the negative liberty can be
identified:
 The concept of negative liberty is based on the fundamental philosophical idea of
primitive liberalism towards individual, society and state. This believes in the personal
wish, his intellectual and the basic personal development, he wants to free himself from
all those free authorities which can work against his wishes. Negative concept limits
liberty up to the individual and his personality and considers society and state to be the
enemy of individuals liberty. This disobeys the social aspect of the liberty. Supporters
of this theory consider the interference as the forcibility.
 Liberty means “absence of bindings”. This is freedom from and not “freedom to”.
Hobbs considered liberty as “silence of law”, Berlin considered it as “absence of
forcibility” and Friedman thinks it to be “absence of forcibility to a person by state,
society and other citizens.” Another writer considers it to be the absence of legal
obstacles. According to Nozick this is “natural right of self-ownership”.
 Concept of absence of bindings very vast. These bindings can be anything like political,
economic, citizen and personal etc. On the political level means to have control over
the power of the state and minimal interference of state on the life of an individual. On
economic level it means free-trade, liaises faire capitalist economy and right to
unlimited property. On the citizen level, it means freedom to speech, idea and conscious
and on personal level this means decisions by the individual related to his life and
without any pressure of the state.
 The law of the state cannot snatch away the liberty of an individual. They can only
control it in the context of social arrangement. Because this liberty is infact liberty from
state. So, state can secure this liberty only by minimizing its works. Law and liberty are
contradictory to each other that means as much as laws are more, liberty is less and as
liberty is more than accordingly law is less.
 Liberty no doubt has a relation with democracy, equality and property but these are not
its necessary conditions. Equality and democracy can become danger for liberty.
 There is a difference in liberty and ‘conditions of liberty’ simple meaning of liberty is
the lack of interference by the other people, state and society in the life of an individual.
These are some elements of negative liberty which need to be focused on. First, negative liberty
fixes such an area where law is silent and an individual can do something without any
interference. In Berlin’s words, negative liberty is answer to the question that which is the area
where individual is left to do all that which he is able to do without the interference of any
other person or group. Though various writers have a difference of opinion on this subject that
what should be the limits of the area to be left free. Secondly, in negative liberty, limitations
are put by the individual which means that these are not the limitation arouse due to natural
incapability and deficiency.
Criticism of Negative Liberty
Negative liberty is criticized only three bases: Philosophical, Moral and Economic.
 On Philosophical Level Critics say that primitive liberalist and utilitarian writers did
not recognize man’s nature properly. An individual is neither selfish nor intellectual as
presented by the writers. Similarly, man’s history is not the history of the people living
and roaming separately who created the civilized society all of a sudden. On the
contrary individual had always been living in the community and is a social creature.
All the norms of his life and finalized on the social levels. These social laws are made
for life norms and it is not necessary that they minimize the liberty of an individual.
 On Moral level, the logic was given that liberty does not mean that man has freedom to
do whatever he wishes rather he has freedom to do whatever is right from the moral
view point. Moral values are not against liberty, rather they guarantee for the correct
use of the liberty.
 On economic level negative liberty is meaningless. This defines in the context of laissez
fair which means that economy should be left for the natural rule of demand and support
and free competitive. This does not see liberty in the context of economic security and
freedom from shortage. Negative liberty and from competition centralized the property
in some hands and gives birth to exploitation of majority of people. Negative liberty
infact establishes a coordination with the security of the personal property and also
devoid the poor people of the society to get benefit from those opportunities for which
they are legally righteous. So, from historical view point the concept of negative
liberalism is provide in complete and insufficient. Not only Marxism has given
challenge to this concept; whose thought was that till there is private property, liberty
cannot be obtained, but the liberalist writers who came later, also redefined the freedom
and called it positive liberty.

Positive Liberty
Positive concept of liberty unites liberty with society, socio-economic-circumstances, rights,
equality and justice. This is based on that changed of concept of individual and society which
came into existence due to the criticism of socialist and liberalist writers. From the historical
view point this change became clear by the creations of T.H. Green, Bosanko, Hobhouse,
Barker, Laski and MacIver etc. MacPherson, Rolls and Berlin are contemporary supporters of
this concept.
Positive change in the liberalist thought began in the last decades of nineteenth century when
it was experienced that this philosophy cannot be made to stand permanently on the narrow
foundation of individualism. This new view point had a faith that central concept of liberalism
is the idea of social welfare (opposite to individual welfare) in which all can became partners.
The standard of freedom is not only individual wish or minimum bindings on his free wish.
Because free wish is used only in a particular circumstance and at times these circumstances
are such that free wish remains just as a joke. In other words, on formal level, right to fulfil the
desires can be without obstacles one informal level there but could be unlimited limitation on
the circumstances. For example, to give employment to an unemployed or to educate an
illiterate person or to give facility of an artificial limb to a handicapped person are the positive
aspects of the concept of liberty. But just leaving it by saying that who has stopped the
handicapped to take artificial limb or an uneducated to be educated; this is an incomplete
description of the liberty because in this even if the individual has not been denied, he has not
got anything. This means if liberty implies the free wish then this free wish demands some
opportunities. Opportunities means that society which will create such social, economic and
political structures and institutions where the fulfilment of this free will become effective.
Liberty is also as social concept along with being an individual concept. As Green has clarified,
“Liberty is not the absence of bindings rather it is the positive power to use all that which is
usable along with the other people of the society.” This is the positive power to fallen those
norms and aims which are related to the social welfare. This is not only legal rather actual
possibility to develop the capabilities of the man. In short, liberty implies to the equal of an
individual to be a partner in the services and things produce by society and his capability to
give his contribution in social welfare.
Similarly, Bosanko had the opinion that liberty depends upon two elements — nature of the
individual and nature of liberty. Individual is a part of social completeness and it can be studied
only in the social context. The roots of the individual are in society. These are the external
circumstances of an individual’s internal development. According to Bosanko, negative liberty
means lake of bindings which means “freedom from” whereas positive liberty means “freedom
to” means pressure of all those circumstances which are necessary for the free and complete
development of an individual and to secure them is the duty of the state. Laski’s Views on
Positive Liberty
The best expression of positive liberty is available in Laski’s book, “A Grammar of Politics”.
Laski has investigated liberty on three levels in these books:
 Nature of Liberty.
 Forms of Liberty.
 Safeguards of Liberty.
While describing the nature of liberty, Laski writes that, “Liberty is that enthusiastic guarding
of that environment where people can get opportunities for the best development.” Liberty is a
gift of rights. Liberty is a positive concept and not a lack of limitations. Laski does not consider
liberty only “absence of bindings” because man’s all behaviours are social. Whatever he does,
or want to do, can be done only being the member of the society. So, liberty and limitations are
not separate rather they are joined with each other. Binding of the liberty is the result of the
social nature of the man because man cannot live without law. Important thing is that these
rules or laws should be made on the basis of the experience of the community. These should be
based on the desires of the people whom they are going to effect. Even then, liberty is not
following the law blindly. Even the government can become a danger for the liberty of an
individuals in the name of public welfare. Every individual wants to finalise some work area
in order to rise his personal moral level. All those bindings which obstruct the profits obtained
from this personal work area are infact destructors of liberty.
Laski also joins liberty with the availability of opportunities. Liberty are those opportunities
which are necessary for the personality development from the historical view point. In this
context liberty cannot be separated from the rights because these opportunities of development
are finalized by the rights. Laski did not want to leave the liberty on the mercy of state because
a person cannot obtain actual liberty till he is not able to take account of the works of the
government whenever the government kills the rights, then this account needs to be taken.
Various forms of the freedom are joined with the circumstances in accordance to these rights.
Laski talks about three forms of the liberty — personal, political and economic. Personal liberty
means those opportunities which are related to the personal life of the man. Religion is its best
example. Personal liberty, in a way, is negative because it does not affect others. Laski believes
that in modern state it has become very easy to overrule personal liberty. For example, if a
person is not able to obtain enough legal safety in case of prohibition of his rights, then this
will be called the killing of the personal liberty. In short personal liberty means opportunity to
work as per own wish in the personal relations of life.
Political liberty means the opportunity for the works of the state to be active. This means
obtaining all democratic political rights. Political liberty is possible only when every person is
so intelligent from the political view point that he can express his ideas and news are
broadcasted honestly so that public opinion can be prepared on that basis. Reliable news are
the solid foundation of the political liberty.
Economic liberty means getting rid of the tension of daily livelihood. This means freedom from
the continuous fear of unemployment and from the deficiency which destroy the complete
power of the personality. Individual should get rid from the tensions of the future. Apart from
that economic liberty means democracy in industry. This has two meanings: Arrangement of
the rights which is for the general public should also be applicable to the industrial
organizations and the direction and management of the industrialization should be based on the
agreement and cooperation of all the workers rather than on the dictatorship of one or a group
of persons. Industrial arrangement based on fear is against the liberty.
Third aspect of Laski’s ideas on liberty is the safeguard of liberty. Laski believes that liberty
cannot be available to the general public without special guarantee. For this Laski talks about
three conditions:
i. Liberty cannot be safeguarded till there are special rights in the society. Presence of
special rights gives rise of disappointment in the general public as a result people lose
their capability to fulfil their benefits. As he writes, “Special rights and liberty do not
match with each other. Liberty can be obtained only in the context of equality.”
ii. Second condition of the positive liberty is presence of rights. In the society where the
rights of public depend on the mercy of few people, liberty cannot be obtained. Presence
of rights means absence of those indefinite condition which become a major reason for
the social loss.
iii. Government should be accountable to the public works of the state should be impartial.
Here the availability of the rights becomes so important that they become minimal
guarantee of liberty. They give security to the fact that political power should not be
used for the benefit of few people.
Contemporary Writers on Positive Liberty
Some contemporary writers have deeply studied positive liberalism in which MacPherson,
Rolls, Berlin, John Grey etc. are the main where Berlin in his article “Two concept of Liberty”
considered negative liberty as “lack of political and social interference in the life of an
individual, “there his concept of positive liberty is very wide. Positive liberty is infact an
individual’s “liberty to be self-owner, self- directed and to take his own decisions, to work and
to influence by his objectives. “instead of the fact that these decisions and orders are given by
some other person. Positive liberty means “to live in the form of a complete man.” There are
three elements mixed in Berlin’s concept of positive liberty:
(i) This is personal ownership and direction.
(ii) Liberty is giving orders by self-master and self-directed people to those who
have not yet achieved this condition.
(iii) Liberty is a democratic concept to control state authority.
MacPherson, in his book “Democratic Theory”, sees liberty in the context of increase in
individuals’ developmental power. By development he implies the capability to develop and
use the capacities by the individual.” Liberty means “to remove the obstacles from the way to
reach the means of life and labour of individual”. In short, liberty is the name of decrease in
the exploiting power and increase in the developmental power of an individual.
According to another writer John Grey, the political summary of the positive liberty is that if
some sources, facilities and powers are required for the achievement of the self growth then
these sources should be considered an integral part of the liberty. On these basis, modern
liberalism has developed the concept of self are state in the institution to increase liberty. This
is an indication of the fact that whatever facilities are necessary for the development of life of
an individual, state has the means to provide them.
Similarly, Rolls has the logic that if we have to give solid form to the demand of maximum
increase is liberty, then it should be divided in some fundamental liberties like freedom to
speech, liberty to ace group and to move here and there and liberty to select life style etc. There
is no fixed list for these fundamental liberties rather. These are included in the use of necessary
conditions of historical circumstances and self-reliance, thinking and power to work.

Characteristics of Positive Liberty

On the basis of the above discussion, following specialities of the positive liberty can be
underlined:
 Liberty is a necessary condition of physical and moral development of an individual.
This is not a hollow social idea like justice and equality rather this gets its subject matter
by the historical circumstances of the society. In the contemporary context this is not
“absence of limitation” but is the presence of those socio-economic circumstances
without which development of the personality of an individual is not possible.
 Right kind of limitations are not bad. Positive liberty has an idea that as per the social
necessity, some limitations become guarantee rather than being contradictory. The
concept of “freedom through compulsion” is practical and justified. According to Laski,
liberty removes the wrong limitations and applies the right limitations. Social and
 welfare law can be proved right in this context only.
 The form of liberty is social. The aim of the liberty is to development of an in the form
of a social person. Liberty cannot be given against social welfare.
 Positive liberty strongly believes that without equality, specially, without satisfactory
economic equality, liberty is not possible. Only equality gives a positive form to liberty.
 Another condition of liberty is presence of rights. Similarly, liberty is also joined with
the justice and morality.
 State instead of being enemy is rather an important means of its development. State’s
work is not to leave individual alone rather it is to provide opportunity and facilities by
positive work through which liberty can be obtained.
 In the modern state, there are some measures to safeguard this liberty: These are
democratic government, constitutional guarantee of the rights, political cooperation,
decentralization of political power, freedom of judiciary and legal investigation etc.
Limits of Negative and Positive Liberty Paradigm and Need to go Beyond
Freedom as a Triadic Concept
In 1967, a famous legal philosopher Gerald Maclaurin has given a logic in his article that
supporters of negative and positive liberty units together at the single definition of liberty, and
the difference is only their difference view point. The only difference of opinion among the
two aspects of the negative and positive liberty established by Berlin is only to the point that
which concept is the best which can be called liberty. Does this fact not indicate about some
and more basic agreement between these two aspects? How can they see their difference of
opinion in the context of the definition of liberty if they do not have the inclination that they
both are talking about the same thing? Maclaurin’s answer was that actually liberty has only
one basic concept on which both the aspects of the discussion came in front. The only difference
of opinion between the theorist of positive and negative liberty is about the explanation of this
single definition. According to Maclaurin liberty can be explained in many ways. But
unfortunately, Berlin’s artificial division has limited it to only two aspects – negative and
positive.
Maclaurin defines the concept of liberty in this way;
(i). One doer or the agent group.
(ii). is free from some restrictions and prohibiting circumstances;
(iii). to do some thing or to become something.

Thus, liberty is a triad relationship which means this is a relationship between three elements.
(i). Individual or doer.
(ii). Some prohibiting circumstances.
(iii). The wish of the doer to do or be something. Any statement about of liberty and
dependence can explained in the context of the above triadic form e.g. who is
free or dependent? From whom is he free? And what is liberty or dependence
related to do or be something? In any special circumstance, the claim for the
presence of absence of liberty will be based on these assumptions that who is
the doer, what are the limitations on liberty and what are those objectives for
 which the doer is free or dependent.
According to the analysis of Maclaurin, there is no division is negative and positive liberty.
Rather we should accept that there could be many explanations of the single concept of the
liberty. Maclaurin has even said that many thinkers of the concept of liberty cannot be clearly
limited one or the other concept. For example, John Lock is considered the father of classic
liberalism, as a result he is supposed to be a strict supporter of negative liberalism. Lock has
written clearly that the meaning of liberty is the freedom from violence and others bindings.
But along with that Lock has also written that liberty cannot be joined with spontaneity — the
obstacles which defend us from the dangers and swamps and cannot be called restriction where
Lock explains such restrictions in the context of liberty which can be called negative according
to Berlin, there he even supports the third aspect of triadic concept of which according to Berlin
will be considered positive liberty. This means to limit liberty up to the works which are not
immoral and which are in accordance to the welfare of the doer. This means that if I am saved
to enter a swamp, my liberty increases. Contemporary writers like Nozick and Rothbard have
also given similar definitions of liberty which are based on morality. All these examples clarify
the claim of Maclaurin that to divide liberty in two parts from historical and conceptional view
point can be confusing that negative concept is liberal and positive concept is non-liberal.
In short, Maclaurin’s logic is that there is one basic concept of liberty which can be defined on
the basis of triadic relation — doer, some restricted circumstances and some work by the doer
to come out of these. According to negative liberty, doer is external, objectives are the wishes
of the individual on the other hand, according to positive liberty, doer could be an individual
or a group restriction could be internal or external and the objective to be achieved could be
limited. This triadic concept of liberty is playing an important role in coordinating the two
aspects of liberty.
Are the Concept of Negative and Positive Liberty Still Useful?
We started this chapter with the simple difference and have now reached to the triadic concept
of liberty. Inspite of the strong effect of the Maclaurin’s triadic formula on analytical
philosophers and its utility; is the main discussions related to political and social liberty still
Berlin’s double divided concept is strong. But the question is: How fundamental this
continuous reference to the negative and positive liberty from the philosophical view point.
Another writer Erik Nelson has also criticized this negative/positive division. Nelson believes
that many writers joined with positive liberty like Green and Bosanko have not divided liberty
is the form of “absence of bindings” or “to do something or to be something.”
For him, liberty means absence of all kinds of bindings in the direction of attaining self-
achievement. So, the only difference that remains is that the classification of the various
explanations of liberty demonstrates that up to what limit do they remain fit with the classic
liberalist tradition. Infact, there is some family relationship in concepts of liberty which are
usually seen bent toward one or the other side of the division done by Berlin and the decisive
element to finalise this or limit of family form is the condition relation of theorist with the
concept of ‘soul’. Supporters of positive element, consider the questions of sources and nature
of the beliefs, values and desires of an individual as beneficial to finalise the liberty of the
individual whereas those who support negative aspect, they are loyal to the classic liberalist
tradition and according to it to raise such questions is to have doubt on the honesty of the doer.
Where one aspect, takes positive interest in the beliefs, values and desires of the doer, the other
aspect thinks it beneficial to disobey these.

Inadequacy of Traditional Concepts of Freedom

Dissatisfied with these two traditional concepts of liberty, theorist is still working to create
same necessary important social circumstances of liberty. These social circumstances for
liberty are not limited to provide guarantee of security against the physical and legal obstacles
and physical sources (like income, education or health etc.). Apart from it, they want to include
two more provisions in it on which still complete agreement could not be achieved. Third
provision of liberty is the safety of the cultural next of a person in which he lives. This cultural
context is a part of the process through which that person creates his independent interest. The
same is important against the demand of cultural rights. These believe that people in any society
are not equally free till various cultures are not given equal respect. Fourth concept of liberty
is the concept, “Group of liberty” which is more than the right to express and political freedom
like voting right.
Post-modernist writers have also criticized the modern concept of liberty. They consider it mask
to conceal the reality of modern society of continuous increasing control arrangements.
According to Fuka not only of the modern exploitation state structure but even regular
institution and schools are expanded widely which compel the citizens to do the kind of work
which increases their dependence. It is wrong on the part of the modern intellectuals to use the
concept of liberty while disobeying this invisible authority. Apart from it some feminist writers
have also attacked on the present theories of the liberty which according to them is based on
the presumptions of the males and can create problems in the distribution of liberty. Their logic
is that the concept of liberty has been created with the circumstances and experiences of only
males. To accept this concept will mean to disobey many activities done by the women which
will not be beneficial for the women. Even it has been claimed that more centralization on this
concept of liberty can be anti-feminist. For example, to define liberty in terms of absence of
bindings can be a means to strongly support the in-humane conditions of the women. In short,
both feminism and post modernism have given a strong challenge to the positive and negative
aspect of the liberty. Thus, the division of liberty in negative and positive aspect is considered
insufficient today and attempts are being made to go beyond this. John Stuart Mill and the
Value of Liberty
Mill’s book ‘On Liberty’ is considered the best book ever written. This is a strong request for
the liberty to work according to a person’s will, and to express himself against the state, social
pressures, public opinion and customs. There was a specific goal in front of Mill, while defining
liberty — aim for the self-development of a man. According to Mill every person has a special
right to live as per his own wishes and experiences. There is no recognition of a person
following the customs and the traditions, there is no option in his life, he has nothing except to
ape his ancestors. Different people of the society should have a right to live in different ways
because, this variety is the basis of liberty. Liberty which Mill talks about is the liberty a man
to develop and expand his personality. So, there is no wonder that he defines liberty in the
following words. “Liberty to fulfil his welfares as per his wishes provided he does not obstruct
other’s welfare”. Defining in this manner, liberty becomes a means to obtain a goal and that
goal is; “happiness of man.” He further writes, “An individual is responsible for only that part
of his behaviour which affects others. He is completely free for the behaviour which effects
only him. On himself, on his body and his heart, individual is master of himself...the justified
use of power of the state can be used only to stop any member of the society from harming
others. “Any interference in the name of moral or physical benefit of an individual is unjust.
No one can be compelled to do any work with the saying that this will increase in his happiness
or this is for his wellbeing or it is right as per elders. These all could be good reasons in
themselves but if somebody doesn’t do the same then it is wrong to punish him for the same.
On the basis of the above definitions, save specialities can be underlined. First, the liberty that
Mill is talking about is the liberty of the individual. Individual is the master of his body and
heart and he should be left to live as per his wishes. Society does not need to put restriction on
him because all types of limitation are basically wrong. In the context of liberty to work, Mill
has divided the activities of the individual in two parts — those works which effect the
individual and works which effect the others. In self-effective works, Mill has supported the
complete liberty. Only those works of an individual can be restricted which affect others. For
the self-processed works, society should leave the individual alone. In these self-effective
works, Mill has included the liberty of individual freedom, Soul’s freedom, thinking, emotions,
religion, opinion about morality etc., aims of life, marriage, business etc.
Second, Mill Wants to Secure the Liberty of Individual from State and Society. Mill was writing
his creations at the time when democracy was rising and right to take part in politics was going
to be obtained by those people who were going to be benefited by the interference of the state.
It was experienced that state was playing a positive and justified role in the welfare of the
people. Even then, Mill was not in favour of the democracy which gave equal opting rights to
all. His idea was that the concept of self-rule or power of people are more of a myth rather than
truth. Meaning of public power is that it is the power of the majority of society and active
people from the political view point of society or we can say majority. But in this dictatorship
of majority, the liberty of minority is destroyed. Democracy does not mean that it finishes the
liberty of minority. So, the liberty of an individual’s needs to be secured from a democratic
state. Mill has strongly criticized those people who are ready to sacrifice the individual liberty
for the sake of a strong sate because state is not more than the people who make it. According
to Mill, “State that makes his citizen so tiny that they remain merely an obedient machine, will
soon experience that big goals cannot be achieved by the small people”.
Third, the manner in which Mill brome the myth that tyrant government if changed in
democratic government then liberty will automatically become secure. In the same way, he
stressed on the fact that social tyranny is at times more terrible than the political exploitation
because this does not leave any way for defence and has been successful is reaching at the
depth of life. So, liberty need not to be defended only from political tyranny but also from the
tyranny popular ideas, emotions and traditions. Biggest obstacles in the personal expression of
thought is the opposition of the society. Whenever some such people came forward who want
to live unconventionally manner, then some powers in the society stand to oppose them. Mill
wanted to remove all the obstacles from the way of free expression of thought. As he writes;
“When society itself becomes tyrant then this tyranny cannot be limited to the level of the
political rulers. Society has its own rules and when in order to fulfil these it interferes in the
life of an individual then this playing such a tyranny which is more terrible than political
exploitation.”
Fourth, in the context of liberty Mill has given special importance to the liberty of individual
rather than popular opinion and tyranny of emotions and feelings. According to him no
government or society has a right to suppress the ideas of an individual even if it has an
agreement from the entire society. Anybody with the difference of opinion can have
unconventional ideas which can be either completely or partially right or wrong. If they are
true then it will be a blot for the society to suppress these. To forcibly suppress any type of idea
or opinion is based on the preconception of myth. Mill’s popular sentence was, “If the opinion
of the entire society is one and the opinion of one person is different from it, then even the
entire human race has no right to suppress the opinion of that person and neither that person
has a right to suppress the entrée human race if he has power.”
Similarly Mill believed that any kind of discussion should be without any pressure. Mill had
no faith in this traditional lie that “truth always trumps. There are innumerable examples in the
history where truth was sacrificed. So, he refused to accept any old formulae of truth with any
discussion or logic. He believed that in order to strengthen truth, it is necessary that it is
discussed again and again and without any pressure or fear. Truth can emerge only through
challenge. In short, Mill considered the liberty of idea valid on three bases:
(i). Suppressed idea can be right.
(ii). Even if the suppressed idea is wrong, it will be partially correct because on any
social subject, public opinion is not unanimous; the probability for the truth comes
only by the conflict of the opposite ideas.
(iii). Even if popular ideas are right, they will not be challenged by the opposing idea. In
this condition, they will take form of a convention.
Fifth, on a wider lever, Mills ideas are considered negative. He considered interference of sate
or society in the self-effective works of an individual to be wrong because in his opinion, all
bindings are bad. Individual is not accountable to the society for those works whose relation is
only with him. Welfare of society is in the fact that they give complete opportunity for the self-
development to the individual. Liberty is in the deficiency of binding. Mill limited the liberty
to the individual and considered state and society as enemy of the liberty. The aim of the liberty
is to safeguard such a place for the individual in which he can work without any external
interference. Though, Mill took the concept of liberty to higher standards but its roots were in
the liberty of an individual.
And in the end, according to Mill, liberty cannot be considered right only on the basis of
utilitarian. Liberty also implies to such social utilizes whose aim is not only increasing the
happiness of individual but also to develop the humanitarian personality in context of social
variety. Mill believed that only through amendment in human character and social condition,
the way to the development can be clear. Only with the small amendments on the government
level, there could no deficit in the problems of the individual. Mill was much worried on the
tyranny of majority on the minority in parliament and wanted to safeguard the individual from
the tyranny of public opinion.
Liberty as Emancipation: Marxist Notion of Freedom
Marxism views the concept of liberty in the context of large-scale human freedom. According
to it, in human history, class struggle had always been a form of struggle for liberty — those
special liberties for which people have struggled. Traditionally, these liberties can be called
positive or negative. Common-man wants to be free from some limitations laid on them so that
they can do something as per their wish. In the process of the struggle for their class, people
have got rid of many types of suppression and exploitation and have also obtained some special
rights. But along with that, this is also a fact that inspite of the various struggles, the lower and
exploited class of the society could not get rid of their exploitation. Special rights of the
exploiters are still there. Major contribution of Marx and Marxist writers was to prove that how
on the level of production right to personal property has devoid majority of the people in society
from their liberty and to prepare this problem on a theoretical level that how liberty can be
obtained for lower class. Marxist concept of liberty can be understood on the following basis:
3. Meaning of liberty
4. Criticism of the Bourgeois concept of liberty
5. Liberty: end of alienation
6. Liberty: end of exploitation
7. Liberty: end of necessities
8. Liberty: A collective enterprises

Meaning of Liberty
According to the traditional meaning of Liberalism, liberty is the deficiency of bindings.
Marxism was the heir of the vast and dense view point whose sources were Spinoza, Rousseau,
Kant, and Hegel etc. These writers saw liberty in the philosophical context like self-
determination, self-attainment, self-development and self-creation. Even if liberty is
considered the deficiency of bindings, Marx has explained these bindings very vastly. Marx
and Marxism have assumed liberty as deficiency of obstacles in the way of human freedom
which means all sound development of humanly powers and to create such social community
which are in accordance of human nature. These important obstacles are: pitiable condition of
labours, those circumstances of life and existence on which labours have no control and neither
social organization can get them any kind of control. Socialist writer Huberman meaning of
Marxist Liberty is “to live life completely” means power to satisfy basic physical requirements
like, bread and shelter, to develop the personality, to make personal identification and solid
effective opportunities of development.” Similarly, Petrosian has written, “Marx concept of
liberty is to collect circumstances for the all sound development of the individual and
personality development of an individual”. It is a collective effort to finish the obstacles in the
way of human liberty. So, the concept of liberty s collective from this view point. This is an
organized and directed human control on the nature and social circumstances of production.
According to Marx, the question of individual liberty is united with the question of social
liberty in a conflicting manner. True personal liberty is joined with liberty of the society. This
social liberty can be attained by the destruction of capitalist productive structure based on
personal property and by establishing such liberal social community which takes the free
development of people in its control. Only then every person will get a chance to develop his
creative powers in the social community.

Criticism of the Bourgeois Concept of Liberty

In his earlier creations, Max has criticised the doubtful explanation of popularized liberty by
liberalism. Liberalism considers liberty in the form of a human right Marx believed that
Bourgeois revolution has attain political liberty to the individual but political liberty doesn’t
mean complete human liberty. Liberalism has mistaken political liberty to be human liberty.
Similarly, equality has been attained only on the legal level, but actual equality (economic,
cultural and social etc.) is far away. In the absence of property common man and labour class
depends upon the capitalist class which is the master of the means of production. So, in a
society based on the class-division and class conflict, there is no meaning of liberty for the
lower class. In a society based on free economy relations of man to man are mainly related to
money and transaction. They are ruled on political level by law and economic level by
transaction value. In such circumstances, individual can never be free for example, he can be
free from religion, he can only attain religions liberty. He cannot be free from property but can
attain liberty for property. He cannot be free from labour but can obtain labour in the open
market.
Inspite of being free in the state he can attain political freedom in the state. Though, Bourgeois
state, gives right of liberty for religion, property, labour etc. but this is not enough for the labour,
class. Marxist concept of liberty is extremely vast and deep so fray this view point this is name
of freedom from all types of necessities, exploitation, alienation and sovereignty. From
negative view point this means freedom from free market arrangement, that meant absence of
authority of external inhumane powers on the individual, deficiency of physical dependence,
deficiency of social division of labour, absence of state in the form of a particular class. Liberty
from religion (in the sense of a false conscious) mean, liberty not from something but for
something. This means all round development of the man. Man, by nature is a creator of the
circumstances of his life capacities of man are bounders. Though he is not born in the form of
a door, yet in the rang process of human liberation, he can become doer. Meaning of this human
liberation is active partnership in the process of suppression of obstacles in the way of human
development. According to Marx, man is a social creature and by bringing changes in the
circumstances, he can bring changes in himself.
In short, Marx combined the concept of liberty with human liberty and created such a
revolutionary theory of liberty which can be obtained in a classless and state less society by
changing the ownership of the physical means in the society.

Liberty: End of Alienation

Marx in his theory alienation classified the inhumane effects of the capitalist society based on
the means of production and personal ownership of property. In simple words Alienation
means, “losing one’s personal identity or the feeling of personal identify.” As Marx has written
that personal ownership in the means of production separates the individual from his labour
and the product of its labour. Like other things labour also becomes an object to buy and sell.
As a result, the keeper of this labour i.e., the labourer also becomes a mere object who has to
sell his labour as per the market rate. Even the object produced by him by this labour is not
owned by him but it is of the owner. Labour which is a creative power of the human being,
remains just as a means to fulfil his requirements. Natural element of the human life (which is
the essence of life) becomes a tool of human existence. This labour separates the individual
with his fellow beings. In this competitive society, everyone became strangers for each other.
In this condition, it becomes impossible to have community life and fellowship on social level
life takes form of conflicting egos. Personal property which is a result of separatism, becomes
the main source of division in society. It effects both wealthy and poor people where the life of
labour limits up to the animal needs, where in a capitalist society, power of wealth becomes the
synthon of wealth collection and its human values also change accordingly. In this condition
where majority of labours are living a life of slavery, suppression and exploitation what could
be the meaning of liberty for them. A dependent person is infact not more than a slave. He
cannot go for development of physical and mental or spiritual power freely, rather destroys his
own body and soul.
True liberty is the meeting of essence and existence in the life of a man by finishing the
alienation. For this, it is compulsory to finish the existence of personal property on the level of
production and the group division originated by it. This object can be achieved by establishing
socialist/communist society in place of the capitalist society by using revolutionary ways.

Liberty: End of Exploitation

Like liberalism, Marxism also believes that liberty is the absence of bindings. But what are
these bindings. Here has the fundamental difference between Marxism and liberalism.
According to Marxism, there are more bindings apart from those of law and state. These are
long hours of working, difficult and boring work, deficiency of healthy food and circumstances
to live, deficiency of education and good health, unemployment etc. Due to these, a person can
be free despite his wishes. Liberalization believed that if once the powers of the rulers are
controlled, then rest of the liberty will be achieved automatically. But Marx believed that even
after political freedom, labour class has to undergo economic Slavery. So only by socializing
the means of production, a person can attain real liberty such true liberty when the exploitation
of an individual will finish.
True liberty means instead of an individual, the entire society is made the owner of the means
of production so that the social sources can be used according to the social scheme and the
slavery and exploitation of an individual can be finished. This will mean to give opportunity to
every individual for the all sound development of his physical and marital capabilities. True
liberty will be begging when the labour society will rise above the necessities of dependence
on the problem of bread and butter.
In short, liberty means, the schematic, social and ownership production of the means of
production, end of the sickening effects of the labour division and end of the exploitation. In
other words, only the establishment of socialism is the true beginning of liberty. For this only
the democratic control
over the political rulers is not enough, rather drastic changes in the social and economic relation
is also necessary.

Liberty: End of Necessities

According to Marx and Angels, an individual attains real liberty when he becomes capable of
controlling and using the physical circumstances for his objectives. So, the achievement of
freedom is to understand the requirements and limitation of our physical existence and to
overcome them. According to Angels: “Liberty is the victory over limitation”. Liberty doesn’t
mean to imagine the rules of the rapture rather it is to get complete knowledge about these and
to mould them in accordance to the human welfare, limitations are always there is both nature
and society for example, law of gravitation force, law of production process, law of personal
property, laws of hunger and thirst etc. Till the time, we do not understand the laws of the
nature, we remain slaves of the blind limitation and if we understand these, then we become
their masters. Thus, liberty is the knowledge of these limitations so that we can mould them as
per our own wish after winning them. In the beginning of the civilization, individual was not
able to understand the secrets of nature so he was the slave of this strange nature. As he started
getting the knowledge of these secrets/laws, he started more liberal and conscious. Like nature
other important obstacles in the liberty of an individual are the social powers which control
him in a special historical circumstance. In the class divided society all the people are divided
as a result the lower class finds itself incapable of fulfiling their physical requirements. In this
context the liberty means to understand the structure of capitalist production, class division and
class conflict and by destroying the class conflict by revolution and to provide liberty to people
by establishing the socialist society. “Only then individual would be able to jump from
limitations and step into the area of liberty”. So, liberty starts where the limitations end.
Liberty: A Collective Enterprises
Marxism views liberty as a collective concept. This means to give liberty to an individual, it is
necessary to have liberty for society (classes, castes, nationality etc.). On the contrary, liberty
of the society cannot be obtained without the liberty of individual personal and social. Liberties
have a conflicting relationship. In other words, the basis of the right to liberty is the man to
man relation and not the alienation of man from man. The right of such a social community
where individual considers himself to be a part of the community and not the liberty to live in
such a citizen society where man considers himself a personal individual. Man is a social
creature and the feeling of community is the essence of humanity. Only in community and
through community, an individual becomes social. Marx while talking about the communist
community, writes that this will be such a community which will be based on general feelings,
welfares, ideas and values, such a community where classes will have finished where power
would have transformed in authority, and which will be based on mutual help, self-rule and
self-management. But before the people to this world of liberty they have to give up the
personal property. For this there is a need of a revolutionary change. According to Marx, this
revolution is necessary for two reasons: (i) The ruling class cannot be deputed without
revolution and (ii) the class which is done revolution cannot become a part of a new society
without getting rid of the old arrangement. So before enjoying the true liberty, man has to
change himself and has to re- education himself in accordance to the new society through
revolution.
In short, this concept of liberty is an integral part of the Marxism Humanism. Its meaning is
vaster in comparison to liberalism. This views liberty in the context of liberal society (which
they call communism). This does not limit liberty to the absence of bindings, but also considers
it to be deficiency of alienation, exploitation, authority and limitation. For common man, this
liberty is possible only under communism. The broad concept of liberty and all-round
development of the man that Marxism talks about in this, negative liberty of selfish person, and
legal liberty of Bourgeois democracy, both seem to be meaningless.
Important Issue: Liberty of Expression and Belief
Let’s talk about an important subject related to liberty which is called freedom of expression
and devotion.

Liberty of Expression
Without the fundamental right of Liberty of expression, we cannot even imagine about any
democratic society. Development of the people living in any society depends upon the
possibilities of exchange of ideas and information’s. This liberty implies only on such
expressions which are regarded favourable and non-objectionable but it implies on the freedom
of the ideas which can excite, orangery or crazy any community of state or society. Freedom
of expression is the foundation of any democratic society. This is the basic human right used
by all people of the society irrespective of their cultural, religious, or political form. Liberty for
freedom and speech means liberty for freedom of expression, speech, write or transmit without
any limitation or prohibition. This does not imply only to the oral speech but it is the right to
receive or give ideas, views and information’s from any medium. Inspite of being united with
each other, freedom of expression and freedom of speech are different from the freedom of
ideas and conscious. Based on the logic of J.S. Mill, freedom of expression and speech is
considered as a multidimensional right which not only includes right of expression and
transmission and freedom of information and ideas but it also has three more dimensions:
(i) right to get information and ideas.
(ii) Right to search information and ideas.
(iii) Right to give information and ideas. Even national, international and
regional standards, give recognition to the right of freedom of speech
and expression which includes all forms like written, oral, printed,
internet, artistic etc.
Freedom of expression, pluralism, freedom of media, development of community newspapers,
radio stations, TV etc., are very important to re-establish the social bindings in society and for
the social fellowship process. Freedom of expression is considered as an integral part of modern
democratic societies where it opposed the censorship. Another logic is given that freedom of
expression is very essential for any democracy because at the time of election it is mandatory
for the voters to take a decision about the candidates by free discussion. People can affect the
government only on the basis of their oratory skills. Similarly, Government employees can also
be hold responsible by criticizing them and if required they can even be changed. It is believed
that if citizen stop then expression of their dissatisfaction due to the fear the Government will
take revenge, then Government does not remain responsible for the people. So, at times, it is
said that it is the reason for banning the freedom of expression by the Government so as to
avoid responsibility.
Right of speech and expression has got recognition under the international and regional law
also. This right has been included in para 19 of international convention of Civil and Political
Rights, Para 10 of European Convention on Human Rights, Para 13 of American Convention
of Human Rights and Para 9 of African Charter of Human Rights. Similarly, Summit of
Information Society has specially stressed the right to expression in their Declaration of
Principles. According to it, “We again revise the fact that freedom of expression and speech is
every one’s right. This right means without any external interference, to have faith in your
ideas, to search, receive or give information and ideas through any medium and without any
national boundaries. Unitedness is a basic social process, is a foundation stone of all social
organization and is a human necessity. This is the focus of an Information Society. Every person
should get chance for partnership at every place and no one should be devoid of getting the
benefits from the Information Society.”

Development of Right to Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech and expression has a long history and it is an integral part of the modern
liberalist democratic ideology. Among the primitive writers supporting right to expression, poet
and political writer of England, John Milton needs to be mentioned. He has given many logics
in favour of the right to expression in his book Aeropagitica (1644). He has written that unity
of any state can be attained by binding together the personal differences of opinion rather than
by imposing the similarity, that the ability to investigate maximum different ideas related to
any subject is necessary for attaining any kind of education; that till we do not check all the
viewpoints, we cannot reach the truth, that by considering free ideas and thinking works like
censorship are obstacles in physical growth. Milton believed that if all the facts are opened then
in this competition truth will defeat the lie. According to Milton every person has a right to
reveal on his arm, nobody is so intelligent that he can work as a censor for others.
Apart from Milton, J.S. Mill, in his book ‘On Liberty’ has strongly advocated right to freedom
of speech. He writes that there should be freedom in the form of a moral concept to express
any idea or to discuss about despite its assuming as immoral. Mill’s logic was that the
maximum freedom for expression is essential so that any logic can be taken to its logical limits
after taking it out from the social limits of shame. Mill believed that till guarantee of the
complete freedom scientific, moral and religious of ideas and feelings is not given, no society
can be completely free. As classified earlier, famous sentence of Mill was, “If the idea of the
entire human society is one and the idea of an individual is different from it, then even the
entire human race has no right to suppress that individual’s idea and neither that person has a
right that if he has power then he worked suppress the entire human race.” It is not only wrong
rather harmful to suppress any new non-conventional idea. This loses the chance of the human
race to come face to face with a new idea which might be better or true (or even may be
practically true). To suppress all types of discussion means to believe in Infallibility.
Mill has considered the theory of freedom to expression and speech to be justified on this basis:
(i) Idea which is being suppression can be right.
(ii) If the suppressed idea is wrong, even then it will be partially right because on any
social subject, public opinion is never unanimous. The possibility of truth originates
only by the conflict in the opposing ideas.
(iii) If the popular idea is right and even if it is not given the challenge of the opposing
idea, it will gradually take the form of convention.
Along with that he created the harm principle in the context of freedom of expression in which
same limitations can be put on this right. The only objective for which valid use of power can
be done on any member of community, against his wishes is to shop him to harm others.

Limitations on the Right to Freedom of Expression and the Issue of Censorship

On the practical level, right to freedom of expression is not uncontrolled in any country and
normally some limitations are put on it like Hate Speech. This is so because freedom to speak
is used always in context of competition. According to International law, the limitation on the
right to expression
should be legislative and in accordance to the necessary legal basis. In short, these limitations
have to undergo three kinds of tests:
(i) these limitations should be determined by the law.
(ii) These should be influenced by a legislative objective.
(iii) these should be very essential for those objectives which are regarded legislative,
among which main are: to safeguard others right, national security and public
arrangement, security of health and morality.
There are many theories of the freedom of expression. One of its viewpoints is that people
hesitate to express their idea, not because the Government will try to take revenge but because
they have many social pressures. Whenever any person presents his unpopular or new ideas
then has to face the hatred or criticized of the society or even same violent reaction can also
happen against him. Though, it is a bit difficult to stop this kind of suppression, but here
question can be raised that freedom of speech is usually considered free from the action of
citizen freedom or Government

The Issue of Censorship

Right to expression is considered the fundamental theory of democratic states. Even then there
are so many limitations can be laid on it like censorship, arrest, burning the books, propaganda
etc. and all these works discourage the right to express. The most popular method of putting
limitations of freedom of expression is censorship. Censorship implies to such a policy which
prohibits the public expression of ideas, opinion, concepts and feelings – on the basis that these
can harm the rule, authority or moral arrangement of the society to which Government is
securing the guarding. This prohibition of ideas can be put either before or after the expression.
Censorship is based on the rule that “idea usually work to excite”. So, these are and should be
the subject of social tension. Free interchange of ideas a gift of twentieth century but it is not
recognized everywhere till now. Fortunately, the history of censorship, infact is history of
conflict for freedom and tolerance also because without it the development of various social or
religious ideas was not possible and human race would have remained devoid of intellectual
development. Actually, history of freedom had also remained as a conflict for change, and
against suppression, prohibition ignorance and blind beliefs. The use of censorship is not a
speciality of only dictatorship states, this is an integral part of the democratic countries as well,
tough here comparatively much liberty is used in the subject matter and limitations of
censorship. Censorship is implied on both Government and non-Government institutions. On
a wider level, it is joined with state but use in society by various religious and class groups is
a very common thing.
Censorship can be divided mainly on four types of groups:
(i) Political censorship.
(ii) Religious censorship.
(iii) Censorship against obscenity (moral).
(iv) Censorship against intellectual freedom.
In any order of censorship all elements political, religious or moral, can be included. People or
groups opposing or supporting censorship give testimony of two different viewpoints
established under classics tradition. Groups supporting censorship depend upon ideas of Plato,
Augustine and Machiavelli whose fundamental belief was, “Those who have the power to
identify evil in the society they should also have to power to remove and stop it from spreading
more.” On the contrary, those who oppose censorship, give reference to the ideas of Aristotle
and John Deux that every person is free only when he has the power to select on his own in
society which means there should be no prohibition on him.

Is Censorship Justified?
Censorship is related to ideas which are presented in written or oral form and which need to be
censored. This means that some specific ideas are not legislative and they should not be
presented and these are dangerous for the health of the society. Censorship is related to stop the
dangerous ideas from spreading in society and to control them. These ideas are controlled by
the state or the authoritative groups in the society. Most successful in the context of censorship
had been religious groups, tyrant king, democratic or dictatorship authorities. These
administrative authentic have always tried to prohibit on all those ideas which are considered
dangerous, by using political, economic and ideological powers. There are many ways used by
the censorship like – ban on the publication of books or comics, to blacklist various literary
figures or play writers, to stop them by expressing their ideas by media or other telecom means,
to take prior-permission for the films and T.V. programmes, to check the textbooks of schools
and college. In this context, the condition of newspaper and press is a bit different in liberalist
countries. Usually they have no ban and they don’t need to take prior- permission to publish
any news.
On the theoretical level, idea of censorship is against freedom and liberal individualistic
ideology but inspite of it, censorship can be proved valid on three bases:
In the eyes of the ruling class ideas presented as per the established standard are false or
dangerous and need to be suppressed. In a multicultural and multi-caste society such ideas can
harm the cultural or social ideas and feelings of any community of a society and can also arouse
problems. (For example, ban imposed in India on Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses).
The second of the validity of the censorship, is found in Plato’s ‘Republic’. Here the idea is
given that common men on whom censorship is imposed are the usually those people whose
mind is not able to differentiate between truth and false and right and wrong. As a result, they
can get deviated. Though western liberalist tradition does not accept this idea but most of the
social/religious/ cultural communities in the society stress on this fact. In the modern society
ban on the films, comics, magazines, papers and textbooks come under the same category. Even
then historical facts also prove the fact that the influential social, communities who are
imposing ban are equally wrong as those whose ideas are being banned.
The ideas which give rise to the anti-social activities need a strong censorship e.g.,
pornography. In today’s age of SMS/MMS and internet, thin problem is taking a disastrous
form.
We agree with the statement of Wendell Holmes in the context of right to express. He states
“Every idea is exciting.” There is no doubt that there should be a free exchange of ideas in a
society but only of the healthy ideas. When state or social communities impose censorship,
then they don’t censor the ideas but they are banning the result arising due to those ideas. Here
the most important necessity is of the fact that this censor should not be more than bringing a
balance between the free expression of the individual and public arrangements/ morality. This
should not be used in the form of. Ideas should be faced with the ideas and not with bans.

Liberty of Belief
Liberty of Belief/ideas means the right of an individual to have independent ideas, perspective,
faith and explain different from others. This is joined with the right to expression but it is
different from that right because the complete concept of freedom of ideas is based on the
freedom of a man to keep any idea which he believes to be the supreme. So, the concept of
freedom of religion is joined with it. Modern liberalist states, societies and governments feel
proud on this kind of freedom. Even then, still there are many states and societies in the world
where freedom of religion or belief means right to choose and follow religion as per wish of a
person. This also actual right to be atheist. To fortune the people in the name of religion has a
long history and still this custom has not been completely controlled. Religious freedom means
guarantee by the Government for the fact that a person can have faith any religion, sect or belief
and has a right to worship as per his religion or belief. This is called freedom to follow any
religion. Freedom is usually considered as a fundamental human right by most of the countries
and communities. In the form of a legal concept, the right of religious freedom is related to the
religious tolerance, separation of state and religion. From historical view point, word freedom
of religion has been used for the regards towards the various religious arrangement of belief,
whereas ‘freedom of worship’ is related to the freedom of the activities of the man. On personal
level meaning of is taken to be the view point of making the others accept the religion. This
does not mean that the
ideas of any person about other religion are not its right or true or he is agreeing with them.
This only means that the others also have an equal right to have their own religion or belief.
Right to have belief is an integral part of the International Law of Human Rights. In the 18th
para of universal manifesto of the human rights, this has been described. According to it every
person has a right for ideas, conscious, and religion and this right also includes the right to
change religion as well. This also includes freedom of worshipping, tea practicing following
and his religion, collectively or individually, on personal level or public level. According to
human rights committee after the implementation of citizens and political rights internationally,
this para has been, legally implemented on all countries. According to this right of freedom of
ideas, conscious, religion and belief is much wider than presentation of religion or belief. This
does not accept any kind of limitations on the freedom of ideas, conscious or to accept any
religion or belief and to do any change in it. These freedoms have to be safeguarded without
any condition. This security implies on those also do not belief in any religion like
humanitarians, atheist, intellectual etc. In this context one of the forever secretary has talked
about the union of civilization whose objective is to undergo a movement to do solid solutions
against wrong explanation, polarization and prejudices on institutional or on citizens society
level. Any kind of serious dialogue can start only if there is a actual respect and understanding
towards other societies and cultures. Things like respect towards human rights, democracy, rule
and responsibility of law etc. are the result of collective understanding, progress and conscious
of human race.
In the context of the religious freedom, the most debatable issue is the right to change religion.
Apart from that in some countries there are discussions about banning some kind of missionary
activities. In some Islamic states and countries like china, there is a ban on the missionary
activities of the other religions. Similarly, among European countries, Greece does not give
permission of any kind of missionary activities to any other religion except their majority
church. In India also, discussion is going on for a long time for law against changing religion
either under pressure, due to greed or cleverly.

Religious Pluralism and Social Integration

Growth in the religious pluralism in the multicultural societies of Europe, America and Asia
has brought so many varieties in the religious and other recognition which has given rise to the
problems in the social relationships. Where the religion had started weakening in the form of a
social power after Second World War, there, in the decade of 1980s, especially after the fall of
Soviet Union and socialist group, circumstances had changed a lot. Today, once again, religion
is being made an important source of political power and identity. On the global level, these
are such kinds of examples, like Islamic revolution of Iran in 1979, rise of American Christians
in the 1981 and rise of Islamic Terrorism on global level in 21st Century. There could be
difference in opinion in the philosophical and theoretical explanations of religion on the
political level but this is definite that the fall of socialist/communist group has finished a
parallel ideology against the western global authority and the politicization of religion has got
a chance as one of its option. Apart from it, globalization has comparatively minimized the old
relevance of national boundaries in the context of religion and culture with the increasing para
nationalism, it is being clear that the means to control the religions activities used by the
national rulers on their own land have become comparatively limited.
In multicultural societies, the increasing variety in religion and other beliefs have raised many
challenges. These circumstances demand for accepting new changed circumstances and self-
analysis by citizens, states and other characteristics which include religious institutions and
media etc. Public discussion is one of the days through which subjects can be identified,
challenged and an agreement can be made on them. But we should not forget that they are
joined with a vast social reality because on general religious feelings and specially of the
Muslim have been politicalized so it is clear that religion is gradually becoming one of the most
important area in social discussion. This means that religious activities are becoming the
platform of the importance where this can be discussed using all kinds of issues or using the
language of religion. Liberalist are facing lots of problems in making these religious demands
valid. Though it is possible that ultimately if these claims are translated in particular language
then they do not look very different. Claims of caste or breed are easily accepted. Pluralist
societies based on many beliefs, freedom of expression rises many problems where even
obtaining inters personal relation is very difficult, leaving aside respect and understanding for
each other.

Conclusion
Idea of freedom is the central subject of the liberalist ideology. This makes a tolerant person its
basis for philosophy and draws a definite line between individual and his self-reliance and
society and state under liberalist thinking, liberty emerged in two forms which is called
negative and positive liberty. Its beginning was from negative liberty which finalized an area
for the freedom of an individual. This was given the name of lack of boundation. In this we
talked about the bindings blamed by man and not of the natural or deficiency of any capability.
But this theory was not successful in thinking about the fact that liberty’s self-defining concept
also demand for the analysis social circumstances. Positive liberty experienced that for liberty
apart from legal obstacles, some external sources are also required. It gave reference of
opportunities and abilities to complete the capabilities of the individual. It combined liberty
with facilities of equality and equal rights. But this dual of negative and positive liberty was
considered useless by Marx or Marxism. They not only criticized the liberalist concept of
liberty but also presented a different concept of human freedom.
Critical theorist of post liberalism has been very depressed with the fact that the concept of
liberty has remained unsuccessful in keeping its promise. They also criticised the present
liberalist tradition of liberty which is not more than a mask to hide the reality of growth-
controlled arrangement formed modern society. According to post liberalist writers,
intellectuals of modernity have done a mistake by disobeying this hidden authority using the
concept of freedom. Similarly, feminist writers have also criticized the present concept of
liberty on the basis that this is make dominated and can bring problems in the extension of
liberty of women. So, dissatisfied with the two traditional main concepts of liberty, today
theorists are conflicting to define social circumstances of liberty logic is given that these social
circumstances of liberty do not finish just by giving public guarantee against physical or legal
obstacles or providing social provisions like income, education, health etc. It is experienced
that in the concept of liberty should also include that cultural in which the person lives because
this is the part of that process through which finalises his priorities. This also implies that in
any society people will not feel free till different cultures are treated differently. Apart from
that along with the concept of personal concept of community freedom should also be included.
Most interesting the fact is that the discovery of appropriate concept of freedom was not done
by taking favour of any the group from negative or positive in which traditional supporters of
liberty were also divided. Contemporary political philosophers have stopped concentrating on
some specific freedom and have started asking questions such as – can we find some meaning
for such claims? Is a person or society being free from each other? Or of the idealistic claim of
the liberalism that maximum freedom should be obtained, or people should use the same
freedom or every person has the right of minimum liberty etc. The realistic meaning of these
claims depends upon the possibility of measuring the degree of overall free done (at times from
critical view point or at times from tyrant viewpoint) which is called overall concept of
freedom.

Equality

Introduction
Generally, equality meant that all individual is equal by birth and so every person should have
equal right of behaviour and income. But this meaning of equality is as doubtful as saying that
earth is a surface. Even nature has not given equal power to everyone. In human society, we
find people of different kinds like fat, thinly, short, tall, intelligent and foolish. These are the
examples of natural inequality. Apart from it, acceptance of this kind of concept of inequality
is not only incorrect but also impossible.
In the modern times, the inequality found in the society has two types of reasons and on that
basis, inequality is also of two types. One type of inequality is the natural difference in the
basic human beings. Nature has distinguished different people from the point of intellect, power
and capability and the inequality due to this difference is called Natural Inequality. To finish
this inequality is neither right nor possible.
Another type of inequality present in society is difficulties created by the society. Many times,
inspite of being better in intelligence, power capability of poor people are not able to get the
kind of personality development of their children which the intelligent level but rich children
can get. The main reason of this kind of social inequality is the creation of such kind of
circumstances by the society due to which everyone cannot get the equal opportunities of
personality development. The meaning of equality as a concept of political science is related
to this difference of inequality originated due to the social. This means that everyone should be
given equal opportunities for personality development so that no one gets a chance to say that
if he had got the appropriate facilities, he would have made much progress in his life. Thus,
inequality can be properly defined as:
“Equality implies to the existence of such circumstances due to which equal opportunities can
be obtained for the development of individuals and the kind of inequality based on the similar
society which can be finished.”
While expressing the same thought, Laski has written, “Equality is basically a process of
equalization. So first of all, equality implies to the deficiency of special right. Secondly, it
implies that everyone should get enough opportunities for growth.”

Meaning of Equality
Equality is the basic foundation of democracy. There had been so many conflicts in human
history to obtain this high norm. In the ancient time, there was deficiency of equality because
at that time slavery was popular and this was considered natural and an ideal declaration in
American declaration of Independence was made about equality. It was said in it that we
consider the truth clear that all human beings are born equal. General meaning of equality is
natural equality of all human beings. But this kind of equality is not possible in any society. In
short, we can say that equality means all human beings are equal, all should be treated equally
and all should get equal wages.
Various Dimensions of Equality
Equality is possibly the most popular concept of the modern times and various thinkers and
ideologies have propagated the concept of equality in their own ways. This situation has given
rise to various dimensions of equality various dimensions of equality are as follows:
1. Legal Dimensions of Equality
2. Political Dimensions of Equality
3. Social Dimensions of Equality
4. Economical Dimensions of Equality

1. Legal Dimensions of Equality

Legal equality means that state cannot behave as per its wishes with its citizens. As per the law
all citizens are equal and everyone should get the same protection by the law. British
constitutional arrangement “Rule of Law” is the arrangement to obtain legal equality.
Following things come under legal equality:
Equality before law: This means that everyone is equal in front of law. State will make only
one law for all citizens and will implement these laws equally. According to Ivor Jennings, this
means that “in same circumstances, behaviour of the law will remain same for everyone”.
English lawyer Dicey has described, “equality before law” as: “In our country every officer
whether he is prime minister or police constable or a tax collector, all will be held equally
responsible for the illegal work as any other ordinary citizen.”
Equal Protection of Law: Equality in front of law is negative aspect of law but along with that
there is a positive aspect of law also which means that all the citizens of the state will get equal
protection of law. State will not have any differentiation in regards of the freedom provided to
its citizens through law and the facilities provided in the fields of life and health. This includes
the fact, that every person get protection from the law to protect his rights. In para 14 of Indian
Constitution it is said, “State will not devoid anybody from the equality of law and equal
protection of law in India.”
Equality in context of Duties: In the concept of equality of law it is also included that along
with the rights every citizen will have equal duties. No one will get special facilities on the
basis of birth, family, religion or property and neither their duties will be considered separately.
Equality in the tax-fixation: While fixing the tax it should be taken care will be levied equally
on everyone. In this context differentiation can be done on the basis of capability of giving tax.
More burden on rich and loss on poor is in accordance with the theory of equality of law.
Discrimination on the basis of reasonability is acceptable: The idea of equality of law prohibits
only the discrimination based on spontaneity. It does not prohibit giving special facilities to a
specific group on the reasonable basis but the condition is that in such condition these facilities
are for everyone in that group. For example, state can make a law that all those earning less
than a particular amount of money will get grain at lower rate from the ration shops and the
children of such families will get discount in fee. In Indian state arrangement facilities given
to the schedule caste and schedule tribes come under this category. Such kind of facilities
provided to specific group cannot be challenged in the court with the stand that these are against
the theory of equal protection of law.
2. Political Dimensions of Equality
Political equality means that all citizens should get equal opportunities to affect the political
processes. Kingdom, aristocracy and dictatorship does not believe in the theory of political
equality. In these arrangement discriminations on the basis of birth and family is a common
condition but democratic arrangement is based on the theory of political equality. Following
equalities came under the political equality:
1. Voting Right: Voting right is the first condition of political equality. This means that
without any discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, property education etc.
everyone should have voting right. Only on the constitutional basis of being minor,
bankrupt, insolvency etc. people can be devoid of voting rights.
2. Right to become a candidate in an election: Citizens should have an equal right to
become a candidate in an election. A person who has affected from incapabilities.
Which are described in the constitution, can be declared incapable for candidate. Such
capabilities are determined in "public representative Act. 1991 in India."
3. Right to Give Application: Citizens should have an equal right to write application to
send their complaints to the government.
4. Right to get Government Recruitment and Awards: Everyone should be considered
equally eligible to get Government recruitments and awards. Only on the basis of
education, service or any other special capability discrimination can be done in this
context.
5. Right to express and to make parties: This should also be obtained by everyone equally.

3. Social Dimensions of Equality

Social equality is an important aspect of equality. Social equality implies that every person
should be considered equal in society and social life and there should be no discrimination in
the name of religion, caste, family, gender or place of birth.
In the past time slavery was popular in America and some other countries. Today also there is
discrimination on the basis of colour in countries like South Africa. Negros in America and
lower caste in India are still striated badly. All these situations are against the theory of social
equality. In the fundamental rights given under the Indian constitution special provision for the
right of equality has been given and in Para 17, untouchability has been declared as a
punishable offence. Social equality demands that there should be no inhumane conditions like
sati pratha and female feticide. Following things come under social equality:
1. No one should be considered inferior or superior on the basis of family, caste or creed.
2. Women should not be given less rights than men. Social equality demands that women
should get behavior in equally respectable condition.
3. Social equality stresses on the establishment of such a society in which social
 intercourse between the human beings should get encouragement. Social intercourse
means absence of prohibitions in marriage relations and eating habits. Social
inequalities can be removed by liberal education. Along with that for the growth of the
socially backward people and for their economic development it is very necessary to
arrange the special facilities.
4. Social equality doesn’t mean that state cannot gather special facilities for women,
children or backward classes. On contrast social equality demands that special facilities
should be arranged for all weaker sections. It is necessary that there should be no such
discrimination should be made. While providing these special facilities which cannot
be justified. Social equality is a condition of social life and this cannot be obtained only
by law.

4.Economic Dimensions of Equality

In today’s life ‘wealth’ is most important and if we want to attain equality not only theoretically
but also practically then it is very essential to obtain economic equality. Rousseau in his famous
book “Social contract” has written – “Policy of the government should be such that it neither
increase the no. of beggars and nor of the rich people.” This implies that there should not be
economic disparities in society. Economic disparities pollute the entire structure of the society”.
According to Laski “In the country in which wealth and means of production are in the hands
of some limited people, there money completely over powers the politics, culture educational
institutes and judiciary”. Not only this but even religious organizations are directed by money.
Robert Dahl has considered political stability and economic equalities related to each other.
According to Dahl, “If we want to maintain the political stability and democratic form of
government then we have to bring economic equality by appropriate distribution of land,
reforms in tax process and extension of education facilities.”
Implication of Economic Equality
Economic equality doesn’t mean that everyone should get same wages or everyone should use
equal materialistic means. This type of situation can neither be achieve nor it is right.
“Economic equality implies that fundamental requirements of everyone should be fulfilled and
there should be no inequalities in the society from the view point of wealth.”

Main Aspects of Economic Equality

Following are the main aspects of Economic Equality:
1. Minimum materialistic requirements of everyone should be fulfilled. Till everyone does
not get the facilities of food, cloth and shelter, no one should get the right to obtain the
means of luxury.
2. Everyone should get the facility of employment, enough wages and appropriate leave.
3. People should get help from the state in the condition of unemployment, old age,
sickness or handicap.
4. Men and women should get equal wages for equal work and such arrangement should
be made that women and children are not exploited for economic compulsions.
5. Everyone should get such opportunities through which they can develop their
 personalities. It includes the fact that children of poor families and of the socially
backward classes, should get such facilities that they get do their personality
development through these.
6. Wealth and means of production of the state should not be centralized in some people.
In this context, such an arrangement should be made that few people on the basis of the
ownership of the means of production should not be able to exploit others.
7. Severe economic inequalities should be finished. It is not possible to obtain the
condition of complete inequality, but the policy of the state to enhance the equality.
Economic equality can be obtained only on the basis of the solid work Relation of
Freedom and Equality
There is a difference of opinion among political thinkers about the inter-relation between
freedom and equality. Some people on the basis of the popular meanings of freedom and
equality, called it contradictory to each other. According to them, freedom is the name of the
power to work as per over will whereas equality means to understand all kinds of people equal.
These people think that if all the people given freedom then the result of the life will be very
unequal and if all the people are made equal on the basis of power then this equality will destroy
freedom. Not only common men, but even famous scholars of political science like Alexis de
Tocqueville and Lord Acton also believe that freedom and equality are opposite to each other.
Lord Actin has said, “Due to the best desire for the equality, hope for the freedom has spoiled.”
But this idea of Tocqueville and Lord Actins is not true. Actually, form of freedom and equality
imagined by scholars like Lord Actin etc. This form of freedom and equality is neither obtained
in the society and nor is accepted in the political science. In this context Laski has written that,
“Tocqueville and Lord Acton considered freedom and equality opposite to each other as they
had a strong desire for freedom in their mind. But this is a wrong inference and this was done
so as they mistook the meaning of equality.” Freedom to do the work as per their will was
available even in the Barbaric society of Hobbs, in which there was no freedom in the real
sense. Similarly, natural equality or equality of income is a matter of imagination which was
called “foolish nonsense” even by Stalin, Chief of the Communist rule.
In the political science as per the meaning of the equality and freedom, these are
complementary to each other. By correcting the definition of freedom, we can say, “Freedom
is the name of such arrangement of life in which there should be minimum bindings on the life
of a person, there will be deficiency of special right and people should have maximum facilities
for their personal development”.
According to these definitions of freedom and equality both of these have an objective of
highest development of human personality and in this way freedom and equality are
complementary and supportive to each other. In this context Actin has written, “The only
contrast is that equality and freedom which start as contrast to each other, after analysing
become necessary for each other. This is true that the right explanation of the meaning of the
equality can be done in context of freedom only.” If the doors of the equal opportunities are
open for everyone, then a person can utilize the real freedom to develop his powers according
to his interest. In the societies where a particular class gets special rights and social and
economic differences are found, there this class gets the power to pressurize the lower class
and the lower class has freedom only for namesake. According to Laski, “Inequality of wealth
is opposite to the freedom. Due to the absence of means, poor people can get appropriate justice
in the court and judiciary being a long process rich people destroy their poor neighbours.”
Infact, equality works in the form of the basis for freedom. In such a state, where there is no
equality, there can be no freedom. This can be classified in the following ways:
1. If there will be no political equality then freedom will be useless and a huge part of the
population will not get any part of the rule.
2. If there will be no equality of the citizens, then those who are suffering from
incapabilities should not get freedom.
3. If there will be no social equality then freedom will remain as a special right only for a
few people.
4. If there will be no economic equality then wealth will remain centralized in the hands
of only few people and only that section will be able to get the benefit of freedom.
5. In such condition, Dr. Ashirwadam has rightly said, “French revolutionaries were
neither craze nor fools when they raised the slogan of freedom, equality and
brotherhood.”
6. Prof. Pollard has expressed this truth in one sentence, “There is only one solution to the
problem of freedom and that solution is included in the equality.” Infact, freedom and
equality are the two shores of the river of life, these are the wheels of the chariot of
human welfare. These are the integral part of human life like ‘Truth’ and ‘God’.
This is very much possible that the poor farmers of India are equally capable of Tagore and
Nehru but due to the lack of enough facilities they could not develop their life. Infact, in the
absence of equality, discovery of most capable people is as difficult as a race in which to
identify the fastest runner when all the runners have to start from the different places. In this
way, freedom and equality are supporters and complementary to each other. R.H. Tony has
rightly said, “A large amount of equality is necessary for it rather than being its opposite.”
5. Equality of Opportunity

Every person should get equality of opportunity. No one should be remain devoid to obtain
anything due to the deficiency of opportunities. Equality of opportunity can be understood in
the following way:
1. Deficiency of Special Rights: First speciality of equality is that no class in the society
should get any special right. No one should get facility of opportunity on the basis of
religion, gender or wealth. Wherever a particular class has special rights, there is no
question of equality of opportunity.
2. Destruction of Natural Inequalities: Specialities of the equality of the opportunities
should be that natural inequalities should be destroyed in the society.
3. Fulfillment of the fundamental requirement of everyone: Speciality of the equality of
opportunity is that fundamental requirements of everyone should be fulfilled. Everyone
cannot be given the same wages but everyone’s requirements should be fulfilled. There
should not be millionaires on one side and beggars on the other side. A person should
not remain hungry after work.
Justice
Introduction
Justice is the supreme objective of political life. Though the topic of the political discussion is
usually injustice. It is easy to identify and criticize injustice whereas to define law and to obtain
it is very difficult. Various political ideologies have explained justice in various ways. Justice
is the ultimate determining concept of any society. This is such a fundamental concept in front
of which all other concepts bow down. Justice coordinates among the other concepts like right,
freedom, equality, and wealth. So, in any explanation of justice it is necessary to take care of
its multidimensional character.
In political theories justice is regarded as the property of distribution. According to Kolb,
justice can be understood in two meanings—
(i) To give one one’s due and
(ii) To set the wrong’s right either by compensation or punishment.
In the first meaning justice is related to determine the theory of distribution of right and duty,
security, self-respect, opportunity etc. in society. Because distribution of things and services
depends upon the historical circumstance of every society. So various of justice are never tyrant
omnipresent and similar. They change with the change in economic and social circumstances
of every society. In the second meaning justice is related to the explanation of law, arrangement
and rules to punish. If anybody has a right on the basis of humanity then this is called natural
justice. If this right is due to such a law for which the person is accountable to the state then
this is called legal justice.
According to D.D. Raphael, justice is a Janus like concept. This is both legal and moral. This
as much related to the social arrangement and to the rights of society as to the personal rights.
This is the nourisher of both traditional and reform specialities. According to another writer
justice can be understood in two ways:
(i) To protect the society from the wrong people by seriously abiding the
present laws and by punishing the people who prohibit them;
(ii) Law is also related to the study of the philosophical basis behind law which
means what is the objective of the law which is being protected in the law?
What do we want to obtain through the medium of securing law? In this
meaning implication of the law becomes very deep and ideas of various
ideologies and thinkers also become totally different. Here concept of law
also becomes very vast and gets united with everything like morality,
economics, society etc. In the political theory justice is discussed mainly in
the context of this meaning.
Criteria for Justice
In the contemporary political thinking justice is regarded as property of distribution.
Explanation of justice depends upon the fact that what is the criteria of distribution of
materialistic things and services. In the modern democratic societies, mainly three criterias of
justice has been finalized: equality, merit and need.
Since the last 200 years, when human equality and rights of an individual has got recognition
on the universal level, equality has become an important basis of any theory of justice. This is
the fundamental demand of the justice that everybody has equal rights in the society till there
are no such circumstances which consider inequality right. Today equality before law is an
integral part of the legal arrangement. Similarly, in the form of Equalism, economic equality,
in the form of indiscrimination in the name of caste, religion, colour, language, adult voting
rights and equality in the form of one person one vote are considered the minimum necessities
of justice. Even then the meaning of belief in equality does not necessarily mean that just
society will establish automatically because in society people are different from the view point
of their capabilities and circumstances and expect a different behaviour. Equality can be
established when same people similarly and different people differently behaved. Even then
concept of similar behaviour is included in the theory of justice.
Second criteria of justice is merit. This criterion differentiates people on the basis of their merits
and validates the various rewards of various people in society. A person’s moral or internal
characteristics and capacities are good to be paid and they should be getting their wages on the
basis of their contribution in the social welfare. From the historical point of view this idea of
merit has played a pivotal role in challenging the concept that people necessarily are righteous
of doing all that which they have inherited which means rich their money and poor their poverty
with the rise of capitalism, merit because an important basis of justice. Liberalism supported
the idea that those who produce more or have more merit should get more wages. Merit
examined by the contribution is an important part of liberalist justice which is expressed by the
“equality of opportunities which means that everyone will get an equal opportunity to prove
his merit and to contribute in the production but reward will be given on the basis of actual
merit.
Third basis of justice is necessity. According to this criterion every person has some minimum
necessities for being human which have to be satisfied irrespective of having merit or not.
Every person has some fundamental rights like prestige, respect and freedom which cannot be
fulfilled till the basic requirement of bread, cloth and shelter are not fulfilled. But the practical
problem of this basis is that there is no clear answer to the question — “What is necessary?
“For example, wages required to keep an American below poverty line will bring an Indian in
comparatively rich class. Similarly, health is a universal necessity but in every country. There
are different criteria for health which depends upon the availability of facilities of health
security. Apart from it, at times giving wages as per the necessity also because dangerous
because this will degrade the capability or merit.
In short, no basis of justice is free from problems. There is no criteria for equality. Criteria of
necessity indicates towards the fundamental idea of human equality but sacrifices merits and
capability. Similarly, basis of merit differentiates in various people of society and in such a
society there is no place of incapables. True criteria of justice lie in the coordination of these
three basis.

Meaning of Justice and Concepts

Word ‘Justice’ is originated from Latin ward ‘Jus’ which means ‘to bind’. So, in this way,
justice implies to that social arrangement in which people bind with each other with inter
relationship. In simple words, justice is the name of that arrangement in which there is
appropriate arrangement, coordination in personal and social relation, impartiality, selflessness
and logic. In which people follow their duties and rights”. According to Plato, “Justice is the
right condition of human soul and natural demand of human nature”.

Greek and Roman Concepts of Justice

Concept of justice has been changeable and multidimensions. In every society justice has
always had its specific concept. Plato has presented a normative concept of justice, in his book
‘Republic’. According this, justice is completely in accordance to the nature of human being
and it can be discovered and understood on the basis human intellectual logic. Justice has been
considered as one of the four parts of good characteristic. (Other three are intellect, courage
and tolerance). Justice has been considered as the supreme characteristic because it coordinates
the rest three characteristics. According to Plato, nature has made some people philosophers
and thinkers who called elite. Some have been made aggressive and brave as warriors and other
good labourers or sculptures. Justice demands that “every person should remain at the station
allotted by the nature which means he should fulfil the duties for which he is capable.” Apart
from it, nature of justice can be studied on the basis of coordinating nature of the start as
personal characteristics are the miniature of the social completeness i.e. characterizes of the
state. This coordination is included in doing the work fixed by the state. According to Plato,
justice, is the name of that balance and coordination which originates as its resultant.
Plato’s disciple Aristotle made change in the theory of justice and believed that equality is also
included in the concept of justice up to a limit. The basis of this equality can be equal treatment
and proportion ability. Commutative equality of behaviour takes towards justice whereas
proportionality is included in distributive justice. To fix the criteria of distributive justice is the
work of legislation where commutative justice is the duty of the judge. According to Aristotle,
political rights, special rights, wealth, property, materialistic things, prestige etc. should be
allotted on the basis of distributive justice. On the contrary, those prohibiting the laws made
under commutative justice should be penalized and fined. Apart from it, the supreme criteria
of the social welfare, while believing in this concept is the right middle or the balanced way in
the various classes. Aristotle has given recognition to a third aspect of justice as well in the
form of such a moving equilibrium which continuously coordinates in the distributive and
commutative justice.

Dawn of Liberalism and Changes in the Concepts of Justice

As a result of renaissance religious reformation movement and commercial revolution new
concepts and basis of justice were developed in Europe. Propagators of this new concept of
justice were Grotius, Hobbs, Lock, Rousseau and Kant etc. Hobbs considered justice as the
following of authoritative orders of the state. Lock, Rousseau and Kant joined it with the
freedom, equality and coordination in man-made laws. Special rights based on the feudalism,
tyrant imperialism and caste were considered in just and illegal. Justice could be obtained only
through such a social agreement based on the consent of the people which secures the freedom
and equality of the people.
In 19th Century, same contrasting concepts of justice were also found. Bentham and Mill joined
justice with the of the individual by their theory of utility. This comfort is included in
individual’s rights and freedom and in the creation of such rules which are helpful in human
welfare. Even then these writers did not consider the inequalities arise due to the capitalist
economy as unjust. On the contrary, Marxist believed the fundamental element of the justice
to be the end of capitalist production structure, class division and class conflict and
establishment of class free society. Even then, inspite of criticism, the utilitarian point of view
of the justice remained the main theory of the Second World War and liberalist ideology. After
the World War, as a result of the establishment of the welfare states in Europe, this view point
seemed in complete. In this, context John Rawl's book ‘A Theory of Justice’ which was
published in 1971, is a great contribution in the development of a new concept of justice. By
Cabining freedom, equality and social welfare, Rawls has presented a theory of justice in
accordance with the contemporary liberalist — equality-based state. Apart from it, rise of self
indepemdentship and its support of open market economy, minimal state, and personal rights
of freedom and wealth, presented a parallel concept of justice which is called ‘Entitlement
Theory of Justice’. Nozick has explained this concept in his book, “Anarchy, State and Utopia”.
Let us study about these contemporary theories in detail.

Procedural Justice
As described above, justice is of two types — (i) To give one, one’s right. (ii) To amend the
mistakes by punishments and penalties, Where the first type of justice is related to take decision
about those theories which will allot the rights/duties and materials in the society, there second
type of justice is related to legal arrangement and punishment/compensation. It is related to
implement the present law against the wishful prohibition. This is also called procedural justice.
The idea of procedural justice is very effective in the concept of law. Procedural Justice
indicates towards the impartiality in that process which resolves the conflicts and allots the
resources.
This idea is very popular and is the best guarantee of the impartial results. This justice is related
to implementation and creation of the decisions by an impartial process. If this kind of
processes are used then they consider people with respect and dignity and so people feel
ensured to the law and so in this way it becomes easier to accept those result which are not
liked by the people.
One aspect of the procedural justice is related to discussion of the administration of the law
and details of the legal proceedings. This type of procedural justice is called in India “Procedure
established by law”, in America, “Due process of law, in Australia”, “Procedural Fairness” in
Canada, “Primary law”. Apart from it, the idea of procedural justice can be used in the non-
legal context as well, where some processes are required to resolve the conflicts and to
distribute the social profits and loss.
Though, the concept of procedural law is there since the time of Aristotle but liberalism has
given it a formal form in which it was assumed that the process of allotment of valuable things,
services and benefits should be justified. But after this ‘What one gets is not a topic of
discussion. Theory of procedural justice opposes the any discrimination on the basis of caste,
religion, place, area, breed, language or culture and accepts the equal dignity and equal
importance of everyone in the society.
John Rawls in his book ‘A Theory of Justice’ has classified three form of justice. After
finalizing the priorities of justice, Roles distinguishes in the three types of justice. These are
(i) Perfect procedural justice
(ii) Imperfect procedural justice and
(iii) Pure procedural justice.
Perfect procedural justice is related to those circumstances where there is a free basis of
unbiased distribution and there should be such process also through which unbiasedness can
be finalized. Imperfect justice means those circumstances where there is a free basis of the
unbiased justice but also there is a lack of such a procedure through which it can be fixed. In
such situation, at the most, we can say that to get the expected result from a particular procedure
is just an expectation. Pure Procedural justice is related to that condition where there is no free
basis of the unbiased result. There is basis only of the unbiased procedures and processes.

Models of Procedural Fairness

Theory of Procedural justice is little debatable from this view point that “What is unbiased
procedure”. There are many answers given. We can distribute these in three categories. (i)
Outcome model,
1. balance model and,
2. partnership model.
According to the Outcome model of procedural justice, impartiality of any process depends
upon its working procedure which gives right outcome. For example, if it is a criminal case,
then its right outcome will be to punish the criminal and free the innocent. If the process is
legislative, then the limit of this impartial procedure will be till it makes the right law. It will
be wrong till it makes incorrect law. Even then, it has many limitations on theoretical ground
if these two procedures create the same results, then these both as per this model should be
right. Even then, as classified in the next two forms that any procedure has some other
specialities which make it appropriate or inappropriate. For example, some people can give a
logic that a benevolent tyrant cannot be as just as a democratic government, even if they both
have same result.
Balance model is related to the expenses. These procedures are very expensive. Balance model
believes that it an appropriate and impartial procedure which can create a balance between the
cost of the procedure and the profit obtained by the procedure. Thus, according to the view
point of the balance of the procedural impartiality in order to avoid the excessive expense one
can be prepared to accept or tolerate the wrong decision.
According to the partnership model, an impartial procedure is that process which allows even
the terrified ones also to participate in the process of creation of judgement. For example,
during a court case, partnership model experts that defense should also get the opportunity to
present their side, evidences and to ask questions from the evidence. Condition for any
procedure to be impartial is that all the people related to that process should get the chance to
participate in it. For this partnership minimum rights should be followed like sending a formal
notice and giving him a chance to explain his side so that this procedure becomes impartial.
Apart from the above, there are some other elements to make any procedure impartial. First of
them is stress on the consistency which means impartial procedure should ensure that same
people should be treated similarly and any kind of difference should be on the basis of personal
specification and not on the basis of the external specialities of different process.
Second, people who would implement procedural justice should be impartial. It is necessary
for an impartial decision maker to make these procedures reach the appropriate and impartial
results. Both the parties involved in this procedure should have faith the intentions of the court
and that they want to do the impartial treatment with the people and they will think about the
requirements and viewpoints of effective parties. If the people will have faith on this third party,
then they will also have faith on the impartiality of this decision-making procedure.
Third, those being directly effective by the decisions should get the opportunity to raise then
voice and representation in this procedure. This kind of representation will make the situation
of the members strong and creates belief in the decision – making process. Specially, this is
very necessary for the weaker party whose voice is never heard and at the end the implemented
procedures should be transparent. All the decisions should be taken on the basis of open
procedures and there should be no secrecy or deceit in these. Procedural justice is joined with
the impartiality and transparency of those processes through which decisions are taken. This is
different from the distributive justice which is related to the rights and distribution of resources
and revengeful justice which means impartiality in the compensation of mistakes and
impartiality in punishment.
Impartial procedures raise the feeling of loyalty towards political arrangement, validates the
power of the politicians and helps in following the rule of law willingly. This kind of following
is expressed in many forms like in political organization at workplace or in legal context. So,
issues related to the procedural justice emerge out in context of various types of decisions. For
example, in the context of legal procedure, procedural justice has to ensure that the process of
case is impartial. It is expected from the working of law that it should ensure the impartiality
coordinates and transparency. Similarly, to ensure that there should be revengeful justice and
criminals should be punished. It is compulsory that the judges and juries should be impartial at
the time of judgement. Impartial procedures of agreements and legal proceedings are also
centralized in the validity of decisions. In such cases where various parties experience that they
are being compelled to accept the result of decision-making process which are wrong as per
his thinking. Then it can have some reactive effects also. Even then many people believe that
procedural justice is not enough in itself. It is more important to reach the right result rather
than implementing rights procedures.
Rawl’s Theory of Justice
Contractarian Theory of Justice–Views of John Rawls
Utilitarian theory of justice has been replaced by an optional theory which has been clarified
by famous philosopher John Rawl’s famous book, “A theory of Justice”. This book has been
compared with the book of Plato, Mill and Kant. Main objective of this book has been providing
a fixed theoretical basis to the concept of justice which can take place of utilitarist concept and
which is in accordance with the requirements of the modern liberalist democratic welfare state.
Rawls considers justice to be the first and fundamental characteristic of all social institutions
and analyses the fact that which theories of the justice can be considered best. While doing this,
he created a theory of justice like Hobbs, Lock and Rousseau based on the social contract.
According to Rawl’s, as justice is the foundation of any social arrangement, so all the political
and legislative decisions should be taken under these rules. According to Rawls, justice is
property of distribution and it is related to the distribution of things and services in the society.
Rawls has called these things primary goods. These are of two types:
1. Social Goods: All those goods which are distributed by the social institutions directly
like wages, wealth, opportunity, material goods, rights, freedom etc.
2. Natural Goods: Like health, intelligence, imaginative power and capacity which are not
distributed directly by the social institutions but they are affected by these. How these
goods are distributed in a justified society — this depends upon the fact that which
theory of justice is included in their arrangement of rights, legal process and designation
etc.
Some Basic Assumptions
Before describing the basic theory of justice, Rawls describes some basic assumptions which
need to be given importance. First, Rawls develops the concept of justice with the viewpoint
that at everyone in the society is free and equal. This freedom is joined with the ownership of
their two moral rules —
(i) Capacity for a sense of justice,
(ii) Concept of good.
Till the limit, these rules are available to live in the form of a complete cooperative member of
the society, that society is equal. While describing it more, Rawls has written that
“Understanding of justice’ means “Understanding implementing and capacity of working
according to the universal concept of justice which demands right cooperation.” This
understanding expresses a desire that in the context of the relation with the others such kind of
behaviour should be done which can be supported publically and in the ‘concept of welfare’ all
that is valuable for the human life is included. Generally, all those ultimate objectives are
included which we want to achieve for ourselves and along with that attachment with the others
and loyalty towards other groups or communities.
Second, Rawls assures theory of politics as a political concept in the form of impartiality. This
type of concept has three specialities — First, this is a moral concept which is related to the
basic structure of the society which means that all the social, economic and political institutions
should collectively fit in such an arrangement of mutual cooperation and should pass on from
generation to generation. Secondly, such a network of concepts is present in the “public
political culture” through which political concept can be explained and its validity can be
presented. Thirdly, its subject matter is expressed in the context of some fundamental idea
which can be seen included in the public political culture of any democratic society. This public
culture is made with the combination of political institutions of a legislative rule and the public
traditions of its explanations.
Thirdly, political concept of justice indicates towards the concept of reasonable citizen. Citizen
can be considered reasonable in the condition when considering each other free and equal in
an arrangement of cooperation they remain eager to present appropriate conditions of social
cooperation to each other. This means giving recognitions to the decisions taken and to be
prepared to bear the burden of its results. We must be ready to accept that a reasonable person
without any presumption or without unnecessarily caring for the group welfare, can keep the
difference of opinion with each other. A reasonable person will consider it unreasonable to use
the political power to suppress such vast ideas which are not unreasonable, even if these ideas
do not match with his own ideas. This means a reasonable person will never suppress a religion
different from his own religion and will never declare it illegal. He will not do so even in the
condition when his religion is in majority and there is no fear for them to be suppressed.
Fourth, Rawls ideas of justice are based on the traditions of theory of social contract of Hobbs
and Lock. According to this theory, in order to understand the political obedience, we should
imagine the condition that before the organized society under Government or law, how was the
man and then should ask the questions:
(i) What must have inspired the man to make an organized society.
(ii) Which theories must have been chosen in this pre-political condition to direct the
social relations.
Social contract has three specialities which make it specific;
(i) Pre-political condition.
(ii) Political condition which people made after causing out of pre-political conditions.
(iii) That Actual condition which is unjust and in which we all are living now.
In this sequence Rawls has talked about three conditions in his theory:
(i) Original position.
(ii) A just social arrangement whose structure has been classified in context of the two
theories of justice.
(iii) Actual Society.
Because Rawls theory; like Hobbs and Lock, is based on the social contract so Rawls also talks
about the pre-social state of nature in which people will fix the form of that society on the basis
of mutual consent in which they would like to live and which will be just under conditions of
impartial choice. In this context, Rawls has given many assumptions. First, everyone is neutral
towards each other. Till their personal welfares are fulfilled they neither interfere in the others
works and nor feel jealous of each other. Second, while taking decision about a new society,
everyone would like to keep a provision for the satisfaction of their maximum welfare e.g.
rights, equality, opportunity, money etc. Third, they all will be under the veil of ignorance
which will keep them devoid of the knowledge about other’s capabilities. This condition of
contract is called ‘Original Position’ by Rawls in which every person is in the condition of
individual wisdom and general ignorance. Fourth, though they are under the veil of ignorance,
even then, they are aware of the fact that man remembers his past and can imagine about future
and in the present condition man can exchange with the things and other persons. They are
aware of the fact that people have different benefits and merits. They are also aware about those
usual conditions in which usually people are involved (e.g. people can be either sick or healthy,
rich or poor, educated or uneducated, expert or raw, a natural environment or a polluted
environment, free or slave etc.).
Here the question can be raised that why did Rawls accepted only the concept of political
contract. Its main reason was to show that the rule of justice which creates the basic structure
of the society infact should be based on the consent of the common men. These rules will be
accepted by the free and reasonable person in the fundamental conditions with the objective of
unceasing their benefits. According to Kalley, Rawls theory of social contract is based on the
assumption that political and social arrangements will be valid only when the society is created
on the basis of self-willed plan of impartial social cooperation in which people are considered
free and equal. For Rawls, the concept of contract is very residing because this provides such
a reason which is inclusive with the concept of being free and equal. In short inspite of being
imaginative social contract fulfills two objectives —
(i) It helps in selecting two theories of justice.
(ii) It tries to show that why people should accept the conditions given under these two
theories.

Two Principles of Justice

On the basis of the above imagination and if got a chance, everyone would like to increase his
benefits. But because of the veil of ignorance is not able to differentiate between the benefits
of his own and other so he would like to support such rules which will give opportunity to
every person for maximum development of his benefits. In other words, everyone would like
to create such a society which will minimize their loses and give an assurance that poorest of
the poor will not remain unsheltered (because may be tomorrow he himself becomes poor).
Rawls calls this Maximization principle because this want to achieve the minimum welfare at
the maximum limit. For example, none would like to live in society where there is slavery
because nobody wants to be slave. (It’s a different thing that he becomes the owner tomorrow).
So, increasing their benefits to the maximum limit and from the view point of the distribution
of the primary goods, according to Rawls, people will select two rules:
(i) Each person to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible
with similar liberties of others and;
(ii) Social and economic inequalities are to be so arranged that both are (A) attached to
position and offices open to all under condition of fair equality of opportunity and
(B) to the greatest benefit to the last advantaged.
These theories of justice are based on the sequence of lexical priority. This means that the
theory of equal freedom is on the first place in the sequence of priority. On the second no.
comes ‘Principle of same opportunities’ (2A) and on third no. it will be differentiation-based
Principle (2B) based on the social and economic inequalities. According to Rawls, here it is to
be noticed that first theory from logical view point first principle is higher than the second
principle. This means that in order to achieve justice, it is compulsory to implement theory 1
before reaching Principle 2A and 2B. In other words, the meaning of the logical priority of the
first principle on the second principle implies that prohibition of any kind of fundamental rights
can be called right by giving the logic that there should be social or economic benefit out of it.
Similarly, the logical rule of the second principle that first the equality of opportunity is to be
implemented and after this to reach the differentiation-based principle. This means, in the
direction of satisfying the differentiation-based principle, it is compulsory to safety the
principle, appropriate equality of opportunity. Let’s discuss these principles in detail.

First Principle
According to Rawls, first principle of justice i.e. the principle of equal freedom, is of the first
category among the two principles and it needs to be satisfied before the second principle. This
means that any limitation on freedom can be put only in the context of freedom and not from
the view point of increase in the money or income. As Rawls has written, it is common concept
to put legal or other limitations against the behaviour of man without enough reasons but this
concept does not create any specific priority for any special freedom. On the contrary priority
of freedom means that the first principle of justice gives special place to the fundamental
freedoms. Universal welfare and completeness values cannot be devoid just because they are
most important. In this any of the social community cannot be devoid of the equal freedoms
because this freedom obstructs the policies related to economic expertise and development.
Priority of the freedom implies that fundamental freedom can be devoid only in the context of
increase in any other freedom. In short, these fundamental freedoms;
(i) Freedom of ideas;
(ii) freedom of conscious (it includes our moral ideas towards this world, religious and
philosophical freedom).
(iii) Political freedoms. These freedoms demand representative democratic institutions,
speech, expression and freedom of press and freedom to collect.
(iv) freedom to make organization.
(v) Freedom and integrity of personality. This means freedom from slavery and bonded
labour, freedom to travel and freedom to select the business.
(vi) Rights and freedoms which come under the legal rule. Apart from this, among the
basic freedoms which Rawls includes are — right to keep personal property and
right to use it.
Even then, among these basic freedom two vast concepts have not been included — save rights
related to requisition and will, right of ownership of means of production and natural sources
and right of partnership in the control of natural sources which according to Rawls should be
social wealth. These basic freedoms make us capable to; (i) Understand implement and follow
the principles of justice and (ii) Create, make amendments and to achieve the concept of
goodness.

Second Principle
Second Principle related to the arrangement of social and economic inequalities means that
society can start some such programmers in which some people are given comparatively more
power, income and respect. For example, high management’s specialists and accountants
should be given more wages and facilities in comparison to the common labourers and clerk
etc. provided they fulfill both of these conditions — (i) Such programmes should bring reforms
in the life of those people whose life is worse at this time which means that this should improve
the living standards of every person and should strengthen the people of lower group of the
society according to their welfare and; (ii) these special positing of the society should be open
for everyone on the basis of the appropriate equality of the opportunity. This means that they
should not be prohibited on the discrimination based on useless criteria. This second principle
of justice gives us a glimpse of socialist ideas, according to which allotment of responsibilities
and burden should be according to capability and distribution of benefits according to necessity.
We can easily estimate that the necessities of the lowest group are maximum and those who
are given special powers (which can bring social inequality) and their responsibilities and
burden is also more. Even then this principle of capability; that specific enterprise should be
awarded, is a part of Rawls principle of discrimination-based principle. But the speciality of
this principle is that it does not permit any kind of change in those social and economic
institutions which make the life of those people better who already have a better life rather it
should do something for those whose life is worse or those who belong to the lower class of
the society.
As the distribution of social primary good has to respect the equality, freedom and welfare of
all the members of society, so this cannot be the uncontrollable equal distribution. According
to Rawls, once the primary necessities of the people are fulfilled, then the second rule of their
primary freedom i.e. equality of opportunity and discrimination based principle can be taken
care of where Rawls is not in favour of the unequal distribution of primary freedom, where he
believes that some inequalities in money and income are possible and are not unwanted so, the
main aim of the second principle is to keep these inequalities under the circumference of
“Justice in the form of Impartiality”. In Rawls theory there is important difference between the
appropriate and just inequalities and inappropriate inequalities. From the positive viewpoint,
equality of right opportunity is that state should provide appropriate equality of opportunities
in the educational, cultural and economic areas and also provide sickness and unemployment
allowance. For these, there is a need of an interfering state which manage the educational
institution and regularize the economy.
According to Rawls, excessive equality in money and income can destroy better creative power
and economic consolation necessary for the production. This will be harmful for both rich and
poor. From the view point of the poor’s, justice does not want to finish economic inequalities
completely. Rawls believes that some inequalities which work as encouragement for the better
creative power and better production, they must be included in the social structures and
constitutional arrangements so that they can benefit everyone in society specially the lowest
class. Its logic is that benefiting the lowest class of society will mean benefitting everyone.
Society can create and renovate the structure of its primary structures in such a way so that
inequalities of income and money will benefit the lowest class the most. The objective of
discrimination-based principle is not to convert inequalities of the society into equalities but to
change the incorrect and partial aspect of economic inequalities into appropriate and impartial
aspect so that the lowest class of the society can get benefit. According to this those inequalities,
which do good only for the rich and not of poor are inappropriate.
On economic and social level Rawls is in favour of Redistributive justice. According to it, states
work is not only the security of the social arrangement but the most important work is to make
available the primary goods by making the requirements of needy people highest ideal. Even
then, Rawls does not support the equality-based distribution completely. He supports
inequalities also not from the utilitarian view point of maximum welfare but from the view
point of the reformation in the living condition of the lower class of the society. Rawls gives a
logic that natural capabilities and circumstances of birth give birth to the special rights and
inequalities. Because these inequalities cannot be finished so this is the duty of a just society
that it should utilize its sources which include the efforts and capabilities of able people in such
a way that it can improve the condition of the lowest class of the society and inequalities can
be compensated. Rewarding only capable people will not a true justice. Real meaning of justice
is not to reward the capable people but to compensate the lowest class people. As Rawls writes,
“Justice is not an ethics of reward but an ethics of redress.”
After finalizing the theory and priority of Justice, according to Rawls, next step of the
agreement is the creation of such a constitution which can satisfy these theories of justice and
can become the basis of a just and effective judiciary. For this constitution has to secure the
freedom of conscious, expression of thoughts, personal freedom and equal political rights. In
other words, on constitutional level also Rawls gives priority to the rule of the freedom only.
After the creation of constitution, people will have to think about making policy and law for
the society. Creation of judiciary is related to from one side to the achievement of long term
social and economic objectives and from other side following of the ‘second rule’ of justice
according to which the objective of social and economic policies will be to provide maximum
and benefit to the long-term aspirations of the lower class of the society in the circumstances
of justified equality in the opportunities. So, all the laws supporting the special rights will be
declared unjust upto the extent where they do not make the maximum benefit available to the
lowest class of society.
Collectively, Rawls propagated such a theory of justice which is in accordance to the necessities
of contemporary liberal democratic welfare state and is above both the theories i.e. theory of
traditional liberalism which strongly believes in the freedom of individual and was in the favour
of leaving him alone and socialism’s theory of maximum control which sacrifices the freedom
of individual in the name of social equality. Rawls principle believes in such a constitutional
democracy which is limited, prestigious and responsible. It wants to control free capitalism in
many ways. As Rawls writes, “If law and Government keep the market economy competitive
in an effective way; materialistic and human resources are best utilized, wealth and money is
distributed, all the minimal demands of everyone in society fulfilled, there is equality of
opportunities in society on the basis of universal education; then this type of distribution will
be justified.
Evaluation
There is no doubt that Rawls book ‘A Theory of Justice’ has given an important contribution
in re- establishing interest in political philosophy but even then, it is not free from criticism.
Some of its criticisms can be underlined as: -
Like other theories of justice, Rawls has also been criticised. Bryan Berri has expressed many
objections on the theory of Rawls e.g., it is difficult to find out the people or groups of minimum
facilities, concept of self-respect is not clear, this theory is not clear in the concept of making
of constitution etc.
Similarly, Norman Berry to also says that Rawls theory is just a re-description of Liberal-
capitalist theory and in its legal arrangement, comforts of rich cannot compensate the poverty
of poor.
According to Macpherson, Rawls theory assumes that capitalist society is a class divided
society and to bring expertise in production, inequality of income in society is still necessary
as a motivator. So in a welfare state, transfer of wealth and money from rich class to poor class
is possible only up to the extent that it does not become a danger for the prosperity of the rich
class. Rawls forgets the fact that this inequality of wealth gives rise to the inequality of power
and income and so gives opportunity to one class to establish ownership of the other.
Writes like Nozick completely reject this logic of Rawls that personal capabilities and
capacities are the property of the state and they should be re-distributed on the basis of social
justice. Nozick has criticized Rawls theory by saying that by implementing this, rich class
might refuse to cooperate with the poor class in the same way in which Rawls implies that in
the name of social cooperation, rich class will cooperate with the poor class. Nozick asks why
will the rich class be bound to cooperate with the poor class for the sale of their inequality and
social cooperation; it is also possible that they might get the inequality and expenses of riches,
accepted by the poor. Apart from this Nozick also believes that natural benefits used by the rich
class do not take away any body’s right of self-ownership. Nozick believes that this idea of
Rawls that the inequalities should be managed according to the help of the poor; in itself is
illogical from moral view point.
Another criticism of Rawls theory has been done by the communalist like MacIver Walter and
Sandel who believe that Rawls asks us to think about the justice by separating us from our
values, traditions and aspirations.
Feminist writer like Susan Okin, focuses on the fact that how much does the Rawls theory of
justices focuses on the injustice and hierarchical patterns imbibe in the family relation. Rawls
logic is that justice should be related to the “basic structure of society,” whereas feminist writers
while working around the idea of “personal is political criticized Rawls on the basis that he has
never given attention towards the injustice in the social relation in the society based on
patriarchy and the division of labour based on gender specially the family.
Some critics have shown concern on Rawls giving excess emphasis on the ‘primary social
goods. For example, Amartya Sen gives a logic that our aim should not be only the distribution
of primary goods but also to see that how effectively can the people use these goods to fulfil
their objectives.
Entitlement Theory of Justice: Views of Robert Nozick
Entitlement theory of Justice has been propagated by Robert Nozick. In the form of a political
theory self-independence is support of free-market economy and wants to limit the welfare
policies of the state. This is against the re-distribution of money by the tax-policy to bring
economic and social equality. This believes that re-distribution tax process is fundamentally
wrong and prohibits the rights of an individual. Everyone in the society has a right to buy or
sell the things as per his wish. As Nozick writes, “people have rights and there are some such
things in which a person or group cannot interfere”. There rights are so strong and deep that
they raise the question that what should the state and its officers do. (If they have to do
something). According to self-independence, interference of Government is like bonded labour
because this usurps our fundamental and moral rights self- independence joins justice with
market.
Entitlement theory of Nozick is influenced by the ideas of John Lock and Fredrick Hayek. This
takes individual as a means on itself and basis any kind of re-distribution of social goods on
the clear consent of the people. Nozick’s book, Anarchy – State and Utopia, strongly supports
self-independence Nozick’s discussion on the theory of Rawls, brings the idea of liberalism
and self-independence to a higher level. Theory of self-independence has been underlined in
this sentence. “Every person should give as per his wish and should get as per his selection”.
Before discussing Nozick theory of justice, it is necessary that we understand about some
common concepts of the theory of justice. First, Nozick believes that every adult has some
strong natural rights in which right of physical security is also included (which prohibits to kill,
trouble or handicap the righteous). This right is natural in the view point that this is not
dependent on any law or social tradition. Second, everyone has some equal minimal specialities
e.g. as per the concept of good life, capability to select sensibility. Third, this concept of justice
is historical from the view point that what is legal depends upon the fact that what has been
happening in past. For example, stepping on one’s check is not regarded justified but this will
not be wrong in a boxing match. Similarly, locking somebody in a room is not good but it is
not wrong for a criminal. In other words, in order to finalise what is justified a particular time,
both the consent and mistakes of past become referential. This aspect of the theory of Nozick
is very effective and the emphasize on this speciality has very positively effected the
theorization.
Fourth, Nozick Theory of justice is based on the right of property. It claims that people either
have right of complete ownership on various things or they can earn them. Here complete
ownership means.
(i) Right to use or to control others use of one or many things.
(ii) Right to get compensation from those who have overruled someone’s right.
(iii) Right to use power, punish and get compensation from those who have overruled
somebody’s right.
(iv) Right to transfer this right to another person.
(v) Freedom from losing such right when nobody overrules or tries to overrule others’
rights.
The essence of Nozick’s theory of justice is like this. If we assume that everyone is righteous
of all the goods and wealth which he possesses at this time. The justified distribution will be
such in which will be the result of free exchange by the people. Any distribution which is the
result of a free transaction in a justified appropriate situation, is just. It is injustice on the part
of the Government to levy tax on these exchanges without the consent of the people, even
though this tax can be used to compensate the natural handicap of some people. The only reason
of levying tax is the compulsory guardianship
to maintain the environment and arrangement of this free exchange. This means such a
condition of police and justice which can implement the mutual consent of the people. Theory
of official justice is based on three rules:
(i) Principle of Transfer: Something which is earns in a justified manner can be
transferred willingly.
(ii) Principle of Just Acquisition: How do the people get the transferable things at
primary level.
(iii) Principle of Rectification of Justice: How to deal with the achievement obtained by
transfer or by unjust manner.
For example, if I have a piece of land, so according to the first principle, I can transfer it to
anyone and second principle demands how have I obtained this piece of land i.e. this should
have been obtained in a justified way and third principle tells that if any of these principles
have been overruled then how to exclude it. If we combine all these three principles then it can
be said that “If the goods of the people have been obtained in a justified manner, then the theory
of justified distribution should be “From each as they choose and to each as they are chosen”.
Now the question is why should Nozick’s theory of justice be accepted. For this, Nozick gives
the logic: (1) Free exercise of property is more attractive and (2) Property right lies in self-
ownership. According to First logic — Free exercise of property is more attractive if we have
obtained something properly then we have complete ownership on it. We can sell it as we wish
if even the result of this exercise gives birth to the unequal income or opportunities because
some people are born in the society with better natural capabilities so it is natural to award
them more than those whose merit is not saleable in the market. Due to the difference in the
natural merits, some people can be prosperous where others can die of hunger. According to
Nozick these inequalities are the probable results of free capitalism. Nozick says that we should
finalise any criteria of primary distribution which we consider right and after this if free
exchange among the people again gives rise to the unequalities, then these will not only be
justified but even and it will be unjust to levy tax on those who have become rich as a result of
this exchange. According to Nozick “No one has a right to something whose realization
requires certain uses of things and activities that other people have rights and entitlements over.
Though, there is no doubt that it is unjust to fall prey to the inappropriate inequalities by
devoicing the benefits of social cooperation, but problem is that other people also have a right
to keep their earned income and property and it wrong to take it away in any condition.
Second logic of the official justice is — “Theory of self-ownership”. According to Nozick
individual in himself is a means. Individual has some rights and other persons and society
cannot overrule these. It is the duty of the society that it should respect the rights of the
individual because this is symbolic of the fact that individual is a tool and not a means. They
cannot be killed to fulfil the aim of other without their permission. Because there is separate
identification of each people and different authority; So, there is limitation of sacrifice for the
gain of others. Self-independent person cannot be considered as ‘resource and machine for
others.’ It recognizes to such people who as same personal rights and similar reputation. To
obey the rights by obeying people gives options to select respectable life, to fulfil our aim, and
gives liberty to understand ourselves. In short theory of law depend on two matter:
(i) To understand people equal they have to understand self-owners
(ii) Only enthusiastic capitalistic can accept the theory of self-owners.
Inference of the official justice of Nozick is that “State should be minimum. It should be limited
to the security against the use of force, theft and problems in implementing the agreements.
More than these works will nullify the rights of a person, so they will be unjust. According to
this theory, there is neither necessity of universal education nor of the health facilities, nor of
the transportation roads or parks. For all these is forcibly levied on people which demolish the
fundamental principles of justice according to which from each as they choose, to each as they
are chosen.
Evaluation
According to Nozick, most important right of an individual is the right of self-ownership. This
means, the thing which I own and the things whose master I am both are the same and they
both combine to make a complete individual. In other words, if I am my own master then I am
also master of my merits and the achievements obtained by my merits. So, it is the prohibition
of the right of ‘self-ownership; by benefiting incapable through levying the tax on the income
of capable in the name of demand of redistribution. On the contrary, equalitarian writer, Rawls
says that though every person is an appropriate owner of his merits yet getting merit is a matter
of chance which everyone does not get. Those who are incapable from the natural view point
have some same right on those who are capable from the natural view point. Capable people
will get the real benefit of their merits only when the poor will get benefit from their
capabilities. Nozick believes that this is the assassination of the right of self-ownership. So,
this cannot be accepted. Secondly, the logic of self-independence that by limiting the right of
property, welfare works of liberalism interfere in the self-decision of people equalitarian writers
also do not accept it.
There is no doubt that programme of redistribution limits the freedom of wealthy class upto a
limit but these programmes also give opportunity of self-decision to those who had not got this
opportunity earlier. This redistribution does not sacrifice self-decision for any other objective
rather it redistributes for necessary means for the self-decision. Idea of self-independence
accepts those unnecessary inequalities in the distribution which can harm those people who
need. These as will Kymlicka writes, “If every person believes him to be a means in himself
then the Equalitarian theory of justice is better than the self-independence theory.
Global Justice
Global justice is such an issue in the political theories which is based on the concept, “We do
not live in a just world.” At this time most of the people in the world are poor whereas the rest
are very prosperous. Many are still living under tyrant rulers. Uncountable people are victims
of violence, ailment and hunger. So many dies untimely. So, the main question is – how to
understand such issues and how to react on these. If the people living in this world are indebted
to each other, then what kind of institutions and moral criteria should be accepted and
implemented.
From the beginning of the modern age to 20th Century, nation-state had been a major political
and sovereign institution which keeps the valid right of use of power on the people living on a
fixed piece of land. Along with that this is a part of an international arrangement based on the
other sovereign states. In this complete period, political philosophers who had interest in the
concept of justice focused themselves only on the national issues inside the nation i.e. how
should the state behave with its citizens and what kind of relationship would be there among
the citizens. Justice had been a negligible issue among the sovereign states and the people
beyond their boundaries which they had left for the theorists of the international relations. Even
then, in the last three decades, as a result of rise of globalization and organization of various
political and economic institution like UNO, World Bank, World Trade Organization
international monetary fund and various international cooperation and non-governmental,
nation-arrangement based on nation state is going through a process of change. As a result,
global justice has become an important issue of the contemporary political philosophy
especially after 1980.

Issues in Global Justice

The concept of global justice revolves around three issues which are as follows:
First issue is the work area of global justice i.e. as the moral Universalists claims that if there
are such moral criteria which can be implemented on the people of the entire world respecting
their culture, gender, religion national or specific elements or old these moral criteria
implement under the limited context of only culture, nation-community and voluntary
communities.
Second issue is related to the distributive law. For example, 1.1 more than million people i.e.
18% of the world population lives below poverty line of 2 dollars per day as fixed by the World
Bank whereas Canadian Government gives 3 dollars per day to their farmers for the fodder of
their animals. This means that the eating arrangement of the animals of Canada is better than
that of the people living in the third world. So, here the serious question is – Is the present
distribution of money sources and wealth is justified? What are the fundamental reasons of
poverty and is there any inclusive defect in the global economy. Is it the duly of the rich to help
poor or is it limited to just donations which are praiseworthy but is not compulsory from moral
view point. Moreover, if the poor are to be helped then up to what extent—
(i) Till they are able to fulfill their basic needs.
(ii) till they are able to live a respectable life as human being;
(iii) till they become equal to the rich.
Which institutions will be best to get the norm of global justice. Are they state or community
or unions or global economic institutions like World Bank, International Private Organizations,
multination’s corporation, international court or a global state? How world they get our support
and who, will be responsible for the establishment and maintenance of these institutions? How
much normal will be the transaction of these institutions among various regional units.
Biggest challenge of globalization is moral challenge. Do the prosperous nations of west should
focus more on the ignored classes, traditions and culture of the undeveloped and
underdeveloped countries with whom their own future is joined in an inseparable manner or
they should be limited to the extraction of natural and human resources. These various options
raise the question of global justice. Till now subjects like justice, freedom, equality rights etc.
were under the province of nation states. But the concept of globalization has challenged these
traditional values. Implication of globalization is the increase and expense in the social relation.
In many areas of human life difference between the national and international is fading away.
If we think seriously on the concepts of democracy and justice, then we find that national and
international areas of the global world have joined with each other. Thus, on the global level
lack of justice and democracy can adversely affect their achievements.
Major text of the globalization in the context of justice is — does it increase the freedom? Does
it encourage the democracy? Does it provide opportunity to the poor to overcome poverty?
Does it strengthen the common man? Does this blessing share by most of the people? Is it
beneficial for the labour? If we see in the context of these questions, then it becomes clear that
is the kind of global market established within last two decades, these is no place of global
justice. All these problems have emerged because the economics dependence of the nations is
dependent on the inequal distributions of power. In this dependence self with of the weak state
becomes compulsion because neither they have any power of transaction nor any way to stop
the exploitation of their resources.
Positions on Global Justice
The main issue of the global justice which needs to be think over is — How far is the project
of global justice is possible on the international level. In this context five major viewpoints can
be recognized. These are — Nationalism, Realism, particularism, society of states tradition and
cosmopolitanism.
Nationalists like David Miller have a point that the tradition of required interpersonal
responsibility is created by a special type of valuable community nation. It can be our human
duty to help the needy people in save part of the world but this duty is comparatively less
immediate, strong and necessary. In nationalism, since the beginning, this feeling had been
inclusive that there is a fundamental difference in the internal and external moral duties. Its
example is reflected in the fact that welfare benefits of a particular state are not available to the
people beyond the boundaries of the state. They believe that the issue of the distributive justice
is in context to the people living in the state and not in the states.
Second, realists like Montague, Kenneth wage believe that there is no concept like global
justice criteria and universal morality is also a myth. In this age of international anarchy, only
state is the only main player who works for the safety of their own welfare. It is not a duty to
help the people of the save poor country till this help does not instigate the contemporary
welfare of any nation.
Thirdly, particularism (for example Walter) believes that any kind of moral criteria emerge
from the shared traditions and values which are created and nourished by save special culture
or society. Moral and social criticism is also possible only under the boundaries of such group
and not outside them. Every society has its own different criteria and only those who are living
in these societies are bound to them and can also criticize themselves in a right manner. So
universal moralism is a myth because unbiased moral criteria of various societies and cultures
are different. We cannot use these criteria of distribution with the strangers which we use for
our own people/citizens and nation state is the most appropriate institutions to provide local
and difficult justice as it expresses the shared and specific moral intelligence. Though
communalist are not against finishing the global inequality, but they do not consider it
necessary to have any such legal or political reform where 18 million people die of hunger.
They do not deny the fact that globalization is a bitter truth but they also doubt that humanity
has obtained such a clear and prosperous thinking of shared luck which will be successful in
getting justice (i.e. redistribution from rich to poor). Communists believe that if there is any
leniency given at the boundaries of state then these may arise many problems like coming of
migrants in a large number of problems of public arrangement, unemployment, alienation of
labour in the markets, more burden as the public services like education, health, transport and
residents. Their political effects are also very serious as reaction against public welfare, blind
patriotism, racism cultural alienation and conservation. In this process communalists have a
fear of losing that cultural speciality which is the nourished of history and anonymity of any
specific common unity. Apart from this, there is a danger of losing the sovereignty of the state
due to which there can be decrease in the concept of self-determination and security.
Fourth, states are seen as specific personal unit in the social tradition of state which can collect
consent on their shared benefits and inter-personal relation, and moral rules in the same way,
as two individuals do with each other consent of the different people is given a formal form
through social agreement. Main supporter of this tradition is Rawls who has extended the
concept of justice in his book, ‘The Law of People' from his first book, ‘The theory of justice’.
His point is that we can say that the global rule is right by showing that an imagined original
position will be selected by the representatives in which no one will know that whom is he
representing. This decision based on ignorance will be right because there is a lack of any
selfish motives in it when Rawls used this model in the context of domestic justice the
representatives taking part in its basic condition were all types of members of society in which
he supported an equalitarian, redistributive, Liberalist politics. Even then, when Rawls accepts
this method on the global justice level then this supports a traditional theory (Kant’s Concept
of International Morality) in which the main duty of the state is to follow the facts and putting
strong restriction on war but this is not at all redistribution of wealthy and resources on global
level. Thus, Rawls has taken different criteria for justice on both national and international
level. Even if there is a necessity of Equalities in the state, it is not required at international
level. That is why concept of global justice is limited to arrangement of free states. Rawls has
given this name of ‘Realistic Utopia’. We shall study in detail about in the next part of this
chapter.
Fifth, supports of cosmopolitanism say that the concept of Moral Universalism is true upto a
large extent. All the people come under the concept of vast justice not only for being each
other’s companions or belonging to the same nation, but also because we all are human beings.
Its logic is as under:

 Moral condition of people on some important specialties from the moral viewpoint.
 All these specialties are for the complete human race and not meant only for a few
states, cultures or states.
Thus, the entire human race is a concept of a moral condition and in this context, it is useless
to set boundaries in nations, cultures societies and states. On the supporter communities of
cosmopolitanism special community whose first pertaining duty is to supported. But demolish
the danger of globalisation. They believe that between nation state members of communities
and pertaining responsibility nature, political behaviour and institutions fast demolish group
has a aimless and too professional representative.

Ideology of Globalisation
As the question of global justice has emerged in the context of globalization so it is better that
we get some knowledge about the main ideology of globalization. It is assured that one of the
main factors responsible for the deficiency of global justice had been its ideology. Since 1990,
when the process of globalization started, its main ideology had been neo-liberalism. World
Trade organization and International Revenue Bank also had some ideology countries under
NAFTA pact are also following the same ideology at theoretical level. In European countries
also, European Union has the same ideology. This policy mainly reflects the authority of
financial capacity and key role of financial institutions. The central point of the Neo-liberalist
ideology is the concept of financial capital. In the relational and global development, capital
and financial matters play the role of policy elements. As there is no relation in International
trade and finance so in up and down of revenues and in other financial certificates, speculation
has become more important than production and commerce 24 hrs. ups and downs of business
in the share market has given a global form to the danger. Relation between the profit and tax
has become fade. There is continuous decrease in the tax rate of private financial institutions.
Place of tax has been taken away by the economic subsidy and encouragement of the
Government lenient rules, cyber space and recommendations has helped the financial
institutions to get themselves registered outside the country and get their profits deposited in
the foreign banks.
In this neo-liberalist ideology, there are many elements of instability like;
(i) financial instability in the new emerging countries;
(ii) development of unemployment and maximum use of automation in job works;
(iii) Inequality and poverty in society;
(iv) environment related dangers;
(v) danger of maximum supply on the global level;
(vi) the conflicts in the benefits of market and national administration etc. All these
elements put a question mark on the right distribution of material and social goods
between rich and poor countries.
According to some specialist’s liberalization is not the solution to the problem of privatization
and free trading. Regulation of one or the other type is compulsory, for both strong and weak.
Similarly, this is also a fact that it is not possible to provide facilities related to the fundamental
structure of society like education, health, residence etc. without collecting tax. Infact, without
tax, public area with vanish and without public area, validity of the state will diminish and
without validity, fundamental security can also be endangered. In fact, there is continuous
conflict between the international monetary fund and world bank and UNO institutions like
UNDP, UNCTAD, UNICEF, UNESCO, UNEP etc. Where world bank transacts in the context
of the strong subjects like finance and commerce, at the same time UNO institutions are related
to the delicate subjects like social welfare, education, environment and human rights.
Injustice at Global Level
Let’s get some knowledge about the injustice at the global level. Injustice at the global level is
the result of omissions and commissions faults. First, under omission reasons. In global
economy benefits of distributive structures, apart from others, depend upon the various
institutional managements like trade agreements, educational exchange, circumstantial
encouragements, environmental and payment of the debts taken by the tyrant rulers of the past
and impartial behaviour. Secondly, due to commissions also many serious problems arise which
are must to be solved to get global justice like ineffective and unequal trade limits which
pressurizes the poor countries to import from rich countries, patent laws which lay restrictive
on the lifesaving drugs (like AIDS), global trade in arms and weapons which encourage the
terrorism. Local wars and military conflicts, not only increase the local tensions but they also
encourage global trade in armaments. For the more than 4/5 part of the export of the armaments,
G-8 countries had been responsible.
In the contemporary form of globalization transnational institutional arrangements have been
obtaining the more important place in the life style of an individual. According to Pogi, inspite
of globalization, reality is that present global institutional arrangement is very in just because
it gives rise to extreme poverty. Almost half of the population of the world (2700 million) are
still below the poverty line fixed by the World Bank (2 dollar per day). Almost 18 million
people become victim of hunger and other related diseases. This no. is one third of the total
annual deaths. The biggest irony of these untimely deaths which makes them unjust is that
these can be overcome because global social production per person is 5000 dollars which is 20
times more than an average family above poverty line. Total income of all 2700 million people
is 2100 billion dollar which is only 1.2% of the global production. On the contrary, citizens of
rich countries which is 16.1% of the world population are owner of 81% product of the world.
The important fact is that extreme poverty can be minimized if rich countries and their citizens
do a little hike in the present amount of 11 million dollar per year. This had not been so extreme
if the rules of global institutional arrangement had not been such as to benefit the rich countries
and specific political or economic group. Many reforms are possible to eradicate poverty but
they can also face the opposition of the local population. For example, if rich countries want
they can finish all those reservations which they have obtained under WTO pact like their quota
rate list, dumping against tax, export debts and extended subside to the domestic producers. If
the rich countries want they can limit the special right to obtain international resources and
debts which enable an individual or a group in a developing country to use the power to sell
the resources or to take debt in his name. If rich countries want they can start a global resource
dividend of 300 billion dollar per year or any similar project which will be essential in the
initial years of any serious programme to eradicate poverty.

How to Achieve Global Justice

If this is the condition of the injustice global level then the next question is what is the nature
of justice and how is it possible to achieve it. There is no simple and direct answer to this
question. In this context where some writers, stress on following the international pacts
honestly; some support the transfer of some other resources from rich to the poor countries.
Here we shall talk about getting global justice in context of John Rawls, Amartya Sen and
UNDP report.

Rawls Views on Global Justice

Rawl’s book ‘The Law of People’ is a book writer on the international relation. In this book,
Rawls has tried that how the subject matter of justice in state can be taken out from the liberalist
concept of justice which is like justice of fairness but is more elaborative than this. As on the
national level, citizens are the partners of agreement, similarly on international level, there are
many states which are given the name of ‘Society of Peoples’. Though 'The law of peoples' is
basically, a part of liberalist foreign policy, but all the states about which Rawls talks about are
not liberalist.
In this book Rawls with the help of an elaborating plan and facts, has tried to clarify that how
various nations should understand about their moral duties and human rights. This is an
extension of his first book ‘A Theory of Justice’ in which he established the theory of justice
in a single state. This book focuses on a little difficult work of developing the international
rules which will be implemented on an extreme, liberal and non-liberal societies. In this first
Rawls establishes an international concept of justice of liberal people (state). Here Rawls’s
people’s concept is different from the traditional concept of state become he does not give the
right to uncontrolled wars to the states. In order to create the International concept of justice,
Rawls imagines a theoretical basic condition where the sensible representatives of liberalist
society will collect and they will take a decision about 'Laws of Peoples'.
These representatives of the people (State) are behind the veil of ignorance and they do not
know anything about the conditions of that specific country which they are representing. For
example, these representatives do not know that what is the shape, population, and industrial
and military power of that country. From the Law of Peoples Rawls implied that a specific
political concept of rights and justice which is implemented on the rules and norms of
international law. This political concept of justice can be achieved through the basic condition
i.e. through management where representatives of every state collect together with an aim to
finalise such rules which will rules the condition of their organization. Rules emerged through
this process will be the subject list of ‘Law of People’. These are mainly 8 rules.
(i) People (Ruled by their Government) are independent and self-reliant and their
independence and self-reliance has to be respected by the others.
(ii) In their agreement everyone is equal and partners.
(iii) People have a right to self defense but have no right of war.
(iv) People should follow the rule of non-interference.
(v) People should follow the agreements and pacts.
(vi) In the context of the management of war some people should follow some specific
restrictions (i.e. this can be fought only for self-defense).
(vii) People should respect the human rights.
(viii) People should have a duty to help such people who are living in such adverse
circumstances which are becoming obstacles in obtaining a just and respectable
political and social rule.
Rawls main challenge was not only to find an international theory of justice for liberalist states
but also to develop such a theory which can be implemented on those when he can divide in
non-liberal and non-western (decent and non-decent peoples).
From decent people, Rawls implies to those states which are basically sequential society which
do not give compel political equality to their citizens but do take their consultation on same
policies and guarantee them for the rights such as life, freedom, wealth and formal equality.
Rawls logic is that liberalist people should respect such people because to tolerate. The
perspectives of the other world is the basic element of the liberalism and then deny for the
respect will only increase bitterness. Even then liberalist is also a limit to fraternity. It is
compulsory for decent societies to safeguard human rights, which are specific type of
contemporary rights which include subjects like freedom from slavery, massacre and freedom
of conscious. For Rawls these are the minimum conditions for human rights and are not
equivalent to the wide public rights given by the liberalist states.
After the establishment of a decent and liberalist society, Rawls focuses on the point that how
the society of people will deal with the non-decent. He divides non-decent in two parts —
Those non- decent people who are to outlawed state i.e. who are always ready to accept the
war for their imaginary benefits and secondly, that burdened society whose historical, social
and economic circumstances are rising problems in creating a well-organized society.
According to Rawls the objective of foreign policy will be to bring the people of burdened
society in the main stream of society of people. In order to organize the foreign policies of for
burdened societies, “Rawls described three directions. First, it is not necessary for a well-
organized society only to be prosperous but it requires that minimum capital to establish and
guard its own institutions of justice. Second, in order to bring reform in the political and society
institution, political culture is the central element. Political values of any society are more
important than all other resources of it. So only sending money at times, proves to be useless
and Rawls is against any kind of interference. Thus, he believes that a well-organized society
should limit only up to giving suggestions. Rawls accepts this fact that there is no perfect
medicine to bring changes in the political culture of the burdened societies. Third, the directions
according to Rawls is that these burdened societies should be given a chance for self-
management so that ultimately, they become the part of the main streams of the society of
peoples.
Rawls describe three points to arrange foreign policy of suppress society. First, it is not
necessary that a well organised society should be developed; they need only negotiable capital
so that it establishes and save its institutions of law. Second, to improve conditions of political
and social institutions political culture is a centralised element. Political value of any society is
of great importance rather that other resources of sending money is useless several times and
Rawls in against of any interference. So, his consideration is only advice is the limit for a well
organised society. Rawls accepts this statement that change status of political culture of
suppressed society there is no any accurate method. Third, according to Rawls point of
suggestions is that self-management option should be given to the suppressed society so that
they may be a part of active society in last.
On international level, Rawls does not consider inequality as a problem and he also believes
that no state is compelled to finish it. Only compulsion of the societies of all states is to guard
a basic minimum level for every-one. Once this level is achieved then after this there is no
other responsibility left. So, responsibility is only towards the help of the burdened society
which are unable to create a well-organized society due to the adverse circumstances (whether
historical or natural). Another responsibility of well-organized societies is to encourage the
respect towards the human rights among the other societies which Rawls defines as the right
of security and survival. Those states who remain unsuccessful in respecting the rights of their
citizen came under the category of outlawed states and which encourage the well-organized
states for many types of interference so that the respect for the human rights can be brought
back. Rawls thinks it a collective duty of all countries to remove global poverty even then this
important limit on the responsibilities of the distributive justice is a claim that it does not have
any responsibility such as finish or minimize the global inequality.
Important fact is that in this concept global justice of Rawls, there is no extension of the
distributive justice given in “A Theory of Justice”. Many critics of Rawls had a hope that Rawls
would implement differential principle on the global level in which prosperous countries will
be compelled to implement world treasure theory for the development of the poorest countries
or at least will supply primary goods for these countries. But Rawls differentiates between a
national society and society of peoples. For example, inequality in domestic society may lead
to blame game and favourism in politics but these issues do not affect the international society.
If political culture and not the national resources finalize the wealth of a country, then there is
no need for the global redistribution and this will be incorrect for the societies which do not
organize these societies from the perspective of growing wealth. This can be duty of the
wealthy society that they give assurance of supply of the basic necessities of the people but
there is no logic of redistribution of wealth. So in the context of global justice Rawls limits
himself to the responsibilities under international law, human rights and international parts.
Amartya Sen on Global Justice
According to Amartya Sen, while thinking about the merits and demerits of globalization, it is
necessary to think about the necessity of the justice. Many reasons can be given of the logic
that globalization is a good objective but it is very difficult to remove the doubts of many people
in the world about the fact that his is a blessing this doesn’t mean that globalization is a wrong
objective but this means that some corrections should be made in it so that everyone likes it.
The basis of the justice is fair distribution of resources. So, the important question in the context
of globalization is — Have the benefits of the globalisation been distributed correctly and
acceptably. In other words, the question is if they can get comparatively better justice by less
unequal distribution than by economic, social and political opportunities and if it is so then
what will be the national and international arrangements for this. This is the real issue. In the
context of globalization these should be a trial of a corrected worldly arrangement and there
should be comparatively better justice and better distribution of opportunities.
Amartya Sen on the contrary to Rawls talks about the redistributive justice by changing the
present ideology of globalization. Though this is not in favour of the neo-liberalist world
market economy, yet he believes that solution is not in finishing this market economy. Actually,
this market economy is possible along with many types of parallel patterns of ownership,
achievement of resources, patent law and rules against the trust. On depending upon such new
circumstances, market economy various costs, form of business income distribution and at a
broader level, market economy can produce different results. But the most important factor to
be added to this is the social security. Both reforms in market economy and social security can
bring a downfall in the present level of inequality and poverty. There is no need to finish market
economy for it. Results of the reformed market arrangement will be different from the present
arrangement and then will depend upon the allotment of physical resources, types of law related
to business and the arrangements for social security etc. All these circumstances depend upon
the economic, social and political institution working at the national and international level
similarly, nature of the market result are also get very much affected by public policies like
education, right of land, minute debt facility and legal security. On the global level, in the
context of the justice we need to develop this kind of inter dependence to bring prosperity,
equality and security.
Another aspect to think about is the relation between the human rights and removal of poverty
as Amartya Sen writes that economic progress is not possible in a right manner till it is not
joined with the citizen freedom (like freedom of expression and freedom to collect). Those
Governments who guard the human rights infact also assure that the economic developed will
be largely enjoyed by the people there will be less possibility that corruption will interfere in
the works of such people and businessmen who follow the law. Many surveys have clarified
that govts have tension of diminishing of human rights by police and bureaucrats in the same
portion as they have towards the reformed economic possibilities.
Similarly, another writer Toad Slone believes that there is no need to end globalization from
below instead of forcing it from the up. Though corporate capitalism also has some merits but
its basic principle – maximum benefits to collect money – goes against the welfare of majority
in society. This is also against the environmental protection. The biggest challenge of the future
is to save global economy and benefits of markets as well as there is no harm to the community,
environment and human resources. This is possible only by focusing on the issues like human
rights and social justice on various levels of inter-defense. For this there is a need for
international organizations (Government and non-Government both); national organizations,
community organizations and citizen to join with the new network of partnership so that
something can be done for the fulfilment of physical and social requirements of the devoid
groups of the world.

Human Development Report of UNDP, 1999

In the context of obtaining global justice, human development report of UNDP, 1999 has
presented a planning of a global structure which is as follows:
(i) Central global bank should help the poor countries is giving them debts, and to
regularize the financial market.
(ii) Global Investment Trust should balance the flow of arrival and departure of the
foreign capital is the countries of the third world and should collect the fund for
development by leaving tax on the global pollution and short-term investment.
(iii) New rules and power against monopoly should be established for WTO so that it
can stop the multinational global corporations to have authority.
(iv) Establishment of new global rules which stop the patent arrangement to become an
obstacle in the development education and wealth service of third world country.
(v) New dialogue on global investment pact in which respect for the developing
countries and local laws should include.
(vi) More flexible revenue rules which can enable the developing countries to
implement the capital control in order to safeguard their economy.
(vii) A global code of conduct for international corporation so that they follow the same
rules related to labour and environment which are popular in their countries.
Many international organization and non-Government institutions are working in the direction
to bring reform in the global economy so that the exploitation of the lower class and inequality
can be minimized. But the hopes of this third area (after Government and market) will only be
fulfilled if these non-government institutions should work on the democratic level and do not
become tyrant. These new groups can pressurize by demonstration and strikes on financial and
commercial organizations of the world to bring changes in the laws, to turn the investment of
the Government towards the necessities of the poor and on the corporate affecting the
communities in a negative manner.
Hurdles in the Way of Achieving Global Justice – Globalization Vs State Sovereignty
It is very difficult to get global justice. The main obstacle in getting global justice is that for
this states name to separate from some part of their authority which is not so easy. These are
innumerable reason which will interfere in the efforts of distributive justice on the traditional
special rights on the state on the global level. For example, some of the parts of the authority
of the state which can be controlled are: Revenue, saving rate, budget process, population
policy, education and training, social programmes, defense policy, environment policy, rate of
tax, NRI policy etc. In this context, the example of European Union is very appropriate because
through this it is clarified that how these of countries had to sacrifice their control on various
areas as a part of process of European Union. So that the program of redistribution can be
implemented to obtain regional justice. A state which pressurize to maintain the part of his
sovereignty, infact declares that it is coming out of this cooperation and it wants to fulfil the
national benefits at the cost of public welfare. The meaning of the declaration of the sovereignty
is that rules of ordinary community justice do not imply on it. So those states who want to enter
in the community relation of theory of distributive justice, they should be ready to partial
sacrifice their sovereignty.
In short, the process of globalization has taken out justice from the boundaries of nation-states
and has brought it to the international area. Even then international community is such a place
where the norms of justice are not completely fulfilled. On the internal level every state has
some or the other objective in obtaining justice. Issues like development of human capabilities,
allotment of rights and physical things and unbiased behaviour with everyone, are the important
parts of the citizenship. It is comparatively easy to put a question that how the nation-states
encourage justice for their citizens but it is a complex question that how the global justice is
obtained. Many economic, social and political reforms are required for the global justice in
which increase in partnership of developing countries in economic policy making is also
included. Along with the exchange of goods, there is a need of exchange of ideas as well. In
the context of global justice, like citizen rights, its issues are also global like environment
destruction misuse of human rights, AIDS etc. National-States cannot handle there on the
individual level because their reasons are complex, and worldwide. These can be solved by the
collective efforts of the national-states. For this nation state have to sacrifice their sovereignty
so that the assurance of the allotment of other goods is maintained. Global justice is a mutual
responsibility.

Marxist Theory of Justice

In the contemporary thinking, we find two forms of Marxist ideas on justice. In the first
category come those writers who oppose any idea of justice at theoretical level. In their idea
justice is required when there is any conflict or difference of opinion in our social life which
wants to resolve through justice. As the objective of communism is to finish all the conflicts
and difference of opinions prevailing in the society, so in a communist society, there will be no
need of justice. Communism is beyond justice. On the contrary, in the second category cave
those Marxist thinkers who respect the importance given to justice by liberalism but these
writers analyse the justice in the personal ownership of the means of production. Their belief
is that justice can be obtained only in a class less and state – less society. As the nature of the
personal property is exploiting and alienating so it is the demand of the justice that means of
the production are socialized and a communist society is established. Let’s study these two
forms in detail:

Communism is beyond justice

Where as per the Liberalist theory propagated by Rawls, justice is the fundamental element of
all social institutions and is the criteria of all social recognition, there Marxism does not accept
the fact that the justice of communism is based on some recognition. Many writers of the
Marxists ideology do not give importance to justice. In this context they follow Marx in which
equal rights or just distribution form, any explanation of justice was strongly criticized because
such kind of definition makes the capitalist exploitation blurt. For example, according to Marx,
as in the society capabilities of some people are comparatively less so the concept of equal
rights changes into the unequal rights for unequal labour. As a result, right of equality infact
becomes the right of inequality. Similarly, the concept of just distribution focuses more on the
distribution than the fundamental question of production. If there is re-distribution of the means
of production of goods and income then also there will be wealthy and poor class in the society.
So, class-division and exploitation will also remain. In other words, injustice will also be there.
So, before the redistribution of goods and income there is a need of giving attention to the
redistributing of the ownership of the means of production because if the redistribution of the
means of the production become possible then the question of justified distribution will
automatically be solved. On the level of the distribution of goods, meaning of the reform in
injustice is that some balance can be maintained in the conflicts of the classes in the capitalist
society. Apart from it, where justice resolves the conflicts of society, there it raises conflicts in
the society and minimizes the natural sociability of man. So, in the present society, justice is a
‘necessary evil’, in communist’s society this will be an obstacle. It will be better that people
instead of competing for the rights; people should live on the basis of the natural love for each
other.
Above objections raise problems in creating any clear concept of justice under Marxism. Major
objection of Marxist criticism of justice is idea of Judicial Community of Liberalism.
According to Marxist writers the question of justice rises when we are is the circumstances of
justice i.e. those circumstance which create such conflicts and opposition for which justice is
required to solve them. These situations arise mainly due to two reasons (i) contradicting
objectives due to class – division; (ii) Limited economic means. If the contradiction of
objectives and limitation of economic means is finished then there will be no need of the theory
of ‘justice equality’ in the society. The first objective of Marxism is to overcome these
contradicting circumstances. For this, it wants to create such a class-less society where the
benefits are the same for everyone so that there is no need of justice. Secondly it wants to finish
lack of means. For this, by bringing the means of production in a community ownership, it
wants to create such a class less and state less society where there is one form of benefits so
that there is no need of justice. It wants to create such a communist society in which ‘every
person will work according to his capability and get as per his requirement”. Because this will
be such a class less and state less society where there will be no conflicts and issues so there
will be no need of justice to resolve them. In communist society, justice will remain as a useless
thing. So, communism is beyond justice.

Communist Concept of Justice

If justice is necessary for society then what will be its communist concept? As Marxism have
always criticized both primitive negative liberalism and equalitarian – welfare so it is but
natural that its concept of justice should be more equalitarian than the liberalist concept.
Difference of the Marxist concept of liberalism from the Equalitarian theory is not only on the
fact that upto what limit the sources should be equalized but it is also on the fact that how much
equalism should be of the personal property. In this context the fundamental belief the Marxism
is that no one has a moral right for the person ownership and control of the sources and means
of production. This personal ownership should be finished because this gives rise to the relation
of wage labour which is immoral, exploiting and alienated. Only after revolution, by creating
a socialist society, by bringing the means of production under community control and by
equalizing the property – foundation of a just society can be laid.
According to Marxism, the main root of the injustice is exploitation and in modern industrial
societies this is the exploitation of the labour class by capitalist class. The main drawback of
the capitalist state is that it makes the labour a thing of selling and buying and makes this
exploitation just. According to a Marxist writer Kohen, Marxist logic can be presented in this
way;
(i) Only labour is such a person who produce such a thing which has an economic
value;
(ii) One part of this value is taken by the capitalist;
(iii) So, the Laboure gets comparatively less portion of the value of the product;
(iv) because one part of
the value of the product is taken by the capitalist (who has no right on it), so the labour is
exploited by the capitalist. Labourers are compelled to work for the capitalist. Labourers do
not have means of production so they can earn their livelihood by working for the wealthy
class. So, the relation of the labour is basically exploitation.
Another Marxist writer Roman has defined this concept of exploitation in the context of
“unequal access to the means of production”. According to it, women devoid of the voting
rights, unemployed people and labourer all become victim of injustice. The benefit of this
unequal reach to the means of production is enjoyed by the capitalists. Apart from it,
exploitation of the labour by capitalist is one aspect and exploitation is a more devastating
aspect where a major part of the society is devoid of selling their labour e.g. women, criminal,
beggar and unemployed etc. This logic is also false that capitalist have earned their wealth by
hard word, capability and saving intelligently. Marx has clarified it clearly that in this collection
of wealth, theft, murder, slavery, bonded labour and political attacks have played a major role.
This primitive in just collection of property, falsifies the logic that capitalist is righteous of his
own benefit because he takes the danger by investing the capital. On the contrary, real danger
is taken by the labour class who has to fall the unemployment, less wages, sickness, accidents
in mills etc. In short, till there will be a provision of personal property and benefit, majority
labour class will not get any justice.

Justice and Alienation

If Marxist writers want to finish personal property then they require some other basis also apart
from exploitation. Here, Marx has presented a moral logic that personal property and the
structure of production based on it, is an obstacle in the complete development of the
personality and capacities of an individual speciality of the personal property is that this is not
exploiting but those who get benefit from this exploitation, also get alienated from their natural
human nature. Apart from it, personal property alienates a person from its labour, production,
relatives and nature. In this kind of alienated society, talking about justice is meaningless. Marx
believed that in the society, the distribution of the sources will be in such a way that it
encourages the continuous increase in the human capacities and efficiencies and discourage
that life process which hinders these capacities. Marx has named this specific work efficiency
as, “Our capacity for freely creative cooperative production.” Any process of production which
minimizes our capacity, infact alienates the individual from his natural nature.
In short, both concepts of Marxism, analyse the question of justice and injustice in the context
of labour class. The form of the conflict against the capitalist’s injustice can only be the conflict
of two classes capitalist and labour class. Only labour class has the capability and desire to
challenge the entire structure of capitalist injustice Marxist concept of justice infact become
the reason for this class-conflict. Even then, according to some critics, it is not justified to give
central importance to only labour class in the revolutionary politics. Many important
contemporary conflicts have been done by those classes or communities who have not been the
victims of wage labour e.g. caste communities minorities, women liberty revolution etc. Now
it has become clear that the exploited labour class and other communities in a visit for justice
cannot always be taken equal.
Emphasizing on the necessity of the justice, Kymlicka writes that the meaning of justice is not
only to correct the faults of the society. There is no doubt that justice is the solution to the
conflicts but more important than that is that it gives respect to an individual. Through the
medium of rights, justice provides recognition to equal prestige and place to every individual,
but this does not compel to use these rights at the cost of others. So, this idea does not affect at
all that we can create unequal and just society by giving up the concepts like rights, justice and
duties.
Social Justice
Social justice means that there should be no discrimination in the individuals living in a country
on the basis of birth, caste, colour, creed etc. Society in which some people have special rights
in the name of birth, caste or colour, in that society social justice cannot be obtained. Social
justice is also not possible in the society where there is a major economic difference among the
people or individual is exploited by another individual.
(i) Equality in front of Law: To get social justice it is very essential that everyone
should be considered equal from legal view point. In the world of law there should
be no discrimination or special rebate on the basis of birth, caste, colour or breed
etc.
(ii) End of Special Rights: People can get social justice only when there is an end of
special right. If people of any class are given special facilities by the government
then in such country social justice cannot be obtained. To obtain the social justice
it is necessary to establish social equality. If a special class is given some rebate by
the government, then in such country, social equality cannot be even imagined.
(iii) End of Casteism: Nature has not divided people on the basis of caste. But on the
contrary, human beings in many countries are hating their fellow human beings on
the basis of caste. Our own country had been a victim of this inhumane customs for
a long time and in the present time also in the name of caste there is a discrimination
for the untouchables. Social justice can be obtained only when casteism is
completely banished and people should stop discriminating with their fellows in the
name of caste.
(iv) Special facilities to the people of backward classes: Social equality can be
established only if the backward classes are given some special facilities for
 development. These facilities should not be permanent but they should be for some
limited time period. The objective of these special facilities is that people of the
backward classes should be able to develop equally like other wealthy classes on
the basis of these facilities.
(v) Democratic Process: Social justice can be obtained in the real meaning when
democratic process is accepted. In the democratic process all kinds of rights are
available to everyone equally and no special facilities or rebates are given to the
people of any special class. In democratic process, after some time public elections
are held and in this election all the citizens of the country can participate equally.
(vi) Economic Security: It is not possible to have a satisfied life by anybody without the
fulfillment of economic necessities. It should be the duty of the government to give
work to every person as per his capability. Till the time government is not able to
provide work to the individual, responsibility of economic security of the individual
should be on the government. Economic security means that government should
give unemployment allowance to these people, so that unemployed people can
fulfill the primary necessities of their lives. Apart from this, to get social justice it
is necessary that the economic security of ailing, old and handicapped should be
included in the necessary duties of the government.
(vii) Security of the benefits of labourers: To get social justice it is necessary that the
benefits of the labourers are secured. For this purpose it is compulsory to fix the
maximum working hours of the labourers. Apart from this it is also necessary to
arrange the appropriate wages and many other facilities for the labourers. Social
justice cannot be obtained till the government does not do some special efforts to
safeguard the benefits of the labourers.

Ambedkar’s View on Social Justice

Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (Baba Sahib Ambedkar) (1891-1956) was a modern Indian
politician, thinker, intellectual, humanitarian and warrior of social justice. He is also known as
the main creator of the Indian Constitution.
He organized the untouchable classes of Hindus and encouraged them to fight for social and
political justice. Inspite of being born in an untouchable family, he obtained higher education
on the basis of self-confidence and continuous conflict. He had to face insult since his
childhood due to the casteism and untouchability; which later on laid a great impact on then
thoughts while taking higher education in Columbia University, he experienced the equal
behaviour which was not allowed to him in India. Ideas of Abraham Lincon and Washington
also put a great impact on him. He was also influenced with the devotion of Kabir, social reform
of Phule and Sabu Maharaj’s conflict again Brahmanism. There is a clear impact of western
ideas of democracy, equality, freedom and fraternity on the ideology of Ambedkar. During his
stay at America, he was much influenced by the fourteenth amendment of opposing the policy
of apartheid. He believed that in order to make Dalits capable of living an independent life,
instead of the manmade rules, only the solutions of the constitutional security will be helpful.
Among many books written by him “Annihilation of Caste”, who were the Shudras and “The
untouchable” are supposed to be their important contribution in the direction of social justice.
Social arrangement of Hindus: Criticism of Class-division
Ambedkar was a social revolutionary. He was the saviour of the Dalit class which was being
insulted by the Brahmins. He took out the Dalit community from the depth of insult and
dependence in which Brahmins had trapped them. Like Tilak, he believed that everyone has to
fight for his right. Rights are not donated. Similarly, everyone has to fight against the pre-
established social structure customs, faiths and behaviours.
In his favours book “Who were Shudras”, he rejected the class-diversion given by Manu. He
disapproved the four-class arrangement given in Vedas in which Brahmins are compared with
the face, Kshatriya with arms, Vaishya with thighs and shoulders with legs. This theory is
symbolic of inequality.
According to him, Hindu society based on class – arrangement encourages exploitation and
inequality. Untouchable class is the origin of class-division. In this arrangement Brahmins have
a high place and untouchables have to face exploitation and suppression. So, to resolve
untouchability and to reform the Indian society, the only solution is to finish the class-
arrangement. Ambedkar concluded that in Hindu society equality is not possible. That is why
ultimately, he gave up Hindu religion and accepted Buddhism.
According to Ambedkar, due to caste conflict, Hindu could never be united and neither there
was a social awareness. Ambedkar and Gandhi both were the saviours of the Dalits, but they
both had a difference of opinion about the caste – arrangement Gandhi believed in the rebirth
and work.
Whereas Ambedkar rejected this philosophy. In this book “Annihilation of caste he highlighted
the faults of the Hindu Society and suggested to annihilate the caste arrangement. Not only
this, but he also emphasized on destroying shastras.
JOHN RAWLS’ THEORY OF JUSTICE( in Detail)
John Rawls was an American political philosopher in the liberal tradition. His theory of justice
as fairness envisions a society of free citizens holding equal basic rights cooperating within an
egalitarian economic system. His account of political liberalism addresses the legitimate use of
political power in a democracy, aiming to show how enduring unity may be achieved despite
the diversity of worldviews that free institutions allow.
JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS: JUSTICE WITHIN A LIBERAL SOCIETY
Justice as fairness is Rawls's theory of justice for a liberal society. As a member of the family
of liberal political conceptions of justice it provides a framework for the legitimate use of
political power. Yet legitimacy is only the minimal standard of political acceptability; a political
order can be legitimate without being just. Justice is the maximal moral standard: the full
description of how a society's main institutions should be ordered.
THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY

Justice as fairness aims to describe a just arrangement of the major political and social
institutions of a liberal society: the political constitution, the legal system, the economy, the
family, and so on. The arrangement of these institutions is a society's basic structure. The basic
structure is the location of justice because these institutions distribute the main benefits and
burdens of social life, for example who will receive social recognition, who will have which
basic rights, who will have opportunities to get what kind of work, what the distribution of
income and wealth will be, and so on.
THE ORIGINAL POSITION
Rawls suggests the original position where individuals can decide about the principles of justice
in a fair and free atmosphere. The original position aims to move from these abstract
conceptions to determinate principles of social justice. It does so by translating the question:
“What are fair terms of social cooperation for free and equal citizens?” into the question “What
terms of cooperation would free and equal citizens agree to under fair conditions?” The move
to agreement among citizens is what places Rawls's justice as fairness within the social contract
tradition of Locke, Rousseau and Kant.
The strategy of the original position is to construct a method of reasoning that models abstract
ideas about justice so as to focus their power together onto the choice of principles. The original
position is a thought experiment: an imaginary situation in which each real citizen has a
representative, and all of these representatives come to an agreement on which principles of
justice should order the political institutions of the real citizens. Were actual citizens to get
together in real time to try to agree to principles of justice for their society the bargaining among
them would be influenced by all sorts of factors irrelevant to justice, such as who could appear
most threatening or who could hold out longest. The original position abstracts from all such
irrelevant factors. In effect the original position is a situation in which each citizen is
represented as only a free and equal citizen, as wanting only what free and equal citizens want,
and as trying to agree to principles for the basic structure while situated fairly with respect to
other citizens. For example, citizens' basic equality is modelled in the original position by
imagining that the parties who represent real citizens are symmetrically situated: no citizen's
representative is able to threaten any other citizen's representative, or to hold out longer for a
better deal.
The most striking feature of the original position is the veil of ignorance, which prevents other
arbitrary facts about citizens from influencing the agreement among their representatives. As
we have seen, Rawls holds that the fact that a citizen is for example of a certain race, class, and
gender is no reason for social institutions to favour or disfavour him. Each party in the original
position is therefore deprived of knowledge of the race, class, and gender of the real citizen
they represent. In fact, the veil of ignorance deprives the parties of all facts about citizens that
are irrelevant to the choice of principles of justice: not only their race, class, and gender but
also their age, natural endowments, and more. Moreover, the veil of ignorance also screens out
specific information about the citizens' society so as to get a clearer view of the permanent
features of a just social system.
Behind the veil of ignorance, the informational situation of the parties that represent real
citizens is as follows:
Parties do not know: The race, ethnicity, gender, age, income, wealth, natural endowments,
comprehensive doctrine, etc. of any of the citizens in society, or to which generation in the
history of the society these citizens belong. The political system of the society, its class
structure, economic system, or level of economic development.
Parties do know: That citizens in the society have different comprehensive doctrines and plans
of life; that all citizens have interests in more primary goods.
That the society is under conditions of moderate scarcity: there is enough to go around, but not
enough for everyone to get what they want; General facts about human social life; facts of
common sense; general conclusions of science (including economics and psychology) that are
uncontroversial.
The veil of ignorance is intended to situate the representatives of free and equal citizens fairly
with respect to one another. No party can press for agreement on principles that will arbitrarily
favour the particular citizen they represent, because no party knows the specific attributes of
the citizen they represent. The situation of the parties thus embodies reasonable conditions,
within which the parties can make a rational agreement. Each party tries to agree to principles
that will be best for the citizen they represent (i.e., that will maximize that citizen's share of
primary goods). Since the parties are fairly situated, the agreement they reach will be fair to all
actual citizens.
THE TWO PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
Under the veil of ignorance people agree to two principles of justice.
 First Principle: Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme
of equal basic liberties; which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties
for all;
 Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: They
are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality
of opportunity; They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members
of society (the difference principle).
The first principle of equal basic liberties is to be used for designing the political constitution,
while the second principle applies primarily to economic institutions. Fulfilment of the first
principle takes priority over fulfilment of the second principle, and within the second principle
fair equality of opportunity takes priority over the difference principle.
The first principle affirms for all citizens’ familiar basic rights and liberties: liberty of
conscience and freedom of association, freedom of speech and liberty of the person, the rights
to vote, to hold public office, to be treated in accordance with the rule of law, and so on. The
principle ascribes these rights and liberties to all citizens equally. Unequal rights would not
benefit those who would get a lesser share of rights, so justice requires equal rights for all in
all normal circumstances.
Rawls's first principle accords with widespread convictions about the importance of equal basic
rights and liberties. Two further features make this first principle distinctive. First is its priority:
the basic rights and liberties must not be traded off against other social goods. The first principle
disallows, for instance, a policy that would give draft exemptions to college students on the
grounds that educated civilians will increase economic growth. The draft is a drastic
infringement on basic liberties, and if a draft is implemented then all who are able to serve
must be equally subject to it.
The second distinctive feature of Rawls's first principle is that it requires fair value of the
political liberties. The political liberties are a subset of the basic liberties, concerned with the
rights to hold public office, the right to affect the outcome of national elections and so on. For
these liberties Rawls requires that citizens be not only formally but also substantively equal.
That is, citizens similarly endowed and motivated should have the same opportunities to hold
office, to influence elections, and so on regardless of their social class.
Rawls's second principle of justice has two parts. The first part, fair equality of opportunity,
requires that citizens with the same talents and willingness to use them have the same
educational and economic opportunities regardless of whether they were born rich or poor. “In
all parts of society there are to be roughly the same prospects of culture and achievement for
those similarly motivated and endowed”. So for example if we assume that natural endowments
and willingness are evenly distributed across children born into different social classes, then
within any type of occupation (generally specified) we should find that roughly one quarter of
people in that occupation were born into the top 25% of the income distribution, one quarter
were born into the second-highest 25% of the income distribution, one quarter were born into
the second-lowest 25%, and one- quarter were born into the lowest 25%. Since class of origin
is a morally arbitrary fact about citizens, justice does not allow class of origin to turn into
unequal real opportunities for education or meaningful work.
The second part of the second principle is the difference principle, which regulates the
distribution of wealth and income. With these goods inequalities can produce a greater total
product: higher wages can cover the costs of training and education, for example, and can
provide incentives to fill jobs that are more in demand. The difference principle requires that
social institutions be arranged so that any inequalities of wealth and income work to the
advantage of those who will be worst off. The difference principle requires, that is, that
financial inequalities be to everyone's advantage, and specifically to the greatest advantage of
those advantaged least.
Consider four hypothetical economic structures A-D, and the lifetime-average levels of income
these would produce for representative members of three different groups:

Economy Least-Advantaged Group Middle Group Most-Advantaged Group

A 10,000 10,000 10,000

B 12,000 30,000 80,000

C 30,000 90,000 150,000

D 20,000 100,000 500,000

Here the difference principle selects Economy C, because it contains the distribution where the
least-advantaged group does best. Inequalities in C are to everyone's advantage relative to an
equal division (Economy A), and relative to a more equal division (Economy B). But the
difference principle does not allow the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor (Economy
D). The difference principle embodies equality-based reciprocity: from an egalitarian baseline
it requires inequalities that are good for all, and particularly for the worst-off.
The difference principle gives expression to the idea that natural endowments are undeserved.
A citizen does not merit more of the social product simply because she was lucky enough to be
born with gifts that are in great demand. Yet this does not mean that everyone must get the
same shares. The fact that citizens have different talents and abilities can be used to make
everyone better off. In a society governed by the difference principle citizens regard the
distribution of natural endowments as an asset that can benefit all. Those better endowed are
welcome to use their gifts to make themselves better off, so long as their doing so also
contributes to the good of those less well endowed. “In justice as fairness,” Rawls says, “men
agree to share one another's fate.”
DIFFICULTIES WITH THE RAWLSIAN THEORY
The task for Rawls was to create a theory that was more in aligning with our intuitive
conceptions about fairness, both with respect to institutions and actual behaviour.
But Amartya Sen argues that’ in the Rawlsian system of justice as fairness, direct attention is
bestowed almost exclusively on ‘just institutions’, rather than focusing on ‘just societies’ that
may rely on both effective institutions and on actual behavioural features ‘. Sen has a point. It
seems like Rawls thinks that the two principles are seen to both ensure the right choice of
institutions and to lay the ground for the emergence of appropriate actual behaviour. This is not
so obvious.
A second critique raised by Sen is connected with Rawls perception of the primary goods
According to Sen, Rawls fails to acknowledge the wide variety between people, with respect
to their differences in health, need and mobility. Since Rawls considers health to be a natural
good, it is regarded by him as not being subject to distribution. What about differences in need?
For example, a pregnant woman needs, among other things, more nutritional support than
another person, who is not bearing a child. She can do far less with the same level of income
and other primary goods. Is it then reasonable to think that individuals value a marginal increase
of social primary goods equally? Sen thinks otherwise, and argues that we should move our
focus to actual assessment of freedoms and capabilities.
Rawls theory has been subject to a lot of critique. Among them, the absent of direct dialogue
between the participants. His assumption that the participants of the ‘social contract’ are
mutually disinterested are also a lose one.
Although some of his critics seem to think that his theory could be extended to capture more
diverse cases and meet further challenges. However, being subject to critical scrutiny for over
three decades, contemporaries seem to have abandoned his basic ideas. But his fundamental
idea that justice is to be viewed in terms of fairness, which is a Rawlsian hallmark, is by large
still seen as a common point of departure for further elaboration on distributional justice.
John Rawls was arguably the most important political philosopher of the twentieth century. He
wrote a series of highly influential articles in the 1950s and ’60s that helped refocus Anglo-
American moral and political philosophy on substantive problems about what we ought to do.
His first book, A Theory of Justice, revitalized the social-contract tradition, using it to articulate
and defend a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts
to solve the problem of distributive justice (the socially just distribution of goods in a society)
by utilising a variant of the familiar device of the social contract. The resultant theory is known
as "Justice as Fairness", from which Rawls derives his two principles of justice: the liberty
principle and the difference principle.
Many critiqued Rawls’ views regarding Justice. Amartya Sen states that ideas about a perfectly
just world do not help redress actual existing inequality. Sen faults Rawls for an over-emphasis
on institutions as guarantors of justice not considering the effects of human behaviour on the
institutions' ability to maintain a just society. Sen believes Rawls understates the difficulty in
getting everyone in society to adhere to the norms of a just society. Sen also claims that Rawls'
position that there be only one possible outcome of the reflective equilibrium behind the veil
of ignorance is misguided. Sen believes that multiple conflicting but just principles may arise
and that this undermines the multi-step processes that Rawls laid out as leading to a perfectly
just society.

Democracy

Introduction
Democracy is the most prosperous and effectual form of political organization in contemporary
period. There is a general agreement that democratic institutions are the most reliable symbol
of political development. It is due to this reason that, it is difficult to find anyone who disagrees
with democracy these days. Politicians from the extreme left to the extreme right insist that the
politics which they support is democratic in character, so it is no wonder that the term is so
confusing. Although fundamentalists may reject the notion of democracy, nobody else will
oppose it. Whether the ruler is a military dictator, a nationalist demagogue or a liberal, they
will always treat their form of governance as democratic in nature.
Meaning and definition of Democracy
The term democracy is firmly rooted in Ancient Greece. Democracy is derived from the ancient
Greek word kratos, and demos. Literary kratos means power and demos stands for ‘the many’
or ‘the people’. Democracy therefore means ‘rule by the demos’, or rule by the people. In
contrast to its modern usage, democracy perceived during ancient period was a negative or
pejorative term, denoting not rule by all, including poor and also uneducated masses.
Democracy was therefore thought to be the enemy of liberty and wisdom. While writers such
as Aristotle were prepared to recognize the virtues of popular participation, they nevertheless
feared that unrestrained democracy would degenerate into a form of ‘mob rule’. Indeed, such
pejorative implications continued to be attached to democracy even today.
There have been several varieties of democratic government over the centuries. Perhaps the
most fundamental distinction is between democratic systems, like those in ancient Greece that
are based upon direct popular participation in government and those that operate through some
kind of representative mechanism. This highlights two contrasting models of democracy: direct
democracy and representative democracy. Moreover, the modern understanding of democracy
is dominated by the form of electoral democracy that has developed in the industrialized West,
often called liberal democracy. Despite its undoubted success, liberal democracy is only one of
the preferred models of democracy in the present world.
Democracy cannot be described only as a form of government but it is also an order of society.
In addition to being a form of government and a type of state, democracy is considered as a
way of life in which the spirit of quality and fraternity prevails. Such a society does not
necessarily imply a democratic state or a democratic government. In addition to this democracy
is also viewed as as a moral principle. It means that in democracy every individual has a moral
value. It enshrines the truth that government does not exist for its own sake, but for the
enrichment of personality of an individual. In a nutshell no government has a right to be called
a democracy if it does not bring out the best in man.
Thus, to some, democracy ‘is a form of government’; to others, it is ‘a way of social life’. The
essence of democracy as a form of government lies in its nature of franchise, the character of
the electoral system and the relation between the government and the people existing in a
particular nation. Democracy as a way of life has a different connotation; as for example to the
communist, it means economic equality amongst citizens, to a humanist, it implies the absence
of disparities in rights on the basis of caste, creed or birth. Thus, democracy comes out to be a
complex term and the only way to come out of this complexity owning to its diversity is to
analyse each of the meanings attached to it and to trace its development and growth according
to time, situation and mental progressive innovations for human betterment.
Definition of Democracy
Democracy as a form of government
Democracy is defined as an important form of government. Democracy as an important form
of government implies two aspects i) who share power in government and ii) how are those
who govern and legislate, acquire their office?. In this way democracy conceives that people,
either directly or through their representatives, shares power in government. It also means that
the representatives actually exercise their power on behalf of the people.
Following are the definitions of democracy which treats democracy as an important form of
government.
 J.R.Lowell- democracy is only an experiment in government.
 Lincoln- democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Dicey-Democracy is that form of government in which the governing body is a
comparatively large fraction of the entire nation.
 Lord Bryce - The word Democracy denotes that form of government in which the
ruling power of a State is legally vested, not in any particular class or classes, but in the
members of the community as a whole.
Democracy as order of society
Democracy is also defined as an order of the society. This means a democratic society is one
in which the spirit of equality and fraternity prevails. Such a society does not necessarily imply
a democratic state or a democratic government. Democracy is an order of society wherein the
spirit of equality and fraternity prevails. A democracy may exist in different sections of the
society despite its absence when it comes to the State or government. In the traditional Indian
societies, the system of Kinship prevailed wherein the essential elements of democracy like
unity, fraternity, etc. may exist within the kinship group, that may represent a society, but not
between different kinship groups taken as a part of the State.
Democracy as a moral principle
Democracy embodies a moral principle too. It means that each man has a value. Further, it
elucidates the fact that government does not exist for its own sake, but for the enrichment of
individual personality. No government has a right to be called a democracy if it does not bring
out the best in man. Democracy shall serve its essential feature of bringing out the best in man
for the government to be called as a democratic government. Democracy attempts to reconcile
the apparently contradictory principle of liberty, equality and fraternity, in order to attain the
highest good for all. Democracy in practice is the hypothesis that all men are equal which is
used in order to discover who the best are. Democracy should assure practical self-realization
for attaining common benefits for all.
Types of Democracy
Representative Democracy
Representative Democracy is considered as the most popular form of democratic governance.
Representative theory of democracy has a greater ascendancy in several parts of the world,
because most countries of the world have accepted this model as the basic and defining form
of their government. It is due to strong institutional arrangements that representative democracy
is distinguished from other forms of political system. Representative democracy always stands
against the unlimited and unrestrained type of political system.
Representative democracy has a predilection for popular participation and indirect and limited
form of government. It is indirect and limited form of democracy, because citizens get an
opportunity to indirectly participate in government system and influence the policy formulation
process. It is limited because the government uses its power in restrained and responsible
manner. There is no possibility of unnecessary government’s intervention in private life of
citizens Its legitimate form is indirect because the commoners do not assume power by itself,
but they elect their own representatives who secure power by means of popular vote and rule
on people’s behalf.
Basic Features of Representative Democracy
 Indirect Representation: - In representative democracy the government is run by
representatives of the common people, It is described as a system of government in
which all qualified citizens vote for representatives who work to pass laws for them.
Commoners form their own groups on the basis of popular consent which is further
professionalized into political parties. These parties after deep deliberation select their
own candidates for general elections. At the time of electoral manifess campaigning the
political parties publicly announce the basic programmes and policies that would be
initiated after coming to power. People either support these parties and their
programmes or oppose them, depending upon their personal affiliation and ideological
compatibility.
  Crucial role of political parties: - In representative democratic system role of political
parties is always crucial and decisive in nature. Almost all representatives of people
contest elections to garner popular support and stake claim to political power. Political
parties actually are organised in a very systematic way which enables the activists to
rally political support and secure power. Those who remain away from the party politics
tend to contest elections as independent candidates, if they do not wish to join any
political party. It therefore can be said that the role of political parties is vital in a
democratic system. The members of political parties keep the people informed about
important issues by holding public meetings, for either supporting or opposing the
policies of the government. Thus, the political parties help the people in knowing what
they should expect and in turn mould the public opinion.

 Spirit of Representative democracy goes against direct democracy:- Representative

democracy is formally structured on the principle of elected people representing a
specific group of people, and therefore it stands opposed to the system of direct
democracy. In modern democratic states, people’s representatives are voted by
common people and they in turn are accountable to the electorates. Different modes of
electing the representatives are enshrined in the constitution rules on electoral systems
of each country. Generally, an aspiring candidate contests election, representing a
particular constituency. A constituency means a specific geographical area which is
created for election purpose. The representatives form an independent ruling body
entrusted with the responsibility formulating the rules and regulations as well as the
legislation for the people’s interest, with enough authority. The reasonable restrictions
imposed by the authority are aimed to take resolute initiative in the face of changing
circumstances. how represensentative democracy goes against direct democracy needs
to explained here far.

Basic postulates of Representative Democracy

 There are free, fair and regular elections and transfer of power takes place in
instantaneous manner. Elections are held on the basis of universal adult suffrage.
 There is existence of opposition parties also. The diverse opinion is generally
entertained, which strengthens the democratic fabric of the country. The existence of
multiple ranges of political parties present a competitive electoral choice for the voters.
 The subsistent presence of legislation which is subsequently protected by the
independent judiciary further accentuates the values of democracy.
 Ample freedom of dissent and right to freedom to speech and expression is ensured in
this needs to be rewarded democracy.
 Freedom to record independent opinion about political events and political decisions

Following are the advantages of Representative Democracy:

Genuine representative character and nourishment of civic culture: the representative
government ensures a true representative form of governance and enhances a possible growth
of civic culture. A civic culture or civic political culture is a political culture characterized by
“acceptance of the authority of the state” and “a belief in participation in civic duties”. The
term was first used in Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba’s book, ‘The Civic Culture’. In a
representative democracy, the people elect officials to create and vote on laws, policies, and
other matters of government on their behalf.
Right to dissent: Dissent is essential in a democracy. If a country has to grow in a holistic
manner where not only the economic rights but also the civil rights of the citizen are to be
protected, dissent and disagreement have to be permitted, and in fact, should be encouraged. It
is only if there is discussion, disagreement and dialogue that we can arrive at better ways to run
the country. Dissent and democracy in reality are frequently considered synonymous in a
liberal-democratic social order. It is through open debate and discussion that the diversity of
perceptions in a democracy gets exposed. Only through continuous interactions on critical
issues does the real truth emerge.
Informed citizenry: In democracy the informed citizenry is a basic requirement. Collective
opinion in democracy plays an important role to keep the government in check. If the people
are aware of the current significant debate of the day, then there is less possibility of usurpation
of public offices and corrupt practices.
Participatory Democracy
Participatory democracy attempts to create opportunities for all members of a population to
make expressive contributions to decision-making, and seeks to increase the range of people
who have access to such opportunities. Since so much information must be gathered for the
overall decision-making process to succeed, technology may provide important forces leading
to the type of empowerment needed for participatory models, especially those technological
tools that enable community narratives and correspond to the accretion of knowledge.
Participatory democracy is that type of democratic model that accentuates the participation of
common citizens in the functioning and operation of political systems. Participatory democracy
tends to promote the involvement of citizen’s participation rather than their representation.
Participatory democracy attempts to generate more opportunities for all members of society. It
strives hard to make meaningful contributions to masses in the process of decision-making,
and aims to broaden the range of people’s participation.
Insistence on people’s participation: The theory of participatory democracy is quite different
from the theory of representative democracy. It puts great importance on maximising the
participation of citizens in the public decisions that affect their lives.
Active engagement in politics is regarded as beneficial both for the citizen as an individual and
for the system as a whole. Because active participation of citizens is expected, they do not
participate only periodically in elections, but participation is continuous. Citizens formulate
and defend their own interests through various civic organizations, such as interests groups,
political parties, civic associations, NGOs and grassroots citizens’ lobbies. Participation
transforms individuals into public citizens: political interest, preferences and abilities for
judging public issues that emerge in the process of public deliberation.
Principle of Popular inclusion: - participatory democracy promotes an active functioning of the
public sphere. The model of public sphere1 promoted by participatory theory is based on
popular inclusion wherein the citizens are expected to be active participants in the public
sphere. The media is considered as an ideal representative model where it represents divergent
interests of society members. It is through the medium of public discussion and debate that
aspirations of common people are made public. Media is considered as an apogee of popular
inclusion and contemplated as a paramount agent in encouraging empowerment of citizens and
communities. In this way, popular inclusion results in strengthening politically competent and
knowledgeable public sphere.
Combination of direct and representative democracy: - Participatory
The term public sphere means a public space or an area in social life where people can come
together share their views and freely discuss as well as identify common socio-economic and
political problems. The term was originally coined by German philosopher Jurgen Habermas
democracy is that model of democracy which gives impetus to the process of collective
decisions. The process of collective decision making is a unique combination of direct and
representative democracy. Collective decisions empower the citizens to formulate opinions and
pronouncements on policy proposals and politicians assume the role of policy implementation.
Equal sharing of power: One of the key facets of participatory democracy is that it emphatically
promotes equal power sharing principle thereby preventing any possibility of conflicts and
violence. The adherents of participatory democracy propose that the power be equally shared
among all citizens, so that everyone will get opportunity to participate equally in collective
affairs. The idea of participatory democracy invigorates an aggregate debate about power,
democratic principles, democratic procedures and institutions. In a nutshell it attempts to
maneuver skillful moves to achieve the most equal distribution of power in society.
Self-determination and autonomy: Participatory democracy empowers the people to assert their
self-determination and reinforce the quest for autonomy. The exponents of this theory argue
that only participatory democracy allows people to be masters of their own lives i.e. to be fully
self-determining or autonomous. Participatory democracy endeavours to achieve such self-
determination at both the individual level and the level of groups or collectives. In addition to
this participatory democracy can be seen as a way of allowing commoners to ensure that
collective decisions will only safeguard individual freedom. As active members of groups,
ranging from households, private clubs, various workplaces, trade unions, and neighbourhoods,
people generally have an interest in living according to their collective will. Participatory
democracy enables people to enjoy their life according to their collective will.
Nourishment of Community life: - Participatory democracy boosts community life and
augments good social relationships in a number of ways. For example, participatory democracy
seeks to strengthen identification with the community because people feel that they are
accepted and that their voice is being heard. Reasonable involvement in democratic practices
like decision-making process, forces people to listen to others and take their interests into
account. Thus, we can say that participatory democracy also promotes public spirit.

Free competition for political power – In participatory democracy there is free competition for
securing political power. Multiple political parties compete with each other in elections to
secure political power. Through participatory democracy people get an opportunity to consider
various alternative policies, programmes and personalities to exercise their choice.
Deliberative democracy
Deliberative democracy is the most important form of democracy in which there is greater
insistence on discussion, debate, deliberation and exchange of viewpoints. Thus, it is best
example of engaged form of people’s participation. The most important aspect of this
democracy is the involvement of citizens reasonable participation in the decision-making
process. Popular and public participation can be described as the deliberative process by which
conscientious citizens, civil society groups, and government actors are involved in actual
legislative procedure and they are responsible for policy-making. In a nutshell, it is assumed
that in this form of democracy crucial legislative actions and important political decision are
made on the basis of fair and rational debate and deliberation among the citizens. Joseph M.
Bessette is considered as the pioneering figure so far as popularity of the concept of deliberative
democracy is concerned. He actually coined the term “deliberative democracy” in his 1980
work “Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government”.
Definition of deliberative democracy- “Deliberation is an approach to decision- making that
involves an informed public, thinking critically together and discussing options from multiple
points of view. It encourages enlarged perspectives, opinions, and understandings and can
result in better decisions and policies.”
Importance of deliberation
In deliberation, or discussion the common people and active citizens exchange their views
through a medium of arguments and consider different claims that are designed to secure the
public good. The final outcome of these deliberations and discussion results in arriving on an
agreement about what procedure, action, or policy will be best suited for the public good. In a
nutshell deliberation is a necessary precondition for the legitimacy of democratic political
decisions.
The most important aspect of this democracy is its insistence and belief in rationality of
citizens. It believes that rather than representation the citizens themselves should arrive at
political decisions through reason and the collection of competing arguments and viewpoints.
In other words, citizens’ preferences should be shaped by deliberation in advance of decision
making, rather than by self-interest. With respect to individual and collective citizen decision
making, deliberative democracy shifts the emphasis from the outcome of the decision to the
quality of the process. Basic features of deliberative democracy are as follows.
Sovereignty of the people: -Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people is the doctrine
that prescribes that, legitimacy of the state is created by the will or consent of its people. It rests
on the belief that people are the source of political power. Popular sovereignty expresses a
concept and does not necessarily reflect or describe a political reality. In deliberative
democracy the people are considered as sovereign in nature. This democracy is premised on
the acceptance of the notion of popular sovereignty and its institutionalisation in the form of
citizens’ rights. In deliberative democratic system it is assumed that, within a specified territory
people’s sovereignty is derived from their collective voice and it is the basis upon which
democratic decision making takes place. Peoples control over the decision-making process is
secured through variety of institutions.
It recognizes conflict of interest: - Deliberative democracy gives importance and sincerely
recognizes the principle of tolerance and conflict of interest between the participants in major
debates. If there is general debate and open discussion on securing one’s own interest then this
democracy will uphold this conflictual debate. The basic objective of this practice is to
accommodate the marginalized, isolated and the ignored groups in the decision-making
process. It prefers to extensively tolerate the dissent, grounds for dissent, and future
possibilities of consequences of actions
Government based upon consent of the people: - In political theory the notion of consent of the
governed, refers to the idea that a government’s legitimacy and moral right to use state power
is only justified and lawful when consented to by the people or society over which that political
power is exercised. Deliberative democracy implies the consent of the governed which rests
implicitly on the recognition of the effective political equality of the individuals. Rational
consent can be obtained by persuasion for which an atmosphere of free discussion is essential.
Protection of minority rights: - Rule of majority is the basic maxim of democratic form of
governance. The postulate of majority rule may jeopardise the rights of minorities. The
promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and
linguistic minorities contribute to the political and social stability of States in which they live.
Deliberative democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule.
Indeed, as democracy is understood today, the minority’s rights must be protected no matter
how alienated a minority is from the majority society. The adherents of deliberative democracy
have started developing scholarly arguments in favour of special rights and safeguards of
minorities to enable them to preserve their distinct identities based on religion, language,
culture etc.
Multiculturalism: - Multiculturalism is generally understood as a school of thought that
supports the cultural and religious rights of minority communities. It upholds the viewpoint
that cultures, races, and ethnicities, particularly those of minority groups, deserves special
acknowledgement within a dominant political culture. One of the most important safeguards
of democracies is demanding greater public recognition of distinctive identities of minorities.
Democracy rests on the greater freedom and opportunity to retain and develop distinctive
cultural practices of minority. Such practice may be called as multiculturalism which is the
strongest precepts of democracy.
Due process of law. Due process is a system of legal proceedings wherein legal rights of
individuals are protected. The core of procedural due process is the idea that government action
that deprives the individual of life, liberty or property must accord with the rule of law. Such
action must be non- arbitrary; hence, individuals must be given notice of the reasons for an
impending deprivation of life, liberty or property and they must be given a fair opportunity to
respond to the allegations made. Today, the requirements of due process are seen central to the
democratic system.
Macpherson’s theory of democracy
Democratic theory deals with the moral foundations of democracy and democratic institutions.
It is distinct from descriptive and explanatory democratic theory. It does not offer in the first
instance a scientific study of those societies that are called democratic. It aims to provide an
account of when and why democracy is morally desirable as well as moral principles for
guiding the design of democratic institutions. Of course, normative
democratic theory is inherently interdisciplinary and must call on the results of political
science, sociology and economics in order to give this kind of concrete guidance.
This brief outline of normative democratic theory focuses attention on four distinct issues in
recent work. First, it outlines some different approaches to the question of why democracy is
morally desirable at all. Second, it explores the question of what it is reasonable to expect from
citizens in large democratic societies. This issue is central to the evaluation of normative
democratic theories as we will see. A large body of opinion has it that most classical normative
democratic theory is incompatible with what we can reasonably expect from citizens. It also
discusses blueprints of democratic institutions for dealing with issues that arise from a
conception of citizenship. Third, it surveys different accounts of the proper characterization of
equality in the processes of representation. These last two parts display the interdisciplinary
nature of normative democratic theory. Fourth, it discusses the issue of whether and when
democratic institutions have authority and it discusses different conceptions of the limits of
democratic authority.

DEMOCRACY DEFINED
The term “democracy,” refers very generally to a method of group decision making
characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the collective
decision making. Four aspects of this definition should be noted. First, democracy concerns
collective decision making, by which means decisions that are made for groups and that are
binding on all the members of the group. Second, this definition means to cover a lot of different
kinds of groups that may be called democratic. So there can be democracy in families,
voluntary organizations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational and global
organizations. Third, the definition is not intended to carry any normative weight to it. It is
quite compatible with this definition of democracy that it is not desirable to have democracy in
some particular context. So the definition of democracy does not settle any normative
questions. Fourth, the equality required by the definition of democracy may be more or less
deep. It may be the mere formal equality of one-person one-vote in an election for
representatives to an assembly where there is competition among candidates for the position.
Or it may be more robust, including
equality in the processes of deliberation and coalition building. “Democracy” may refer to any
of these political arrangements. It may involve direct participation of the members of a society
in deciding on the laws and policies of the society or it may involve the participation of those
members in selecting representatives to make the decisions.
The function of normative democratic theory is not to settle questions of definition but to
determine which, if any, of the form’s democracy may take are morally desirable and when and
how. For instance, Joseph Schumpeter argues that only a highly formal kind of democracy in
which citizens vote in an electoral process for the purpose of selecting competing elites is
highly desirable while a conception of democracy that draws on a more ambitious conception
of equality is dangerous. On the other hand, Jean- Jacques Rousseau is apt to argue that the
formal variety of democracy is akin to slavery while only robustly egalitarian democracies have
political legitimacy. Others have argued that democracy is not desirable at all. To evaluate their
arguments, we must decide on the merits of the different principles and conceptions of
humanity and society from which they proceed.
THE AUTHORITY OF DEMOCRACY
Since democracy is a collective decision process, the question naturally arises about whether
there is any obligation of citizens to obey the democratic decision. In particular, the question
arises as to whether a citizen has an obligation to obey the democratic decision when he or she
disagrees with it.
There are three main concepts of the legitimate authority of the state. First, a state has legitimate
authority to the extent that it is morally justified in imposing its rule on the members.
Legitimate authority on this account has no direct implications concerning the obligations or
duties that citizens may hold toward that state. It simply says that if the state is morally justified
in doing what it does, then it has legitimate authority. Second, a state has legitimate authority
to the extent that its directives generate duties in citizens to obey. The duties of the citizens
need not be owed to the state but they are real duties to obey. The third is that the state has a
right to rule that is correlated with the citizens’ duty to it to obey it. This is the strongest notion
of authority and it seems to be the core idea behind the legitimacy of the state. The idea is that
when citizens disagree about law and policy it is important to be able to answer the question,
who has the right to choose?
With respect to democracy we can imagine three main approaches to the question as to whether
democratic decisions have authority. First, we can appeal to perfectly general conceptions of
legitimate authority. Some have thought that the question of authority is independent entirely
of whether a state is democratic. Consent theories of political authority and instrumentalist
conceptions of political authority state general criteria of political authority that can be met by
non-democratic as well as democratic states. Second, some have thought that there is a
conceptual link between democracy and authority such that if a decision is made democratically
then it must therefore have authority. Third, some have thought that there are general principles
of political authority that are uniquely realized by a democratic state under certain well-defined
conditions.
LIMITS TO THE AUTHORITY OF DEMOCRACY
If democracy does have authority, what are the limits to that authority? A limit to democratic
authority is a principle violation of which defeats democratic authority. When the principle is
violated by the democratic assembly, the assembly loses its authority in that instance or the
moral weight of the authority is overridden. A number of different views have been offered on
this issue. First, it is worthwhile to distinguish between different kinds of moral limit to
authority. We might distinguish between internal and external limits to democratic authority.
An internal limit to democratic authority is a limit that arises from the requirements of
democratic process or a limit that arises from the principles that underpin democracy. An
external limit on the authority of democracy is a limit that arises from principles that are
independent of the values or requirements of democracy. Furthermore, some limits to
democratic authority are rebutting limits, which are principles that weigh in the balance against
the principles that support democratic decision making. Some considerations may simply
outweigh in importance the considerations that support democratic authority. So, in a particular
case, an individual may see that there are reasons to obey the assembly and some reasons
against obeying the assembly and in the case at hand the reasons against obedience outweigh
the reasons in favour of obedience.
On the other hand, some limits to democratic authority are undercutting limits. These limits
function not by weighing against the considerations in favour of authority, they undercut the
considerations in favour of authority altogether; they simply short circuit the authority. When
an undercutting limit is in play, it is not as if the principles which ground the limit outweigh
the reasons for obeying the democratic assembly, it is rather that the reasons for obeying the
democratic assembly are undermined altogether; they cease to exist or at least they are severely
weakened.
MACPHERSON’S THEORY OF DEMOCRACY
Political philosopher C.B. Macpherson explores the implications of the ideas about democracy
in The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism and Democracy Theory – Essays in
Retrieval. Macpherson modifies, extends, and clarifies the concept of a man's power and that
of the "transfer of powers," and argues that a liberal-democratic theory can be based on an
adequate concept of human powers and capacities without insuperable difficulties. Arguing that
the neo-classical liberalisms of Chapman, Rawls, and Berlin fall short of providing an adequate
basis for a twentieth-century liberal-democratic theory largely because, in different ways, they
fail to see or understate the transfer of powers. Macpherson suggests that the liberal theory of
property should be, and can be, revised fundamentally to accommodate new democratic
demands. In this manner Macpherson establishes the need for a theory of democracy that gets
clear of the disabling central defect of current liberal-democratic theory, while recovering the
humanistic values that liberal democracy has always claimed.
MACPHERSON'S FOUR "MODELS" OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
Macpherson designated four models of liberal democracy are as "Protective Democracy",
“Developmental Democracy”, "Equilibrium Democracy", and "Participatory Democracy." He
critically examines the first three models of democracy and then presented his model of
participatory democracy.
PROTECTIVE DEMOCRACY
The first, which makes its case for democracy on the grounds that it alone can protect the
governed from oppression, is found in the utilitarianism of Bentham and James Mill, reluctant
democrats who simply felt that the needs of an essentially capitalist economy in the then
prevailing conditions demanded such political reforms as the extension of the franchise.
DEVELOPMENT DEMOCRACY
The "developmental" model, which Macpherson divides into two stages, is a more humanistic
one. The model is best represented by J.S. Mill who first articulated the principle which for
Macpherson is the essence of the tradition, that aspect of it he wants to preserve: the
commitment to the self-development of all individuals equally. In the 20th century, this
developmental model, represented by philosophical idealists like Barker or Lindsay,
pragmatists like Dewey or "modified utilitarians" like Hobhouse, while retaining Mill's ethical
commitment lost some of his realism concerning the obstacles to the fulfillment of the liberal
goal posed by the realities of class and exploitation. They simply assumed that the regulatory
and welfare state would suffice to bring about the desired end.
EQUILIBRIUM DEMOCRACY
The third model, the currently prevalent one, is that of modern social scientists, the "pluralist
elitist equilibrium model" inaugurated by Schumpeter and developed by political scientists like
Robert Dahl. This model, argues Macpherson, lacks the ethical dimension of the previous one
and offers a description, and a justification, of stable democracy as a "competition between
elites which produces equilibrium without much popular participation." Democracy according
to this model is "simply a mechanism for choosing and authorizing governments, not a kind of
society or a set of moral ends. . ."
PARTICIPATORY MODEL
Macpherson after critically examined each of these models and explaining the reasons for their
successive failures and eventual replacement by a new model, finally turns to the emerging
model of "Participatory Democracy", which began as a slogan of the New Left student
movement. He proposes to develop this into a complete model to supersede earlier ones,
embodying a specific political programme and some suggestions about the kinds of social and
ideological changes which would be needed to make the political programme workable.
Macpherson has observed that Schumpeter-Dhal axis treat democracy as a mechanism
designed to maintain an equilibrium. It conceives of democracy as a competition between two
or more elite groups for the power to govern, the whole society, requiring only a low level of
citizen participation. In Macpherson’s view, it is a distorted view where democracy is reduced
from a humanistic aspiration to market equilibrium.
Concept of participatory democracy repudiates this model of democracy as it regards peoples
political participation as the basic principle of democracy. In short, political participation
denote the active involvement of individuals and groups in the governmental process affective
their lives. In other words, when citizen themselves play an active role in the process of
formulation and implementation of public policy and decision, their activity is called political
participation. Conventional modes of political participation includes voting, standing for office,
campaigning for a political party or contributing to the management of a community project,
like public safety, or the maintenance of a public park, etc. interestingly, an act of opposition
or public protest also involves political participation. For example, signing a petition, attending
a peaceful demonstration, joining a protest march or forming a human chain, etc. come within
the preview of political participation. Indeed, the various acts of public protest in the non-
democratic setup like passive resistance, civil disobedience and satyagraha, also qualifies as
political participation. They are the manifestation of the strong awareness of public interest.
Macpherson, who wrote from a democratic socialist perspective, was a strong critic of
liberalism and liberal democracy, particularly of their historical conflation with capitalist
markets. In his political theory, he sought to retrieve the democratic elements of liberalism from
the excessive influence of individual rights and commodification of social life.
Macpherson’s most well-known contribution to political theory is his notion of “possessive
individualism,” which he contrasted with a more radical vision of democracy. By studying
English political thought from the seventeenth century onward—particularly that of
philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke—Macpherson attempted to uncover an
“underlying unity” of a view of humanity as possessive individuals. The tensions in liberal
democratic thought and problems of legitimacy in liberal political systems are, Macpherson
argued, due to the underlying assumption that individuals are fundamentally possessive.
Macpherson contrasted the political culture of possessive individualism and competitive
theories of democracy with a view of democracy freed from its liberal baggage. He advocated
a neo-republican view of life and politics in which the development of “truly” human
capacities, such as rational understanding, moral judgement, aesthetic appreciation, and
emotional ties, was the primary goal. With this sort of democratization, Macpherson believed
society could acknowledge its interdependence and replace competition with social
cooperation.