The truth is, in | eran eatesoeny Go eee No single principle, or criterion, juridical or otherwise, upon _ peculiar nature of state any scientifically as largely futile a value. ‘merous attempts have been made by political thinkers and theorists to present a typological illustration of the political systems. In ancient times Plato, Arisfotle and Polybius made an exercise in this regard. However, as there was no distinction between state and government in those days, these writers called such an exercise as ‘classification of states.’ The distinction between state and government has been recognised in modern times. As such, we prefer to call such exercises as ‘classification of governments.’ As we shall see, quite a large number of modern writers have made an attempt to deal with this issue. But two important points should be kept in mind. First, now the forms of government may be put into two broad categories—main and subsidiary. Main forms of government are those which exist in an easily identifiable form like monarchy, dictatorship and democracy. Subsidiary forms of government are those that exist under the cover of a broad form as Parliamentary government under a monarchical system, or a federal government under : democratic system. Second, no form o 80vernment may now be taken as pure Ga exclusive, The features of one form may be hes happily penetrated into the features of anothe i pp. 255-56. Garner: Political Science and Government lon of states can be made.. attempt to differentiate between them and to classify them is ind leads to results which have little or no practical or scientific | 11 Forms of Governments It is believed that by reason of the - —v.W. Garner’ j form, though a critic may be having his own observations. It may be described as the movement of harmonisation of the forms of governments in the light of political requirements of a country. For instance, British government is monarchical, democratic, unitary and parliamentary. But a critic may say that it is aristocratic. So, USA is a republic, a democracy, a federation with presidential government. But a critic would call it a corrupt plutocracy. Because of the trend of harmonisation, some other forms have also come up like ‘quasi-federal’ and ‘quasi- presidential’ governments. ‘Aristotle's Classification of States As already hinted, the history of the classification of political organisations dates back to the ancient Greeks. Plato presented a classification of his own in his Politicus or Statesman that was much different from what he gave in the Republic. However, the name of his student (Aristotle) is very important who is said to have offered a ‘scientific’ explanation of political organisations what he, in the absence of a clear-cut line of distinction between state and government, called the ‘classification of states’ Two points should, however, be madehere. First, Aristotle's sixfold classification of states is based on the number of persons in whose hands the authority of the state is vested and the quality of their rule in its pure versus perverted forms. Second, the real purpose of Aristotle is not to offer a sixfold classification of states, it is to justify the excellence of a particular form of rule—mixed government— what he calls ‘polity.’ In dealing with the theme of various forms of states, Aristotle supposes two bases of classification—the number of the ruling persons and the end of the state, i, a factor determining the true and perverted forms of a political organisation. As regards the number of persons holding power, he says that the ruling power may reside in the hands of one, or few, or many persons, while the nature of the exercise of their authority may be either good or bad. By the good or true form of state he means a kind of rule in which ruling power is exercised in the common interest; conversely, the perverted form is one where the ruling power is exercised in the self-interest of the ruling persons. In other words, Aristotle makes use of the grounds ‘of quantity and quality of the ruling persons that eventually enables him to justify ‘polity’ as the best form of an attainable or a practicable state. It is by virtue of the application of these two bases that Aristotle offers his sixfold classification, i.e. six types of state in the hands of one, few, and many persons, depending on their existence either in the normal or in the perverted forms what C.F. Strong calls ‘the spirit informing the government.” The result is that these three forms of states as monarchy, aristocracy and polity respectively in the hands of one, few, and many persons have their place on the morphological map in the normal order with their three corresponding forms as tyranny, oligarchy and democracy in the perverted order. In the first place, monarchy comes as the rule of one person with supreme virtue as its guiding principles; its perverted form is tyranny that 2. Strong: Modern Political Constitutions, p. 69, 3. E. Barker: Plato and Aristotle, pp. 473-74. represents force, deceit, selfishness and the like on the part of the ruler. Then, there is aristocracy as the rule of few representing the mixture of virtue and wealth and its perversion lies in oligarchy that represents greed for wealth on the part of the rulers. Finally, there is polity as the rule of many persons representing martial ‘and medium virtues, power resting with the middle-class people, whose perverted form is democracy (rather extreme democracy) that represents the principle of equality without any discrimination with power vested in the hands of the numerous class. This sixfold classification of states, as given by Aristotle, may be presented ina tabular form as given on the next page- However, the real merit of Aristotle's classification lies not in his presentation according to the ‘strength of the ruling persons’ and the’end of the state’ as in his attempt to integrate his study of different states with ‘a cycle of revolutions’. What he seems to emphasise is that no form of state remains for ever. Rather there is a change. One form degenerates and the other takes its place. Thus, the cycle goes on. For instance, the rule of a virtuous man, called monarchy, is degenerated into that of a tyrant, or the rule of the class of virtuous wealthy persons is replaced by the class of those who are men of vice and greed; likewise, polity is replaced by democracy in which there is no place for merit and liberty is substituted by licence. It may also happen that monarchy is replaced by aristocracy and thereafter aristocracy by democracy. The rule of the mob is the perverted form of the rule of many persons. This cycle goes on in a way as sunshine is replaced by darkness and vice versa. Monarchy is replaced by tyranny, aristocracy by oligarchy, and, finally, polity by democracy, and then out of the prevailing darkness, there “arises the supremely virtuous man, some Caesar, who alone can restore order and reason, the cycle is completed and begins all over again.”> Petree ane‘Number of persons having ruling power One | Rew Aristoc Mony, ray, Oligarch — Poli igarchy = ty Democracy In modem times, such a classification is deficient for various reasons. First, it does cover all prevailing forms of government = - it have emerged to find their place on a typological presentation of political systems, For ee this classification ignores dictatorship, cabinet government, unitary government, federal government, quasi-presidential government, unitary government, federal government, quasi- federal government, etc. Second, political situations have now become so complex that one may hardly make a distinction between the ‘true’ and ‘perverted’ forms of a political organisation. Even rank totalitarian systems (whether fascist or communist) are lauded by the writers for their own reasgns. Third, the rule of a single person like monarchy, as conceived by Aristotle, is now quite impossible. Fourth, we may not appreciate the view that democracy is a perverted form of government. Last, it is a classification of governments and not of states as designated by Aristotle. As RG. Gettell sums up: “To this classification several objections may be urged. The basis is quantitative and numerical rather than one of principle. Atistocracy and democracy shade off into one another in such a way that a clear distinction between them is hard to make. Many states combine elements of the various = ae any attempt to apply this classification existing states ‘would lead to wie differences of opinions. Finally, this classification also 1s in reality based on the nature of the state e organisation and, except as a vague an : of the general spirit of the state, 1$ actun’y classification of governmental forms. 4. RG. Gettell: Political Science, p- 19: Modern Classifications of Governments From ancient to modern times, attempts to classify political systems have been innumerable. A good number of writers have done the same in modern times. The name of a German writer Waitz comes first who classified political systems as republics, theocracies, kingdoms, unitary states, composite or compound states, federal states, and confederations. Pradier-Fodere, an eminent French writer on international law, classified them into two groups—single states and united 4 states. Within the first category he placed personal unions, real unions and incorporated unions; in the second category, he placed confederated and federal states. However, the attempt of another German writer Von Mohl is better who described different categories of states as patriarchal states, theocracies, patrimonial states, classic or antique states, legal states, despotic states, and military vassal states. Further, he divided his classic states into sub- categories as monarchies, aristocracies and democracies. Attention may now be paid to a German- cum-Swiss publicist, Bluntschli, who sought to make an improvement upon the classification of Aristotle. To him, Aristotle’s sixfold classification was the best example of a typological study of ‘states.’ However, he suggested that a further variety should be added to or inserted into the paradigm of Aristotle showing theocracy in the normal and ideocracy in the perverted spheres. Moreover, while he named ‘the above forms as ‘primary,’ hedesignated some ‘secondary’ forms as well by labelling them as ‘free,’ ‘half-free,’ and ‘unfree’ states and went on to add that theocracy, aristocracy and democracy belonged to the three categories respectively. The attempt of another German writer Jellinek is also well-known in this connection who classified political systems into two broad varieties—monarchy and republic. He further divided monarchy into hereditary and elective forms with absolute and limited power and the republic into three forms—democratic, aristocratic and oligarchical. Finally, he categorised democratic system into direct and indirect forms. We may also refer to the work of Burgess who suggests four principles of distinction and then tries to place several forms of government into those categories. First, he suggests the grounds of identity or non-identity of the state with its government on the basis of which political organisation may have primary and representative forms; second, by using the nature of executive tenure as the basis, governments can be hereditary and elective; third, the relationship between the executive and legislative departments creates the distinction between parliamentary and presidential forms; finally, the concentration and distribution of powers makes the case of unitary and federal governments. Likewise, the classification of Marriott shows that there can be unitary and federal governments on the basis of the concentration and distribution of powers between the centre and the units. The existence of a rigid constitution in a federal state creates a line of distinction between the higher laws of the land, While Sthexdble constitution in a unitary state has, | distinction between the two. Finally, th. relationship between the executive and th legislative departments leads to the distinction | of four Kinds of governments—monarchica, presidential, parliamentary and despotic. ‘However, Leacock presents the | dlassification of governments in a simplifieg tanner. According to him, the broad division | may be despotic and democratic, while the latter may be classified into two forms— constitutional monarchy and republic. These two sub-varieties may have two other subordinate categories—unitary and federal Finally, each of these two categories may have two forms—parliamentary and presidential. From what we have said above, it is quite clear that different writers have made attempts in their own ways, but none has been able to present a scientific or universally acceptable classification of governments. It may be easily remarked that the nature of the problem is such that no writer has been able to lay down a standard criterion whereby _ political organisations may be distinguished on the bases of their form, spirit, or fundamental characteristics. There is a lot of overlapping as well if we compare the paradigms of different ‘writers on this important subject. It shall, therefore, be better to deal with the formal classification of governments into broad categories as monarchy, aristocracy, democracy and their subsidiary forms like unitary and federal governments parliamentary and presidential governments, ot a queer mixture of them. ordinary and the Governments [ome ages | Despotic Democratic | -— thas As Constitutional Monarchy Republic | gone eS | aUaiey Federal Unitary Federal | Parliamentary Presidential Parliamentary ie Presidential |hy _tis the oldest form ruling power i oan the 1B P is vested in a singh on wh wears a crown. He holds his oft : pee of hereditary succession, though es ty" ace some instances of his See ihe oe val sections of the community as a 7 vay PE having the title of a king, an emperor, ee and the like, but the essential point is iat government eee according to his wi 90 AMET says: “In its widest sense, any vem i which the supreme and final Sporty 8 in the hands of a single person is Sronarch without regard to the source of his nor the nature and duration of his tenure, inthis sense 118 immaterial whether his office «by election (by parliament or people) or is derived by hereditary succession, or er he bears the title of emperor, king, at, president or dictator. It is the fact that the lof one man ultimately prevails {nall matters of government which gives it the character of mronarchy.”® $0 Jellinek defined monarchy as a government by @ single physical will and he emphasised that its essential characteristic “is the competence of the monarch to express the highest power of the state. Since monarchy is the ol government, its prevalence may be seen in the history of all states of the world. It declined tl the growth of democracy in modern HC Forinstaree, France, Spain, Portugal Germany, Italy, Russia, Turkey, etc. became republics. Another significant development in this regard is that while some Buropean countries desi to retain their monarchical system, they preferred to harmonise it with the {institutions pest example * \dest form of of parliamentary democracy: Its constitutional all their system ase with d the can be seen in Britain where monarchy enables the people toc ‘crowned republic’. Similar is the & Belgium an other monarchies as of 5 Gamer, gp its p. 305. arner, op. cit, p. 305 6 ae % Rodee, Christal and Andereon: Introducton, Mag Aemocracie, Vol Ur P> 99 sion to, Political Science, Netherlands. So it is said: “Modern Burope’s monarchs are ceremonial heads of thel’ respective states, often loved and respected by their people, but actually devoid of political power. Such constitutional mona) f the nation or empire; a5 symbols of the unity o such, they are useful, visible personifications © the state.’” in fact may be Viewed thus, monarchy differentiated from the monarchy in nami While the former signifies a system in which the monarch acts according to his will, in the latter the monarch is like a symbol of the Inother words, while the monarch reigns as Wé es in the former position, he merely reigns 2 the latter capacity Thus, some writers make an attempt to identify monarchy of the latter type with @ democratic system in which, as the English proverb goes, ‘the king can do no ‘wrong’. Behind such an attempt the motive of immunising the system of monarchy from its inherent stigma of ‘despotism’ may also be traced. So says Bryce: "py monarchy I understand the thing, not the name, ie. not any of which is state the head talled king ot emperor, but one in which the personal will of the m onarch is constantly effective, and, in the last resort, predominant factor in government." Kinds: Keeping in v' Tha monarch occupies his office the system. bf monarchy may be categorised as hereditary and elective. Most monarchies of the world are and have been of a hereditary character in view ofthe fact that the office goes by the fixed law Stenccession, Thus, the office nemains com to a particular dynastic house oF family as of the Bourbons in France or the Hanoverian in England. But the instances of an elective rronarchy may also be seen in history: The carly Roman kings were elected and so were the Lings of Poland. The emperors of the Holy ew the manner in p37© errant nessa eA Roman Empire were chosen by a small college of electors, usually from the same family. During the days of feudalism, the kings were elected by the nobles, the barons and the lords. Speaking of the election of early English monarchs, it was observed that the king “was in theory always elected and the fact of election was stated in the coronation service throughout the Middle Ages in accordance with the most ancient precedents.” Even in early modern times, the first monarchs (as of Belgium and of some of the Balkan states) were chosen by election. But in due course the system of election was superseded by the system of hereditary succession. The distinction between hereditary and elective monarchies is hardly of any practical significance, since in most of the cases the institution of monarchy has a hereditary character. What is of real importance at this stage is that monarchy may be classified into absolute and limited varieties. In case the monarch acts according to his will and caprice and, in the words of Louis XIV of France, he is ‘the state’, then it is a case of absolute or unlimited monarchy. Hobbes defends such a system in his Leviathan. In Austin’s words, law of the state is the command of such a monarch (sovereign). The examples of such a system can be seen in the rule of the Tudors and the Stuarts of England, Mughals of India, Ottomans of Turkey, Czars of Russia, etc. Such a monarchical system, as said above, has now declined, though its instances may still be seen in the autocratic behaviour of the kings of Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. While defining such a system, Garner says: “An absolute monarchy is one in which the monarch is not merely the titular head of the state, but is actually the sovereign; that is, his will is the law in respect to all matters upon which it is proclaimed. In short, he is bound by no will except his own, Under such a system, the state and the government, legally speaking, are identical, the ‘monarch being not only an organ of government and the sole organ, but also the sovereign.» Basically different from this is the case of limited or constitutional monarchy in which the position of the monarch is like that of a titular head of the state. He simply reigns; all orders are issued and all laws are made in his name. But it is the will of the popular ministers that counts. For this reason, a constitutional monarch is lauded as the ‘dignified executive’ and also satiricised as ‘magnificent cipher’. Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government justifies the case of such monarchy. As Gamer says: “What is usually described as limited monarchy is restricted by the prescriptions of a written constitution or by a certain unwritten fundamental constitutional principles such as the British monarchy. These constitutional rules or principles define in some degree the powers of the monarch, of limit what is called the ‘royal prerogative’ and usually upon his accession to the throne, he is required to take a solemn oath to respect and observe them.” Criticism: We may briefly discuss the merits and demerits of monarchy. Its merits are: 1. Monarchy should be given the credit for establishing a strong political order. In ancient times when man was almost a savage, it was the prowess of the monarch that could tame man into a political animal. By virtue of his family or clannish traditions, the force of local customs, and his intrinsic mettle, the ruler could prove equal to the occasion in establishing 9. Stubbs: Constitutional History of England, Vol. 1, pp. 520-28, After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, William and Mary were chosen as the monarchs by the Convention Parliament in England. After the death of Queen ‘Anne in 1714, the office of the monarch was given to George I of the Hanover family by a decision of the Parliament. In 1936 Edward VII abdicated according to a law of the Parliament. Thus, in a sense the English monarchy is still elective, since Parliament claims and exercises the right to regulate the law of succession at its pleasure. To cite other cases we may say that Louis Napoleon became the Emperor of France in 1852 through a plebiscite and a vacancy in the Spanish throne was filled by parliamentary election in 1873. 10. Gamer, op. cit, pp. 307-8. 11. Ibid. eae ek ees ditions of peace and securit co ofthe Monarch could debe ays of the barbarians, Orq, ith the established and normalcy restored, ' was rand of powerful ruler like Charier, and Peter the Great. emagne Monarchy means a stable government, The monarch lives in office for a long per He is a much experienced m: ied rae administration of public affairs He cme” be removed by anything like iiipeasuat or vote of no confidence. By virtue of li i in office for about half a century ee i 7 en, a ruler ke Queen Elizabeth I in England and Akbar in India could give stability to administration that may hardly be seen in a democratic system where government depends upon the vagaries of an elected legislature and executive. ‘A monarchical system should also be appreciated for promptness and vigour in actions. The policies made by the monarch are implemented quickly. No time is wasted on lengthy discussions and deliberations as we see in a democratic system. The word of the monarch is the law that must be followed faithfully. It is for this reason that the rule of a benevolent monarch like that of Asoka or Akbar in India is described as ‘golden period’ in the history of the country. Since the rule of the monarch runs for a fairly long time, a consistent policy, home as well as foreign, is followed. There is no scope for sudden or unexpected change, ‘because the ruler does not change his views with the shift in the public opinion the kind of which may be seen in a democratic system. Above all, the monarch recognises the talents of the artists, poets, painters, musicians, architects and the like, He honours and patronises a galaxy of such talented persons as a result of which great works in the form of books, paintings, buildings and fine arts come into being. a B ‘ut monarchy has its demerits too that may be briefly enumerated as under: at of the cases a monarch acts like a spot or a tyrant. His word is law that is enforced with the might of the sword. We have numerous examples of corrupt, incompetent, feeble-minded and callous kings who ruled tyrannically. Such a king has no regard for the rule of law. Anyone speaking against the ‘wisdom’ of the monarch is taken to task and may be put to any degree of torture. The names of Queen. Mary of England, Changez Khan of China and Aurangzeb of India may be referred to in this regard. ‘A monarchical system gives no place for self-rule. The people have no voice in the administration of their country. It is the will of one man that counts. The apologists of monarchy say that the rule of a benevolent king is the best form of government. But an apologist of democracy would say with greater force that a good monarchical government can be no substitute of self-government. ‘A monarchical system inheres the danger of imperialistic tendencies of the ruler. Generally, the kings remain keen on acquiring more authority and expanding their kingdom so that it may be converted into an empire. The result is a war. The history of the world is full of such wars which have proved utterly destructive for the common people. Itis also possible that an ambitious ruler may involve his country into a war for the sake of distracting the attention of his people and may thus bring great harm to the people by implementing his hazardous expansionist schemes. Inefficiency, corruption and dishonesty "prevail in a country having monarchical system. The sycophants thrive on the patronage of the king, Spoils system prevails in matters of recruitment to government posts, All benevolences are showered on the ‘favourites’ of the monarch indiscriminately.@ Tinea AG 5. Above all, the monarch has to live under a fear of perpetual revolt from the side of his opponents. He is always afraid of sinister conspiracies and intrigues by his enemies, including his courtiers. The result is that the monarch adopts a very repressive policy in dealing with such elements. Such acts of repression breed discontent and ultimately lead to rebellions in which a monarchical system may find its doom. ‘As a matter of fact, monarchical system is said to inhere tendency of despotism that is the very negation of a popular government. The office of a king, howsoever benevolent he may be, is taken for granted as the symbol of autocracy based on the whims and caprices of the ruler. So Lord Brougham in his paper ‘The British Constitution’ could frankly endorse: “The tendency of all monarchy is towards despotism and its evils; and a constitutional monarchy which provides no checks, that is, a pure monarchy, has enormous scope to the sovereign’s interests or passions, benefits the people very little by the alliance he always forms with the nobles, gives facilities to humour his ambition by wars, allows recklessly extravagance of every kind, encourages habits of costly ostentation and of pride towards inferiors, and begets a spirit of frowning and truckling towards those in authority.” Aristocracy Meaning: The word ‘aristocracy’ originates from a Greek word ‘aristo’ which means the best. Thus, aristocracy may be defined as the rule of the chosen few or a very smalll section of the populace marked out by birth, wealth, talent, status and the like. It stands for the residence of power in and its exercise by few persons distinguished by their superiority, ability and merit. In the Aristotelian sense, i may be defined as a form of government in which political power resides in and is exercised by the few. Thus, it may be defined as a form of government “in which only a relatively small proportion of the citizens have a voice in the choosing of public officials and in determining public policies.” If aristocracy means the rule of the ‘few’, the problem arises as to what does the word ‘few’ imply. Historical evidence shows that these few may be chosen on the basis of blood, birth, family, wealth, culture, education, physical power, charismatic potentialities, religious position, etc. But whatever may be the method or the basis of classification or the form which aristocracy may take, the general principle is the same; namely, that aristocratic government “is government by comparatively small proportion of the population.” One may have a feeling that the rationale of such a government should be appreciated. Sir James Stephen remarked that the few (meaning the wise and the good) should govern in all countries, but the implications of the ‘few’ remain confused. Seeley doubts that the implications may remain confined to the wealthy or well-born persons and in such a case aristocracy becomes ‘oligarchy’ or a perverted or ‘diseased’ form of aristocracy. 12. Brougham: Works, Vol. XI, p. 3. Sidgwick remarks that it is not only a defect of monarchy in the which we are here considering it, thatthe supreme law-making power is in the hands of single individual, who may, or may not, employ it in the interest of the community, but that the execution of the laws being under the supreme control of the same person there is no suficent guarante that he will observe his own ws, if passion or favour urges him to them. Development of European Poli ; 13. Garner, op. cit. p. 309, weed lees 14. bid, p. 379. "There are many versions of ‘government by the few’, Aristocr igi ex acy, in its original sense of government by the ‘best’ citizens, who were presumably men of highest integrity and intelligence rather than merely a hereditary ruling class or a wealthy oligarchy, remains an ideal seldom, if ever, attained in practice, Pia 7 = — oe = ideal commonwealth ruled by all-wise and selfless philosophers; Edmund turke idealised the later eighteenth century British aristocracy in terms which were scarcel d by most of its members.” Rodee, Christol and Anderson, op. cit, p. 37 io Lae 15. Seeley: Introduction to Political Science, pp. 331. eeesometimes, the be terms—aris| oe ny—are used interchange; s ol pat Aristotle defined ee have se Fed form of atistocracy, A rench wy ite Fragier-Fodere treated aristocracy we jovernment BY @ small Rumber of persons’ Bodo not strictly speaking, constitute a class, wat Lord James Bryce used the two terms interchangeably and prophesied that in future pigarchies would have to be either a mixture of jutocracy and bureaucracy or else composed Br he leaders of labour or trade union off inisations.”* But the fact stands out that in recent times the distinction between the aristocracy and the oligarchy (the former as government of the best and the wisest and the iater as government of the wealthy minority) has almost disappeared so that aristocracy vonnotes in the popular mind the same characteristics which the ancients associated with oligarchy.”"” The most striking point about aristocracy is that it has hardly existed in an independent form like monarchy, dictatorship and democracy. It has survived, of course, but under the superficial garb of monarchy. Its determining features have been heredity as well as wealth. Thus, the aristocratic systems of England, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Spain and Russia rested upon an economic foundation until they were removed in a popular revolt. Since wealth constituted the most significant part, aristocracy was also dubbed as ‘plutocracy’. Thus, the residence of power in the hands of hereditary nobilities constituted the case of aristocratic or oligarchical systems in many countries of the world until the locracy and 16, 17, Ms Bryce, op. cit, p. 537. Gamer, op. cit, p. 380. Some writers prefer to stress the point of distin "Whereas modern states are ruled by the few rathe Tevolutions brought about the system of representative government.” The aristocratic elements lost their political influence owing to the loss of their economic position though in some countries like Italy and Germany they managed to wield some power under a fascist system after the first World War. Criticism: The system of aristocracy has its points of strength and weakness. Its merits are: 1. Itis taken as a natural form of government. Thinkers from Aristotle in ancient to Carlyle in modern times lay emphasis on the fact that nature has made only few persons talented and good. Virtues are a privilege of the few, these cannot be shared by the many. The terms like ‘wisest’, ‘best’, ‘wealthiest’ and the like can be seen only in case of a minority. Thus, nature desires that minority should rule majority. 2. Aristocratic government possesses the virtue of moderation and conservation. It does not believe in sudden and major changes, because the rulers are afraid of the consequences of innovations. The rulers are not guided by the force of passions as we see in the case of a democratic government. 3. Aristocracy may also be appreciated for being a stable form of government. It remains free from the yoke of governments shifting under the weight of popular passions. There is no place for mob-rule. 4, Aristocracy gives importance to the element of quality. The political power is given to those who deserve it on account of being the chosen few by virtue of their blood, wisdom, wealth, physical strength and the like. tion between aristocratic and oligarchical governments. jer than the many, such systems may more appropriately be termed oligarchies, rather than aristocracies, Both terms meat government by a few, but oligarchy usually (though not always) carries the connotation of rule by the we eh not always) car Toute service, distinguished ancestry, and enjoyment of «traditional tele et by the pope a8 whe” Rode, Chisfol and Anderson, op city p38 Intelligence, devotion deference a Sra thy, whereas aristocracy suggests such qualities5. It conserves experience. The policies of the government remain continuous anc consistent, A radical break with the past is avoided. But it has its demerits too. These are: 1, Aristocracy develops the tendency of exclusiveness and conservatism. The rulers do not like to mix with the ordinary people, nor do they favour changes as demanded by the people. The result is a revolution that destroys the aristocratic system. It undermines the wisdom and ability of the common people that is regarded as the hallmark of a democratic system. The aristocrats treat people as ordinary mortals and do not like to share their privileges with them. Naturally, it leads to the accumulation of the resentment of the people against their rulers. Aristocracy stands on the wrong assumption of the ‘best’ element. It is not necessary that the son of a wise man should be a wise man. The principle of heredity becomes sacrosanct with the result that the good rulers are eventually replaced by corrupt elements and aristocracy naturally degenerates into an oligarchy. 4. Aristocracy believes in pomp and show. The rulers indulge in the game of false glamour and ostentation at the cost of public money. It brings a bad name to the government of the country which the rulers hardly care for. 5. Above alll, aristocracy stands on the wrong notion that nature has made only the virtuous few to rule the many. This principle of natural inequality of mankind has been rejected in present times. Aristocracy as a form of government has now disappeared from the face of the earth. But its apologists like Lecky, Maine, Carlyle, de Tocqueville and Lord Acton make a unique affirmation that all governments are partly y 2 19. Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America, Vol, p. 256. 20. Bryce, op. cit, p. 542. is c. The exponents of the elite theo, es Pareto, C. Wright Mills and a stress the point that in every important pols! matter it is the minority whose voice prevail. This is known as the ‘iron law of oligarchy’ .. laid down by Robert Michels. The real decision. makers are always few, not many. Even jn imes, the role of the chosen few (elites) resent ti ; ae be discovered in all matters where decisions are taken and implemented in the name of welfare of the people. “Almost all the nations which have exercised a powerfy) influence upon the destinies of the world by conceiving, following up, and executing vast designs—from Rome to England—have been governed by aristocratic institutions.”” So says an eminent English writer: “In all assemblies and groups and organised bodies of men, from a nation down to the committee of a club, directions and decisions rest in the hands of a small percentage, less and less in proportion to the larger size of the body, till in a great population it becomes an infinitesimally small. proportion of the whole number.” Dictatorship Meaning: One form of government that attracted the attention of the world in the period following the first Great War is dictatorship. It saw its manifestation in Turkey under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk, in Soviet Russia under the leadership of Stalin, in Italy under the leadership of Mussolini, in Germany under the leadership of Hitler, and in Spain under the leadership of Gen. Franco. Though the dictatorships of Italy and Germany had their doom in the second World War, it emerged in many other countries of the world in the post- 1945 period as in Argentina under Peron, in Portugal under Salazar, in Uganda under Idi Amin, in Pakistan under Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zia-ul-Hag, in Burma under Ne Win, in Iraq under Saddam Hussain, etc. The existence of dictatorship has its proof in theof a person who pi al powers end aoe extra- F ptt te. He is the head of the eo it ee ent, of the party or the military hcl gory, His word is law and Y Broup in PON? tg his power invi any kind of osition © io “i Wites mutilation. In op? jctatorship ‘ig the assumption of ext ga atom by the head of the state.” a jnother words, dictatorship means absolute jae of 8 single person who occupies his postion py means of force and, as such, is not table to any popular institution. Nor does he wear crown that would give him the ifras of a monarch. In most of the cases he gedares himself as the ‘president’ and thereby rakes the state a ‘republic’. Like the Sovereign % Austin’s conception, he holds absolute ret. The constitution of the state becomes an piyrument in his hands that he may abrogate tr modify according to his will; his decree is the aw of the land; his position is unassailable in the words of Alfred Cobban, “it is the rovernment of one man who has not obtained fis position by inheritance, but by either force or consent, or a combination of both. He possesses absolute sovereignty, that is, all political power ultimately emanates from his Will and it is unlimited in scope. It is also exercised in an arbitrary manner by decree rather by law. The authority of the dictator is not limited in duration, and is not subject fo any other authority, for such a restriction would be inconsistent with his absolute rule.”” One may say that dictatorship is a very old form of government. We may take note of the fact that in ancient Rome dictators were appointed to deal with a critical situation. But they were out of office after saving the state from a great crisis. The case of dictatorship in modern times is, however, quite different. Now a dictator is not appointed, he emerges in @ Patticular situation and once he is in office, he 3h Port: Dictatorship in the Modern World, P 27. 22 Cobban: Dictatorship, 2 i” m4, ‘Christol and Anderson, 0. city Pa. M. Beni Prasad ‘The Democratic Proces®; PP RS Se ae vee Ee = Rot like to leave it until he can be forced > do so. The scope of his power is vast and he gives an ideological turn to the character of his autocratic position. It is well ‘commented: “The modern dictator, whatever his ideological Pretensions, is vastly more powerful than his ancient predecessors. In addition to enjoying permanent, irrevocable status, he has at his disposal a variety of extremely effective instruments of social control. Modern dictatorship is totalitarian in scope; the dictator controls not only the ‘government’, but the economy, the home, the school, the press, the radio, the cinema, the church, and the very ind and the soul of the citizen. Revolt is difficult, if not impossible. The modern dictator always poses as a messiah, sent to save his people from communism, anarchy, economic collapse, foreign ‘capitalistic encirclement’, oF other impending catastrophe. He usually proclaims himself the saviour of some particular class, institution, system or interest group. Hitler was the presumed champion of the ‘little ones’, Stalin of the ‘proletariat’, Peron of the ‘shirtless people’.” “Thus, the main features of dictatorship may be pointed out as under:* 1. tis the outcome, directly or indirectly, of militarism. The dictator stands forth as the saviour of the motherland against foreign invasion or intervention; as the incarnation of the spirit of revenge, or the representative of a forward foreign policy. Round this banner gather the forces of nationalistic self-respect, hopes and ambitions, the realisation of which seems to depend on concentration of powers. 2, The dictator undertakes to. put down domestic discord with a firm hand and tries to weld the people into a harmonious whole. He professes to function as the ‘embodiment of national unity.3, The dictatorship represents a social doctrine, a plan of reform whether one may call it socialism, fascism, or sheer modernism as one may find in Turkey: Here it represents the principle of enlightened despotism reinforced by the modern resources of technique and propaganda, and doubly liable to be entangled with a rigid creed. In this last respect, it has developed the bigotedness and even the persecution of an intolerant religion and is already playing the part of a political inquisition. 4. Lastly, the modern dictatorship has attempted to improve the condition of the masses by providing order and security, better means of sanitation, communication, economic amelioration and even education. Emergence: The emergence of dictatorship ina country is a result of an extra-constitutional development. It is a consequence of certain conditions. Keeping in view the conditions immediately after the first World War, the Coles have summed them up as follows:* 1. In mainly all countries in recent times there has existed an uneasy feeling that in both political and economic organisations the world is getting nowhere. This feeling of anxiety and uncertainty was accentuated by the world economic depression of 1930. 2. There has undoubtedly been in the minds of a growing number of people a feeling that the existing forms, both of political government and of econoinic and social organisations, are definitely inappropriate to the tasks which they are supposed to fulfil. Hence, the enthusiasm for the parliamentary institutions has been on the wane and in the younger generation, especially has been a feeling that these institutions can no longer do ‘big things’ or arouse ‘big emotions.’ 3, There has grown in every advanceg industrial country a feeling especially among the technically educated that vast political wealth is being ‘foolishly’ wasted Hence, they have been feeling that the existing system is not the right system and, therefore, requires overhauling, 4, There has grown a widespread insecurity among those who had hitherto presented security in some measure. Hence, property ‘owners, both large and small, have won to rally round the Fascist-type dictatorship. 5, There has also grown a fear of communism as an alien creed seeking to impose world domination. Hence, the Fascist philosophy which is national in outlook has won over vast numbers on its side. 6. The prolongation of political and economic disorder has led people to think in terms of safety somehow. They are thus won over by gospels which make the most compelling appeals and when they are asked to march about the streets dressed up in special shirts, they feel that they are doing something instead of merely sitting still. 7. There has now reached the high climax of nationalism and the ‘herd instinct’ is visible to an extent it was never visible before. The solidarity of international life has been growing weaker and weaker and racial nationalism has come to the forefront. Thus, national bigotism has begun to break out in the most extravagant form. Though it is informed by the conditions prevailing after the first Great War, a student of politics may say that the emergence of dictatorship in any country may be informed by any or some of the factors like growing inflation, shattered economy, massive unemployment, severe political insecurity, rampant corruption, failure of democracy, national humiliation, incapability of the government in dealing with the problems of security and honour of the motherland. 25. GDH. Cole and Margaret Cole: A Guide to Moder Politics, pp. 62-66.o me 1. . sicism: The di ‘ jticism: ‘Ictatoria) ca ent has its strong and weak oe of are following: ‘ides. Its, : Testored in q short time. The government does not d time on unnecessary dj i promptness in administration eo pecause things move expeditiously fe 7 pehest of a dictator, a Jt assures progress and prosperit people by taking quick action Thea tries to solve social and economic Problems of the people S0 as to legitimise his iron rule. Political stability is brought about and new plans of social and economic development are implemented with the result that overall development of the country can be taken note of. 3, Itrecognises the element of quality or merit. |i | = It stands on the principle of natural Michael R. Curtis on Meaning, Causes, Kinds and Nature of Dictatorship Meaning: Dictatorship is a form of government in which a person or a group possesses | absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. The term ‘dictatorship’ is derived | from the Latin title ‘dictator’ designating a magistrate given extraordinary powers for a limited | period in an emergency. But the meaning of the term has changed since Roman times. The | essential ingredient of modern dictatorship is power; and emergency is not necessarily present. But dictatorship is different from some related themes as: Authoritarianism: It denotes a legal or rightful power and implies the right to command by virtue of an office or trust; it suggests a regime that stresses authority rather than individual liberty and in which traditional institutions and groups are dominant. . Autocracy: It implies an absolute sovereign, a monarch ruling without restriction. mequality of mankind. The dictator acts With the assumption that only a chosen few have the talent to run the administration of the country. In this way, the lazy and the incompetent persons are deprived of the privilege to be in the seats of power. Ttenhances glory and prestige of the nation. A weak government cannot protect the honour of the motherland. Dictatorship makes the nation strong. The name of the nation is glorified and a policy of ‘blood and iron’ is pursued by the government to Testore the honour of the country. Lost areas are taken back; humiliating treaties are abrogated; enemies of the nation are severely dealt with. . Tt can meet the situations of emergencies effectively. Whenever the security and stability of a country is endangered by the conditions of war, external aggression or internal disturbances, a dictatorial system works well to meet the problems. |. Absolutism: It implies a system in which a ruler has unconditional power, bases his claims | Despotism: Derived from a Greek word ‘despotes’ (implying master or lord), it generally to legitimacy on the principle of heredity or divine right, and claims that the sovereignty of the state is vested in him, though he also claims that he rules for the common good. refers to a regime in which an absolute ruler exercises power axbitrarily or tyrannically. Tyranny: As understood by the Greeks, it meant simply a regime in which pow obtained by irregular and unconstitutional methods and in which the tyrant legitimate or a hereditary monarch. . Totalitarianism: It means concentration of power in the rulers and ee a ra of the party, the total subordination of all organisations to the state, the Possible opposition groups, and the heightened use of cen indoctrination. and terror. xCauses of Emergence | 1. A belief that the dictatorship is the only way so that a regime can be founded, or its stabili can be maintained. In France Robespierre believed that liberty could be achieved only through such a system. : 2. It is created to instal in power a man or a group regarded as indispensable to save the state or to respond to a real or an imaginary crisis. With this view the king of Italy appointed Mussolini as Prime Minister in 1922. 3. Ambitious figures have pretended to discern dangers in order to rationalise a coup d’ etat Supposed emergency or an extremist plot of Communist threat in Greece enabled Metaxas to capture power in 1936. 4. It may be a result of the popular myth that the head of the state derives power from the divine will. In Japan the people believed that their emperor was the child of the Heaven Shining Goddess. 5. It may be a consequence of a country’s humiliation in war, disruption caused by war, or a military crisis that could not be met by available sources. So Napoleon Bonaparte assumed power in France in 1802 and Hitler in Germany in 1933. 6. It may be set up to modernise the country or to introduce dramatic political and economic changes for this sake. It happened in Turkey in 1920 under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk. 7, It may be created to achieve reformist or revolutionary objectives. It happened in England under Cromwell in 1649 and in Russia under Lenin in 1917. It may be caused by some counter-revolutionary objectives as happened under Gen. Franco in Spain in 1936. 8. It may arise in response to the incompetence or corruption of government, financial difficulties, social upheavals, or a vacuum created by the decline in the acceptance of the legitimacy of traditional authorities and institutions. Its instances may be seen in the seizure of power by Col. Nasser in Egypt in 1952 and by Ayub Khan in Pakistan in 1958, Kinds 1. Traditional Dictatorships: Here the rulers react in response to a fear of revolution and uphold the traditional authority. The regime emphasises patriotism, service, obedience, discipline, order, value of old institutions frequently at the expense of individual liberty. We may refer to the cases of Portugal under Salazar, Poland under Pilsudski and Hungary under Gen. Gambos. 2. Reformist Dictatorships: Here the ruler claims himself as the defender of national unity and inaugurator of a new system with some trappings of a democratic order, Here we may refer to the case of Indonesia under Soekarno and of Ghana under Nkrumah. 3. Military Dictatorships: Here a military leader seizes power and proclaims himself as the head of the state and then does some significant work to legitimise his power. We may refer to the cases of Argentina under Peron, Mexico under Diaz, and Venezeula under Juan Gomez. Nature: The pattern and methods of dictatorial rule have remained constant, All dictators have reduced the power of other institutions in the political system, especially representative assemblies and independent judiciaries. All have limited personal liberties and have dispensed with constitutional restraints and the rule of law. All have wielded censorship to reduce criticism or to uphold official beliefs. All have hindered and many have physically eliminated ‘opponents of the regime. Source: Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 9, 1985 ed., pp. 82-85.on the other side, dictatorshi a gethat may be thus Siutneniens its weak tdestroys liberties of the indivi SI + Homes an end iniself and the huang jts means. The dictator sacrifices the b a freedoms of the people at the altar of an all werful state. of an all- it dwarfs personality of th ivi : a don is outlawed and ite pee ae "i ple are commanded to live and act like deaf and dumb-driven animals. The power of initiative is stifled and the individual pecomes like a cog in the wheel of th machine of the state. fl 4, Itstands for the glorification of force, rather prute force. Ruthless attitude of the rulers towards their opponents is idealised. All dissident elements are crushed by means of violence, force and fraud and curiously all such ways are adulated. 4, It makes the people politically indifferent or apathetic. They do not like to take part in public affairs because of the terror that stalks the whole land. The dull and deadening uniformity imposed by the dictator Kills the mental and the spiritual life of the people. . It stands for imperialism. The dictator desires to expand his empire so as ‘to make his name on the pages of history like a lion with his claws’. (Mussolini) All pacific ‘means of settlement of disputes are given up and the government frankly takes to the course of armed confrontations and conflicts. The dictator openly justifies the course of war. 6. Itis the enemy of internationalism. It does not believe in the equality of all nations. By sticking to the policy of ‘autarchy’ it follows the course of economic isolationism. It has no faith in the working of an international 25. Gate op. cit p 207 27. Gamer says that the Russian Soviet s) fn the representative principle, but Tt was confessedly a dictat even organisation like the League of Nations oF the United Nations. 7. Above all, it is an unstable form of government, It Jasts so long, as the dictator wields a strong sword. The dissident elements secretly prepare for a revolution. ‘They remain underground and, when the time comes, a coup is made to overthrow the regime of the dictator. The result is either the replacement of one dictatorship by another, or the emergence of a democratic system. Thus, dictatorship is an unstable form of government. No doubt, dictatorship is a curse, yet it is adulated by a number of leaders and writers in the name of giving a prompt, efficient and powerful administration. “The world today is seriously divided between those who believe in individual freedom and popular control and those who believe in an all-powerful state, a one-party government, and a dominant leader.’ Democracy Meaning: Democracy is now the most popular form of government, though it is as old as the Greeks. The peculiar thing about democracy is that itisa form of state, a form of government, a form of society, and, above all, an ethical idea or a way of life. In the first place, as a form of state, democracy prevails where people are powerful or the sovereign authority is vested in the people. In case the constitution declares residence of sovereignty in the people and ensures the boons of liberty and equality, it becomes a democratic state irrespective of the fact thatthe form of government may, ormay not, be democratic. This is a peculiar interpretation whereby a country like the USSR was described as a democratic state with an undemocratic government.” Such a distinction may be made tem was a good example of a government which claimed to be based i accordi ing to the admission of its leaders was not democratic. Prep of the proletariat. op. cit, p- 316 m. 2380) topes ot Made Piel Seem) on theoretical grounds; practically speaking, a democratic state implies a democratic government that acts according to the will of the people. The government is constituted by the people and is accountable to them. Democracy as a way of life has its own significance in the realm of sociology. A society is democratic if it stands on the pillars of liberty and equality. There are no social distinctions making a particular part of the community high or low in relation to other parts; the worth and ) dignity of the individual are recognised; people understand the nexus between their rights and duties and very carefully try to maintain it; violence and extremism are avoided and differences are resolved through peaceful and constitutional means. Thus, Bryce could visualise that in some advanced countries like the United States, Britain, Canada and Australia the terms ‘democracy and ‘democratic’ “have acquired attractive associations of a social and, indeed, almost a moral character.” In his view, “a democratic person is one who is friendly, genial or a good mixer, regardless of his wealth or social status.” However, what has engaged general attention is the meaning of democracy as a form of government. Since it is a combination of two Greek words ‘demos’ (people) and ‘kratia’ (rule), itimplies the rule of the people. Thus, the great Greek leader Pericles could define it as ‘a government in which people are powerful’. Aristotle defined it as ‘the rule of many’” In modern times, its best manifestation can be seen in the Gettysberg oration of President Lincoln of the United States that concluded with designating it as ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’. An English writer Seeley defined it as ‘a government in which everyone has a share.” To Dicey, itis q form of government in which the governin, body is a comparatively large fraction of the entire nation.” Bryce affirms that since the time of Herodotus the word ‘democracy’ has been, used to denote that form of government “in which the ruling power of a state is largely vested, not in any particular class or classes, but in the members of the community as a whole.” Kinds: If democracy means a government in which political power is vested in the people, a question arises as to how it is exercised. From this standpoint, democracy has two forms~ direct or pure and indirect or representative. In the former form, democracy means a government in which the residence as well as exercise of power is in the hands of a large and powerful section of the people like the freemen in Athens and the patricians in Rome. Manifestly democracy in its pure type is practicable only in very small and relatively undeveloped communities where it is physically possible for the articulate section of the community to assemble at a public place and deliberate and decide public affairs. This form prevailed in ancient city-states, but today its form may be seen in five very small cantons (provinces) of Switzerland where the voters meet in ‘open-air parliament’ (Iandsgemeinde) for the purpose of electing their public officers, voting taxes, and adopting legislative and administrative regulations.® Thus, Gamer says: “A pure democracy, so called, is one in which the will of the state is formulated or expressed directly and immediately through the people in mass meeting or primary assembly, rather than through the medium of delegates or Tepresentatives chosen to act for them.” 28. Bryce: Modern Democracies, Vol. 1, p. 23. 29. Aristotle: Politics, Book Ill, Sec. 8. 30. John Seeley: Introduction to Political Science, p. 324 31. Dicey: Law and Opinion in England, p. 350. 32. Bryce, op. cit, p. 20. 33, These 34. Garner, op. cit., pp. 314-15. cantons are Appenzell, Uri, Glarus, Unterwalden (Upper), and Unterwalden (Lower). vy ees &js true that direct democrat; ancient Athenian or Roman eo of eval in modern country-states, cannot Pr gations of direct democracy have came in moder Ses, ee are: up itiative: The device of initiati switzerland at the national Prevails cantonal levels. It means power ¥eU® hands of a specified number of cid the separe a bill or a resolution and then ask their government to make a law on fen int. In the case of national legislate such a resolution must be signed by «; YY at least 100,000 voters. Thus, initiative “is an arrangement whereby a specified number of voters may prepare the draft of a law and may then demand that it either be adopted by the legislature or referred to the people for acceptance at a general or special election. If approved by the required majority, it then becomes a law.” 2, Referendum: It also prevails in Switzerland whereby an important bill passed by the legislature must be put to the voters for final ratification. In case it is adopted by the majority, it becomes a law. Thus, the veto power is in the hands of the voters. In this way, the will of the legislature is subservient to the will of the people. “Thus, while initiative is the sword, referendum is the shield of democracy in Switzerland. In a word, they exhibit the uncontested and direct sovereignty of the people.” The constitutions of other countries like France and Australia also provide for referendum in case of bills of constitutional amendment. 3. Plebiscite: As a synonym of ‘referendum’, it means that any important issue that cannot be solved by the government for some reason should be decided by the votes SiGe ee .B. Munro: The Governments of Europe, P. 3%: AV. Dicey: An Introduction to the Study of the Ford: Representative Government, p- 3 746. of the people. Let the decision of the people be final. Obviously, it is a device of direct democracy. History has many instances when ticklish questions could be settled by means of a plebsicite. For instance, plebiscite was held in 1935 whereby Saar area was given back to Germany. 4. Recall: It means that the voters have a right to call back their elected representative in case they are not satisfied with his role or behaviour and then elect someone else instead. The system of recall was provided in the electoral law of the USSR. It prevails in some States of America ‘A new kind of democracy has come up after the English Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789, in particular. It means that while the political power should be vested in the people, its exercise should be given to the representatives chosen by and accountable to the people. Thus, it is also known as representative democracy, what J.S. Mill calls ‘representative government’. In such a system, the will of the state is formulated and expressed through the agency of a relatively small and select body of persons chosen by the people to act as their representatives. It is based on the idea that while the people cannot be actually present in person at the seat of government, they “are considered to be present by proxy.’” Obviously, this kind of democracy resembles its pure form in the sense that political power remains vested in the people, but the two differ in respect of its exercise. “Like the pure type of democracy, it attributes the ultimate source of authority to the people, but it differs from pure democracy in that it is constituted on the principle that the people are incapable of exercising in a satisfactory manner that authority directly themselves. In short, it rests Law of the Constitution, p. 608upon the distinction between the possession of sovereignty and the exercise of it.’ Indirect or representative democracy has some essential features that may be enumerated as under keeping in view the fact that their existence and operation differ from one country to another in varying degrees: 1. Universal Adult Suffrage: The first and foremost requirement of indirect democracy is that all adults of the state should have right to vote. The minimum age of a voter may be anything like 21 years as in France, 20 years as in Japan, 18 years as in Britain, USA, Australia and India. There should be no artificial restrictions in matters of suffrage based on the factors of religion, caste, wealth, sex, colour of the skin, language, domicile and the like. It is, however, a different matter that a very negligible section of the people may be deprived of the privilege of franchise on the grounds of lunacy, undischarged insolvency, heinous crimes and the like. 2. Free, Fair and Periodic Elections: Then, 38, Garner, op. cit., 39. elections should take place from time to time so that the voters may choose and change their representatives. It is necessary that the elections should be free from corruption or rigging of any kind. Let the voters vote in a free and frank manner so as to register their will in the battle of the ballot box. And it is equally necessary that the elections should be contested periodically as after every four or five years. In case the holding of elections is delayed for very long durations without any reasonable cause, it amounts to the negation of a democratic system. Role of Parties and Interest Groups: There should be a number of political parties and interest groups in the country to take part in the political process. They may form a healthy public will or opinion. The power should alternate between these parties and groups so that it may not be monopolised by a particular section of the people as happens in a fascist or in a communist country. 4, Freedom of the Press and Mass Media: It is also necessary that all channels of information should be open so that people may have a correct ‘image’ of the news and views about great matters of public concer, The freedom of the press is, therefore, an essential requirement of a democratic system. So other mass communication agencies like broadcasting and telecasting should be free to play their part in the making of the public opinion. 5. Independence of Judiciary: Above all, the courts should be free to decide matters according to the law of the land. There should be no coercion or compulsion over the judges in matter of adjudication. Their selection should be made on the basis of merit; they should get promotions on the basis of seniority as well as efficiency; their tenure should be fixed; their emoluments should be attractive; the mode of their removal on some charge should be tedious; they should not be allowed to maintain public contacts. These measures are required to maintain the independence of judiciary that has its own role to play in the maintenance of a democratic system. Garner has enumerated these essentials of a representative or democratic government.” p. 316. In his paper titled ‘British Constitution’, Lord Brougham says: “We mean by representative government one in which the body of the people either in whole or in considerable proportion of whole, elect their deputies to a chamber of their own.” Works, Vol. XI, p. 89. So George Comewall Lewis says: “A government is representative when a certain portion of the community, generally consisting «ither of all the males or a part of them determined according to some qualification of property, residence, or other accident have the right of voting at certain intervals of time for the election of particular members of the sovereign legislative body.” Use and Abuse of Political Terms, p. 107. Gamer, op. cit, pp. 317-19.RE a Rrosiae yn ee eere mame araRMaNE 1, Strictly speaking, a representative government is one whose officials and agents are chosen by an electorate democratically constituted, who during their tenure of power reflect the will of the electorate, and who are subject to an enforceable popular responsibility. 2, The head of the state may, or may not, be elected by the people (like monarch in Britain), or the head of the state may be elected by the people but his ministers may not be chosen by the people (as in USA), or even the judges may be elected by the people (asina communist country), popular usage considers a representative government to be one in which the legislative branch at least is popularly elected. ‘The selection of the executive functionaries and judicial magistrates by the head of the state or by some independent and autonomous authority is not inconsistent with the principle of representative government. Franchise may also be restricted in a way depriving a section of the people, or even both the houses of the national legislature may be constituted by direct election. What is really required is that the representatives chosen by the people should be the real executors of the will of the people. Representative government in the sense of government by functionaries all of whom are chosen by an unrestricted electorate, aside possibly form small and undeveloped communities, would be almost as impossible as the system of democracy itself. In short, a representative government is one that establishes, what A.V. Dicey calls, the ‘rule of law’. It guarantees essential liberties to the people and also honours the principle of equality of mankind. Itis a ‘limited government’ » 40. Wilson: The Elements of Modern Politics, pp. 210-13. bound by the principle of the ‘separation of powers’. Thus, according to F.G. Wilson, its essential requirements are (i) a constitution specifying the rules of the composition and working of the government, (ii) constitutionalism implying the rule of laws and not of men, (iii) a declaration of the fundamental rights of the people, and (iv) a democratic structure of government.” Criticism: A very large number of writers have expressed their views to laud democracy as the best possible form of government man has been able to design for himself; at the same time, there is no dearth of critics who have denounced it in equally strong terms. First, we shall look into the merits of democracy. These are: 1. Democracy is the best form of government for the reason that it ensures popular participation. It is the only government that stands on the will of the people and stimulates them to take part in the political affairs of the country. The people choose their representatives and force them to act according to their will, The rulers act with a sense of responsibility towards their elections. They cannot ignore the weight of public opinion. Thus, the leaders have their rise and fall according to the winds of public mind. It cannot occur in any other form of government like monarchy, aristocracy or dictatorship. So Garner says that “popular election, popular control, and popular responsibility are more likely to ensure a greater degree of efficiency than any other system of government.” 2. The case of democracy can be defended from a psychological point of view. Since the people have power and they make use of it not only through their representatives but also through numerous parties and 41. Gamer, op. Git, p 390, “A government of the people must, accordingly, mean a government by discussion land critigem-diteussion of competing ideas ‘leading to a compromise in which all the ideas are reconciled ‘and which can be accepted by all, because it bears the imprint of all.” p. 36. E, Barker: Reflections on Government,"@ groups, they have a feeling of satisfaction. They donot think in terms of a revolutionary or bloody agitation the kind of which may be seen in the smouldering resentment of the people towards their king or dictator. ‘They may wait for the elections, and then easily change their rulers. “Popular governments, resting as they go on the consent of the governed and upon the principle of equality, are also likely to be more immune from revolutionary disturbances than those in which the people have no right of participation. Thus, A de Tocqueville remarked that almost all revolutions which have changed the face of the world have had for their purpose the destruction of inequality.” 3. The case of democracy should also be appreciated from the educational point of view. Every form of government gives some kind of political education and training to its people. But its best manifestation can be seen in a democratic system. The holding of elections, the working of the legislature, the role of parties and groups, the opposition of the people in the form of strikes and demonstrations and the like impart a good deal of political education to the people. The people are inspired to understand the implications of terms like rule of law, accountability of the rulers, motions of impeachment and no-confidence, enforcement of judicial decisions for the protection of fundamental rights, etc. In this way, democracy becomes a system of self-education for the people of the country. Gettell puts it in these words: “The strongest arguments in favour of democracy rest upon. its value in developing and elevating the masses of the people, in stimulating their interest in public affairs, and strengthening, their loyalty and trust in a government in, which they take active part. Democracy thus serves as a training school for citizenship; it strengthens love of country.” ‘The case of democracy is strongly defendeg ‘on moral grounds as well. It is said that democracy makes the character of the people noble. It inculcates in them the feelings of hard work and enterprise, it sharpens their sense of responsibility and patriotism. It makes them self-reliant and enthuses them to undertake big projects for the development of the country. Lowell says that democracy nurtures a people strong in moral fibre, in integrity, in industry, in self- reliance, and in courage. Mill lays great stress upon the influence of democracy in elevating the character and political intelligence of the people in general. As he says: “The most important point of excellence which any form of government can possess is to promote the virtue and intelligence of the people themselves, and the first consideration in judging the merits of a particular form of government is how far they tend to foster intellectual and moral qualities in the citizens.” Above all, democracy is the only form of government that acts in a self-correcting manner. The formula of trial and error has its operation here. The government commits many acts of commission and ommission and the process of self-correction is at work simultaneously. People know that they are the real rulers of the country; they choose their rulers and when they desire to change the government, they can do it without destroying the constitutional system. As a machinery can be repaired by replacing its defective part, so the government can be corrected by replacement of a particular 42. Garner, op. cit, p. 392. According to Gettell, one of the great merits of democracy is that it minimises the dangers of discontent and revolution. Popular intelligence and virtue are its most valuable assets.” Op. city p. 221. 43. Gettell, op. cit,, pp. 200-201. 44, Mill: Considerations on Representative Government, pp. 27-29.ee EE an like the chief adj pad of legislator. Keeping ale the indian writer says that democracy has a way of correcting its errors which ig not gpen to alternative forms of government. In tase of gt0SS abuses, public opinion ofte asserts itself and sets matters rights.” : On the contrary, the system of democrat een denounced for various reasons, aristotle described it as ‘the degenerated form of polity’: Talleyrand defined it as ‘aristocracy gfblackguards’; Carlyle sneeringly referred to the people as ‘a certain number of millions ‘nostly fools’; Ludovici said that ‘democracy means death, while aristocracy means life’; Maine found it greatly ‘fragile’ making all forms of government insecure; Barker discovered the weakness of democracy in the ‘role of few manipulators’; Giddings could trace the two serious dangers of democracy in ‘unbridled emotionalism’ leading to the occurrence of violence and ‘absolutism of the multitude’ that tramples all rights of the minorities’ The main points of attack on democracy may be enumerated as under: 1. Ademocratic system works on the basis of quantity; it ignores the side of quality. All decisions are taken by the majority that, as the critics say, consists of ‘fools’. The sycophants, the clappers, and the hand- raisers have an upper hand over those who think and speak in the real interest of the people. Thus, merit and wisdom weep unknown. It is for this reason that Plato 45. Beni Prasad: ABC of Civics, pp. 100-101. 46. Among other leading critics of democracy, system with its mistakes and exaggerations, work and leadership during times of crisis partiality, corruption and inefficiency, deficiency, mediocrity and mistakes of Lord Bryce enumerates 7 during times of emergency, (ii) fickleness in the conduct of affairs and in executive of authority, with a frequent resort to violence to level down and an intolerance of greatness, (v) tyranny or passion for changing customs and subjugated ver and Aristotle condemned democracy. Modern critics like Lecky and Maine stress the point that democracy means rule of the majority. It entails suppression of the voice of those who are intellectually and morally superior to those who constitute ‘manipulated’ majorities. The principle of ‘one person, one vote’ is wrong in view of the fact that all persons can never be of equal worth. Thus, a defender of the privileges of the British peers like Lecky condemns democracy as “the government by the poorest, the most ignorant, the most incapable, who are necessarily the numerous.” Politics becomes a profession in a democratic system with the result that crafty leaders excite popular passions to serve their nefarious purposes. Innocent people are hoodwinked by the demagogues; agitations become the order of the day: Numerous groups take part in political affairs as a result of which politics becomes like a tug-of-war between conflicting interests. The net result of all this is that public peace remains disturbed and prevalence of chaotic conditions becomes the order of the day. Government loses its stability and revolutions become a matter of frequent occurrence. In other words, a democratic system is always subject to popular upheavals that makes its existence greatly fragile or ephemeral. So Sir Henry Maine argues: “Popular governments have we may refer to Benes who offers 4 points (i) excess of the party (ji) the slowness and the inefficiency of democratic methods of ‘and at moments when quick decisions are necessary; (fii) the ry often to the exaggerated party spirit, and (iv) the democratic bodies. Democracy: Today and Tomorrow, pp. 56-61 ‘weaknesses of democracy as (j) incapacity to act with promptness and decision ‘and instability, frequent changes of opinions, consequent changes ficials, (ii) insubordination, internal dissensions, disregard of leading to an anarchy which ends in military rule, (iv) a desire of the majority over the minority, (vi) love of novelty destroying institutions, and (vii) ignorance and folly producing a lability to be deceived and misled; consequent growth of demagogues playing on the passions ‘and selfishness of the masses. American Commonwealth, Vol. Il, pp. 603-21. 47. WEHL Lecky: Democracy and Liberty, Vol. 1, p. 381$36) ine of Modem Poteal SHeRe6/ TEAR, been repeatedly overturned by mobs and armies in combination; of all governments they seem least likely to cope successfully with the greatest of all irreconciliables, the nationalists; they imply a breaking up of the political power into morsels and the giving to each person an infinitesimally- small portion; they rest upon universal suffrage, which is the natural basis of tyranny; they are unfavourable to intellectual progress and the advance of scientific truth; they lack stability; and they are governments by the ignorant and the unintelligent.” 3. Democracy is a very expensive form of government. A lot of national wealth is squandered on lengthy discussions. It is a luxury for the rich people. We may take note of the fact that millions are spent on the sessions of the national legislature and, in fact, very little useful comes out of that. Carlye thus debunked the parliament as a “talking shop’ and Gandhiji decried it as a ‘sterile woman’. Much amount of money is spent on duplication and triplication of work. Enormous wealth is spent on elections and propaganda work. A dictator like Mussolini could, therefore, correctly say that “democracy is not suited to a poor country.” 4, Ina rich country like the United States, democracy is degenerated into plutocracy or the perverted rule of the wealthy persons. Politics becomes a brisk profession for those who can spend a lot and thereby manage to secure what they desire. It is said that the entire wealth of the United States ig concentrated in nine families and the of of the President may be captured by ong who belongs to one of them. Lobbying is good business, but it is money that runs the institution of lobbying. Elections are gigantic fraud, because the rich manage to get votes of the poor and thereby enter into the portals of power. By the power of m political favours are grabbed. Prof. Barker is, therefore, not wrong when he says that “the cost of democracy in loss of efficie: is enormous, and when all is said and done, it means the rule of the few manipulators who can collect suffrages in their own favour with the greatest success." A critical student of American democracy like Walter E. Weyl frankly described it as ‘corrupt plutocracy’® A democratic system brings about instability in the sphere of legislation and administration. The rulers change very quickly and every leader tries to run the administration according to his choice. The personal interest of the leader or his group is exhibited as the national interest. Laws are enacted or changed, policies are adopted, appointments are made, and all important decisions are taken to suit the purpose of the leaders in power. It is due to this that many writers “have pointed out the difficulty of carrying out a consistent policy over a period of years under a democratic system. The frequent changes in administration and in policy resulting from the overthrow of the party in power 48. Maine: Popular Government, Chapter 1. He frankly expressed the view that the government of a benevolent despot was preferable to that of a democracy. Ibid, p. 83. Democracy has failed to secure a good government, because it has failed to attract the best brains of the community in its service. Carlyle condemned it, because the noble silent men who could best serve it were ignored in favour of ‘wind-bags and charlatans’. That is why, Hartmann described democracy as the paradise of the sheicker, babbler, word spinner, flatterer and tuft hunter. Godkin explai even goes further in his argument when demagogues, the magic oil of the flatterer, part have neither at the Cross-Roads, pp. 53-68. 49. Barker: Political Thought in England, (1848-1914) p. 172. 50. Weyl: The New Democracy, Chapter 7. ined it as delegating sovereignty to the demagogue, the grafter and the ‘boss’. JC. Blackie he asserts that even left free from the spur of the ambitious and the glamour of the political dreamer, the people for the most the will nor the power to find out the best men to lead them. F.C. Hearnshaw: Democracyee itesarmmmnenenes B it difficult t make it 0 secure continy is: political PUrPOSe or to plan for tis of Pris weakness is considers “ture. Fangerous in foreign affaine 4 SPECally ‘the working of a democratic 5 many serious defects as loss ibility in the rulers wupism and factionalisin, diseq Be spoils, political’ stun of ipulations of io pton, manip’ ' party politics, more of show and very little of a reali oe diture of ty, wasteful Propaganda work, loot of rational wealth, suppression’ of ty minorities, No respect to the men of talent and merit, primacy to local considerations over national interest, violence of the ‘mob, etc. A keen and conscientious student of democracy like Lord Bryce on the basis of his own experiences of Western democracies enumerates six main defects of this system—the influence of money in perverting legislation and administration, the tendency to make possible a trade or profession, extravagance in administration, distortion of the doctrine of equality and the failure to appreciate the value of administrative skill, undue power of party organisations, and tendency of legislators and public officials to bargain for votes in the passing of laws and in tolerating breaches of order. However, a look at the demerits of democracy should not become a source of discouragement. Every government has its points of strength and weakness, so is the case with democracy. But the apologists of democracy have their strong points to justify system reveals of the sense of and bureaucrats, 51. Gettell, op. cit., p. 203. 52. Bryce: Madern Democracies, system. 1, The process of democratic discussion almost impossible, 2. That mass of electors but the remedy proposed is that only one Democracy a Failure? pp. 14-20. 53. Burns: Democracy, p. 80. 54. Laski: An Introduction to Politics, p. 48 55. Sidgwick: Elements of Politics, p- 608: 56. Laski: A Grammar of Politics, p- 17. Vol. Il, pp. 154-55. Ramsay ee je slow and uncertain that prompt and decisive action is se quite incapable of understanding the immensely complicated i = ot etgeir dectsion. 3. The party strife teas asunder the unity ofthe nation, Geiene whe ae party should dominate and the others should be suppressed. Is the excellence of this system alone. Lord Bryce Puts a pertinent question as to which form of government is better than democracy. C:D- Burns says: “No one denies that existing Tepresentative assemblies are defective; but even if an automobile does not work well, itis foolish to go back into a farm cart, however, romantic. So says Laski: “For democracy, with all its weaknesses, enables the widest body of demand to be taken into account in shaping the legal imperatives of a state. It makes criticism of their operation the basis of their life. It increases initiative by widening the sense of responsibility. It gives the citizen not merely the sense of sharing in decision, but the actual opportunity to influence its substance. Granted, as experience seems to suggest that a democratic system is bound to work more slowly than its alternative, simply because the variety of wills it encounters is so much greater, there is no other system which has the same merit of meeting, as an institutional scheme the theoretical end that the state must serve." Future and Conditions of Successful Working It is now universally acclaimed that democracy is the best form of government and though it has some defects, they may be removed in course of time. It is better to bear with the defects of democracy than to replace it by any form of authoritarian system like fascism or communism. Dictatorship is no substitute of democracy. Sidgwick’s comment is laudable that democracy is now a widely and enthusiastically accepted political ideal.’ Laski’s remark is equally significant that ‘people who have once tasted power will never surrender it. We are free to criticise democracy ‘Muir states three reasons for the failure of a democraticips mcr seen TET A ANT as much as we may, but, as Bathelemy remarks, it is as vain to criticise the course of the seasons or the laws of attraction of the stars. “Whatever may be the weaknesses of democracy, and they undoubtedly exist, it seems destined to become universal. In fact, it has already nearly become such.”7 Taking for granted that democracy alone is, the good form of government and also taking into account that it has some defects that may either be removed or bore with, it may be suggested that democracy requires certain prerequisites or conditions for its successful working. According to Mill, the three prerequisites of democracy are that the people should be willing to receive it, that they should be willing and able to do what is necessary for its preservation, and that they should be willing and able to fulfil the duties and discharge the functions which it imposes. Another eminent English writer Walter Bagehot throws light on these conditions: 1. Democracy requires something more than intelligence and virtue. The people, though they may be divided in parties, must fulfil fundamentally one or major objects of governmental activity and must not be bent ‘on conflicts and antagonisms. 2. No class should be permanently excluded from power so that it may feel disgruntled and always remain grumbling. Each must share in the advantages of common existence. 3. The nation must exhibit habits of tolerance and compromise. ts various elements must try to understand each other and appreciate each other's viewpoint. If they do not do that, disruption must be the result. 4, The people must have a sense of deference whether it is to the person of the monarch or to the constitution. The people must not be much influenced by the vulgar, that is the ignorant, masses 57. Gamer, op. cit. p. 58. GN. Singh: Fundamentals of Political Science and Organisation, pp. 166-69. for this means supremacy of ignorance ove, instruction, of numbers over knowledge, ‘A noted Indian writer enumerates these prerequisites so that democracy may work successfully:* 1 First of all, it is necessary for the proper functioning of democracy that there should not be huge inequalities of wealth among the people. 2. Democracy means rule in accordance with public opinion. It is, therefore, essential that the people should not be so divided among themselves as to make the formation of a ‘common’ public opinion impossible, 3. The successful working of democracy depends upon the intelligence, interest, public spirit, and civic sense of its citizens. 4. The masses should be free to some extent from the cares of the minimum basic requirements, so that they can dispassionately take interest in public affairs. 5. Democracy can flourish only in an atmosphere of peace. War, threat of war, atmosphere of secrecy, unquestioning obedience to orders, and internal disturbances weaken the foundations of democracy. 6. There are certain qualities and attitudes which people should inculcate and develop if they want to make democracy a success. They should be animated with the longing for self-government, and they should be determined not to tolerate living under any other form of government. 7. The people must also learn to rise above considerations of caste, class, religion, creed, etc. in public affairs and inculcate the habit of looking at questions from the larger standpoint of the interests of the people as a whole. 8. Above all, the people should be honest, oe and incorruptible. Democracyeee confers on the people lar jmposes = upon ee aes) = responsibilities. erous ‘As a matter of fact, different wri paid stress 0" different points in the cae) poi conditions for the successful workin of 2 democratic system. Though critics a Semocracy, like Lecky and Maine have Goggested the existence of a ‘written iitution’ to keep the rule of the many within founds; Laveleye and Mill have laid stress on ‘elementary education of the people; Bryce has Jaid all emphasis on the ‘moral and intellectual ogress of mankind.” In the words of Garner: pis hardly necessary to say that perhaps the most fundamental of all conditions to the successful working of democratic government js that the people who work it shall possess a relatively high degree of political intelligence, an abiding interest in public affairs, a keen sense of public responsibility, and a readiness fo accept and abide by the decisions of the majority. The majority in turn must be willing to recognise that strong minorities have rights which are entitled to respect and cannot be disregarded without violating one the fundamental principles of popular government. The distressing indifference of the electors in many countries is undoubtedly a danger fo democracy.”* Federal Government After discussing the governments, we now pass On to their subsidiary forms where the bases of dlassification are different. In view of the point of concentration versus distribution of powers, governments may be either unitary OF federal, though some writers have coined a new term ‘quasi-federal’ so as to describe a federal system. in which the position of the central government is very strong and correspondingly the Post ion broad forms of 59. Gamer, op. ct, pp. 408-06 60, Eran: "Rederaim’ in David Sis (#4 International 5-6, p. 358. 61. KC. Wheare defines it as the method z tack Win a sphere cooecinets aed !VSEPRNSS! of the units is very weak. Then, keeping in view the relationship between the legislative and the executive organs, two more forms of government may be suggested. In case the executive is combined with the legislature and is held accountable to it, itis parliamentary government; in case the executive and legislature are separate ongans of the government and the executive enjoys a tenure independent of the will of the legislature, itis presidential government. New developments have occurred in recent times Which tan be noted in the existence of a quasi- presidential form of government (as in France and Sri Lanka) which represents curious mixture of the two forms of government, We may now discuss these four forms of government beginning with @ federal government that has its existence in many countries of the world like USA, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Russia, Germany, India, Nigeria, South Africa etc. Meaning: A federal system, according to Daniel J. Elazara, provides a mechanism which ‘anites separate polities with an overarching political system s0 as to allow each to maintain jts fundamental political integrity.” This mechanism is constituted by the distribution of powers between two governments, general and constituent, in a way designed to protect the existence and area of authority of both which, according to the traditional norms, are considered to be coordinate governments.’ Garner says: “Federal government, as contradistinguished from a unitary government, is a system in which the totality of governmental power is divided and distributed by the national constitution, or the organic act of parliament creating it, between a central government and the government of the individual states, or other territorial subdivisions of which the federation is composed. These latter governments are not the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, New York, 1968, Vols. of dividing powers so thatthe regional and general governments are Federal Government, p. 10.SD reap ders Poteaisuead 2PM LAMAR ay creations of a central government of the union; in most federal systems the reverse is the case; that is, the central government has been created by the constituent members through the act of federation; they are something more than parts, or agents of the Central Government but by the general constitution of the federation, or as in the British Dominions, by an act of the imperial parliament which serves the purpose of a constitution. Consequently they do not exist by the sufferance of the Central Government, nor may their competence be restricted by it.” Obviously, a federal system is a dual set of government. While the central or federal government is charged with the administration of affairs of national importance, matters of regional or local importance are given to the governments of the units variously known as states in USA and India, provinces as in Canada, cantons as in Switzerland. Both the governments are coordinate in relation to each other. The governments of the units should not be taken as subordinate governments, nor do they have the power of making foreign treaties, declaring war and peace, issuing currency, keeping armies and, above all, leaving the union as per their will. Thus, a federal system is distinguishable from a confederal model. In a federal system the union is indissoluble or indestructible and, as such, the units have no right to leave it.# That is, in a federation there “ig a permanent surrender on the part of the 62. Gamer, op. cit p- 348 constituent communities their right to act independently of each other in matters that touch the common interests, and the consequent fusion of these communities, in respect of these matters, into a single state. As regards other states, they have merged their individuality into one national whole; the lines which separate them are none of them on the outside but all on the inside.”* A federal system has three important features: 1. There should be a written constitution as the supreme law of the land from which both the central and regional governments derive their authority. It is also needed that the mode of amending the constitution should be difficult so that neither the central government nor the governments of the units may change it according to their convenience and thereby play with the federal framework of the country. That is, the constitution should be rigid. 2, There should be distribution of powers between the centre and the units. All items of national importance (like war and peace, foreign relations, currency and coinage, post and telegraph, atomic energy, etc.) should be given to the centre; items of local or regional importance (like police, jails, subordinate courts, local government, sanitation, lighting, transport, etc.) should be entrusted to the governments of the units. 63. According to Stephen Leacock, a confederacy is not a single state. It is a collection of independent sovereign bodies united on stated terms for certain purposes. Each of them is legally free to withdraw from this confederacy when it pleases. A confederacy cannot, therefore, be permanent and indissoluble, for if it were 0, then the sovereignty of the component states would disappear. A federal state is a single state. Its subordinate parts may have been, though not of necessity, sovereign states previous to the union; they cannot bbe s0 after the formation of the federation. Such a union becomes, legally indissoluble as far as the action of the separate state governments or of the central government is concemed ... In a confederacy each state is still a sovereign state and it can secede at its will.” Elements of Politics, pp. 227-28. History shows many examples of the formation of a confederation. For instance, in ancient Greece there were ‘Achaen League, Lycian Confederation and Confederacy of Delos. In middle ages there was the Hanseatic League. In modern times came into being the German Confederation of 1815-67 and the American Confederation of 1781-89. The constitution of the United States framed in 1787 declares USA a confederation, but it is not so in the strict sense of the term; so the constitution of Switzerland of 1874 declares her 4 confederation which again is a federation. The USSR was also a federal state, no matter just for the sake of giving recognition to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, the units had been given the right to leave the Union in the name of their right to self-determination. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) having 12 sovereign states (former republics of the USSR) established in 1992 is its example. 65. FG. Wilson: The State, p. 545.