PSIR Optional (Understanding Political Theories) by Viraj Rane

Model Answer

Question #1. What position does property, as concept, hold in political theory? 10 marks (150 words)

Approach:

• Intro: General theory of right; highly contested issue.
• Body: Perspective of different schools of thought with emphasis on Marxist school.
• Conclusion: In modern day the right to property is a recognised right.

Right to poverty is derived from general theory of rights. It remains to be a contested issue with different schools of thought taking divergent views. While the liberals support the right to property, Marxists see is as the root cause for all the problems. In modern political theory, the right to property has been analysed through liberal, social democrat and Marxist perspectives. 

Liberal perspective on property is based on the philosophy of liberalism which regards right to property as an essential ingredient of man’s liberty. According to Hobbes, state was created for the security of man’s life and property. Locke held that man’s right to property was a fundamental natural right and the state was created to protect it. Rousseau described the security of property as an essential element of civil liberty provided by the state. But this view has been criticised. J.S. Mill who initially made a strong plea for the security of property, later argued that the right to property was not absolute or sacrosanct, and went to the extent of advocating considerable restriction on the rights of inheritance and bequest. Modern liberals like T.H.  Green considered right to property as an important instrument for exercising moral freedom.  But he held that when an unrestrained right to property creates conditions under which some men take an unduly large share and others are prevented from acquiring requisite property as a means of their 'self-realization.  

Social-democratic perspective on property seeks to maintain the right to property on such conditions that serve the purpose of socialism as well as democracy. While socialist principle requires that means of social production should be placed in social ownership and control to make them serve social purpose, democratic principle stipulates the security of individual’s property as an essential ingredient of his freedom. Synthesis of these two principles is difficult to achieve. The obvious course of this synthesis would be to allow individual ownership of property under such regulations that it is largely used to serve social purpose. This perspective is best represented in the political thought of L.T. Hobhouse, R.H. Tawney and Harold J. Laski.  Laski argued that the right to property should be correlated to the function performed by its owner, that is the service rendered to the state, or the contribution made to the common welfare. 

Marxist Perspective 

Marxist theory views 'private property' not as a right of the individual, but as a condition which determines relations of production according to the stage of historical development. Private property, like the state, has not existed from eternity, not to speak of property as a natural right.  The origin of private property arose from the beginning of exploitation in society. The state was created by the class of property-owners for the protection of its private property. It is, therefore, an instrument of exploitation of the dependent class which does not own property. On the Jewish Question (1844), Marx argues that the constitution of modern representative states is, in reality, the 'constitution of private property'. Modem society is characterized by the real domination of private property. Marxist theory on property is perhaps the most radical one.  Property is seen as a mean to alienation, exploitation and according to them this can end only with abolition of private property. The central theme of Marxist theory proposes that any form of property should not be allowed to become an instrument of exploitation and control over lives of others.

Conclusion: While Marxist school takes the most radical view of property, the other schools accept the legitimate right to hold property. In the present day by and large the right to property is a recognised right. In India the right to property is a constitutional right with no discrimination between the genders in acquisition or inheritance.

Question #2. How has evolution of Political Theory being assisted by the Chicago School. 15 marks (250 words)

Approach:

• Intro: Role played by Chicago school in forwarding the behavioural approach.
• Body: Works of Merriam, Harold Gosnell and criticism by David Easton and Leo Strauss.
• Conclusion: Gabriel almonds claim and counter views.

The Chicago School of Political Science, which emerged at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, is widely known for its re-conception of the study of politics as a scientific endeavour on the model of the natural sciences. Led by Charles Merriam, also famous as the founder of the Chicago School and two key colleagues, Harold Gosnell and Harold Lasswell, was instrumental in shifting the study of politics away from a reliance on historical and constitutional approaches and toward the more systematic and objective testing of political propositions through empirical data. Their enduring legacy having laid the groundwork for the growth of behavioural political science.

Merriam criticized contemporary political science for its lack of scientific rigour. He called for renewed scientific endeavour and emphasized the need for a 'policy science' by using quantitative techniques already developed in the fields of psychology and sociology. An important empirical work of the Chicago school was Merriam and Harold F. Gosnell’s Non-voting, Causes and Methods of Control (1924), which used sampling methods and survey data and is illustrative of the type of research that came to dominate political science after World War II.

The criticism to the Chicago school came from Leo Strauss and David Easton who were also the members of Chicago school of politics. While Leo Strauss rejected the science of politics, David Easton addressed the lacunas in Behaviouralism by proposing the post behavioural approach.

Conclusion:

Although Gabriel Almond says that Chicago school has been forgotten in contemporary political science, it was an iconoclastic movement which defied the hegemony of the then existing approaches and challenged political scientists to explore various kinds of scientific inquiry. The Chicago school is very much alive; it exists in the post behavioural thought and the rational choice theory which challenged the behavioural approach. It also exists in the perestroika which questioned the narrowness of scientific approach, forcing the contemporary political scientists to think deeply about the scientific premises underlying their work. The field of psephology: the statistical study of elections and trends in voting, which plays a key role in modern day elections owe their origin to the Chicago school of thought. So long as democracy and elections exist the ideas of Chicago school of thought continue to live.