Rights highlight what individuals are entitled to as citizens, as members of society and as human beings. The UN Charter of United Nations Human Rights Convention, 1948 affirms that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Concepts such as rights, liberty, equality, property, justice and fraternity determine the relationship between the state and the citizen.

In other words, Rights represent legitimate moral and legal claims that must be recognised, respected and protected by society.

Rights define the balance between the individual and the state, ensuring that neither side dominates the other. The authority of the state cannot be absolute, since the state is only a means, while the individual is the ultimate end.

Rights are claims made by individuals against arbitrary or excessive state power, ensuring that the state acts in the best interests of its citizens.

They are not merely benefits or privileges granted by the state; rather, true rights emerge when power is regulated and legitimate moral or legal demands are recognised. Rights protect individuals from state absolutism, authoritarianism, despotism and tyranny, thereby preserving democratic balance. They serve as safeguards against corruption, exploitation and oppression.

Historically, the concept of rights emerged as a protest against oppression by dominant groups and as a demand for protection from irresponsible and arbitrary authority. As MacIver observed, throughout history, although small groups dominated the masses, but continuous protests for liberation and justice gave rise to the modern idea of human rights.

In the modern era, rights have evolved from moral protests to becoming legally and constitutionally guaranteed entitlements. The true essence of rights lies in restricting arbitrary power and in securing liberties, opportunities and benefits that enhance the quality of human life.

• ‘Rights are the external conditions necessary for the greatest possible development of the capacities of the personality’. – Barker
• ‘Rights are powers necessary for the fulfilment of man’s vocation as a moral being’. – TH Green
• ‘Rights are entitlements to act or be treated in a particular way.’ – Andrew Heywood
• ‘One man’s capacity of influencing the act of others, not by his own strength but by the strength of the society.’ – Holland
• ‘A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government and what no just government should refuse or rest on inference.’ – Thomas Jefferson
• ‘Rights are what we may expect from others and others from us, and all genuine rights are conditions of social welfare.’ – Hobhouse
• Rights are ‘trump’ (of individuals against society/state). – Ronald Dworkin
• ‘Rights properly so-called are creations of law properly so called’. – Bentham
• ‘Right is a claim which society accepts and the state imposes.’ – Bosanquet
• ‘Rights are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek, in general, to be at his best’. ‘Every state is known by the rights it maintains’. – Harold Laski

• Rights may exist independently of the state but not outside society, as their recognition first arises from social life.
• They are products of social living and exist only in society, recognised as common claims of all individuals.
• They are rational and moral claims essential for individual development and are equally available to all members of society.
• They are not absolute, restrictions exist for public health, order, security and morality and their content changes with social, political and economic conditions.
• They are closely linked with duties, both complementing each other and they require state protection and enforcement to be effective.

1. Natural Rights

Natural rights are based on the belief that every individual is born with certain basic rights that cannot be denied by any government, regardless of time or place. People inherit natural rights from nature and these rights exist prior to the formation of the state.

In classical philosophy, natural rights refer to the rightness of actions, virtues and principles of good governance. Aristotle, in his work Politics, stated that a man without courage, justice, temperance or wisdom cannot lead a good life. John Locke (1632-1704) emphasised the rights to life, liberty and property as natural rights that exist independently of any state law or government authority. Locke believed that all men are naturally free and equal.

2. Moral Rights

Moral rights are based on human conscience, a sense of justice and moral values. Moral rights are not enforceable by law because the state and courts do not formally recognise them. These rights are upheld by public opinion and moral force rather than legal sanctions.

Examples of moral rights include rules of good conduct, courtesy and ethical behaviour. The primary aim of moral rights is to promote the moral perfection and ethical progress of society. Moral rights were first acknowledged in France and Germany. They were recognised internationally in the Berne Convention (1928) for the protection of literary and artistic works. Later, moral rights were incorporated into Canada’s Copyright Act.

3. Legal Rights

Legal rights are those rights that are formally recognised and enforced by the state. Any violation of legal rights is punishable under the law. Legal rights are available equally to all citizens, without discrimination on the basis of caste, class, gender or religion. The key difference between legal rights and moral rights is that legal rights are backed by law and enforceable in courts, while moral rights depend on ethical norms and public opinion.

• Civil Rights: Ensure a civilised social life; Fulfill basic needs; Right to life, liberty, equality; Protected by the state.
• Political Rights: Enable participation in the political process; Examples: Right to vote, contest elections, hold office, criticise the government; Practically meaningful in democracies.
• Economic Rights: Provide economic security and support civil/political rights; Related to food, shelter, clothing medical care; Examples: Right to work, rest/leisure, social security (illness, disability, old age).

4. Contractual Rights

Contractual rights arise from promise-keeping and agreements between two or more parties. These rights apply specifically to the individuals who are part of the contract. Contractual rights reflect the corresponding duties and obligations of the other parties involved in the agreement. Contractual rights may be enforced by law if the contract is legal but in the case of non-legal agreements, they rest on moral principles and are therefore less secure.

Examples: Right to sell or purchase goods/services, Right to exclusive sale or purchase (monopoly/agency), Right to delivery and timely payment, Right to refunds or repairs, Rights specific to each party’s agreement.

Utilitarian Theory of Rights

Philosophers: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill

Core Idea: Rights are justified based on their utility, i.e., how much they contribute to overall happiness and well-being.

• Greatest Happiness Principle: Rights are valid if they maximise happiness for the greatest number.
• Consequentialism: The morality of rights depends on their outcomes.
• Rights as Means: Individual rights are not absolute but serve the greater good.
• Weighing Pleasures and Pains: Rights are balanced against potential benefits and harms.

Criticism: John Rawls argued that this approach could justify unjust acts if they increase overall happiness, ignoring individual justice.

Kantian Theory of Rights

Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Core Idea: Rights are derived from moral duties and the intrinsic dignity of individuals, not from consequences.

• Intrinsic Worth: Every individual has inherent dignity that must be respected.
• Categorical Imperative: Actions must follow universal moral principles applicable to all.
• Respect for Autonomy: Individuals have the right to make their own decisions.
• Moral Duty: Rights exist because humans are rational and moral beings.
• Universal Principles: Rights are grounded in universal morality, not utilitarian outcomes.

Criticism: Kant’s theory is often criticised for being too rigid and abstract, as the categorical imperative does not always offer clear guidance in complex, real-life situations where rights may conflict.

Laski’s Theory of Rights

Philosopher: Harold J. Laski

Core Idea: Rights are social in nature, essential for individual development and dependent on society and the state.

• Social Nature: Rights arise from society and enable individual growth within a social context.
• Interdependence with Duties: Every right corresponds to a duty.
• Dynamic and Contextual: Rights evolve with social, cultural and economic changes.
• Instrumental Value: Rights are means to social justice and human welfare, not ends in themselves.
• State’s Role: The state is responsible for recognising, protecting and promoting rights in line with social needs.

Critics of Laski’s Theory:

• Robert Nozick: Rights should exist independently of the state; Laski overemphasises social dependence.
• F.A. Hayek: State control in Laski’s theory could limit individual freedom.
• Karl Popper: Overemphasis on collectivism may undermine autonomy.
• Ayn Rand: Individual rights should be absolute, not subordinated to social needs.
• Isaiah Berlin: Theory could blur negative and positive rights, risking state overreach.

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which every human is inherently entitled, including the right to life, liberty, equality, thought and expression. They are unified, interdependent and indivisible.

In 17th century, John Locke identified life, liberty and property as natural rights and considered them God-given and part of human nature. In the 20th Century, with the decline of religious dominance, human rights evolved into secular rights, viewed as entitlements by virtue of being human, independent of religion or culture.

Modern Human Rights Documents

• English Bill of Rights (1689)
• American Declaration of Independence (1776)
• French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789)
• US Bill of Rights (1791, First Ten Amendments)
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN (1948)

Definitions of Human Rights

• “Human rights are claims and demands essential to the protection of human life and the enhancement of human dignity and should therefore enjoy full social and political sanctions”. – S. Kim
• “Human rights are those fundamental rights to which every man inhabiting any part of the world should be deemed entitled by virtue of having been born a human being”. – Subhash C. Kashyap
• “Human rights are simply what every human being owes to every other human being and as such, represent a universal moral obligation”. – Milne
• “Human rights are norms which are definite, of high priority, universal and exist and are valid independently of recognition or implementation in the customs or legal systems of any particular country”. – Nickel
• “Human rights mean rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of individuals guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants and enforceable by courts in India”. – The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
• “Human rights are those rights which are inherent in our nature and without which we cannot live as human beings”. – The United Nations Centre of Human Rights
• “Human rights are rights derived from the inherent dignity of human person”. – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Key Features of Human Rights

• Universality: Belong to all human beings, not limited to a nation, race, religion or culture.
• Fundamental & Inalienable: Cannot be revoked, traded away or denied.
• Interdependence: Rights are connected the enjoyment of one depends on others.

Karel Vasak (1970s) classified human rights into three generations, inspired by the French Revolution ideals: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Over time, a fourth generation of rights has emerged in response to technological advances.

• 1st Generation: Civil and Political Rights (Liberty)
  • Purpose: Protect individuals from state interference and ensure political participation. Often called negative rights.
  • Examples: Right to life, liberty and security; Freedom of speech, religion and assembly; Right to a fair trial and voting rights.
• 2nd Generation: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Equality)
  • Purpose: Ensure equal access to basic resources and opportunities for a dignified life. Requires active state intervention.
  • Examples: Right to education; Right to work and fair wages; Right to healthcare and social security.
• 3rd Generation: Collective or Solidarity Rights (Fraternity)
  • Purpose: Emphasise collective interests and community well-being; address global challenges requiring international cooperation.
  • Examples: Right to development; Right to a healthy environment; Right to peace.
• 4th Generation: Rights in the Digital Age
  • Purpose: Respond to technological advancements and protect individual dignity, privacy and autonomy in the digital era.
  • Examples: Right to internet access; Right to data privacy and protection; Right to be free from algorithmic bias and AI abuse.

Rights as Trumps

The concept of ‘Rights as Trumps,’ introduced by Ronald Dworkin, emphasises that individual rights hold a special moral and legal status, overriding competing societal goals or utilitarian considerations. This approach ensures that individual dignity and autonomy are protected, even when they conflict with collective interests.

• Supremacy Over Utilitarianism: Rights protect individuals from policies aimed solely at maximising collective welfare. For instance, the right to free speech cannot be suppressed simply because the majority finds it offensive.
• Moral Priority: Rights represent fundamental moral claims owed to individuals, independent of societal benefits.
• Legal Power: In constitutional democracies, courts uphold rights by invalidating laws or policies that infringe upon them, ensuring they act as checks against governmental overreach. Example: Right to privacy limits state surveillance; Right to equality prevents discrimination.

Democracy as a form of government implies that the ultimate authority of governance in this system is vested in the ordinary people so that public policy is made to conform to the will of the people and to serve the interests of the people.

Definitions & Meanings of Democracy

• Lipset: “It is also a social system which gives permission to a select major part of the population, governments, post-candidature and the opportunity to affect major decisions”.
• Schumpeter: “A democratic form is an institutional management of political decision-making that gives people the opportunity to pursue their general interests by selecting their representatives”.
• Macpherson: “Democracy is merely an instrument for the selection of government, to rule or make law by different methods and take political decisions”.
• John Seeley: Democracy is a form of government where everyone has a share.
• T.B. Bottomore: Democracy as a type of society in which political elite are recruited from different social strata on the basis of individual merit.
• John Dewey: A democracy is more than a form of government it is a mode of associated living.

The idea of democracy has existed in the tradition of Western political thought since ancient times. The term ‘democracy’ was first used in the fifth century BC by the Greek historian Herodotus in the sense of ‘rule by the people’. This term is derived from a combination of two Greek words; demos, meaning ‘the people’ and kratia or Kratos, meaning ‘to rule’.

Abraham Lincoln’s famous definition of democracy as “government of the people, by the people, for the people’ is very close to its literal meaning.”

Classical Theory of Democracy (18th-19th Century)

The Classical Theory of Democracy, emphasises the active participation of citizens in governance and decision-making. It is rooted in ancient Greek ideas and the philosophical thoughts of Plato and Aristotle.

• Direct Participation: In this form of democracy, citizens are directly involved in making decisions rather than relying solely on elected representatives. Aristotle emphasised that citizens should actively participate in political life to achieve a virtuous and well-ordered society.
• Common Good: Governance in classical democracy focuses on achieving the collective welfare of society through deliberation and consensus. Plato believed that rulers should be philosopher-kings, who govern wisely for the good of all, rather than for personal gain.
• Equality and Freedom: All citizens possess equal rights to participate, ensuring freedom of expression and involvement in political affairs.

Proponents: John Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Jefferson, Jeremy Bentham, James Madison, Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill.

Critics of Classical Theory of Democracy

• Joseph Schumpeter: Argued that the classical model is impractical in large, complex societies and advocated for a more realistic model of democracy based on competitive elections.
• Robert Dahl: Highlighted the limitations of direct democracy in terms of practicality, and instead supported a pluralist democracy with representative institutions.
• Giovanni Sartori: Criticised the idealism of the classical model, stressing that it overlooks the complexities of modern states and the need for representative systems.
• Hannah Arendt: Questioned the viability of direct democracy in the context of modern social structures, emphasising the need for representative frameworks.
• C.B. Macpherson: Contended that classical democracy does not consider economic inequalities and how they influence political power and participation.

The contemporary theories of democracy are concerned with the issue of representation. It deals with the nature of representative, selection criteria of representative and function of the representative. This intensive emphasise over the issue of representation and make them different from the classical theory of democracy.

Elitist Theories of Democracy

The elitist theory of democracy asserts that in any society, a small group of elites holds the real power which makes most of the important decisions, while the majority of citizens (the masses) have limited influence on governance.

Elitist theories emerged from sociology to explain societal hierarchies and critique egalitarian ideas like democracy and socialism. These theories developed as a critique of the notion that power could be equally distributed among all members of society.

Classical elitists, such as Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), Gaetano Mosca (1857-1941) and Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950), emphasised that society is inherently divided into distinct groups based on power and influence.

Society is divided into two distinct groups:

• The first is the elite, a small minority that holds a real power and occupies positions of power and decision-making.
• The second is the masses, the majority of people who are governed and directed by the elite.

Key Thinkers: Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, Joseph Schumpeter, Ortega y Gasset.

Participatory Theory of Democracy

The Participatory Theory of Democracy asserts that citizens should actively participate in the political process, not only by voting but also by participating in decision-making, governance and the formulation of public policies to ensure that the populace has direct influence over political outcomes.

This theory emphasises that democracy is most effective when people are actively involved in shaping their own lives and communities, rather than delegating all power to elected representatives.

Influential proponents of this theory include Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Carole Pateman and Benjamin Barber, who argued for enhanced citizen participation and decentralised decision-making.

• Active Citizen Engagement: Citizens should participate in decision-making processes, not merely in elections.
• Decentralisation: Political power should be shared at local levels to allow communities to make decisions that directly affect them.
• Inclusion: Democracy must ensure that all social groups, including marginalised and minority communities, have a voice in governance.
• Deliberative Democracy: Governance should promote discussion, debate and consensus-building among citizens.
• Empowerment: Citizens and communities must gain control over decisions that impact their daily lives and well-being.

Proponents: Carole Pateman, Robert A. Dahl, Nancy Fraser, John Dewey, Benjamin Barber, C.B. Macpherson, Poulantzas.

Deliberative Democracy

Deliberative democracy focuses on informed discussion and rational deliberation among citizens or their representatives. Decisions emerge from reasoned debate rather than majority rule. Encourages consensus-building. It is time-intensive and may not always lead to quick decisions.

Proponents: Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls, Amy Gutmann, Dennis Thompson, Joshua Cohen. Example: Citizens’ assemblies on climate change in Ireland.

Social Democracy

Social democracy combines democratic governance with economic and social interventions to reduce inequality. Focuses on welfare policies, social justice and equality. Promotes mixed economies with strong regulatory frameworks. Requires high taxation, which may face resistance.

Proponents: Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Anthony Crosland, Michael Harrington. Example: Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Denmark.

Radical Democracy

Radical democracy advocates for decentralised governance and empowerment of marginalised groups. Focuses on grassroots activism and redistribution of power. Emphasises direct citizen involvement. Potential for conflict and lack of centralised authority.

Proponents: Chantal Mouffe, Ernesto Laclau, Cornelius Castoriadis. Example: Zapatista movement in Mexico.

Cosmopolitan Democracy

Cosmopolitan democracy extends democratic principles to global governance structures. Aims for accountability in international organisations. Advocates for a global parliament or similar institutions. Faces challenges of sovereignty and implementation.

Proponents: Daniele Archibugi, David Held, David Held & Anthony McGrew, Mary Kaldor. Example: Proposals for reforming the United Nations.

• Culture as Constructed: Culture is invented or socially constructed, not simply inherited or fixed.
• Causal Role of Culture: Culture influences political behaviour and democratic practices, shaping how democracy functions in different contexts.
• Dynamic Interaction: Culture and politics interact continuously, challenging the notion that culture is static or predetermined.

Proponents: Joseph A. Schumpeter, Robert Dahl, Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls, James Buchanan, Anthony Downs, Samuel P. Huntington.

• Focuses on cooperative effort rather than isolated individuals.
• Encourages self-rule and active civic responsibility.
• Suggests remedies for societal ills.
• Highlights limitations of existing systems to envision reforms.

The Procedural Theory of Democracy hold that the legitimacy of democracy depends on the proper functioning of democratic procedures and institutions, rather than the specific outcomes or policies produced. It focuses on ensuring that decisions are made through fair, transparent and lawful processes for the foundation of democratic governance.

Prominent proponents of this theory include Joseph Schumpeter, Robert Dahl and Max Weber, who highlighted the importance of competitive elections, institutional neutrality and rule-based governance in a democratic society.

• Emphasis on Procedures: Democratic legitimacy arises from fair elections, adherence to the rule of law and due process in decision-making.
• Neutrality of Institutions: Democratic institutions must function impartially and not prescribe specific policies, allowing citizens to shape outcomes.
• Participation and Representation: All citizens should have opportunities to participate in political processes, ensuring that their interests are adequately represented in governance.

Democracy, as a system of governance, takes various forms depending on how power is distributed and decisions are made. Below are the major types of democracy with key features:

• Direct Democracy: Originated in ancient Athens. In this any citizens directly participate in decision-making without any intermediaries. Decisions are made through referendums, plebiscites or public assemblies. Impractical in large and populous states due to logistical and administrative challenges.
  • Proponents: John Locke, Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Jefferson, Jeremy Bentham, James Madison, Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill.
  • Example: Switzerland (local referendums).
  • PYO POINT: There are four key elements of direct democracy, namely, Referendum, Initiative, Recall and Plebiscite.
• Representative Democracy: In representative democracy citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. Regular elections provide accountability. Focuses on efficiency and practicality in governance. Risks of elite domination and reduced direct public participation.
  • Proponents: Joseph Schumpeter, Robert Dahl, Giovanni Sartori, Hannah Arendt, C.B. Macpherson.
  • Examples: India, the United States, the United Kingdom.
• Liberal Democracy: Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy with a strong emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. Separation of powers, rule of law and protection of civil liberties. Independent judiciary ensures accountability. Sometimes criticised for prioritising individual rights over collective welfare.
  • Proponents: John Locke, Montesquieu, James Madison, Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill.
  • Examples: Canada, Australia, Germany.
• Participatory Democracy: In participatory democracy citizens have greater involvement in decision-making beyond voting in elections.
  • Examples: Porto Alegre’s participatory budgeting in Brazil.
  • Limitations: Requires significant time and effort from citizens, making it challenging in large systems.
  • Proponents: Carole Pateman, Robert A. Dahl, Nancy Fraser, John Dewey, Benjamin Barber, C.B. Macpherson, Poulantzas.

Power is the ability to influence or control the behaviour and actions of others, often through authority, persuasion or coercion. It involves the capacity to achieve desired outcomes and enforce decisions within a given context. Power can manifest in various forms, including political, economic and social influence.

Definitions of Power

• Lasswell: According to Lasswell and Kaplan, “The concept of power is perhaps the most fundamental in the whole of Political Science: the political process is the shaping, dissolution and exercise of power”.
• Hobbes: According to Hobbes, “There is a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceases only in death”.
• Bertrand Russell: Bertrand Russell (Power: A New Social Analysis; 1938) defined power as “the production of intended effects”. In other words, power denotes the ability of a person to fulfil their desires or achieve their objectives.
• Robert Dahl: Robert Dahl (Modern Political Analysis, 1991) described power as a kind of influence; it is exercised “when compliance is attained by creating the prospect of severe sanctions for non-compliance”.

In political science, power is the ability to influence or control the behaviour of others. It is the capacity to make someone do something they would not otherwise have done. The following theories explain where this power is located in society and how it operates.

• Pluralist Theory: This theory states that, power is distributed among many competing groups, not concentrated in one centre. No single group dominates. Instead, power is spread among various ‘interest groups’ (e.g., trade unions, corporations, environmental lobbies, political parties). Politics is a process of bargaining, negotiation and compromise between these groups. The state acts as a neutral referee among competing groups.
  • Key Thinker: Robert Dahl
  • Key Work: Who Governs? (1961): In his study of New Haven, Connecticut, Dahl argued that different groups were influential in different policy areas, proving that no single ‘elite’ was in charge of everything.
• Elitist Theory: Power is concentrated in the hands of a small, wealthy and cohesive group. A single “Power Elite,” which is a closely-knit group of leaders from the highest levels of the military, corporations and government. This elite controls the “command posts” of society. They share a similar worldview and social background, and they make all major decisions to protect their own interests. Democracy is seen as largely a facade.
  • Key Thinkers: C. Wright Mills (Modern), Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca (Classical)
  • Key Work: The Power Elite (1956): Mills argued that mid-20th century America was not a pluralist democracy but was controlled by this “trinity” of power.
• Marxist Theory: Power is rooted in the economic structure of society. The economically dominant class (the bourgeoisie or capitalists) who own the ‘means of production’ (factories, land, technology).
  • How Power Works: The state (government, law, police) is not a neutral referee but is an instrument of the ruling class. It is part of a ‘superstructure’ designed to protect the capitalist system and the exploitation of the working class (proletariat).

Western Approach to Power

The Western Approach to Power generally focuses on the ability of individuals, groups or institutions to influence or control others in political, social and economic contexts. It emphasises power as a resource, a tool of influence and a measurable phenomenon, often studied in political science and sociology.

Key Thinkers: Max Weber, Robert Dahl and David Easton are some of the major contributors to the Western approach to power.

• Power as Authority: According to Max Weber, power is closely linked to authority, which is the legitimate right to exercise influence over others. Authority gives power a recognised and accepted social basis.
• Power as the Ability to Influence: Robert Dahl defined power as the ability of A to get B to do something that B would not otherwise do. This emphasises power as a relational and observable phenomenon between actors.
• Power is Socially Constructed: Power exists in social relationships and is exercised within a framework of rules, norms and institutions. It is not an abstract concept but depends on the interaction between actors.
• Decision-Making Perspective: The Western approach often analyses power through the lens of decision-making, focusing on how leaders, institutions and elites shape outcomes in society.
• Power as a Resource: Power is viewed as a resource that can be accumulated, distributed and used strategically to achieve goals. Individuals and groups compete for access to this resource.
• Legitimacy and Consent: Power is most effective when it is legitimised and accepted by the people, which ensures compliance without excessive coercion.
• Pluralist Understanding of Power: Some Western theorists, especially Dahl, argue that power in a democracy is widely distributed among multiple competing groups, preventing domination by a single elite.

Proponents and Works: Max Weber (Economy and Society), John Locke (Two Treatises of Government), Robert A. Dahl (Who Governs?), James Madison (Federalist Papers), Michel Foucault (Discipline and Punish), Steven Lukes (Power A Radical View, 1974).

Michel Foucault’s Conception of Power

Foucault sees power as diffuse, pervasive and relational, intertwined with knowledge. He quoted that ‘Power flows everywhere; power is everywhere.’

Major dimensions of Foucault’s Conception of Power are as follows:

• Power is Everywhere: Not concentrated in a single institution; operates in various social relations.
• Power/Knowledge Relationship: Knowledge production is influenced by power and knowledge reinforces power.
• Discursive Practices: Power manifests through language, norms and social discourses that regulate behaviour.

Hannah Arendt’s Conception of Power

Arendt views power as emerging from collective action and consensus, distinct from coercion or violence.

Major dimensions of Arendt’s conception of power are as follows:

• Collective Action: Power arises from people acting together to achieve shared goals.
• Distinct from Violence: Power is legitimate influence; violence is coercive and destructive.
• Public Realm: Power is generated through political participation and engagement in the public sphere.

In The Human Condition ‘Power corresponds to the human ability not just to act, but to act in concert. Power emerges in-between and is established as a relationship.’

Relationship between Power and Authority

Authority is a form of power that is legitimised by societal norms, laws or traditions. While all authority is power, not all power qualifies as authority.

Authority depends on power to enforce decisions, while power often seeks authority to gain legitimacy. Authority stabilises power by justifying its use. Without authority, power may be appeared as arbitrary or unjust.

• Examples in Governance:
  • A government derives authority through elections (legitimacy) but enforces laws through power (police or military).
  • In organisations, a manager has authority due to their position but may need power (persuasion or sanctions) to ensure compliance.

Power and authority are interdependent but distinct. While power is the ability to influence or control, authority legitimises and stabilises this influence, ensuring voluntary acceptance and long-term order. A balance between the two is essential for effective governance and societal harmony.

Approaches to Study Power

Key approaches to study power are as follows:

• Marxist Approach to Power: The Marxist approach, developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, views power primarily as a product of class struggle and economic relationships.
  • Class Conflict: Power reflects the economic and social conflicts between the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) and the proletariat (working class). The ruling class maintains dominance over resources and societal structures.
  • Economic Base and Superstructure: Power originates from the economic base, which includes the means of production and economic relationships. The political, legal and ideological systems-the superstructure-exist to uphold the interests of the ruling class.
  • Revolutionary Change: Genuine redistribution of power requires dismantling capitalist structures and establishing a socialist or communist system, where power is more equitably shared among all members of society.
• Key Thinker Karl Marx & Neo-Marxism: The Communist Manifesto (1848) outlines the idea of class struggle as the engine of history, arguing that all political power is fundamentally class power. Antonio Gramsci added the idea of ‘Hegemony.’ He argued that the ruling class maintains power not just through force, but by making its own values and beliefs seem like ‘common sense’ to everyone, so the working class consents to its own domination.

Post-Structuralist (Foucauldian) Theory

Power is everywhere; it is decentralised, relational and productive, not held by one authority. No one ‘has’ power. Instead, power is a network of relations that circulates throughout society. It is not just a ‘top-down’ force (like kings or elites) but is also a ‘bottom-up’ force. Power is inseparable from knowledge (‘power-knowledge’). It operates through ‘discourses’ (ways of thinking and speaking) and social institutions (like prisons, schools, and hospitals) that define what is ‘normal’ and ‘true,’ thereby shaping and disciplining individuals.

Key Thinker: Michel Foucault

Key Work: Discipline and Punish (1975): Foucault uses the model of the ‘Panopticon’ (a prison where all inmates can be seen but can’t see their observer) to show how people begin to ‘discipline themselves,’ demonstrating the subtle, pervasive nature of modern power.

Feminist Theory

Power relations are fundamentally structured by gender. Society is a patriarchy, a system of social structures and practices where men hold a dominant position and have more privilege than women. Power is exercised through social, political, economic and cultural institutions that subordinate women. This includes the public sphere (unequal pay, under-representation in politics) and the private sphere (domestic roles, family law).

Key Thinker: Simone de Beauvoir

Key Work: The Second Sex (1949): A foundational text that argues “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman,” explaining how societal structures (not biology) create gender inequality and patriarchal power.

Citizenship refers to the status of an individual as a full and responsible member of a political community. Thus citizen is a person who owes allegiance to the state and in turn receives protection from the state. He must fulfil his duties and obligations towards the state as the state grants him civil, political and social rights.

Origin

The concept of citizenship first arose in towns and city-states of ancient Greece, where it generally applied to property owners but not to women, slaves or the poorer members of the community. A citizen in a Greek city-state was entitled to vote and was liable to taxation and military service. The Romans first used citizenship as a device to distinguish the residents of the city of Rome from those peoples whose territories Rome had conquered and incorporated. The Romans citizenship guaranteed the right to vote, eligibility for public office, right to intermarriage, etc.

Bodin saw citizenship as the mutual obligation between subject and sovereign to obey and to protect. In the later periods, citizenship was discussed by thinkers like Mill, Bentham, who focused mainly on individual liberty, political participation and property rights and Green, who focused on the criterion of having a good life and social welfare.

Scholars’ Definitions of Citizenship

• A citizen is one who has the right to share in the deliberative and judicial offices of the state. – Aristotle
• Citizenship means active membership in a civic community, bound by laws and shared duties. – Cicero
• Citizenship is rooted in natural rights– life, liberty and property–protected by a social contract with the state. – John Locke
• Citizenship means active participation in the ‘general will’ to ensure freedom and equality for all. – Jean-Jacques Rousseau
• Citizenship involves liberty of thought, expression and participation to ensure self-development and progress of society. – J.S. Mill
• Citizenship as full and equal membership in political community. – T.H. Marshall
• Citizenship is the right to have rights, realised through collective action in the public realm. – Hannah Arendt
• Citizenship reflects membership in a political community, granting both rights and responsibilities. – Michael Walzer
• Citizenship is grounded in civic responsibility and community values, not just individual rights. – Michael Sandel (Communitarian)
• Citizenship balances individual rights with social duties, strengthening community bonds. – Amitai Etzioni
• Citizenship is participatory and requires active involvement in democratic governance. – Benjamin Barber
• Citizenship is a form of social membership, involving rights and obligations that connect individuals to the welfare state and civil society. – B.S. Turner
• Citizenship should extend to the world as a whole, transcending national boundaries. – Cosmopolitans

Concept of National Citizenship

The concept of national citizenship virtually disappeared in Europe during the Middle Ages, replaced as it was by a system of feudal rights and obligations. In the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the holding of citizenship in various cities and towns of Italy and Germany became a guarantee of immunity for merchants and other privileged persons from the claims and prerogatives of feudal overlords.

Modern concepts of citizenship crystallised in the 18th century during the American and French Revolutions, when the term citizen came to suggest the possession of certain liberties in the face of the coercive powers of absolutist monarchs.

In England, the term citizen originally referred to membership of a borough or local municipal corporation. The principal grounds for acquiring citizenship (apart from international transactions such as transfer of territory or option) are birth within a certain territory, descent from a citizen parent, marriage to a citizen and naturalisation.

Concept of the Power Elite

According to Mills ‘Power is concentrated in the hands of a small group called the Power Elite’. The power elite includes leaders from politics, military and big business. This group shapes major societal decisions with minimal input from the general population.

PYO POINT: C. Wright Mills propounded the concept of ‘Power Elite’.

Ordinary citizens have limited influence over key political and economic decisions. The elite maintains dominance through interconnected positions across institutions. Concentration of power limits genuine democratic control in society.

Greek Theory of Citizenship

Origin Ancient Greece, especially Athens, where the concept of citizenship was closely tied to the polis (city-state).

• Citizenship was associated with active participation in political life.
• Citizens were expected to engage in legislation, judicial activities and administrative decisions.
• Citizenship was exclusive: restricted mainly to free adult males, women, slaves and foreigners were excluded.
• The idea of civic duty was central, citizens had moral responsibilities towards the common good.
• Focus was on the ethical and moral development of individuals through participation in public affairs.

Significance: Introduced the principle that active participation in governance is the essence of citizenship. Citizenship was seen as a moral and civic duty, not merely a legal status.

Proponent: Aristotle (Politics) Defined a citizen as one who takes part in governance and judicial activities.

Marshall’s Citizenship Theory

T.H. Marshall viewed citizenship as consisting of different elements-civil, political and social rights-and emphasised how these elements are all interconnected. In his famous book, ‘Citizenship and Social Class,’ presented his ideas and described citizenship as a dynamic concept that evolves over time. He argued that full citizenship requires not only legal recognition and political participation but also social rights, such as access to education, healthcare and welfare.

According to Marshall, the development of citizenship is closely linked to the expansion of democracy and social justice within a society.

PYO POINT: Key Ideas of Citizenship Theory: Absolute ownership of property gifted to women, independent of marital control.

• Civil Rights: Fundamental rights enabling individual freedom, such as freedom of speech, property rights and legal equality.
• Political Rights: Rights enabling participation in the political process, such as voting, holding office and political representation.
• Social Rights: Rights ensuring economic and social well-being, including access to education, healthcare, social security and employment opportunities.

Significance: Citizenship is inclusive and universal, extending beyond political participation to social and economic entitlements. Highlights the interdependence of rights and responsibilities in modern welfare states.

Proponent: T.H. Marshall (Citizenship and Social Class, 1950)

Liberal Theory of Citizenship

The liberal theory of citizenship primarily focuses on the individual as the central unit of analysis. It emphasises the equality of rights that each citizen possesses and how these rights enable the individual to pursue their personal aims and goals. The liberal approach highlights individual freedom, legal equality and personal autonomy as essential aspects of citizenship. In contrast, the communitarian theory critiques this position by arguing that citizenship should also consider community values and social responsibilities alongside individual rights.

• Key Ideas: Citizenship is primarily about individual rights and freedoms. Emphasises liberty, equality before law and protection from arbitrary state interference. Citizens are considered autonomous individuals with legal and political rights. The state’s role is minimal, mainly to protect rights and ensure justice.
• Significance: Encourages freedom of choice, individual responsibility and limited state intervention. Forms the foundation of modern liberal democracies.
• Proponents: John Locke (Two Treatises of Government), John Stuart Mill (On Liberty).

Communitarian Theory of Citizenship

The Communitarian Theory emphasises the role of communities and shared values in shaping individual identities and responsibilities. It argues that citizenship involves active participation in communal life and is grounded in the values and traditions of the community.

• Community and Identity: Citizenship is deeply connected to one’s community and cultural identity. It involves a sense of belonging and shared values that shape individual responsibilities and rights.
• Active Participation: Emphasises the importance of active involvement in community life and public affairs as a fundamental aspect of citizenship, not just legal status.
• Balancing Rights and Responsibilities: Communitarian theory argues that individual rights should be balanced with communal responsibilities, promoting the common good over individualistic pursuits.

Proponents and Their Books: Michael Sandel ‘Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982)’, Charles Taylor ‘Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity’, Alasdair MacIntyre ‘After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory’.

Critics of Communitarianism:

• John Rawls: Criticises Communitarianism for potentially neglecting individual rights in favour of community values.
• Robert Nozick: Argues that Communitarianism overlooks individual autonomy and the value of personal freedom.
• Jurgen Habermas: Suggests Communitarianism may underestimate the role of rational discourse and universal principles in democratic deliberation.
• Nancy Fraser: Critiques Communitarianism for not adequately addressing issues of justice and equality in diverse societies.
• Isaiah Berlin: Challenges the theory for its potential to impose conformity and limit individual liberty in the name of community cohesion.

Feminist Theory of Citizenship

The core feminist critique is that the ‘universal citizen’ was historically and structurally designed by men, for men. It is based on a male model of life and ignores the unique experiences of women, effectively making them second-class citizens. It has following two dimensions:

• 1. The Public/Private Divide: This is the central concept. Traditional citizenship is seen as taking place in the public sphere (politics, law, the economy). Feminists argue that this sphere is only able to function because it is supported by the private sphere (the home, family, caregiving).
  • Critique: Society has historically assigned women to the private sphere (as mothers, wives and caregivers) and considered this work ‘natural’ and apolitical. Men, freed from these private duties, are able to participate fully in the public sphere as ‘citizens.’
  • Key Thinker: Carole Pateman
  • Key Work: The Sexual Contract (1988): Pateman argues that before the “social contract” (that creates the state), there was an unstated “sexual contract.” This was an agreement among men to establish patriarchy, giving them power over women. The social contract is therefore a fraternal (brotherly) contract that includes women as subjects (like wives) rather than as equal citizens.
• 2. Differentiated Citizenship & Intersectionality: Later feminist thinkers moved beyond demanding simple ‘inclusion’ and began to challenge the very idea of a single model of citizenship.
  • Differentiated Citizenship: The idea that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model of citizenship is unjust because it forces oppressed groups to conform to the standards of the dominant group (e.g., white, male, heterosexual).
  • Key Thinker: Iris Marion Young. Young argues for “differentiated citizenship” where marginalised groups (women, racial minorities, etc.) are granted specific group-based rights to ensure their voices can be heard and their oppression overcome.
  • Intersectionality: This concept explains that different forms of oppression (like racism, sexism and classism) overlap and create unique experiences of discrimination.
  • Key Thinker: Kimberlé Crenshaw. Crenshaw (who coined the term) argues that a Black woman, for example, faces forms of discrimination that are not just ‘racism + sexism.’ Her experience is a unique ‘intersection’ of the two. In terms of citizenship, this means her barriers to exercising her rights are different from those faced by a white woman or a Black man.

Marxist Theory of Citizenship

The core Marxist critique is that citizenship in a capitalist society is a bourgeois illusion. It offers ‘formal’ political equality while masking and protecting ‘real’ economic inequality. It has following two dimensions:

• 1. Political Emancipation (Citizen): Identity in the political sphere as a citizen. Enjoys formal rights such as voting, freedom of speech and equality before law. Provides legal and political equality, but only in theory.
• 2. Human Emancipation (Bourgeois / Private Man): Identity in civil society (economic sphere). Individuals remain divided by property, wealth and class. True freedom requires ending class exploitation and achieving real social and economic equality.

Marx’s Critique: Political emancipation offers only formal equality. Human emancipation seeks real equality by abolishing class divisions and exploitation.

Citizenship as a Tool of the Ruling Class: For Marxists, the state and its laws (including citizenship rights) are not neutral. They are part of a superstructure designed to serve the interests of the ruling economic class (the bourgeoisie). By giving workers ‘political rights’ (like the right to vote), the state makes them feel like they have power. This prevents them from realising their real powerlessness in the economic system and rising up in revolution.

Marx was not interested in more citizenship rights. He believed ‘political emancipation’ was an incomplete step. The final goal is ‘human emancipation,’ which means overcoming the class system, abolishing private property and ending the split between the citizen and the private man. In a truly communist society, the state (and the need for ‘citizenship’ as we know it) would ‘wither away’.