Forms Of Government

Answer : Democracy is a political form of government in which governing power is derived from the people, by consensus (consensus democracy), by direct referendum (direct democracy), or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy. There is no specific universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’; equality and freedom have been identified as important characteristics of democracy. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no restrictions can apply to anyone wanting to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution. The “majority rule” is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without governmental or constitutional protections of individual liberties, it is possible for a minority of individuals to be oppressed by the “tyranny of the majority”. An essential process in representative democracies is competitive elections that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests. In recent times most of the countries of the world claim their form of government to be democratic. But they sadly lack the true spirit of democracy in one way or the other. Most of them have failed to give the stable government. Frequent change of governments is quite noticeable in these countries. Economic disparity is another parameter on which the democracies like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and some other south Asian countries have failed to show their majority ruled democratic nature. Secessionism and separatism are some other things that are quite visible in these countries. The root cause of this trend is lack of socio-economic development and regional imbalances. Literacy and unemployment are some other anomalies crippling the true spirit of majority nature of democracy. In most of the present day south-Asian democracies women are still in underprivileged condition. With the development of science and technology the use of hi tech devices is still limited to a small section of the society creating a digital divide which is also a kind of anomaly in the democracy.Present day democracy is also criticized for frequent elections due to the instability of coalition governments. Coalitions are frequently formed after the elections in many countries (for example India) and the basis of alliance is predominantly to enable a viable majority, not an ideological concurrence. This opportunist alliance not only has the handicap of having to cater to too many ideologically opposing factions, but it is usually short lived since any perceived or actual imbalance in the treatment of coalition partners, or changes to leadership in the coalition partners themselves, can very easily result in the coalition partner withdrawing its support from the government. The 20th Century Italian thinkers Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca (independently) argues that democracy is illusory, and served only to mask the reality of elite rule. Indeed, they argued that elite oligarchy is the unbendable law of human nature, due largely to the apathy and division of the masses (as opposed to the drive, initiative and unity of the elites), and that democratic institutions would do no more than shift the exercise of power from oppression to manipulation.

Answer : Political philosophy can be defined as philosophical reflection on how best to arrange our collective life, our political institutions and our social practices, such as our economic system and our pattern of family life. Political philosophers seek to establish basic principles that will, for instance, justify a particular form of state, show that individuals have certain inalienable rights, or tell us how a society’s material resources should be shared among its members. This usually involves analyzing and interpreting ideas like freedom, justice, authority and democracy and then applying them in a critical way to the social and political institutions that currently exist.

Some political philosophers have tried primarily to justify the prevailing arrangements of their society; others have painted pictures of an ideal state or an ideal social world that is very different from anything we have so far experienced. Political philosophy has been practiced for as long as human beings have regarded their collective arrangements not as immutable and part of the natural order but as potentially open to change, and therefore as standing in need of philosophical justification. It can be found in many different cultures, and has taken a wide variety of forms.

Democratic government therefore always tends to claim to have achieved the principles of political philosophy. Justice equality and liberty are said to be the main pillars of democracy. Every new government therefore tries to achieve the parameters set by the principles of democracy and even if it fails to achieve the goal it pretend to be like that. The basic reason is that a true democracy is one where rights of its citizens are safe in true spirit and each one is free to develop oneself without any fear. A government pursuing this form of democracy is said to modern and civilized in the real sense of the term.

Answer : Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term “liberal” and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual’s right to private property, free markets, and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism. The first modern liberal state was the United States of America, founded on the principle that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Pioneers of liberalism such as Adam Smith conceptualized free markets, free trade, invisible hand, spontaneous order, and how they lead to prosperity. Liberals argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity.

Most political parties which identify themselves as liberal claim to promote the rights and responsibilities of the individual, free choice within an open competitive process, the free market, and the dual responsibility of the state to protect the individual citizen and guarantee their liberty. Critics of liberal parties tend to state liberal policies in different terms. Economic freedom may lead to gross inequality. Free speech may lead to speech that is obscene, blasphemous, or treasonous. The role of the state as promoter of freedom and as protector of its citizens may come into conflict.

Liberalism stresses the importance of human rights, the rule of law, and representative liberal democracy as the best form of government. Elected representatives are subject to the rule of law, and their power is moderated by a constitution, which emphasizes the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals and limits the will of the majority, thereby liberalism, especially if backed up by a written constitution, becomes a necessary precursor and ultimate guarantor of democracy. Liberals are in favour of a pluralist system in which differing political and social views, even extreme or fringe views, compete for political power on a democratic basis and have the opportunity to achieve power through periodically held elections. They stress the resolution of differences by peaceful means within the bounds of democratic or lawful processes. Many liberals seek ways to increase the involvement and participation of citizens in the democratic process.

Some liberals favour direct democracy instead of representative democracy. The rule of law and equality before the law are fundamental to liberalism. Government authority may only be legitimately exercised in accordance with laws that are adopted through an established procedure. Another aspect of the rule of law is an insistence upon the guarantee of an independent judiciary, whose political independence is intended to act as a safeguard against arbitrary rulings in individual cases. The rule of law includes concepts such as the presumption of innocence, no double jeopardy, and Habeas Corpus. Rule of law is seen by liberals as a guard against despotism and as enforcing limitations on the power of government. In the penal system, liberals in general reject punishments they see as inhumane, including capital punishment.

Liberalism advocates civil rights for all citizens: the protection and privileges of personal liberty extended to all citizens equally by law. It includes the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of race, gender and class. Liberals are divided over the extent to which positive rights are to be included, such as the right to food, shelter, and education. Critics from an internationalist human rights school of thought argue that the civil rights advocated in the liberal view are not extended to all people, but are limited to citizens of particular states.

Unequal treatment on the basis of nationality is therefore possible, especially in regard to citizenship itself. Racism is incompatible with liberalism. Liberals in Europe are generally hostile to any attempts by the state to enforce equality in employment by legal action against employers, whereas in the United States many social liberals favor such affirmative action. Liberals in general support equal opportunity, but not necessarily equal outcome. Most European liberal parties do not favour employment quotas for women and ethnic minorities as the best way to end gender and racial inequality. However, all agree that arbitrary discrimination on the basis of race or gender is morally wrong.

Economic liberals today stress the importance of a free market and free trade, and seek to limit government intervention in both the domestic economy and foreign trade. Social liberal movements often agree in principle with the idea of free trade, but maintain some skepticism, seeing unrestricted trade as leading to the growth of multi-national corporations and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. In the post-war consensus on the welfare state in Europe, liberals supported government responsibility for health, education, and alleviating poverty while still calling for a market based on independent exchange. Liberals agree that a high quality of health care and education should be available for all citizens, but differ in their views on the degree to which governments should supply these benefits. Liberal movements seek a balance between individual responsibility and community responsibility. In particular, liberals favour special protection for the handicapped, the sick, the disabled, and the aged.

European liberalism turned back to more laissez-faire policies in the 1980s and 1990s, and supported privatization and liberalization in health care and other public sectors. Modern European liberals generally tend to believe in a smaller role for government. The European liberal consensus appears to involve a belief that economies should be decentralized. In general, contemporary European liberals do not believe that the government should directly control any industrial production through state owned enterprises, which places them in opposition to social democrats. It is free market policy that may stand in the way of individual freedom. This is where the concept of neo liberalism has come forward with the concept of socialistic democracy to ensure the equal distribution of the means of production.

Answer : Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. Among political theorists, there are many contending conceptions of democracy. Aggregative democracy uses democratic processes to solicit citizens’ preferences and then aggregate them together to determine what social policies society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on voting, where the policy with the most votes gets implemented. There are different variants of this. Under minimalism, democracy is a system of government in which citizens give teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not “rule” because, for example, on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded. Direct democracy, on the other hand, holds that citizens should participate directly, not through their representatives, in making laws and policies.

Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not really rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies. Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to the views of the median voter – with half to his left and the other half to his right. This is not actually a desirable outcome as it represents the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for votes. Downs suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments. Robert A. Dahl argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the term polyarchy to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open elections which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation. Some see a problem with the wealthy having more influence and therefore argue for reforms like campaign finance reform. Some may see it as a problem that the majority of the voters decide policy, as opposed to majority rule of the entire population. This can be used as an argument for making political participation mandatory, like compulsory voting by simply refusing power to the government until the full majority feels inclined to speak their minds. Thus in its different forms democracy has a tough task to do the right thing with a clear cut decision.

Answer : We may distinguish various forms of political power-sharing in History, which, schematically, may be classified as either democratic or oligarchic. In the former, political power is shared equally among all those with full citizen rights, whereas in the latter political power is concentrated, in various degrees, at the hands of miscellaneous elites.

In the political realm there can only be one form of democracy, what we may call political or direct democracy, where political power is shared equally among all citizens. So, political democracy is founded on the equal sharing of political power among all citizens, the self-instituting of society. This means that the following conditions have to be satisfied for a society to be characterised as a political democracy:

Democracy is grounded on the conscious choice of its citizens for individual and collective autonomy and not on any divine or mystical dogmas and preconceptions, or any closed theoretical systems involving social/natural ‘laws’, or tendencies determining social change.

No institutionalised political processes of an oligarchic nature. This implies that all political decisions (including those relating to the formation and execution of laws) are taken by the citizen body collectively and without representation;

No institutionalised political structures embodying unequal power relations. This means, for instance, that where delegation of authority takes place to segments of the citizen body, in order to carry out specific duties (e.g., to serve as members of popular courts, or of regional and confederation councils, etc.), the delegation is assigned, on principle, by lot, on a rotation basis, and it is always recallable by the citizen body. Furthermore, as regards delegates to regional and confederation bodies, the mandates should be specific. This is an effective step towards the abolition of hierarchical relations since such relations today are based, to a significant extent, on the myth of the ‘experts’ who are supposed to be able to control everything, from nature to society.

But if the economic power in the state is concentrated in the hands of few, there would be least chances of the real political democracy to exits as the economically powerful section of the community will manoeuvre everything in their favour to their best advantage and even may deprive the poor one to use their political rights given to them by the state.

Answer : An essentially contested concept is one where there is widespread agreement on an abstract core notion itself (e.g., “fairness”), whilst there is endless argument about what might be the best realization of that notion

There are several varieties of democracy some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule is able to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself. The “majority rule” is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the “tyranny of the majority”. An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.The concept of democracy delineates the issues on which citizens are required to form opinions. In direct democracy they must contribute directly to the discussion and resolution of those issues. In a representative democracy, they are called upon to decide among various candidates in elections who will act as proxies for them in formal discussion in parliament to reach the same end. In contemporary constitutional democracies, almost any matter may become a public issue if a significant number of people wish to make it one. Importantly for the democratic process, the attitudes of both citizens and representatives are often stimulated or reinforced by outside agencies in a crusading newspaper, a pressure group, or a government agency or official. In this way, even matters that are not regarded as the legitimate concern of governments may become public issues.

There is a problem at the heart of this process, which is the most pressing one confronting contemporary constitutional democracies. The problem is the present narrow control of the information necessary to make informed decisions. In an ideal democracy, everyone would be free to attempt to persuade others to agree to their point of view and free to oppose points of view. The democratic ideal assumes that, if a variety of opinions are free to compete continuously and publicly, the ideas best for society will win out in the long run. For this process to be successful, it requires that accurate and uncensored information, outlining contrasting points of view on current issues, be available for public consumption. However, this is rarely the case. Rather it is the large and well-financed businesses, media organizations and government agencies that dominate the selective publication and distribution of public information. The limited access to and availability of information are major obstacles to the achievement of an ideal democratic state. That is why it is sometimes called a contested concept.

Answer : Strike action, often simply called a strike, is a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal by employees to perform work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances. Strikes are sometimes used to put pressure on governments to change policies. Occasionally, strikes destabilize the rule of a particular political party. Government employees become part of the government. Actually a democratic government is ruled by its executive body. The executive body does not directly administer but delegates the power to the bureaucracy. Hence it is the bureaucracy that really translates the rule of law in action. Hence bureaucracy is supposed to be the pillar of democracy. It is the bureaucracy which is supposed to maintain law and order. Moreover it is their duty to this and not to do anything against the government of which it is a part. Therefore if the employees go on strike it would be unethical. It will amount to fail the hope of a democracy. Of course it the democratic right of the employees to express their grievances. But it should be done in the democratic way. But if they take the course of action that is against the spirit of the democracy, it can’t be justified on the moral ground. The concept of democracy delineates the issues on which citizens are required to form opinions. In direct democracy they must contribute directly to the discussion and resolution of those issues. In a representative democracy, they are called upon to decide among various candidates in elections who will act as proxies for them in formal discussion in parliament to reach the same end. In contemporary constitutional democracies, almost any matter may become a public issue if a significant number of people wish to make it one.

Answer : Mahatma Gandhi is the unquestioned 20th century prophet of the world. His great concern for all the oppressed and depressed made him committed to serve these through his motherland. He started a good number of institutions to be manned by his chosen experts in their fields and gave them the perennial message of wiping every tear from Every Eye. He desired to establish Sarvodaya Samaj through granting power to the people at the grassroots so that they could enjoy Gram Swaraj for ever. Gandhian philosophy of Sarvodaya - welfare of all - is based on the ancient scriptures and tradition of India. The ‘Sarvodaya’ is the combination of two words ‘Sarba’ and ‘Uday’. It denotes the meaning uplift of all. It also gives the meaning ‘good of all’, ‘service to all’ and ‘welfare of all’, etc. It is concerned with Gandhian Socialism. Its purpose is the socio-economic development of all. The base of philosophy is commonness, i.e., what is done not for any particular individual or group but for all. Its main problem is to reconcile the demands of egoism and altruism. The main purpose of Sarvodaya is to create moral atmosphere in the society. Truth, non-violence and purity are the foundations of Sarvodaya.

Sarvodaya is a strong ideology for prevention of socio-economic ills of the society.It is based on ‘Advaita Vedant’ doctrine. It stands for creating high moral character in the society. It is only possible by truth, non- violence, self-sacrifice and purity etc. It aims at adopting self-sacrifice for the sake of others, taking and giving to others. It is the best principle in Sarvodaya. It puts importance for the development of villages. For this villages should be given priority in giving aids. Villages form the keystone of Indian Democracy. It is the duty of every individual to look to the welfare of village people. Truth and non-violence are the two main points of Sarvodaya. If everybody practices these two principles, the social corruptions and irregularities will be checked. It is one non- political ideology. It is rather a socio-religious creed. It stands for self-limitation of human wants. Sarvodaya stands for national unity and solidarity. It condemns provincialism and regionalism. Gandhiji’s Sarvodaya has its roots in the Vedantic concept of spiritual unity of existence and the Gita. The idealism of Sarvodaya is opposed to the concept majoritarism, concept of class racial struggle and the principle of ‘greatest

Good of the greatest numbers.’ The ethics of idealism of Gandhi is propounded by his Sarvodaya philosophy. Gandhi considered the state as an organisation of violence and force. Sarvodaya is concerned with Gandhiji’s social ideas and ideal of a community. In the words of Gandhiji, It is casteless and classless society. At the very outset it can be noted here that in order to overcome the difficulties of the problems of caste, communal evils, economic inequalities and social divisions, Ganjhiji had propounded the philosophy of Sarvodaya. He desired a classless society and Democracy. Freedom, equality, justice and fraternity form the basic part of Sarvodaya. Thus the philosophy of Sarvodaya is hostile to the state. According Gandhiji for ‘Swaraj’, Sarvodaya is necessary. In Sarvodaya, there is no space of politics of power. It is the base for politics of co operation. Sarvodaya is the realization of the happiness and elevation of all.

There are two techniques for stabilization of power of the people- (i) Constant propaganda and publicity (ii) Decentralization of power.

The aim is to change the heart of the people. Sarvodaya opposes to the ideas of egoism and wealth. There is no scope for class struggle in Sarvodaya. Social good, rationality and communal harmony are basic principles of Sarvodaya. Thus, the political philosophy of Sarvodaya is a powerful intellectual attempt to build a plan of political and social reconstruction on the basis of metaphysical idealism. Gandhi gave us an instrument – the instrument of non-violence - and applied it in the context of particular time, place and situation .Each age and each problem needs a solution of its own and techniques of its own to resolve the problem. Those who oppose to follow in the footprints of Gandhi have to evolve techniques different from the one that Gandhi evolved. It now calls for leaders who will renovate it elsewhere, sharing, no doubt, some of the personal or historical motivation of the first leader, the first followers of those first led, but recombining its motivation with totally new elements.

Such concepts clearly represent pillars for a new social order. A theory closely linked to the concept of Sarvodaya, also developed by Gandhi, is that of Trusteeship. Its fundamental objective is to create nonviolent and non-exploitative property relationships. Gandhi believed that the concepts of possession and private property were sources of violence, and in contradiction with the Divine reality that all wealth belongs to all people. However, he recognized that the concept of ownership would not wither easily, nor would the wealthy be easily persuaded to share their wealth. Therefore a compromise was to encourage the wealthy to hold their wealth in trust, to use themselves only what was necessary and to allow the remainder to be utilized for the benefit of the whole society.

Answer : Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history’s most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov’s last speeches in 1989. In the dictionary definition, democracy “is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” In the phrase of Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic.

Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical with relatively small numbers of people—in a community organization or tribal council, for example, or the local unit of a labor union, where members can meet in a single room to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Ancient Athens, the world’s first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons—perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy. Modern society, with its size and complexity, offers few opportunities for direct democracy. Even in the northeastern United States, where the New England town meeting is a hallowed tradition, most communities have grown too large for all the residents to gather in a single location and vote directly on issues that affect their lives.

Today, the most common form of democracy, whether for a town of 50,000 or nations of 50 million, is representative democracy, in which citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on complex public issues in a thoughtful and systematic manner that requires an investment of time and energy that is often impractical for the vast majority of private citizens. How such officials are elected can vary enormously. On the national level, for example, legislators can be chosen from districts that each elect a single representative. Alternatively, under a system of proportional representation, each political party is represented in the legislature according to its percentage of the total vote nationwide. Provincial and local elections can mirror these national models, or choose their representatives more informally through group consensus instead of elections.

Whatever the method used, public officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and remain accountable to the people for their actions. All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities—whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens. These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government—majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights and the rule of law—can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.

Democracy is more than a set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine how a government functions. In a democracy, government is only one element coexisting in a social fabric of many and varied institutions, political parties, organizations, and associations. This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many organized groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend upon government for their existence, legitimacy, or authority. Thousands of private organizations operate in a democratic society, some local, some national. Many of them serve a mediating role between individuals and the complex social and governmental institutions of which they are a part, filling roles not given to the government and offering individuals opportunities to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens of a democracy.

These groups represent the interests of their members in a variety of ways—by supporting candidates for public office, debating issues, and trying to influence policy decisions. Through such groups, individuals have an avenue for meaningful participation both in government and in their own communities. The examples are many and varied: charitable organizations and churches, environmental and neighborhood groups, business associations and labor unions. In an authoritarian society, virtually all such organizations would be controlled, licensed, watched, or otherwise accountable to the government. In a democracy, the powers of the government are, by law, clearly defined and sharply limited. As a result, private organizations are free of government control; on the contrary, many of them lobby the government and seek to hold it accountable for its actions.

Other groups, concerned with the arts, the practice of religious faith, scholarly research, or other interests, may choose to have little or no contact with the government at all. In this busy private realm of democratic society, citizens can explore the possibilities of freedom and the responsibilities of self-government—un-pressured by the potentially heavy hand of the state. Meritocracies on the other hand are comprised of these governing principles: 1) Job placement is not awarded due to experience or expertise, but instead it is awarded on the basis of merit (although experience, expertise and seniority tend to result in greater merit), 2) on the conditions of the opportunity under the application of the job principle and 3) one that specifies the rewards for job attainment. These principles however, do not account for injustices but disregard them. Not all governments operate in this manner. Most evaluate the structure of job equalities and inequalities through human abilities and personalities that allow them to perform job tasks to the best of their abilities.But meritocracy can’t compete with democracy as it ignores those who are poor and not well educated and hence can’t contribute to the state on the basis of their merit.

Answer : Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’, there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. The problem lies here only. The concept of liberty and equality are the bases of the democracy. A true democracy exists only when people in this system enjoy liberty and equality in their true spirit. But the problem is that if equality is established in the society it is possible only when state restricts some of the freedoms of the people. But if this is done the section may claim that their rights are being infringed. On the other hand if freedom of the people intact, it would stand in the way of equality as the economically sound people will use their power to exploit the weak. It would render the concept of democracy meaningless. There are several varieties of democracy some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.

However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule is able to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself. The “majority rule” is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the “tyranny of the majority”. An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests

Answer : Liberalism, as the name implies, is the fundamental belief in a political ideal where individuals are free to pursue their own goals in their own ways provided they do not infringe on the equal liberty of others. But what are the basic principles of liberalism and liberal democracy exactly, let us discus over here. Firstly, there is a commitment to fundamental human rights. Fundamental human rights, for example, are the right to human dignity, life, freedom from slavery, freedom of religion, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of association and so forth. Each of these human rights is debated to decide what its precise meaning is: the right to freedom from slavery is an absolute right that cannot be limited.

Now comes the turn of freedom. A famous example of a limitation here is that one cannot allow people to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. Doing so would cause a panic and people would get hurt trying to get out. However, liberals are usually very much against limiting freedom of expression, or censorship, because it is often used by governments to suppress people and views that differ from what the government wants people to believe or say. Of particular importance among the fundamental human rights is the right to equality. As with other fundamental rights, there is debate about what exactly equality means. All liberals will agree that equality means there can be no discrimination. In a court of law, for example, there can be no discrimination on the grounds of race (black or white) or gender (male or female) or religion (Christian or Muslim).

There are still places where, for example, what a woman has to say in a court counts only half as much as what a man has to say. This is clearly unequal treatment. But does equality also mean that everyone must get the same salary or live in the same kind of house? Liberals will say ‘no’, but will demand that all people must have the same opportunities to improve their lives -therefore the emphasis on improving education for all. Liberals, in short, believe in equality before the law and equality of opportunity.

This commitment to fundamental human rights goes together with liberals’ commitment to the rule of law. The rule of law is a set of safeguards against arbitrary and tyrannical treatment by the authorities. In a court, for example, the judge must be impartial and cannot be the same person as the prosecutor (in other words, he or she cannot be a player and the referee at the same time). Everyone, including government, must be equal before the law -no matter who they are. Anyone accused of a crime must be told exactly what they are accused of so that they can defend themselves. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Judges must be independent, that is the government or anyone else must not try and tell them what to do, or threaten them. The decisions of the courts must be consistent, that is similar cases must have similar outcomes. In short, there must be fairness in the way and manner people are treated by the authorities.

All this goes hand in hand with liberals’ belief that the government and the state must function according to the law and that certain fundamental principles cannot be changed even if the government wants to (for example the right to human dignity). Such fundamental principles are often, but not a1ways, written down in a country’s constitution.

The basis for these liberal beliefs is the importance liberals attach to the individual and his/her rights and responsibilities. Every single person is important. Liberals believe that people must decide for themselves and not be told what to do all the time. They must be free to lead the life they want to lead, provided that in doing so they do not limit someone else’s freedom. In other words, your right to swing your arms freely stops where you start hitting someone. This belief in individual liberty underlies all the other principles listed already. In addition, liberalism demands tolerance of various opinions and, most difficult of all, of opinions that are different from our own. A famous writer once said: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Liberals take the idea of individual freedom and individual rights also into the area of economics. In fact, historically speaking, the concept of property rights was the very basis of individual freedom and individual rights. Firstly, there is the principle that people can own property. At its most basic, this means that each person owns him or herself and therefore cannot be owned by someone else, that is, no one can be a slave. Such a free person can own other property: clothes, books, furniture, land, houses, cars and even ideas, so-called intellectual property. Secondly, owners of property must also be able to come together peacefully and sell their property and buy other people’s property freely. Liberals believe that the state must interfere in this free market as little as possible. This goes together with the belief that everyone is entitled to free economic activity -the state should not tell me what job to take, what profession to learn or when to open or close a shop. I must be allowed to do what I think I can do best. Liberals ask how free a person really is, if he or she cannot make these kind of important decisions for themselves. This links up with the earlier points made about individual freedom, because it requires a free exchange of ideas and opinions.

Thirdly, many liberals doubt whether the state should be in business at all: state-owned companies such as airlines, railways, and water and electricity suppliers are usually run at a loss and people’s taxes are used to keep them going. Likewise, state-owned companies usually charge their consumers more than private ones, which have to compete for business and customers. Fourthly, liberals accept that there is no equal access to the market. Believing in increasing equality of opportunity liberals therefore do not want to abolish the market; their aim is to enable people to be part of the market and to benefit from it. They want to do away with bureaucratic and unnecessary restrictions and barriers people face, to give greater access to better education and training and to make the necessary information available to join the market.

Strictly speaking, democracy is not one of liberalism’s core values, but adding them up, democracy becomes the only political system under which these values can really exist. To be more precise: liberals believe that it is liberal democracy, not a ‘one-party democracy’ and not a ‘people’s democracy’ that is needed. It is not enough for a liberal democracy simply to have regular elections, if there is only one party to choose from, or if a majority votes a government into power that promises to kill all members of a certain group or class, or if not all citizens above a certain age are allowed to vote. A liberal democracy demands free and fair elections, which are held regularly and in which all citizens (usually 18 years or older) are allowed to vote - but in addition, it requires all the core values I described here: the commitment to fundamental human rights, equality, rule of law, individual freedom and private property and a free market” Another important part of a liberal democracy is what is called ‘separation of powers’. That means that there is one body that has the power to make the laws (parliament), another body that has the power to implement those laws (the government or the executive) and a third body (the courts) that has the power to judge disputes and disagreements that may come from these laws. Liberals believe that these powers should not all be in the same hands, because that can very easily lead to abuse of power and to corruption. By keeping these powers separate, all these bodies (parliament, the executive, and the courts) check and balance each other.

There are other liberal values that are also very, very important. For example compassion for the poor and caring for other people is a liberal value. Many liberals believe that these and other values follow automatically from the belief in fundamental human rights and individual freedom. Unlike some other political belief systems, liberalism does not pretend to be ‘scientific’ and that one can measure how ‘pure’ a liberal is. Liberalism is a very dynamic, adaptable and pragmatic belief offering solutions for today’s problems.

Answer : The term “liberal” in “liberal democracy” does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of liberalism. It is merely a reference to the fact that liberal democracies feature constitutional protections of individual rights from government power, which were first proposed during the Age of Enlightenment by philosophers advocating liberty. At present, there are numerous countries ruled by non-liberal political parties - for example parties that uphold conservatism, Christian democracy, social democracy, or some forms of socialism - which are considered to have liberal democracy as their form of government. Liberal democracies today usually have universal suffrage, granting all adult citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership. Historically, however, some countries regarded as liberal democracies have had a more limited franchise, and some do not have secret ballots. There may also be qualifications such as voters being required to register before being allowed to vote. The decisions made through elections are made not by all of the citizens, but rather by those who choose to participate by voting.

According to the principles of liberal democracy, the elections should be free and fair, and the political process should be competitive. Political pluralism is usually defined as the presence of multiple and distinct political parties. The liberal democratic constitution defines the democratic character of the state. The purpose of a constitution is often seen as a limit on the authority of the government. The Anglo-American political tradition emphasizes the separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and a system of checks and balances between branches of government. Many European democracies are more likely to emphasize the importance of the state being a Rechtsstaat that follows the principle of rule of law. Governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure. Many democracies use federalism - (also known as vertical separation of powers) - in order to prevent abuse and increase public input by dividing governing powers between municipal, provincial and national governments. Near the end of the 18th century, liberal ideas inspired the American Revolution and the French Revolution, which gave birth to the ideology of liberalism and instituted forms of government that attempted to apply the principles of the Enlightenment philosophers into practice.

Neither of these forms of government was precisely what we would call a liberal democracy we know today (the most significant difference being that voting rights were still restricted to a minority of the population), and the French attempt turned out to be short-lived, but they were the prototypes from which liberal democracy later grew. Since the supporters of these forms of government were known as liberals, the governments themselves came to be known as liberal democracies.

Answer : Sarvodaya is a term meaning ‘universal uplift’ or ‘progress of all’. The term was first coined by Mohandas Gandhi as the title of his 1908 translation of John Ruskin’s tract on political economy, Unto This Last, and Gandhi came to use the term for the ideal of his own political philosophy. Later Gandhians, like the Indian nonviolent activist Vinoba Bhave, embraced the term as a name for the social movement in post-independence India which strove to ensure that self-determination and equality reached all strata of India society. Sarvodaya is a strong ideology for prevention of socio-economic ills of the society. It is based on ‘Advaita Vedanta’ doctrine. It stands for creating high moral character in the society. It is only possible by truth, non-violence, self-sacrifice and purity etc. It aims at adopting self-sacrifice for the sake of others, taking and giving to others. It is the best principle of the philosophy of Sarvodaya. It puts importance for the development of villages. For this villages should be given priority in giving aids. Villages form the keystone of Indian Democracy. It is the duty of every individual to look to the welfare of village people. Truth and non-violence are the two main points of Sarvodaya. If everybody practices these two principles, the social corruptions and irregularities will be checked. It is one non-political ideology.

It is rather a socio-religious creed. It stands for self-limitation of human wants. It stands for national unity and solidarity. It condemns provincialism and regionalism. Gandhiji’s Sarvodaya has its roots in the Vedantic concept of spiritual unity of existence and the Gita. The idealism of Sarvodaya is opposed to concept of class racial struggle and the principle of ‘greatest good of the greatest number. The ethics of idealism of Gandhi is propounded by his philosophy of Sarvodaya. Gandhi considered the state as an organization of violence and force. Being an apostle of non-violence he was repelled by the coercive character of the State. Sarvodaya is concerned with Gandhiji’s social ideas and ideal of a community. In the words of Gandhiji, It is casteless and classless society.

Answer : Democracy is more than a pattern of institutional behavior. It is an affirmation of certain attitudes and values which are more important than any particular set of institutions, for they must serve as the sensitive directing controls of institutional change. Every mechanism of democratic government has a critical point at which it may run wild. It may be formally perfect but actually murderous. For example, the principle of majority rule is a necessary condition of a functioning democracy. But so far there is nothing in what has been said which would prevent a majority from oppressing a minority. Numbers, even less than knowledge, give divine right or immunity from folly. A just government may rest upon the consent of the majority, but it is not therewith good government.

There are three related values which are central to democracy as a way of life. The first is found in many variant formulations, but common to them all is the belief that every individual should be regarded as possessing intrinsic worth or dignity. The social corollary of this recognition is that equal opportunities of development should be provided for the realization of individual talents and capacities. To believe in the equality of opportunities does not mean to believe in the equality of talents. But it does carry with it a recognition that, under conditions of modern technology, marked inequalities in the distribution of wealth or in standards of living is prejudicial to equal opportunities of development. It is absurd to expect that the same technical opportunities of development should be accorded to the artist and the engineer, the machinist and the administrator. It is not absurd to expect that their living conditions be approximately the same. The ideal of equality is not to be mechanically applied, but it must function as a regulative principle of distribution. Otherwise, endemic conflicts, latent in all human associations, take such acute forms that they imperil the very existence of democracy.

The belief in the equal right of all members of the community to develop their personalities must be complemented by a belief in the value of difference, variety, and uniqueness. In a democracy, differences of interest and achievement must not be merely suffered but encouraged. The healthy zest and opposition arising from the conflict and interchange of ideas, tastes, and personality in a free society is a much more fruitful source of new and significant experiences than the peace of dull, dead uniformity. To be sure, there are limits to difference as there are to specialization. However different people are, they live in a common world, they must communicate in a common language, and accept the common constraints which safeguard the species from extinction. In non-democratic societies the admission that men are always bound in some way by the necessities of living together is a premise for constructing vast techniques of repression to choke off differences in almost every way. In democratic societies, the admission must serve as a condition for enlarging the scope of variation, free play, growth, and experiment.

It is obvious that no matter what the values are to which a democracy is committed, situations will arise in which these values conflict or in which they are challenged by other values. No decision made in one situation necessarily stands for all others. The ultimate commitment of a democracy, then, must be a faith in some method by which these conflicts are resolved. Since the method must be the test of all values, it would not be inaccurate to call it the basic value in the democratic way of life. This method is the method of intelligence, the method of critical scientific inquiry.

In a democracy it must be directed to all issues, to all conflicts, if democracy is not to succumb to the dangers which threaten it from within and without. It is not mere chance that the greatest philosopher of experimental empiricism—John Dewey—is also the greatest philosopher of democracy. To say that the method of intelligence is essential to the democratic process seems like worrying a commonplace. But not when it is realized how revolutionary the impact would be of giving the method of intelligence institutional force in education, law, and politics. Policies would be treated as hypotheses, not as dogmas: customary practices as generalizations, not as God-given truths. A generation trained in schools in which emphasis was placed upon method, method, and still more method, could hardly be swayed by current high-pressured propaganda. The very liberties granted by free institutions in a democracy provide opportunities for special interests to forge powerful instruments to undermine it.

There is no protection against this save the critically armed mind. Minorities know that the majority may be tyrannical. An insistence upon evidence, relevance, and deliberation is not incompatible with action but only with blind action. The method of intelligence cuts under the fanaticisms which make a fetish of ends, by stressing the conditions and consequences of their use. It both uncovers and enforces responsibilities in social life. It alone, can distinguish between social conflicts which are negotiable and those which are irreconcilable, and the degree of each. Where conflicts are negotiable, it approaches social problems as difficulties to be solved by experiment and analysis, not as battles to be fought out in the heat of blood lust. It is reliable without claiming to be infallible, and its self-critical character permits it to learn from the history of human error.

What other alternative method can be embraced by a society which permits and encourages plural values and plural associations? The more intelligence is liberated in a democratic community, the greater its control of nature and the sources of wealth; the greater its control of nature, the greater the possibility of diversifying interests, values, and associations; the greater diversification, the more necessary the function of intelligence to mediate, integrate, and harmonize.

Answer : The term democracy has been in use in the tradition of western political thought since ancient times. It is derived from the Greek root demos which means ‘the people’; cracy stands for rule or government. Thus, literally democracy signifies the rule of the people. Its main ideals constitute equal participation by all freemen in the common affairs of the state which is regarded as an essential instrument of good life, general respect for law and for the establishment procedures, of the community. However, the earlier form of democracy was by no means regarded as an ideal rule because people were not equally equipped with education to select the best rulers and best courses. Bryce has set some ideals for the democracy which includes the protection from internal and external enemies, the securing of justice efficient administration of common affair and the bestowal of aid to individual citizens in their several occupations.

Nowadays democracy has been adopted as a form of government in a large number of countries. Most of them try to address the national sentiment of the people which is essential for the process of democracy. Moreover, to foster the spirit of toleration is also a Keystone of democracy. High moral character is another important condition for democracy. If people are led by their narrow selfish interests or leaders are led of mere opportune, democracy is bound to give way to demagogy. However, the highest ideal of democracy also includes a good deal of patience not only at the level of policy of under but also at the level of policy implementation. To practice the high level of democratization at all levels, such as in political parties, industrial management as well as in political, industrial management as well as university administration has been some unique important ideals of democracy as per the modern concept. Moreover, the common good of people of all strata, education, and welfare in every walk of life are being considered as the most importent ideals of democracy these days.

Answer : Theocracy as a political ideology is based on the motion that divine power is the actual ruler of a state. In a theocratic form of government, a God or deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or more often via religious institutional representatives, replacing or dominating civil government. Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws. Theocracy as a political ideal is entirely different from the secular ideology or the secular form of government. A state based on secular ideal is quite different from a state based on the ideology of theocracy. This ideology emphasizes that the state should have its own religion or in other words the state should be completely influenced by theological or moral concepts and monarchies held ‘By the grace of God’.

A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two arms, but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy. Some democratic political parties and other organizations advocate reconstructions of governments as theocracies. Basically the ideology of theocracy is invoked in order to justify a particular social economic or political organization is not conducive to the scientific temper. It defends the existing system based on the dogmatic interpretation of the rule of law and advocates a radical change in any other form of government other than theocracy. In the present context same Muslim countries prefer to have a state and system based on the ideology of theocracy.

Answer : A revolution is a fundamental change in power of organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Usually there are two types of political revolution. One is complete change from one constitution to another and the second being the modification of an existing constitution. But both of these revolutions may take place without violence or without dropping a single drop of blood. Thus the bloodless revolution is characterized by a change in the government without any fight between the parties struggling for the seat of power. A bloodless revolution always takes place in a constitutional form of government.

Revolution have occurred throughout human history and vary widely in term of methods, duration and motivation ideology. Their results include major change in culture, economy and socio-politics institutions. The Glorious revolution of England is most former revolution in the history of revolutions. This revolution is better known as the bloodless revolution. This is because this change had occurred without any actual fight and the seat of power was shifted silently. There are various debates on the bloodless revolution as many thinkers believe that bloodless revolution is not a revolution in the real sense of the term. The scholarly debates about what does and does not constitute a revolution, center on several issues. Early studies of revolution primarily analyzed events in European history from a psychological perspective, but more modern examinations include global events and incorporate perspectives from several social sciences, including sociology and political science. Several generations of scholarly though on revolution have generated many completing theories and contributed much to the current understanding of these complex phenomena. Due to this bloodless revolution stands apart as the unique revolution in the history of constitutionalism.