Modern political system (Types of political system)

Modern political system (Types of political system)
They are differentiated from each other on the basis of the principles of
1). Democracy 
2). Modernity. 
A political system is said to be democratic if its political subsystem, like political parties or interest groups, enjoy autonomy with regard to the decision-making governmental system. If not, it is a traditional political system. Hence there are four types of political systems, as under
1). Traditional non-democratic political system.
2). Traditional democratic political system.
3). Modern non-democratic Political System.
David Easton
The first political scientist to apply systems analysis to politics in his book, The Political System, which he wrote in 1953. The concept of political system was very formally the sold by the political scientist. Easton defines a political system is that system of the interactions in any society through which binding or authoritative allocations are made and implemented. Authoritative allocations relate to the values or objects or resources of human needs and desires. They can be roughly translated as laws or acts of policy.
Easton’s model of the political system consists of two main parts the environment and the political system as such. The political system consists of 
(1). The conversion process, 
(2). The inputs, 
(3). The outputs, 
(4). The feedback. According to Easton, there are, besides the political system, two other political systems. One of them is bellow it, which he called Para-political system, e.g. political panics, pressure groups, etc. and the other is above it, namely the international political system. But it is the national political system which is political system par excellence because it alone makes and implements authoritative decisions allocating values or goods and resources to individuals, and groups, in the society.


Advertisements

Definition of party system

Definition of party system: 
A political party has been defined as an organized body of people who stand for certain principles and policies in political life of the country, by whose co – operation they seek to promote the interest of the country as a whole. According to,
(I) Edmund Burke: 
A political party is a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavors the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they all are agreed.”
(II) Stephen Leacock: 
By a political party we mean more or less an organized group of citizens who act together as political unit”
(III) Gilchrist: 
A Political party is an organized group of citizens who professes to share the same political views“

Theory of the separation of powers

Theory of the separation of powers
Since the ancient day of Aristotle, political writers have recognized the threefold distribution of governmental functions or powers. They are 
(1). The law making or legislature power.   
(2). The law-enforcing or executive power.  
(3). The law adjudicating or judicial power. Each power is exercised by its own department or organ of government.

Montesquieu theory
Montesquieu explained his theory in this word: “in every government there are three sorts of power: Legislative, Executive and judicial. The liberty of individual required that neither all these powers nor any two of them should be placed in the hands of one men or one body of men. 
(1). When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body , there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise that the king, who is also law maker, might  make and enforce the laws in a tyrannical manner. 
(2). If the judicial power is joined with the legislative , the life and liberty of the subject will be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. 
(3). Where the judicial power joined to the executive power, the judge might behave violence and oppression. 
(4). There would be an end of everything if the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, were to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of enforcing them and of trying the cases of individuals 

Relationship of political science with history and sociology.

Q.3. Relationship of political science with history and sociology.

Political science and history: 
There is closed and intimate relationship between political science and history. The relationship between political science and history is beautifully explained by.
John Seeley. “History without political science has no fruit and political science without history has no root”. To quote the same author again,
“Politics is vulgar when not liberalized by history and history fades into mere literature when it loses sight of its relation to politics”.
Freeman. “History is past politics and politics is present history “. They are complementary to each other.
Montesquieu and Bryce made use of historical materials to study political science.
Lord Bryce claims that, political science stands midway between history and politics, between the past and the present. It has drawn its materials from the one; it has to apply them to the other.
History deals with past events, movements revolutions, national struggles etc. and gives information about the origin and development of political institutions and thought. When various issues, concepts and terms, ideologies, are discussed in political science, their historical development is also taken into consideration.
Political science and sociology:
Sociology is the root of all social sciences. 
Auguste Comte is the father of sociology. Sociology is the study of Society. Political science and sociology are inter-related political scientists and sociologists contribute mutually for the benefit of whole society. For example, the institution of marriage and related problems after that, namely divorce are within the domain of sociology. How to solve these problems in a harmonious way for better standard of life is within the competence of political science.
What was once a sub-field of sociology has now takes the form of “political sociology” which is now a legitimate subfield of political science.
Historical method of political science
The present is the gift of the past. This is the reason why we seek help of history, when we study the origin, development and the present nature of such political institution as the State and the Government. The historical method supplements the experimental method. Montesquieu, Saving, Seeley, Maine Freeman and Laski are some of the eminent exponents of historical method. Sabine and other traditional writers attached great importance historical approach. “A political theory” according to Sabine is always advanced in reference to a pretty specific situation”. It is therefore essential to understand “the time, place and circumstances in which it was produced”.   
 Historical approach: When international political order is studied with reference to its past, it is known as historical approach. The historical approach to the study of international political order emphasizes the following:
1. Domestic and international political order is not static but dynamic in nature.
2. Historical background of every nation is important in analyzing the present international political order.
Institutional approach
This chapter is about the international political components that one has to understand from both historical and institutional perspectives. For a better understanding, the chapter is divided into two major parts.
The first part explains the term international political order from both historical and institutional framework.
In the second part, international and regional organizations are explained in detail to illustrate how far they were successful in maintaining international political order.
Students of political science must remember that international political order is not a static one but dynamic in nature. In the context of present globalized economic order and communication revolutions we live in a different world of political order.
The history of international political order is written in terms of continuity and change in domestic and international political relations. As a step in the direction of understanding such continuity and change, this chapter explores some ideas drawn from an institutional perspective. An institutional perspective is characterized in terms of organized and formalized efforts in order to bring the desired political order at regional and international level. Students of political science try to understand how and when international political order are created, maintained, changed, and abandoned.
Many of the key questions belong to a wider class of difficult questions about the dynamics of social order and development. How can order develop out of anarchy? What stabilizes an order? When and how does a stables order fall apart? How does peaceful change occur? Why do peaceful relations sometimes find themselves drawn into less peaceful confrontations? How is the search for order among collectivities linked to the search for order within them?
This chapter explains such questions. It considers a few distinctive ways of thinking about the history and existing international and regional political organizations and elaborates some of them as an example, the League of Nations, UNO, NAM and SAARC, which could be called an institutional approach to such thinking.

Austin’s theory of sovereignty (monistic view)

Austin’s theory of sovereignty (monistic view)
In the 19th century the theory of sovereignty as a legal concept was perfected by Austin, an English Jurist. He is regarded as a greatest exponent of Monistic Theory. In his book ‘Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) Austin observed’ “if a determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in that society and that society (including superior) is a society political and independent.” To Austin in every state there exists an authority to which a large mass of citizen show compliance. This authority is absolute, unlimited and indivisible.
Austin’s theory of sovereignty depends mainly upon his view on nature of law. According to Austin “Law is a command given by a superior to inferior” the main tenets of Austin’s theory of sovereignty are as follows-
1. Sovereign power is essential in every political society.
2. Sovereignty is a person or body of persons. It is not necessary that sovereign should be a single person.
Sovereignty may reside in many persons also. Austin explains that a “Sovereign is not necessarily a single person, in the modern western world he is rarely so; but he must have so much of the attributes of a single person as to be a determinate.” To Austin state is a legal order, in which there is a supreme authority, which is source of all powers. Sovereignty is concerned with man, and every state must have human superior who can issue commands and create laws. Human laws are the proper subjects of state activity.
3. Sovereign power is indivisible. Division of sovereignty leads to its destruction. It cannot be divided.
4. The command of sovereignty is superior to over all individuals and associations. Sovereign is not bound to obey anyone’s order. His will is supreme. There is no question of right or wrong, just or unjust, all his commands are to be obeyed.
5. Austin’s theory says that the obedience to sovereign must be habitual. It means that obedience should be continuous. He also includes that is not necessary that obedience should come from the whole society. It is sufficient, if it comes from the lay majority of people. Obedience should come from bulk of the society otherwise there is no sovereign.
In brief we can say that sovereignty according to Austin is supreme, indivisible and unquestionable. Like all other theories of sovereignty Austin’s theory is also not free from criticism. The first criticism is regarding sovereignty residing in a determinate superior. Even sovereign’s acts are shaped by so many other influences, such as morals, values and customs of the society.

Relation between the National Assembly and the Senate

The National Assembly has been granted more power than the powers granted to the Senate.

Responsibility

The Executive is collectively responsible only to the National Assembly and not to the Senate.

Sole Body

The national assembly is the sole body to vote upon the demand for grants of money.

Money bills can be introduced

Money bills can be introduced only in the National Assembly. Conclusion In this way the senate has practically no powers over the money bills.

Supreme judicial council, Composition and Powers of Supreme judicial council

Supreme judicial council
The article 209 has been examined by the Supreme Court of Pakistan – The Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan is a body of judges empowered under Article 209 of the constitution of Pakistan to hear cases of misconduct against judges.
Composition
The composition of the Council is set out in the constitution as: The Chief JusticeThe two next most senior judges of the Supreme Court of PakistanThe two most senior Chief Justices of the provincial High Courts
Where the council is investigating a member of the council he is replaced by the next most senior judge.
Powers
No judge in Pakistan may be dismissed except by the Supreme Judicial Council. 

The Council may start proceedings against a judge either by its own initiative or by reference from the President of Pakistan.
If the Council concludes that the judge is guilty of misconduct and should be removed from office they can recommend this to the President.
According to Article 209 
(1). There shall be a Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan, in this Chapter referred to as the Council.
(2). The Council shall consist of, 
(a) the Chief Justice of Pakistan, 
(b) the two next most senior Judges of the Supreme Court; and, 
(c) the two most senior Chief Justices of High Courts.
Explanation – For the purpose of this clause, the inter seniority of the Chief Justices of the High Courts shall be determined with reference to their dates of appointment as Chief Justice [otherwise than as acting Chief Justice], and in case the dates of such appointment are the same, with reference to their dates of appointment as Judges of any of the High Courts.
(3) If at any time the Council is inquiring into the capacity or conduct of a Judge who is a member of the Council, or a member of the Council is absent or is unable to act due to illness or any other cause, then, 
(a) if such member is a Judge of the Supreme Court, the Judge of the Supreme Court who is next in seniority below the Judges referred to in paragraph 
(b) of clause 
(2), and
(b) If such member is the Chief Justice of a High Court; the Chief Justice of another High Court who is next in seniority among st the Chief Justices of the remaining High Courts, shall act as a member of the Council in his place.
(4) If, upon any matter inquired into by the Council, there is a difference of opinion amongst its members, the opinion of the majority shall prevail, and the report of the Council to the President shall be expressed in terms of the view of the majority.
(5) If, on information from any source, the Council or the President is of the opinion that a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court- 
(a) may be incapable of property performing the duties of his office by reason of physical or mental incapacity; or
(b) May have been guilty of misconduct, the President shall direct the Council to, or the Council may, on its own motion, inquire into the matter.
(6) If, after inquiring into the matter, the Council reports to the President that it is of the opinion, 
(a) that the Judge is incapable of performing the duties of his office or has been guilty of misconduct, and, 
(b) that he should be removed from office, the President may remove the Judge from office.
(7) A Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court shall not be removed from office except as provided by this Article.
(8) The Council shall issue a code of conduct to be observed by Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts.