Concept of education

Capitalism is the key ordering institution of economic and social life today. It has come to encompass almost all countries, big or small, and societies. Capitalism is generally understood as an economic system wherein the means of production are privately owned and production is geared towards profit. However, it is much more than just an economic system. It produces a social order of its own in which people are segregated into classes on the basis of their relations to the forces of production.  DEFINITIONS AND MEANINGS Capitalism is seen as an ideology and as an economic system, depending on its usage. As an ideology, capitalism encompasses principles of private property, self-interest, and meritocracy. It overlaps substantially with the ethos of classical liberalism (Heywood, 2013). As an economic system, capitalism is a system of generalised commodity production solely directed towards profit-making. Sociologists see capitalism as a social system where social structures, institutions and relations are woven around the market Liberal Conception of Capitalism Capitalism is rooted in the classical liberal ethos of individualism, enterprise and freedom. It is an economic system that privileges private property, personal self-interest and meritocracy. The liberal understanding of capitalism is most clearly elucidated in the works of economist Adam Smith, who is widely known as the father of economics. In his work An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith explained how the free market system, or the Laissez-Faire, was the reason why some nations were wealthier than others. This is a system founded on the principle of non-intervention by the government in economic affairs. The doctrine believes that the economy works most efficiently when left alone by the government. It assumes that an unregulated market economy tends naturally towards equilibrium through ‘perfect competition’ among free economic actors.1 Adam Smith believed that the invisible hand of the market tended towards the prosperity of the whole ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM Theorising the origin of capitalism depends on the different meanings ascribed to it. Thinkers who attach capitalism to the acquisitive investment of money or the spirit of enterprise would infer that some form of capitalism has been in existence nearly throughout all periods of history. For instance, the use of money for exchange and the distinctive capitalist spirit of entrepreneurship were recorded in classical Greece and Rome Capitalism – A product of Modernity Capitalism is an outcome of the period of modernity that began in Europe after the medieval ages. The period provided the philosophical and political background upon which capitalism originated and developed. Some of these were seen in movements such as the Renaissance or Enlightenment, the Reformation, and the subsequent Industrial Revolution. The Renaissance (which means rebirth), spanning from the 14th century to the 17th century, marked the beginning of the modern period. This intellectual revolution was characterised by the emphasis on scientific temperament and rationality and the abhorrence of religion, traditionality, and conformism 

From Feudalism to Capitalism: Decline and Transition Capitalism can be said to have emerged from the dismantled structures of feudalism. Feudalism, which is commonly understood as serfdom, was an economic system characterised by the division of the society into two major classes: feudal lords and serfs, with the latter bound by the obligation to produce for the fulfilment of the economic demands of the former. Spanning over the 9th and 15th centuries, according to most historians, feudal society was an agrarian-based system in which economic and political power were manipulated by the landowning class. Feudalism declined for various reasons, beginning in England and giving way for the capitalist system of economic organisation to take root 1.5 EXPANSION OF CAPITALISM The development of capitalism over the various stages of the modern period and through the decline of feudalism reached its culmination in its establishment as a single capitalist world order by the 19th century. The question of how capitalism expanded and grew is of many contending views. However, there are some of the most commonly accepted stages of capitalist expansion, which are discussed below. Pre-competitive or Mercantile Phase of Expansion (1500—1800) This phase of capitalist expansion is characterised by the scouring of Asia, Africa, and South America by European merchants for gold, spices, slaves, and the monopoly of existing trade routes. Calling the practice nothing less than disguised looting and plundering Colonial Expansion (1800-1950) Colonialism, defined as the direct political control and administration of foreign territories by another, led to the expansion of capitalism to regions outside Europe. The period saw the spread of European rule to 85 percent of the Earth’s surface area, primarily in Asia, Africa, and the Americas Neo-colonization or Late Monopoly Capitalism (1950-1970) The decades after the Second World War were characterised by a wave of decolonisation through which numerous European colonies in Asia and Africa gained independence. While it marked the end of formal occupation and administration of colonies, this period heralded a new phase of capitalist expansion known as neocolonialism. It is the practice of exerting indirect influence by the erstwhile colonial powers over the newly independent countries through economic and cultural means. Neo-colonialism manifested itself in the continued exploitation of developing countries through the combined efforts of the first world via transnational corporations and global and multilateral institutions Globalisation and Neo-Imperialism (1970 onwards) The period from 1970 and beyond is characterised by the spread of this multidimensional phenomenon known as globalisation. The period saw capitalism receive a new fillip to become what James Fulcher called ‘remarketised capitalism’. Aside from the unparalleled growth of market relations and multi-layered interconnections, the era of globalisation saw the reinvigoration of monetary capitalism, especially in the US and the UK, under the respective leadership of Reagan and Thatcher. 

GLOBALISATION Globalisation is the complex web of multi-dimensional interconnectedness that has come to envelop the world, especially in the post-1970s. It pertains to almost every sphere of human experience, such as social, cultural, political, spiritual, technological, etc. Human interconnection of the international kind existed in centuries past, too, as evident in recorded history; however, the extent, depth, and complexity of presentday globalisation are unprecedented. Globalisation has been defined in different ways by many scholars. Anthony Giddens defines globalisation as “the intensification of worldwide social relations that link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.” He speaks of it in terms of “time-space compression. Globalisation is multidimensional. The most significant ones are economic globalization, cultural globalisation, and political globalisation. Economic globalisation is representative of the capitalist global order, where no economy is an island but has been absorbed into an interlocked global economy. It refers to the global economic system where production is internationalised and there is a free flow of capital, finance, goods, and services among national economies. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the communist bloc catalysed the spread of economic globalisation in that many former communist states were absorbed into the global capitalist system. Economic globalisation has resulted in the reduced capacity of national governments to manage their economies and resist transnational forces attempting to restructure them along free-market principle GLOBALISATION AND THE STATE There is a general concern about the sovereignty of the state in the era of globalisation. Globalists who support and believe in the idea of globalisation have argued that the state’s power has seen a general decline due to globalisation, while sceptics of globalisation who question and challenge globalisation argue that the state has managed to keep its power intact. There are three discernible views on the issue of the state’s power in the era of globalisation, according to George Sorenson (2011). First, the Retreat Scholars, who are essentially globalists, believe that globalisation has led to the erosion of states’ power in various ways. They argue that the growth of international and transnational organisations such as the UN and its specialised agencies, as well as international pressure groups and social movements, has altered the characters of both state and civil society. The state has become a fragmented policy-making arena, permeated by transnational networks and influence. Globalisation has broken the exclusive link between territory and political power, resulting in what is known as the deterritorialization of power. Kenichi Ohmae, in his work The Borderless World, argues that the nation-state has become an unnatural, even dysfunctional unit for organising human activity and managing economic endeavours. It represents no genuine shared community of economic interest; it defines no meaningful flows of economic activity 

 GLOBALISATION AND CAPITALISM Globalisation, in particular its economic aspect, is seen as the spread of neoliberalism, which in turn contains the crux of the capitalist order. Globalisation, thus, is essentially the process of expansion and entrenchment of capitalism in the 20th century. The linkage between economic globalisation and neoliberalism has several reasons, according to Andrew Heywood (2013). First, globalisation induced intense international competition for capital and markets, forcing countries to deregulate their economies and reduce tax levels to attract transnational investment. Countries were further forced to adopt neoliberal policies of reducing public spending on welfare programmes or maintaining full employment while prioritising the control of inflation. Such neoliberal policies were adopted in most countries worldwide by the 1990s and appeared to be the dominant ideology of the ‘new’ world economy. Secondly, the transformation of global economic institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF in the 1990s along the principles of the ‘Washington Consensus’ (namely, ‘stabilise, privatize, and liberalise’) further expanded the reach of neoliberal capitalism to countries that were yet to be incorporated. This forced developing and ‘transition’ economies (constituents of the erstwhile USSR) to pursue neoliberal policies such as free trade, liberalisation of capital markets, flexible exchange rates, balanced budgets, and so on. Third, this neoliberal growth model has at its core the financial markets and the process of ‘financialization’ made possible by the unparalleled expansion of the financial sector of the economy. This process of economic globalisation transformed capitalism into what came to be known as ‘turbo-capitalism’, fed by expanded monetary flows, increased investment, and higher consumption worldwide. Another key character in understanding the link between capitalism and globalism is the strong faith in open markets and trade liberalisation encouraged by the creation of the World Trade Organisation in 1995 and a shift in the global division of labour. Developed countries that monopolised manufacturing shifted to services, exporting manufacturing processes to developing economies. These developments in international trade relations in the post-1970 period explain how capitalism was fed, strengthened, and expanded by the process of globalisation. 

TYPES OF CAPITALISM Capitalism is a complex economic system with variations not only in conception but also in practice. Andrew Heywood pointed out that, despite having several common characteristics, different societies construct their own models of capitalism depending on their particular economic and political circumstances and their cultural and historical inheritance. The notion of a ‘pure’ capitalist system was always an illusion (Heywood, 2013). Capitalism must be seen not to constitute a single economic form but, rather, a variety of economic forms. He identifies three types of capitalist systems in the modern world: enterprise capitalism, social capitalism, and state capitalism. Enterprise capitalism, also known as the ‘American business model’, is widely seen as ‘pure’ capitalism. This strand of capitalism is based on the ideas of classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and modern theorists such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek. At its core lies unflinching faith in free market competition based on the belief that the market is a self-regulating mechanism in line with the principle of laissez-faire. Enterprise capitalism keeps public ownership to a minimum and ensures that welfare provision operates as a mere safety net. Businesses are essentially driven by the profit motive, with an emphasis on high productivity and labour flexibility Social capitalism has drawn from economists like Friedrich List, who, despite being liberal, believed in state intervention to protect small industries from the difficulties of foreign competition. Central to this model is an attempt to marry the disciplines of market competition with the need for social cohesion and solidarity. This idea gives rise to the concept of the social market as opposed to the free market State capitalism refers to capitalist economies in which the state plays a crucial directive role. It first emerged in Japan after 1945 and was adopted by the East Asian tigers and China. Also called collective capitalism, this model emphasises cooperative, long-term relationships among market players. Here, the economy is to be directed not by an impersonal price mechanism but through what have been called ‘relational markets’— a complex web of close relationships between economic sectors such as finance and industry Capitalism has been classified differently by other thinkers, but it mostly corresponds to the above types. In their work, ‘Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism’, Baumol, Litan, and Schramm identify four varieties of capitalism: entrepreneurial capitalism (USA), big-firm capitalism (Europe and Japan), state-directed capitalism (China), and oligarchic capitalism (Russia). Similarly, political economists Hall and Soskice (2001), in their book Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, identify two major types of capitalist economies: liberal market economies (LME) and coordinated market economies (CME). Examples of LMEs include the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland, while CMEs are seen primarily in Northern European countries such as Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland. 

Socialism is a major ideology among modern political ideologies. It is directly related to the problems prevailing in human life. In this perspective, socialism is not just a socio-economic philosophy but also a political theory and social movement that takes different forms in different conditions, situations, and periods. For example, in countries such as Russia and China, it is displayed as a totalitarian right where every aspect of human life is tried to be brought under state control by this totalitarian right. On the other hand, socialism also defines itself as a welfare state by controlling the economy in other western countries.  RISE OF SOCIALISM When we go through the history of socialism, we see that socialism did not originate in the history of political thought, but it developed as a result of the reaction of individualist ideology. It is considered to be the inevitable culmination of certain developments, which emerge as a separate ideology in the backdrop of the Industrial Revolution. Socialism is the logical consequence of the backlash against both the political system and the individualist system. In terms of equality of human beings or social systems, the sources of this type of ideology can be traced back to very ancient times. Socialist sentiments can be traced to India’s glorious past. If we look at the Indian religious literature,  SOCIALISM IN WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT The process of socialism in Western political thought begins with Plato. Although Sophists and Socrates have contributed to political thought, they have never propounded or interpreted socialist principles based on state governance principles or from ideological points of view. Therefore, the process of socialism seems to be started from the Plato. The seeds of socialism are embedded in Plato’s depiction of the ideal state in his great book, The Republic (380 BCE). Plato introduced the idea of communism in terms of personal property and family. The premise of this idea was that personal property and family misguided the person in his social life. After Plato, Sir Thomas Moore’s ‘Utopia’ (1516), despite its republican tendency, was conceived as an alternative to the present society, and perhaps that is why Utopia is considered the primary socialist work. The principles that Moore has propounded and emphasised in his work were considered to be ideal. These principles were the abolition of private property, the responsibility of all to the work, equal rights, the right to wealth, state administration, state control over the means of production, and ending poverty and exploitation. Taking a sharp sarcasm at the erstwhile unjust system of England, Sir Thomas Moore has described the ideal system of an island called Utopia in which all persons keep the things produced by their own labour in one place, and from there they continually receive according to their needs SOCIALISM IN WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT The process of socialism in Western political thought begins with Plato. Although Sophists and Socrates have contributed to political thought, they have never propounded or interpreted socialist principles based on state governance principles or from ideological points of view. Therefore, the process of socialism seems to be started from the Plato. 

UTOPIAN SOCIALISM Jerome Blanqui, in his work ‘History of Political Economy’ (1839), providing a detailed description of socialism, described Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Saint Simon as the primary socialists. The above three socialists had a moral and social attitude towards society and emphasised the well-being of society and the happiness of the people. They refused to accept the competition as a social system. Among these three socialists, Saint Simon was the greatest intellectual. Saint Simon was very supportive of scientific planning and large-scale industrial organization. He had hoped that the national states could be turned into big corporations under the leadership of scientists and technicians SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM Utopian socialism presented a detailed critique of contemporary social reality, aiming to go beyond the present imperfect society to establish a complete and harmonious human order that actively protects human freedom and seeks a social system that is free from oppression and exploitation. But this early branch of socialism, which is emotionally devoted to human emancipation, failed to provide any concrete solution or alternative to these systems. It did not develop any clear principles or ideas related to the state that governs social systems. Scientific socialism was born as a systematic theory to bring these characteristics of utopian socialism to the ground of reality. Since Karl Marx made an immense contribution to its rendering, it is also called Marxism. But it would be unfair to name the entire scientific socialism as Marxism because, in different countries, the same scientific socialism is known by different names due to its special needs and principles. It is only from the socialist ideology propounded by Karl Marx and Engels that systematic socialist socialism originated DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIALISM: OTHER POPULAR FORMS OF SOCIALISM  Collectivism Collectivism is known by many names, like groupism and holism. Collectivism was founded as a reaction to radical socialism, as it seeks to establish genuine socialism through revolution, violence, or opposition. Collectivism holds that revolution generates counter-revolution and that it is not possible to establish lasting peace. This is the reason why collectivism wants to establish socialism through peaceful, liberal, democratic, and statutory measures  Labour Unionism This form of socialism, which promoted the interests of the workers, was founded in opposition to capitalism. It was founded as a result of the working-class movement in France. George Sorrells is considered to be the main exponent of this theory. We can consider this theory to be the result of the reaction to the French Revolutionary ideal of freedom, equality and fraternity because, after the French Revolution, the occupational and manufacturing classes took control over the system of governance, which hindered the freedom of workers to work  Fabianism This form of socialism was founded by English intellectuals in England in 1884, due to which it is called a movement of intellectuals. The main objective of this theory was to present the principles of socialism to the educated masses so that a socialist society could be established through democratic, orderly, non-violent and peaceful means. Early proponents of this theory were scholars such as Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Annie Besant, Graham Wallas, and G.D.H. Cole.The goal of this principle is to restructure society by freeing land and industrial capital from personal ownership and handing them over to society for the public interest so that the natural and acquired wealth of the country can be distributed fairly among the people 

COLONIALISM: CONTEXT AND FORMS The term colonialism refers to a large-scale political and economic system that allows one geopolitical entity (such as a nation-state or city-state) to establish controls beyond its traditional geographic borders in the service of increased profit or power (Ahuja 2014:237) Specific to the character of colonisation is the nature of the unequal relationship between coloniser and the colonised. Such a relationship is based on disproportionate economic and political rights, often solely to the advantage of the coloniser. The term imperialism refers to a process whereby a country occupies another country’s territory and has complete control over not just the economic aspects of the colony but also the cultural, social and political aspects of life. Also, colonialism is constructed on the notion of the white man’s burden, which is based on the assumption that it was the alleged duty of the European colonial powers to manage the affairs, culture and civilisation of the colonised population since the coloniser had a superior sense of governance and civilisation as opposed to the indigenous cultures of the colonies. Such a discourse had set the pace for racism, exploitation and domination among the indigenous communities in the occupied territories FEATURES OF COLONIALISM One of the major features of colonialism is that it is based on unequal economic relations, despite the exposure of the colonised territories to the world market system. Although colonialism has led to the integration of many societies with the world capitalist market system, such integration has encouraged exploitation rather than the development of the colonial states. The proponents of the dependency school argue that the objective of integrating the colonial states with the world capitalist system was aimed at serving the interests of the imperial states, or the metropolis at the expense of periphery states. For instance, the Indian state, although integrated with the world capitalist market during British rule, suffered immense economic stagnation due to the exploitative character of British rule. The colonial period led to the systematic destruction of the indigenous industries and as a result India faced economic stagnation. The objective of colonial rule in India was to turn the country into a captive market for sourcing raw materials and selling foreign goods, which would serve the interests of British colonial rule. The systematic drain of wealth from the colonial states was another feature of colonialism. A lot of economic resources and surpluses were drained out of the country either in the form of salaries or other administrative expenditures to maintain the colonial empires, which were taken out of the country. For instance, the high salaries to maintain civil servants were taken out of the country by the European officers NEO-COLONIALISM Neo-colonialism is a form of colonialism in which a country seeks to influence the economic and political conditions of another country through conditional aid and financial support. The term was used by Jean-Paul Sartre in 1956 while it was used by Kwame Nkrumah, who was a former president of Ghana (1960-66) to describe the decolonisation process in African countries in the 1960s. It was in the context of the Cold War that the superpowers from the two opposing blocs, would make interventions in the many de-colonised states in Asia and Africa, and use these states as a base to wage proxy wars. 

DECOLONISATION: CONTEXT AND FORMS Decolonisation has been widely referred to as a process in the latter half of the twentieth century when colonialism was receiving a setback, as a result of which the colonial powers had to withdraw from their occupied territories. It signifies a time when governments in Asia, Africa, and South America began to attain independence from western and European powers. The term decolonisation has two different connotations. Decolonisation refers to a process in which the colonial powers gave up their control over their territories, often wilfully at a moment when they deemed that their colonial subjects had finally arrived at a position for responsible self-governance. The other connotation of the term, decolonisation refers to a process when the occupied territories could achieve autonomy for self-rule from their colonial rulers through struggles that finally led to their independence. The second definition refers to a process, mostly in the form of mass movements, that was responsible for overthrowing colonialism in the occupied colonies. DECOLONISATION DURING VARIOUS STAGES The classic phase of decolonisation is usually associated with the late twentieth century, when the colonies of the European powers began to assert their right to selfdetermination. Factors such as the high cost of great power rivalry and the world wars led to economic and political hardships for the colonial powers to maintain their faraway territories or to even suppress the revolts against foreign rule. The economic burden of maintaining the colonies, the struggle for independence and mass movements for selfdetermination have been instrumental in accelerating the process of decolonisation in several Asian, African and American states in the course of histor DECOLONISATION AND ITS TYPES The process of decolonisation has been peaceful and gradual for some colonies while for some it has been violent. In history, different events have facilitated the decolonisation process in Asia and Africa. Some decolonisation processes have been non-violent while some have been violent or a combination of different strategies to achieve selfdetermination. For instance, India achieved independence through a national mass movement which was fundamentally based on non-violent methods of resistance under the leadership of Mohandas Karmachand Gandhi, while there were leaders who also spoke of self-determination through revolutions. Frantz Fannon (1925-1961), spoke in revolutionary terms in his work The Wretched of the Earth. Also, the colonisers often used a language to portray the struggles of decolonisation as illegitimate and passed draconian laws to curb them, often citing these acts of resistance as terrorism or rebellion while the leaders’ tried to resists suppression by giving it the name of a revolution, for instance (Klose 2014 DIFFERENT APPROACHES There are different approaches towards understanding the history of decolonisation. The process of decolonisation cannot be attributed to just one factor but a combination of multiple factors. Factors such as contradictions within the imperial powers, the rise of struggles for independence in the colonies or the Nationalist approach, and international developments within the international structure have led to the culmination  COLONIALISM AND DECOLONISATION: IMPLICATIONS Colonialism has disrupted the economies of the colonies, therefore with the process of decolonisation the colonies had to revive and build an economic system that would bring them out of underdevelopment. Even after colonialism was formally ended, these newly independent states frequently pursued the path of neo-colonialism due to a weak economy and other issues 

INTRODUCTION Before we start with any analysis, what is civic and ethnic nationalism? Or make efforts to seek any understanding of what the ideological basis of anti-colonial nationalism would constitute for some thinkers such as Gandhi, Mao, Fanon, and Cabral. Nationalism as an ideology, social and political movement, as a force to be reckoned with, had announced itself at least by the end of the eighteenth century. As time has passed by, interest in nationalism has gradually increased, and with its growing outreach and audience, nationalism has declared itself that it was not simply a temporary stage in the historical evolution of human societies.  DEBATES ON NATIONALISM The task of arriving at a consensus regarding definition of nationalism has remained contested and varied depending on circumstances of time and place. According to Rosa Luxembourg, “the terms “national state” and “nationalism” are in themselves empty husks, into which all historical epochs and class relations pour their special material content”. At the same time, is it also necessary to determine a specific nature and characteristic of nationalism? Although a significant aspect of literature and subject matter on nationalism is said to have been contributed from a resistance to or struggle against foreign domination. If we chose to include all such examples of such foreign domination as nationalism – we must think it out critically, since such instances of resistance can be traced back beyond the dawn of recorded history. An attempt to classify types of nationalism has produced four main distinguishing patterns, established taking into consideration characteristics of some one part of the world, appearing in more or less chronological order. These have been: 1. The nationalism of people with a long experience of concurrent development of state power and national consciousness, with citizenship determining nationality (Western Europe) 2. The nationalism of countries without a political experience of long duration but with a common language and a common self-image (Italy and Germany) 3. The nationalism of countries such as those of south-eastern Europe, without a common political experience of long duration and often without an ethnically homogeneous territory, in which the religion of historical association is usually an important determinant of national consciousness; and 4. The nationalism of anti-colonialism and of the drive for “modernity” generally associated with the Third World but manifested also in southeastern Europe ETHNIC AND CIVIC NATIONALIS The major point of contention or argument with regards to the distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism revolves around the issue concerning the basis for inclusion and exclusion into a community (a political community). While proponents of the ethnic nationalism prescribes for an objective criteria – language or descent as the basis for recognition or membership into a political community, in this context the nation. The ethnic nationalism school of thought subscribes to the argument – that the individual does not have any role to play in the choice of nation to which they wish to belong, that their choice of membership is pre-decided at the time of birth itself. This type of nationalism views the nation as a natural and self-regulating social system and portrays it as an organic whole. It considers the relationship of culture to politics to be a matter of primary importance. It views culture as a matter that would provide surface material for homogenising, which would ultimately lead to the creation of culturally homogeneous states, whereas the civic nationalism school does not consider cultural homogeneity as the basis for formation of nationhood

NATIONALISM IN AFRICAN CONTEX The Africans in large part, the problem of building nations was related to the problem of amalgamating and eventually superseding tribes. The tribe is a group based on kinship, which typically includes several clans. It generally consists of a common language along with a magical common ancestor and may be constituted with only a few hundred members. A consciousness of common origin may also be seen as persisting. Moreover, during times of crisis, these tribes with a common language and tradition are often seen to be joining hands for a joint action, to meet up against such emergenciesWith the entry of Europeans in the African scenario. It brought about establishment of coastal trading posts, along with it came the system of slavery which introduced elements of inequality into the African society which was previously regarded as a classless society. Further, with the gradual emergence of urban centers, followed by the advent of free enterprise leading to the nascent development of social classes. At the same time, ethnic groups began forming their own class structures. Contrary to the European experience, the African economy did not evolve a feudal system in the European sense. As Europeans pursued to exploit Africa for resources, mainly raw materials, and food, they introduced various forms of forced labour in the process of mobilising the workforce from the mines and plantations. As a result of which, these labourers were not serfs, hence not tied to the land as such… thus the forced labour arrangements acted to detach them from the soil, which made them align to the interest of capitalist exploitation. It is imperative for Marxists and others to refrain from an attempt to force Africa into the rigid frame of European development and an approach should be encouraged whereby study of African history can be done on its own terms. The problem has arisen partly due to the external inference of Europeans, whose developmental trajectory is often presented as the blueprint or hallmark of the “backward” Africans.  FRANTZ FANON’S ON NATIONALISM Fanon’s specialisation in the field of psychiatryhelped him contemplate the problem of dominance and dominator. He was interested in making observations about how this relationship would impact the individual psyches of both sides. Fanon, from his examination, asserts that the overcoming of the feeling of inferiority instilled by the white man was for the dominated colonials a matter of great significance. However, Fanon claims that there is positive value in individual acts of violence against the oppressor, as seen in national liberation movements. In doing so, Fanon expresses the necessary role of violence to make it possible for the masses to understand certain social truths, which also remains consistent with the Marxist principle of the need for mass violence in the social revolution if anything serious was to be accomplished. Fanon also spoke about why he despised the western culture, because of their attitude towards the black and the colonial people in general. Fanon further, highlighted the capacity of the colonial system through its mechanisms and institutions at work, to make the native culture hostage by stagnating a culture that was once thriving and living, open to future, to becoming closed and fixed in the colonial status. Moreover, for the natives an important aspect of the nationalist movement was to revive their culture and reacquire their history, which was degraded and perverted by the colonialists, after they had got hold of it. 

GANDHI ON INDIAN NATIONALISM Indian nationalism, prior to 1947, often emphasised on viewing India as an extensive geo-political space, with a high degree of influence over a significant part of Asia, claiming its existence as a broader Indian subcontinent. In this view, Nationalism in India is seen as developing an awareness of the socio-cultural unity in the past, deriving its value not just from its spiritual roots but also observed as rather functioning as a means to express the aspirations and hopes of the educated middle class. Further, the development of Indian nationalism was not a straightforward activity, having a singular trajectory and, not always consistently coherent. Meaning to suggest, it consisted of alternative means to shape up the trajectory of nationalism which were sometimes Developing a sense of nationalism for such a context, Gandhi desired a nationalism in which he envisioned India’s freedom without hatred. His perspective emphasised selfless service over power or wealth. It was while Gandhi was in South Africa, he had developed his unique vision of Indian nationalism, subsequently diverse from other nationalists. His political philosophy and techniques, to a large extent, had taken shape in the politics of the Transvaal. Moreover, Gandhi’s views on nationalism are not transparently available; instead, it emerges from diverse readings and personal experiences, and developments surrounding him. It is observed, to define Gandhi’s nationalism into an academic framework, was challenging, especially because of his non-theoretical approach. He emphasised on action over academic writings, his political thought was integral to his evolving philosophy, which was shaped by his experiences and experiments with truth over five decades. For Gandhi swaraj, or self-rule, meant self-control as well as self-governanc In his conception, swaraj was to ensure that authority was regulated and controlled by the people, which would lead towards a healthy and dignified independence. The second important aspect to Gandhi’s nationalism is communal harmony. Gandhi believed in composite nationalism, in which unity was derived from active participation of diverse communities for the fundamental cause of freedom struggle, , exerting a positive influence through love and goodwill. Gandhi’s nationalism, as derived from his thoughts and writings, exhibited several key features: 1. Gandhi’s nationalism focused on establishing harmony among diverse groups in India, not only across religious lines but also along caste and communities. 2. Gandhi was strongly against the exercise of violent means in achieving freedom from colonial rule, instead he advocated use of non-violent means based on the philosophy of ahimsa in thought, action, and deed. 3. His nationalism supported the idea of collective participation of all communities, with a thought for inclusion of those marginalised in society, to work towards building a nation reflecting its diversity as a population. 4. Gandhi, despite having a personal attachment to religion, Gandhi’s nationalism sought to prescribe secular values and principles, promoting the principle of equality and respect for all religions. 5. Gandhi was of the view that a true internationalism would only emerge when nationalism became a reality, in which different countries agreed to organise themselves for the collective benefit of humanity. 6. Gandhi rejected a communitarian approach, viewing India not as a nation but as a civilization, enriched by people belonging to various races and religions. He emphasised the fostering of diversity and tolerance within this cultural framework. 

INTRODUCTION Constitutionalism, a fundamental principle in political theory, serves as the bedrock for the organisation and operation of modern states. Its essence lies in restraining governmental authority, safeguarding individual rights, and establishing a framework for the rule of law. When approached through comparative political analysis, constitutionalism becomes a lens through which we can discern the varied ways nation’s structure and interpret their foundational laws, providing a nuanced understanding of global political systems. Comparative political analysis of Constitutionalism involves the examination of similarities and differences in how nations design and implement their constitutional frameworks. This scrutiny encompasses the separation of powers, a cornerstone concept emphasising the division between executive, legislative, and judicial branches HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Constitutionalism has deep historical roots, evolving over centuries to become a pivotal concept in modern political theory. Its historical background can be traced through key milestones that reflect humanity’s ongoing quest for effective and just governance. The origins of constitutionalism can be found in ancient civilizations, such as Mesopotamia and Ancient Greece. In Greece, the city-state of Athens developed early democratic principles, laying the groundwork for the idea that political power should be accountable and subject to certain principles. The Roman Republic also contributed to constitutional thought with its establishment of a mixed government and the concept of the rule of law. The Magna Carta, signed in 1215, is a landmark document in the development of constitutionalism issued by King John of England. It aimed to limit the arbitrary powers of the monarch and established the principle that even rulers are subject to the law. This foundational ideal gained momentum during the Enlightenment, as thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu articulated theories emphasising the protection of individual rights, separation of powers, and the social contract. The American and French Revolutions in the late 18th century further solidified constitutional principles. The United States Constitution, ratified in 1787, became a model for balancing powers among branches of government and enshrining fundamental rights. Meanwhile, the French Revolution saw the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, emphasising principles of equality and individual liberties  CONSTITUTIONALISM: MEANING & DEBATES Constitutionalism refers to a political philosophy or approach that emphasises the importance of a constitution in governing a nation. Here are brief definitions by notable authors: 1. John Locke: Constitutionalism, according to Locke, entails a government that operates within the bounds of a constitution, protecting natural rights and promoting the common good. 2. Montesquieu: Montesquieu’s constitutionalism stresses the separation of powers as a fundamental principle, ensuring a system of checks and balances to prevent tyranny. 5. Dicey: AV. Dicey, a British jurist, highlighted the rule of law as a core element of constitutionalism, emphasising equality before the law and the supremacy of legal principles. 6. Upendra Baxi: Constitutionalism, as articulated by Baxi, extends beyond the legal text and structures. Baxi emphasises the transformative and emancipatory potential of constitutionalism, viewing it as a tool for social justice, human dignity, and the protection of fundamental rights 

KEY PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONALISM The evolution of the concept of Constitutionalism emphasising the importance of government/governing according to established principles and rules, has a long history of many important developments as explained in the earlier sections of the lesson. Deriving from this history, some of the key principles of constitutionalism are briefly explained below: A. Rule of Law: Constitutionalism upholds the principle of the rule of law, meaning that all individuals, including government officials, are subject to and accountable under the law. This ensures fairness and equality before the law, preventing arbitrary use of power. B. Limited Government: Constitutionalism promotes the idea of limited government, restraining the authority of the state. It seeks to prevent the tyranny of government which in most democracies can be seen to represent a majority E. Individual Rights: Protecting individual rights is a fundamental aspect of constitutionalism. The constitution outlines and safeguards the rights and freedoms of citizens, establishing a framework that guards against arbitrary government actions that might infringe upon these rights. F. Popular Sovereignty: Constitutionalism often embraces the idea of popular sovereignty, asserting that the ultimate authority lies with the people. Governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and citizens have the right to participate in decision-making processes. G. Constitutional Supremacy: Constitutionalism emphasises the supremacy of the constitution over ordinary legislation. Laws and government actions must conform to the constitution, and any law inconsistent with the constitution is deemed invalid POST-COLONIAL CONSTITUTIONALISM Post-colonial constitutionalism refers to the development and evolution of constitutional frameworks in countries that have gained independence from colonial rule. It involves the creation or modification of a legal and political system, often in response to the historical legacies of colonialism. Post-colonial constitutions aim to address issues such as national identity, governance structures, human rights, and the distribution of power in a way that reflects the aspirations and values of the newly independent nation. These constitutions may draw on indigenous legal traditions while also incorporating modern principles of democracy and rule of law  KEY PRINCIPLES OF POST-COLONIAL CONSTITUTIONALISM Post-colonial constitutionalism is guided by several key principles. These are: 1. Sovereignty and Independence: It emphasises the sovereignty and independence of post-colonial states, reflecting a break from colonial rule. 2. Inclusivity and Diversity: Strives for inclusivity, recognizing and accommodating diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic identities within the constitutional framework. 3. Human Rights: Prioritises the protection of human rights, seeking to rectify historical injustices and ensure fundamental rights for all citizens. 4. Rule of Law: Establishes the supremacy of the rule of law, ensuring that legal frameworks are just, transparent, and applicable to all citizens. 5. Democratic Governance: Encourages democratic governance structures, promoting participation, representation, and accountability in decision-making processes. 6. Land and Resource Rights: Addresses issues related to land and resource rights, often seeking to rectify historical dispossession and promote equitable distribution. 7. Cultural Recognition: Acknowledges and protects indigenous cultures, languages, and traditions, fostering a constitutional environment that values cultural diversity 

 CHALLENGES AND ISSUES Constitutionalism, the adherence to a set of fundamental principles and rules outlined in a constitution, serves as the bedrock for stable governance and the protection of individual rights. However, challenges and issues persist, reflecting the evolving nature of societies and the need for constitutional frameworks to adapt. In examining these challenges, key areas such as constitutional interpretation, erosion of democratic norms, and global interconnectedness come to the forefront. One fundamental challenge is the interpretation of constitutional provisions. The ambiguity inherent in legal language often leads to differing interpretations, sparking debates over the intent of the framers. This issue is particularly pronounced in matters such as individual rights, where the application of constitutional principles to modern contexts can be contentious. Striking a balance between adaptability and fidelity to original intent poses a perpetual challenge to constitutional systems worldwide 1. Cultural Variations and Legal Traditions: Constitutionalism encounters challenges due to cultural variations and diverse legal traditions across nations. 2. Enforcement and Rule of Law: The effectiveness of constitutionalism relies heavily on the enforcement of laws and the strength of the rule of law. Disparities in the implementation of constitutional provisions across countries can lead to challenges in ensuring equal protection and justice 4. Executive Power and Checks and Balances: Comparative political analysis allows for the examination of how different countries structure their systems of checks and balances. Challenges arise when there is an imbalance of power, and understanding these dynamics helps in assessing the health of constitutional systems. 5. Transitioning Democracies: Countries undergoing transitions towards democracy may grapple with constitutional challenges. Ensuring a smooth transition while establishing a robust constitutional order requires careful navigation. Comparative analysis helps identify best practices and pitfalls, offering valuable lessons for nations in transition. 8. Technological Challenges: The impact of technology on constitutionalism varies across countries. Comparative political analysis helps identify how different nations address challenges related to privacy, free speech, and digital rights within their constitutional frameworks. Technological advancements introduce new dimensions to constitutional considerations that require ongoing scrutiny SUMMAR Constitutionalism, a foundational concept in political theory, emphasises the importance of a constitution as the supreme law of the land limiting governmental power and protecting individual rights. In comparative political analysis, scholars examine the evolution and variations of constitutionalism across different contexts. One significant area of study within this framework is post-colonial constitutionalism, where the impact of colonial legacies on the development of constitutional systems is scrutinised. Traditional constitutionalism, rooted in principles such as the rule of law and separation of powers, has been a cornerstone in Western political thought. It seeks to establish a framework that constrains government safeguarding citizens’ liberties. Comparative, political analysis involves assessing how various countries implement and adapt these principles in their constitutions. Post-colonial constitutionalism, on the other hand, explores the unique challenges faced by nations emerging from colonial rule. Many post-colonial states inherit legal structures imposed by colonial powers, influencing the design of their Constitutions 

INTRODUCTION Government is one of the important components to run the state and its constituent parts. It is the government which performs the major functions of the state. It makes laws and policies to conduct various affairs of the state and daily life of the people. The government has many forms as mentioned by Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Leacock etc. Plato has mentioned three folds of classification—perfect state, imperfect state and state of ignorance, whereas Aristotle has classified the forms of government based on numbers with sovereign power and the aim of government. According to him, the best government is one that works for the interest of people. It becomes perverted when the government works for their interest. Polybius classified the government into three forms: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy WHAT IS GOVERNMENT? The term Government comes from the term govern, which stands for ‘to rule, guide, govern and direct. The term has historical roots. It is commonly described by the government as monarchy, oligarchy and democracy. All these terms have roots in the Greek. There is no universal definition of government. According to the MerriamWebster dictionary, government stands for ‘the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organisation: such as officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organisation as an active agency MAJOR FORMS OF GOVERNMEN In the contemporary era, there are majorly two forms of government i.E., unitary and federal. The formation of these two forms of government is based on the model of division and concentration of power and the relationship between the Union State or local bodies, and government. The countries like India, USA, South Africa, Canada, and Australia have federal system, whereas the countries like Britain, Japan, Italy, and France has adopted unitary structure of government. 6.4.1 Unitary Government A unitary government is a form of government under which all the powers lie in the hands of one central government. The major power is concentrated in the hands of the central government and local or state governments have given required powers The main features of the unitary government are- (a) Power in the hands of Central Government: In the unitary form of government, all the power is concentrated in the hands of the central government. The provincial or local units draw their power and authority from the central government and are responsible to it for the exercise of that authority. As it can be seen in the case of Britain, the power lies in the hands of the central government i.E., the Prime Minister, same as the case of France, all the powers are kept in the hands of the president (b) Flexible Constitution: The constitution of a country with a unitary government can be written or unwritten. In most of the unitary governments, it has been found that it possesses a flexible constitution (c) Centralized Rules and regulations: In the unitary government, the power is centralized in the hands of the central government. Thus, it is not required to distribute the power between central and state governments. (d) Local or state government follows the guidelines of central government: As all the powers are in the hands of the central government, it can do all the things as per its own choice and interest. (e) Flexible and easy-to-adapt environment: In a unitary government, the power stays in the hands of the central government. It helps the government and administration to make decisions according to changing times and needs of the people. 

6.4.2 Federal Government A federal state is made up of several independent states that are combined to form one large state, or alternatively, when a large state divides itself into multiple states under one roof. As Dicey has said ‘A federal state is intended to reconcile national unity and power with the maintenance of state rights.’ A federal state is a union of states as it has been mentioned in Article 1 of the Indian Constitution that India is a union of states. It was the USA which initiated the federal form of government in the late 18th century, which was drafted in 1789 constitution. Canada has adopted the federal model of United States of America (USA). Later, many other countries followed and adopted the federal system. In India, the roots of federal system evolved through the Government of India Act, 1935. Under this act, the devolution of power between union and states or provinces has been introduced. Hence, during the formation of Indian Constitution, the constitution makers have identified the ethnic and cultural diversity to adopt the federal system The federal states and governments are a product of two kinds of forces— centripetal and centrifugal. Centripetal means when independent states agree to join hands to create a new state, Australia and USA are the best examples of such federal states. On the other hand, centrifugal means when unitary government transforms into a federal government. The unit requires a high degree of autonomy under this arrangement, which is only possible in federal states. India is an appropriate example of centrifugal federal state. The federal structure is a kind of demand from different regional units to put balance between national unity and regional autonomy e. The main features of a federal government are: (a) Delegation and distribution of power: In a federal state, the government comprises of at least two or more levels in each territory. All of them perform activity through some common institutions and the power is given to them on a shared basis. It can be said that in a federal government, the powers are distributed and delegated between the center and state (units) and many other local governments too. It is one of the most essential features of the federal government. (b) Written and Rigid constitution: In federal government, the power is distributed between the central and state government. Thus, in this situation it becomes essential and binding to define the powers in a written and enacted constitution. A written document can only give the effective distribution and division of power. (c) Anchoring role of Judiciary: Judiciary plays a pioneering role to protect and promote the federal nature of state. It is the judiciary which protects and interprets the constitution (d) Dual Administration and Citizenship: A federal state with two levels of government: one at the state level and the other at the federal level serving the people of the federation (e) Bicameral legislature: In a federal state, the powers are allocated in its constituent parts or units. The constituent parts are empowered by the sharing of power. Thus, to decentralize the power, most of the federal countries witness dual legislature. (f) Equality to all the unit states: Treating every state or unit as equal is a fundamental tenet of the federal form of governance. It never gives special or extra preference to any state based on its size, population, resources etc. The world has been adopting more federal systems in recent years; this is because doing so gives the region autonomy 

AN ANALYSIS In the contemporary world, almost all countries have adopted the democratic form of government, in which most of the states have followed either the unitary or the federal form of government. If we can analyze both forms of government, we may find some merits and demerits. It can be understood under different points, these are: (a) Centralization versus Decentralization: When we see both the unitary and federal forms of government, it can be easily noticed that the major difference between these two forms of government is the distribution of power i.E., centralized and decentralized power systems. The unitary form of government follows the principle of delegation of power from top to bottom. (b) However, in the federal form of government the power is decentralized. It means the decision-making process is not dependent on one centralized authority or institution, but the power lies in the hands of multiple political actors. The subunits are capable enough to make the decisions by themselves rather than getting permission from the centre like the unitary form of government. (c) Stable and powerful government: If we analyze and compare the unitary and federal forms of government it can noticed that the unitary government is stronger in comparison to the federal government regarding decision and policy-making. There are chances that the unitary government can turn into a totalitarian dictatorship (d) The division of power between the centre and state is a weakness for both the central as well as the state government. The central government finds it difficult to implement the policies (e) The nature of the constitution: The Constitution has a very important post in democracy and the Unitary or the federal form of government. In a unitary form of government, the constitution is flexible. It is easy to amend by the central government. (f) Administration and governance: The administration plays a very important role in both the forms—unitary and federal government. In a unitary government, the administration is flexible. The flexible constitution ensures to fulfilment of the needs of the people according to changing times. The unitary system also adapts to the situation according to the social needs and environment. G) Conflict and Stability in the State: A strong desire for unity among the people is the first and prior condition for the formation and success of the federal government. Thus, the idea of ‘unity in diversity’ has become the hallmark of the successful federal government. The diverse interests of the federal units create conflict with the unit and national interests. Many times, it creates conflict and unhealthy competition between the regions. For example, regional loyalties, racial, linguistic, and religious become major issues in federations  SUMMARY After the American and French revolutions, the one-man rule was replaced by the democratic form of government. This democratic form of government has seen two kinds of system, one is more centralized as the unitary system, and another is decentralized as the federal system. Now, both the forms of government —unitary or federal are trying to protect and promote the voices of individuals with the model of good governance. Both forms of government have their own positive and negative points. It’s the nature of the state which decides the best form of government—unitary or federal. In the modern world, most countries are trying the mixed model like the unitary feature with the federal government—unitarian federalism. 

INTRODUCTION Understanding the nature of regimes has been a great challenge not only due to the changing nature of parameters to characterize a regime but also due to the presence of multiple and overlapping variables. Nevertheless, understanding the nature of regimes is crucial since it guides us in our understanding of how government functions and facilitate better governance and ensure a good life. This lesson will investigate the nature of different regime types followed by a discussion on the challenges of the classification of regimes. We will also study the basis of classification that has been used to characterize political regimes. For this purpose, this lesson will focus on the number of people ruling and the nature of power the state holds concerning its subjects and political institutions as the two broad parameters.  UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF POLITICAL REGIMES: ITS CHALLENGES AND OBJECTIVES The earliest tradition of investigating regimes could be traced to the 4th Century B.C. Thinkers like Plato and Aristotle have contributed greatly to the tradition of studying regimes. The modern state and the rise of the Westphalian state have introduced several changes in how we look at a modern state. The emergence of liberal democratic states, the constitution, and factors such as freedom of expression and speech, the spectrum of political and social rights have greatly shaped the nature of regimes a country may have. However, with the process of decolonization and Cold War politics in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the classification of regime types become much complex BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION: FROM NUMBER OF RULERS AND NATURE OF AUTHORITY EXERCISED Two major variables which have been employed to understand the nature of regimes have been: the number of people ruling (who is ruling) and secondly how the ruling body exercises power over the governed. In the case of the second criterion, power has been a major basis of classification and a yardstick to investigate the nature of the relationship the state may hold concerning its political institutions. The nature of the relationship shared between the centre and the units determines whether the state is a unitary or a federal state DEMOCRATIC REGIMES: NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS It refers to a political system characterized by the rule of the people. Democracy is represented as a form of the regime in which people elect their representatives. The word democracy comes from the Greek Word Demos, meaning the people. It refers to a kind of political rule, where the supreme power is vested with the people. Some of the earliest references for democracy are traced to ancient Greece. For instance, many of these ancient Greek city-states, had certain institutions in place which was democratic. In Athens, a few could elect their representatives or officials, thereby having an element of election and a system where rule by the majority was an acceptable form of political process and it is considered due to the level of mass participation by the masses (Heywood 2019:183). Both examples demonstrate traces of democratic processes. However, the nature of democracy at that time was not like democracy. The thing we need to understand is the position of the individual in the community When we speak of democracy in everyday language, we refer to the rule of the majority as one of the basic principles of democracy, which implies the rule of the people. 1. Universal Adult Franchise and voting rights do constitute the core of any democratic regime. However, majority rule does not naturally imply that a state may be democratic

2. Political Pluralism is one of the most important aspects of a democratic regime. In modern-day democracies and especially in states with a complex societal composition and multiple institutions 7.6 AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES: NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS Authoritarian regimes are characterized by governments which have a strong command over power, often a centralized power structure. Such regimes are characterized by limited political freedom. Under such regimes, political rights, freedom of religion and political pluralism are very limited. Also, there may be overlapping of judicial, executive, and legislative functions of the state. Even today, many authoritarian regimes may have features of a democratic system and a democratic system may have features of an authoritarian regime. As discussed earlier, each of these regimes may have variations and may often overlap with the characteristics of other regimes, however, political scientists have classified authoritarian regimes as oligarchic or autocratic, or ruled by a one-
party or the military . Some of the fundamental characteristics of authoritarian regimes are discussed in the section below: 1. Authoritarian regimes have a very controlled power structure; they usually have a centralized power structure. It is not just political power that is centralized, even economi 2. One of the core aspects of an authoritarian regime is that it lacks political pluralism. Such regimes lack the spirit to accommodate any opposition or presence of alternate institutions 3. Most often, such regimes sustain the use of violence or coercion. Any nonadherence to the dictates of the state may invite very harsh punishments 4. It is often marked by an indefinite rule by one political power, often maintaining its position through abuse of power. Such leaders often come to power not necessarily because people elect them or grant consent but often occupy positions of power through coercion and even populist propaganda. Such leaders remain in power by disseminating fake information, with total control over mass media and freedom of speech. 5. Authoritarian regimes are characterized by limited civil liberties and attempts are made to control civil liberties. 6. Lack of mass mobilization and mass participation in political affairs become a dominant feature of many authoritarian regimes due to the use of severe coercion and state repression 7.7 TOTALITARIAN REGIMES: NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS Totalitarian regimes are characterized by extreme state control over both the private and public life of the people. R Fine (2001) states that it is a form of modern dictatorship in which state power is concentrated in a single party; the state exercises its control over almost every aspect of the life of the people, there is the use of terror which is often exercised by a secret police service and most importantly use of an official ideology which is often irrefutable. Historically, the concept of a totalitarian state may be traced back to the writings of several political thinkers who mentioned the idea of an absolute state. However, totalitarianism is believed to be modern which type can be traced to the rise of Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini and the Soviet under Stalin is also an example of the same. One of the recent examples of such a regime is North Korea under Kim Jong-Un. Some of the major characteristics of the totalitarian regimes are as follows:  Absolute control over every aspect of life: Totalitarian regimes are marked by the state’s presence in determining most aspects of the life of the citizens 

 The concentration of power in a single party: Totalitarian states are characterised by the concentration of political power in a single party. In such a system one party rules the political system with a strong ideological base which is indisputable. It does not show tolerance towards the presence of opposition and the existence of any alternative political party. Therefore, the use of state repression and violence becomes a distinct characteristic of such regimes.  Complete control over the economy: Control over the economy is one of the most fundamental features of a totalitarian regime. Totalitarian regimes are marked by absolute control and command over the economy of the state concerned. The state decides all the major economic decisions, the planning, the distribution and the nature of economic competition. The model of economic planning in the erstwhile Soviet Union is one such example that was characterised by a very rigid system The distinction between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes As we can see in the preceding sections above factors such as the use of force, lack of political freedom, the concentration of political power, and the use of force are overlapping characteristics for both totalitarian regimes and as well as authoritarian regime 7.8 POPULISM: NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS This term is widely contested as it was represented completely, since it may represent a variety of movements, ideas, and beliefs in a different political, economic and social context. Cristóbal and Kaltwasser (2017:4-5), mention four kinds of approaches that explain what populism could mean; the popular agency approach speaks of populism as a positive force for the mobilisation of people in a democracy. Then the Laclauan approach, which is rooted in critical studies considers populism as an emancipatory force. It is based on the notion that liberal democracies need to change into radical democracies, and it is populism which can induce mobilisation for change to include the neglected segment of society. Another approach speaks of populism as a political strategy, characterised by the emergence of strong charismatic leaders who have a connection with the masse Despite contradictions in assigning a single definition of the term, populism can be said to have the following characteristics: Firstly, populism has been identified as a political movement or those leaders who highlight or claim to represent the common people and the will of the common people. They claim to represent real needs of the people. Secondly, one of the most fundamental characteristics of populist regimes or movements is that the claim of the leaders to represent the will of the people is majorly juxtaposed against the elites or even the ruling establishment in case of those trying to capture power SUMMARY In the end, we need to understand that there is no strict mode of classification of regime types. Political scientists have classified regimes based on the nature of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled civil and political liberties, and the relationship between various organs of the government. We have learned that political regimes could be classified based on the number of people ruling, such as monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, oligarchy to democracy. We have discussed the characteristics of authoritarian, totalitarian, democratic, and populist regimes. One of the most important aspects we need to keep in mind is the nuanced difference between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, although both may have similar features as well. 

INTRODUCTION Elections are often thought to be at the heart of any political system. Some see them as nothing short of democracy in practice. They are the means through which people elect their rulers, control their governments, and replace incompetent leaders. Elections are based on the foundational concept of representation – a concept with multiple interpretations. Elections facilitate the process of choosing representatives by the people to govern them. There are many ways in which elections are conducted known as electoral systems. There is no consensus on which electoral system is the best as all of them have their own advantages and weaknesses. The study of electoral systems constitutes a pertinent part of comparative political analysis. METHODS OF REPRESENTATION The act of formally speaking on behalf of a bigger group of individuals is known as representation. It is defined as a relationship through which an individual or group stands for or acts on behalf of a larger body of people (Heywood 2013). As representation creates an intermediary between the governed and the government, it is essential to modern democracy. Representatives represent the people’s interests and In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the debate centered largely on the question of who should be represented? Thinkers argued over whether representation should be restricted to those having the competence, education, and leisure to vote and think seriously about politics (propertied men) or if representation should be extended to all adult citizens. Limited representation gave rise to a plural voting system in which people had different degrees of enfranchisement based on their social and economic standing. The widespread acceptance of the principle of political equality in the 20th century via universal adult franchise established the representation of all adult citizens. Representation is more than voting and elections; politicians become representatives not merely because they are elected to office The Delegate model of representation sees the representative as a delegate – a conduit conveying the views and interests of others. Here, the representative does not have the capacity to act according to his own judgement or preferences. He or she only behaves in exact accordance with the instructions emanating from their constituencies. Those supporting the delegate model, such as Thomas Paine, usually seek mechanisms to ensure that politicians are bound as closely as possible to the views of the represented. The Mandate model of representation sees elected representatives and political parties as having secured the command or consent to govern from their voters. This model assumes that by winning an election, a party gains a popular will or mandate that authorizes it to affect policies or programmes in its election manifesto. This model places the onus of representation on political parties and, therefore, necessitates party unity and discipline  ELECTIONS AND THEIR FUNCTIONS Election is the action of choosing for an office or position usually by vote. Haroop and Miller define elections as a ‘formal expression of preferences by the governed which are then aggregated and transformed into a collective decision about who will govern, who should stay in office, who should replace those who have been thrown out’ (Bara, 2012). The reason intrinsic connection between the representative process and elections and voting.

ELECTORAL SYSTEMS An electoral system is a set of rules that governs the conduct of elections. It also includes the methods of converting votes into seats in a political system. These rules vary in several ways: Voters may choose between candidates or between parties. Voters may either select a single candidate, or rank candidates in order of their preference. The electorate may or may not be grouped into electoral units or constituencies. Constituencies may elect a single member or several members. The threshold needed to elect a candidate varies from a plurality (maximum votes) to ‘absolute’ majority, or a quota of some kind (Heywood, 2012). Electoral systems are divided into two broad types namely majoritarian representation or first-past-the-post system and proportional representation systems. This is primarily based on how votes are converted into seats 8.5.1 Majoritarian or First Past the Post Systems Pure majoritarian systems can be defined as those which require the victorious candidate to hold at least 50 per cent +1 of the votes cast (Evans 2012). Pure majoritarian systems might result in undemocratically limiting the number of competing candidates to two. In majoritarian systems, larger parties typically win a higher proportion of seats than the proportion of votes they gain in the election Single-member plurality (SMP) system or ‘first past the post’ are commonly used in the UK (House of Commons), the USA, Canada and India. In these systems, the country is divided into single-member constituencies, usually of equal size, and voters select a single candidate. In order to win the seat, a candidate needs only to achieve a plurality of votes or poll more votes than any other counterpart. This is usually referred to as the ‘first past the post’ rule. The advantages of this system is that the electorate has a clear choice of potential parties of government. It establishes a direct link between representatives and constituents, ensuring responsibility and accountability The second ballot system is another type of majoritarian electoral system. It is used in France, Austria, Chile, and Russia. Similar to the single member plurality system, the country is divided into single-candidate constituencies and voters vote for one single candidate of choice 8.5.2 Proportional Representation Systems Proportional representation systems are defined as those electoral systems which are designed to ensure as far as possible that the number of legislative seats captured by a party are in proportion to the votes they receive in an election (Evans 2012). In principle, this system holds that parties should be represented in an assembly or parliament in direct proportion to the overall electoral votes cast for them. The percentage of their legislative seats equals their percentage of votes. For example, in a pure system of proportional representation, a party that gains 45 per cent of the votes would win exactly 45 per cent of the seats (Heywood 2013). 8.5.3 Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) System or Additional Member System (AMS) In addition to the above types, there are electoral systems which blend proportionality and majoritarianism. The Mixed-member proportional system and the additional member system are examples of the same. Such systems are used in countries such as Germany, Italy, New Zealand and the UK (Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly). In this system, a proportion of seats are filled by the Single Member Plurality system using single-member constituencies. This proportion differs from country to country – 50 per cent in Germany, but more in Italy, Scotland and Wales 

THEORIES OF VOTING Party-identification theory sees voting behaviour as a product of the psychological attachment voters have with parties. Voters identify with a party, in that they extend long-term support to regard the party as ‘their’ party. Voting is an exercise of partisan alignment and, not a result of calculation influenced by factors such as policies, personalities, campaigning and media coverage (Heywood, 217). Party identification model stresses on early political socialization, holding the family as the principal means through which political loyalties are forged which are then reinforced by group membership and later social experiences. This model sees people’s political culture and interests shaped by party identification. The Sociological model holds that voting behaviour reflects the economic and social position of the groups voters belong to. People vote on the basis of their class and group interests rather than any psychological attachment to a political party. The most significant social alignments that determine voting patterns are class, gender, ethnicity, religion and region. These groupings reflect divisions and tensions within society. Many analysts see the sociological model is best understood as an ‘interest plus socialization’ approach to voting (Heywood, 218) because socialisation plays a limited but significant role in forging party allegiances. Those who see modernisation as a reason for voters’ non-participation argue that as countries arrive at sophisticated levels of economic development, post-industrialism, achieved widespread education and free media, citizens tend to question the value of voting as they are aware of alternative ways of influencing decision making. Social change in the form of liberal reforms in religious or class structures have lessened the social demarcation or cleavages which earlier determined political participation. The socio-political reasons which pushed people to vote are being erased due to social change. WOMEN AND ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION Women’s participation in the electoral process warrants attention in the study of electoral systems in order to get a holistic picture of the subject. Many feminists contend that women have been systematically excluded from the electoral processes historically. Women’s suffrage which is universal today has been achieved as a result of vigorous movements in the USA, United Kingdom, France and other western liberal countries. It was only in 1894 in New Zealand when women were enfranchised for the first time. This was followed closely by Australia. Norway and Finland granted the right to vote to women in 1914 while the USA and United Kingdom granted franchise to women as late as 1920 and 1928 respectively. The above timeline of women’s enfranchisement shows how late and slow the progress of democratisation has been Financial independence and education are two factors that enhance political participation of women. Researches show that these factors have helped increase voter turnout among women on par with that of men in many democracies. Different countries have adopted strategies to enhance women’s participation in the electoral processes. More than hundred countries have adopted gender quotas in legislative assemblies where seats are reserved for women candidates. These include Argentina, Pakistan, and Rwanda among the developing world to name some. Despite these efforts, women’s participation in elections and, by extension, in the political processes still remains limited in many developing countries. 

INTRODUCTION The political party in a system is primarily a group of people who come together to contest elections so as to hold power through forming government via contesting elections. This way the people intend to represent the common interests of the people based on same ideology, issues, and others. The political parties mobilise the voters too to support common interest, goals, ideology and issues. The parties fix the political agenda and policies and persuade people by claiming how they are going to meet the common interests of the people through their policies articulated by their political parties. The political parties thus define representation of the people.9 The competition between the political parties in the elections creates a pressure on them to perform better than the other party. This way the political party in power and the opposition in competition with each other also have checks and balance system. The concept of party system was designed by European scholars. These classifications are based on various components. Broadly, all the political parties have three components:  Leaders—Any political party cannot exist without a leader. Leader puts forward the agenda of the party, ideology of the party system in front of the voters and tries to connect with them. In several cases, thinkers such as Max Weber have observed that good and charismatic personalities have led to the formation or rise of the party system. Narendra Modi of BJP in India is the recent example to highlight how the charismatic leadership can change the course of the party system in the state.  Active Members—The active members of the political party aid in the articulation and stimulation of party’s ideology amongst the common masses.  Followers—The followers of the party system are the biggest supporters of the party system. They believe in the ideology of the party system and expect its reflections in the implementation of policies and agendas of the parties. Without these three components the existence of any political parties is difficult. These components aid the political parties in carrying out the activities. FUNCTIONS OF THE POLITICAL PARTY  The prime function of the political party is to contest elections by placing the candidates.  In USA, the candidates of the political party are selected by the members and supporters of the party.  On the other hand, in countries like India, the party leaders choose the candidates.  Every political party has different policies and programmes. The voters are given choice to opt in accordance the policies and programmes.  In a democratic set up, the group of people with the similar ideological beliefs form a political party. These political parties form a direction to the policies to be adopted by them when forming the government.  The political parties that fail to form the government form the opposition who maintain the checks and balance system on the ruling party and try to make the public aware about the pros and cons of the policies.  The political parties form/shape the opinion of the public. This way it even aids in creating the pressure groups that enforces the government to make the policies for the advantage of the larger people.  Since the political parties work for the welfare schemes, the local political parties serve as a bridge between the citizen and government officer 9.4 TYPES OF POLITICAL PARTIES There are three main types of party systems. S. In this lesson, we will be discussing these types of party systems in detail. Such classification or typology of political parties is not just merely based upon the number of political parties within a particular state but also highlights a distinctive feature of the three systems. 

TYPES OF POLITICAL PARTIES There are three main types of party systems. In this lesson, we will be discussing these types of party systems in detail. Such classification or typology of political parties is not just merely based upon the number of political parties within a particular state but also highlights a distinctive feature of the three systems. The two-party system and the multiparty system represent the organised political conflict in a pluralistic society. It also highlights the democratic apparatus ONE PARTY SYSTEM The one-party system is also popularly known as single party system. Under this system, the single political party that forms the government is usually based upon the constitution of the state.10 The other parties which come into existence in the system are either permitted limited participation in electoral processes or the termed as outlawed. The de facto single party system also expresses the dominance of single party. It nominally allows the other parties to exist. But very effectively, expresses itself through various methods and techniques. It claims for the unity of nation as it provides umbrella shield for the polity of the state. For example, in Soviet Union it is believed that the multiple parties represent the class struggle. So, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represents the people y. It becomes important to understand the circumstances wherein the single party system or the one-party system exists:  An ideology forms the basis of the single party system in a state. Marxism, Leninism and international solidarity in countries such as Soviet Union is a good example to show how it forms a circumstance to aid these parties to exist.  Extending on the above argument, the nationalist ideology also plays an important role in the one-party dominance. The Nazi party in Germany and the fascist ideology under Mussolini in Italy are vital examples to prove the argument.  The wake of independence from the yoke of colonial rule also observed dominant role in the call for liberation and independence. 9.5.1 Advantages of One-Party System  One-party system is often appreciated for taking the quick decisions.  Since the single party implements the policies unopposed it leads to stable political growth.  It does not allow the wastage of resources, money and time on political campaigns. But, the one-party system has been criticised on many grounds. 9.5.2 Disadvantages of One-Party System  The one-party system lacks participation of people making it less integrative in approach.  People as voters have no choice at the election.  Very often the minority section of the state is neglected. They remain excluded from the mainstream welfare policies.  Since the government is dictatorial in nature, it lacks responsiveness and accountability to the citizens of the country. 9.6 TWO PARTY SYSTEM Differing from the one-party system, the two-party system observes a shift in the power from one hand to two dominant major parties. Out of the two parties, the party that enjoys the majority support forms the governing party while the party with minority support forms the opposition party. Across the world, the two-party system has been identified differently. In countries like United States, Malta, Zimbabwe, the two party defines an arrangement where the elected officials belong to either of the two majority parties. There is little scope for the third party. The third party in the two-party system set up rarely wins any seat in the legislature. Thinkers such as Maurice Duverger, William H Riker, Jeffrey D Sachs establish a strong correlation between voting arrangements and number of party in a system. As such in this set up, the winner takes it all factor seems to work/influence the election rules.

According to Duverger’s law11 , the two-party system is an organic product of the winner take all voting system. However, in countries with parliamentary systems such as United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, the term two party system indicates an arrangement where inspite of the two-parties, the third party also gets an opportunity to win seats in the elections. Here, the multitude of lesser or smaller parties influence the electoral system in varying degrees and even the elect officials belonging to these parties. Many commonwealth countries based on the Westminster system enjoy the parliamentary democracy. Here, the majority party forms the government, minority party forms the opposition while the third parties many times forms the coalitions.  9.6.1 Contrast of the Two-Party System with the Multiparty System and One-Party System At first the two-party system shall be contrasted with the multiparty system. Two-Party System with the Multiparty system  The multiparty system comprises of the effective number of parties that is greater than two and lesser than five while the two-party system comprises of the two dominant parties.  Under the multiparty system, the coalition can control the government while under the two-party system the coalition government is rarely formed. The Two-party system shall be now contrasted with the Multi-party system. Two-Party System with the One-party system  In the one-party system, only single party is legally recognised. The presence of other alternate parties is restricted. The single party like that of the Communist Party of China or Communist Party of Cuba wields power. While under the two-party system there exists shifts between two dominant parties. 9.6.2 Advantages of the Two-Party System  Many thinkers suggest that the two-party system encourage centrism and find common goals that appeal to the larger electorate.  It is a simpler governing system with lesser fractions that focuses on political stability. 9.6.3 Disadvantages of the Two-Party System  The two-party system is criticised for being less competitive and giving voters fewer choice.  The two-party system is often criticised to encourage partisanship instead of inter party compromise.  Ross Perot believe that the two-party system fails to voice the matters addressed by the two-majority party  MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM The multi-party system forms the basis of politicisation of new issues. It aims at avoiding of polarisation of issues like that of the two-party system. It also opens up for ideological innovation for public agendas, inclusive political institutions etc. In the multi-party system, multiple political parties exist in the political spectrum who compete with each other to control the government. The multiparty system is often observed in the parliamentary system over the presidential system. It is far common in countries that have proportional representation over the first past the post elections. All the political parties under this system have reasonable chance to form the government. The proportional system has a range of representatives. Countries like India, Germany, New Zealand have the multiparty system. It also opens a space to form coalitions while attaching legitimate mandate. 

9.7.1 Advantages of the Multi-Party System The Multi-Party system has several benefits.  It truly represents the various identities in a plural society by giving opportunity to various ideologies to come up and form the government.  It gives several options to the voters.  It is inclusive in nature.  The multi-party system is very transparent in nature as it is integrative in nature and responsive to the needs of various spectre of the society.  Unlike the One-party system and two-party system, the multi-party system ensures healthy competition and leaves no space for the dictatorship. This way the multi-party system is democratic in nature.  The multi-party system is more responsive to bringing the shift in the public opinion. However, in spite of the advantages of the multi-party system, there are several demerits of the system. 9.7.2 Disadvantages of the Multi-Party System  Many times, the multi-party system leads to coalition government that is instable for the longer run. Often the countries with the multiparty system observes a hung parliament.  It is often messy as the presence of multiple identities may lead to difficulty in formation of the policies. The process of policy implementation may lead to various deliberations and discussions within the party.  It may lead to corruption as there are plural identities existing in the system with various ideologies, as such there lacks transparency.  The presence of linguistic or regional parties may lead to concentration of the development of the particular region. As such the larger nation may get ignored. SUMMARY The party system represents the set of choices provided to the voters/electorates. According to R Michael Alvarez and Jonathan Nagler13, the party system is mostly defined by the policy design. Also, the historical development of the party system in the state offers a strong base in defining the kind of party system in the state. However, according to Rajni Kothari14, the recent occurrences like rise of the civil society restricting the role of the political parties and giving the common voters more indulgences in the political arena can call for change in the party system. Secondly, the old models of the political parties like that based on the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy is gradually diminishing by the rise of new alliances with rising ideologies across the globe like that on saving the environment, anti-corruption etc. The new parties forming are now focusing upon the developmental strategies and demand greater accountability, responsiveness and people’s participation. These changing dynamics are calling for the changes in the party systems. Still one cannot deny the fact the party system represents the voice of the common man. It is the duty of the political party to convert those needs/demands/voices into policy. Under the two-party system, the governing party tries to integrate those demands by implementing policies while one as an opposition party creates a pressure on the governing party to integrate those demands in the policies. The multiparty system is often applauded for its integrative nature. Thus, we see that different party systems hold its own significance. Any change in the type of party system shall definitely represent the change in demand/voice of the people which at large should be welcoming for the political stability.