Session 5: The Social Contract

“To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties.” ― Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract

The term Social Contract refers the notion that there exists an agreement between people and the society they live in, within demarked boundaries. Under this contract people have some rights and responsibilities to the state. These are to be abided by as long as the individual is alive or within the confines of a particular region.

Theoretically, this contract gives the impression that both the state and its subjects are interdependent and so benefit from each other. However, the it fails to deal with certain classes of society which makes the contract unfair and biased. In some cases it leads to subjugation of fundamental human rights as Rousseau pointed out "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains". Here, one can question the extent to which the state can exercise its right to control the lives of people.

Session 4: State as it exists in Pakistan

'The purpose of the State is always the same: to limit the individual,to tame him, to subordinate him, to subjugate him.'
Max Stirner The Ego and His Own (1845)
The state is an organization onto which we place our full trust onto. We trust it with everything, our homes, our schools and our offices. However the quote be Max Stirner above paints a more grim picture than what most of us think the state does.
In reality, the trust we place in the state in all aspects of our life, gives them the opportunity to control our every action. However to remove this power we give the state, puts our own life in a predicament. Therefore we always find ourselves in a Catch 22, but the question lies, is there no way out or will we endlessly live in such a cycle.
However in a country like Pakistan, we need the state to be less of a dominant entity and hence focus more on growth and development. The need of the hour is that the Pakistani state needs to embrace a more "developmental state" stance. This translates to investments in education, healthcare,etc. On the other hand, the ground reality here in Pakistan is that the state places the military in higher regard than anything else. It's going to take a very long time before the state here shifts its focus towards the common man rather than the "man in uniform". Till then, Max Stirner's theory will apply to Pakistan/

Session 4 - The State and Power

The state is a political entity that encompasses all the institutions of the public realm to exercise authority within defined territorial borders whereas government is merely part of the state. However, the basic assumption is that the state functions in a manner to benefit the people of the society.

Classical elite theorist, Michels, made strong claim that “The history of all societies, past and future, is the history of its ruling classes…there will always be a ruling class and therefore exploitation…” The elites act as parasites and manipulate the masses using “political formulas”.  They pose to be truly working for the well being of the citizens while in reality harnessing their authority for personal gains. This makes it incumbent on the people of the state to construct constitutional devices to make state accountable for its decisions. In short, it means that a system should be devised that controls the power the state has over its people and vice versa.

For smooth functioning of a state, power should be divided between three branches –executive, legislative and judicial. These entities will keep checks and balances on each other to build effective state institutions.  

Session 4: Pakistan As A Patriarchal State

       Patriarchy is a system in which males hold the primary power. Patriarchal state is a state in which men have access to resources and are more authoritative than women. Liberal feminists view the role of state as a positive one. They believe that state should provide women with the right to vote and promote equal rights for women.
     
       Whereas radical feminist believe that state is designed to empower men and to promote their interests. They claim that state is responsible for gender inequality and oppression towards females by creating 'public'' and 'private' domains and by restricting women to private realm of the state as being housewives or mothers.
     
         If we look at this theory in context of Pakistan then we can see that we have high degree of male dominance in our society. The conditions are different in different areas but in some areas like Sindh and Baluchistan and some areas of KP women have to face a lot of biases. At Zia-Ul-Haq's time most of the laws made were meant to increase the control over land and over women. Hudood ordinance had some clauses that proved quite harmful for women and had given a hard time to a lot of women. If we look at male to female employment ratio than we may find great degrees of wage discrepancies among males and females and females are usually concentrated in low paid jobs or informal sector. While most of the executive positions are held by males. The governments have also tried to decrease gender inequality in our society. A lot of work was done for women empowerment in Musharraf's time. Women were given higher representation in Parliament. Benazir Income Support Programme started by PPP' s government was also targeted at females' income generation programmes.
        Hence the role of state can be negative or positive in terms of dealing with gender issues.

Session 5 - The Myth of Social Contract

Generally speaking, the proponents of social contract believe that individuals living within particular geographical boundaries enter into a contract (explicit or implicit) with the state. Upon entering that contract, individuals are subject to certain rights as well as certain responsibilities. That contract only ends when that particular individual dies or is exiled.

On paper, the social contract theory seems reasonable enough but upon close inspection it starts to fall apart. In even the most utopian of societies the collective resources (not necessarily economic resources) of the state are not equally distributed. In a similar manner, the responsibilities of certain individuals exceed those of others. Although, these individuals are still better than in a state of complete and utter anarchy, they are not as well off as they could be. After all, the only duty of a state is the well being of its citizens.

No theory of state is perfect and social contract theory is no different. However, it completely ignores the power dynamics between different communities, classes and groups within the state. Perhaps this is the reason for its many failures.        

Session 4-Does government control the state, or does the state control government?

The answer to this ambiguous question can be seen in the context of Pakistan. The two factors that is, government and state are supposed to work in coalition. From the historical background of Pakistan, the military and the bureaucracy have been mostly in power. The initial bureaucratic governments, the three direct marshal laws and the lack of democracy have strenghtened the state power. But this kind of state is not what we have studied theoretically. With the perspective of four rival theories, Pakistan's state closely lie with the leviathan and patriarchal state. The state's monarchy can be examined by the removal of four consecutive govermnents from 1988 to 1999.

Globalisation is considered to be a threat for state, and in case of Pakistan this has benefited the governments as the overall world notion is now against monarchies. As when Musharraf came in view, most countries were not willing to go in any dealings with Pakistan and it was 9/11 that helped Musharraf to strengthen his regime. So it can be assumed that globalisation benefits the public mostly.

Now due to global pressure the Pakistani state is not capable enough to enjoy full authority yet it has still the ability to interfere in the government's decisions. Thus state is superior than a government as most of the time government has acted as a puppet in state's hand, in case of Pakistan. Although we study that "governmnet is the means through which the authority of the state is brought into operation" yet this concept is manipulated a lot of times in a realistic world by unfair means.

Session 4 - State & Governmnet

"I am the State" - Louis XIV of France

From a purely theoretical point of view, State is an all encompassing, all powerful and benevolent entity representing the interests of the individuals residing within its territorial frontiers. In other words the State is an omnipotent 'big brother' (Not in the Orwellian sense) that always has your back. Whether a state actually fulfills this stringent criteria is another debate altogether. What is important here is that it should.

In an effort to fulfill the criteria mentioned above the State has at its disposal: government, legislature, judiciary, bureaucracy, military and police, all of are collectively known as the State apparati. The most significant of the state apparati is the government, which coordinates the activities of other State apparati to achieve the desirable ends. 

What is important here is that while State may be represented by individuals working in State institutions, individuals are not embodiment of the State. On the other hand individuals can embody certain state institutions. This difference is crucial because while governments can be overthrown or changed, State is always there. The State may disintegrate into smaller ones or be absorbed into a larger state but it is always there. It has been the case for the past 500 years and will remain so for the foreseeable future.      

      

Session 3: Is Power an illusion?

The illusion of power is when one is influenced to do something based on a situation which is unreal. On the flip side of the coin, it is when one believes one has control over someone or a certain situation.

‘To take command, one must first create the illusion that command is already yours’ - Denise Domning.

Perhaps Denise is correct about how power is simply an illusion; but we must take into account that illusion of power may lead to the creation of real power.

From the beginning of time people were taught to depend on a leader; the submissive mindset has been passed from generation to generation. People today seem to be ruled by the media and government – but where do both these parties get their power from? Is their power real or merely an illusion?

Whether this illusion of power is beneficial or not depends on its outcomes; for instance, sometimes power urges people to take responsibility for their actions. However, at other occasions, the perceived power can be abused and this causes actual harm.

Session 4: State

A state can be broadly defined as an entity that exercises power within fixed boundaries. It is different from a government; the latter being a means of operating power within a state.

But to what extent should a state be allowed to interfere in economic, social and individual matters; if at all?

Different interpretations of the word state leads to distinct ideas of the extent of its authority and role it is liable to undertake. However, a unanimous concept of the word is essential for the development of political knowledge and ideas. It may be looked upon as a region, an assembly of organisations, a means of force, or simply a philosophical idea (which Aristotle referred to as a polity). Although different forms of states undertake different responsibilities, there function differs considerably based on the context within which a state is defined, the relation between the state and its subjects, and its aims. 

UPDATES: Posting Times and Next Response

Everyone who attended class will know that our new due time for responses will be 9pm the day before class. Therefore your next response is due on February 9th by 9pm.

Posts will be due every Monday and Wednesday at 9pm for the upcoming class sessions. Your replies to other people's posts will still be due before the beginning of class.

The earlier you submit the better. That way your fellow students will also be able to read and comment on your posts. Plus, I'll be able to read through and comment as well.

For the next response, make sure you label it "Session 4 - x y z". Please proofread your work and follow the norms of academic writing.

Finally, remember that this class is what you make of it. The more work you put in, the better the results will be. Engage with each other through this medium as it will make the class even more productive. As always, please reach out to me if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

News - Pakistan Moving Closer to Russia

Tim Craig, As the US moves closer to India, Pakistan looks to Russia, The Guardian/UK, 2-3-15
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/03/pakistan-russia-us-obama-india

Session 3: The Unsolved Dilemma

As we see in the article power is itself an unsolved dilemma that requires a great deal of focus. To come up with a description for the word 'power' is complex due to the fact that a lot of variables are at play when we view the dynamics of the community. To make matters worse most of the research done does not encompass all variables and focuses on a particular community with a hope to generalize the result.

This in turn causes problems because of the wide range of activities that the word power can consume. The world is, in the current age paying more attention to the actual definition of 'power'. This fact was absent in the previous era's as we see many prominent scholars taking it for granted.

The word 'Power' is of vital importance and as such a working definition that can stand universally true is required. The current age gives us with a more optimistic view of finding a more empirical solution to the dilemma and coming up with a definition which can encompass all communities.

Session 3: Unidirectional Power

It goes without saying that power is a vast word with several connotations which make it problematic to look at power relations empirically because there will be several definitional issues: what one person conceives as powers, others may not, etc. One of the key problems in defining power relationships is that power is not unidirectional, in the sense that, as the Dahl describes, power is not only from C to R, from the leader to the domain, but the other way around as well. This reverse relationship is extremely important today when democracy has been, to an extent, established as the preferred system of governance. The line between the ruler and the ruled has been expunged by the fact that the ruler derives his power from the ruled. Across the globe, there is also a growing realization of the power of the people which has manifested in several ways such as the Arab Spring, and the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Therefore, it is hard to define power relationships in a unidirectional sense and a better approach may be to do an impact analysis where each stimulus or cause is judged by the impacts it generates from the top to the bottom and also the other way around. 

Session 3- Communism: Ideological manifestation of power

There is no doubt power lies in the ability of A to exercise control over B. However, power also relies in A's ability to protect B being influenced by or controlled by any other actor. The over arching ability of A to exert control on B and refraining from B being directed by any other force is also power.

The Chinese government, exercises this kind of control over its citizens. Highly criticized communist traditions and policies, introduced by Mao Zedong, are the norms of the country. Overtime changes have happened and the constitution has been edited and  many civil rights such as  free speech, press, the right to trial, and the right to own private property have been added. However, enforcement of these laws have not been effective successfully.

China is known as the rising power of the world and that is essentially because how it has managed to create a working centrally controlled political system. The citizens have been indoctrinated through its thorough management of instilling in beliefs and values consistent with communist thought. Even, in the 21st century YouTube, a popular video-sharing website and Facebook, the most widely used social networking site are banned in most of China to "protect" the people, where,  it is to be noted technology and mobile networking are few of the biggest industries in the country. 

Session 3

Power, in the most simplistic manner, is the ability of A to convince or coerce B into doing something B would not otherwise do. However, the legitimacy of power needs to be scrutinized greatly against moral and ethical frameworks in order to prevent the tyranny Montesqeue so vehemently maligned. The cruelty of the Nazis during World War II is well documented, and the genocide they committed is beyond deplorable. What's worth noting though, is the slightly less dominant narrative. The American army's firebombing campaign and the subsequent nuclear bombing of Japan was an overstated show of force. Millions of non-combatants became part of the collateral damage as American bombers dropped napalm (later declared a chemical weapon) in densley populated urban centers. At the end of the war, the Germans were punished after the Nuremberg trials for the holocaust while the Americans went scot free. They are hailed as war heroes and veterans in the popular narrative even as deformed children are born in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of the radiations still prevalent in the area after the unnecessary nuking of the areas. America's claim to the moral high ground post-WWII is questionable at best, but the ability of the Allies to force their will upon their adversaries and punishing them for a crime they themselves are guilty of teaches us an important lesson; if not kept under constant check, power legitimizes itself.

Session 2 - Politics equals corruption?

Politics is generally seen as a dirty activity when being performed in the government, it being assumed that with power comes corruption. Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Yet politics and the exercise of power must exist everywhere, in not only states and governments, but also in all the other social interactions of our lives, even at home. In a typical family, there will be one person practicing power over others because he or she is stronger in one way, and because of the powerful position of that individual, he or she may exploit the other, even if they are family, in ways that suit him. In the generally patriarchal society, the men have the power to exploit women, because they know who has the power and who is the weaker in the interaction. Since that too is exercising power and with the women fighting back for their rights, there is an attempt to resolve the issues, this not only shows that politics everywhere, but also that the practice of corruption is everywhere, not only in government offices.

Session 3 - Power, Skills and Motivation

Power may be diffused or concentrated in the hands of a few. Some people may hold the keys to control others what Machiavelli terms “political skill” but may not choose to exercise this power or may exercise it quite less than others. Why?

This, according to Dahl may be because of different motivations and different skill sets.

As noted earlier, certain skill sets allow one to either enhance ones power or to be indifferent to it, given the same resources. However, I feel this active skill set that Dahl employs largely overlaps with an individuals personality. Certain personalities such as assertive and extroverts are more likely than introverts and quiet personalities to indulge in activities that require a show of power. Similarly, a certain personality of individuals may desire or be more motivated to gain access to power.This is not to say that exercising power cannot be strategic (and therefore learned) but that in order for an individual to strive to enhance ones power, he must first possess certain qualities inherent in his personality. Only then will the drive to power push him to further pursue his mission of enhancing it.  

Session 3 : Power & Politics, Are we living in independent Society?

    Dahl's views is mostly based on the Aristotelian philosophy of Politics. As Aristotle pointed out in definition of democracy that the right to cast vote is only belongs to Free born; Only free born people can decide that who is their decision maker or Leader without any self interest. In democracy the power and authority is largely distributed between all free citizens and every one who is living in that country.
       In our country, We see that our system is monarchy instead of democracy; just like Middle ages feudal lords and Capitalists dominate the system and power is only concentrated on elite class. People cannot decide fairly who is their  leader? They elect same feudal lords in every election. The Question also rises are they free born or Slaves? I say "They are Slaves  because they have no power and they are slaves of their necessities." People are afraid of power of these few people who dominate our system and Power of capitalists and politics going side by side. Politic starts when you have attained amount of money. People are not decision makers.
         In frame of Dahl's views and theory we derive some solutions and see how democracy  empower us distribute power among institutions of society ( Military, Justice, Administration and Parliament e.t.c).  

Session 3: Where does the real power lie?

In the times of the dutiful serf and the feudal lord, the black slave and the ruling master, and the factory owner and the wage earner, the power dynamics in play were clear to the naked eye.

But what about present-day times when the influence is less evident and power is more diffused throughout society than ever before?

In Pakistan, there is no agreed-upon answer to the question of who gets to run the show. Is it the elected representatives, who have the power to shape the working and legislature of the country? The army, with a mighty arsenal and an evident willingness to grab the reins whenever things go haywire? The judiciary, with which lies the ultimate decision-making power of the law? Or is it instead the common man, who can make or break the country (or at least bent it out of shape for a while) as he determines the funds, votes and support that allow the state institutions to function like they’re supposed to?

When the definition of power itself is so wide-ranging yet so inconclusive, it is very difficult to successfully pin-point the most powerful societal agent in a multi-faceted setting such as ours.

What is power and what controls behavior? Session #3

According to Max weber ‘power’ can be defined as “All conceivable … combinations of circumstances may put him [the actor] in a position to impose his will in a given situation.” 

In this article what interests me is how power is defined in different contexts. Its used as an umbrella term which includes not only being powerful in terms of physical strength but being in power due to having political skill, wealth and motivation. The important distinction between being disliked but still being able to govern a group of individuals is what helps us understand why there have been dictatorships in countries. The meaning of ‘Power’ in this article is used synonymously with coercion, authority and force. 

Whether power is from the top in the form of a dictatorship like the dictatorship of Hitler in Germany or  Vladimir Putin in Russia where at a single command of one person the entire country submits or the state being in a position of power where they can pass laws and the public has to adhere to them no matter what. Or it is from below in the form of a revolution by the people of a country.  Especially a Marxist state where collectively the people are in power to bring about a change from below. Whether a dictatorship is successful or not and whether a revolution actually brings about a change is besides the point. Power can lie with either, what matters is who can exercise it. The bottom line is that it actually all comes down to ‘power’ which is the most important factor responsible for controlling behavior and this article makes a strong case for understanding the definition and role of power without which the  understanding of politics remains incomplete.

Power and Politics session #3

Politics and power, can be regarded as the flip sides of a coin. One cannot separate power from politics. David Easton has defined politics as “Authoritative allocation of values” where authority symbolizes power.  However, due to the generalization across time and space, people have conveniently substituted politics with power which can raise conceptual issues.

Power in terms of modern social science refers to the subsets of relations among social units such that behavior of one or more units depends on the behavior of the other units. In terms of international relations, power of a country is relative to that of another, also, this relative power is not dependent on variables such as the area in square meters of the land occupied by a country or the population of a country, instead it merely depends on the ability of a country to cause or influence changes in another country’s policies, actions or politics.

Session 3: Power, Democracy and The People

As defined by Aristotle, Democracy is control of government by the free born or the poor at the same time present in majority.Does this definition holds to the form of democracy we are exercising in our state? Is it really empowering the free born and poor majority?
We can answer these questions by going into the structure of our Politics and Power Dynamics of our state. Power is the legitimate use of authority. We assert that our democratic representatives are chosen by our people. But are these representatives really from free born and poor majority?
In our country, people who come to power belong to a certain class only. Only the elite class or the Feudal Lords who have enough financial and influencial apparatuss can take part in elections. When a politician wants to come into power, he ensures public interests but when he is in power, his actions only refer to his personal motives or the interests of his class. If we see, there are a handfull of families who have been in power since independance and they all belonged to a certain class.
Hence, power is only cincentrated to a small class of people.

Session 3: How Is The Political Different From The Social?

Rather than confining politics to a particular sphere like the state, the government or the public domain, politics should be understood as an aspect of all social relations and social activities. As Leftwich says, “Politics is at the heart of all social activity.” Politics, in one way or another, takes place at every level of social interaction. So what distinguishes the social from the political? What sets apart paying taxes and voting from donating charity and volunteering? It is that the former are an obligation and the latter are not. Paying taxes isn’t a voluntary act, but a necessary one. A citizen is OBLIGED to pay taxes, whereas a member of society VOLUNTARILY contributes to charity. Hence, it could be said, well quite generally perhaps, that it is the mere existence of power that draws a fine line between ‘the political and social’. So where politics is about differences of opinion over scarce resources, power becomes the means through which this struggle is conducted. This definitely begs the question, ‘What Is Power?’ The answer to which I am incapable of giving. Firstly because I am as literate on this subject as any other layman and secondly because it is an ever changing and dynamic definition. Power, I believe has its own varying connotations, and it comes to a man as differently as it does to another. However, if we look at it in the context of today’s democracies, in most systems, the compliance of the populace with the demands of their rulers depends not merely on the threat or actuality of coercion, but also on a measure, at least, of belief in their ‘legitimacy’. Power no longer holds the same primitive definition as it once did. Power begs credibility, and performance. A man with power is accountable to the people he owes his power to. Democracies have their natural way of maintaing a check and balance on ones responsible. Therefore, the careless flaunting of power for purposes not aligned with the interests of the people may no longer be commonplace, although it may still occur in various shapes and forms which we, through the course of this subject, hope to be acquainted with. What I take away is that power has always been an integral part of communities and has been looked upon as a valuable resource which has to be distributed so that the matters of the state and those pertaining to it, may be run effectively. It creates a line of order and a hierarchy, the benefit of which is considered more important than the negative definitions related to it.

Session 2 : Politics and politicians.

When the writer views politics as the art of government he mentions the negative view of politics  due to its association with the activities of political leaders. While it may be true that politicians do not conform to the highest moral standards but it is also true that leadership does not always have to be moral to be effective.

Like Dr.Mooed Yusuf said in his recent Dawn article “The ones(politicians) the system allows in are those willing to abide by the rules of a praetorian state”

People in general but more so in the Subcontinent are forever on the lookout for a messiah who will spare them from all their inconveniences. This view of politics and politicians is naive at best. The people need to realize that moral leadership is hard to come by and in an entrenched political system like ours, its a rarity. In Pakistan instead of waiting for a savior , the public needs to choose the most effective leader in the existing pool of politicians. We do not need to look far to see that effective leadership sans moral authority can also reap positive results. Narendra Modi of India is by no means a moral leader but he was successful in turning around the province of Gujarat and greatly improving the condition of its inhabitants due to his effective leadership.

Session 3: Is power distribution in a democratic country as fair as the word "democracy" actually implies?

One of the several features highlighting power under its broader context is the distribution of power in a country or a society. Distribution of power suggests how power and authority are allocated in a country and it differs from country to country depending upon the type of government system that it is based upon,  for example, in an authoritarian government the state would have control over all the affairs of the country while under a democracy most of the supreme power would be in the hands of the people.

Although, the word democracy implies complete autonomy and independence where the people maintain power through their elected representatives, many countries today claim that they are democratic when they actually aren't, for example China, Iran and Cuba. These countries cannot be classified as democratic because they do not fulfil the basic criteria of democracy that is, the freedom of  speech and expression. In China people don't have their basic rights to religion and cannot worship freely.

Therefore, a country claiming itself to be a democratic nation cannot be established as democratic until and unless it actually adopts all principles of a free nation.

Session 2: Politics, a system of governance or hunger for power?

The significance of politics as a mode by which the common population makes, preserves and amends the rules that regulate their lives, cannot be undermined. However, it is not only confined to the government sector. It’s existence in our social lives cannot be negated, either. 

Although integral in formatting and ensuring the continuity of a system of governance, being the supercilious creature he is, man has been able to maneuver politics for his own personal gain. Man is known to have ‘unlimited wants’ and the structure of politics ensures that ‘wealthier the healthier’. Seldom has a political elite put public welfare ahead of his own personal motives. As Robert Casey puts it, “Any man who has ever tried to use political power for the common good has felt an awful sense of powerlessness.”

As it has persisted since the earliest of days dated in history books, political representation in the government has rested with the rich elites. A norm that has to be changed if politics is to excel in it’s true colors, as it’s meaning suggests. As Noam Chomsky affirms, “Concentration of wealth yields concentration of political power."

Session 3-Power Distribution:Autocracy vs Constitutionalism

Power distribution plays an integral role in formulating governing structures of society. It evolves two important concepts i.e. autocracy and constitutionalism. Montesquieu, in his book The Spirit of the Laws, describes how the distribution of power, creates several divisions and hierarchies within political structure.

Autocracy is form of government with centralized power and authority, where a single entity is sole representative of complete authority and whose decisions are unaffected by any external and legal forces. Monarchism and dictatorship are somehow related to the same concept. This form of government leads to decrease inefficiency through promptly decisions. However, it lessens the active engagement of public in political matters.  Many of the countries like Iraq and Pakistan had faced autocratic governments in the past.

On the other hand, constitutionalism is based on equal distribution of powers between different institutions of the society. It is associated with theories of John Locke and the founders of the American republic which limits the governmental powers through fundamental laws.  Under this concept, the power is exercised between judiciary, parliament and legislature. Furthermore, constitutionalism defines the scope of authority, mechanism and civil rights which leads to more formalized and mechanized institutions.

Session 2 - Politics, what is it really?

What is politics? Usually, when we hear the word, a system run by the Parliament comes to our minds.

But is politics really just restricted to the Parliament? How does it affect our daily lives if it isn't so? does it operate in the private sphere? I think what we perceive politics to be affects its say in our lives. If we view politics as a means to power that has led to corruption, then we view all corruption in the light of politics and its use by many for their gains.

Politics can not just be confined to this; even when the concept of "Politics" did not exist, it was practiced. t exists in all aspects, it has been a part of our social interaction ever since and just confining its definition to the Parliament, Senators of Public Offices.

politics isn't just an art of the government; rather than definition is quite reductionist. it actually a blend of public affairs and interests, compromise and consensus and distribution of resources as well.

Session 3: Dynamics of power in Pakistan

At the dawn of independence in 1945, Pakistan’s ruling class consisted of landlords and capitalist industrialists being supported by the military and bureaucracy. Former decided the economic growth patterns and the latter decided the power dynamics for the state of Pakistan, to date there has been very less or no change in the role of these elites in the sovereign state of Pakistan. Economic patterns over the years have brought a lot of wealth to the few, at the expense of many. This inequality in distribution led to the increased poverty, gradual breakdown of social infrastructure and lessened influence of the civil society which has accelerated the influence of military in the country. For better or for worse, Pakistan has spent several decades under military rule. Many times in history, military has taken over control of the country to stabilize the law and order in the country or due to incompetent leaders, and in this continuous transfer of power the welfare of the common man has continued to decrease. In a country of around 182 million people, half of the population lives under poverty line and with continuous change of power the number of people under the poverty line keeps increasing and no one seems to be really working to eradicate or change this situation. 

The only hope of common man today is that one day they shall see a change in this dynamics of power and they shall live in a progressive Pakistan. 

Session 2-Various approaches to Politics

Politics is defined as the activity in which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live. It is linked to the phenomenon of conflict and cooperation. This is why disagreement is called the heart of politics. Disagreement depends upon the nature of subject under consideration and how it should be studied. Hence there are numerous approaches to study Politics. 

Philosophical Tradition involves analytic study of ideas and doctrines that have been central to political thoughts. It has a characteristic of Literary Analysis, that is, to analyze what major thinkers (Plato, Aristotle) said and how they developed their views. It is mainly concerned with normative questions and involves making judgments and offering recommendations.

Empirical Tradition states that all political analysis should be based on personal experience, observation and experiments.

Scientific Tradition includes concept of behaviorism which provided objectivity and quantifiable data against which, hypotheses can be tested.

With the diversity of approaches to view and analyze politics, comes disparity among each methodology which is the heart of politics. Concepts such as ‘Justice’ and ‘Rights’ are empirical topics which need interpretations and personal observations but they cannot be factually proven. Questions arise about behavioral approach because it cannot answer normative questions.

Scientific Approach to politics helps to distinguish between “facts” (empirical evidence) and “values” (normative believe). But this also proposes some problems. Analytics lack accurate information and data to analyze. Secondly, there are always hidden biases while analyzing something hence the myth of neutrality in politics seems false.

It is exciting and interesting to see that Politics can be viewed and analyzed from so many points of views and people may have numerous opinions about the same topic.

Session 3-The evolution of power

The power relationships that exist in modern society are complex and dynamic. While earlier political theorists may have defined power in terms of one group of individuals controlling others, this phenomenon may not be so clearly evident in the interaction of individuals today .It can be argued; as Dahl suggests; that the distribution of power is dual sided. Even though most states maintain some form of control over their citizens through the creation of rules and policies that limit behavior and promote their own interests, in pluralistic settings like the democracies in the west, the power of the government is influenced and checked by various factors such as public opinion, lobbying and the existence of accountability systems such as the judiciary. While in the past, power would be solely be in the control of a single ruler or king who would possess ultimate authority; this is no longer the case.

Moreover, an examination of the nature of power that is exercised in contemporary society suggests that the methods of exercising power have changed. While states in the past may have relied on the use of force and regulations to maintain control over individuals, as Louis Althusser suggests the use of ideology and ideological state apparatuses such as the media, the political system etc. that promote a certain sets of ideas and beliefs that perpetuate the hegemony or dominance of one class over others is more apparent today. An example of this is the power of the mass media in the United States. Research shows that mainstream media generally tends to portray the attitudes and beliefs of the owners  dominant media corporations or media moguls. These views are those that are possessed by the predominantly middle class, male and white population or the ruling elite which vests them with considerable power.People follow these ideas not because they are forced too,but because they have been instilled in them. Therefore power may be more ideological than physical unlike Aristotle suggested.

In conclusion, the evolution of the nature of power suggests that while power relationships do exist and are very real, they may not be as easy to define or recognize as we once thought they were.

Session: 2 Politics in Today's World

Normally people think that politics is only practiced by the politicians in the government but politics has flourished and invaded every sphere of life. There is hardly any piece of land which is free from politics.

Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in his famous book "Glimpses of World His­tory": "Politicians usually hide their real reasons and talk pompously of religion and justice and truth and the like. And still the great majority of people are taken in by the soft talk of politicians."

 There are countries then the governments following and in the end the politicians follow the stream. They give the final verdicts and the country runs accordingly. And it’s true that politicians flourish by using the weak and helpless people. One good example is of Pakistan, we can clearly see that after the independence, our country is run by the powerful families. Like Bhutto and Nawaz families. And if we go in to the details of these families, we can have the view that how these families became well off after coming into power and that’s the only reason that mostly people on our country don’t want to vote during elections. I think that this system should be changed in order to help the poor classes.

Nowadays politics can be seen everywhere within families, friends and organizations in different ways. And I think the main reason behind this about getting the power. There is hunger of power and authority. In organizations individual employees are practicing politics to get in to power same as we can see in the government.  So, I think that everyone is practicing politics to get some benefit.

Session 2 - The Negative Image Associated With Politics

Around the globe, the word ‘Politics’ very often carries negative associations. In my opinion, the reason for this is the inextricable link between politics and power.

Politics exists wherever a hierarchy of power is present, and it is the very thirst for power that has polluted the image associated with a political framework. In his book; Andrew Heywood accurately suggested that Politics in modern society has become a ‘dirty word’ usually associated with power-hungry individuals willing to go to any extent in order to move up the ladder of hiearchy. This image of the word is rightly built based on evidence from the past,  for example, Spiro T. Agnew who was then the Vice President of the United States, was convicted and forced out of office for accepting bribes and the former President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari was accused of killing his wife for his personal political gain.

These unethical acts can be explained using the words of Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Hence the evolution of an adverse image associated with the world of Politics is somewhat justified. 

Session 3: The algebra of power politics.

Math has brought me a tremendous amount of agony. So, Robert Dahl's portrayal of 'range' and 'domain' was a sigh of relief. Contrary to abstract plugging in of X's and Y's, Dahl deals in somewhat concrete terms. 

Although, Dahl poses more questions than he answers, his depiction of ‘range’ and ‘domain’ makes some sense. The dependant party, or the controlling faction, holds some measure of power on some number of particular activities of the dependant group. These activities can be classified as the ‘range’, while the ‘domain’, according to Dahl, is just the extent of the elite’s power on the weaker party.

Moving on from the same concept, what further piqued my interest was the notion of 'specialisation' in the context of power affecting behaviour. 

Contemporarily, the US holds primacy when the discussion of the world’s superpowers is at hand. Yet, is the US really number 1 in every field? Not quite. 

Will McAvoy, from The Newsroom, put it more eloquently when he said: ‘We’re seventh in literacy, twenty-seventh in math, twenty-second in science, forty-ninth in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force, and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are allies.’

But, I digress. To put things into perspective, and to see whether power really is a phenomenon of specialisation, let’s take a look at the nation states of Pakistan and Saudia Arabia. 

Saudia Arabia is vastly richer, yet Pakistan possesses the ability to decimate the desert kingdom if it came to battle. So, who really holds the power in the realms of international relations? 

It is hard to determine that, unless we take into account this concept that power does not have to be a constant binding force concentrated in all spheres of the given scenario. Where one possesses power, the other may lack it. But does that necessarily make the lacking state weaker? 

The question then arises; how does one compare power in multiple dimensions of affairs? Is there really a way to determine the overall power value of an entity compared to another? 

I do not know whether it was Dahl’s intention to guide his readers to these questions, but these, to me, are questions worth getting around. 

Session 2- Can we restrict politics to a certain domain?

Narrowly defined, politics is concerned with state affairs and governance. According to this definition, majority of the people do not practice politics and it is restricted to a selected few who are involved in managing public affairs.

However, the idea of politics is inevitability linked with social interaction within all walks of life. Even in everyday life, there is conflict and cooperation and to achieve that, politics acts as a mediator. Communication is used to resolve conflicting interests where power dynamics come into play and these power dynamics necessitate the presence of politics.

Is it just to restrict the functioning of politics to a specific arena alone, disregarding the power dynamics that exist in social relationships such as the institution of marriage or family life? Narrowing down the definition of politics conveniently takes it away from the common man who can disassociate himself from it and treat it as a dirty or corrupt practice experienced only in public affairs.

Therefore, if we narrow down the definition of politics, it deliberately excludes the basic form of politics and its manifestation in everyday life.