KINDS OF SOVEREIGNTY

KINDS OF SOVEREIGNTY

There are five different kinds of sovereignty:

(1) Nominal and Real Sovereignty (2) Legal Sovereignty (3) Political Sovereignty (4) Popular Sovereignty (5) De Facto and De Jure Sovereignty.

(1) Nominal arid Real Sovereignty:

In ancient times many states had monarchies and their rulers were monarchs. They wielded absolute power and their senates and parliaments were quite powerless. At that time they exercised real sovereignty. Therefore, they are regarded as real sovereigns. For example, Kings were sovereigns and hence they were all powerful in England before fifteenth century, in U.S.S.R. before eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and in France before 1789. The state of affairs changed in England after the Glorious Revolution in 1688.

Now the King is like a rubber- stamp. The British king has a right to encourage, warn and advise his Ministers or seek any information about the administration. Except these ordinary powers, all other powers of the British king are wielded by his Ministers.

Lowell has summed up the position of the British Sovereign in these words: “According to the early history of the constitution, the ministers were the counsellors of the king. It was for them to advice and for him to decide. Now the parts are almost reversed. The king is consulted but the ministers decide”.

(2) Legal Sovereignty:

Legal sovereignty is that authority of the state which has the legal power to issue final commands. It is the authority of the state to whose directions the law of the State attributes final legal force. In every independent and ordered state there are some laws which must be obeyed by the people and there must be a power to issue and enforce these laws. The power which has the legal authority to issue and enforce these laws’ is legal sovereignty.

In England, the King-in-Parliament is sovereign. According to Dicey, “The British Parliament is so omnipotent legally speaking…. that it can adjudge an infant of full age, it may attain a man of treason after death; it may legitimize an illegitimate child or if it sees fit, make a man a judge in his own case”.

The authority of the legal sovereign is absolute and law is simply the will of the sovereign. Since the authority of the sovereign is unrestrained, reserves the legal right to do whatever he desires. It is the legal sovereign who grants and enforces all the rights enjoyed by the citizens and, therefore, there cannot be any right against him. The legal sovereign is, thus, always definite and determinate.

Only the legal sovereign has the power to declare in legal terms the will of the stale. The authority of the sovereign is absolute and supreme. This authority may reside either in the monarch or in an absolute monarchy or it may reside in the body of persons.

(3) Political Sovereignty:

Dicey believes that “behind the sovereign which the lawyer recognizes, there is another sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow. Such sovereign to whom the legal sovereign must bow is called political sovereign. In every Ordered state the legal sovereign has to pay due attention to the political sovereign.

According to Professor Gilchrist, “The political sovereign means the sum-total of influences in a State which lie behind the law. In modern representative government we might define it roughly as the power of the people”. In other words by political sovereign in the representative democracies, we mean the whole mass of the people or the electorate or the public opinion. But at the same time, it cannot be vigorously asserted that political sovereignty can definitely be identified with the whole mass of the people, the electorate or the public opinion. Political sovereignty is a vague and indeterminate term.

Political sovereignty rests in that class of people under whose influence the mass of the people is or the people are. Political sovereignty rests in the electorate, in the public opinion and in all other influences in the state which mould and shape the public opinion.

In the words of Professor R.N. Gilchrist, “Political sovereign manifests itself by voting, by the press, by speeches, and in many other ways not easy to describe or define. It is, however, not organized and it can become effective only when organized. But the organizations of political sovereignty lead to legal sovereignty. The two are aspects of the one sovereignty of the state”. As a matter of fact, legal and political sovereignty are the two aspects of the one sovereignty of the state. But at the same time both the aspects stands poles apart.

Legal sovereign is a law-making authority in legal terms, whereas political sovereignty is behind the legal sovereign. The legal sovereign can express his will in legal terms. But the political sovereign cannot do so. Legal sovereign is determinate, definite and visible whereas political sovereign is not determinate and clear.

Legal sovereign cannot go against the will of the political sovereign whereas political sovereign, though not legally powerful, controls over the legal sovereign. The concept of legal sovereign is clear whereas the concept of political sovereign is vague. Legal sovereign is elected by the political sovereign whereas political sovereign is the electorate or the people. These are the points of difference between the legal sovereign and the political sovereign.

(4) Popular Sovereignty:

Popular sovereignty roughly means the power of the masses as contrasted with the Power of the individual ruler of the class. It implies manhood, suffrage, with each individual having only one vote and the control of the legislature by the representatives of the people. In popular sovereignty public is regarded as supreme. In the ancient times many writers on Political Science used popular sovereignty as a weapon to refute absolutism of the monarchs.

According to Dr. Garner, “Sovereignty of the people, therefore, can mean nothing more than the power of the majority of the electorate, in a country where a system of approximate universal suffrage prevails, acting through legally established channels to express their will and make it prevail”.

(5) De Facto and De Jure Sovereignty:

Sometimes a distinction is made between the De Facto (actual) sovereignty and De Jure (legal) sovereignty. A de jure sovereign is the legal sovereign whereas a de factor sovereign is a sovereign which is actually obeyed.

In the words of Lord Bryce, de facto sovereign “is the person or a body of persons who can make his or their will prevail whether with the law or against the law; he or they, is the de facto ruler, the person to whom obedience is actually paid”. Thus, it is quite clear, that de jure is the legal sovereignty founded on law whereas dc facto is the actual sovereignty.

The person or the body of persons who actually exercise power is called the de facto sovereign. The de facto sovereign may not be a legal sovereign or he may be a usurping king, a dictator, a priest or a prophet, in either case sovereignty rests upon physical power or spiritual influence rather than legal right.

History abounds in examples of de facto sovereignties. For example, Oliver Cromwell became de facto sovereign after he had dismissed the Long Parliament. Napoleon became the de facto sovereign after he had overthrown the Directory. Likewise, Franco became the de facto sovereign after he had dislodged the legal sovereign in Spain.

In this connection, Dr. Garner has very aptly remarked, “The sovereign who succeeds in maintaining his power usually becomes in the course of time the legal sovereign, through the acquiescence of the people or the reorganization of the State, somewhat as actual possession in private law ripens into legal ownership through prescription”.

Retrieved from: http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/5-different-kinds-of-sovereignty/256

INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Public Administration is a newly emerged discipline compare to other Social Science’s discipline. Public Administration has gained immense importance since the emergence of Administrative state. It deals every aspect of the state and its relation to subjects. In simple sense Public Administration is state mechanism. In every Political System administration have significant role.

Meaning of Public Administration

The word Administration has been derived from the Latin words ‘ad’ and ‘ministiare’ which means to serve. In simple language it means the ‘management of affairs’ or ‘looking after the people’. In general sense Administration can be defined as the activities of groups co-operating to accomplish common goals. It is a process of management which is practiced by all kinds of organisations from the household to the most complex system of the government. According to L. D. White, Administration was a ‘process common to all group effort, public or private, civil or military, large scale or small scale’.

Public administration is "centrally concerned with the organization of government policies and programmes as well as the behavior of officials (usually non-elected) formally responsible for their conduct. Generally Public Administration has been used in two senses. In the wider sense it includes all the activities of the government whether falling in the sphere of legislature, executive or judicial branch of the government, in the narrow sense Public Administration is concerned with the activities of the executive branch only.

Definitions of Public administration

·          L D White observes, “Public Administration consist of all those operations having for their purpose the fulfilment or enforcement of public policy”.

·         Pliffner defines It would seem that “Public Administration consists of getting the work of government done by co-ordinating the efforts of the people so that they can work together to accomplish their set tasks”.

·         Prof: Woodrow Wilson defined Public Administration as detailed and systematic execution of public law; every particular application of general law is an act of administration.

·         Luther Gullick ‘Public Administration is that part of the science of administration which has to do with Government and thus concerns itself primarily with the executive branch where the work of the government is done.

·         Dwight Waldo, defines Public Administration as ‘the art and science of management as applied to the affairs of state’.

NATURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

There are two divergent views regarding the nature of the Public administration. These views are following

INTEGRAL VIEW:

According to this view, Public administration is a sum total of all the activities undertaken in pursuit of and in fulfillment of public policy. These activities include not only managerial and technical but also manual and clerical. Thus the activities of all persons from top to bottom constitute administration although they are of varying significance to the running of administrative machinery. Prof: L D White adopts this view of Public administration. According to him, Public Administration ‘consists of all those operations having for their purpose the fulfillment or enforcement of public policy’. This definition covers a multitude of particular operations, many in fields. Another scholar Marshal E Dimock also shares the same view. He holds that administration is concerned with the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of government. The ‘what’ is the subject matter, the technical knowledge of a field which enables the administrator to perform his tasks. The ‘how’ is the technique of management, the principles according to which cooperative programmes are carried to success.

MANAGERIAL VIEW:

According to this view, the works of only those persons who are engaged in the performance of managerial functions in an organisation constitute administration. In this managerial view the administration has the functions of planning, programming and organise all the activities in an organisation so as to achieve the desired ends. Luther Gullick and Herbert Simon subscribe this view. Gullick says ‘Administration has to do with getting things done; with the accomplishment of defined objectives’.

These two views are deals the nature of public administration. In simply the nature of Public Administration deals the execution.

SCOPE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

In the modern time Public administration have a pivotal role. There are many discussions about the scope of Public Administration, some scholars are argued that in the Neo-liberal time the scope of Public administration is very less and Private administration have growing importance. Some argues that the neo-liberal time the term Public administration has significant one because the neo liberal state has faced many problems like environmental and technological issues.

The scope of Public administration deals in many ways

·         Public Administration and People.

·         Public Administration is an organisational effort it needed a close relation to people. In every Administrative system they have good relation between people and administrative agencies. It influenced the day to day life of the common people.

·         Public Administration and Democracy

·         In a Democratic political system scope of public administration is related in many ways. It have close link to people and at the same time they are the watch -dog of the political system. The Modern democratic state gave more important to the welfarism, in a welfare democracy the effective administration is essential.

There are many other reasons also contribute the scope of Public Administration.

·         Development of Communication and Technology

·         The Development of Neo-Liberal State

·         The concept of Participatory Development

·         Good Governance.

·         E-Governance

·         Environmental concerns

·         Human rights approach

·         New Social Movements and State

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ADMINISTRATION

Private administration is a concept newly emerged one. Private Administration challenged the development of Public Administration. After 1970s the term private administration gained immense importance. There are many differences between these administrations.

·         The most apparent difference between the two sectors is their organizing principles or goal. While private administration has a definite mission, which is the pursuit of profit or stability or growth of revenues, public administration, on the other hand, has ambiguous purposes. Furthermore, the dilemma in ambiguity of purposes is exacerbated by too many unnecessary and inoperable agencies, with purposes that overlap and bloated bureaucracies.

·         Another factor that makes the public sector different from the private is decision making. In public administration, the decision must be and should be pluralistic. The founding fathers intentionally created a democratic republic where all key decisions are made in politicized environment. This allows for maximum participation: open debate, multiple veto points - a decision making hierarchy where consensus must be achieved at each level, ideally, an informed decision. While private administration's decision-making is much simpler- it's monopolistic or close to monopolistic. This type of decision-making would avoid any conflicts in interest; hence, the goal is clearly defined.

·         Public Administration is not characterized solely by profit motive; In fact in Private administration mainly functioned on the basis of profit motive.

·         Public Administration is strictly in accordance with certain legal safeguards in a manner to sustain the confidence and trust of the general public. In Private Administration no legality, it only considered about the owner.

·         Public Administration is not concerned about the time factor but private administration strictly follow time factor.

·         Private Administration focused to the efficiency, transparency, accountability and credibility but in public administration these functions are only in nominal level.