Political Pluralism : Harold Laski

The form of sovereignty as developed by Jean Bodin to John Austin was generally regarded as an essential attribute of the modern state till the 19th century. Accordingly , it was almost universally admitted that the state is superior to all other human associations in society because sovereignty is exclusive to the state. The rise of capitalism combined with the theory of absolute state posed a real threat to freedom in society. Many thinkers expressed serious concern at this state of affairs. Pluralist theory launched a systematic attack on the doctrine state-sovereignty. The pluralist theory, in short, sought to redefine that nature of the state as one of the several associations of human beings operating in society to secure the multifarious interests of individuals.

Dictionary of Social Science defines political pluralism as “ those doctrines…… which assert that certain groups in society embody important social value prior to and independent of their authorization or approval by the state”. The pluralist theory is marked by a shift in focus from the legal to the sociological character of the state . It recognizes the role of several associations in society formed by men in pursuance of their multifarious interests. Some of these associations have been in existence prior to the origin of the state itself. Some of them exist independent of the state, that is, they are neither created nor sponsored, nor maintained, nor even regulated by the state. The sate is but one of these associations, standing side- by-side with them, not above them. Such associations include the church and other religious organizations, trade unions, cooperative societies and chambers of commerce and so many voluntary associations devoted to education, cultural and scientific pursuits. All these associations embody some social value, means of satisfying some needs and other worth while pursuits.

Political pluralism is inspired by the notion that liberty is to be found in the division of powers between state and other associations and corporations. Not only centralized sovereignty of the state destroys democracy and freedom, according to them, but its action is wasteful and injurious to the personality of the individuals. However, the pluralists are not in favour of abolition of the state. Their state is not a sovereign state but merely a useful social institution among so many other social institutions. In other words, the pluralist deny sovereignty of the state but not the state itself.

Pluralistic tendency in politics represents a reaction against state absolutism which grew out of the traditional theory of state sovereignty as developed by political philosophers like Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, J. J. Rousseau, John Austin etc. The pluralists view the state differently and adopt various lines of attack against the sovereignty of the state. They hold that the conception of the state as an absolute legal sovereign hardily fits in with political practices now-a-days. It is also a reaction to the breakdown of state administration due to expansion and over centralization of the functions of the state. The doctrine of political pluralism was developed by a number of social and political thinkers from Europe and America. Emile Durkheim- a French sociologist, F. W, Maitland an English legal historian , and GDH Cole- an English economist are regarded as the fore runners of the pluralist theory. The important exponents of pluralism include Ernest Barker, Harold Laski, A.D. Lindsay, Hobhouse, Mao Iver etc.

HAROLD LASKI

Harold Laski is the most ardent exponent of political pluralism. Born on June 30, 1893, Harold Laski was the second son of Nathan Laski and Sarah Laski. His father was Jew who had from Hungary. Since Harold’s father was an orthodox Jew, he wanted his son to follow strictly the principles of orthodox Judaism. From the very beginning of his career Harold was an extraordinarily brilliant child and he struck his teacher John Lewis Paton with his outstanding ability. He published an article under the title” On the Scope of the Eugenics” in the Westminster Review in July 1910. This essay was so profoundly scholarly that it won him praise from the greatest scientist, sir Francis Galton. Laski left the school in 1910 and for a period of six months he carried his studies in Eugenics with Karl Pearson at University College in London. In 1909 he met Frida Kerry whom he married in the summer of 1911. From 1911 to 1914 he studied at the New College, Oxford. He carried his studies under the able guidance of eminent professors like H.A.L. Fisher, Ernest Barker and was highly influenced by the writings of F.W. Maitland. Later he accepted an invitation Lansbury to work on the Daily Herald to Which he contributed a number of articles from the point of view of the trade union, dealing with Ireland and other constitutional problems. He then accepted the job of a lecturer at the McGill University, Montreal, Canada, and them shifted to Harvard University in USA where he worked for a period of five years. He then left Harward and joined the prestigious London School of Economics and Political Science as a lecturer. He succeeded Prof. Graham Wallas as Professor of Political Science and remained in the school till his death in 1950.

As teacher of political science he was extremely popular and his lectures were highly inspiring and stimulating. Students from different parts of th world came to receive instructions from him and considered it an honour to study under his guidance. It is interesting to note that Jawaharlal Nehru, K.R. Narayanan, V.K. Krishan Menon, Dr. K. N. Raj etc were his brilliant students. He had great love for his students and they in return had all respect and regard for him.

Besides being a political thinker of repute, Laski was also active in politics. He was closely associated with the activities of Labour party. For many years he was a member of its executive committee and was also its chairman when the Labour party came to power in 1945. He had a great knowledge of political affairs and was always in a position to guide the official leaders of the party like Attlee, Morrison etc.

In his political thinking, Laski was influenced by many factors. The period in which Laski was living was the period when different ideologies, such as Utilitarianism, Fabian socialism, and Communism were spreading with a view to reforming the various prevalent conceptions regarding sovereignty, parliamentary democracy and the economic and political liberties of the individual . As a young boy he spent most of his time reading books on all these issues. Thus he wanted to reform source of the conservative and orthodox dogmas and opinions regarding the social and political institutions. Besides, Laski was greatly influenced by Leon Duguits book, ‘Law in the Modern State’, which he translated form French. The writings of Ernest Barker, Maitland Figgis etc also influenced the political philosophy of Laski. The important works of Laski include:

1. Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty(1917)

2. Political Thought from Locke to Bentham(1920)

3. Foundation of Sovereignty (1921)

4. A Grammar of Politics(1925)

5. Communism(1927)

6. Liberty in the Modern State (19300

7. Democracy in Crisis (1938)

8. The Rise of European Liberalism (1936)

9. An introduction to Politics (1931)

10. Parliamentary Government in England (1938)

It is to be noted that Laski’s political ideas underwent changes according to the changing conditions in different parts of the world from time to time. At different stages of his career he was an advocate of pluralism, Fabianism, Marxism and Socialism. In other words, though very brilliant, he has not been very consistent in his formulations. He has been adjusting his pluralist position between liberalism and Marxism, but ultimately he emerged as an exponent of new- liberalism- a combination of liberalism and socialism. In his scheme of the reorganization of the state on the basis of democratization of power, Laski comes out as an ardent pluralist.

In the early phase of his political philosophy, that is in the 1920s, Laski advance vigorous criticism of the theory of state sovereignty and held that his theory would pass like the theory of the divine right of kings He thought of sovereignty as nothing more than a legal fiction and a barren concept But in the later phase, that is, in the 1930s, Laski began to evolve a balanced view of pluralism identifying the points of its strength and weakness, and then he conceded the importance of sovereignty as an essential element of state- power, though he viewed the sate itself as an agency for regulating class- relations in society, while he himself prepared a classless society .

Liberty and Rights

In his Authority in the modern state, Laski elaborates his views on liberty. Laski does not believe that separation of powers ensures individual liberty. By liberty Laski means “ the eager maintenance of that atmosphere in which men have the opportunity to be their best selves” Liberty, therefore , consists in the enjoyment of certain system of rights . Without rights there cannot be any liberty because in that case men are the subjects of law unrelated to the needs of personality. If the rights are not guaranteed liberty shall always remain an empty slogan. Laski does not accept Mills’ classification of human actions into two parts, namely, self- regarding and other – regarding activities.

According to Laski, there are three aspects of liberty namely, private, political and economic. Private liberty means freedom of choice and action in areas of life which affect the individual himself such as religion. Writing about private liberty he says thus: “private liberty is that aspect of which the substance is mainly personal to a man’s self. It is the opportunity to be fully himself in the private relations of life”. The state should not interfere with the affairs of private liberty. Political liberty means freedom of choice and action to be active in the affairs of the state Enjoyment of political liberty depends upon factors like education and free press. Economic liberty means that the citizens should be free from the constant fear of unemployment and in sufficiency; It also means that the workers should have a share in the administration of the productive system. All other freedoms become useless and fruitless in the absence of economic liberty.

Laski also discusses some safeguards of liberty. There should be no special privileges in society. All persons must be regarded equal in the eyes of law and all should have equal opportunities. Special privileges is in compatible with freedom because the latter quality belongs to all alike in their character has human beings. All people according to Laski, should enjoy equal access to power. Laski, therefore, suggests that all special privileges must be abandoned. The second safeguard suggested by Laski is that rights of some should not depend upon the pleasure of other. No groups of men must be in position to encroach upon the rights of others which they are entitled to enjoy as citizens. The common rules must be binding upon those who exercise power as well as upon those who are the subjects of power. Finally, the effective safeguards of liberty depends upon the determination of the people to fight for it.

RIGHT

According to Laski, rights are “ those conditions of social life without which no man can seek in general to be himself at his best”. A state is known by the rights that it maintains. The state briefly does not create, but recognizes rights, and its character will be apparent from the rights that, at any given period, secure recognition. But, the possession rights does not mean the possession of claims that are empty of all duties.

The Individual is Entitled to Number of Rights

1. He has the right to work, but this does not mean right to any particular work. It means the right to useful work for the society and the right of self- expression and existence.

2 An individual has the right to adequate wages, but it means sufficient wages for a reasonable living .

3. He has the right to reasonable hours of work. This would ensure leisure to every worker for intellectual pursuits.

4. Right to education. This means not equal education for all, but a minimum of education for everybody.

5. Political rights of voting, being elected and holding public office.

6. Freedom of speech

7. Freedom of association

8. Equality of all in the eyes of law and equitable administration of justice and

9. Right to property.

According to Laski, there are three general conditions which are necessary for the fullest realization of rights. The first is that the state must be centralized state. The organs which exercise power must not be concentrated at a single point in the body politic. Secondly, every department of the government must be associated by a consultative committee. The third condition is the limitation upon its authority to intervene in the internal life of other associations.

Attack on Absolute Sovereignty of State

In his ‘A Grammar of Politics’, Laski proceeds to scrutinize the theory of sovereignty from three aspects and discovers its weaknesses everywhere: in the first place his tropical analysis of the state repudiates the idea of absolute sovereignty. He accepts Sir Henry Maine’s criticism of Austin and shows how custom and tradition substantially limit the exercise of sovereign power. These are not legal checks imposed by some determinate human superior, nor do they operate with the express or tacit consent of the sovereign himself. The deference which even omnipotent monarchs and sultans have to show to custom, is a political need, a dictate of prudence and expediency. Besides these limitations in the internal sphere, sovereignty is also subject to limitations in the eternal sphere. Here Laski finds the claims of absolute sovereignty incompatible with the interest of humanity. As he observes in his A Grammar of Politics, in a creative civilization what is important is not the historical accident of separate state, but the scientific fact of world interdependence. The real unit of allegiance is the world. The real obligation of obedience is to the total interest of our fellow – men”.

In the second place, the theory of absolute sovereignty fails as a theory of law. Here Laski accepts Dicey’s distinction between legal and popular sovereignty as a proof of the absurdity of Austin’s definition of sovereignty as determinate and indivisible. He proceeds to show how even the idea of popular sovereignty is not workable. In Laski’s words” everyone knows that to regard the king in parliament as a sovereign body in the Austinian sense is absurd. No parliament would dare to disfranchise the Roman Catholics or to prohibit the existence of trade unions. If it made the attempt, it would cease to be a parliament. That is to say that in practice legally unlimited power turns out to be power exercised under conditions fairly well known to each generation’.

Finally, the theory of sovereignty does not hold good in the analysis of a political organization. Laski cites the case of the federal state, particular of the United States, to show that the location of sovereignty-as envisaged by Austin is very difficult in the case of such political organization.

Further, Laski attacks the unlimited authority of the sovereign. He wrote thus : “No sovereign has any where possessed unlimited power; and the attempt of exert it has always resulted in the establishment of safeguards” It is not possible to find an unlimited sovereign in a unitary or federal state. Again, Laski does not agree with Austin’s view that law is the same for the legislator and the citizen, the command is not binding on the giver.

Authority is Federal

According to Laski, society is federal and therefore authority must also be federal. Man has many wants, social, economic, cultural, Political or religions and forms or joins many associations to satisfy them. Each one of these associations has a part in the development and enrichment of his personality. In the ‘Foundations of Sovereignty’, Laski argues that the state is only one of many forms of human associations and, as compared with other associations, it has no superior calims to an individual’s allegiance. This is because rights and powers are relative to function. Authority is federal in character always and everywhere.. The state cannot regulate the whole life of man and must share its function and its authority with other associations. The state “is not unitary, it is not absolutistic, it is not independent. It is pluralistic and constitutional and responsible. It is limited in the force it exercises, it is directive rather than dominating.” In his A Grammar of Politics Laski argues that the larger function of the state postulate larger responsibility as well. The state can justify its existence only as a public service corporation: The state differs from every other association in that it is, in the first place an association in which membership is compulsory. It is, in the second place, essentially territorial in nature…..The state controls the level at which men are to live as men. It is, in administrative terms, a government whose activities are shaped by the common needs of its members. To satisfy those common needs, it must contr5ol other associations to the degree that secures from them the service such needs require.

According to Laski, the state must justify exercise of its social authority by ensuring an effective coordination of functions of other human associations in the best public interest. While not reducing that state to the level of a trade union, Laski is of the opinon that sovereignty in the state should be shared by a many groups according to the respective value of the functions of each group. The state, according to Laski, should perform its co-ordinating function, but has no right to omnipotence. Laski’s plea to make authority federal is the cornerstone of his pluralist doctrine.

Its logical conclusion may be found in his concept the democratisation of power. In his pluralist fervor, Laski feels deeply concerned about the undemocratic control of industry and politics by the economic overlords in society. This state of affairs cannot be transformed, Laski feels, unless the vital instrument of production are owned and controlled by the community. Socialization of these vital resources will avert concentration of economic power in society and start the process of the democratization of powers.

Assessment

Conflicting views have been expressed about Laski’s place in the history of western political thought. On the one hand is the opinion of Blum who compared Laski with Montesquieu and De Tocqueville and held that he did not think any other man in Europe or America having such a profound and original  knowledge of democratic  thought and institutions since the 17th century.

Against this expression of splendid admiration, Herbert Deane opined that Laski never achieved the distinction a a political theorist or as a scholar in the field of political philosophy. 

His published works were repetitions and rhetorical to the point of bombast. To call him a mere pamphleteer and a propagandist is no doing justice to the political reasoning of Laski. It s true that Laski was not only a great scholar, a great

thinker. His greatest contribution to political thought lies in his synthesis that he has effected between liberalism and Marxism.