ANSWER NO 1:

POLITICAL PARTY
A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political
aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public
office. Parties tend to be deeply and durably entrenched in specific substructures of society in a
sustainable and well functioning democracy. They can link the governmental institutions to the
elements of the civil society in a free and fair society and are regarded as necessary for the
functioning any modern democratic political system.
Political parties perform key tasks in a democratic society, such as
1. Soliciting  and articulating public policy priorities and civic needs and problems as
identified by members and supporters
2. socialising and educating voters and citizens in the functioning of the political and electoral
system and the generation of general political values
3. balancing opposing demands and converting them into general policies
4. Activating and mobilising citizens into participating in political decisions and transforming
their opinions into viable policy options
5. Channelling public opinion from citizens to government
6. Recruiting and training candidates for public office
Political parties are often described as institutionalized mediators between civil society and those
who decide and implement decisions. As such, they enable their members’ and supporters’ demands
to be addressed in parliament and in government. In our country, there are several political
parties that stand for the election. The presence of the political party is actually a healthy situation
for the nation. It gives people a choice to make a more evolved and effective decision.
 
IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL PARTIES
A democracy cannot exist without the presence of a political party. This is clear from the function
performed by the political parties. In case, there are no political parties then:
Every candidate in the election would be an independent candidate. Any individual candidate does
not have the efficiency to promise any major policy change to the people. In such a scenario, no one
will be responsible for how the country is run.
In the long run, only a representative democracy can survive. Political parties are the agencies that
gather different views on various issues and present them to the government.

ROLE OF POLITICAL RIGHTS IN POLICY MAKING:

Political parties influence public policy precisely because that is why they exist: to influence public
policy. Political parties are large groupings of like-minded individuals who collectively seek to
influence public policy through the election of candidates for political office from that party and
through pressure placed on governing institutions for changes in or support of existing policies and
practices.
Political parties are formed around shared convictions regarding the role of government in society
and the perceived requirement for legal structures intended to protect favored policies or,
conversely, to change those policies with which they disagree. In the United States, the two major
political parties have fundamental disagreements on a wide range of policies, from reproductive and
gun rights to the role of government in the provision of basic services like health care.
Through election manifestoes the political parties display their respective policies and make an
effort to win the elections for implementing these policies. Besides the above organs, there are
several other bodies which influence policy-making.
Mention may be made of the Advisory bodies such as Standing Labour Committee, Indian Labour
Conference, Import and Export Advisory Committee, Central Advisory Board of Education,
University Grants Commission, Pressure groups such as trade unions and chambers of commerce.
All these bodies advise, suggest and sometimes protest and demand correctives in regard to a
particular policy. Under the impact of information technology, mass media is playing an important
role in building pressure on policy-making.

PRESSURE GROUPS

Pressure groups are those informal organisations that come into existence for the protection of
special interests and influence the activities of the government by different methods.
According to H. Z. Zeigler, “A pressure Group has been defined as an organised aggregate which
seeks to influence the context of the government decisions attempting to place its members in
formal governmental capacities.”

ROLE OF PRESSURE GROUPS:

Pressure groups are organizations which attempt to influence government decisions without seeking
to become part of the government.
Influence on the government may be seen as positive or negative, a group may campaign for the
government to do something, or for it to refrain from taking an action. Pressure groups have to
lobby people and ensure a mass representation in order to be recognized by government, and then
eventually influence public policy. If they fail to garner support, they will simply be ignored.
The scope and intensity of pressure groups politics is determined by many factors such as policy,
attitudes, structures and inhibitions on political mobilization. The tendency of the group towards a
more active interest in politics is accentuated when it finds something to gain or lose pertaining to
its interest from governmental decisions.
A pluralistic society, with a democratic order, recognizes their existence and ensures widest
possible participation. But, this does not imply their non-existence in an authoritarian system;
pressure groups have played an important role in socialist countries as well. The interaction and
interpenetration is existent even in a communist society where trade unions and other cultural
organizations work in unison with the only party in power. The level of operationalso tends to vary
from one country to another. The French, being highly individualistic, will question their raison
d’etre whereas in Britain, their existence in the system will be justified as a natural phenomenon.
Pressure groups are not a new phenomenon in politics, however their academic recognition is more
recent. The first systematic study was Arthur Bentley’s “The Process of Government”, published in
1908, but widespread academic interest really dates from 1945.

Pressure group methods in liberal democracies are mainly concerned with influencing the decision-
making processes at the executive and parliamentary levels, and the attempted emphasis at a
particular level will depend on the variables of political institutions, the party system and political
culture.
Some pressure groups devote all or most of their activities to influencing government policy; the
Anti-Saloon League was formed solely to persuade the American government to introduce and
maintain alcohol prohibition in the early years of the century.
It is the most powerful economic interest groups that are most likely to have access to governments
and their civil servants. Cooperation is stressed at this level of consultation: governments want
advice, technical information and most of all cooperation from strong interest groups. Also it is
important to emphasise the reliance of policy-making elite on the technical expertise of various
occupational groups, ranging from economists, physicists, jurists and teachers as part of the policy-
making process.
The National Farmers Union (N.F.U) is a very powerful interest group in the United Kingdom, and
although historically it is pro-Conservative, Labour governments have also consulted it numerous
times when it came to formulating policy in their domain.
This cooperation between the government and organized groups is institutionalized in Great Britain
through a wide range of permanent ‘Advisory Committees’ on which the group representatives sit
alongside civil servants, for example, the National Advisory Council on Training and Supply of
Teachers. In France, pressure group representation has been institutionally organized for some
groups at this level since 1924 and now includes Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Agriculture,
Trade and the Social and Economic Council, which is composed of trade unionists, employers and
government representatives.

One other area open to pressure groups in America, unlike other liberal democracies, is that they
have the scope of influencing the judiciary. Pressure groups tend to influence the selection of judges
who usually have a politically active background; they can also use test cases and undertake public
campaigns, offer the courts technical services or use device known as ‘amicus curiae’.
Coercion or exercise of pressure by means of force is the ultimate weapon used by groups to secure
compliance of their wishes and acceptance of their demands. Lobbying is a classic technique used
by pressure groups, and occurs mainly n the area of legislative activity in a free and democratic
society.
Strike, simply the ‘stoppage of work’ is another common pressure tactic in the hands of one party to
coerce the other, and involves a plurality of men wit the same intent of compelling the other party to
grant a redressal of their grievances.

It is difficult to measure precisely the influence exerted by pressure groups, but some
generalisations can be made. The government’s policy can be an important factor especially the
emphasis that particular policies receive from policy makers. However, there are other variables
such as political values and attitudes within the network in which groups operate that determines
their effectiveness.
In Britain, a group which promotes animal welfare, such as the Dog Food Society, will naturally
have more public sympathy than, say, a society advocating some form of euthanasia. Also, group
may not take part in politics if the attitude of its doing is too revolutionary and rebellious and is not
approved by others.
Group activity takes place in a wide political society, and to maximize its influence, a group will try
to identify its aims with the national interest. No group can be successful and still be identified with
ruthless pursuit of its own aims.
On the point of unrepresentative leadership, trade unions are particularly criticized as representative
democracy is expected of them, but same criterion not applied to all groups. The permanent civil
services, competing parties and the desire of governments for electoral success may balance the
unrepresentative aspects of pressure groups.

CONCLUSION:
To conclude, pressure groups have opened up a very wide channel of study and thereby broadened
the scope of political science in the last century. By encouraging wider political participation,
pressure groups are said to extend the liberal democratic concept of representative government, and
in some instances, groups provide the only source of opposition to the united front of political
parties.

If political parties are inevitable in the modern democratic process, pressure groups have their own
significance in the as well. They act as a powerful check upon the arbitrary exercise of power and
also, various groups in a system are allowed to act as a check upon one another in order to establish
and sustain the system of ‘checks and balances’.

ANSWER NO 4(C):

The bureaucracy is the group of people and organizations that implement policy. The terms
bureaucracy, civil service, public servants, public service, government service, government
servants, officials of government, permanent executive and non-political executive are used to
describe all such persons who carry out the day to day administration of the state.
Bureaucracy is defined as a “System of organization and management in which roles, tasks and
relationships among people and positions are clearly defined, carefully prescribed and controlled in
accordance with formal authority.”

Saint Simon Viewed bureaucracy as A group of officials who governed in their own interest rather
than in the interest of the governed, and Parasites who promoted their self interest at the expense of
others.

Role Of Bureaucracy In Policy Implementation:

In liberal democracies there are president, prime ministers and ministers at the head of state
administration and their chief task is to formulate policy. But in practice this task is done by the top
bureaucrats. The ministers or president (as in USA) simply give the general outlines of a policy or a
decision and on the basis of these guidelines the departmental officials formulate the policy or adopt
the decision.

However, every such policy or decision must be endorsed by the ministers. Here the duty of the
bureaucrats is to provide all facts and figures and the policy is formulated by the ministers and
officials jointly. The officials must have their opinions but they must submit to the ministers
because they are accountable to the legislature and the electorate.

This function relates to the neutrality of the officials. In almost all democratic particularly
parliamentary systems the above noted role is the common feature.

But many critics feel that though the officials are neutral and offer advice to the ministers, in reality
they play crucial role in policy making. The decision is actually taken by the officials and the
ministers approve it. However, in the case of conflict of opinion, the view of the ministers prevails
upon that of the official. Because of this situation modern state administration is called bureaucratic
form of administration. In many states the top bureaucrats are all-in-all and the ministers are simply
tools in their hands.

In the implementation of policy the officials are found to play a very significant role. Mere adoption
of policy/decision does not make any sense or will be ineffective if it is not implemented. In this
sector the ministers have no role to play though they shall be accountable to legislature and
electorate for the non-implementation of the policy/decision.
Here, it is the primary duty of officials to see that the policy/decision once adopted must be
implemented properly. If a policy remains unimplemented the ministers have the right to call for
explanation from the officials who were in the charge of implementation.

There is another side of this function. The general administration of a state means policy making
and policy implementation and the bureaucracy is in charge of this task. Some people say that
policy implementation is more important than policy making. The excellence of the administration
largely depends upon the implementation of policy. Moreover, the interests of the ministers are
intimately connected with the implementation of policy.

If a policy is not implemented they will have to give explanation to the electorate because before
election they promised to make and implement a particular policy. Again, the failure to implement a
policy or to take necessary action for implementation will create a lot of suspicion about the
efficiency of the officials concerned. So the bureaucracy must take action.

 For example, in the U. S. the Congress sets the tax rates, which are fairly detailed. However, the
bureaucracy of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) designs the forms taxpayers use to report their
income on and writes the publications telling taxpayers how to compute their tax liability in
accordance with the law.

Another part of implementation is the tasks required to execute the policy. In the tax policy example
above, the IRS collects income taxes withheld from employees and the estimated taxes of
businesses. IRS also receives and reviews the tax returns, which are the reports of income, from
businesses and individuals to determine what the tax liability is. The agency also has an
enforcement arm that identifies entities that are failing to report their income and pay taxes, and
takes action against those entities.
Conclusion.
The bureaucracy’s role in the policy making process is an important role. It is in charge of
formulating (initiating) and implementing public policies. Being a part of the executive and
responsible to the incumbent government, it can assist in policy formulation and monitoring. The
state bureaucracy therefore impacts on policy –making. In most of the constituency, the negative
perception about bureaucracies is a valid criticism. The bureaucracy is staffed with self serving and
self interested individuals who push all the political decisions in the course that advance and protect
their interests or the interest of the agencies in which they are employed.
ANSWER NO 4(B): Theory of Scientific Management by F.W. Taylor:

In this, he proposed that by optimizing and simplifying jobs, productivity would increase. He also
advanced the idea that workers and managers needed to cooperate with one another. This was very
different from the way work was typically done in businesses beforehand. A factory manager at that
time had very little contact with the workers, and he left them on their own to produce the necessary
product. There was no standardization, and a worker's main motivation was often continued
employment, so there was no incentive to work as quickly or as efficiently as possible.
Taylor believed that all workers were motivated by money, so he promoted the idea of "a fair day's
pay for a fair day's work." In other words, if a worker didn't achieve enough in a day, he didn't
deserve to be paid as much as another worker who was highly productive. Taking what he learned
from workplace experiments, Taylor developed four principles of scientific management. These
principles are also known simply as "Taylorism". In 1909, Taylor published "The Principles of
Scientific Management."
Four Principles of Scientific Management:
Taylor's four principles are as follows:
1. Replace working by "rule of thumb," or simple habit and common sense, and instead use the
scientific method to study work and determine the most efficient way to perform specific
tasks.
2. Rather than simply assign workers to just any job, match workers to their jobs based on
capability and motivation, and train them to work at maximum efficiency.
3. Monitor worker performance, and provide instructions and supervision to ensure that they're
using the most efficient ways of working.
4. Allocate the work between managers and workers so that the managers spend their time
planning and training, allowing the workers to perform their tasks efficiently.

Criticism of Taylorism:
Taylor's Scientific Management Theory promotes the idea that there is "one right way" to do
something. As such, it is at odds with current approaches such as MBO  (Management By
Objectives), Continuous Improvement  initiatives, BPR  (Business Process Reengineering), and
other tools like them. These promote individual responsibility, and seek to push decision making
through all levels of the organization. The idea here is that workers are given as much autonomy as
practically possible, so that they can use the most appropriate approaches for the situation at hand.
What's more, front line workers need to show this sort of flexibility in a rapidly-changing
environment. Rigid, rules-driven organizations really struggle to adapt in these situations.
Teamwork is another area where pure Taylorism is in opposition to current practice. Essentially,
Taylorism breaks tasks down into tiny steps, and focuses on how each person can do his or her
specific series of steps best. Modern methodologies prefer to examine work systems more
holistically in order to evaluate efficiency and maximize productivity. The extreme specialization
that Taylorism promotes is contrary to modern ideals of how to provide a motivating and satisfying
workplace.
Where Taylorism separates manual from mental work, modern productivity enhancement practices
seek to incorporate worker's ideas, experience and knowledge into best practice. Scientific
management in its pure form focuses too much on the mechanics, and fails to value the people side
of work, whereby motivation and workplace satisfaction are key elements in an efficient and
productive organization.
Conclusion:
The Principles of Taylor's Scientific Management Theory became widely practiced, and the
resulting cooperation between workers and managers eventually developed into the teamwork we
enjoy today. While Taylorism in a pure sense isn't practiced much today, scientific management did
provide many significant contributions to the advancement of management practice. It introduced
systematic selection and training procedures, it provided a way to study workplace efficiency, and it
encouraged the idea of systematic organizational design.