ADVERTISEMENTS:
Here is an essay on the ‘Political Theories’ for class 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on ‘Political Theories’ especially written for school and college students.
Essay on the Political Theories
Essay Contents:
- Essay on the Political Theory of Anarchism
- Essay on the Political Theory of Individualism
- Essay on the Political Theory of Communism
- Essay on the Political Theory of Syndicalism
- Essay on the Political Theory of Fascism
- Essay on the Political Theory of Gandhism
- Essay on the Political Theory of Free Trade or Laissez Faire
Essay # 1. Political Theory of Anarchism:
Anarchism is an extreme form of individualism. The main exponents of the school of anarchism are Michael Aleksandrovich Bakunin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Prince Peter Kropotkin. They considered the state as an unnecessary evil and so the state should be abolished.
The state is bad, because it stands for force and oppression in the hands of the property owners who are out to exploit and suppress the workers and the common people. According to the anarchists, man is governed basically by impulses of “mutualism” and cooperation.
The state is useless because it will curb mutualism by physical force and the coercive laws. They despised in equal terms the private property and religion which are the root of all evils in the society. So the anarchists wanted to abolish not only the state but private property and religion too. Private property breeds crimes in the society and religion gives rise to jealousy.
They wanted instead a society which is based on mutuality, i.e., cooperation, which controls the means of production. In that free cooperative society the economy will be based on “from each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs”. So the crux of anarchism is that man is by nature social and cooperative and he will always do what is just and good for the society without any kind of restraint from without.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The state must be abolished because it is a negation of individual liberty and that the authority of the state curbs all moral values. The anarchists believe in the use of violence to exterminate the state.
Criticism:
First, the anarchists start with a wrong premise that the individuals are good and cooperative by nature. But human nature is selfish and narrow and a man is more interested in his own benefit than that of the society.
Secondly, it is wrong for the anarchists to think that the state is against the liberty of the individuals and the laws and forces in the hands of the state are all for the suppression of the people. On the other hand, the state by establishing law and order in the society ensures a fair play of liberty of the people.
Thirdly, the anarchists erroneously believe that the private property kills the moral values and it is responsible for all sorts of crimes in the society. We know that crimes take place for power, sexual desire and rivalry. So the anarchists are too unrealistic.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Fourthly, resorting to violence which is a creed of the anarchists must be condemned. Violence will breed violence. We know that no problem in the world has been solved by use of violence. A creed which encourages violence as a solution of political problems must be banished from the books of political science.
Finally, the abolition of the state cannot be supported. The state is necessary to maintain law and order. In the absence of the state there will be frequent clashes of group interests. It is as Utopian as building castles in the air to expect that harmony will be automatic in a voluntary or free-for-all society.
Essay # 2. Political Theory of Individualism:
Individualism is a middle course between anarchism and socialism. It is a sober form of anarchism. While the anarchists consider the state as an unnecessary evil, the individualists consider the state as a necessary evil. The state should exist but its powers should be limited so that the liberty of the individuals is not curtailed.
The theory of individualism is derived from the nineteenth century economic theory of laissez faire (let alone), according to which the state must not intervene in the liberty of the individuals.
An individual must have full freedom over his body and mind and he must be allowed to live a life as he tikes. The state must not guide the people how to lead the life. But there is necessity of the state to maintain law and order in the society, to defend the country against foreign aggression and to secure the enforcement of contracts.
Apart from these three functions, the state should play the role of a referee in the playground. The individualists underline the need for maximum liberty and minimum power of the state authority.
Criticism:
The following are some of the jarring criticism that can be levelled against individualism. First, the individualist starts with a wrong supposition that the state is an evil. As a matter of fact, the state has brought for its citizens enormous good things. So Plato and Aristotle considered the state essential not for suppressing crimes but for the sake of good life.
Secondly, the individualists are wrong to think that giving more power to the state will take away more liberty of the individuals. The state by establishing law and order ensures the healthy exercise of liberty. So the state instead of killing liberty preserves it. Liberty exists only in an well-organised system.
Thirdly, if the state is to fold its hands leaving the economic field free for all, the rich will become richer and the poor poorer. Unhindered by any controlling agency, the capitalists will get a field day and unleash the steam-roller of exploitation and oppression. To prevent this state of affair, the state must come to play its role in the economic life of the people. Otherwise, there will be total chaos like big fishes eating out the small ones.
Essay # 3. Political Theory of Communism:
The Marxist ideal of society is called communism. Thus communism is a social order which is the culmination of the scocialistic journey of mankind. The goal of the people, as set by Marx, is to establish a society where each and every individual will be able to achieve full and free development. The society which was in Marx’s mind would be a communist society, in which there will be no necessity of economic class or the state.
It will be a self-regulated society, where state interference will disappear and exploitation will be unknown. An individual will work according to his capacity and will get according to his needs. In this way, the Marxian society will descend from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.
In the most mature stage of the communistic society, there will be no degenerating subordination of individuals to the division of labour. With this also will go the difference between the intellectual and manual labour. Labour will no longer remain a means of life. It will become the biggest need for life.
When all the human faculties will be properly developed, there will be a corresponding increase in the wealth of the community. This will dismantle the bourgeois ceiling of productivity and obliterate the bourgeois economic outlook of enriching a few at the cost of the labour of the many. In the new social order the motto will be “from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs”.
Social needs rather than profit motives will regulate production. It will be the community of the working class that will control the means of production. There will be abundance of wealth and overflow of prosperity. So it will be possible for everybody to meet all everybody’s needs.
The workers will work three to four hours a day according to their choice. The working hours being so few, the workers will have ample leisure for recreation and pursuits in cultural, moral and intellectual avenues. Since there will be no scope for exploitation, coercion or use of force, the people will be free from want, insecurity and uncertainty. As a result, there will be a bond of love, freedom and voluntary labour in the social relations.
While the erstwhile capitalist world was one infested by warring states, the new world of communism will be one of cooperative commonwealth. The conception of the state as the instrument of force and class exploitation will be something of the past. In the course of the social progress men shall not need any compulsion or force to abide by the social rules. They will voluntarily observe all the ethos of social life.
Thus communism will climb the top of the social tree. This will be the apex of social evolution. This will transform the earth into a paradise. Thus it is only through communism that mankind – for the first time since the existence of the earth – will be liberated from the struggle for existence. This will bring to man unprecedented freedom of action and thought. It is, however, not known when that stage will come on earth.
Essay # 4. Political Theory of Syndicalism:
The term syndicalism is derived from the French work Syndicate which in France stands for trade unionism. Syndicalism advocates the organisation of the industry exclusively from the standpoint of the producers. The syndicalist want that the association of the workers should control the means of production.
According to C. E. M. Joad:
“Syndicalism is that form of social theory which regards the trade union organisation as at once the foundation of the new society and the instrument, whereby it is to be brought into being.”
Syndicalism is an offshoot of socialism and condemns capitalism as robbers. It attacks the state because it represents the interest of the bourgeoisie or the rich class. It does not believe in political actions and wants to give the workers the control of the conditions under which they work and live. Unlike other types of socialism, its method of struggle is by general strike and sabotage to bargain higher wages and better working conditions. These strikes will dismantle the capitalist order.
According to the syndicalists, there must be trade unions in every industrial unit. There will be a kind of confederation in one industrial district among all the industrial units. The confederation will be an employment agency as well as a centre of trade union activities. It will determine the nature and extent of production in the area.
In the final shape there will be no state or class. In place of the state will come the trade union on a national level. Unlike Karl Marx, who believed in the deliberate and intelligent overthrow of capitalism, the syndicalists believe in “deliberate” but there is nothing “intelligent” in it.
Again, while Marx emphasised on a political struggle for seizure of power and thereby to destroy capitalism and establish socialism, the syndicalists want a dramatic change in the socio-economic structure without bothering with the political structure.
Criticism:
Syndicalism is a theory of vagueness and impracticability. First, it does not pass one’s understanding how a general strike can succeed in crumbling the capitalists who have strong army and police force to break the strike. Again, when the workers will go on strike and paralyses the economic order, the general public who are not workers will suffer most.
Secondly, the political order is so much interlinked with the economic order that one cannot divest politics from economics. If a change is effected in the economic front it is bound to touch the political framework.
Even then, syndicalism had its direct bearing on the success and progress of the institution of Bolshevism in Russia.
Essay # 5. Political Theory of Fascism:
The expression Fascism is a derivation from the Latin word Fasces, which means “a bundle of rods with an axe” which was a symbol for discipline, unity and strength in ancient Rome. It will, therefore, but the natural that Fascism will stand for an absolute state based on power and force, as against liberty or democracy of the people. It is an attack on democracy and it represents totalitarianism of the worst form. Its sole concern was to attain power by use of force and violence.
Historical Background of Fascism:
Fascism arose out of the protest against the injustice and humiliation, to which Italy was subjected after the First World War. The peace treaties which concluded the war reduced Italy into a third-rate nation. Her national economy was sluggish and her per capita income very law. The socialists and the communists failed to bring any good to the country. The return of the soldiers from the frontier added misery to the nation and threw the country into total disarray.
A group of young men under the leadership of Benito Mussolini came to rescue the nation from the nadir of degradation. In 1922, Mussolini’s men, called the Fascists, made their historic march to Rome and effected a successful coup d’état and proclaimed Mussolini 11 Duce (Leader) and reduced King Victor Emmanuel III to a mere figurehead. The Fascists had two enemies, namely the socialists and the communists. They had three ideals, namely making the state all-powerful, ensuring private property and a vigorous foreign policy.
An analysis of the historical background convinces us that Fascism, like Machiavellianism, is purely an Italian ideology. It was a ventilation of the feelings of heart-burning under which the Italians were groaning close on the heels of the humiliating treatment in the Versailles Peace Treaty that a despotic machinery was to be employed.
Since the political institutions of the time were hopelessly incompetent to meet the situation of the price hike, inflation, unemployment, etc., amid the widespread disappointment and frustrations all over the country, it was a favourable soil for any dictator to reap rich harvest. In this way Fascism was germinated on the soil of Italy. Mussolini had the capacity to go through with it.
Main Tenets of Fascism:
The following are the main features of Fascism:
In the first place, the Fascists lacked in any doctrinal base, i.e., it had no set philosophy of its own. It believed in action and not in any theory. Their ideology and programme were to change and fit into the circumstances. Their sole concern was basically to capture power by any means, fair or foul. Violence and force were their accepted formula for that purpose.
In the second place, the Fascists considered the state as a myth and kept on glorifying it as much as possible. They elevated the state to a mythical height. The state was of utmost importance and the individual must keep a low profile and take a back seat. All powers of the individual, from the womb to the grave, must be the responsibility of the state.
The state must be omnipotent and there must not be anybody or anything to challenge or criticise the state. The state is the spiritual and moral guardian of its people. Mussolini would proudly say: “Everything for the state; nothing against the state.” The state must be the be-all and end-all of all individual aspirations.
In the third place, Fascism was out to crush democracy, equality, liberty and socialism. For the Fascists, real liberty was possible only under the totalitarian care and rigid subordination to a strong state: “The maximum liberty always coincides with the maximum of state force.” Liberty must be a gift of the state.
In the fourth place, the Fascists believe that the mass people have no ability to rule the state. Only a few selected aristocrats can rule the country. According to the Fascists, men have in equal calibre and only the elite section of the community is fit and capable to run the government
In the fifth place, there is only one leader and one party in Fascism. The leader will symbolise the national unity and will represent the will of all. His words are laws of the land. In Fascism, there will be only one party, i.e., the Fascist party. There cannot be any other party to share or oppose the government.
The ruling party of the elite will chalk out the programme and implement it. All posts in the government are to be reserved for the party men. All members of the party are to be thoroughly screened before recruitment.
Lastly, Fascism is opposed to internationalism. According to the Fascists, there cannot be any higher interest than the national interest. This is but natural, because Fascist Italy ran into economic difficulties which could be overcome by following a policy of colonial expansion. Mussolini said- “Imperialism is the eternal and immutable law of life. War is to the man what maternity is to the woman.” In this way, the Fascists glorify violence, war and imperialism.
Criticism:
The following scathing criticism is levelled against Fascism:
First, the doctrine of Fascism is unclear and confusing. There is also nothing original in it. G. H. Sabine attacked Fascism- “It is a body of ideas taken from various sources and put together to fit the exigencies of the situation. It combines Hegelian nationalism, Platos’ government by aristocracy, Bergsonian anti-intellectualism, etc.” It is rather a new form of Machiavellianism. Thus it is a hotch-potch of several old theories to meet the requirement of time in Italy in the wake of the First World War.
Secondly, Fascism must be put in the bad list of government, because it is a dictatorial regime. We may safely rely on the observation of George McGovern- “A dictatorship is not a suitable form of government for the normal and civilised individuals. At best’ it may be justified for the delinquent and defective members of the society. It is opposed to all progressive ideas of democracy and liberalism. It does not believe in equality of men. It does not allow people to think for themselves, but asks them to obey the leader blindly. Obviously, it is bound to retard the progress of mankind.”
Thirdly, Fascism is to be discredited for giving encouragement to the baser elements in the world like force, violence and warfare. It perverts the common notion that liberty is the cherished goal of human progress. On the other hand, it puts back the hands of the clock of history by insisting that totalitarianism is a better form of government than democracy. This Machiavellian attitude cannot be accepted under the modem standard.
Fourthly, there are critics who even do not admit that under Fascism Italy made some progress, particularly compared with what she had been in the post-Versailles period. In actuality, under the Fascist regime there was a sharp decline in public finances, higher cost of living and lower wages of the workers. The so-called material prosperity infused into Italy by the Fascists was artificial and very transitory.
Fifthly, the Fascists were camp-followers of the capitalists. They did not bring any progressive measure to ameliorate the conditions of the working classes. They rather behaved as so many puppets in the hands of the monopolist capitalists. Such a regime must be thrown into the dustbin of history.
Essay #
6. Political Theory of Gandhism:
Mahatma Gandhi is considered as great a saint as the Buddha and Jesus Christ. His teachings and philosophy of life have a powerful influence on India and even on the modern world. He attacked upon the moral bankruptcy of the modern world based on science and technology.
He, like Buddha and Christ, underlined the need of non-violence as an instrument to eradicate the evils of the modern world. His approach is basically religious. It will not be proper to call his thinking or ideals’ as something like Gandhism. He was opposed to such a name given to his thought. According to him- “There is no such thing as Gandhism and I do not want to leave any sect after me.”
Gandhi simply tried in his own way to apply the central truth of the life and problems of a man. He admitted that what he said or did is not final. His message may change from time to time. Actually there is no political creed with Gandhi. There is no even any systematic political thinking in Gandhi as we find in the western philosophers. He simply gave some suggestions to improve a man’s daily life.
So we do not find any academic exposition of his social, economic and political ideology. In other words, in him there is no set dogma or set formula. Yet, it will not be proper to exclude the valuable thinking’s of such a great man truly called the father of the nation.
For our study we shall call Gandhi’s thinking, though not systematic, as Gandhism. We shall at first take notes on three principal aspects of his teachings, namely non-violence, Satyagraha and religious outlook. Then we shall study his conception of an ideal society that he had in mind:
1. The Concept of Non-Violence:
Ahimsa or non-violence was the principal tenet of Gandhism. Gandhi was not prepared to achieve anything in life if it involved slightest use of violence or force. Non-violence was both the end and means of Gandhism. If the means are bad, the end cannot be good. It is bad not only to cause physical injury on anybody but to think or tell in support of it also. So Ahimsa is a frame of mind too.
Non-violence has two aspects:
It is one thing to refrain from causing injury to others. This is the negative side of non-violence. In the positive sense, it involves resisting the evil through love and compassion. Gandhi hated the evil, not the evil-doers, because in every human being there is a spark of divinity. To win over the evil-doer, Gandhism appeals to the reason of the evil-doer by gentle argument and if necessary by laying down his life to win over his adversary. The second type of practice of Ahimsa is called by Gandhi self-purification.
For Gandhi, non-violence is not for the weak, it is for the strong and the bold people. It has no room for the weak or the cowards. A violent man may practise non-violence, but a coward can never do so. He gave more emphasis on non-violence than even the independence of the country. Gandhi’s Ahimsa is closely related to truth. He, however, placed truth above everything including non-violence.
Gandhi wanted to use non-violence to change the political and economic life of the people. For Gandhi it was his personal creed, but when it is to be used by the people it will become a political method.
The people can employ it in the form of passive resistance, non-violent non-cooperation and civil disobedience. In the economic field it will work in the form of trusteeship, in which the rich people will be required to realise their responsibility to the poor. This was actually carried on in an effective way by Vinoba Bhave in his Bhudan Yajna.
In the social sphere Gandhi used Ahimsa to bring an amity among the Hindus and the Muslims and in the abolition of untouchability. He resorted to fast which is a form of Ahimsa.
2. The Concept of Satyagraha:
The expression Satyagraha literally means “holding on truth”. Gandhi coined this word to describe his technique of resistance and action against the racial discriminations in South Africa. It is to be distinguished from passive resistance. Passive resistance is a political weapon, whereas Satyagraha is a moral one. In passive resistance there may be an element of force. But Satyagraha must be divested from violence. It is positive in content. All major conflicts in private and public life can be solved by Satyagraha.
According to Gandhi, it can be used by individuals in their domestic affairs, in relation to children, parents, friends and even criminals. It can also be used for the solution of social and political problems of national or international nature.
All people are not fit to follow Satyagraha. A Satyagrahi must observe some moral routines like Brahmacharya in thought, action and deed. He must have control over his food. He must be fearless and truthful. He must not steal or go for possession of wealth. He will be a believer in the trusteeship of the surplus property. He will earn his bread by labour.
He must hate caste-system and untouchability. He should use Swadeshi goods. He must practise Ahimsa and believe in fasting and constructive works like promotion of communal harmony.
3. Concept of Religion:
Gandhi did not believe in any particular or sectarian religion. He found a kind of unity in the basic elements of all religions of the world. All religions stand for non-violence, truth and amity. So Gandhi had a kind of universal religion before him. Truth is the light of all religions. For Gandhi, this truth is God. But God is not a person. It is a kind of allemb racing and all-pervading force. God is the embodiment of truth.
It is religion that dominated all the political views and actions of Gandhi. A religious man is one who does not make any difference between man and man. He will practise Ahimsa. He will also give importance to the individual, because each individual is a spark of God. Gandhi wanted a self-sufficient village community in which the state shall have minimum functions.
He wanted that both the means and the ends must be noble. Ends cannot justify the means. He wanted to transform the entire social order through a change of heart and persuasion. There cannot be any element of compulsion in Gandhism. He believed in the inner voice of the conscience.
We have just studied the three pillars on which the concept of Gandhism rests. We shall now go to lake up the final point in Gandhism, i.e., Gandhi’s concept of an ideal society.
Gandhi’s Concept of an Ideal Society:
Gandhi was a social reformer. He did not believe in Marxism or any kind of socialism. His own conception of the society has a distinct scheme and flavour.
This can be studied under the following heads:
(a) Minimum Powers for the State:
Gandhi did not believe in the abolition of the state. What he aimed at was to curtail the powers and interference of the state in the life of the individuals. According to Gandhi, when the state gets maximum powers, the people have minimum power. A too-powerful state will deter the individual’s personality and will destroy the spiritual growth of the individual.
The authority of the state should be decentralised to the Panchayats and village bodies. The self-governing villages will join in a confederation. There will no doubt be policemen to maintain law and order with minimum use of arms. This will be what Gandhi called his Ram Rajya where justice will be prompt, perfect and cheap.
(b) Varna System:
Gandhi was a believer in the traditional and hereditary calling of a person’s forefather. He considered the caste system necessary to eliminate rivalry in trades and calling. This caste system is functional and one of family occupation and based upon social harmony.
(c) Economic and Political Decentralization:
Gandhi was opposed to the western model of society based on science and technology, which is inconsistent with the Indian heritage of simple living and high thinking. He wanted to strengthen the rural economy by decentralisation of the economic life to the grass root level. The autonomy of the Panchayati Raj and rural development were the crux of Gandhi’s social order.
(d) Non-Possession and Self-Control:
Gandhi wanted that a man should possess private property as little as possible. The material wealth was opposed to the realisation of truth. He believed in economic equality and that all men should be guaranteed some basic needs of life. He shared the views of Karl Marx: “To each according to his needs.”
(e) Trusteeship of Surplus Wealth:
Gandhi did not want that the rich people or the capitalists should be banished from his ideal society. He wanted that the rich people should be persuaded to give up the property which is surplus for their needs. A trust will be made of the surplus property. The trustee of the property will be the community. Thus the possessor of wealth will not possess it for himself but hold it in trust for the benefit of the society.
(f) Manual Labour:
Gandhi believed in manual labour. One should raise his own food, make his own cloth and all the requirements of life. According to Gandhi, more than nine-tenths of the population take to manual labour and the society will be more beautiful if the remaining one-tenth adopts the same way. When the individuals, irrespective of ranks, accept the obligation of bread-labour, this will obliterate the distinctions between man and man. This will transform the earth into a heaven. This was Gandhi’s Ram Rajya.
Criticism:
The following searching criticism may be levelled against Gandhi’s social system:
In the first place, Gandhi’s Ram Rajya seems to be too idealistic to be realised. Gandhi wanted to make a heaven on earth. But his conditions may be fulfilled only in heaven. To give up property, to preach non-violence and Satyagraha may be a code of conduct for the saints and the self-denying people, but not the common people who are out to have property for their own private interests.
It does not pass our understanding how the greedy and blood-sucking over-rich people will agree to keep their surplus wealth in trust for the benefit of the community. As a matter of fact, these wealthy people will use all means at hands to hold on to the property and use it only for themselves or their family members.
Secondly, Gandhism, by abjuring science and technology and restoring the rural economy, is retarding human progress. Science and technology is universally accepted as a boon for the modem age. Key installations in all countries and big industries are the standard of progress. How can one give this up and go back to the old cottage industries? This will be putting back the hands of clock.
Thirdly, Gandhi’s idea of decentralisation and devolution of political and economic power to the self-governing villages, otherwise known as the Panchyali Raj, will weaken the central government and slacken the economic growth of the country. If the real government resides in the villages, the country will be an easy prey for foreign aggression. The national economy will also be shattered if we undermine the major industries in the urban areas.
Fourthly, Gandhi’s theory of perpetuating the caste system is rather medieval in outlook. A division of the society on the basis of the Varna will compartmentalise and fragmentise the social oneness. It is strange that amid widespread condemnation of the caste system, Gandhi could extend his patronising hand over it. This is most unfortunate.
Gandhism Compared with Marxism:
Both M. K. Gandhi and Karl Marx were illustrious thinkers of their own time. Gandhi was a prophet of Sarvodaya (welfare for all) as a state policy while Marx broke fresh grounds of socialism by enthroning the working class in the cockpit of power. Both had concern for the under-dogs in the society and carried the government to the grass-root level.
The toiling mass and the exploited people got the highest treatment in their hands. Both considered the state as a machine of oppression of the working and exploited class by the rich capitalists. As a remedy they suggested a stateless society. So they are acknowledged as the front rank social reformers of the world. Gandhi was a Marxist with regard to equality, cooperation and universal brotherhood of mankind. But Marx was never a Gandhian.
M. K. Gandhi and Karl Marx agreed less and differed more. While Karl Marx was matter-of-fact, mundane and materialistic, M. K. Gandhi was an idealist and rather spiritual. Gandhi was holding brief for non-violence and peace as the formula of state-craft, Marx was a believer in violence, war and revolution by which alone the working class could come to power and rule over the capitalists.
Gandhi had no political party in his mind to rule with. But Marx advocated for the communist party. Gandhi believed in a party-less society. He spoke for improving the individual personality without any iota of coercion of any party. In contrast, Marx wanted the establishment of the dictatorship of the communist party.
As a matter of fact, the saintly approach of Gandhi did not brook any element of force. Gandhi’s ideal was not implemented by any state, India not excluded, because this was not considered practicable. But Marx’s ideology was translated into practice in the USSR and China.
Essay # 7. Political Theory of Free Trade or Laissez Faire:
The theory of laissez faire has its origin in France several years before the French Revolution. It was first mooted by Turgot, the unsuccessful Finance Minister of Louis XVI. Turgot is credited with the novel doctrine of “economic liberty”.
Turgot lived in a country which had suffered from too much red-tape, too many regulations, too many officials trying to enforce too many laws. He wrote- “Remove this official supervision. Let the people do as they please and everything will be all right.” Soon his famous advice laissez faire became the battle-cry around which the economists of that period rallied.
The ideal of “economic freedom” was necessary in the old society where medieval restrictions lamed all industrial effort. This “liberty of action” became the highest law of the land.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Free trade stands for commerce between nations without imposition of productive tariffs. In his book Wealth of Nation (1776) Adam Smith argued that a nation would benefit if that nation produces the goods it could do best and exchange these goods with goods which other countries could make cheaper.
When England became a major industrial country, the advocates of free trade agitated for the abolition of duties on the importation of corn and other goods. They believed that this would lead to an increase in British exports of manufactured goods and reduction in the cost of importing foodstuff and raw material.
The Free Traders, who scored success in the repeal of the Corn Laws (1846) and the Navigation Acts (1849), believed that the European countries would follow England. As a matter of fact, up to 1870 France, Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, Russia and Italy all followed England’s example and moved towards free trade.
However, after 1870 the benefits of free trade came to be questioned. England’s industrial supremacy was challenged by Germany and the USA. National sentiments in Europe were enkindled, particularly in Italy, Germany and France, which took up giant economic schemes. They needed quick and enormous revenue to finance the rising military expenditure. The easy method for doing so was to impose tariff and by 1880 the low-tariff area ended in Europe.
At the moment, free trade is encouraged by the European Economic Community (the Common Market) and the European Free Trade Association, of course, among themselves.