In the Indian parliamentary system, the following matters require a two-thirds majority of the total membership of both houses of Parliament:

(i) Impeachment of the President: This requires a two-thirds majority of the total membership of both houses of Parliament.

(ii) Removal of the Vice-President: This requires a resolution to be passed by a majority of all the then members of the Rajya Sabha and agreed to by the Lok Sabha with a simple majority. Hence, it does not need a two-thirds majority of the total membership of both houses.

(iii) Removal of the Supreme Court Judges: This requires a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting in each house of Parliament, but not necessarily a two-thirds majority of the total membership of both houses.

(iv) Amendment of Lists in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution: This requires a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting in each house of Parliament and also a majority of the total membership of each house, in accordance with Article 368 of the Indian Constitution. Moreover, the bill should be ratified by half of the states.

Therefore, the correct answers that need votes of a two-thirds majority of the total membership of both houses of Parliament are:

1. Impeachment of the President.

So, the correct options are:

(i) Impeachment of the President and

One of the most interesting current debates about the ideal of freedom is the debate between the adherents of the recently revived republican notion of negative freedom, most notably Quentin Skinner and Philip Pettit, and the adherents of the prevailing liberal notion of negative freedom, most notably Ian Carter and Matthew Kramer. The debate between these two parties concerns the question of what negative freedom is. While Carter and Kramer argue that negative freedom is simply the absence of interference, Skinner and Pettit argue that negative freedom is first and foremost the absence of arbitrary power to interfere (or, in short, domination) and only in a secondary sense also the absence of interference.

______________

In the Republican theory of freedom, freedom is defined as the absence of domination. This concept contrasts with the more familiar liberal notion of freedom, which is often defined as the absence of interference.

In Republican theory, domination refers to the condition in which one entity has the power to arbitrarily interfere in the choices and actions of another. This form of freedom, sometimes referred to as "non-domination," emphasizes the importance of structural conditions that prevent such arbitrary interference, rather than merely focusing on the absence of specific acts of interference.

Key points in the Republican theory of freedom include:

Non-Domination vs. Non-Interference: Unlike liberal freedom, which is concerned with the absence of actual interference, Republican freedom is concerned with the potential for interference. Even if interference does not occur, the mere possibility that someone could interfere arbitrarily can render an individual unfree.

Arbitrary Power: Domination involves arbitrary power, where one party has the discretionary capacity to interfere with another's choices without constraint or accountability. True freedom, therefore, requires that power be controlled and regulated so that it cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

Civic Participation: Republican freedom is often linked to active civic participation. Citizens must have the ability to participate in the political process and influence the laws and policies that govern their lives. This participation helps to ensure that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few and that it is subject to checks and balances.

Rule of Law: A key mechanism for ensuring non-domination is the rule of law. Laws should be general, known, and stable, and they should apply equally to all. This helps to prevent arbitrary power by ensuring that everyone, including those in positions of authority, is subject to the same rules.

Mutual Respect and Equality: Republican freedom also involves a commitment to mutual respect and equality among citizens. Social and economic inequalities can lead to domination if they result in significant power imbalances. Thus, promoting equality is essential for maintaining a non-dominating society.

The Republican theory of freedom has roots in the political thought of ancient Rome and the writings of thinkers like Cicero and Machiavelli. It has been revived and developed in contemporary political philosophy by scholars such as Quentin Skinner and Philip Pettit. Pettit's work, in particular, has been influential in articulating the concept of freedom as non-domination and exploring its implications for modern democratic theory.

Robert Dahl was a significant figure in political science, known for his contributions to pluralist theory. Pluralist theory posits that power in a democratic society is distributed among multiple interest groups rather than concentrated in the hands of a single elite or ruling class. According to pluralism, these groups compete and negotiate to influence public policy and decision-making.

Key Contributions of Robert Dahl to Pluralist Theory:

1. Concept of Polyarchy:
   • Dahl introduced the concept of "polyarchy" to describe a form of government where power is invested in multiple sources. Polyarchy includes various elements such as free and fair elections, the right to run for public office, freedom of expression, alternative sources of information, and associational autonomy.
   • Polyarchy is seen as a practical form of democracy, characterized by a high level of participation and competition among diverse groups.
2. Who Governs?: Democracy and Power in an American City (1961):
   • In this seminal work, Dahl conducted an empirical study of New Haven, Connecticut, to explore how political power is distributed in an American city. He found that no single group dominated decision-making processes. Instead, multiple groups, including political parties, business leaders, and civic organizations, each had influence over different policy areas.
   • This study provided a practical illustration of pluralist theory in action, showing that power is decentralized and spread across various interest groups.
3. A Preface to Democratic Theory (1956):
   • In this book, Dahl critically examined the theories of democracy of classical philosophers such as Plato, Rousseau, and Madison. He argued for a more empirical and realistic understanding of democracy, which he believed should account for the role of interest groups and the complexities of modern governance.
   • Dahl emphasized the importance of political competition and the need for institutional mechanisms that allow for the representation of diverse interests.
4. Democracy and Its Critics (1989):
   • This book is a comprehensive examination of democratic theory, where Dahl addresses criticisms of democracy and responds to them by refining and defending his ideas. He argues that pluralist democracy, or polyarchy, is the most viable and practical form of government for ensuring freedom and equality.

Core Elements of Dahl’s Pluralist Theory:

1. Diverse Interest Groups:
   • Dahl’s pluralist theory acknowledges the existence of various interest groups that compete for power and influence within the political system. These groups include political parties, business associations, labor unions, and civic organizations.
2. Competition and Negotiation:
   • Power is not monopolized by any single group; instead, it is distributed among many groups that compete and negotiate to influence public policy and decision-making.
3. Institutional Framework:
   • Democratic institutions and procedures, such as free elections, the rule of law, and civil liberties, facilitate the participation and competition of diverse groups, ensuring that no single entity can dominate the political landscape.
4. Role of Citizens:
   • Citizens play a crucial role in pluralist democracy by participating in various interest groups and influencing political processes through voting, advocacy, and public discourse.

Dahl's work significantly shaped our understanding of modern democratic systems, emphasizing the importance of a pluralistic approach where power is shared and contested by multiple groups within society.

John Harriss is a critic of the theory of social capital in contemporary times. In 2001, Harriss and Ben Fine criticized the inappropriate use of social capital as a solution to the inequalities created by neoliberal economic development. Harriss has written a book that criticizes social capital and the neoliberal agenda, de-politicization, and the state's reduced role in development. He believes that social capital is in line with the neoliberal agenda and seeks to depoliticize development. He also argues that social capital of one group can lead to social exclusion of others.

In "Orientalism," Edward Said applied the technique of discourse analysis developed by Michel Foucault to the production of knowledge about the Middle East. Foucault's ideas about the relationship between power, knowledge, and discourse influenced Said's examination of how Western societies have historically constructed and represented "the Orient" in ways that reflect and reinforce their own power structures and interests.