Critiques of Theories of the State

Patriarchal Theory

- The patriarchal theory is one of the simplest explanations of the origin of the state, but one of its
chief weaknesses is this very simplicity. There are essential points of difference between the family
and the state. The authority of the patriarchal family is natural whereas the authority of the state is
one of the choice. The existence of anarchy prompted the need for the state to regulate human
behaviour.

- Furthermore, the domination of the patriarch over the family almost ceases to exist as soon as the
children attain a certain age. In contrast, the domination of political authority in the state over its
citizens is perpetual and even increases over time.

Devine Theory

- There is general agreement among political thinkers that the state came into existence as a result of
the evolutionary process. Various factors including religion, family, force and political consciousness
all played their part in the evolution of the State. As such, the state is not a creation of God alone.

- Moreover, the Devine Theory is at best undemocratic. The theory inevitably leads to the
establishment of absolute authority which is opposed to the spirit of democracy, a fundamental
feature of the modern state. Democracy does not idolize and glorify the individual, rather it is
focused on the will of the collective.

Force Theory

- Force is indeed an essential element of the State. Internally, the State requires force to ensure
obedience to its laws. Externally, it is necessary to deter aggression and to preserve the integrity of
the State. However, The Force Theory unduly emphasis the principle of the survival of the fittest.
The State is not created and maintained by sheer force, morality also plays an important role in the
creation of the state and maintenance of social order. The State has a moral obligation to equally
protect the weak and the strong and create equal opportunities for all.

Social Contract Theory

- There is some difference among the main theorists about some key issues such as what the state of
nature really entailed.

Thomas Hobbes described life in the state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Man is
free to exercise his ungoverned passion hence a perpetual state of anarchy existed and therefore the
need for a social contract between the people and a sovereign to regulate behavior.

John Locke believed each person had a natural right to life, freedom and property, but those rights
were inherently unequal. There was no appointed sovereign to interpret the natural law or to enforce
decisions, hence the need for the social contract among all men.

Jean Jacque Rousseau believes life in the state of nature was defined by freedom. All men were free to
enjoy rights incidental to him as an individual, but men are impulse driven. The social contract was
therefore necessitated out of the belief that the collective will above natural rights offered more
security to all where issues such as ownership of private property entered the equation and led to
conflicts.

- There is also the contention of whether primitive man possessed the capacity to recognize his need
for a social contract and its benefits above and beyond the state of nature. It assumes men in the
state of nature possessed a state of political consciousness. As such it is criticized as being an
abstraction with no historic specificity.

Disadvantages of Direct Democracy

- Because every eligible person has a stake in the debate of any issue or procedure, it becomes difficult to
make fast decisions. Voting procedures can take place on any issue, whether complex or simple.

- Although many decisions require a yes-or-no type of vote in a direct democracy, optimum participation does
not always occur. As a result, a minority can dictate what happens for a majority in a direct democracy.
People must be willing to take the time to get involved with the political process in this form of government
for it to be successful.

- The potential for extreme manipulation is more prevalent in a direct democracy. Every political decision faces
the possibility of having those with greater socio-economic status having more influence than those with
fewer resources.

- Because critical issues such as equal rights and equal opportunities tend to inspire such passion, people
often congregate amongst like-minded individuals who share similar interest. As a result, direct democracies
may become a society that is fragmented by ideological perspectives.

Disadvantages of Representative Democracy

- Representative democracies do not allow the public to express their views and advocate for their
own best interests. The public cannot freely express their dissent without fear of repercussions.

- Once the election process is over, the people’s voice in government almost ceases to exist. More
often than not, elected officials have ulterior agendas that are not in the best interest of the people.
Hence representatives may distort peoples' demands in pursuit of their personal agendas

- The majority often rules at the expense of the minority. A representative democracy still depends
on a majority rule structure to implement policies and make most decisions. Minorities are often
under-represented or excluded from the political process.
- There is less room for accountability and transparency in representative democracies.
Representatives often limit the amount of information available to the public on key political issues
and procedures. Furthermore, representatives are rarely held accountable for their actions during
their tenure. Not being re-elected is often the only repercussion.