The State The Whole Project

POLITICAL SCIENCE: PART B
The State
Concepts and Definitions of the State:
 The state is a politically organized community existing since ancient times.
 Ancient Greeks referred to the state as 'polis', the origin of words like 'politics' and 'city'.
 Romans called their city-state 'civitas', from which terms like 'city' and 'civilization' are
derived.
 The Latin term 'status' evolved into 'state' in various European languages.
 Different interpretations of the state exist, from a Leviathan in Hobbes's view to a joint-
stock company, an organism, or a divine order for idealists.
 For Marxists, the state is an instrument of class domination.
 Jurists see the state as a law-making institution, while to racists, it symbolizes race
superiority.
 Imperialists or colonialists may view the state as a tool of exploitation and enslavement.
 The study of political science seeks to unravel the complex definitions and uses of the
state with scientific precision.
Diverse Perspectives on the State:
 Ordinary perceptions may see the state as a large group of people.
 Learned perspectives vary from seeing the state as a giant organism or a protector of
people and their rights.
 The state is also seen through various ideological lenses, such as Freudian, Marxist, or
colonialist views, each providing a different interpretation of its purpose and function.
Diverse Definitions of the State:
Louis XIV's Definition: Viewed the state as his domain, famously saying "L'État, c'est moi,"
meaning "I am the state."
Thomas Erskine Holland: Defines the state as a numerous assemblage of humans, generally
occupying a territory, and a class that the majority or an ascertainable class cannot oppose.
Stuart Hall: Defines the state in terms of international law as a community that possesses a defined
territory and is independent of external control.
John Burgess: Sees the state as a particular portion of mankind organized politically on a definite
territory.
Woodrow Wilson: Describes the state simply as people organized for law within a definite
territory.
Robert Morrison MacIver: Defines the state as an association which acts through law as
promulgated by government, and exercises coercive power within defined boundaries.
Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Ph.D. Political Science
Instructor: Political Science NOA, Lahore
Richard L. Cole: Describes the state as a whole community of its members seen as an organized
social unit.
Harold J. Laski: Defines the state as a territorial society with government subjects claiming a
physical area and supremacy over other institutions.
James Wilford Garner: Describes the state as a community of persons, permanently occupying
a portion of territory, independent of external control, and possessing an organized government to
which the body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.
Marxist Definition: Views the state from a different perspective, often associated with class
struggle and the functions of the state in society and economy.
Elements of State:
The state is typically defined by four essential elements or attributes:
1) Population:
 The state is an association of men and women living together.
 The population consists of three kinds of inhabitants:
o Full members or citizens who have complete duties towards their state and enjoy
all rights.
o Aliens, who are given only civil rights.
o Non-members, who are nationals of the state for some rights and protections.
 There has been historical debate about the ideal size of a state's population.
2) Land or Territory:
 It's one of the physical bases of the state.
 The land of the state is defined as a specific portion of the earth's surface.
 The territory should be large enough to be self-sufficient but not so vast as to be
ungovernable.
3) Government:
 This constitutes the organized political authority in the state.
4) Sovereignty:
The state has supreme power within its territory and is independent of external control.
1) Population and Territory of a State:
Aristotle's View on Population: He believed the population of a state should be between ten
thousand and one lakh (100,000) to be well-governed.
Rousseau's Perspective: He suggested that a city-state should ideally have a population of 10,000.

Modern Views on Population: Present-day states range from those with small populations to
large nations like India or China, with no specific limit on the population as long as the natural
and human resources of the country are not exceeded.
2) Territory:
 Territory is the physical basis of the state, and its size should be appropriate for the state
to be self-sufficient.
 The people must live within a defined territory and should not wander from place to
place.
 The territory should be large enough to support the population but not so extensive as to
be challenging to administer effectively.
 Small states like Luxembourg and large states like Russia, America, and Australia have
varied territorial sizes, but modern views suggest that small states can also be well
administered due to advances in communication and transportation.
Economic Self-Sufficiency and Defense of States:
 Economic Self-Sufficiency: The modern tendency is for states to be economically self-
sufficient regardless of size.
 Defense Capabilities: Smaller states may struggle with defense due to limited resources
and territory.
 Territorial Waters: State territory extends three miles into the sea or ocean and up to 20
kilometers into the air for economic purposes.
 Space Territory: With advancements in technology, questions about airspace extend into
cosmic space, but there are difficulties in applying international law to 'moons' and
spaceships.
3 , 4 ) Government and Sovereignty:
Government: A permanent population on a definite territory constitutes a state when it has an
organized government that ensures habitual obedience.
Sovereignty: This is the supreme and unlimited power exercised by the state, independent of
all outside persons and associations, both internally (over all within the state) and externally
(independence from foreign control or power).
Other Features of State:
1) Unity:

It signifies a united population and territory under a single supreme power, contributing to the
state's cohesiveness and strength.
2) Continuity or Permanence:
 The state theoretically continues to exist at all times, but in practice, states can evolve or
be overtaken by others.
 Governments and forms of governance may change, but the idea of the state remains.
 Evolution of states can occur through slow evolution or rapid revolution.
 Examples include the change from absolute monarchy to democracy in England and the
communist to republic state transition in Russia post-1991.
 The permanence of states is not absolute in practice, contrary to theoretical immortality.
3) Equality:
 All states, regardless of size, are considered equal in the eyes of international law.
 Equality is a feature of external sovereignty.
Misuse of the Term State:
 The term "state" can be misapplied in non-scientific contexts, leading to confusion about
the actual political status of different entities.
 Historical entities like Hyderabad (Deccan) or Swat were considered states within British
India, but they lacked certain attributes like foreign policy autonomy, making the term
"state" a misnomer for them.
 The annexation of such regions by India was seen as an internal matter without
international repercussions.
New York State:

 Is a component unit within the federal system of the USA, not a standalone state in the
international law sense.
 It lacks certain sovereign elements, such as its own army, foreign policy, and obeys the
authority of the federal government.
United Nations Organization (U.N.O.):
 Is not considered a state as it does not have a permanent population or a defined
territory.
 Functions more as an organization with legislative, executive, and administrative
branches but lacks sovereignty.
 Some writers have suggested it could become a world state in the future, but this is
impracticable given its current structure.

British Dominions:
 The British Commonwealth includes nations like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand,
which are Dominions, not fully sovereign states.
 Dominions have accepted constitutions and heads of state appointed by the British
parliament, indicating a lack of complete sovereignty.
 They voluntarily accept membership in the Commonwealth and are not subordinate to
each other.
 Dominions have internal autonomy and external relations, implying a degree of
sovereignty but are not considered sovereign states in the strictest sense.
Municipalities and Local Self-Governing Bodies:
 Entities like the Lahore Metropolitan Corporation are not states because they lack
sovereignty.
 These bodies have certain administrative functions but are not supreme and final in power
within a territory.
Ancient City-States and Modern Mini-States:
 Ancient city-states, like those in Greece and Rome, comprised a few thousand residents
and controlled a small territory.
 Modern tiny city-states such as Monaco exist but are not considered states in the real sense
internationally, lacking recognition and sovereignty.
 Despite their self-governance, these mini-states are not fully independent in international
law and relations.
State and Government:
 The terms state and government are often confused, but they represent different concepts.
 The state refers to the entity with sovereign power over a population and territory.
 The government is the organization through which the state's authority is exercised.
Distinctions Between State and Government:

Abstract vs. Concrete:
 The state is an abstract concept composed of four essential elements.
 The government is a concrete entity consisting of a group of people exercising authority.
Scope of Terms:
 Government refers to the administration, a narrower term than the state which
encompasses the total population in a territory.

Permanence:
 The state is permanent, continuing to exist through changes.
 The government is temporary, changing through elections, revolutions, or other political
transformations.
Sovereignty:
 Sovereignty resides with the state, not the government.
 The government acts as an agent of the state, executing its sovereignty.
Territory:
 Territory is a characteristic of the state, essential for its existence.
 The government can operate without a territory but not without the state.
Association vs. Organization:
 The state is an association of the population for common goals.
 The government is the organization or machinery through which state purposes are
realized.
Rights Against Entities:
 Individuals have rights against the government.
 The state, being impartial and embodying sovereignty, is not usually subject to rights
claims by individuals.
State vs. Society:
 Society is a broader concept than the state, encompassing the complex of organized
associations and relations among individuals.
 Relations in a society can be economic, religious, political, or social, while the state is just
one aspect of these relations.
 Social forces, like friendship or jealousy, establish relationships that the state might protect
or modify but does not create.
Territoriality and Sovereignty:
 The state requires a territory as an essential element, whereas society does not have
territorial references; it pertains to people and their associations.
 The state is sovereign and exercises authority through laws and enforcement, but society
operates on voluntary cooperation without coercive power.
State and Government:
 A state cannot exist without a government, which organizes the state politically.

 Societies existed before the formation of states and can exist without political organization,
such as "stateless societies" like certain tribal communities.
Permanence and Purpose of the State vs. Associations:

Permanent Association:
 The state is a permanent association, unlike other associations which may not be
permanent.
Purpose of Associations:
 All associations have defined and limited purposes, whereas the state has the general
purpose of maintaining peace and order for its citizens.
Sovereignty and Power:
 The state is sovereign, with the power to enforce laws and compel obedience, which other
associations do not possess.
Control Over Associations:
 The state controls all other associations, and none can control the state due to its sovereign
nature.
Territorial Power:
 The state is a territorial association with the power to create other associations within its
boundaries.
 Other associations, like the Red Cross or Rotary Club, operate beyond the territorial
confines of a state and are not territorial in structure.
Revolt Against the Use of the Term State:

Discarding the State:
 Early 20th-century social sciences such as psychology and anthropology influenced the
move away from using the term 'state.'
 It emphasized that the state is too complex and operationally varied to define uniformly.
 Morton H. Fried argued it's impossible to offer a unified definition of the state due to its
complex nature.

Territory:
 The term 'state' is defined by four elements: people, territory, government, and sovereignty.
 However, territory alone does not define the state, as seen in the existence of nomadic
societies without a fixed territory in the past.
Historical Evolution of the State
 States have arisen at different times in different countries with varied forms and
organizations.
 Government and law within these states have also varied across times and places.
 The evolution of state structures is not uniform; some states progress while others regress
or stagnate.
 Understanding the stages of state evolution is beneficial for students of political science.
The state has evolved through several forms or stages:
1) The Stateless Societies of the Primitive Times
2) The Tribal Kingdoms of Antiquity
3) The Oriental Empires
4) The Greek City-States or Polis
5) The Roman Empire
6) The Feudal States
7) The Nation States of the Modern Times
The Stateless Societies of the Primitive Times
 Origins of the state are obscure and often shrouded in darkness due to the lack of written
records.
 Studies in anthropology, archaeology, and proto-history provide insights into primitive
societies.
 These societies were matrilineal and patriarchal without a state or political authority.
 Tools and techniques to society's advantage began during this time, transitioning from
matrilineal to patriarchal structures.
The Oriental Empire

 Oriental Empires arose in geographically suitable areas of Asia and North Africa.
 Unlike city-states, these empires evolved quickly into expansive states.

 Examples include ancient Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and China, situated along fertile river valleys.
 The wealth of resources like warm climate and fertile soil contributed to their emergence.
 Oriental Empires were considered 'cradles of civilization' due to their abundance of water
and control over vast territories.
 These empires could enslave large populations and become aggressive territorial states.
 Oriental Empires had different social structures compared to earlier tribal states, with
organized inequality and a rigid class system.
 Membership in the empire depended on conquest and subjugation, not equality of right,
and privileges were based on social status and class.
 Oriental Empires were land empires with economies based on agriculture and slavery.
 The stability and despotism of these empires were seen as reasons for their endurance.
 Karl A. Wittfogel, a German social historian, developed a theory on the Oriental Empires'
origins.
 They consisted of two parts: large work-forces to build dams and canals for irrigation and
flood control, and a ruling class of officers to manage these workers.
 Above this bureaucratic and military class stood the emperor, who was often considered
divine.
 Oriental Empires were seen as socially stable, but politically weak and unstable, ruled by
hereditary despots over many subjects.
 They are referred to as 'hydraulic societies' due to the importance of water control.
 The citizens in Oriental Empires were divided into classes with warriors, nobles, and
priests holding privileges.
 The majority, including peasants and subjects, had no political rights or freedoms and
were prone to extortion and tyranny.
 In these empires, unity and identity in the state did not equate to liberty; the despotic king
or emperor absorbed the identity of the individual.
 Despite being subjects, the people of Oriental Empires were not students of politics or
law, and conquest was a driving force despite the lack of societal freedom.
 The social structure was divided into two main classes: the free and the slave, with the
free not much divided from the slaves.
 The authority of the ruler was absolute, often seen as divine, with little to no respect for
civil rights and political liberty.
 Political power in these empires could become decentralized, with provincial governors
becoming independent rulers in distant provinces.
 Oriental empires were characterized by a lack of development beyond their rigid
structures, often leading to instability and stagnation.
 While the Oriental Empires are often criticized for their despotism and stagnation, they
also brought peace, communication, and cultural development.

 These empires survived into recent times in the East due to their efficient control of large
populations and resources.
The Greek City-State or Polis

 Ancient Greece developed the polis, characterized by a spirit of free enquiry in politics and
philosophy.
 Geographically advantageous, Greece's landscape fostered a life of independence and
separated but interconnected communities.
 Greek politics and society were distinguished by their search for truth, beauty, and
freedom, promoting free enquiry and the evolution from monarchy to aristocracy and
eventually to democracy, as in Athens.
 Greek city-states or polis were founded on the individual's liberty and the concept of equal
participation in government, marking a departure from Oriental despotism.
 Citizenship in the polis entailed a range of public duties and was not just limited to the
elite; soldiers, judges, and members of governing assemblies were part of the citizenry.
 Greek city-states were considered the first democratic states, providing a historical
example and guiding political thought to the present day.
 Greek citizens were not merely subjects; they had a role in the governance of the polis,
unlike in Oriental empires where people were seen as subjects or slaves of the emperor.
 Ancient Greeks were pioneers in political science and art, contributing to human endeavors
with their political ideas and philosophies.
 The works of Greek thinkers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle provided insights that
remain relevant and are still read and thought about today.
 Greek life was characterized by patriotism, love of liberty, and independence, which were
considered sublime features of their culture.
 Despite their advancements, Greek city-states had their flaws, including class quarrels,
internal strife, and a reliance on slavery.
 Greek democracy was not universal; it was primarily for the free-born inhabitants,
excluding slaves and aliens.
 The Greek city-states eventually succumbed to Macedonian kings and then to Roman
conquest due to their internal weaknesses and the lack of unity.
 Greek society and economy, despite its intellectual advancements, were based on the
misery of slaves, and citizenship was not universally applied to all inhabitants.
 The footnote references J. Mullen's "The Loom of History," discussing the Greeks' open-
mindedness and critical approach to authority, law, and subservience.
The Roman Empire

 Ancient Italy, like Greece, consisted of city-states that evolved into a republic and finally
an empire.
 Unlike Oriental empires, Roman city-states had ruling classes but recognized citizens with
rights, unlike subjects or slaves.
 Romans understood early in their history the importance of extending rights and privileges
to their conquered peoples, which helped to maintain their vast empire.
 Roman citizens were not subjects but had civil rights and political liberties, along with the
responsibility to pay taxes and serve in the military.
 Roman law and its system of universal laws were significant achievements, contributing to
the administration and unity of the empire.
 The Romans established Pax Romana, a period of peace and stability across their
territories, fostering trade, commerce, industry, and agriculture.
 Despite these strengths, the Roman Empire also had weaknesses, such as political liberty
denial, heavy taxation, slavery, and religious persecutions, which ultimately led to its
The Feudal States
 After the fall of the Roman Empire, feudal states emerged in Medieval Europe.
 Feudalism did not adhere to the concept of statehood; the idea of a central authority was
mostly absent.
 Germanic tribes formed kingdoms and principalities, emphasizing loyalty and protection
over central governance.
 Bonds of loyalty between lords and vassals were personal and based on the reciprocal
exchange of protection for military service and other duties.
 Feudal states in Medieval Europe were characterized by a decentralized structure with local
lords holding power and exercising authority.
 These states lacked a strong central government, leading to a fragmented and hierarchical
society.
 The feudal system was based on land ownership and the granting of land (fiefs) in exchange
for loyalty and military service.
 Society was divided into different classes, including nobles, knights, peasants, and serfs,
with limited social mobility.
 The Church played a significant role in the feudal system, providing religious guidance
and often holding significant land and political influence.
 Feudalism was marked by a lack of uniform laws and a reliance on customary practices,
leading to local variations in governance.
 Despite its limitations, feudalism provided a level of stability and security during a
tumultuous period in European history.

Feudal System:
 The feudal system involved service and economic dues to lords.
 Lords had titles like duke or emperor but lacked absolute authority.
 Feudalism led to confusion and conflicts in law and authority due to its loose structure.
Feudal Society Structure:
Divided into nobility (landowners) and serfs/peasants (land workers).
 Nobility owned the lands, and serfs were bound to the land to provide for themselves and
their lords.
 Feudal relations were personal and based on loyalty to the lord, not citizenship or central
authority.
 The end of the Middle Ages saw the rise of strong chieftains or kings who subjugated other
nobles, leading to the formation of the modern national state.
Nation States of Modern Times:
 A nation state is bonded by common factors such as religion, language, customs,
aspirations, etc.
 It emerged from the absolutist state, representative democracy, colonial empire, or fascist
dictatorship.
 Some parts of the world experienced communist states.
Absolute Monarchy:
 Based on the absolute authority of the king.
 Prevailed until the end of the 18th century.
 Supported by political thinkers like Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, among others.
 Advocated for royal absolutism and the divine right of kings.
 Utilized gunpowder and ironclad horsemen to destroy the feudal army's power.
 Royal courts imposed order and curbed the lawlessness of feudal barons.
Democratic Nation-State:
 Emerged due to economic and political causes in countries like England and France.
 The Industrial Revolution played a key role in this emergence.
 Created new social classes and demands for political and civil rights.
 Led to conflicts such as the English Civil War and the French Revolution of 1789.
 Transitioned from absolute monarchy to more democratic or republican forms of
government.

 By the end of the 19th century, most European countries had adopted some form of
democracy.
Characteristics of Democratic Nation-States:
 Based on representative government and universal adult suffrage.
 Emphasize the protection of civil and political rights.
 Follow a policy of laissez-faire in economic matters.
 Promote individualism and the freedom of economic enterprise and profit.
 Resulted in the growth of capitalism and the concentration of wealth.
 Characterized by social disparities and expansionist policies.
 Led to new forms of the state such as colonial empires.
Future of the State:
The evolution of the state is ongoing, with current global struggles indicating that the process is
not yet complete.
Uncertainty prevails regarding the future form of the state in the 21st century.
Changes in State and Individual Relationship:

 Historically, states were almost worshipped as divine, with absolute power.
 Modern perspective views the state as a contract between ruler and ruled.
 There's a growing demand for the state to extend its functions to various spheres like
industry, education, and public health.
State and Liberty of the Individual:

 Each state's structure impacts individual liberty and state authority.
 Different types of states have different approaches to individual liberty, from tribal and
ancient city-states to modern national democracies.
 The welfare state concept aims to balance individual and state needs, but issues remain in
achieving this balance.
Nationalism versus Internationalism:

 The modern state faces the challenge of balancing nationalism and internationalism.
 Issues arise from subjugation in colonial empires, underdeveloped countries, and
ideological conflicts.
 There's a push towards a global village concept, promoting interdependence among
nations, which contrasts with the push for national independence and nationalism.

Nationalism and Self-Determination:

 Recognition of self-determination has bolstered nationalism.
 New nations in Europe, Asia, and Africa have emerged with self-government.
 Nationalism can pull in opposite directions, influencing international politics.
World Federation:
 Debate on whether a world federation could prevent wars and violence.
 Anarchists and communists have predicted the eventual dissolution of the state into a world
federation.
 The establishment of such a federation could reconcile geopolitical and economic interests
globally.
 A world federation might reduce wars, arms races, and aggressive state policies.
 The formation of a world federation could signify the evolution of the state and potentially
the end of the state as it currently exists.
Theories of Origin of the State

 Since the dawn of political consciousness, questions about the origin and development of
the state have been posed.
 Thinkers have offered various explanations and theories, but due to lack of knowledge from
ancient times, many resort to speculations.
 Philosophers of old speculated about the causes and conditions of the state's origin,
proposing various theories, which include:
 Theory of Divine Origin
 Theory of Force
 Theory of the Social Contract
 Patriarchal Theory
 Matriarchal Theory
 Evolutionary or Sociological Theory
 Speculative theories are often fallacious, but they have utility for students of political
science for understanding the truth and rejecting false notions.
 The study of these theories is considered useful as they reflect the spirit of the times when
they were first proposed.
 These theories influenced the minds of men and women and shaped political and social
institutions.
 The nature of the state and the institutions which were established under the influence of
these theories is of interest to modern study.
 For instance, the Divine Origin theory illustrates how despotism was justified.

The Theory of Divine Origin

 This theory is as old as politics and religion itself.
 It posits that the state is created by God and that kings are divinely appointed and
answerable only to God.
 Disobedience to the king, equated to disobedience to God, was considered a crime.
 This theory was prevalent through various civilizations, with kings considered shadows of
God or vicegerents on Earth.
 With the rise of the Social Contract Theory in the 17th and 18th centuries, the Divine Origin
Theory lost its appeal and was discredited.
The Theory Explained:
 It comprises three basic ideas: divine creation of the state, divine appointment of kings,
and the notion that the king's laws are divine laws.
 The theory asserts that the king is the earthly representative of God.
 Medieval Muslims referred to their ruler as "the shadow of God on earth" or Caliph.
 In Europe, monarchs were considered responsible for their governance directly to God,
without public accountability.
The Divine Right of Kings:
 Advanced by King James of England and Sir Robert Filmer in the 17th century as a modern
interpretation of the divine origin theory.
 King James I clashed with his parliament because they accused him of ruling wrongly; he
saw this as an affront to divine will.
 King James advocated for the divine right of kings to rule and considered it atheism and
blasphemy to dispute divine authority.
 Sir Robert Filmer argued that kings are God's representatives on Earth and that royal
authority is derived from the divine authority given to Adam, passed by descent to all kings.
 Filmer used pseudo-historical accounts to justify the divine origin of kings and the concept
of a free monarchy.
Criticism of the Theory of Divine Origin:
 This theory, and the related Theory of Divine Right of Kings, doesn’t require serious
refutation in modern times as they are now discredited.
 The criticisms are based on several points:
 The state is a human, not a divine institution.
 Religion has played a role, but reason and the evolution of the state are more critical.
 The theory suggests political authority is based on faith rather than on reason or experience,
which is not sustainable.
 The theory justifies repression and misrule by bad rulers, which is dangerous.

 It fails to account for the historical evolution of democratic forms of government and does
not address questions like royal succession, court intrigues, or the overthrow of one dynasty
by another.
 The theory held value in the past for maintaining peace and obedience but claimed divine
sanction for laws and governance that were actually created by humans.
Theory of Force
Statement of the Theory and its History:
 The theory of force is advanced to explain how the state originated and was maintained for
two purposes: to explain the state’s origin and to justify its existence.
Theory of Force:
 The state is viewed as a product of force, aggression, war, and subjugation.
 The theory posits that a stronger man or tribe, through conquest and warfare, established
the state.
 The saying "Might makes right" reflects this view, where the political relation of the
conqueror to the conquered became the basis of the state.
 Historically, it is argued that states have always fought among themselves, with stronger
tribes subduing weaker ones.
 Edward Jenks, in his book 'A History of Politics', argues that historically speaking, there is
no slightest difficulty in proving that all political communities of the modern type owe their
existence to successful warfare.
 The theory is exemplified by the history of England, which from a collection of tribes
became a unified kingdom through conquest and consolidation of power.
According to the Theory:
 The state's maintenance requires force even after its establishment.
 Coercive power is necessary to preserve law and order, suppress internal disturbances, and
repel foreign aggression.
 Coercive power becomes right and might through obedience to law and authority in the
state.
Criticism of the Theory of Force:
 The theory has been questioned for the role it assigns to force in the ongoing function of
the state.
 Critics argue that the state is not just the outcome of aggression but is maintained, defended,
or destroyed by a combination of force, coercion, and compulsion.

Defects of the Theory of Force:

 The theory overemphasizes the role of force in the state's evolution and maintenance.
 Force or coercive power is an instrument of state action, not the essence of the state itself.
 The state should not be regarded as the sole factor in the building of civilization; other
factors like kinship, religion, economic interests, and ideology also play significant roles.
 Force used unwisely can defeat its purpose and backfire, causing more damage than good.
 A French proverb is cited: "You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it," suggesting
force is necessary but not sufficient for governance.
On the Basis of the State:
 Will, not force, is the foundation of the state.
 While force is a tool for maintaining order, the ultimate authority of the state always
disrupts unless it is supported by common will.
 The great revolutions, such as the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution
of 1917, exemplify that the use of force alone cannot maintain power in the long run.
 The consent of the people is essential, as the state's authority is derived from moral force
and consent, not just physical force.
Relation between Might and Right:
 Force can only be justified when sanctioned by law and right.
 Exercise of force based on right and law gains the conscious support of citizens and
becomes authority or power.
 Without the sanction of citizens, force is temporary and can become tyranny.
 T.H. Green stated that might without right is temporary; with right, it is a permanent basis
for the state.
 Harold J. Laski argued that if a state wants to successfully coerce, it must also successfully
persuade.
The Principle of the Survival of the Fittest:
 The force theory is linked to the principle of the struggle for existence and survival of the
fittest.
 The theory is often associated with the natural selection observed in animal life, where the
struggle for existence is perpetual and the strong survive by eliminating the weak.
 Individualists argue that a similar struggle exists within human society, but critics counter
that the state's function is to protect the weak against the strong, and the laws of social life
differ from the biological laws of the jungle.
 The theory of force is criticized for reducing social life to the level of animal life.

Criticism of the Theory of Force as Dangerous:

 The theory is seen as dangerous and mischievous because it equates might with right and
can lead to absolute despotism.
 It is criticized for justifying the oppression of the weak by the strong and for emphasizing
the freedom of the individual for war preparations and conquest.
 The fact is that the state is based on cooperation and consent, where truth and justice, not
force and dominance, make the laws.
Social Contract Theory:

 Individuals give up their 'natural' isolation and freedom to join a civil society or state,
sacrificing some rights for the protection and benefits of a more organized society.
 Social contract theorists are not explicit about what rights are given up, but the theory
implies that natural law now takes the place of natural rights.
 Social duties are imposed upon all and human law takes precedence over natural law.
Differences Among Social Contractualists:
 There is no consensus among writers of the social contract on the terms and parties of the
contract.
 Despite differing opinions, they agree that the state is the result of a contract and is,
therefore, a deliberate human creation.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679):
 Lived during a time of civil war in England, which influenced his views.
 Advocated for a strong absolute government in his book 'Leviathan' to maintain law and
order.
Hobbes on the State of Nature:
 Describes the state of nature as a pre-social condition characterized by constant fear,
competition, diffidence, and the pursuit of power and glory.
 He viewed human nature as selfish, egoistic, and self-seeking.
 Life in the state of nature was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Natural Rights According to Hobbes:
 In the state of nature, men had some natural laws, such as seeking peace and performing
covenants.
 Despite natural rights to everything, men were compelled to give up some of these in the
interest of preserving life and establishing a peaceful society.

The Contract (Thomas Hobbes):

 Hobbes describes the social contract with precision, where individuals agree to surrender
their natural rights to all for the sake of security and order.
 People mutually transfer their rights to a sovereign by covenant, giving up their right to
govern themselves in exchange for the sovereign's protection.
The State and the Sovereign:
 Hobbes sees the sovereign created by the contract as an artificial leviathan or a mortal god,
to whom people owe obedience as if to God.
 The sovereign, or the assembly of men representing it, becomes the embodiment of
collective power, with no accountability to the subjects.
Hobbes’s Theory of Sovereignty:
 Sovereignty is absolute and indivisible, based on the covenant.
 The sovereign's power is not a party to the contract and therefore cannot be breached by
the sovereign’s actions.
 The sovereign alone has the power to make war or peace, to judge what is right or wrong,
and to dictate what doctrines should be taught to the people.
Appreciation of the Theory:
 Hobbes’s work has influenced many political thinkers, including Hegel and John Austin.
 His legal sovereignty theory is appreciated for its precision and has been described as a
disciplined effort to maintain peace and order in human life.
Defects of Hobbes's Theory:
 Fear as a Flawed Basis for the State:
 Hobbes posits fear as the psychological basis of the state.
 Critics like Locke argue that this appeal to fear is not sensible as mutual fear cannot be the
sole reason for people to agree to such a strong authority.
 The question raised is how could individuals agree to be governed out of fear alone, like
“cats” agreeing to be ruled by a “lion”.
Unsound Analysis of Human Nature:
 Hobbes’s description of human nature in negative terms is considered unrealistic.
 His dark view of human nature as aggressive and self-centred is criticized for not
accounting for love, sympathy, and compassion.
 Critics argue that his view of human nature does not explain rapid social and psychological
changes, suggesting his concept of a social contract might be a fiction.

Misinterpretation of 'Contract':
 Hobbes is criticized for twisting the meaning of the word 'contract' to mean a one-sided or
unilateral agreement.
 His version of the contract is not binding on the sovereign, which contradicts the bilateral
nature of a true contract.
 His concept of an irrevocable contract, not appealing to human reason, is seen as flawed.
Hobbes's Inconsistencies:
 Hobbes initially claims that all natural rights are surrendered to the sovereign, but later
suggests that some rights, like the right of self-preservation, remain with individuals.
 This inconsistency undermines his argument and the complete surrender of rights does not
align with common sense.
Hobbes's Legal Theory of Rights and Sovereignty:
 The theory is critiqued for being one-sided, recognizing the state's nature but not fully
explaining why certain rights must be acknowledged and respected.
 It is pointed out that laws are made by the people and not solely by the sovereign, which
contradicts Hobbes's view that sovereignty, rights, and laws emanate from the sovereign.
John Locke (1623-1704):
 Contrary to Hobbes, Locke did not view the state of nature as a perpetual state of war but
one of peace, reason, and equality.
 Locke's state of nature was based on natural law, which was not license but a system of
reason and justice, affording natural rights under three heads: life, liberty, and property.
 These rights were viewed as fundamental and inalienable, to be respected by all, and not
to harm one another.
Locke on the State of Nature:
 Locke believed that the state of nature was pre-political and based on the law of nature and
reason.
 Even though the state of nature was peaceful, there were inconveniences, such as the lack
of a common standard to resolve disputes, which led to the establishment of a government.
Inconveniences of Locke's State of Nature:
 There was no common judge with authority to resolve disputes.
 People interpreted the law of nature according to their own understanding, leading to
conflicts.
 The state of nature was full of fears and continual dangers due to the lack of a common
power to enforce the natural law.

Locke's Social Contract - The Contracts:

 Locke implied that individuals found the state of nature intolerable and entered into a
contract to establish political society.
 Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that individuals did not surrender all their rights but instead
agreed to a community where the natural rights of life, liberty, and property are protected.
 The contract is not with a sovereign but with the entire community, and members can leave
the community if it fails to protect their rights.
Locke's Theory of Limited Sovereignty and Right of Revolt:
 Locke's social contract grants only limited power to the state; it cannot exercise unlimited
powers like Hobbes’s sovereign did.
 Sovereign power is absolute and inalienable, but it is constituted by the consent of the
people and is exercised for their good.
 Government is in the nature of a trust, and if it fails to act in the interest of the people, they
retain the right to change or overthrow it.
 The power of government is limited and can be resisted by the people if it betrays the trust,
reflecting Locke's justification for the right of revolt.
Criticism of Locke's Theory:
 Locke's theory has been praised for its emphasis on the sovereignty of consent.
 H. J. Laski highlighted that Locke's theory of consent has become a basic principle in
English and American political philosophy.
 Locke is criticized for neglecting the concept of legal sovereignty and not seeing that
revolution, while desirable, is never legal.
J. J. Rousseau (1712-1778):
 Rousseau was a proponent of the social contract and adopted France as his country.
 Unlike his predecessors Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau faced an absolutist political
environment in pre-revolutionary France.
 His works, including 'A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality' and 'The Social Contract,'
criticized the state of things in France and did not lead to immediate political change but
influenced later revolutions.
Rousseau on the State of Nature:
 Rousseau was critical but inconsistent in his thoughts on the state of nature.
 He is known more for his discussions about the state of nature rather than a systematic
description of it.

Rousseau's Views on Liberty and Equality:

 Rousseau stated, "Since each gives himself up to all, he gives himself to none," suggesting
a collective social contract preserves individual freedom.
 He explained that by surrendering personal liberty to the general will, one gains civil
equality and freedom equivalent to what is surrendered.
 Rousseau's paradox of liberty states that one cannot justifiably disobey the general will; by
doing so, one disobeys oneself, since the individual is part of the general will.
Influence of Rousseau's Theory:
 Rousseau was a philosopher of revolution against arbitrary rule.
 His ideas influenced the social contract theory and democratic revolutions in France,
Germany, and America.
 He was an admirer of direct democracy of ancient Greece and emphasized the need for
legislation by the people.
Criticism of Rousseau's Theory:
 Rousseau distinguished between the state and the government.
 He advocated for popular sovereignty and the reconciliation of the authority of the state
with the absolute freedom of the individual.
 Rousseau's philosophy asserts that the authority of the government is finally based on the
consent of the governed and that real force is the basis of the state.
 He recognizes defects and paradoxes in his distinction between the state and society,
particularly in the unconditional surrender of the individual to the general will.
 Rousseau's idea that the general will represents the collective will of society and not the
conflicting wills of individuals theoretically makes sense but in practice, the will of the
majority often prevails.
 He feared that an unrestricted general will could lead to tyranny and the absolute power of
kings, so he emphasized the need for impartial arbitration.
 Rousseau paved the way for the authoritarian or totalitarian states of the present by
subordinating the individual to the general will.
Comparison with Hobbes and Locke:
 Rousseau began with the arguments of Locke and ended with the conclusions of Hobbes.
 Unlike Hobbes’ state of nature, Rousseau's was not inherently a state of war but could
become one due to population growth and the origins of private property.
 Both Hobbes and Rousseau make the sovereign absolute, but Locke limits his authority.
 Rousseau and Hobbes differ in that Rousseau believed in the sovereignty of the community
as a whole, while Hobbes gives it to a monarch.

 Rousseau supports absolutism and indivisible popular sovereignty, contrasting with

Locke's constitutional government and divided sovereignty.
 Rousseau's theory is seen as a blend of Hobbes's absolute sovereignty and Locke's
individual consent.
Criticism of the Social Contract Theory:
 The theory is seen as historically fallacious since it lacks a foundation in the actual
historical development of political states.
 It is considered sociologically unscientific because it assumes an individualistic state of
nature which is not evident in historical family or tribal units.
 The social contract theory is criticized for reversing historical process by suggesting that
the evolution of society and rights granted by the state come from a free contract, which
contradicts historical evidence showing the transition from status to contract.
Fallacies and Defects of Social Contract Theory:
Unhistorical: The theory is claimed to be unhistorical because there is no evidence of a social
contract in the actual formation of societies.
Sociologically Unscientific: It neglects the sociological fact that men lived in families or tribes as
social units, not as isolated independent individuals.
Self-contradictory: The theory is seen as self-contradictory because it suggests that people
voluntarily agreed to restrict their natural freedom, which contradicts the natural state where no
such limitations existed.
The Transition is Impossible:
 The basic assumption of the social contract theory that people can transition from a state
of nature to a law-abiding and peaceful community is criticized as unrealistic and sudden.
 The psychological and sociological basis of this theory is questioned, as it seems unsound
to assume such an abrupt change in human behavior and social organization.
The Theory is Illogical:
 The social contract theory is argued to be logically flawed because it presupposes equality
and natural rights, yet it assumes that these rights and liberties are surrendered in the
transition to the state of nature.
 It is considered illogical because it suggests that natural rights exist without social
endorsement, and it fails to recognize that rights only exist within civil society.
 Lastly, the theory is criticized for its artificial nature, as it is based on the assumption of
rational mechanical invention, contrasting with the natural evolution of human society.

It is Self-Contradictory:
 The theory is seen as self-contradictory because it suggests that individuals already had a
common consciousness and agreed to form a state, which contradicts the premise that there
were no laws before the contract.
 The theory presupposes a natural system to enter into a contract but then implies that the
state's origin is not in the contract but in the legal will of the people, which is a
contradiction.
Contradicts the True Basis of the State:
 The contract theory asserts that the state is voluntary, but critics argue that the state is
actually a compulsory association and not a commercial partnership based on temporary
interests.
 Edmund Burke is cited as someone who believed that every man is born in the state and
that this connection to the state is part of his permanent social heritage, not something that
can be traded or dissolved on a whim.
Dangerous Implications:
 The theory of social contract is considered dangerous because it can lead to the dissolution
of all authority and potentially the state itself.
 The excesses of the French Revolution in 1789 are used as an example of the dangers of
taking the social contract theory to extremes.
Value of the Contract Theory:
 Despite criticisms, the contract theory is acknowledged for emphasizing the consent of the
governed as the basis of the state's legitimacy.
 It inspired democratic ideas by advocating that people should choose their government,
rejecting the divine right of kings, and refuting absolutism.
The Patriarchal Theory:
 Described as old as Aristotle's time, where the family is the first unit of society and multiple
families coming together form a village.
 The patriarchal theory posits that the state originated from the natural expansion of a
family, where the father or mother acts as the head.
 As families join, the original family head becomes the leader of a tribe or clan, tracing
descent from a common ancestor.
 The theory explains that the sovereign authority in a state derives from this paternal
headship, likening it to the complete authority a father has over his family.

Modern View of the Patriarchal Theory:

 Dr. Diamond provides a contemporary perspective, suggesting that the head of the family
would naturally be the strongest male, and after his death, the eldest son usually succeeds
him.
 This view holds that there are certain special conditions affecting property and descent,
distinguishing between the head of a family group and the head of property.
 Patriarchal Theory as Explained by Maine:
 Sir Henry Maine, a key figure in explaining the patriarchal theory, studied ancient customs
in India and the legal system of the Hindus, as well as ancient Roman, Greek, and Hebrew
societies.
 Maine's studies led him to elaborate on the patriarchal theory in his books, including
"Ancient Law and the Early History of Institutions."
Patriarchal Theory According to Maine:
 The family was considered the basic unit of primitive society, with authority passing
through males.
 Maine detailed that wealth's aggregation, connecting clan or 'house', forms the state.
 The eldest male parent was seen as the leader, with power akin to patria potestas, as in
ancient Roman and Hindu customs.
Criticism of the Patriarchal Theory:
 The theory has been criticized for emphasizing one factor in the evolution of the state, that
is, kinship or family.
 Critiques arise due to the simplistic nature of the theory and complex phenomena involving
the formation of the state and society.
 There are three main reasons for rejecting the patriarchal theory:
 The authority of the father is not like that of a ruler and is limited.
 The authority of parents decreases as children grow up, unlike the consistent authority of
government.
 Primitive society was tribal and not family-based; early society was matrilineal, not
patriarchal.
The Matriarchal Theory:
 This section is introduced but not detailed in the provided text. It suggests that the latter
half of the 19th century researchers began to view problems of kinship and society from a
matriarchal perspective, contrary to the patriarchal view.

Matriarchal Theory Advocates:

 Researchers like McLennan, Morgan, and Engels proposed the matriarchal theory based
on discoveries from various societies including those of Australia, Madagascar, Malay and
Indonesia, suggesting that early societies were matriarchal.
Explanation of Matriarchal Theory:
 The theory suggests that initial societies were matriarchal, where descent and kinship were
traced through the mother, not the father.
 Early social structures were organized around 'packs' or 'matriarchal groups' rather than
individual families, relying on communal living and shared resources.
 Sexual relations were prohibited within the same 'pack', and temporary relations between
different 'packs' were allowed during certain seasons.
 As wealth grew, the prominence of men as opposed to women began to establish the
patriarchal order.
Criticism of Matriarchal Theory:
 The matriarchal theory is commended for shedding light on prehistory and addressing gaps
left by the patriarchal theory.
 It suggests a more complex societal organization than what the patriarchal theory proposed.
 Critics argue that the matriarchal theory has as many demerits as the patriarchal theory, as
it does not offer a sound explanation for the origin of the state.
The Evolutionary or Sociological Theory:
 This theory is now accepted as the correct theory of the origin of the state.
 It rejects the idea that the state arises from divine force, superior physical force, or the
establishment of a contract.
 The theory relies on interdisciplinary approaches from anthropology, archaeology, and
other social sciences to understand how the state developed into its present form.
Explanation of Sociological Theory:
 The sociological theory encompasses several factors that influenced the evolution of the
state:
Kinship:
 Kinship is considered a fundamental feature of the state's organization and authority.
 The earliest social bond was based on kinship, which provided natural relations of
command and obedience.

 Societies were first organized on maternal relations before transitioning to paternal kinship
systems.
Magic and Religion:

 Magic and religion emerged simultaneously with kinship and became unifying political
forces in primitive societies.
 They were the means to control nature and thus gained authority over the tribe.
 Rites and magical practices led to the emergence of the figures that would become the
forerunners of tribal chiefs and kings.
 As religion became more refined, it strengthened social bonds and enforced obedience
among tribe members, reinforcing the existing structures of kinship.
Property and the Rise of Economic Classes:
 Property relations transformed tribal groups into structured economic units where the
nomadic tribes, dependent mainly on pastures, took to agriculture and settled life.
 This necessitated the definition and enforcement of property rights and the authority to
settle disputes over property.
 Adam Smith is quoted, indicating that the growth of property created economic classes,
where civil government is "so necessary" when the property exceeds what is equivalent to
two or three days' labor.
 The economically dominant classes also became politically dominant, which Marx
emphasized as a critical factor in the rise of the state.
War and Force:
 War and force played a critical role in the development of the state, where the principle of
"might is right" prevailed.


The State The Whole Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The State The Whole Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL SCIENCE: PART B

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

New York State:

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Distinctions Between State and Government:

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Permanence and Purpose of the State vs. Associations:

Revolt Against the Use of the Term State:

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Historical Evolution of the State

The Oriental Empire

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

The Greek City-State or Polis

The Roman Empire

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Changes in State and Individual Relationship:

State and Liberty of the Individual:

Nationalism versus Internationalism:

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Nationalism and Self-Determination:

Theories of Origin of the State

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

The Theory of Divine Origin

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Defects of the Theory of Force:

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Criticism of the Theory of Force as Dangerous:

Social Contract Theory:

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

The Contract (Thomas Hobbes):

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Locke's Social Contract - The Contracts:

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Rousseau's Views on Liberty and Equality:

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

 Rousseau supports absolutism and indivisible popular sovereignty, contrasting with

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Modern View of the Patriarchal Theory:

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Matriarchal Theory Advocates:

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

Magic and Religion:

Dr. Tehmina Aslam Ranjha

You might also like