POL 111: INTEREST GROUP AND THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF STATE

COMPILED BY OGUNBADENIYI

INTEREST GROUP

The term ‘Interest Group’ covers just about any collection of people trying to influence
the government. Some interest groups are transient, others permanent. Some focus on
influencing a particular policy, others on broad change. Some work through the
executive or administrative agencies, others through judicial or legislative sectors, still
others through public opinion. But all are non-publicly accountable organizations that
attempt to promote shared private interest by influencing public policy outcome. In a
nutshell, interest group is a group of people that seeks to influence public policy on the
basis of a particular common interest or concern. All interest groups share a desire to
affect government policies to benefit themselves or their causes. Their goal could be a
policy that exclusively benefits group members or one segment of society (e.g.
government subsidies for farmers).

Interest group are a bit like political parties. Both try to influence public policy but
interest group do it outside the electoral process and are not responsible to the public. A
party must win elections, interest groups may influence the nomination of candidates
who are sympathetic to their cause, but the candidate runs under the party banner not
the interest group banner. Interest group usually focus on specific programmes and
issues and are rarely represented in the formal structure of government; instead they try
to influence the legislative and the executive. They often seek the favour of all political
parties.

1
THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF STATE

Before we talk about the theories of the origin of state, we have to know what a state is.
A state is a political unit that has sovereignty. That is ultimate responsibility for the
conduct of its own affairs. Weber (1958) define the state as “a human community that
successfully claims the monopoly of legitimate use of physical force within a given
territory. Laski also define the state as “a territorial society divided into government and
subjects, claiming within its allotted physical area, a supremacy over all other
institutions. The state can be said to be a recognizable separate institution or set of
institutions.

Characteristics of the State

For a particular place to be called a state it must have the following characteristics:

(a) Territory

(b) People

(c) Government

(d) Sovereignty

(A) Territory: This is the area on the earth’s surface where land is located, the air
above the land, the waters extending outwards it coast for a distance, the twelve
nautical miles, the lake, the mountains and the other geographical features as
well as the natural resources.

(B) People: People constitute the major elements of the state. The population of the
state includes citizens or subjects who enjoys full civic right and owe full
allegiance, national or natives of the dependencies of the state. Citizens of other
state of nations, slaves who reside within the territory of the state. No limit or
uniformity can be prescribed in respect of the population of a state.

2
(C) Government: Is the agency or machinery through which the affairs or will of the
state is formulated, expressed, and realized. Government constitutes the political
authority of the state; government has three (3) departments, the executive,
legislature and judiciary. The work of the legislature is to make laws , the
executives is to carry out the laws and the judiciary is to interpret them and
decide upon their application.

(D) Sovereignty: This means the supremacy, and the power of the state to make law
and enforce them with all the means of coercion (force) it cares to employ. It s the
distinctive mark of the state, distinguishing it alike from individuals and
associations within the state. Sovereignty has two aspect, the internal and the
external. Internally, it means the power to make and enforce law upon individuals
and association within the area of its jurisdiction. Externally it means
independence of foreign control; example, Nigeria refuses to be controlled by
Ghana and vice versa.

Theories of the Origin of State

There are various theoretical propositions on the origin of state and that of the principles
that legitimizes its power. They are:

1. The Divine Right Theory

2. The Social Contract Theory

3. The Force Theory

4. The Natural Theory

5. The Marxist Theory

3
1. The Divine Right Theory of the State: This attributed the origin of the state to
divine creation. The state is seen as an institution established by an ordinance of
God. The rulers are divinely ordained as God’s own emissaries on earth and
therefore accountable to no other authority. This theory attribute authority figures
with supernatural qualities demonstrates man’s propensity for myths and the
tendency to invest authority figures with supernatural qualities. The theory of
divine right is also known as the theory of divine right of the kings and as we can
see in the Bible in Romans 13 verse 1-2, let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers, for there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained by
God, whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God:
and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

The importance of the theory is primarily historical, it help to support the claims of
certain rulers like King James 1 of England, to govern absolutely and without
being accountable to than people. King James 1 to his parliament that A king can
never be monstrously vicious. Even if the king is wicked, it means God has sent
him as a punishment for the people’s sin and its unlawful to shake off the burden
which God has given unto them. Patience, earnest prayers and amendment of
the lives are the only lawful means to move God to relieve them of the heavy
curse. It is interesting to note that in India the divine right theory has not
stretched to include the view that a bad as well as good king is a representative
of God and as such entitled to unconditional obedience. On the contrary a bad
king is of the demons and he may be deposed or even slain. This theory is
generally discredited because it necessarily involves propositions that are to be
accepted based on faith rather than reason

2. Social Contract Theory of the State: This theory displaced the divine theory
and it postulates that the state is a creation of men through a social contract to
which they all consented. The theory present the state as a mechanically
contrivance of man’s invention ingenuity. The theory state that the state is human

4
 creation, the result of a contract. No man can make himself emperor or king. The
people set a man over the affair of the state so that he may rule justly, giving to
every man his own, aiding good men and forbidding bad; in fact that he may give
justice to all men. If he then violate the agreement according to which he was
chosen, disturbing and confounding the very thing which he was meant to put in
order, reason dictates that he absolves the people from their obedience,
especially when he has himself first broken the faith which bound him and the
people together. The foremost exponents of the social contract theory are
Thomas Hobbes (1599-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), and Jean-Jacques
Rosseau (1712-1778).

3. The Force Theory of the State: This theory stated thus “war begat a king or
ruler.” The state is the result of the subjugation of the weaker by the stronger. A
state is founded when a leader, with his band of warriors, get permanent control
of a definite territory of a considerable size. This may occur in one of these two
ways. The leader after firmly establishing his position as ruler of his own tribe,
extend his authority over neighbouring tribes until he becomes a ruler over a
large territory. Or a state is founded by successful migrations and conquests of
the weak by the strong. He who has the power to rule can also legitimately claim
to have the authority to rule. German writers of the 19th century contended that
force was an essential attribute of the state. The state was seen as evil because
it was a way of oppressing the poor. By way of criticism it is sufficient to say that
while force has been one element in the formation of the state, it is wrong to say
that it is the sole factor. The state is the result of action of various causes –
kingship, religion, force and political consciousness.

4. The Natural Theory of the State: This theory sees the state as an evolving
organism that develops naturally according to some inherent dynamism of
growth. The state has evolved out of complex set of human needs. This theory
can be linked to the Aristotelian position that man is a “political animal” whose

5
 self-actualization can only be attained in a state where the need for order and
security can only be guaranteed.

5. The Marxist Theory of the State: Another way of interpreting the rise of the
state is offered by the Marxists. Karl Marx thought that modern society consisted
of one class (capitalists) dominating another (workers). Because of the tensions
caused by this domination, the workers had to be controlled and for this, state is
needed. The state keeps the worker under control partly by integrating them into
the prevailing system by convincing them, in school and other means that their
current situation is good. Marx thought that eventually, the workers will revolt and
set up a socialist state in which one class will no longer dominate the other and
when this happens the state will become unnecessary and would wither away
through disuse. The Marxist theory see the state solely as an instrument of
power.