Theories on the Origin of State

1. The theory of Divine Origin

2. The Patriarchal Theory as the Origin of the State

3. Matriarchal and Patriarchal Theory

4. Force Theory

5. The Social Contract Theory

6. Marxician Theory of Origin of the State

1. The Divine Origin Theory:

The oldest theory about the origin of the state is the divine origin theory. It is also known as the theory
of divine right of Kings.

The exponents of this theory believe that the state did not come into being by any effort of man. It is
created by God.

The King who rules over the state is an agent of God on earth.

The King derives his authority from God and for all his actions he is responsible to God alone. Obedience
to the King is ordained to God and violation of it will be a sin. The King is above law and no subject has
any right to question his authority or his action. The King is responsible of God alone.

The Stuart King James I claimed that he derived his authority directly from God. According to him, the
King is wise and intelligent, but his subjects are wicked.

2. The Patriarchal Theory as the Origin of the State:

The principal exponent of this theory is Sir Henry Maine.

According to him, the city is a conglomeration of several families which developed under the control and
authority of the eldest male member of the family.

The head or father of the patriarchal family wielded great power and influence upon the other members
of the family.

Edward Jenks who is the other advocate of the patriarchal theory is of the view that the foundation of
the state was caused by three factors, namely male kinship, permanent marriages and paternal
authority. Thus, the salient feature of the patriarchal theory is that the families grew through the
descendants of the father, not the mother.

Another important supporter of this theory was Aristotle. According to him- “Just as men and women
unite to form families, so many families unite to form villages and the union of many villages forms the
state which is a self-supporting unit”.

As for documentary evidence in support of this theory, there were twelve tribes who formed the Jewish
nation as we gather from the Bible. In Rome, we are told that the patriarch of three families that made
one unit exercised unlimited authority over the other members.

3. The Matriarchal Theory as the Origin of the State:

The chief exponents of the matriarchal theory are Morgan, Meclennan and Edward Jenks. According to
them, there was never any patriarchal family in the primitive society and that the patriarchal family
came into existence only when the institution of permanent marriage was in vogue.

Among the primitive society, instead of permanent marriage there was a sort of sex anarchy. Under that
condition, the mother rather than the father was the head of the family. The kinship was established
through the mother.

Edward Jenks who made a thorough study of the tribes of Australia came to the conclusion that the
Australian tribes were organised in some sort of tribes known as totem groups. Their affinity was not on
the basis of blood relationship but through some symbols like tree or animal. One totem group men
were to marry all the women of another totem group. This would lead to polyandry and polygamy also.

This matriarchal system continued until the advent of the pastoral age when the permanent marriage
was introduce. We find the existence of the Queen ruling over in Malabar and the princesses ruling over
the Maratha countries. These are examples of the matriarchal systems of life.

4. Another early theory of the origin of the state is the theory of force.
The exponents of this theory hold that wars and aggressions by some powerful tribe were the principal
factors in the creation of the state.

They rely on the oft-quoted saying “war begot the King” as the historical explanation of the origin of the
state.

The force or might prevailed over the right in the primitive society. A man physically stronger
established his authority over the less strong persons. The strongest person in a tribe is, therefore, made
the chief or leader of that tribe.

History supports the force theory as the origin of the state.

According to Edward Jenks:

Historically speaking, there is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all political communities of the
modern type owe their existence to successful warfare.”

«As the state increased in population and size there was a concomitant improvement in the art of
warfare. The small states fought among themselves and the successful ones made big states.

The kingdoms of Norway, Sweden and Denmark arc historical examples of the creation of states by the
use of force. In the same process, Spain emerged as a new state in the sixth century A.D. In the ninth
century A.D. the Normans conquered and established the state of Russia.

5. The Social Contract Theory:

The most famous theory with regard to the origin of the state is the social contract theory. The theory
goes to tell that the stale came into existence out of a contract between the people and the sovereign at
some point of time.

According to this theory, there were two divisions in human history – one period is prior to the
establishment of the state called the “state of nature” and the other period is one subsequent to the
foundation of the state called the “civil society”. The state of nature was bereft of society, government
and political authority. There was no law to regulate the relations of the people in the state of nature.

There were three exponents of this theory. They were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau who differed about the life in the slate of nature, reason for converting the state of nature to
civil society and the terms of the contract. They all, however, agreed that a stage came in the history of
man when the state of nature was exchanged with civil society to lead a regulated life under a political
authority.

In this way, every man agreed to abide by the decisions made by the majority and to comply with the
laws enacted by the people’s representative, provided they did not encroach upon his fundamental
rights. In this way, the power of the ruler was curtailed.

6. Marxician Theory of Origin of the State:

The Marxists are of the view that the state is a creation by the class-struggle with the help of force.

The Marxists began with the primitive society where there was no surplus wealth to quarrel with and so
there was no state.

With the passing of time, society was getting split over hostile classes with conflicting interests. This
class antagonism was the root cause of the state.

The most dominant class that controlled the mode of production came to establish the state to ensure
its dominance over the other classes who did not own the modes of production. The state thus became
an instrument of domination and oppression of one class over the other classes.

So V. G. Afanasyev in his book Marxist Philosophy maintained that the state was not imposed from
outside, but it was a product of society’s internal development at a certain stage of development. With
the break-up of the social order ensued class-conflict which the society became powerless to dispel.

The state was the medium of the economically dominant classes. V.I. Lenin developed on the above
thesis by bringing the communist party as the dominant class, namely the proletariat and his state,
namely the USSR where the proletariat was the dominant class which was to exploit the other classes.
Lenin also emphasised on the element of force to be resorted to by the proletariat against the
bourgeois. Thus Lenin incorporated the element of force too in the creation of the state.

The Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci made a little departure from the Marxist tenet by stating that a
state is the creation of the political party that holds on power. According to him, the political party is the
“modern prince”, evidently using the expression of N. Machiavelli. He went to the extent of asserting
that the party represents the national popular collective will and aims at the realisation of a higher and
total form of modern civilisation. Here we find that the author is more in agreement with the German
idealist Hegel than the Marxists.

This is in broad analysis of the Marxist views as culled from the writings and opinions of Engels, Lenin
and Gramsci.