Session 4

On State
MMH3

1
• The term ‘State’ means an assemblage of people occupying a definite
territory under an organized government and subject to no outside control.
• 185 of it are members of the United Nations.
• They share common characteristics.

2
• Some writers define the ‘State’ as essentially a class structure ….others regard it as the
one organization that transcends class and stands for the whole community.
• Some interpret it as power system, others as a welfare system
• Some view it entirely as a legal construction- as a community organized for action under
legal rules, some identify it with nation
• Some regard it as a mutual insurance society, others as the very texture of all our life.
• Gabriel Almond prefers to use the term ‘political system’ for the State, as the later is
limited by legal and institutional meanings.

3
• ‘State’ is a political system comprising all the people in a defined territory and
possessing an organization (government) with the power and authority to
enforce its will upon its members, by resort, if necessary, to physical
sanction, and not subject in the like manner to the power and authority of
another polity”.
• MacIver defines it as “an association which, acting through law as
promulgated by a government endowed to this end with coercive power ,
maintains within a community territorially demarcated the universal external
conditions of social order”.
4
• Robert Dahl defines it as “the political system made up of the residents of the
territorial area and Government of the area is a State”.
• Hall says, “the marks of an independent State are that the community constituting
it is permanently established for a political end, that it possesses a defined territory
and that it is independent of external control”.
• Harold Laski defines a State as “ a territorial society divided into Government and
subjects claiming, w ithin its allotted physical area, a supremacy over all other
institutions”.
• According to Woodrow Wilson, it “is the people organized for law within a definite
territory”.
5
 Elements of the State

• Population-that the state is a human institution, the product of man’s gregarious nature and the result of necessities of
human life, and (2)population and land are the starting point of any study of man in his organized groups. It is people
who make the state, without people there can be none. The number of population would obviously vary and should not
be a criterion of the state.
• Territory- Some writers ignore territory as an element of the State. There can be no state without a fixed territory,
large or small. It is our connection with a particular territory that normally creates our membership of a State. Land,
water and airspace within the defined territorial area comprise the territory of the state, the natural resources it has.
• Government- The agency created to enforce rules of conduct and to ensure obedience for the realization of common
goal. Common policies are determined, common affairs are regulated and common interests are promoted. It is
imperative that there is a common authority and consequent order wherever people live.
• Sovereignty –It is the most essential and distinguishable feature of the state. It means internal supremacy and free
from external control. Internal sovereignty is the State’s monopoly of authority inside its boundaries. This authority
can not be shared with any other State and none of its members within its territory can own obedience to any other
State.
6
• Each State is independent of other States. Its Will is its own, unaffected by
the Will of any other external authority.
• Every State therefore, must have its population, a definite territory, a duly
established government, and sovereignty.

7
The organic nature of the state: Organic theory

• According to this theory union of individuals forming the state has been described as
similar to the union between several parts of an animal body where all parts are
functionally related and none can exists in isolation from the rest.
• The organic theory is a biological conception which describes the state in terms of natural
science, views the individuals which compose it as analogous to the cells of a plant or
animal, and postulates a relation of interdependence between them and society.
• The state is not an organism, but it is like an organism. The state is not a mere aggregation
of people, it is a social unity. Man can not lead a life of isolation. Dependence is his very
psychology and individuals depend on one another and on the State as a whole. The
welfare of each is involved in the welfare of all. He can not be separated from the society,
the state has a collective life like an organism.

8
 Marxian theory of the State
• The Marxian or Communist theory of the State finds its full expression in
the Philosophy of Karl Marx. The basis of his doctrine is a philosophy of
history supplemented by a theory of the State and a body of economic
theory.
• According to this theory, state is a ‘super structure’. Its form is determined
by the exigencies of class struggle and the demands of the underlying
material situation.

9
• It is defined as an instrument of exploitation and coercion, the state is regarded as
the product and manifestation of irreconcilable class antagonism.
• At every stage of its development, a single class is dominant an this dominant class
controls the state, use State as a machinery for further exploitation of the exploited
class- which is the non-possessing class.
• Under Capitalism- State is in essence a committee of the bourgeoisie for the
oppression and exploitation of the working class, the proletariat.
• The Marxian theory rejects the very basis of the State, particularly the notion that it
is a natural and necessary institution. The State is an artificial vehicle of coercion,
and is a product of society at a certain stage of its economic development.
10
• The state, Frederick Angels wrote, has not existed from eternity, the state has
become a necessity owing to cleavage”. The state has therefore no moral
stature and useful purpose to serve. It is an organ of class rule, an organ for
the oppression of one class by another, it creates ‘order’ by which legalizes
and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the collision between the
classes.
• The ancient and the feudal states were organs for the exploitation of the
slaves and the serfs, and ‘the contemporary representative state is an
instrument of exploitation of wage-labor by capital’.
11
• The Marxian theory rejects the very basis of the State, and regards State as the
artificial vehicle of coercion, and a product of the society as a certain stage of its
economic development.
• State is seen as an organ for the oppression of one class by another, it creates
‘order’ which legalizes and perpetuates thus oppression by moderating the collision
between the classes.
• The ancient and the feudal states were organs for the exploitation of the slaves and
the serfs and the contemporary representative state is an instrument of exploitation
of wage labor by capital.
12
 Origin of the State
• The theory of the divine origin
• The theory of force
• The theory of social contract
• The patriarchal and matriarchal theories, and
• The historical or evolutionary theory

13
 The Theory of Divine Origin
• According to this theory state was created by God and governed by His deputy of Vice
regent. It was His will that men should live in the world in s a state of political society and
He sent His deputy to rule over them.
• The ruler was a divinely appointed agent and he was responsible for his actions to God
alone. As the ruler was the deputy of God, obedience to him was held to be a religious
duty and resistance a sin.
• The advocates of divine origin theory thus placed the ruler above the people as well as
law. Nothing on earth could limit his will and restrict his power. His word was law and
his actions were always just benevolent.
• To complain against the authority of the ruler and consider his actions unjust was a sin for
which there was divine punishment.
14
• The theory of divine origin believed and accepted that God deliberately
created the State and this specific act of His grace was to save mankind
from destruction.
• That God sent his Deputy or Vice regent to rule over mankind. The ruler
was a divinely appointed agent and he was responsible for his actions to
God alone.
• All were ordained to submit to his authority and disobedience to his
command was a sin for which there was divine punishment.
15
• Monarchy is divinely ordained and the King draws his authority from God,
• Monarchy is hereditary and it is the divine right of King that it should pass from father to
son,
• The King is answerable to God alone, and
• Resistance to the lawful authority of a King is a sin.
• The theory of the Divine Origin originally used in the Middle Ages as a bulwark against
the claims of the Church. That the stats is divinely created does not find any place in the
present political thought which is discredited in the West in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries and replaced by social contract theory and concept of popular
sovereignty. 16
 The Theory of Force
• The theory is another fallacious theory but historically important, which is
offered as an explanation of the origin and meaning of the state. There is one
old saying , that ‘war beget the King’. The theory of Force emphasizes the
origin of the State in the subordination of the weak to the strong.
• The advocates argue that the apart from being a social animal, man is
bellicose by nature. There is also a lust for power in him. Both of these
desires prompt him to exhibit his strength, stronger captured and enslaved
the weak. He collected in this way a band of followers, fought with others,
and subjugated the weak.
17
• Having increased the number of followers, over whom he exercised
undisputed authority, he became a tribal chief. A clan fought against a clan
and a tribe against a tribe. The powerful conquered the weak and this process
of conquest and domination continued till the victorious tribe secured the
control over a definite territory of a considerable size under the sway of the
tribal chief, who proclaimed as a King.

18
• Leacock observes “that historically it means government is the outcome of
human aggression, that the beginnings of the State are to be sought in the
capture and enslavement of man by man, in the conquest and subjugation
of feebler tribes, and generally speaking in the self seeking domination
acquired by superior physical force. The progressive growth from tribe to
kingdom, and from kingdom to empire is but a continuation of the same
force.”

19
• The theory in fine tells us that the State is primarily the result of forcible
subjugation through long continued warfare among primitive groups and
historically speaking as Jenks says, “there is not the slightest difficulty in proving
that all political communities of the modern type own their existence to successful
warfare”.
• Once the State had been established, force, which had hitherto been utilized for
subjugating others. Force was used for internal order and making it secure from any
kind of external aggression. The theory of force traces the origin and development
of the state to conquest and justifies its authority by the proposition that might is
right.
20
• Critics argue that force is not the only basis of the State. Something other
than force is necessary in binding the people together.
• Force always disrupts-unless it is made subservient to common will.
• The theory unduly emphasizes the principle of the survival of the fittest.
Might without right is antagonistic individual liberty. The state is duly bound
to protect equally the weak and strong and create opportunities for all.

21
 The theory of Social Contract
• The theory postulates a state of nature as the original condition of mankind and a social
contract, deliberately and voluntarily made, as the means to escape therefrom.
• Some political thinkers who advocated the theory of social contract were of the opinion
that the state of nature was pre-social, while others regarded it as pre-political.
• Whatever was the case, the state of nature was antecedent to the institution of
government and prior to the establishment of Government.
• The state of nature was not an organized society. Each man living therein led a life of his
own, uncontrolled by any laws of human imposition. Men living in the state of nature were
subject only to such regulations as nature was supposed to prescribe from them. The code
of regulations was given the name of the law of nature or natural law.
22
• No two thinkers on the Social Contract Theory are at one as to the conditions that
prevailed in the state of nature. Some described it as a state of “ideal innocence and
bliss”. Others gave a gloomy and dismal picture and characterized it as a state of
“wild savagery” where might was right. Some others considered it as a state of
“insecurity” though not of savagery, accompanied by some tangible
inconveniences.
• But whatever it was, all thinkers agreed that those who lived in a state of state of
nature were ultimately compelled to, for one reason or other, to abandon it and
substitute the state of nature by a civil society or a body-politic for a common life
of union. The law of nature was replaced by man made laws. 23
• The emergence of civil society was due to the result of mutual consent or contract, man
were required to observe all these laws which assured safety and protection of all other
members of the newly organized community or body-politic.
• Three essential element of the theory of social contract: First- in a state of nature man
had not organized himself in bonds of political cohesion and therefore a political
society.
• Secondly, state of nature created conditions of uncertainty for all as none felt secure
and decided to quit the state of nature- this he did by common consent or
agreement or contract with his fellowmen who lived with him in a state of nature.
• Third, as a result of common consent or contract a civil society was established
where laws of the State and civil rights prevailed in place of natural law and natural
rights. 24
• The social contract theory which dominated the European political thought
during the eighteenth century, has played a very important part in the
development of the modern political theory and practice.
• This theory came into being as a reaction against to the theory of Divine
Origin. According to this theory, the State was not created by God, rather
under the compulsion of circumstances, people contracted with the rulers
and as a result the State was organized.

25
• Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau are the chief exponents of the social contract theory.
According to Hobbes, in the state of nature the condition was deplorable. It was the state
of wild savagery in which the guiding principle was might is right.
• According to Locke, at the beginning human life was very peaceful and man led a very
natural life. The laws of nature gave him the right to life, right to property and right to
freedom, But at that time there was no government to regulate these rights.
• According to Rousseau, man led an ideal life and enjoyed heavenly bliss, but later with the
increase of population and the tradition of keeping property led to the rise of conflict.
• Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau believed that when man could not bear natural state, he
entered into a contract.
26
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
27
 Thomas Hobbes
• Civil war of 1642 and execution of King Charles 1 influenced his political outlook and position for absolute
monarchy.
• Thomas Hobbes in his book the “Leviathan” in 1651 made a striking account of the theory of the Social
Contract. His object was not to give a theory of the origin of the state but to defend the absolute power of
the monarch and used the doctrine of the social contract to support it.
• Hobbes describes the state of nature as a condition of unmitigated selfishness and rapacity. Men had no sense
of right or wrong and they fell upon each other with savage ferocity.
• From his analysis of state of nature, Hobbes concluded that man was not at all social, all being selfish,
self-seeking, cunning, egoistic, brutal, covetous and aggressive.
• The state of nature was thus a condition of perpetual war where every man is enemy to every man.
• This is how Hobbes gave to his sovereign absolute, inalienable, indivisible and unlimited authority.

28
• These conditions were really intolerable in a state of nature, and could not be
left to continue, therefore, men formed a civil society or ‘Commonwealth’
which would give to each individual person security of life and property.
• They accordingly agreed to surrender their natural rights into the hands of a
common superior and to obey his commands.
• The person or assembly of persons to whom they surrendered their natural
rights became sovereign and to the covenanting individuals who agreed to
submit to the authority to the sovereign became his subjects.
29
John Locke(1632-1704)
30
 John Locke
• When Hobbes championed absolute sovereignty of the monarch, Locke espoused
the cause of limited monarchy in England. Lock’s theory is found in his ‘Treatise
on Civil Government’ where he defended the ultimate right of people.
• Locke too started with the state of nature which he considered was pre-political
and pre-social as such he did not present such dismal state of affairs.
• Man were neither selfish, nor self-seeking, nor aggressive. He was social,
sympathetic to others, because of the law of nature, which was the law of the
reason.
31
• In Locke’s state of nature men were equal and free to act as they thought fit,
but within the bounds of the law of the nature, and the law of nature bounds
them not to harm another in his life, health and liberty or possessions.
• Locke’s state of nature was a ‘state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and
preservation’ in contrast to a ‘state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual
destruction.

32
• The need for civil society- Peace was not secure in the state of nature. It was
constantly upset by the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men.
• This ill condition was due to three important wants which remained unsatisfied in
the state of nature:
• i. the want of an established, settled, known law, ii. the want of a known and
indifferent judge, iii, the want of an executing power to enforce just decisions.
Such an ill condition, Locke asserted, was full of fears and continual dangers, and
in order to escape from all these and to gain certainty and security, men made a
contract to enter into a civil society or the state.
33
• Locke’s doctrine-state of nature is a pre-political rather pre-social
• His state of nature is not that of perpetual warfare as it is with Hobbes.
• But certain inconveniences are experienced in the state of nature- uncertainty in the
application of law of the reason, absence of common judge to decide disputes
according to established law, and no proper authority to execute these laws.
• According to Locke- there are two contracts: social contract and governmental
contract. The first put an end to the state of nature and substituted for a civil society
or the state. The second is made with a view to forming the government and
selecting a ruler. But the second contract is subordinate to the first.
• The ruler is a party to the contract. There is no surrender of rights as with Hobbes,
but only the transfer of certain rights.
• Locke makes consent of the people the source of all governmental authority.
34
• The most distinctive contribution of Locke to political theory is his doctrine
of natural rights, life, liberty, and property, he holds is the alienable rights of
every individual.

35
Jean Jacques Rousseau(1712-1778)

36
 Jean Jacques Rousseau
• Elaborated his theory The Social Contract in 1762. Like Hobbes and Locke had no
purpose to serve, and no definite cause to uphold, although his teachings inspired
the French Revolution of 1789.
• Rousseau's man in state of nature was a ‘noble savage’ who led a life of primitive
simplicity and idyllic happiness. He was independent, contented, self-sufficient,
healthy, fearless and without the need of his fellows or desire to harm hem.
• It was only the primitive instinct and sympathy which united him with others. He
knew neither right or wrong and was away from all the notions of virtue and voice.
37
• It was thus a pure simple and innocent life of perfect freedom and equality
which Rousseau's men enjoyed in the state of nature. These conditions did
not last long. Two things emerged to corrupt these perfect scene. One was
increase in population and the other was the dawn of reason.
• Man began to think in terms of mine and thine, which led to the growth of
institution of private property.

38
• General will-Men surrendered himself completely and unconditionally to the
will of the body of which became a member which Rousseau called a general
Will.
• General Will represented collective good as distinct from private interest of
its members.
• Rousseau also made a distinction between government and sovereign people.

39
• Rousseau was the apostle of popular sovereignty. He justified revolutions
against arbitrary rule and the pioneer to preach the ideals of democracy.
• His doctrine of popular sovereignty rests on three principles- first that
men are by nature free and equal, second, that the rights of
government must be based on some compact freely entered into by
these equal and independent individuals, and third, that the only
contract at once just to the individuals becomes and indivisible part of
a body that retains an inalienable right of determining its own internal
constitution and legislation- a sovereign people.
40
• Rousseau brings into prominence the idea of consent and establishes once
for all that ‘Will’, not ‘Force’, is the basis of the State. He also champions the
cause of direct democracy by vesting legislative power in the people.

41