THEORIES OF STATE –CLASSICAL, PLURALIST AND NEO -

PLURALIST

Unit Structure
4. 0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Force Theory and Divine Origin Theory of State.
4.3 Social Contract Theory – Hobbes and Locke, Its limitations.
4.4 Social contract Theory as developed by Jean Jacques
Rousseau
4.5 Summary
4.6 Unit End Questions
4.7 Suggested Readings

4.0 OBJECTIVES
1) To understand the significance and importance of the
institution of State.
2) To analyze the classical theories of State. Force Theory, Divine
Origin Theory and Divine Right Theory of kings.
3) To understand and critically evaluate the Theories of Social
Contract as expounded by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.
4) To understand the significance of the idea of liberalism and to
analyze Locke`s Theory of Constitutional Democracy.
5) To study new dimensions of popular sovereignty in the
changing technological age and to grasp the meaning of
Rousseau's Theory of State.

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Of all the terms that occur in the study of political theory,
the term “State” is the most significant one. It is central to the
study of politics. There is no theory in the subject of politics which
does not by one way or other refer to the institution of State. The
concepts which are central to the study of politics like liberty,
equality, political obligation revolve round the concept of State.
Various theories of State like liberalism, socialism, Marxism and
even anarchism study state as central theme.
State is basically an organized political institution that has
ultimate power over the members residing in its fixed
geographical limits. So a fixed territory becomes a hallmark to the
existence of state. It was Machiavelli who first used the term
state. He used to express it as an institution which has authority
over men. Although society consists of many groups and
associations, it is the state which has a final say in all matters. The
power of the state is called sovereignty.
The state is a product of certain historical factors. It is not
only a political institution but a social system. To understand the
system one has to study the historical origins of that institution.

4.2 FORCE THEORY AND DIVINE ORIGIN THEORY OF

STATE

Most of the classical theories which explain the origin of state are
speculative in nature. As there is no historical evidence and hard
facts that can help to deduce the reasons that prompted human
beings to establish a power structure – state-thinkers resorted to
speculation. The earliest speculation theory is the Theory of
Force.
This theory treats force as the foundation of sate. Consent,
reason, rationality and such other factors are not needed. What is
required is mere brutal force. It is an old dictim of “might is right”.
Physical strength or brutal force is the foundation on which state
rests and expands. The theory speculates a situation of wandering
tribes. The tribes would be constantly wandering in search of
food. Then there would be fights with other tribes. The stronger
tribes would defeat the weaker tribes and the state emerges. The
vanquished tribes are subjugated. The victorious tribe will
establish its authority. Once victorious, the tribe would strive to
conquer as many small tribes as possible and firmly establish its
role. So a large state with fixed territory came into being.

We can clearly understand that this theory glorifies war

and aggression. Vanquished tribes are treated as slaves. Since it is
force which was the prime factor for the emergence of state, all
efforts are made to sustain it. The preservation of the strength of
state is the primary aim. A ruthless suppression of all opposition
or dissent is ‘justified”. A strict obedience to all the laws and
orders of the tribal chief is the essential character of this state.
There is hardly any scope for freedom, or a different set of values
other than those decided by the state. In fact, there is no
difference between state, society and government. It is all one
centralized power structure. State will decide on all social matters
like customs, morality, religious beliefs and so on. This theory was
later on used by the Dictators and warmongering states.

Divine Origin Theory and Divine Right Theory of State:

In the earliest days of human history, with a very limited
knowledge of natural surroundings, the human mind was
attributing to the will of a Super Natural Power for all that is
happening around it. Floods, famines, earthquakes and such other
natural calamities were attributed to the wrath of God. It is no
wonder then the cause for the origin of an established power
structure – state – was attributed to the will of God. God is above
all of us. He knows what is good for human beings. In order to
save the human beings from self-destruction he created an
organized power structure. This would establish laws and order,
protect the weak from the strong and pave the way for human
progress and happiness. By living in state and through the state
alone human beings can achieve their salvation. Dying for one’s
country is a religious duty. Treason is equal to sin. ‘Motherland is
superior even to heaven and all its pleasure’ so proclaim religious
texts. We have many religious texts, which explain the theory that
the state is created by God. In Mahabharata Shantiparva, the
origin of state is explained as follows. In the earlier days of human
civilization human beings were constantly at war with each other.
There was no law and order. There was no protection for life,
property of the weak people. So the people approached God, who
created a state and appointed a king to rule over them. So king is
the representative of God. We have this reference in many other
religious books. It is emphasized that king has an element of
Vishnu in him.
Since God had created the state and appointed king as His
representative, obedience to king is obedience to God. It would
be inviting the wrath of God. If we don’t follow His Commands.
The same logic applies to the orders of a king, as he is God in
human form. King can do no wrong. Whatever king did was for
the good of the people. Even an autocrat king who makes people
suffer, by passing bad laws is also created by God. May be God
wanted to punish the people for their sins and bad deeds they
had committed, so a bad king was sent to rule over them. The
lives of the human beings are invariably bound by the whims and
fancies of the ruler who is God on the earth.
This divine origin theory of state, transformed itself into
Divine Right Theory of kingship. Kings were claiming that they got
power through God. In Britain, a writer Filmer wrote a thesis on
The Power of King. It was published around 1680. The work in a
way defended the regime of Charles II. Filmer's theory states that
having created Adam, God gave him authority over his family, the
earth and its products. Adam was the first king and the present
kings derived power from him as hereditary rights.
Similarly James I, who ruled Britain declared the Laws of
free Monarchies which has following points. (1) King derived,
power straight from God (2) Kings have no obligation to people.
(3) Laws being the product of king’s mind, they are not above the
king. (4) King had complete power over the life and death of their
subjects.
4.2.1 Limitations of the Theories:
The theory of Force is too narrow. It does not take into
consideration various human factors that make people to work as
a group or a community. Force is not the only factor that unites a
community. In fact the absence of force or coercion unites people
more strongly. Social harmony, co-operation, willing to share joys
and sorrows, bring the people together. These aspects have been
totally neglected by Force Theory.
 War is not the only factor that creates state. International
trade, discovery of new sea-routes, new islands can create the
state. Many a time, out of administrative compulsions, new states
have been carved out of large sized empires. Force theory led to
dictatorships around the world. It negated the value of freedom.
Human dignity, individuality and concept of responsive
government are totally absent. The purpose of the State is too
narrowly defined. The end of the state is to promote human
happiness not to curb their freedom and keep them under
constant fear. Punishment and the fear of punishment are the
least important factors that promote order in a society. The
realization that law is for our own good makes consent and
reason as the basis of law.
The Divine Right Theory is totally unscientific and cannot
be taken seriously. It emerged during the period when religion
and religious thoughts dominated human mind. Knowledge was
restricted to a few privileged classes. Masses were ignorant. They
were misguided by religious thinkers. They frowned at any
discovery. All new ideas were curbed. There was stunted growth
of human mind. It created a band of blind followers who forget to
question authority and source of authority. It helped
unscrupulous rulers to perpetuate their misrule in the name of
God. Their cruel acts went unquestioningly. The theory gave a
license to kings to loot the people in the name of God. The later
writers particularly the social contract theorists exposed the
shortcomings of Divine Theory. They tried to offer a reasonably
logical theory to explain the origin of the state.
4.3 SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY- HOBBES, LOCKE ITS
LIMITATIONS

Social contract theory made consent as the basis of state.

Individual is central to the formation of state. A shared concern
for better living prompted people to form a political association
and invest power in it. The theory stressed the concept of
equality. Each individual was sovereign before the state was
formed. Then state represented the collective sovereignty of the
people. This theory postulates the end of the state as providing a
better life for people.
 Although a vague reference to the idea that people who
had no state found a state through contract could be found in
Shantiparva of Mahabharata or in writings of Greek writer
Glaucon, it was systematically developed by three modern
thinkers. They are Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) of England, John
Locke (1632-1704) of England and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-
1778) of France. These three writers developed a systematic
theory of the origin of state. These writers share certain common
features in their theoretical analysis of the social contract theory
of state. They also exhibit some differences. The common features
are the existence of state of nature before state came into
existence and the factors that prompted the formation of contract
to create state. The writers, however, differ on the conditions of
life in state of nature, terms of the contract and the powers of
state once it is established. The theory nevertheless had a great
impact on subsequent political thinking.

4.3.1 Social contract theory as developed by Thomas

Hobbes:
Thomas Hobbes (1581-1769) was one of the greatest
philosophers produced by English speaking people. He was born
in the family of Anglican clergy man and had a long life. He was
well versed in the subjects like Philosophy , History, Mathamatics
and was a multi-linguist. As a tutor in Royal family, he got an
opportunity to travel far and wide in Europe.
In his life-time he witnessed the Civil War in Britain. There
were continuous wars between parliamentary and monarchical
forces. He was the supporter of monarchy. Charles I was
beheaded and monarchy was abolished in England. This incident
had great impact on his thoughts and subsequent writings. He
argued that anarchy or the lawlessness situation is the most
dangerous and the worst situation a human society could face.
Human actions need to be systematically and even ruthlessly
curbed for the benefit of society.
His idea of origin of state could be found in his famous
work Leviathan. This describes an absolute state which is
sovereign both within and without. How and why such a powerful
political institution came into existence is the question one should
ponder. Hobbes had pessimistic view of human nature. For him
human beings are always selfish, greedy and aggressive. With
such a dark picture of human nature Hobbes builds up the theory
of origin of state.

State of Nature:
There was a time in the history of human civilization when
people lived without a government or state. In this ‘state of
nature‘each and every individual was sovereign. There was no
master above them. The state of nature was gloomy and sordid.
Social life was not existing. There were no shared values like
justice, notions of right and wrong. The only rule was power--
physical force – the basis of all action. You could take a thing it
you have power and keep it as long as you have strength. There
were continuous fights among human beings. These factors were
responsible for this warfare.
Competition, diffidence and glory guided human actions.
Competition for securing scarce natural wealth compelled the
primitive man to invade. Diffidence forced him to fight for his
survival as there was no trust between human beings. The third
factor glory induced him to fight for reputation. So, basically
violence was at work in state of nature. The state of nature is a
state of war. A war of every individual against every other. In such
a situation where would be scope for industry, innovation,
culture, and art. In short, according to Hobbes, “the life of human
beings in state of nature was solitary, poor, nasty, selfish and
short.”
This state of nature was governed by certain natural Laws.
Life and property were inalienable rights. No one should be
denied them. But to make laws effective we need a centralized
authority which is above all. Since in state of nature each
individual was master over himself, a way had to be found by
which the individuals could pool their sovereign rights together
and create new power structure. Thus the state is formed. The
point to be noted is all individuals in the state of nature decide to
surrender their sovereign rights to a third party. In a hypothetical
way each person says to other, ''I authorize and give up my right
of governing myself to this man or this assembly of men, on this
condition that thou give up thy rights to him and authorize all this
action in like manner.”(Hobbes).
 So a state was formed or a centralized power structure
came into existence. Individual would lose his sovereignty.
Following are the features of this contract.
1) The parties to the contract are individuals and not
groups.
2) The ruler is not a party to the contract. He is an
outsider.
3) The contract once signed is final. There is no way one
can back out from the contract. The sovereign state thus emerged
is final arbitrary of all disputes. The command of ruler is law.
Strict obedience to the command of ruler is the sacred
duty. Even bad laws need to be complied with because the
alternative is anarchy, lawlessness’ and a return back to the dark
days of state of nature.
However, although individual surrenders all his rights to a
sovereign master- an outside agency- he still has right to life and
properly with him. No state can ask an individual to kill himself or
confiscate his property. Yet, the state has right to regulate the
property and punish the criminals.
The state once established would be a final entity.
Individuals have no right to appeal against the orders of the
sovereign. The subjects have no right to change the government.
The powers of the sovereign are too vast. Hobbes opposes the
division of sovereignty. The state thus formed with the consent of
individuals becomes the supreme governing body. It covers all
aspects of human life. Freedom is what is permitted by state and
to do what is not prohibited by state. As the sovereign is above
law, there is no power to control him. Political obligation is based
on reason. Since any disruption in the power structure of state
might bring back state of nature individual would obey the state,
out of his own interest. Thus, Hobbes' theory explains the origin
and formation of an absolute state.

4.3.3 John Locke’s social contract theory: a guidance to

Liberal state:
John Locke is called as the father of Liberal Theory of
Democracy. His writings had a profound influence on the concept
of liberalism. The modern ideas of constitutionalism, right of
citizens, welfare activities of the state, and the democratic power
of people to effect and change the government could be
discovered in his writings. Perhaps the greatest contribution of
Locke to the set of human values is his plea for religious tolerance.
Modern secular democratic states are founded on the basis of
religious tolerance. In multi-religious, multicultural societies, the
value of religious tolerance is too clear to need an explanation.

Life and Times (1632-1704):

John Locke was born in the family of a puritan Somerset
lawyer in 1632. After his education at oxford he became a tutor at
oxford. However he did not continue for long and showed interest
in medicine. He came in contact with Lord Ashley, became his
physician and personal assistant. Lord Ashley was active in British
politics and Locke had a good experience of political life of those
times. In 1683, Locke went to exile in Holland because he was to
be prosecuted for his support to Monmouth’s rebellion, which
wanted to curb the Royal Powers. During the exile he met many
outstanding thinkers, who shaped his thinking at that time he
completed, “Essays Concerning Human Understanding”. After the
Glorious Revolution he returned to England in 1681. William of
Orange was invited to occupy the throne following its vacation by
King James II. After his return to England Locke became very
famous. He was appointed as commissioner of Appeals.
His contemporary events had a great impact on Locke’s
thinking and writings. That was the period when people resorted
to peaceful change of rulers without bloodshed. A new breeze of
democracy and freedom was blowing. Significant recognition of
individual freedom, the capacity of ordinary man to understand
the complex state matters and a general economic prosperity
around Europe, made Locke to have an optimistic and rosy picture
of human nature. Locke’s Two Treaties on Government, gives a
clear picture of this assessment of the theory of state.
Like all the earlier thinkers who visualized the emergence
of state from an analysis of human nature, Locke also begins his
analysis. Unlike Hobbes who could see only negative side of
human nature, Locke views human nature from a positive angle.
Human beings are basically good natured, decent and
cooperative. They are not always selfish, many times altruistic.
They are essentially peace loving.
With such a rosy picture of human nature it is not
surprising that Locke should view State of Nature as one of
paradise. Though individual free from authority of ruler in state of
nature, his conduct is governed by Laws of Nature. From natural
law an individual gets Natural Rights. Individuals realize these laws
of Nature by reason. All individuals in a State of nature get certain
rights- i.e. life, liberty and property. As they have natural right, the
human beings in state of nature also have certain natural duties.
Nobody has the right to dominate others. All are entitled for equal
sharing of natural endowment.
But there are always some corrupt elements in human
society. Their selfish deed might disrupt the otherwise peaceful
nature of the state of nature. Though the state of nature was well
founded on twin principles of liberty and equality peace was not
secure. Because there were always some men who are by nature
‘vicious and degenerated character.’ So an institutional
framework was needed to make the life of society more secure
and peaceful. An established law, impartial Judiciary, the
willingness of the executive to effectively implement the accepted
laws, were required to make the conditions in state of nature
more meaningful and secure. So the individuals decide to organize
a state. From society to state is a natural and logical
transformation.
There is view that Locke’s theory explains two contracts.
At first free individuals living in a state of nature, decide to form a
society. This is “original contract.” After society came into
existence, a sense of mutual co-operation developed among the
members of that society. Their actions were regulated by natural
Law. They respected natural rights of others. They were
industrious but not greedy. They were “social beings,” not
Hobbesian type of warmongering animal type. This ‘civil society’
creates a “state” through a contract. But the nature of this “state”
is totally different from that of Hobbes. Firstly the members who
constitute the government to administer the society are the
members of society only. They are not outsiders. The state thus
constituted does not get absolute powers. This is second
difference. The individuals in the society would still keep; certain
natural rights with them and surrender their sovereignty partly to
the state. Most important thing is the society has the ultimate
power to repudiate the contract entered into. Either a new
government is installed by peaceful methods or the government is
thrown out in violent form and society may slip back into state of
nature for sometimes till some alternative arrangements are
made to install a new govt. In a way Locke’s theory of state
pictures modern constitutional democracies. In a well-established
liberal democracy, the constitution and the election machinery
process could be a contract. People are supreme. They can either
renew the contract with the existing ruler or install a new one. In
extreme cases of constitutional break down, there could be
peoples’’ revolt, a situation where no government exists- till such
a time a new ruler is installed by society.
Ultimately it is the society which is supreme. State is only a
representative body with specific powers and responsibilities.
There would be periodically reviewed by the people. The purpose
of the State is to guarantee Natural rights and make their
implementation effective. There are large areas of human life in
society which are outside the control of state.
Locke gives the individuals the sovereign rights to revoke
the social contract and enter into a new contract. He specifies the
following circumstances where such an eventuality may emerge.
I) There might be a ruler or set of rulers who
establish their own arbitrary will in place of the
established laws.
II) When the rulers prevent the legislature from
assembling and acting freely for the purpose for
which it was established.
III) when by the arbitrary power of the ruler the
elections and the method of elections are altered
without the consent of the society.
iv) The prince or ruler sometimes may fail to protect his
countrymen from foreign aggression. In such cases he had
delivered his subjects into foreign power domination so
naturally the people have a right to disown the ruler.
 v) A situation where the person who had the supreme
executive power neglected the laws already enacted and could
not be executed.
Locke’s state is a state based on pluralism. He emphasized
a higher law which is above state law. While he grants the right of
the people to revolt against an unjust ruler, he specifically
emphasizes that people should resort to this only when they
realize that revolution would result in a better social order. This
should not be used for tiny mismanagement of public affairs. But
the very fact that people have this right is significant. It is a
defense against arbitrary rule. Government based on consent
coupled with right of people to rebel was the ”best fence against
rebellion”.
4.3.2 Limitations of the Theory:

Hobbes’ Theory of state of nature lacks historical proof.

Right from beginning men lived in groups. It is not very clear how
a solitary living would create a civic consciousness for the creation
of state. The theory is too narrow. It bases fear as the only base of
obedience to law. The rulers’ misdeeds are overlooked and
citizens are at the mercy of rulers. It is anti-democratic, anti-
liberal and paved way for the growth of fascist state. When Hegel
proclaimed “state is a marching God on earth.” He is only giving
an ideological refinement to Hobbes theory. Maintaining Law and
order is not the only function of the state. But for Hobbes it is the
fuction. In the process, the interests of the subjects for whom the
state in created is pushed to back ground.
Although Locke’s theory is an improvement in many ways,
yet his social contract theory also has some limitations. Though
his assessment of human nature is drastically different from
Hobbes’- the same limitation-how would individuals who had no
political knowledge develop the idea of state-applies to him.
There is also some confusion about the ”original contract theory.”
Did Locke mention two contracts one for society and one for
state, or is it critics’ interpretation.
In many places Locke implies that the state is the result of
the consensus of the majority. This leaves a serious lapse in the
theory. What happens to minority? Those who could not and did
not give their opinion on the formation of state? Should they
blindly adopt themselves to a new power structure? Who would
guarantee that their concerns would be addressed to?
Modern thinkers like Edmund Burke and Jeremy Bentham
criticize natural rights theory. For them rights are only those legal
provisions recognized by state when there is not legal sanction for
violation of a right, that right is just as good as non-existence.
Locke was also attacked by the Marxists for his insistence
that right to property is natural right and it is the sacred duty of
the state to protect it. For Marxists property is the results of
exploitation of poor by rich and Locke’s theory only gives
legitimacy for propertied clases to suppress the poor.
These are some limitations of the social contract theory
developed by Hobbes and Locke. It emphasized equality and
made man as the centre to state formation.

4.4 SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY AS DEVELOPED BY JEAN JACQUES

ROUSSEAU

Rousseau is a champion of “ Popular sovereignty.” It is

often said that without Rousseau there would have been no
French Revolution. Because the very foundation of the French
Revolution-- popular sovereignty found a theoretical explanation
in Rousseau’s writing. While appreciating the advantages of a
Democratic form of government, Rousseau found serious lapses in
the Representative model. Here the citizen exercises his sovereign
right only for a few seconds - during voting. At that point of time
he has absolute freedom to transform his sovereignty to whom so
ever he likes. But, then till next elections he is only a mute
spectator to all the misdeeds of his representative to whom he
has willingly delegated his power of sovereignty To over come this
short coming Rousseau visualized a system where government
affairs are run on regular referendum. People will be actually
governing themselves not through their representatives. The
essence of this philosophy is the capacity of human beings to
manage their affairs. The basis of the state is the popular will, not
mere law or force. Rousseau wanted to give an ethical basis to the
foundation of the state structure. There is a clear domination of
state over society in Hobbes’ theory, a clear demarcation of
powers and functions between state and society in Locke’s
writing. But in Rousseau’s writings we find a new trend emerging,
society will transform itself into state. State will be an extended
political hand of society. State will implement what society wills
and society wills what is good for entire community. There would
not be any conflicts between society and state. In fact they are
one and same, what binds them together is the sprit of ‘General
Will.” While analyzing the concept of ‘General will,” Rousseau
makes a historical review of human progress through ages. His
assessment of human nature, about the reasons for its
degeneration from one of compassion to greediness, makes all
interesting readings. Subsequent questions like why society
needed state, what would be the nature of such a political system
are answered. In fact Rousseau’s treatment of these issues are
highly radical to the point of controversies and contradictions.

Life and Times:

Like all the social philosophers Rousseau’s life and times
influenced his writings. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was
the greatest thinker France had produced. His father was a
watchmaker and Rousseau lost his mother within a month of his
birth. A disintegrated family background, had an impact on his life
and thinking. He was a born protestant and converted to catholic
by de-walans, whom Rousseau befriended. At the age of 30
Rousseau went to Paris and befriended Dide lot. In fact,
Rousseau’s vagabond life, his affairs with many women, his
unconventional approach to the institution of marriage, his views
on sex and family life, had some bearing on his writings.
He pictured the human being as a pure person became
corrupt because of the institutions created by society. He would
want to dismantle the ‘artificial institutions’ like ‘family’ ‘property’
and would like to go back to “original state of nature.” That would
be an utopian dream, since that would not be possible, what
would be desirable is creating a society of common interests,
where general consensus would strive to achieve ''common
good''. It would not be "We vs them'' but 'we with them'. There is
a need to create a society, based on good will, concern for other’s
interests, where individual would rise from his narrow selfish
interest and willingly participate in general social welfare. For that
a total transformation of the thinking of the individual in society is
important.
Rousseau’s writings include ‘Discourses on Inequality, The
Social Contract, Emile. He faced the wrath of the rulers of his
time. He was to be prosecuted for religious blasphemy. He went
to hiding to avoid imprisonment. In 1778 he died leaving a rich
heritage of literature on politics, history and human civilization.
Thinkers like Plato and Locke influenced Rousseau. Plato’s
concept of the ethical basis of the state and supremacy of the
community in guiding individuals’ actions, together with Locke’s
theory of natural rights had an impact on his writings. Rousseau
proceeded with his analysis of human nature. Rousseau in a way
picturizes two stages of human life. The early stage of solitary life
and the second stage of group living. The early stage of solitary
life, contrary to Hobbes’ description was one of peaceful
conditions. There could be no “War” in a situation of isolations.
According to Rousseau, in a world of ”natural men” men roamed
alone and had at most only’ the most occasional and fortuitous
meetings and connections. Men in this primitive conditions had
hardly anything to quarrel about. Primitive, non-social man would
be neither egoist nor an altruist, in any moral sense, he would
pre-moral.
With the advent of civilization, group life started and with
that many complications arose. Rousseau’s famous quotation
“man is born free but found himself in chains, everywhere,”
explains the fall of man from an ideal position of natural free
individual to a selfish person pursuing narrow selfish desires.
The first result of joining the group life is to carve out a
separate identity for himself. The day an individual started to fix
fences around a piece of land and claimed that piece of land
belonged to him he drew a distinction between himself and the
rest So all the inequalities that society inherited started from this
selfish desire of an individual to carve out a separate identity for
himself. Money, trade and commerce, only widened this cleavage,
so the social divisions of rich and poor, high and low, clever and
dumb appeared on the scene. They are all artificial inequalities
created by society. These created a false prestige and status. Men
forgot their ‘original nature’. Earlier they were healthy, good,
dumb and roughly equal to one another. Now they became sickly
evil, intelligent and highly unequal. This is the result of ”social;
life.” The “Progress is nothing but adding more misery to human
beings. Civilization had only multiplied the desires and inability to
fulfill them made human beings unhappy. Material progress
ushered by modern technology, reflected artificial inequalities,
was corrupting and wrong.
In order to overcome these shortcomings of group life,
men decide to create an institution which would lessen the selfish
character of the individual, kindle a light of social co-operation
and establish a social order based on justice. So the emphasis is
creating a “Right Social order.” It is possible to achieve this.
Because beneath the artificial civilized human being lies the
natural human being. He has a distinct quality- going back to
primitive stage. The quality of compassion, in him makes it painful
for him to witness the suffering of any fellow- being he could
recognize as resembling himself. That feeling has not yet dried up.
In fact it is a stimulating force that drives him to do something for
the members of his Community. Thus a background is formed to
create a social contract.
In this new social order- state-equality would be the basic
foundation stone. Despite the artificial inequalities created by the
modern civilization, all human beings possess equal power in
creating a new social order. So all the members of the society
surrender their individual sovereignty to themselves. The contract
is among themselves. A society in a way transforms itself to a
state. That means an individual gives up his power to the
community. Since he is also a member of that community, what
he poses as an ’individual’ he would gain a “member of the
society.” So nobody has lost anything. What has happened is the
“social goodness” priority outwitted individual preference. Here
Rousseau introduces his famous terms “General will” and
“Common good”. Common good is the end for which the new
social order is created and the “General Will” is the motivational
force to achieve it.
In Rousseau’s thought every individual is a split
personality. There is a ‘particular will’ which makes him to pursue
his selfish desires, even at the cost of the social good, and the
‘General will’ which views the community well-being as a desired
objective. The formation of a new state through the contract
should help to evolve the General Will. General Will, will
represents the will of the community as a whole. It reflects
“Popular Sovereignty.” Rousseau Proclaims “General will is always
right. It can never be wrong.”
The General will, will be the source of all laws. It cannot be
represented by anybody. Rousseau had the concept of
“participatory Democracy” when he talked of General Will.
Freedom means not following the arbitrary orders of others, but
following one’s own will. If the community passes the law which
reflects the will of entire community, that cannot be called
arbitrary. Because the individual is also a party to the formation of
General will. So what is required is the spirit of reconciliation
between individual actions and community welfare. It is possible
only when direct democracy takes roots.
Since General Will represents the common good, any
opposition to it would be disservice to the community welfare. In
those conditions, we should presume that an individual under the
impulsions of “Particular will” had behaved that way. So he needs
to be free from his selfish desires and made to see the advantages
the Community is getting through that particular Public Policy. In
these circumstances the use of coercion is justified ‘Sometimes
men are forced to be free’ Rousseau proclaims. One can easily
discern the dangerous implications from such thesis. If you
proclaim, that after the community will has arrived at a public
policy and opposition to it is based on selfishness and its
suppression is ‘Justified, then naturally it turns out to be a
handmade device for dictators. Every ruler would proclaim the
opposition to his policies are not reflection of “Vox populi” (voice
of people) but of a greedy selfish voice, which need to be curbed
in the interest of “People.”
The problem of discovering General Will is complicated
and Rousseau did not provide any institutional mechanisms to it.
Is General will the majority will of the community? Is it unanimous
will? Or is it wisdom of certain members of the Community who
have risen above particular will and give guidance to the
community? an idea Plato developed in Republic (the Guardians).
Many thinkers argue that Rousseau started as a great
champion of’ Democratic Will’ but eventually paved the way for
elite dictatorship. It is not uncommon for the dictators to proclaim
that they “represent General Will”, and opponents are enemies of
people,”.
Yet despite these shortcomings Rousseau sounded a
warning that the real democracy cannot be substituted by
representative system. Because “General will cannot be alienated
nor represented.” People should be constantly watching the
legislative will. General will could be treated as vocal public
opinion, it is such a strong force, that no government can afford to
ignore it. Rousseau’s ideal of direct democracy though not
feasible in modern complex industrial Societies, it could still be
tried as an experiment it small rural settings.
Rousseau’s social contract is a contract by the entire
society to give a better state for themselves.

4.5 SUMMARY

The theories of state have been central to the study of

politics. Broadly speaking they are classical traditional theories
and modern theories. The traditional theories like Divine origin
theory, Force theory, though unscientific explained the origin of
state from the perspective of Law and order. The function of state
is to maintain order and use of coercion is justified. They have
only the aspect of “stability” as the core function of state. As
contrast to them, the social contract theory treated state as not
natural but artificial creation by society. All the three thinkers,
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau stressed the concept of “equality”
while the formation of contract. The functions of state have been
far more widened. The state is bound to honour the contract. It
has got authority not from God but from society. The three
thinkers however differed in their assessment of the functions and
powers of the state. While Hobbess stressed legal sovereignty,
Locke pleaded limited government and Rousseau wanted
participatory Democracy. The theories were modified by later
thinkers.