EVOLUTONARY THEORY ON THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE

Introduction
With regard to the question of the origin of the state, there are several theories that offer their
own respective explanation. These are the divine theory, the force theory, the genetic theory, the social
contract theory and the Marxist theory. However, all these theories may have valid points to some extent
and may be the important theories, but they are not the adequate theories. They suffer from wrong
assumptions, lopsidedness and wrong predictions.
On a careful consideration of the existent evidences, it may be said that the state is not created at
a single point of time. It is the result of long historical and evolutionary process. There are various
factors which have played the important role in the evolution of the state. These factors are the
following.
Kinship - McIver explains, ‘kinship creates society and society at length creates the state’. In the
primitive society, kinship or blood relationship is the first and the strongest bond of social relationship. It
is kinship that creates society and society ultimately develops in to the state. From the authority of the
father to the authority of the tribal chief and finally it leads to the authority of the ruler in the state. Thus,
kinship contributes to the emergence of the state.
Religion – Allied with the factor of kinship is religion. Religion plays an important role in forging links
of unity in the primitive society. Wilson says that religion ‘is the sign and seal of common blood, the
expression of its oneness, its sanctity, and its obligation’. The earliest form of worship among human
beings is the ancestral worship and then the worship of natural forces. It is the worship that strengthens
tribal links. In fact, it is evident that in tribal societies the tribal chiefs are also the religious heads
performing sacrifices, magic and sorcery.
Force – Another important factor in the formation of the state is the role of force. As the role of kinship
and religion weakened, force becomes essential to maintain peace and order. The tribal chief has to make
use of force to get compliance from the members of his group. Similarly, in order to prevent external
aggression as well as to expand his own territory and to keep those who are defeated under his control,
force is necessary to be exercised by the leader of a particular tribal group.
Economic factors – The appearance of private property is a big leap forward for the formation of the
state. The institution of private property gives rise to class distinctions. For the settlement of property
disputes and particularly to protect the property rights and interests of the propertied class against the
haves not, state came in to existence
Political consciousness – Aristotle says that man is essentially a political animal. It means that man by
nature is conscious of the fact that he has to live in the political organization. The realization of men that
the advantages of living together in the politically organized institution are greater than living an
independent life plays an initiative role in the formation of the state. This factor is the most indispensible
for the evolution of the state.

Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is clear that the state was not created at a particular time but it evolved
historically. Several factors contributed towards its evolution.
The explanation given by the historical or evolutionary theory on the origin of the state is the most
convincing of all the explanations. Therefore, the theory is superior to all the theories explaining about
the origin and development of the state. It is free from wrong assumptions and it is a comprehensive
theory. It is more plausible also because it is based on historical facts.
 SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

Though there were scholars in the ancient time and the Middle Ages who wrote and supported the theory
that the state was originated out of a social contract, yet its forceful exposition is offered by the writings
of the trinity of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1709) and J.J Rousseau (1712-1778).
Hobbes’ social contract theory
Thomas Hobbes social contract theory of the origin of the state is contained in his famous work, the
Leviathan, published in 1651. While building his theory, Hobbes was influenced by the turbulence of the
Puritan Revolution during the first part of the 17th century England which led to the execution of Charles I
in 1649. Hobbes was also influenced by the scientific revolution that began in the same century.
The State of Nature
Before the existence of the state, Hobbes believes that men live in the state of nature. Given the kind of
human nature, man lives in the state of nature under conditions of continual fear and danger of death as
man is the enemy of every man. The life of man is therefore solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.. Men
in the state of nature were essentially selfish and egoistic. Contrary to Aristotle and medieval thinkers,
who saw human nature as innately social, Hobbes viewed human beings as isolate egoistic, self interested
and seeking society as a means to their ends. Unlike most defenders of absolute government, who start
out with the gospel for inequality, Hobbes argues that men were naturally equal in mind. This basic
equality of men is a principal source of trouble and misery. Men have in general equal faculties; they also
cherish like hope and desires. It they desire the same thing, which they cannot both obtain, they become
enemies and seek to destroy each other. In the state of nature, therefore men are in a condition of war, of
every man against every man and Hobbes adds that the nature of the war consists not in actual fighting
“but in the known disposition there to” force and fraud the two cardinal virtues of war , flourish in this
atmosphere of perpetual fear and strife fed by three Psychological causes: competition, diffidence and
glory. In such a condition, there is no place for industry, agriculture, navigation , trade; there are no arts
or letter; no society , no amenities of civilised living, and worst of all, there is continual fear and danger
of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’.

Natural rights and natural laws.

In the state of nature man has natural rights and is governed by natural laws. Natural right is the right of
every man to do what he thinks fit to preserve his existence. Natural law is discovered by man with his
power to reason and teaches him to reconcile with the rights of others. Natural law teaches man to (1)
seek peace, (2) abandon natural rights and (3) honour their contracts.
Social contract
After presenting a horrible and dismal picture of the state of nature, Hobbes proceeds to discuss how man
can escape from such an intolerably miserable condition. ‘In the second part of the Leviathan, Hobbes
creates his commonwealth by giving new orientation to the old idea of the social contract, a contract
between ruler and ruled. Hobbes thus builds his commonwealth. ‘the only way to erect such a common
power as may be able to defend them ( i.e, men) from the invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one
another is to confer all their power and strength upon one Man or upon one Assembly of men that may
reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices unto one will the sovereign himself stands outside the
covenant. He is a beneficiary of the contract, but not a party to it. Guided by the law of nature, men
decide to give up their turbulent life by entering into a contract by which the state is created. Each man
gives up his natural rights unconditionally in favour of one person or an assembly of persons who is not a
party to the contract. Hobbes is in favour of one person to be given such power. The sovereign establishes
peace and security and in return enjoys absolute, unlimited, inalienable and indivisible authority. The
individuals have no right to resist the authority of the established sovereign authority except in extreme
cases when the sovereign fails to ensure safety and security to individuals’ lives.
Hobbes social contract theory, thus, seeks to support Monarchical absolutism..
Criticisms
 The theory is historically wrong. History does not show any record that a state was formed by the
contract and that men have ever lived in the state of nature.
 The theory is logically wrong. Without prior idea of the state, it is illogical to believe that the
people entered into a contract to form the state.
 It is difficult to imagine and belief that men enjoyed rights in the state of nature. Without the state
to recognize and enforce the rights, it is impossible for the individuals to enjoy rights.
 Contract in order to be valid has to be entered by two parties and has to be enforced by the state.
But the theory wrongly believes that the contract is signed by the single party, that is, the people
among themselves.
 The theory is lopsided as it takes only one factor for the origin of the state, i.e., consent of the
people but neglects the other factors.
 The theory is dangerous because it seeks to establish the absolute rule of the Leviathan which goes
against democratic principles.

LOCKE’ SOCIAL COTRACT THEORY

John Locke’s theory of the origin of the state was conceived against the background of the Glorious
Revolution of 1688. The revolution was the result of struggle against the absolute rule of the Stuart
Monarchs which eventually led to their downfall and the establishment of limited monarchy in England.
Locke’s social contract theory of the origin of the state is contained in the Two Treatises of Government,
published in 1689.
State of Nature
Before the existence of the state, there is the state of nature which is not a pre social but only pre-political
condition. Men in the state of nature enjoy the natural right to property. Right to property for Locke
means three rights: right to life, right to liberty and right to estate and these are inviolable. Also men are
governed by the law of nature which teaches them to respect the rights of others. Hence, the state of
nature is a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation where each one has equal rights.
The Lockean state of nature, far from being a war of all is a state of ‘Peace good will, mutual assistance
and preservation”. It represents a pre-political rather than a pre-social condition. Men do not indulge in
constant warfare in it, for peace and reason prevail in it. The state of nature is governed by a law of
nature. This law obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but
consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm one another in his life, health,
liberty or possessions for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise maker; all
the servants of sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his
property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasures.
In the Lockean state of nature men has equal natural rights to life, liberty and property together known as
Right to Property. These rights are inalienable and inviolable for they are derived from the Law of Nature
which is God’s reason. Everyone is bound by reason not only to preserve oneself but to preserve all
mankind in so far as his own preservation does not come in conflict with it. Men are free and equal and
there is no commonly acknowledged superior whose orders they are obliged to obey. Everybody is the
judge of his own actions. But though the natural condition is a state of liberty, it is not a state of license.
Nobody has the right to destroy himself and the destroy the life of any other men.
Though, condition in the state of nature is good but it is not perfect. It has certain problems that need
solutions. In the state of nature, there is no guaranteed peace; no established and definite law, no judges to
settle disputes and no executive to enforce just decisions.
The Social Contract
To avoid the inconveniences of the state of nature, two contracts are made: the first contract is to create
the civil society or state and the second contract is to institute the government.
The first is a contract made by all men among themselves whereby they agree to submit to the majority
rule, to give up certain of their rights but retain their natural rights. Therefore, the problem is to form civil
society by common consent of all men and transfers their right of punishing the violators of natural law to
an independent and impartial authority. For all practical purposes, after the formation of civil society this
common consent becomes the consent of the majority; all parties must submit to the determination of the
majority which carries the force of the community. So all men unanimously agree to incorporate
themselves in one body and conduct their affairs by the opinion of the majority after they have set up a
political or civil society, the next step is to appoint a government to declare and execute the natural law.
This Locke calls the supreme authority established by the commonwealth or civil society. The second
contract is made between the established civil society and the government, by which the government is
entrusted with the power to make, interpret and enforce law which is essential to protect the natural rights
of the individuals.
The power of the government is not absolute. People can over throw it if it violates the terms of the
contract.
Locke, thus, propagates and supports limited or constitutional government. Also, Locke’s social contract
theory establishes political sovereignty.

Criticisms
 The theory is historically wrong. History does not show any record that a state was formed by the
contract and that men have ever lived in the state of nature.
 The theory is logically wrong. Without prior idea of the state, it is illogical to believe that the
people entered into a contract to form the state.
 It is difficult to imagine and belief that men enjoyed rights in the state of nature. Without the state
to recognize and enforce the rights, it is impossible for the individuals to enjoy rights.
 The theory is lopsided as it takes only one factor for the origin of the state, i.e., consent of the
people but neglects the other factors.
 Locke’s theory is dangerous because it allows the people to revolt against the government.

Rousseau’s Social Contract Theory

Jean Jacques Rousseau, the great French philosopher of the eighteen century provides an elaboration of
his social contract theory on the origin of the state in his famous work, The Social Contract, published in
1762
Unlike Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau has no intention to support any political cause, though his writings
inspired the French Revolution of 1789.
State of Nature
Rousseau begins his theory with the assumption that the state of nature precedes the state. He believes
that man before he creates the state he lives in the state of nature. Man in the hypothetical state of nature
is a ‘noble savage’. He leads a life of primitive simplicity and idyllic happiness. He is independent,
contented, self sufficient, healthy, and fearless, has no intention to harm others and meet the others
occasionally only when compelled by sexual desire and sympathy. Each man in the state of nature is
completely equal with the others.
The noble savage and perfect life is soon disrupted by the increase of population and reason. The two
factors are responsible for the emergence of the family and private property. The emergence of private
property leads to economic inequality. Economic inequality on the other hand becomes the prolific source
of all other inequalities. According to Rousseau, men in the state of nature lived in isolation and had a
few elementary, easily appeased needs. It was neither a condition of plenty or scarcity, neither there was
neither conflict nor cooperative living. There was no language or knowledge of any science or art. In such
a situation man was neither happy nor unhappy, had no conception of just and unjust virtue or vice. The
noble savage was guided by two instincts self love or the instinct of self preservation and sympathy or the
gregarious instinct. As these instincts are always beneficial, man is by nature good. But self love and
sympathy often come in to clash with each other hence, according to Rousseau, man takes the help of a
sentiment to resolve the clash, which men can conscience . But since conscience is only a blind sentiment,
it will not teach men what is in fact right. Conscience, therefore, requires a guide and that guide is reason
which develops in man as alternate courses of action present themselves before him. Rousseau’s taught
that reason was the outgrowth of an artificial life a man in organized society and that the results of its
development were calamities.

Social Contract
The disruption of the happy life in the state of nature, makes mankind to lead a warring, murderous,
wretched and horrible life. Mankind desires to give up this kind of highly unpleasant life but to return to
the state of nature is impossible. The only way out is to make a contract of each with all and all with each
for the creation of the civil society In Rousseau’s social contract man does not surrender completely to a
sovereign ruler, but each man gives himself to all, and therefore gives himself to nobody in particular.
Rousseau shows in the social contract a much greater appreciation of civil society as compared with the
state of nature than he showed in his earlier writings. As a result of the contract, private person ceases to
exist for the contract produces a moral and collective Body, which receives from the same act its unity, its
common identity, its life and its will.

General Will
When individuals sign a contract to institute a civil society, each man puts into a single mass his person
and all his power under the supreme direction of the general will and he receives rights as a part of the
indivisible whole. The general will is the sum total of the real will of the individuals. The real will as
distinguished from particular will, aims at general welfare of all the members of the community. The
general will is sovereign. It can force the individuals to be free. Further, it is inalienable, indivisible and it
is always infallible. Rousseau also makes differences between will of all and general will. There is often a
great deal of differences between the will of all and the general will. ‘the latter considers only the
common interests, while the former takes private interest into account and is no more than a sum of
particular wills. Thus the will of all is the aggregate of all the wills of the individuals of the community
about their private interest into account and is no more than a sum of particular wills. Thus the will of all
is the aggregate of all the wills of the individuals of the community about their private interest, wills
which partly clash and partly coincide mutually. But the general will represents the aggregate of these
wills which is common to all the citizens. In other words, the essential difference between the will of all
and general will is one of motivation, i.e., service to the community without any prejudice or
discrimination.

Rousseau’s social contract theory advocates a direct form of democracy. It seeks to establish popular
sovereignty.
Criticisms
1. The theory is historically wrong. History does not show any record that a state was formed by the
contract and that men have ever lived in the state of nature.
2. The theory is logically wrong. Without prior idea of the state, it is illogical to believe that the
people entered into a contract to form the state.
3. It is difficult to imagine and belief that men enjoyed rights in the state of nature. Without the state
to recognize and enforce the rights, it is impossible for the individuals to enjoy rights.
4. Contract in order to be valid has to be entered by two parties and has to be enforced by the state.
But the theory wrongly believes that the contract is signed by the single party, that is, the people
among themselves.
 5. The theory of general will is too abstract
6. The theory opens for the totalitarianism of the majority. But totalitarianism whether in the hands
of one individual, minority or majority is always dangerous.

MARXIST THEORY OF THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE

At the outset, it should be remembered that Marx and Engels were highly impressed and influenced by
the research done by Lewis H. Morgan, an American anthropologist who asserted that the primitive man
lived under an order which was both communal and stateless.
Marx and Engels accepted the thesis that the state has not existed from the very beginning. It is a product
of human society at certain stage of social development. It is maintained by them that the earliest form of
society is the primitive communal system. In the primitive society, the method and the means of
production are simple. People collectively engage themselves in animal hunting and fruit gathering. The
fruits of the labour are shared equally by them. There is no class division in the society. The primitive
communal society, however, gradually changes with change taking place in the productive system.
Agriculture comes in to being and this is followed by the growth of the manufacturing sector and other
complicated human economic activities and subsequently division of labour emerges in society. The
means of production which are privately owned are increasingly concentrated in a few hands. This
resulted in the class division in the society.
The society is divided in to two economic classes, namely the rich or the propertied class and the poor or
propertied-less class. The former is a minority but dominant class whereas the latter is the majority and
the dominated class. The two classes are constantly engaged in class struggle as the dominant class
always tries to exploit and oppress the dominated class who desire a share in the production of the
community. It is out of the fierce class struggle which the society cannot reconcilable any longer the
state come in to existence. It originates to protect the interests of the dominant against the dominated
class in the society.
The state is always characterised by class struggle and the use of it by the propertied class to dominate,
exploit and oppress the dominated poor class of workers. However, the class struggle and the level and
extent of exploitation reaches the highest level and extent in the capitalist state. The capitalist state,
however according to the Marxists, is ultimately destroyed by a revolution of the proletariat. Its
dissolution is subsequently followed by the establishment of the socialist state or the dictatorship of the
proletariat. This is only a transitional stage and when the entire capitalist element is eliminated, the
communist system appears. The coming of communism is through a gradual process. Communism is a
classless and stateless society. The state, thus, is not natural but man made. Also, it has to finally
disappear and is replaced by communism. Communism is characterised by equality and classlessness.

Criticisms
Though a forceful theory, yet Marxist theory of the origin and development of the state suffers from the
following shortcomings.
1. The theory neglects the contribution of the other factors towards the origin of the state. It takes in
to account only the economic factor. In other words, the theory is too economic deterministic in
nature.
2. The theory seeks to establish dictatorship of the proletariat. But dictatorship of any kind is always
dangerous to the individuals.
3. The aim of establishing a classless and stateless society is a utopian exercise.