State - I 45 industrialisation and technology rising superior to many states much bigger than itself. Ac a rule, the large size of territory is an asset to the state. The USA and the USSR became Super Powers in the 20th century owing to various factors, one of large territory, while states, like Guatemala and Monaco are tiny and insignificant and their very existence is not widely known. The argument that democracy has greater chances of success in small states than in the big ones does not hold water in the light of actual experience the world. Democracy has miserably failed in small states like the Latin American States, Iran, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh, whereas it has succeeded well in big territorial states like the USA, where federalism, decentralisation of power and local self-governing institutions have found great scope. 3. Government (a) Meaning: Government, which is the ruling or managing body, is the instrument or machinery used by the state to express its will, enforce it and act. All persons in a state cannot be in the ruling body to enforce the will of the state. Only some of the persons are entrusted with the work of acting for and on behalf of the state. These persons form the machinery called government. The term government was originally derived from the Latin term gubernaculam, meaning the device required for steering a vessel. The device of government steers the ship of state. A state cannot function without the governmental machinery. There are different forms of government: despotic, democratic, monarchical, republican, militarist and so on. A modern government has mainly three branches: executive, legislative and judiciary. (b) Duties: Maintaining law and order punishing the law-breakers and meting out justice, protecting the law-abiding and promoting the general welfare of the people are the duties of government. (c) Difference between State and Government: The difference between the two terms state and government as used in political science should be understood. Many a time the two are used as synonymous terms. People speak about state order, state regulation or control, state property and so on. By this they only mean, government order, government regulation or control, government property and so on. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
46 Political Science – I The following points of difference between state and government may be noted: (i) State is the whole, and government is only its part or one of its elements. (ii) State stands for the entire community or whole population within the territorial limits, whereas government means only a group of persons authorised to wield legitimate coercive power on behalf of the state. (iii) Sovereignty or supreme power is vested in the whole state. Government only derives it from the state and exercises it on behalf of the state. (iv) Comparatively speaking, state is an abstract concept; on the other hand, government is something that is concrete. Obviously, the term Government of India is concrete, when compared with the relatively abstract term State of India or Republic of India. (v) State is relatively permanent; government is not. Governments are relatively temporary, as they may change or fall according to the election results or some other cause. Unlike government, state enjoys continuity as long as it wields sovereignty. 4. Sovereignty (a) Meaning: Sovereignty, which is one of the four constituent elements of state, means supreme power. It manifests itself in the internal and external fields. Internally it means the supreme power of state to regulate, control, coerce and punish all individuals or groups of individuals or associations within the territorial limits of state. Externally it stands for complete independence. A state in the external sphere does not take orders from any foreign state or power. However, in the international field a state may subject itself to treaties, agreements and other obligations. But these are accepted on a strictly voluntary basis. The USA, the Soviet Russia USSR and India or Bharat are examples of full-fledged States having all the four constituent elements including sovereignty. California which is a part of the USA or Karnataka which is a part of India is not a state in the same sense, as it has only three elements: people, territory and government, but not sovereignty, the most essential element. California is an autonomous state of the USA, a federation. Karnataka is an autonomous state of India, a federation. Thus the unit or province of a state cannot be considered as a full-fledged state, as it lacks sovereignty. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
State - I 47 (b) Comprehensive, Exclusive and Permanent: Sovereignty can be regarded as comprehensive, exclusive and permanent supreme power of the state. It may be regarded as the soul of the state; when a state loses sovereignty, it ceases to be a state and is reduced to the position of other organisations or associations in the state. Internally there should be no rival or parallel organisation wielding similar supreme power. There cannot be two states within the territorial limits of a state. A state does not share sovereignty either with any association within the state or with other states. A state has a will of its own and this remains unaffected by the will of any other state or any external organisation. (c) Need of International Recognition: No state is completely isolated from the rest of the world. It has got to have dealings with other states in the world, which has become “small” owing to the elimination of time and distance by modern means of transport and communication, and technological developments. Besides the four essential elements or attributes, a state needs recognition as a state from other states. But it should be made very clear here that the failure to recognise a certain state by one or few states in the world does not deprive it of its statehood. Recognition cannot be regarded as an indispensable attribute. Israel continues to be a state, even though some states do not recognise it. Recognition was not given to the USSR by the USA and several other state’s for more than a decade since its birth after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. Similarly the People’s Republic of China had to wait for many years to secure recognition from several states like the USA since the completion of the Chinese Revolution in 1949. 4.4 State and Association Meaning of Association An association is a group of people, who organise themselves for realising certain specific objectives according to certain rules and procedure mutually agreed upon. An association is not a mere crowd or a loose gathering of people. It is an organised group, with clear-cut aims and with well-defined methods of achieving them. There are various types of associations at different levels and for different purposes. They render useful services to members and make life easier and better. The state reaps advantages, if associations function efficiently and smoothly for the good of the community. They enrich the lives of citizens, who find their lives more purposeful CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
48 Political Science – I and meaningful as members of associations. They also become better and more enlightened citizens, who strengthen the state. Pluralists like Harold Laski, Maclver, G.D.H. Cole and others praise the role of associations in society and argue for arming them with sovereignty, as in their opinion, they are not less important than the state. The Pluralist viewpoint is discussed elsewhere. The distinction between state and association has to be clearly understood: 1. Association Membership Voluntary: All persons permanently living within the territorial limits of the state automatically become the members or citizens of the state. They have no choices. They cannot refuse to he members and fail to meet their obligations to the state. They shall pay taxes and discharge other duties as citizens. On the other hand, the membership of an association if purely voluntary. Nobody can ever be coerced to become the member of a religious association, sports club, labour union or any other association. 2. Association Temporary: A state relatively speaking is permanent; but an association is temporary. An association may work only for some time, and close down owing to financial difficulties or lack of interest in members. The doors of a state can never be closed down. Government may change or fall, but the state continues as long as it enjoys sovereignty. 3. No Territorial Limits for Associations: No association is restricted by territorial frontiers. The membership of an association may go beyond the frontiers of a state and its members may be found in many states, if it happens to be an international association like the Red Cross. At the same time, there may be an association, which is strictly local in character. In the case of a state its sovereignty is strictly limited by its territorial frontiers, beyond which its writs cannot run. 4. State Sovereignty Exclusive: The state alone has sovereignty, which enables it to exercise coercive power over its members. No association enjoys sovereignty, and every association is subject to the sovereignty of the state. All associations are non-sovereign bodies. Member or citizens of a state are punished, if they violate law; but members of an association cannot be arrested or imprisoned. At the most, members may he fined or CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
State - I 49 expelled from an association for contravening its rules. A state is competent even to sentence a person to death, if its court of law gives such a verdict. But no association can ever imagine to exercise such a power over its members. A state has power to create new associations or order associations to close down, if they are contrary, to law. It is supreme and is above all associations. 5. Limited Scope of Association Activity: The scope of an association established to achieve a particular objective, which may he social, economic, commercial, cultural, political or literary is limited. An association does not go beyond the restricted field of activity for which it has been started. On the other hand, the scope of state activity is very wide, almost without limits. 4.5 State and Society The terms ‘State’ and ‘Society’ have been used with much vagueness and ambiguity inter in common use. They have been wrongly used changeably. In fact, ‘society’ is a comprehensive term that includes all types of social organisations including the state. These society precedes the state but state has more powers than the society. The society is more inclusive and complex while state is primarily political in orientation. There are differences between them, but they tend to affect each other. The distinction between them have been outlined below: 1. Society is a social system while state is a political system. Society is wider than the state. Society is the complex of social relations formal and developed through various groups and associations. State is on important part of society and refers only to the politically organised portion of society. At best it can be said to be society in its political aspect. 2. Society covers the whole range of human activities and relationships-economic, religious, cultural, polytical, domestic etc. The state is concerned only with certain types of human relationship particularly those which involve power, rule and authority. 3. Society is prior to the state. Man by nature is a social animal and different forms of society have existed from time to time to serve his needs. State is a developed form of social organisation and is a later growth. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
50 Political Science – I 4. Territoriality is a distinguishing feature of state, not of society. The state has a definite territory but the society has not a definite or fix territory. 5. They differ with regard to the function performed, society regulates every form of social conduct while state regulates only external relationship of men by maintaining law and order. 6. Society is a much wider term than the state and includes organised as well as unorganised groups. State acts and operates through an organised government which formulates, expresses and realizes its will and purposes. 7. State possesses sovereignty, society does not. The state operates through the instruments of compulsion and coercion. The state applies force to maintain law and order also to implements laws and policies. Society has no coercive power comparable to that of the state. Authority in society is based on customs and traditions. 8. Finally, failure to distinguish between society and state can have dangerous implications for democracy and individual freedom. 4.6 Are the Units of a Federation States? A federal state consists of two sets of government, namely central and or federal and proncial. The provinces are known as the units of a federation. They are often called ‘states’ as in India and the USA. But here the term ‘state’ is loosely used. The units of a federation like Odesha, Bihar, Maharashtra in India do have population, territory and government but have no sovereignty power. They can not have independent foreign policy like declaring war, concluding peace or making treaties with foreign states. They too enjoy limited power under their respective constitutions. Their government can be taken over as in India, by the union government an the ground of failure of the constitutional machinery of the state. 4.7 Is the United Nations a State? United Nations is not a state. It is a voluntary co-operation of sovereign states. Its membership is open to all peace loving states. The member states do not given up their CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
State - I 51 sovereignty after joining. It is not a ‘state’ but an association of states. Some powerful states manipulate the UN to serve their own end. It does not possess sovereignty. Member states are free to withdraw or partially violate the resolutions of the UN. So the UN is not a state. 4.8 Summary Most of the political scientists who defined and analysed the meaning of the state are of the opinion that the state has three basic elements, i.e., population, territory and Government. But a very few political thinkers live Jean Bodin, J.W. Garner and phillimore add the fourth one to the elements of the state and that is sovereignty. Now a days sovereignty is the most vital element of the state. Sovereignty is the element which of the state. Sovereignty is the element which distinguishes the state from all other associations. 4.9 Key Words/Abbreviations Polis: Greak term means city-state Civitas: Roman term means city-state La Stato: Means state USA: United State of America USSR: Unon of Soviet Social is Republics UN: United Nations Sovereignty: Means supreme power of the state Federation: A state having dual government, i.e., Central and Provincial 4.10 Learning Activity 1. State is an association of associations? Prove it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
52 Political Science – I 2. Sovereignty is the social of the state. Justify it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Prove that United Nations is not a state. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.11 Unit End Questions (MCQ and Descriptive) A. Descriptive Types Questions 1. What do you mean by State? 2. What do you mean by Government? 3. What is sovereignty? 4. Is UN a state? 5. Define state. Describe its various elements. 6. Discuss the differences between the state and other associations. B. Multiple Choice/Objective Type Questions 1. __________ among the following first used the term state. (a) Plato (b) Aristotle (c) Hobbes (d) Machiavelli 2. __________distinguishes the state from other associations. (a) Population (b) Government (c) Sovereignty (d) Law 3. __________ among the following is not an element of the state. (a) Territory (b) Government (c) Sovereignty (d) Membership of the UN CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
State - I 53 4. A state has __________ elements. (b) two (a) one (d) four (c) three Answers 1. (d), 2. (c), 3. (d), 4. (d) 4.12 References 1. Asirvatham, Eddy, ‘Political Theory’, 1957. 2. Gilchrist, Principles of Political Science, 1961. 3. Garner, J.W., Political Science and Government. 4. Nandi, Amar, Introduction to Political Science, 1959. 5. Jenks, E., The State and the Nation. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
54 Political Science – I UNIT 5 STATE - II Structure: 1.0 Learning Objectives 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Marxian View About State 5.3 Liberal View About State 5.4 Gandhian View About State 5.5 Summary of the Unit 5.6 Key Words/Abbreviations 5.7 Learning Activity 5.8 Unit End Questions (MCQ and Descriptive) 5.9 References 5.0 Learning Objectives The state is the most powerful and most universal of all social institutions. It is the supreme organisation in society which controls and coordinates the activities of individuals and associations within its territorial domain. Some kind of authority structure has emerged at every stage of civilization to ensure internal security, protection from external attack and ensure the observance of rules regulating social life. It is the most powerful of all organisations which enables individuals to realize social good on the large possible scale. But a good deal of controversy exists as to the proper functions and role of the state. This unit devotes discussion on Marxian, Liberal and Gandhian view about state. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
State - II 55 After studying this unit, you will be able to: Explain the view of the Karl Marx and his followers regarding state. Discuss the views of the liberal philosophers on state. Describe the Gandhian view about state. 5.1 Introduction The state is the most powerful of all organisations which enables individuals to realize social good on the large possible state. It can attain this objective by providing the necessary opportunities to individuals and groups for development of individual personalities. But a good deal of controversy exists as to the proper functions of the state and its necessity. No doubt, the state is a forum of human association distinguished from other social groups by its purpose, the establishment of order and security, its methods, the laws and their enforcement, its territory, the area of jurisdiction or geographic boundaries and finally by its sovereignty . The state is important because it maintains law and order, safeguards the rights and liberty of the people, it regulates the activities of people and establishes peace, it eradicates chaos etc. Some scholars consider state as natural and necessary while some others consider it as necessary evil. Karl Marx and his supporters plead for the withering away of state. The views of the Marxian, Liberal and Gandhian philosophers about state are discussed in this unit. 5.2 Marxian View About State Karl Marx and his followers are known as Marxists. They clearly reject major propositions of the Liberal theories about the state. They believe that irrespective of how ‘Liberal’ or ‘democratic’ a state claims to be, it is mainly an instrument for the domination, oppression and exploitation of the economically weak class i.e., the class of poor by the powerful and dominant class i.e., the class of rich. Briefly put, the state is principally a tool for the establishment and maintenance of the hegemony of the rich and the powerful over the poor. Indeed in an antagonistic class society, the state is a political instrument, a machine for maintaining the rule of one class over another. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
56 Political Science – I Marxists theory of state based on the framework of the material interpretation history and a historical approach which interconnects the substructure of society i.e., the mode of production and its corresponding production relations and the super structure of society, namely, the whole network of social, political, legal and intellectual life of society. Indeed Marxists have argued that the state cannot be understood separately from the economic structure of society and that the state emerges out of and in a sense reflects the class system. Marxists believe that three major attributes of the state can be identified. These are: (a) It is a public power in contrast to the direct organisation of the armed people which existed in tribal society. A feature of the state is not its power of coercion in general which is to be found in some form in any society, but above all its public power, that is a power that does not coincide with the mass of population and is exercised by a special category of people. (b) The state organisation of society presupposes the levying of taxes that are needed for the upkeep of the apparatus of power. As internal and external contradictions became more intense and the state apparatus grows, its maintenance swallows up more and more of the resources of society; and (c) The subjects of the state are divided not according to blood relations but on the basis of territory. The power of the state is exercised directly over a creation territory and its population and this territorial division of people effects the development of economic ties and the creation of political conditions for their regulation. For the Marxists, the state is primarily on instrument used by the class of wealth people for the suppression and domination of the ‘have-nots’ and it came into being only at a particular stage in the historical development of human society. An interesting element of this view of the state can be gleaned from the preposition that the state as a political power is not inevitable, there were periods in the development of society when it did not exist and as society develops, there would be a time when it would be a time when it would cease to exist. In the early periods of development of society when the mode of production was very rudimentary and production relations were largely undifferentiated, CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
State - II 57 there was clearly no need for the state. This implies that the state is not natural to an human societies, there have been societies without states and this underscores the fact that before the emergence of private property in human history from the slave mode of production, there was no state. Marxism tells that the mode of production of the material means of life determines in general the social, political and intellectual processes of life. In the social production of the means of life, men enter into definite and necessary production relations which correspond to a definite stage in the development of their productive forces. There was no state in the primitive communist system as there were no contending class. But the invention of the new means of production like cultivation of land and smelting metals caused significant social changes. Social divisions grew that led to the disappearance of the primitive pattern of communistic life; private property system arose and that opened the way of exploitation of the ‘have-nots’ by the ‘haves’. Karl Marx says that according to the relentless law of history, a particular class owns and controls the means of production and by virtue of this exploits the rest of the people. The capitalist class makes use of the state as an instrument of oppression and exploitation. Thus at every stage i.e., primitive communist stage, ancient stages, feudal stage and capitalized stage, there are broadly two classes. The owners of means of production and exploiters on one side and the exploited on the other. History presents nothing but the record of a war between classes. Every exploiting class at each stage gives rise to an opposite class. Hence thesis and anti-thesis can be noted. Feudal barons and capitalists form the thesis and the serfs and the proletariat constitute the anti-thesis. Marx says that capitalism carries with it the seeds of its own destruction. Capitalism will destroyed by capitalists themselves and not by professional revolutionaries. The relentless laws of social development, which overthrew the old systems well also pull down capitalism. Big business the thesis created, big labour, the anti-thesis. The thesis of capitalism will be got rid of by the anti-thesis of organised workers. Capitalism will be overthrown by the proletariat and there will emerge a state of proletariat socialism, which is only transitional. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
58 Political Science – I The dictatorship of the proletariat will make use of the state to crush the capitalists and their friends enemies of the proletariat. Ultimately, a stage will come when there will be no state at all. The state will wither away. 5.3 Liberal View About State The individualistic theory comes under the Liberal view relating to the sphere of state action. The Liberal view stands for ‘Laissez Fair’ i.e., unrestricted free competition in economic and, later, political activities. It began essentially as an economic doctrine to asset in the growth of emerging capitalism. However, the root of this theory may be traced back to the writing of the Greek sophists who advocated full freedom of the individual. John Locke, an English political philosopher of the 17th century, was the first modern writer to advocate liberalism. This theory came into prominence in the 18th and 19th centuries. Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer and F.A. Hayek are main modern exponents of this theory. Adam Smith advocated free competition and non-interference of the state in economic system. J.S. Mill was a strong advocate of individual freedom. F.A. Hayek strongly denounced state interference and planning. He condemned planning as a road to serdom. The liberalism is otherwise known as ‘the Laissez Fair Theory’. The term ‘Laissez Fair’ in the French language means ‘Let alone’ or ‘Leave alone’. According to this theory the state should ‘Leave alone’ the individuals and should not interfere in the sphere of individual activities. It puts emphasis on individual happiness and prosperity. It assumes that individual is the centre of activities in any social system. The Liberal theory considers the state as a “necessary evil”. It is because it encroaches upon the freedom of individual. As it is an evil, it is better to have as little of it as far as possible. But at the same time the state is regards as ‘necessary’ because of selfish and egoistic nature of human beings. It is necessary in order to stop the anti-social activities of individuals in the society. But it should not be all powerful. Hence, state is considered as a ‘necessary evil’. The Liberal thinkers advocate the non-interference of the state in the sphere of individual activities. It stands for individual liberty. Liberty is defined as the absence of restraints. The CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
State - II 59 individuals should not have ample freedom on different spheres of their activities. Only should have complete freedom to live there lives as they desire without obstruction from outside. The functions of the state should be confined to a minimum possible extent. The state is a negative institution. It should exist to hinder the hindrances. The Liberal theory advocates maximum freedom of individual and minimum functions of the state. It supports the idea that “the state is best which governs the least”. Lesser the functions of the state, it is better for the individual. And extension of the functions of the state leads to curtailment of individual Liberty. The state is regarded as an aggressor rather than a protector of individual Liberty. The state control of regulation is only form is denounced. Hence, Liberal view advocates “maximum possible individual freedom and minimum possible state action”. Liberalism stands for a police state. The function of a police man is only preventive or negative in character. Similarly, the state should prevent law breakers and under the hindrances on the path of individual in realisation of his best self. The state should be a purely negative rather than a positive institution. Its function should be limited as far as possible. The state is also compared to ‘a night watchman’ whose job is merely a negative one. Most of the Liberals allow the state to perform the following two categories of functions: (a) Maintenance of law and order within the state (b) Protection of individuals against the external aggression or internal rebellion. Thus, it is the duty of the state to protect life, liberty and property of the individuals. Similarly, it is the duty of the state to protect the individuals against external aggression or internal rebellion. Beyond these functions, the individuals do not allow the state to perform any other functions. 5.3.1 Arguments in Support of the Theory The liberalists support their proposition from four different stand points; the ethical, the economic, the scientific and practical. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
60 Political Science – I (a) The Ethical Argument: Man is the best judge of his own abelety and interest. Freedom of action is essential to the development of personality. Qualities like self-reliance, initiative and originality develop to the fullest extent if the individual is left alone. (b) The Economic Argument: From the economic standpoint individualists assume that every man is self-seeking and knows his interests best. Free competition increases production, ensures efficiency and maximizes economic well-being. Unrestricted operation of the laws of supply and demand will result in fair prices. (c) The Scientific Argument: From the scientific point of view liberal views support the principle of evolution the biological law of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest. Herbest Spencer supports this argument. Free competition among individuals would ensure the survival of the strong, intelligent and elimination of the poor, weak, unfit and the inefficient. State intervention would hamper the process of natural selection. (d) Practical Reasons: Practical experience shows that government attempts to do many things but does them body. Government action results in redtapison, waste and corruption. As compared to government undertakings, the private enterprises are more efficient and make greater profits. Hence the state should restrict its activity and give maximum freedom to the individual to mobilize his own resources. 5.3.2 Criticisms The liberal view of the state has been subjected to searching criticism upon various grounds. It contains an important truth but grossly exaggerate it. (a) The liberal assumption that the state is a necessary evil, that all restrict is wrong, has not been borne out by experience. The state is a positive good. It can promote good life for individuals. The functions of the state have not been simply ‘negatively regulative’, but protective, encouraging and fostering the common welfare. (b) Liberal view wrongly assumes that each individual knows his interests best. Experience shows that most of men do not know their best interests. (c) The basis of liberal view that man is fundamentally selfish is unsound. Actually man is a mixture of both egoistic and altrustic impulses. Thus liberalism is based on one aspect. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
State - II 61 (d) In the economic sphere free competition has led to monopolies, trusts and combinations which on their part have resulted in concentration of wealth in the hands of the few and leads to capitalism and class division of society. State planning has reduced the evils of free competition and capitalism. (e) The biological argument is also unacceptable survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the best. Moreover, law of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest applicable to lower animals should not govern human society. Cooperation, harmony, compassion govern the life of man. 5.4 Gandhian View About State Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhiji was not only a great thinker, he was also a highly missionary and activist. In the history of mankind, he has been the true champion of truth and non-violence. Like the ‘Christian Fathers’ (except for Acquinas) and the ancient Hindu, Gandhiji looked upon the state as originating in the sins of man. But there was a difference between them. The ancient Hindus and Christian fathers because of their assumption of the ‘natural wickedness of man’, recognised the necessity and value of the state and gave the state a place of respectability by entrusting it with the maintenance of law and order. But Gandhiji had tremendous faith in the infinite capacity of human nature to improve upon itself. Individuals need not depend upon the state. In this way, Gandhiji was a philosophical anarchist who conceived a ‘state less idealist society’ based on truth and non-violence. No-doubt Gandhiji and Marx toed the same line of thought i.e., ‘stateless society’, but with a difference. Marx envisaged a ‘stateless’ society but advocated a ‘transitional all powerful state’ with dictatorship of the proletariat who will be instrumental in establishing a ‘class-less’ and ‘stateless’ society. But Gandhiji admitted the existence of a transitional state with limited power and the society would be ‘state less’ gradually with the moral and spiritual development of the people. Gandhiji, like Tolstoy was opposed to the existence of the state based on immorality and violence. He argued that the existing state commands and whatever it commanded cannot respect the moral value of the individual’s action. Because an action is moral only when it is voluntary. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
62 Political Science – I He also rejected the existing state whose authority is based on force and violence. He said the state represents violence in a concentrated and organised form. The individual has a social, but the state is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owns its very existences. The coercive authority of the state is antidote to the growth of individuals’ freedom and personality. Accordingly Gandhiji drew the sketch of a new ‘Ideal society’ in which there will be freedom, spontaneity of action, truth and non-violence. It will be a society free from oppression and exploitation as people have an abiding faith in God. Every social activity will be based on love, service and co-operation. Like any other anarchist, Gandhiji also highlighted, individual freedom and total democracy. Appropriately he suggested that his ideal democracy, both stateless and classless, will consist of a number of self-contained and self-regulated village communities. Panchayat constituting of villages will be organised and work as a ‘republic’ having full powers even to meet foreign attack in a non-violent way. The self-sufficient villages shall be bound together in a voluntary federation. But individual will be the units of this federation and not the provinces. But like other anarchists, Gandhiji never believed that the state will be abolished over-right by revolution. He admitted that the idea of a classless and stateless non-violent society was unrealizable as “a government cannot succeed in becoming entirely non-violent because it represents all the people. I do not today conceive of such a golden age. But I do believe in the possibility of a predominantly non-violence society and I am working for it”. He suggested to make the existing state non-violent as far as possible. The nature of non-violent state will depend upon how the political power has been achieved. It is achieved by the non-violent Satyagraha of the weak, the merging state will be democratic. But exploitation will still continue because it is only the non-violent. Satyagraha of the brave the resulting state can be a total democracy minimising exploitation and coercion. The real purpose of democracy, Gandhiji argued is that under it the weakest should have the same opportunity as the strongest. This can never happen except through non-violence. Gandhiji also discarded the idea of an all-powerful state. Rather the state should be a means for the promotion of human welfare. So, he said, it is better the state should be limited to minimum functions. Like liberals he also believed that government is best which governs the least. Interference of the government should be minimum so that people can CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
State - II 63 enjoy their freedom to the maximum. To him most of the functions should be transferred to the voluntary associations so that a real government could be established in the country. Gandhiji laid emphasis on democracy in the villages where life is simpler, power diffused and the economy decentralised. Consuming only what they products themselves, the villagers worked be self sufficient. He also advocated for more autonomy to the rural communities in the state and those rural areas having self-sufficiency in matter of basic needs, should be given power for the administration of peace and justice. Further he said that the existing system of direct election led to many evils like corruption manipulation etc. So he suggested that the panchayats should be organised to run the village administration. While advocating for a pre-dominantly non-violent state, Gandhiji did not rule out the need for ‘police force’ because in such a state also there may be anti-socials to create violence and break the law. But police should behave like servants rather than masters. The non-violent state need not go for an armed force to save the country. Rather it will have an army consisting the true Satyagrahis who resist the aggressors at the cost of their life. No doubt Gandhiji’s views on state reflected his anarchist ideals but unlike other anarchists he was both a visionary and realist. Describing him as a philosophical anarchist totally will be a mistake. Because he had admitted the existence of the state for a short period. While allowing the state to remain in existence for a temporary period, he was assigned several duties to it. These duties are meant to promote the development of the individual. If the state fails to perform these duties properly the individual shall have the right as well as duty to resist it. The individual shall be right to resist the Law which has not been made by people or which violates public or private morals. If the government oppresses or harasses people, they will be right in resisting it. The individual has the right in disobey a government which supports dishonesty and terrorism. Gandhiji attaches supreme importance to the moral judgement of the individual in his state. 5.5 Summary Gandhian view about state has similarity with Marxian view on state. Both favour the withering away of the state. Both of them also accept the inevitability of a transitional state. But both differ on the character of this transitional state. According to Marx, the transitional state will CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
64 Political Science – I be all powerful; it will be marked by the dictatorship of the proletariat. But, according to Gandhiji, the transitional state will have limited sources. On the other hand liberal view of the state is different from Marxian and Gandhian view. Liberal thinkers consider state as a necessary evil. They admit the existence of state to protect the state from external aggression and internal rebellion and also to maintain law and order in the society. 5.6 Key Words/Abbreviations Laissez Fair: (French Language) means leave alone. Marxism: Political philosophy of Karl Marx and his followers. Satyagraha: An idea of non-violent resistance started by Gandhiji. Gandhiji: Mahatma Gandhi / Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Anarchist: A person who believes in anarchism. Anarchism: A political philosophy which advocates stateless societies. Proletariat: Working class people. Class-struggle (Marxist ideology) conflicts between rich and poor or Haves and haves not 5.7 Learning Activity 1. State is a necessary evil. Prove it on the basis of liberal view about state. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Stateless society is a classless society. Prove it by applying Marxian view about state. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Gandhiji was opposed to the existence of the state based on immorality and violence. Justify the statement on the basis of Gandhian view about state. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
State - II 65 5.8 Unit End Questions (MCQ and Descriptive) A. Descriptive Types Questions 1. What do you mean by Laissez Fair? 2. What are the functions of the state as per the view of Liberal thinkers? 3. What do you mean by class struggle? 4. What do you mean by Dictatorship of proletariat? 5. What is village republic? 6. “State should be wither away” (Marxism) Explain. 7. “State is a necessary evil” (Liberal View) Examine. 8. Make a comparison between Gandhian view and Marxian view about the state. B. Multiple Choice/Objective Type Questions 1. According to __________ view the state is a necessary evil. (a) Marxian (b) Gandhian (c) Liberal (d) Socialistic 2. __________ view supports maximum individual freedom and minimum state action. (a) Marxian (b) Liberal (c) Gandhian (d) Socialistic 3. __________ view considers state as a mean of class division and class-struggle. (a) Gandhian (b) Marxian (c) Liberal (d) Socialistic 4. __________ view on state believes in village republic. (a) Gandhian (b) Marxian (c) Liberal (d) Totalitarian Answers 1. (c), 2. (b), 3. (b), 4. (a) CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
66 Political Science – I 5.9 References 1. G. Sartori, Democratic Theory, (1965). 2. M.P. Jain, Political Theory, Liberal and Marxian, 1985. 3. L.T. Hobhouse, Liberalism, 1911. 4. H.J. Laski, The Rise of European Liberalism, 1936. 5. G.H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, 1963. 6. D. Deol, Liberalism and Marxism, 1979. 7. V.R. Mehta, Marxism in the Modern World, 1978. 8. Das Harihar, Indian Political Tradition. 9. Mohanty D.K., Indian Political Tradition. 10. Gokhale B.K., Political Science (Theory and Government Machinery). Himalaya Publishing House, Mumbai, 1964. 11. Ray and Bhattacharya, Political Theory, 1964. 12. Marshruwala K.G., Gandhi and Marx, 1956. 13. Sharma, B.S., Gandhi as a Political Thinker, 1956. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 67 UNIT 6 THEORIES OF ORIGIN OF STATE Structure 6.0 Learning Objectives 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Theories of the Origin of the State 6.3 Theories of the Nature of the State 6.4 Summary 6.5 Key Words/Abbreviations 6.6 Learning Activity 6.7 Unit End Questions (MCQ and Descriptive) 6.8 References 6.0 Learning Objectives The state is regarded as the central theme of Political Science. It is most universal and most powerful of all social institutions. It is a natural, necessary and universal institution. To trace the origin and nature of a complex social phenomenon and political organisation, especially like the state is a difficult task. Still political thinkers have tried through centuries, taken pains to dig out the secrets of the origin and nature of the state. In the absence of adequate historical data, they moved one idea to another. As a result of which there arose a large number of theories of origin and nature of the state. This chapter is meant for a detailed discussion on the meaning, elements, theories of origin of the state and nature of the state. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
68 Political Science – I After studying this unit, you will be able to : Explain the theories of the origin of the state like, the Divine Origin Theory, the Theory of Force, the Social Contract Theory, the Kinship Theory the Evolutionary Theory and the Marxian Theory. 6.1 Introduction State is most complex and powerful of all human institutions. Many theories of state have been advanced over the centuries. Some of these explain the origin and evolution of the State, others the nature and functions and ends of the State. There is no unanimity of opinion relating to the origin and nature of the State. The theories of the origin and nature of the State differ from one another both in form and substance. The principal theories of the origin of the state are the Divine Origin Theory, the Force Theory, the Kinship Theory/Social Contract Theory and Evolutionary Theory. Similarly the principal theories of the nature of the state are Juristic Theory, Organic Theory, Mechanistic Theory, Idealistic Theory and Marxian Theory. 6.2 Theories of The Origin of The State The origin of the state is one of the controversial topics in Political Science has given rise to much speculation by political scientists, who have expressed different view through their theories. We shall take up discussion on these theories regarding origin of the state; the Theory of Divine Origin, the Theory of Force, the Social Contract Theory, the Kinship Theory and the Evolutionary Theory. 6.2.1 The Theory of Divine Origin The Theory of Divine Origin is the oldest theory regarding the origin of the State. The Jews Old Testament contains the best defence in support of this theory. Prof. Gilchrist rightly observes, “The best repository of the theory of Divine Origin is the Old Testament.” The state was nothing but a theocracy and the King in Jewish State was the agent of God. The early Church fathers of Christianity supported this theory. Robert Felmer in his book ‘Patriarch’ popularised the Divine Origin Theory. Hindu mythology and scriptures are replete CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 69 with references to the divine origin of the State. The Mahabharata and Manusmriti contain illusions to God’s will in the creation of the State. Kautilya, the celebrated, political thinker of ancient India appointed the Institution of monarchy with all religious mysteries. As a matter of fact, in early society, religion and politics were blended into one and inseparable unit. Statement of the Divine Origin Theory: The central idea of Divine Origin Theory is that the State is a divine institution. God had created the State. God created human beings on earth, so he also created the State to live in. God is looked open as the immediate source of royal power. He appointed the king to rule on earth on behalf of him. Thus it is the supreme will of God that went into the creation of the State. This theory states that the God creater and ruler of the universe, created the State. The God also appointed the King to rule over the state. The King appointed by God is responsible to God alone. As the King is the representative or incarnation of God, it is the duty of all to obey him and resistence to his authority is sinful. The Theory of Divine Rights of Kingship: As time rolled on, the Divine Origin Theory was converted into theory of Divine Rights to Kingship. Mediaeval Kings claimed to ruler as representatives of God. The Stuart King James I of England was the leading champion of the Divine Rights of Kings. His famous statement, “The kings are the breathing images of God upon earth,” explains the theory in a nutshell. The French philosopher, Bousett also asserted that the king was an image of God. Louis XIV the Grand Monarch of France identified the State with his personage. He said “I am the State.” The following are the notable features of Divine Rights of kingship: 1. Monarchy is divinely ordained. The king is the direct descendant of God on Earth. 2. The king derives his power from God and he is answerable to none except God. 3. Hereditary right is indefeasible. Succession to the throne is governed by the Law of promogenture. 4. It is the upper most duty of subjects to obey the King. Resistance in the authority of the King is a great sin. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
70 Political Science – I Evil Effects of the Theory: The Theory of Divine Rights of kings led to one of the darkest periods in the history of nations. Kingship became hereditary. This theory was responsible for the monstrous growth of royal absolutism. The will of the Monarch was law. Kings ruled according to their whims and caprices. This established in era of oppression and exploitation on people. Decline of the Theory: The Divine Origin Theory gradually lost its significance owing to the following causes: 1. The first major challenge was offered by the social contractualists who said that the state was a human institution. It’s a handiwork of man and not a divine creation. The Social Contract Theory heighten the glory of individual as against God. 2. The growth of democratic ideals dealt a severe blow to Divine Rights of king. Democracy believes in individual value, freedom and equality. It opposes absolute monarchy. 3. The advent of secularism was another set back to Divine Theory. The separation of the Politics from the Church contributed to its decline. 4. The secular approach of modern man, a product of Renaissance, seeks to separate religious and political issues. This approach led to a separation of Church from the State and made it sub-ordinate to the State. Secular ideas destroyed the religious basis of political power expounded by the Divine Origin Theory. 5. Great revolutions gave further blows to the theory. The glorious revolution of the theory, advocates od democracy convincingly debuked the Divine Origin Theory. People claimed the right to criticise kings and overthrow them if necessary. 6. The change in the mental outlook of the people with the rise of rationalism, the spirit of inquiry and the scientific investigation brought about a great setback to the theory. Criticism: The Theory of Divine Origin has been criticised from various angles: 1. Unhistorical: There is no historical evidence to show that the state is the creation of God. To say that God selects the ruler is contrary to commonsense and reason. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 71 2. Anti-Democratic: This theory is against democracy and representative Government. Democracy is opposed to absolute rule. It upholds the principle of sharing of power and equality. 3. Irrational: The Theory of Divine Origin is against reason. As J.N. Figgis remarks, “The reason for the decline of the theory lies in the fact that today there is a general belief in the supreme role of reason and that faith has its proper place in matters as spirituals.” 4. Positively Dangerous: The theory is positively dangerous since is paves the way for autocracy and tyranny. 5. Illogical: The theory lacks logic because it justifies the rule of bad kings. To say that God personifies virtue and he cannot elect a bad person as his agent on earth, sounds illogical. 6. Incredible: This theory is incredible, as it is a myth for removed from reality. 7. Origin unexplained: The origin of the state is not explained in a reasonable manner. The theory only explains the features and basis of political authority and that too in an unsatisfactory and dogmatic manner. Value of Theory: No doubt the theory of Divine Origin has been attacked severely from any angles yet, it is not totally valueless. It served a useful purpose at a time when people were not accustomed to obedience and were just emerging out of semi-feedal conditions. The theory taught these people that law has a religious sanction and must be obeyed. It added morality into politics. Gilchrist remarks “it taught men to obey when they were not yet ready to govern themselves.” Even in modern time great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi upheld the ideal of moral politics. This theory invests the state with a moral status. It highlights the moral responsibility of the rulers to be ruled as they are accountable to God for the manner in which they exercise their power. 6.2.2 The Theory of Force The Theory of Force is one of the oldest theory as to the origin of the state. The main idea of theory is that the state originated as a result of force. The primitive society was tribes. In this way the victorious clan or tribe established its authority and supremacy over the vanquished ones. After subjugating one tribe or clan, the successful tribe proceed to bring other tribes or clans CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
72 Political Science – I under his feet. In this process of one mightiest tribe absorbing other weakest tribes. The state came into existence. In other words, ‘might is right’ was a governing principle of primitive society. The force theory believes that the State emerged through physical coercion or compulsion. To put in a nutshell ‘War begot the state.’ Defence of Force Theory: Various political thinkers have lent their support to this theory. According to Machiavelli the state originated and sustained by force. Force is the hallmark of the state. Jenks is the leading advocate to force theory. He holds “Historically speaking, there is not the slightest difficulty in providing all political communities of modern type own their existence to successful warfare.” Leacock writes “Historically the force theory means that Government is the outcome of human aggression; that the beginning of the state is to be sought in the capital and enslavement of man by man in the conquest and subjugation of feebler tribes. The progressive growth from tribe to kingdom and from kingdom to empire is but a continuation of the some process.” Oppenheimer, Neitzche, Treitschke are also the ardent supporters of force theory. Treitschke writes “State is power, it is sin for a state to be ways. State is the public power of offence and defence.” He again writes “the grandeur of history lies in the perpetual conflict of nations and the appeal to arms will be valid until the end of history.” In modern history, Bismark, Hitler and Mussolini were believers in the policy of force. Various uses of the Theory: The force has been used in various ways and for varied purposes: 1. The Christian thinkers used the theory to denounce the state and uphold the rights of the Church to supremacy. The state is the outcome of brute force; but the Church is the divine institution. So the State is inferior to the Church. 2. The individualist used the theory of force in support of individual freedom and rights. Those who want to minimise the functions of the state argue that as the state is the result of superior physical force, it curbs individuality. Therefore, they set that the individuals should be left free to develop their own self. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 73 3. The Communists also have made the use of this theory. They believe in application force in society, Lenin, remarks Great questions in the life of a nation are settled only by force. The Marxists keep faith of force that brings a new society into existence. The Force Theory was followed widely by Hegel and Hitler. A host of German thinkers glorified war and considered it a virtue, and the statesmen exalted the state’s power to a dizzy height. Force is essential as for maintenance of the state and for conduct of law and order. Merits of the Theory: The Force Theory stands on following merits: 1. There is a grain of truth that was and conquest have been responsible for the building up of the state. 2. Force continues to be an indispensable element of the state. In fact, the state maintains huge army and forces to maintain its unity and integrity. 3. This theory supports a sections of view of political scientists that law is obeyed because it is backed by force. Criticisms The Force Theory has been criticised on the following grounds: 1. Force is not only Factor: There is denying of the fact that force has played an important part in the maintenance of the state. But it is wrong to consider that force is the only element of the maintenance of state. More force cannot maintain the state for longer time. 2. Danger of Might is Right: The theory that might is right is faught with danger. It upholds subjugation of the weak by the strong. It has led to bitter national and international wars. 3. Ignores Noble Qualities: According to this theory, force is the be all of life. As such, it ignores the noble aspects of human life, kindness, love, gentleness, sympathy, etc. 4. Anti-Democratic: The theory of force is an enemy of democracy. Force has no room in democracy. Democracy is a Government by discussion and consent. There is a clear cut contrast between force theory and democracy. While the former believes in Might is CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
74 Political Science – I Right, the latter in Right is Might. This theory lays the foundations of totalitarian rule and destroys democracy. 5. State is an Evolution: The state is not sudden creation, but an evolution. It is the product of political consciousness. 6. No Historical Proof: History does not produce evidence to the historicity of force theory. Nowhere in history is the recognised that force alone contributed to the growth of the state. 7. Will, not force is the basis of the State: Political theorist like, T.H. Green observes, “will, not force is the basis of the state.” Might without right lasts only so large as the might losts. Glorification of force will shake the foundation of the state. It is the will of the people that can preserve the foundation of the state. 8. Against International Relations: Force is inimical to healthy international relations. With the growth of International Law and organisations interstate relations cannot continue to be governed on force. 9. Encourages Aggressive Nationalism: The theory encourages the growth of false national ego, aggressive nationalism and imperialism among powerful nations. It provokes them to attack small and weak nations for self aggradisement without any justification. The theory has done more harm than good, and has endangered peace within states and in the world at large. The importance of Force Theory despite criticism, has diminished, but not totally rejected. State that deals with law and order can not function without some amount of force. So it is suggested that force is one of the factor in origin of the state and it should be used only as a medicine, not as a daily diet. 6.2.3 The Social Contract Theory The most important speculative theory relating to the origin of the state is Social Contract Theory. It was the most popular and influential theory relating to the origin of the state and the nature of political authority during the 17th and 18th centuries. It had also played a very CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 75 important part in the development of the modern political theory. The exponents of the theory hold that the state is the result of a deliberate and voluntary agreement (contract) entered into by primitive men who originally had no governmental organisation. So, this theory states that “the state is a product of contract, a handwork of the individuals, neither a creation of God nor the result of force.” The idea of contract is very old and goes back to the writings of Plato and Sophists of ancient Greece and Kautilya’s “Arthasatra” in the middle ages, Hooker a noted political philosopher also spoke of the idea of contract. However, the idea of the social contract in its modern form originated in the 17th and 18th centuries in the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. These three celebrated political philosophers have given different versions of this theory in keeping with the changing circumstances of 17th and 18th centuries. There are five main points of their analysis i.e.: (i) Human nature (ii) State of Nature (iii) Social Contract (iv) State and Sovereignty, and (v) Relation of individuals and the state. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) Hobbes, who was said to be the product of the Civil War of 1642, has provided lucid description of the Theory of Social Contract in his book “The Leviathan” in 1651. The starting point in Hobbe’s philosophy is the analysis of human nature in terms of an egoistic psychology, which postulates that self-interest is the main spring of human action. Hobbes gave a very dark picture of man’s condition in a pre-social stage. Men were brutal, selfish, egastic, covetous and irrational. He also described the state of nature as a state of perpetual war and strife. It was both “pre-social” and “pre-political”. It was extremely bad and “might is right” was the order of the day. There was absence of Law and justice in the state of nature. Men experienced total insecurity. Life in Hobbes’ classic phrase was “Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
76 Political Science – I short.” The state of nature was indeed too gloomy and too terrible to continue perpetually and indefinitely. As every man was enemy to every man, there was nothing but constant fear and insecurity. In such a condition, there was no progress of any kind in any field. Men came to the conclusion that unless they came together and decided to submit to a universal authority, they could get no relief. Craving for a new order, where security could be assured. Men came out of the state of nature through a contract of each with all and of all with each and set up the civil society. By this contract, they unconditionally surrendered all their rights to their sovereign, who would “keep them in owe” and give them security. Only the right to self-preservation was retrained by every individual. The sovereign is not a party to contract and law is the command of the sovereign. He is the real ruler of the society and the Supreme power of the state is vested in him. He has absolute, unlimited and indivisible authority. People enjoy only those rights which the sovereign permits and those which have not been forbidden by law. Features of Hobbe's Social Contract (i) The sovereign is the product of contract and secured a commanding position. (ii) The sovereign was above the contract as he did not enter into a contract with the subjects. (iii) The theory of Hobbes gave an absolute power to the sovereignty. The supreme power of sovereign has no limits. (iv) Sovereignty could be located in the hands of a few or many, but Hobbes favoured its location in the hands of one person. Merits Hobbes was highly reputed for his brilliance as a student of the Oxford University and as a great scholar after he left its portals. The 'Leviathan' has been ecolised as a great masterpiece in English political thought. Hobbes also gave the first clear and scientific exposition of sovereignty. Hobbes weakened the blind faith of roman people when he criticised the Roman Catholic Church as “Kingdom of Darkness” or a “Confederacy of Deceivers.” CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 77 John Locke (1632-1704) While Hobbes’ philosophy was used in defence of absolute government, Locke in his “Two Treatises of Government” (1690) sought to justify the English Revolution of 1688. He was an ardent advocate of constitutional Government and rule of law. He put forth his social contract theory to justify the glorious revolution and to reduce the theory of absolute monarchy upheld the Hobbes, Filmer and others. He analysed human nature is terms of essential social virtues and characterised the state of nature as a condition of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation”. Men were free and equal. The state of nature was pre-political but not pre-social. Men enjoyed the natural rights to life, liberty and property but under the governance of the laws of nature. It was a state of liberty but not licence. Because of certain ‘inconveniences’ like absence of the legislature to make law, the executive to carry out law and the judiciary to interpret law, people decided to leave the state of nature and formed the civil society through contract. They only surrendered some of their rights to the state. Locke made the Government a party to the contract. The Government is bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. It should be based on the consent of the governed. People can change a Government when it becames arbitrary. Thus, Locke advocates limited Government or constitutional monarchy. The monarch is supposed to serve the people by giving them good government. He presents his thesis in a reasonable manner. He also renders a great service to mankind by giving the theory of natural rights. The doctrine of constitutional monarchy is a great contribution of Locke to political science. Locke foreshadowed the doctrine of separation of powers which had a great influence on the american constitution. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1717-1778) Rousseau, the celebrated thinker of the 18th century, gave a classic exposition to the theory of social contract in his work ‘‘The Social Contract’’ by the inspiration of the French Revolution of 1789. In his political philosophy, he seems to have combined the views of Hobbes and Locke. So far as state of nature is concerned, Rousseau began with Locke and ended with Hobbes. Man, according to Rousseau is essentially good and sympathetic. The state of nature was a period of Idyllic happiness. Man was a “noble savage” and led a natural, innocent, happy and simple life. But gradually the “State of Nature” degenerated into a vicious circle. With the growth of population and the idea of private property men became selfish, greedy and aggressive. With the CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
78 Political Science – I down of reason, human nature became increasingly complex, conflicts and tensions in the later stages of the state of nature, forced men into a contract whereby they surrendered all their natural rights to the community or the “General will”. It is sovereign and nobody can oppose it. The “General Will” is supreme and all powerful in a state. That is why Rousseau said “voice of the people is the voice of God.” This is otherwise known as popular sovereignty. Rousseau is immortal because of the doctrine of popular sovereignty and it is one of his outstanding contributions to political theory. Rousseau’s theory can be given an important place in political theory and governmental organisation. The concept of Rosseau that sovereignty lies in the people brought about a revolution in political thought. Political science is indebted to Rousseau fr his concept that will not the force is the creater of the state. He gives the valuable concept of law as the expression of general will. His social contract espoused the cause of democracy, liberty and equality. The great philosopher became one of the most powerful advocates of popular sovereignty and people's rights. The concept of general will not only created a revolution in political thought but also prepared the ground for the French Revolution. Criticisms The Social Contract Theory has been subjected to serious criticisms. Sir Frederick Pollock described it as “one of the most successful and fatal political impostures.” While Bentham criticised it as a ‘rattle’ for amusement. Green dismissed it as a mere ‘fiction’. Further critics view that “the Social Contract Theory gives us neither a satisfactory due to history nor a sound political philosophy.” The main points of criticisms are like follows: 1. Un-historical: Critics pointed that this theory is unhistorical because nowhere in the history we find the exact date or time when the state came into existence through social contract. No where in history a solitary instance of a group of primitive men making a contract of governance can be found. Thus the theory is historically false. 2. No Rights without State: The idea of natural rights and natural liberty upon which the Social Contract Theory has been build up is fallacious. The question of rights arises only within state. Without the state we cannot think of rights. Liberty, too, may not exist prior to the state. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 79 3. The State came into existence as a result of a long process of growth: The basic assumption by means of a contract is erroneous from sociological point of view. The advocates of Evolutionary Theory pointed out that the state is neither the handiwork of man nor an artificial entity but it is a result of the long process of social evolution for which several factors like kinship, religion, force and political consciousness are responsible. 4. A mechanical, a priori and Juristic Theory: It is a mechanical, a priori and juristic theory because the state is reduced to the position of a machine or an instrument which exists to serve definite purposes. The ideas of state of nature and even contracts are priori ideas which were accepted without reasoning. 5. A Bad History, Bad Law and Bad Philosophy: Historically, it is erroneous because there is no evidence to prove either the existence of state of nature or the creation of the state through contract. It is bad law because it made contract binding on the succeeding generation. It is bad philosophy because it looks upon the state as an artificial contrivance and not a natural process and growth. 6. No freedom of making contract for primitive men: The contractualists say that the contract was a voluntary agreement made by the primitive men. The real position was quite contrary to this, as men had no free choice in primitive society. If custom determined that a person was slave, he remained a slave, and he as a slave could not make a contract to free himself. 7. State not artificial: The state emerged as a result of historical forces by a natural process of evolution. The contratualists have made the state artificial as something which is a product of a contract, which business men make. The effort made to reduce the state to a level of an artificial. 8. State membership not voluntary: Contratualists say that the state was formed as a result of a social contract and membership was based on voluntary. This can never be true, as all persons are compelled to be members of state, whether they want or not. They have no choice. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
80 Political Science – I 9. Contract perpetual: The contratualists make the social contract Notes perpetual and eternally binding on succeeding generations. The contract hamper progress and acts as a dead weight. It denies freedom to every generation to act freely for itself according to new ideas. Value of the Theory Inspite of the above inadequacies and shortcomings of the Social Contract Theory, we cannot overlook its contribution to the political theory: (i) By combining political authority what Willoughby calls “a predicated individual rights to free self-determination of action.” The contractualists laid down the foundation of democracy. (ii) The theory emphasises the importance of the individual and the human purposes for which the state exists and the government exercises its authority. (iii) The theory was primarily responsible for discrediting the Theory of Divine Origin and thereby rejecting the claims of absolute monarchs and despots. (iv) The contribution of the modern contractualists to the Theory of Sovereignty has been tremendous. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were the champions of legal, political and popular sovereignty. (v) The theory empasized the value of rights. It stated that right, not might, is the basis of the state. However, with the growth of the historical and empirical methods of enquiry the Social Contract theory started to decline. Particularly Darwin’s Theory of Biological Evolution influenced different disciplines and led to the evolutionary theory of the origin of state, which considered the origin of the state as the result of slow, gradual growth rather than a manufacture based on Social Contract. 6.2.4 The Kinship Theory The Patriarchal and Matriarchal theories, jointly known as the “Kinship theories” seek to explain the origin of the state in terms of the expansion of the family which is the oldest social CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 81 organisation and basic unit of society. According to the Kinship Theory the organisation of the state began in the primitive family. Family has got all the essential characteristics of the state, its members constitute population, its house represents the territory, the head of the family symbolises government, and its freedom from interference and sanctity of the household shows its sovereign character. To this theory, the state is nothing but on enlargement of the family. The family served the simplest and earliest link in the evolution of the most complex of all human organisations the state. Long back Aristotle believed that the state came into existence as a result of the natural expansion of family. Thus family is regarded as the basis of origin of state but there were different of views regarding the trace of decent in the family. Some say it is father while other group took it as the mother. As a result two theories i.e., patriarchal and matriarchal theories came into existence: 1. Patriarchal Theory Patriarchal Theory says, the origin of the state can be traced to group of families held together by the authority and protection of the eldest male descendant. In a patriarchal family descent is traced through males. The father or the patriarch occupies a dominant position in the family and all members pay respect to him. Sir Henry Maine, the chief advocate of the patriarchal theory, stated in his books “Ancient Law” (1861) and “Early History of Institutions” (1875). He defines it as ‘‘the theory of the origin of society in separate families, held together by the authority and protection of the eldest male descendant. Maine explained the process of development in his “Ancient law”; the elementary group is the family connected by common subjection to the highest male descendant. The aggregation of families forms the genus or house. The aggregation of houses makes the tribe. The aggregation of tribes constitutes the common wealth. Maine believed that the unit of primitive society was the family, not the individual. Descent was traced through males and the eldest male parents possessed supreme power. His power extended to life and death over his children, the houses and the slaves. The single family broke up into more families which were held together by the head of the first family (patriarch). The multiplication of families held under the supreme control of one head and bound by the kinship CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
82 Political Science – I (blood relationship) led to the origin of the tribe. In course of time tribes proliferated and formed the state. Jenks says, the patriarchal society was characterised by three features: (a) Male kinship (b) Permanent marriage (c) Paternal authority. The theory is based on three fundamental assumption that: (i) The patriarchal family is based on permanent marriages and male kinship, (ii) The state is a collection of persons descended from the progenitor of an family, and (iii) The ultimate source of political authority is traced back to the supreme power exercised by the head of the patriarchal family. Criticisms This theory has been criticised on the following grounds: (i) The exponents of matriarchal theory have held that in early societies descend could be traced through females on account of the existence of polyandry. (ii) It has been further argued that the process of social evolution is just reverse of what Henry evolution is just reverse of what Henry Maine contended. Jenks viewed that tribe not family is the earliest primary group. (iii) The assumption of the institution of permanent marriage in primitive societies is held to be untenable. But in primitive societies there were polyandry and transient marriage relationship. (iv) Critics viewed that this theory only gives an explanation as to the origin of society but not state. (v) According to Mac Iver besides the family, property, customary law, war and conquest are the elements of state. So, the family is the basis of government, rather than the state. However, theory has the merit of drawing our attention to the role of kinship in the making of the state. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 83 2. Matriarchal Theory This theory as distinguished from the Patriarchal Theory, holds that matriarchal family is the earliest form of social organisation. Descent in such societies was traced through females. Evolving through a number of stages the matriarchal family ultimately gave rise to the state. The chief exponents of the Matriarchal Theory are McLennan. (Primitive Society, 1865), Morgan (Studies in Ancient Society 1877) and Jenks (A History of Politics-1900). Jenks illustrate this process from his studies of primitive tribes in Australia. In aborigines of Australia and certain communities in India provide illustrations of the matriarchal system. The fundamental features of this theory are: (i) Transient marriage relationship (ii) Female kinship (iii) Maternal authority, and (iv) Succession of only females to property and power. According to the supporters of this theory, in the ancient period there was no system of permanent marriage. Polyandry and transient marriage relationships were more common in primitive society. Under such a system the usual husband-wife relationship was non-existent. There were promiscuous sexual relationship in ancient period. Children belonged to the clan of the mother. But with the passage of time matriarchal society turned into patriarchal one and men recognised the value of women and thus permanent marriage system prevailed and families, clan and tribes were formed. Thus, they argue that, the origin of the state can be traced to the matriarchal family. The queen of Malabar and Princess of the Marathas in the past may be cited an examples in support of this theory. Criticisms The matriarchal theory has been criticised on the following grounds: (i) There was no historical proof as to whether the patriarchal or matriarchal family came into existence first. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
84 Political Science – I (ii) Not only by an expansion of family but various other factors were responsible for the evolution of the state. (iii) This theory explains the origin of the family rather than the state. It is wrong to assume that the state is family write large. Because state and the family are distinct things. Despite all these defects of the two theories the only truth is that family is at the basis of the state. No doubt, the supporters of the theory highlighted a vital element in the formation and evolution of the state, namely kinship. 6.2.5 The Evolutionary Theory Among all the theories, so far as the origin of the state is concerned the Evolutionary or Historical Theory is the most important, well accepted and highly satisfactory. In rejecting the earlier speculative theories, the Evolutionary Theory has dominated the Political Theory till now. According to this theory, “the state is neither the handwork of God, nor the result of superior physical force, nor the creation of resolution or convention, nor a mere expansion of the family. It is the result of the long process of evolution for which many factors are responsible.” As Leacock has pointed out “The state is a growth, an evolution, the result of gradual process, running throughout all the known history of man and receding into remote and unknown past.” The state was not created at any single part of there. It is the product of a slow historical evolution extending over a long period. Just as Rome was not built in a day. So also the state was not built in a day. Slowly and imperceptibly the state developed from simple to a complex political organisation of the modern type. The Historical School of Political Philosophy of the 18th century supported this theory. It was further influenced by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution which says that every organism has birth, growth and decay. The social scientists have tried to apply this idea in case of all social and political institutions including the state. The Evolutionary Theory highlights the sources and factors that created the necessary unity and organisation in early social groups out of which the state emerged. The following factors and influences have been considered significant for the origin and evolution of the state: CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 85 1. Kinship: Kinship or blood-relationship is the earliest and strongest bond of unity. Mac Iver says, “Kinship creates society and society at length creates the state.” Belief in common descent dominance of a patriarch, respect for the rights and obligations among people of same blood strengthened the bonds of unity and contributed to the creation of early political organisations. The original family by virtue of inter-blood relationship developed into clan, tribe and finally the state. Thus, kinship or family is a primary and one of the factors in the process of evolution of the state. 2. Religion: Next to kinship, religion has played an important part in the emergence of the state. Religion is a strong unifying factor. Gettell says, “Kinship and religion were two aspects of the same theory.” Religion, in the earliest and most difficult periods of political development, reinforced the sense of unity and respect for authority. Every idea, every custom and every habit of primitive man was governed by religion. Members of a particular religion were united together and performed worship. Even today, religion continues to play an important part in determining the nature of the state. Early society did differentiate between religion and politics. 3. Force: Force is one of the factors of the origin of the state. Ancient kingdoms were established and maintained by force. Strong king captured the weak and established his hegemony over that kingdom. Territorial expansion was development of the state. Even force was necessary to maintain peace and order when the tie of kinship wakened. Force is necessary for defence of the state. Thus, struggle, warfare and force are historically most important element in the formation of the state. 4. Property or Economic Needs: Private property or economic need also contributed to the rise of the state. In course of time man gave up his nomadic life. He settled down at a particular place and took agriculture as profession. Thus developed the idea of private property. This necessitated protection of life and property. Again man’s economic needs became multifarious. This led to dependence of one another. Thus interdependence and protection of private property and life were responsible for the evolution of the state. 5. Political Consciousness: The last but the most potent factor which is responsible for the growth of the state, is political consciousness. As soon as man emerged out from CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
86 Political Science – I primitive conditions, he felt a number of needs. The need for order and protection of person and property and the need for social, moral and intellectual improvement led man to recognise the necessity for creation of some agency to control the manifold relations of the individuals. The growth of population and increase in wealth made this need felt still more. The state at first came into existence merely as an idea. Later on it became physical fact. Thus the thinking on the part of the man for some form of organised life and controlling agency took the form of political consciousness which brought about the state. The Evolutionary Theory is thus, the widely accepted theory of origin of the state. It is said to be the correct theory as to origin of the state. In support of this theory, it may be said that the state is a growing phenomenon that knows no finality. The state from the most obscure origin has come to its present form in which we live. This also cannot be said to be crowning state of the state. It may develop into a still more clearer, visible complex and organised form than what it had been now. The Evolutionary Theory is the most scientific theory of origin of the state. It does not give verdict on anyone factor as the sole creator of the state. It considers all the factors and says that all played their role in the evolution of the state. It is the best theory or origin of the state. We may conclude by quoting Gettell, “The state is gradual and natural historic evolution. It is neither the gift of Divine power nor the deliberate work of man. Its beginnings are lost in that shadoway past in which social institutions were unconsciously arising and its development has followed the general law of evolutionary growth.” 6.2.6 The Marxian Theory The Marxian Theory of the origin nature and functions of the state is quite different from the liberal theories discussed earlier. Marxism is a socio economic and political philosophy of the working class. Marxist theory not only challenges the basic concepts of liberal state but also emphases that it enslaves majority men of society for the realisation of its aims it is to be abolished or smashed without which the emancipation of common men will never be possible. However, a problem about academic analysis of Marxist theory of state is that no where Marx has methodically analysed the theory. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 87 Marx, Engels and their followers had no faith on social contract theory as the origin of state. They have viewed the origin from a materialistic standpoint which emphasises that through the state is the creation of man, behind this there is no emotion, idea but the influence of material conditions which they termed as economic conditions. They have divided the development of society into old communist social system, slave society, feudal society and industrial society. In the old communist society there was no state because there was no existence of private properly. The system of private property worked as a potential cause of the rise of state. The owners of private property felt insecurity as to its protection and they felt the necessity of a super power which could provide protection ultimately. How the system of private property helped the creation of state?: 1. As soon as there was private property, two classes of men there appeared. One was the owner of property and the other was without property. 2. The conflict between them become prominent. Property owner wanted to subjugate the other class. 3. Property owners created a force within the society and this force ultimately assumed the status of state. From the study of history marx and Engels have concluded that the for all practical purposes was set up in the slave society there were mainly two classes. The owners of slaves and the slaves themselves. The owners of the slaves required an organisation to control and dominates slaves. Engels on his ‘The Origin of family’, Private Property and State’ has elaborately analysed the origin and development of state. The state is something coming out of the society. It is rather the product of society. People inhabiting in society laid the foundation of state for the realisation of their interests. He stated that the interests of the owners of property are at diametrically opposite to those who are not the owners, because of this there were clashes of interests were irreconcilable. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
88 Political Science – I At the same time three developed an animosity between these two classes and again this antagonism could not be settled. All these led to a situation which necessitated a state structure. The owners of the property came to be registered as a separate class whose sole aims were to control the persons who were not the owners of property and to devise a mechanism whose chief function would be help the property owners. The state in this way was created as a public power. The man made state had two main functions i.e to provide security to the owner of wealth or owner of means of production and to collect taxes from the members of society. Engels has further observed that though the state is the product of society, slowly but steadily it become the owner of enormous power and it stood above society. But though the state stood above the society it was always friendly with the owner of property. Thus, the state is the outcome of human contrivance and was made with specific aims. It is how clear that as per Marxian view the origin of the state has nothing to do with the social contract or the Divine Right theory. Marxians have analysed the origin purely from materialistic point of view. 6.3 Theories of the Nature of the State The principal theories of the nature of the state are: Juristic theory, Organismic theory, Mechanistic theory, Idealistic theory and the Marxian theory. The Juristic Theory The Juristic or Judicial Theory, as the very name implies, embodies the point of view of jurists. This theory originated in the 19th century in the writing of a group of German thinkers like Stahl, Stein, Gerber, Lasson and later by Gierke, Treitschke, Bluntschli, Jellinek and others. These writers regarded the state as a legal person having a distinct personality and will of its own. It exists to protect the rights. Life and property of the people by maintaining necessary law and order as well as legal basis. The state can express its will in wards and acts and as the creator and possessor of rights. As a legal person the state can sue and be sued. It acts as guardian of public interests and represents the collective interests of the community. Writers like Duguit and Lefur have criticised the concept of state personality. Duguit declared that the nation rests upon a “metaphysical a priori conception and upon old scholastic CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 89 concepts which have no value.” According to critics, this theory is defective in so far as it places the state above laws and vests it with unlimited law making authority. The pluralists argue that the state in the present context has become a welfare constitution, not a legal person. This theory can not explain the grounds of political obligation. The Organismic Theory The Organismic Theory or the Organic Theory of the state presents a biological conception of the state. It pictures the state as a living organism, a real person having organs that perform functions analogous to those of an animal or plant. It views the individuals who compose the state as analogous to the cells of an animal or a plant. The Organismic Theory considers the state as the result of organic growth based on unity and interdependence among its constituent parts. The Organismic Theory has a hoary past. The analogy between the state and a human being goes back to Plato, Cicero, John of Salisbury, Marsiglio and Althusius. Modern writers like Hobbes and Rousseau toyed with the idea. In England the leading exponent of the theory was Herbert Spencer who in his “Principles of Sociology” and other writings drew an elaborate analogy between society and social bodies begin as germs, grow and develop in course of item from simple to complex structures. The process of evolution in each case is characterial by a mutual dependence of parts. Both the social system and the organism possess a sustaining system, distributing system and regulatory system. The organism is a concrete structure while the body politic is discrete. The organism is conscious but the social system is not always conscious. However, this theory suffers from a number of criticisms. It leads to the conclusion that the state is by nature, individualistic and absolutist. Barker says that the state is not an organism but seems like an organism. Thus, the theory provides no satisfactory explanation of the nature of the state. The Mechanistic Theory This theory of state may be contrasted with the Organismic Theory. It regards the state as a machine created by man for his own purposes rather than an organic growth. This theory was a product of the scientific progress of the 17th century. This theory regards the state as a machine created by man for his own purposes. The state is artificial and genuinely free creation of men and CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
90 Political Science – I not natural growth. The exponents of the theory are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill. This theory looks upon the state as something made by man to suit his purposes. Men can drastically change the state and its apparatus to suit their conveniences. This theory is open to serious criticisms under following grounds: (i) The state is not a deliberate creation but an revolution. (ii) It looks upon individuals as isolated atoms and defines liberty as absence of restraint, thus it seems to be narrow and unreal. (iii) It has sometimes ignored man’s social character and the benefit of positive state action. C.L. Wayper remarks that “Mechanistic Theory lends itself very well to the creation of democratic institutions, thereby providing further safeguards for the individual. This theory separates state from society so that society can safeguard the interests of the individual in his relationship to the state. Since state is a human creation may resist the state when it goes against the paramount interests of the individual. The Idealistic Theory This theory of state variously known as the absolutist theory, the philosophical theory the ‘mystical’ theory and the metaphysical theory forms an integral part of the great tradition of philosophical idealism. It had its origin in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle as they assigned to the state all functions relating to over all development of the individual, his moral, physical and intellectual calibre. Plato and Aristotle regarded the state as natural and necessary. The 19th century idealists like Hegel, Green and Kant, etc. Have revived this theory. Hegel regarded the state as the march of God on earth. Green, Bosanquet and Kant considered the state as an all comprehensive, all powerful and all embarrassing institution. State is man’s best friend. Generally speaking the idealistic theory regards the state as the supreme ethical institution which glorifies almost to the point of deification. The state is indispensable to the fullest development of human personality. State creates and guarantees the real personality of the individual. Some idealists tend to regard the state as an end in itself, rather than a means and treat it as omnipotent. Barker sums up the idealist position thus: (1) the state lives and has a soul, CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 91 (2) this soul is conscious in its citizens; and (3) to each citizen this living soul assigns his field of accomplishment. Criticisms (i) It is an unsound and false theory. (ii) This theory idealises the state which cannot be established on earth. (iii) Pluralists deny the state’s claim as Supreme Power. This theory maintains a close relationship between ethics and politics. The Marxian Theory This theory of the origin, nature and functions of the state is quite different from the liberal theories discussed earlier. It is a socio-economic and political philosophy of the working class. Marxism emerged as a scientific revolutionary philosophy which aimed at a perfect social order free from injustice and exploitation. This theory does not regard the state as a welfare institution but a mass protecting the economic hegemony of the ruling class. Thus, the Marxian Theory neglects the non-economic factors which contributed to the rise of state. It fails to explain the true nature of state. The Marxist prophery of a classless, stateless society Russia and China. Thus, none of the theories could explain unmistakely the nature of state. So the modern thinkers regard it as a welfare or social service agency which is concerned with the preservation of law and order and provides facilities for welfare of more and more people. 6.4 Summary None of the theories could explain unmistakely the origin and nature of state. One cannot say with precision as to when and at what point of time, the state emerged and what is the exact nature of state. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
92 Political Science – I 6.5 Key Words/Abbreviations Divine: God Louis XIV: King of France Leviathan: Book written by Thomas Hobbes State of Nature: Condition before the state came into existence. Arthasastra: Book written by Kautilya 6.6 Learning Activity 1. Make a comparison between Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau’s state of nature. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. The social contract theory regarding origin of the state is speculative and imaginary in nature. Prove it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. State is a product of slow and steady process of evolution not a creation. Prove it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.7 Unit End Questions (MCQ and Descriptive) A. Descriptive Types Questions 1. What do you mean by state of Nature? 2. What is Social Contract? 3. What was Hobbe’s views on Human Nature? 4. What was Locke’s views on State of Nature? CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Theories of Origin of State 93 5. What was Rousseau’s views on Sovereignty? 6. Explain the Social contract theory regarding origin of the State. 7. “State is a Product of Evolution”. Examine. 8. Discuss Marxian views on origin of the state. B. Multiple Choice/Objective Type Questions 1. __________ among the following is not a social contract in a list or advocates of social contract theory. (a) T.H. Green (b) Thomas Hobbes (c) John Locke (d) Rousseau 2. ‘The Leviathan’ is written by __________. (a) Aristotle (b) Machiavelli (c) John Locke (d) Hobbes 3. __________ said the life in the state of nature was solitary, nasty, brutish, poor and short. (a) Thomas Hobbes (b) John Locke (c) Rousseau (d) None of he above 4. ‘The Two Treatise on Government’ is written by __________. (a) Machiavelli (b) John Locke (c) Rousseau (d) Hobbes 5. ‘The Social Contract’ is a famous book of __________. (a) Machiavelli (b) Jeremy Bentham (c) Rousseau (d) John Locke 6. ________ among following supports absolute sovereignty. (a) Lark Marx (b) Hobbes (c) John Locke (d) Rousseau CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
94 Political Science – I 7. The theory of popular sovereignty was advocated by ________. (a) Hobbes (b) Locke (c) Rousseau (d) Marx Answers 1. (a), 2. (d), 3. (a), 4. (b), 5. (c), 6. (b), 7. (c) 6.8 References 1. Asirvatham, Eddy, Political Theory, 1957. 2. Barkers, Earnest, Social Contract, 1946. 3. Garner J.W., Political Science and Government, 1955. 4. Gilchrist R.N., Principles of Political Science, 1961. 5. Gooch G.P., Political Thought in England. 6. Laski H.J., Political Thought in England. 7. Maclver R.M., The Modern State, 1950. 8. Sabine G.H., A History of Political Theory, 1957. 9. Suda J.P., Elements of Political Science, 1952. 10. Wayper C.L., Political Thought, 1974. 11. Willoughby W.W., The Nature of the State, 1907. CU IDOL SELF LEARNING MATERIAL (SLM)
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
