The Origin of the State

Divine Origin Theory

Oldest theory for the origin of the state

It advocates for the theory that a King rules by God's will,order, and authorisation. State is a divine institution rather than a human institution

King is a representative of God on Earth

Commands of the King have to be obeyed as dictates of God and disobedience of this is not just a crime but also a sin

Main features

State is a creation of God

State is a divine institution

King is the agent of God on this Earth

King rules by the divine right to rule

King's commands are to be obeyed by all

Monarchy is hereditary. The king passes on the divine right to his successor

No one has the power to limit or take away the King's rights or powers

Main advocates

The jews

Hindus

Greeks and Romans

Christianity

Criticism

Not based on facts

Unhistorical

Fails to stand the test of morality

Explains only kingship

Against Democracy

Religious theory rather than a political theory

Dangerous theory

Not applicable to modern states

Conservative theory

Atheists do not accept this theory

The Divine Origin Theory was rejected and began to decline in the 17th Century. It reached its end when the people of England staged the Glorious Revolution and accepted the principle of sovereignty of the British Parliament.

Gilchrist suggested that there were three reasons for the decline of this theory

emergence of social contract theory

separation of church from state and subordination of religion to politics

emergence of nationalism as a potent force and the birth of democracy causing the rejection of monarchy

Social Contract Theory

Projects the view that originally people lived in the state of nature and then they decided to come out of the state of nature for various reasons (including anarchy and chaos) and they entered into a contract which led to the birth of the state

State is a human institution and came into being through a voluntary contract

Exponents - Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau

Hobbes

Hobbes was an Englishman who was a tutor for King Charles II. He believed firmly in the absoluteness of sovereignty and its rulers.

In his work 'The Leviathan' he expounded his theory and used it to assure the absolute sovereignty of the ruler.

He supported the king in the struggle between the British King and Parliament and he used his theory to back his views.

He believed 1) the contract was made under the natural right of each to voluntarily enter any contract and 2) they ended the state of nature because it was nasty, brutish, and short.

He supported extreme absoluteism

He believed state of nature was both pre-political and pre-social

Locke

He came out with another social contract theory which was in stark contrast to Hobbes' theory.

He supported the parliament and not the King in the Glorious Revolution

He favoured the concept of sovereignty of community and he believed that people should have the right to change their ruler if the ruler was violating their natural rights

He believed nature was pre-political but not pre-social

He believed two contracts were made - a civil one to set up society, and a political one to set up state

He was an indvidualist and he is known as the Father of Individualism

He presented his thoughts in his works: 'Two Treatises on Government'

Rousseau

Jean Jacque Rousseau was a French Revolutionary who came forward with his idea of the social contract theory in his works The Social Contract.

His theory took points from both Hobbes and Locke and combined them. His initial thoughts were more like Locke's but he ended up with conclusions similar to Hobbes'

Human Nature - he believed that man used to be carefree and had no concept of mine and thine. They lived blissfully and without limitations. However, selfishness took birth in the form of private property and caused problems like war. Man wanted to go back to the state of nature but had no way of going there

State of Nature - Like Hobbes he believed the state of nature was both pre-social and pre-political. However in contrast, he believed man was happy at this time and was not selfish or quarrelsome until the introduction of private property. This led to wars and property disputes and destroyed the happiness of pre-historic times. To come out of this, man decided to create civil society and came into a social contract

General Will - Through entering the social contract, each individual surrendered their individual will to the collective or general will of the state. By doing so, they gained more than they lost and the general will was usually beneficial to all citizens. The general will of the sovereign was the real will and according to him it was undeniable, absolute, and infallible.

Represents bad history (unhistorical - history does not represent the creation of a social contract), bad law (conceives of a binding contract without the sanction of a sovereign authority) and bad philosophy (conceives the state to be an artificial machine made by man)

Unhistorical

State of nature is a fiction

State is not a man made machine

Contract could not have been made without State and law

Contract is only binding for the parties and not for their successors

Membership of state is not voluntary

Dangerous theory

Evolutionary Theory

Universally accepted and most valid theory of the origin of the state - it says that the state has been a growth and not a make. It originated through a natural process of historical evolution. The state came into existence out of a process of historical evolution.

Key factors that have played a role in the evolution of the state

Natural human social instinct

Kinship and family

Religion

Wars and Conflict

Economic factors

Political Consciousness