EMERGENCE OF STATE AND DEFINITION OF STATE
State emerges from the society. Society is an association of human beings, who
live a collective life and form social relations to fulfill their needs of life, that
may be physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual. Society is the whole web
of social relationship based on kinship affinity, language affinity, religious
affinity, common conscience of individuals and territorial affinity. Social
relationships are governed by necessity, custom, courtesy, morality, mutual
understanding, agreement or even contract.
The State is usuallt described as “Society politically organized”. When a society
is governed by common set of laws, rules and regulations and obey a supreme
authority, it qualifies for being a State. Thus, the State is formed out of society
The society is the primary association. A State is formed to regulate the political
activity of individuals for social order. The State depends on society for its
existence but not vice versa.
DEFINITION OF STATE
There is no one accepted definition of State. It has been defined by different
writers differently. We can understand State as a particular portion of society
politically organized for the protection and promotion of its common interests.
The most important elements of State are People, Territory and Government.
Most of the writers concur with each on this however, there is disagreement on
fourth element i.e., Sovereignty.
Harold J Laski (1883-1950), a british political philosopher in his work, “An
Introduction to Politics (1931) defines State as a ‘territorial society, divided into
government and subjects claiming within its allotted physical area supremacy
over other associations’.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) defines State as, ‘an association of families and villages
for the sake of attaining a perfect and self-sufficient existence’.
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
The Social Contract theory traces the existence of the State to the mutual
agreement and mutual consent of the people to form the State. This theory finds
support in the writings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke from England and
Jeans Jacques Rousseau from France.
They believed that to escape from pre-political condition of the society, people
entered into a social contract. With mutual consent a political authority was
created and all the people were supposed to be obedient to this power. But
ultimate political authority vested with the consent of the people. These theories
are belived to be basis of modern-day democracy.
THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679)
He has explained the theory of origin of State in his literary work ‘Leviathan’.
He explains before emergence of the civil society, the people were in a state of
nature, every one man was enemy of other, they were fighting with the nature.
The state of nature was a condition of untimigated selfishness and struggle. He
believed the life of a human being was ‘solitary poor, nasty, brutish and short.’
To evade this state of nature, the people entered into a social contract to secure
their natural rights of life, liberty and property as civil rights to establish a State.
They authorized a sovereign the right to govern themselves. The sovereign here
is the King and the people who surrendered themselves to the King became the
subjects.
The ruler or the King was not a party to the Contract. The Ruler had
unprecendented authority and was not bound by any Laws, The commands of
the sovereign were laws for the governed and the Sovereign was not
accountable to people. People gave their ruler unquestioned obedience.
Conclusion:
According to R G Gettle, Hobbes created all powerful sovereign. The people
were deprived the power to revolt. They could revolt the commands only when
the ruler was conquered and submitted authority to a new emperor. According
to Hobbes, a change in the government meant the dissolution of the State.
JOHN LOCKE (-1632-1704)
John Locke in his book “Two Treatises of Government” explained about the
State of Nature and the origin of State. According to him in the state of nature
there existed peace, natural rights, preservation of goodwill and mutual
assistance. The people were social and had rights and liberties. The State of
nature ensured three rights to individuals relating to life, liberty and property.
However, there was a state of inconvenience. Each individual himself had to
interpret the law for himself and others. There was no machinery to enforce the
natural rights of the individuals. To preserve such state of affairs two contracts
were made: social and governmental. Social contract led to the formation of
civil society and government contract to the establishment of government.
Social contract was among the individuals to surrender their natural rights in
exchange of civil rights. Government contract was between the individuals and
the ruler, to establish a system of Law and Justice in the form of a State. The
ruler was the party to the contract and was bound by its terms. Unlike Hobbes,
Locke traces the source of governmental authority to the consent of the
community.
Conclusion: Locke introduced the concept of limited government in terms of the
rulers, their powers, functions and tenure. He believed in limited monarchy. The
King was the trustee of the people. If the ruler abused his powers and breached
the popular trust he may be changed by revolt by the people.
JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU (1712-1778)
According to him, ‘the general will of the people’ led to the creation of the
institution called the State. Rousseau in his work, “The Social Contract”,
described the state of nature as a state of bliss and happiness. With passage of
time, increase in population and disparity of wealth and power, life became
intolerable. Simplicity and happiness disappeared. Human beings then started to
build their relations on cooperation and dependency. They entered into a social
contract to preserve the natural rights without submitting or subordinating to
any ruler or authority.
Individuals surrendered their rights to the general will of which individuals
themselves were parts, and hence they shared rights even after transferring
them. Individuals were governed by a new authority in the name of General
Will (common good) of the people, in the form of direct democracy. Rousseau
regarded general will of the people as sovereign. The common good depends on
the prevailing circumstances of the society. According to Rousseau, the
government is merely the tool to execute the popular will. Thus popular
sovereignty is in continuous exercise and there is no scope of revolt in his
theory.
This theory is critised on certain common counts. First, the individuals who
were naïve to the concept of political authority and civil rights could not from
any particular point of time, enter into an agreement and start living a
collectivized civil Life. Second, if the existence of state is based on agreement
of the members of a society, then the old agreement may be revoked for new in
accordance with the self-interests of the members. Thus, a mechanically
originated state will run under the constant fear of destabilization.
