Central Perspectives on Modern State

. Introduction: The Enigmatic Nature of the

State
Pervasiveness and Ambiguity
The state (or “apparatus of government”) is omnipresent in
regulating life (e.g., from birth registration to death
certification).
Despite its ubiquitous role, the state is hard to grasp
conceptually because its functions, legitimacy, and limits are
continuously contested.
Historical Evolution
In early Western thought (with roots in Rome), the state was
linked to an impersonal, legal, and constitutional order.
Unlike in medieval times—when political life was tied to property
rights and religious traditions—the modern state emerged from
the transformation of European society from the sixteenth
century onward.
Multiple historical forces contributed to this change:
Struggles between monarchs and barons.
Peasant rebellions and challenges to feudal obligations.
The growth of trade, commerce, and market relations.
Renaissance interest in classical (Greek and Roman)
political ideas.
The consolidation of national monarchies and religious
strife.
Four Traditions of Analysis Identified
Liberalism: Focus on sovereignty and citizenship; the idea of a
private sphere free from state interference.
Liberal Democracy: Develops liberalism’s concerns by adding
the question of political accountability.
 Marxism: Rejects the starting assumptions of liberal theories;
emphasizes class structure and political coercion.
Political Sociology: (Drawing on Weber, Anglo-American
pluralism, and geopolitical ideas) focuses on the state’s
institutional mechanisms and its role in the international system.
Normative vs. Descriptive Theories
The text notes a common but problematic distinction:
Normative political theory: What the state ought to be
(concepts of liberty, equality, proper political organization).
Descriptive–explanatory social science theories: What the
state actually is (requiring interpretation of facts).
However, the author stresses that interpretation always plays a
role—even in “objective” accounts—and the two approaches
cannot be neatly separated.

2. Hobbes and the Absolutist Foundations

Hobbes’s Aim and Context
Hobbes was among the first to articulate a systematic theory of
public power.
In his work (notably in Leviathan and De Cive), he addresses
two key questions:
Why is a powerful state (a “great Leviathan”) necessary?
What form should that state take?
Human Nature and the State of Nature
Assumptions About Human Behavior:
Humans are driven by desires, aversions, and an endless
quest for “more intense delight.”
This self-interested nature results in inevitable conflicts
(“war of every man against every man”).
State of Nature:
Without a common power to enforce rules, individuals exist
in a state where natural rights allow anyone to do as they
 please, leading to chaos.
Life in this state is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”
The Social Contract
To escape perpetual conflict, individuals agree to transfer their
natural rights to a single, sovereign authority.
This contract is not a literal historical event but a “thought
experiment” that explains the necessity of surrendering
individual rights in return for protection.
Key Features:
Sovereignty: The state (or sovereign) is absolute, self-
perpetuating, and undivided.
Legitimacy: The authority of the sovereign is derived from
the consent that individuals would have given in the social
contract.
Order and Security: The primary function of the state is to
enforce laws and protect individuals (and their property)
against the natural state of war.
The Liberal–Illiberal Tension in Hobbes
Although Hobbes begins with the notion of free and equal
individuals (a liberal idea), his conclusion requires an almost all-
powerful sovereign to maintain order.
This tension—between individual freedom and the necessity for
coercive power—is a central paradox in his political philosophy.

3. Locke’s Critique and the Constitutional

Turn
Locke’s Objection to Hobbes
Locke argues that it is not credible to think that individuals, who
do not fully trust one another, would agree to be governed by
an all-powerful sovereign.
He emphasizes that people would not consent to be “devoured
by lions” (i.e., subjected to arbitrary power) and therefore need
 safeguards.
Locke’s Conception of the State
State as an Instrument:
The state (or “government”) is seen as a means to secure
natural rights—specifically, life, liberty, and estate
(property).
Society exists prior to the state; the state is formed to
regulate society and protect individual rights.
Social Contract and Consent:
Unlike Hobbes’s irrevocable contract, Locke’s version is
conditional: the government’s legitimacy is contingent on
its ability to safeguard citizens’ rights.
Consent is foundational but can be “tacit” (expressed
through actions such as property ownership, residency, or
use of public goods).
Separation of Powers:
Locke is associated with the early idea that governmental
power should be divided—legislative functions should be
separate from the executive—to prevent abuse.
Even though he accepts that the state must have supreme
jurisdiction over its territory, he argues that this power
should be limited.
Right of Revolution:
If the government fails in its duty to protect the rights of its
citizens, those citizens retain the right to withdraw their
consent and rebel.

4. The Rise of Liberal Democracy:

Accountability and the Public Good
From Liberalism to Liberal Democracy
The evolution from the classical liberal view (as represented by
Locke) to liberal democracy involves emphasizing not just rights
 but also accountability.
Key Figures: Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, and later John Stuart
Mill.
Bentham and James Mill’s Contributions
Accountability of Rulers:
They argued that for a government to be legitimate, it must
be directly accountable to its citizens.
Democracy, therefore, serves as a protection against the
abuse of power.
Utilitarian Justification:
Government action should aim to maximize the happiness
or utility of the greatest number.
Subsidiary goals include providing subsistence, promoting
abundance, ensuring equality, and—most crucially—
maintaining security.
Protective Case for Democracy:
Democratic institutions (regular elections, secret ballots,
separation of powers) are necessary to prevent tyranny
and ensure the public good.
John Stuart Mill’s Vision
Democracy as a Mechanism for Self-Development:
Mill sees political participation (voting, involvement in local
governance, jury service) as essential for individual growth
and moral self-development.
Liberty in “On Liberty”:
Mill famously argues that the only legitimate reason for
society or the state to interfere with an individual’s liberty
is to prevent harm to others.
This “harm principle” underpins the modern liberal defense
of individual freedoms.
Tension in Mill’s Thought:
Despite advocating for democracy, Mill supported a plural
system of voting—arguing that the more knowledgeable or
capable citizens should have greater influence.
 He was critical of vast inequalities and, while defending
representative government, he did not fully endorse equal
voting weight for all citizens.
Evolution to Universal Suffrage:
Historically, the franchise was limited (excluding women,
slaves, and the working classes).
Later struggles (working-class and feminist movements)
helped transform these ideas into a more genuinely
universal democratic system.

5. Rousseau and the Argument for Direct

(Participatory) Democracy
Rousseau’s Critique of Earlier Social Contracts
Rousseau rejects both the traditional social contract theories
(Hobbes, Locke) and the representative model favored by liberal
democrats.
Sovereignty and the People:
For Rousseau, sovereignty remains permanently with the
people.
He famously argues that “sovereignty cannot be
represented” because it is an inalienable right of the
citizenry.
The General Will:
Distinguishes between the “general will” (the collective,
common interest) and the “will of all” (the mere aggregation
of individual desires).
A legitimate political order must be founded on the active,
direct participation of citizens in formulating laws that
reflect the common good.
Self-Government and Active Citizenship:
Citizens should be directly involved in decision-making;
once representatives are elected, Rousseau contends that
 citizens become “enslaved.”
True liberty is achieved when every citizen participates in
making and obeying the laws.
Institutional Division:
Rousseau supports a clear separation between the
legislative function (which belongs to the people) and the
administrative (executive) function, which should serve
only as an agent for the general will.

6. Marxist Critique: Class, Coercion, and the

Illusion of Neutrality
Critique of the Individual-Centric Approach
Marx and Engels challenge the liberal assumption that
individuals (and their natural rights) are the proper starting point
for understanding the state.
Historical Materialism:
They argue that individuals are defined by their social
relations, particularly by class relations that emerge with
the development of surplus production.
Class Structure as the Basis of the State
Emergence of Classes:
Early tribal societies were classless because there was no
surplus production.
With the rise of capitalism, surplus production enabled a
class of capital owners to emerge, leading to the
exploitation of wage-labor.
The State as an Instrument of Class Domination:
The state appears to defend the “public interest” but, in
fact, it works to preserve property relations and the
privileges of the dominant class.
By treating private interests as if they were the common
good, the state masks the underlying exploitative
 relationships.
Two Strands in Marx’s Analysis of the State
Position 1 (Relative Autonomy):
The state, especially through its bureaucracy, can take
various forms and sometimes operates with a degree of
independence from class forces.
This view recognizes that the bureaucracy’s inner
dynamics (hierarchy, specialization, secrecy) create a form
of power not immediately reducible to class interests.
Position 2 (Instrument of Class Rule):
The dominant view in Marx’s writings: the state and its
bureaucracy are tools used by the ruling capitalist class to
organize and maintain exploitation.
Bureaucracy is seen as a “closed society” where state
officials are socialized into supporting the interests of the
dominant class.
Critique of Bureaucracy
Drawing on Hegel’s influence, Marx criticizes the Prussian state
model.
The bureaucracy, rather than expressing “universal” or impartial
insight, becomes a site where individual ambition and class
interests are reproduced.
(The excerpt is truncated at this point, but the discussion makes
clear that for Marx the state’s legitimacy is always suspect
because it is deeply embedded in class conflict.)

7. General Themes and Concluding

Observations
The Central Tension
There is a persistent tension between:
The idea of the state as a necessary guarantor of order
and security.
 And the recognition that the same state may also be a tool
of oppression—whether by concentrating power absolutely
(as in Hobbes) or by perpetuating class domination (as in
Marx).
Legitimacy and Consent
Different theories explain legitimacy in various ways:
Hobbes: Legitimacy comes from the original (or tacit)
social contract that saves society from anarchy.
Locke and the Liberals: Legitimacy is conditional upon the
protection of natural rights and can be revoked if the state
fails its duty.
Democratic Models (Bentham, Mill, Rousseau): Legitimacy
arises from active, continuous participation by citizens—
whether through periodic elections or direct engagement in
lawmaking.
Marxism: The appearance of legitimacy is a façade
masking the state’s function in maintaining exploitative
class relations.
The State’s Dual Role
On one hand, the state is seen as constructing society—its laws
and institutions shape social relations.
On the other hand, the state is simultaneously the arena where
existing social relations (such as class divisions) are reproduced
and contested.
Evolving Conceptions
The work underlines that no single theory of the state remains
uncontested.
Each tradition (liberalism, liberal democracy, direct/participatory
democracy, and Marxism) captures essential aspects of the
modern state while leaving other issues unresolved.
The debates continue today regarding the balance between
individual liberty and state power, the limits of political
authority, and the means by which political accountability is
secured.