Theories Of Origin Of State 351l42

Chapter 4 THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE The origin of a complex social phenomenon and political organization like the state is difficult to trace. Over the centuries political thinkers have tried to answer the question: How the state came into existence? In the absence of adequate historical and anthropological data, they offered different explanations which are mostly speculative in nature. Broadly speaking the theories of the origin of the state fall into two categories: speculative (imaginative) and empirical. While theories like divine origin and social contract are speculative, those of like kinship theories and evolutionary theories are based on empirical and verifiable findings. The Theory of Divine Origin The theory of divine origin is the oldest concerning the primary origin of the state. It looks upon the state as a divine institution. The state is created by God and ruled by him either directly or indirectly through some ruler who is regarded as the agent or representative of God on earth. The Jews were the earliest advocates of this theory. In the Hindu epic Mahabharata, it has been said that when people were tired of anarchy and lawlessness, they prayed to God for respite and he appointed specific rulers for the purpose. In the Bible it is stated: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God". Thus God is the source of all powers and the rulers are considered his agents. The early church fathers also propounded this theory. During the middle ages a fierce controversy developed between the state and Church for supremacy on the basis of this theory. Gradually the theory of divine origin of the state was transformed into the theory of the divine rights of kings. In England, James I, the first Stuart King and Sir Robert Filmer were the leading exponents of this latter doctrine. In his work, The Law of Free Monarchies, James I wrote: "Kings are justly called gods, for they exercise a manner of resemblance of divine power upon earth". They are the "breathing images of God upon earth" and the King "is master over every person, having power over life and death". In the despotism of Louis XIV was ed by Bossuet on the strength of this doctrine. The main features of the theory of divine rights of Kingship are the following: 1. Monarchy is divinely ordained. Kings derive their authority directly from God. 2. Hereditary right is indefeasible. Succession to the throne is governed by the law of primogeniture. 3. Kings are able to God alone for all their acts. 4. Resistance to a lawful King is sin. To go against the King is to go against God. Disobedience is sacrilegious. Criticism 1. In modern times it has been rejected as "unsound in theory and dangerous in practice". 1

2.

3.

4.

5.

It is based on certain assumptions which cannot be verified. There is no empirical proof of any divine delegation of authority to the rulers. Its propositions are to be accepted as matter of faith rather than of reason. The theory is dangerous in practice as it leads to royal despotism. It leaves the people at the mercy of despots. Since the rulers are responsible to God alone for all their acts of omission and commission, it undermines the democratic principle of the responsibility of the rulers to the ruled and leads to autocracy. It is illogical as it is used to justify the rule even of a bad king. Kings as the agents of God are supposed to be virtuous. The theory should not be advanced in of bad and autocratic rulers. It is highly undemocratic. It rules out the role of popular control in political affairs. People remain perpetually in a state of servitude. It stifles the political consciousness and participation of people. The theory is lopsided as it its the possibility of only the monarchical form of government.

Value of the Theory Notwithstanding these criticisms the theory of divine origin served some useful purposes. 1. At a time when societies were suffering from anarchy and disorder, it taught men the values of obedience and discipline and brought them together under a common authority. It has been a powerful factor in preserving order and did a lot to strengthen the respect of people for person, property, and government. 2. It emphasizes the unifying role played by religion in the development of the state. 3. It invests the state with a high moral status. As Gilchrist remarks: "To regard the state as the work of god is to give it a high moral status, to make it something which the citizen may revere and , something which he may regard as the perfection of human life. It introduces an element of morality into politics. 4. It highlights the moral responsibility of the rulers to the ruled as they are able to God for the manner in which they exercise their power. Decline of the Theory Some of the principal causes which brought about the decline of the theory are as follows: 1. The rise of the social contract theory with its emphasis upon the state as a human institution and the idea of popular consent gave a death blow to the divine origin theory. 2. The growth of democratic ideas directly opposed autocratic and absolutist basis of political authority ened upon by the divine origin theory. In emphasizing the rights of individuals and popular control of government, democratic theory discredited divine right of Kingship. 3. 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 2

State and made it sub-ordinate to the State. Secular ideas destroyed the religious basis of political power expounded by the divine origin theory. 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 spiritual". The Theory of Force As an explanation of the origin and basis of the state, the theory of force is based on an analysis of the two primary instincts in man craving for power and desire for selfassertion. In the dawn of civilization, these instincts found expression in continuous conflicts and aggressions. The strong attacked and enslaved the weak. The strong exercised their rule over the weak. Powerful men began to exercise control over a sizeable section of people and this led to the emergence of clans and tribes. There were incessant fights between clans and tribes for supremacy. Through such conflicts the authority of a successful tribal chief was established on a particular territory and ultimately the state emerged. The state is the outcome of aggression, the result of superior physical force. Leacock writes: “Hhistorically it (force theory) means that government is the outcome of human aggression, that the beginnings of the state are to be sought in the capture and enslavement of man by man, in the conquest and subjugation of feebler tribes and, generally speaking, in the self seeking domination acquired by superior physical force. The progressive growth from tribe to Kingdom and from Kingdom to empire is but a continuation of the same process". In its simplest form, this theory may be stated thus: "war begat the King". In his book "The State", Oppenheimer, a keen exponent of the theory, traces the origin of state through various stages. Jenks, another prominent advocate of the theory, in his "History of Politics" holds that, "historically speaking, there is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all political communities of the modern type owe their existence to successful warfare". The state is not only created by force but also maintained by force. The use of force is imperative to maintain law and order inside the state and to defend the state against foreign aggression. Hence force or physical power is the basis of the state. Varied Interpretations of the Theory The theory of force has been given different interpretations by thinkers to serve their own purposes. In Europe, the middle ages were characterized by struggle between the Church and the State for supremacy. The Church Fathers used the force theory to justify the supremacy of the religious authority over political authority. They argued that the Church was a divine institution while the state was a product of force. Divine sanction imparted a greater legitimacy to the Church and as such it was superior to the state. Individualists used the theory in of individual freedom and rights. The state as an organization of force is considered as a necessary evil. It should have a restrictive 3

function, namely, maintenance of internal order and defence against external aggression. Restrictive state functions, they argue, will result in enjoyment of maximum possible individual freedom.

The Marxists trace the origin and development of the state in conquest and domination of the economically dominant class over the dispossessed class. They look upon the state as an instrument of aggressive class exploitation. In the contemporary capitalist state the power of the state is used by the capitalist class to maintain their own privileges by exploiting the working class. Social change, according to Marxists, comes by force and revolution. Force is the midwife of an old society giving birth to a new one. Only in a classless society (communism), the state (along with force) will be abolished. Hence, the Marxian analysis of the origin and continuance of political institutions runs in of power and force. Perhaps the greatest use of the force theory has been made by German thinkers like Hegel, Bernhard, Sorel, Nietzsche and Treitschke who preached a doctrine of naked force and coercion with a view to placing on the summit of glory. According to Bernhard, “might is the supreme right and the dispute as to what is right is decided by the arbitration of war". Nietzsche and Sorel enunciated the doctrine of the revolutionary right of the strong. Treitschke identified the state with power and power is moralized by the assumption that it is the condition of upholding and spreading a national culture. These views provided a philosophical basis to the emergence of Nazism in and Fascism in Italy which practiced a rule of mass subjugation and forcible suppression of dissent in domestic politics and militancy in international relations. Elements of Truth Force has no doubt played an important role in the historical development of the state. Wars and conquests have led to the emergence of permanent leadership and to the establishment of political authority on a fixed territory. Again the use of force is imperative to maintain internal order and eternal security. No state can last long without the employment of force or coercion. The defence forces and the police organization of modern states are illustrative of their superior physical power over individuals and other associations. Fear of punishment by the state is one of the plausible grounds of political obligation. It is a truism that law is obeyed because it is backed by force. Criticism In spite of its slender historical truth the theory of force has been subjected to severe criticism. 4

It is one-sided. It exaggerates only one aspect of human nature -man's craving for power. It ignores the noble aspects of human nature. Besides, his power hunger, man displays his cooperative social sentient by forming society and subjecting himself voluntarily to the rules and regulations of social and group life. Force is only one of the elements which has contributed to the origin, evolution and continuance of the state. According to Leacock the theory "errs in magnifying what has been only one factor in the evolution of society into the sole controlling force". No state has emerged solely by brute force. State is the product of several factors such as Kinship, religion, economic activities and political consciousness. Force is an essential element of the state but not the real and ultimate basis. Common will or consent of the people is the real basis of the state. As T. H. Green remarks, "Will, not force is the basis of the state". According to MacIver, coercive power is a criterion of the state, but not its essence. No state can last long by mere use of naked force, Laski writes: "successfully to coerce, it (the state) must be able successfully to persuade. It wins his (individual's) allegiance not by being the state, but because of what as the state, it is seeking to do". The theory is not conducive to democracy. Democracy is government by consent, discussion and criticism. The use of force suppresses people's right to discuss and debate public issues and to control the government. Force without constitutional checks and safeguards leads to tyranny and dictatorship, Force is a means to an end, namely, public welfare, Force is inimical to healthy international relations. With the growth of international law and organizations like the U.N. interstate relations cannot continue to be governed on force. The international community puts a on the settlement of interstate disputes by peaceful means, not through the arbitrament of war. The Social Contract Theory The most important speculative theory relating to the origin of the state is the 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 seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Statement of the 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 organization. They divide history into two periods: the period before the state was formed, called "the state of nature" and the period after the state was instituted. Contract or voluntary agreement, which is instrumental in the formation of the state, divides these two periods of history. In the state of nature, men were subject to no law or governmental regulation. Men were subject only to such regulations as nature was 5

supposed to prescribe (natural law). They enjoyed some rights known as natural rights. The state of nature was either too unbearable or too inconvenient for primitive men to put up with it or too idyllic to last long. Hence men decided to abandon the state of nature and set up a political society through contract or covenant. As a result of the contract, each man lost his natural liberty partly or wholly, and agreed to obey the laws prescribed by the government. There is difference of view among the exponents of the theory relating to the conditions of the state of nature, the character of the laws of nature, nature of the contract, the features of the political society and other details. But they agree on its fundamental idea, namely, that the state is a human creation, the result of a voluntary agreement among primitive people. History of the Theory The idea of contract is very old and goes back to the writings of Plato and Sophists of ancient Greece and Kautilya's "Arthasastra". While sophists described the state to be product of contract among men, Plato and Aristotle dealt with the theory only to reject it. In political discussion, the theory assumed significance during and after the Middle Ages. Two forms of the theory, viz., the governmental contract and the social contract, are found in such discussions. The first postulates a tacit agreement between the government and the people; and the second, the institution of a political society (State) by mess of a among individuals. The idea of governmental contract was employed by antimonarchist writers in the Middle Ages in defence of popular liberties. Manegold, St. Thomas Aquinas, Du PlessisMornay, Buchanan and Mariana are some of the outstanding theorists of governmental contract. Social contract, as distinguished from the governmental contract, is probably first mentioned in Hooker's "The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity". Althusius and Milton also used the idea of social contract in constructing their theories of limited government. The theory traversed a long way in the history of political thought until it received the most systematic and comprehensive treatment in the writings of two Englishmen, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke and the Frenchman J. J. Rousseau. Views of its Modern Exponents Thomas Hobbes: Hobbes, who wrote his book "Leviathan" against the backdrop of the English Civil War (1642-51) presented a very gloomy picture of the state of nature. It was a condition of perpetual war and conflicts among men who were essentially selfish and power craving. It was both pre-social and pre-political. Natural right was another name for might. "Kill whom you can, take what you can" was the order of the day. Life was totally insecure and Hobbes described it as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Men made a contract among themselves to come out of this horrible state of nature and formed a civil society or the state. It was contract of each with all and all with each whereby men gave 6

up their natural rights except the right to self-preservation to a "common power' who was called the sovereign. His command was law. This sovereign enjoyed absolute and indivisible power and guaranteed security of life and protection of property to every other individual. Hobbes was basically an individualist philosopher who justified absolute power of the government in the interest of peace and security which are the basic needs of human beings. John Locke: While Hobbes's philosophy was used in defence of absolute government, Locke in his "Two Treatises of Government" sought to justify the English Revolution of 1688. He was an ardent advocate of constitutional government and rule of law. He analyzed human nature in of essential social virtues and characterized 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 under the governance of the laws of nature. But men experienced three inconveniences, viz. the absence of settled and fixed laws; the absence of known and impartial judge and the absence of an executive power to enforce just decisions. Men made a contract to escape from the state of nature, which was a will condition and establish the civil society in which the whole community enjoyed supreme power. Each individual surrendered his natural right of interpreting and enforcing the law of nature so that his fundamental natural rights to life, liberty and property could be secured. Supreme power was vested in the community which set up a government as a "fiduciary trust" to carry out the functions delegated by the community. Government was based on the consent of the people who could overthrow it when it acted against the trust reposed in it. Locke's theory thus results in constitutional or limited government. J. J. Rousseau: Rousseau's views on ‘Social Contract’ inspired the French Revolution of 1789 and also provided the basis of the theory of popular sovereignty. 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 happy and simple life. With the growth of population and the idea of private property men became selfish, greedy and aggressive. With the dawn of reason, human nature became increasingly complex. Conflicts and tensions in the later stages of the state of nature forced men to enter into a contract whereby they surrendered all their natural rights to the community or the "General Will". The people as a collective body became sovereign and each member was an inseparable part of the general will which was the voice of all for the good of all. Law is an expression of the general will and can be made only in an assembly of the whole people. As the general will is the will for collective good, so it is always just and right and every member of the community is under an obligation to obey its commands. Government remains an agent of the community and exercises only executive power delegated to it by the community. Freedom of the individual consists in acting in accordance with general will. Rousseau's ideas inspired the movements for democratic rights in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; and at the same time his doctrine of general will has been manipulated to serve 7

the purpose of the totalitarian states. Criticism of the Theory The theory of social contract has been assailed from various angles. It has been characterized as bad history, bad law and bad philosophy. In other words, it has been attacked from three different angles – the historical, the legal, and the philosophical or rational. Historical 1. Historically, the theory is untenable. It has no basis in fact. Historical records are lacking as to those primitive times when, if at all, such contracts must have been made for the institution of the state. The idea of a contract is too advanced for primitive man. Formation of a state through common consent presupposes a high degree of political consciousness which primitive people hardly possessed. 2. Anthropological studies have demonstrated that people always lived under some form of political organization, however crude it might be. The concept of a state of nature as pictured by Hobbes, is without any basis in history. 3. There have been instances of governmental or political contracts whereby rights and duties of the rulers and the people have been defined. Such contracts have been made by people already living in the civil state. The idea of social contract whereby the state originated for the first time is a fiction. 4. The theory assumes that primitive man enjoyed ample freedom to enter into contracts with his fellow men. Sir Henry Maine's historical researches have disproved this. Primitive society was governed by communal laws and the individual was not free to change his status through contract. Individual's position was determined in society. Primitive society rested not upon contract but upon status. Maine shows that the movement of societies has been from one of status to one of contract. Contract is not the beginning but end of society. Under such conditions, the idea of free contracting individuals forming a state, seems highly improbable. Legal 1. A contract, in order to be valid, must be backed and enforced by adequate sanctions. But there is no such sanction behind the contract among primitive men for the formation of a political society. There was no common authority in the state of nature to enforce it. In the words of T. H. Green, "the covenant by which a civil power is for the first time constituted cannot be a valid covenant. The men making it are not in a position to make a valid covenant at all".

8

2. If the original contract has no legal meaning and validity, all subsequent contracts based upon it are equally invalid, and the rights and obligations derived from it have no legal foundation. 3. It is illogical to suppose that the original contract made by one generation of people should bind succeeding generations who have had no say in the matter at all. As a matter of fact each generation must be free to shape its own future.Tom Paine criticized the conception of contract for being eternally binding on future generations. He asserted: "Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it". 4. 5. A contract presupposes at least two parties who must be bound by its and conditions. But the contract in Hobbes's writing does not bind the sovereign who is not a party but a product of it. Such a notion of contract is one-sided and illegal. Philosophical 1. The social contract theory is highly mechanical which reduces the state to an artificial creation of man. State is the most natural and universal of all social institutions and hip of it is compulsory" The relation between the individual and the state is not a voluntary one. Individuals are born into the state. State is the result of slow, gradual growth. Various factors like Kinship, religion, force, economic activities and political consciousness have gone into its making and evolution. It was not created abruptly at any particular point of time by the voluntary choice of individuals. 2. The theory reduces the relationship between the individual and the state to some sort of partnership. The obligations of the individuals to the state are not contractual at all. Individuals are not free to enter it or withdraw his hip at will. Burke states this point well. "It ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties It is to be looked on with other reverence. It is a partnership in all science, a partnership in all art, a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born". 3. The entire concept of the state of nature and laws of nature is fallacious. It is wrong to assume that whatever preceded the formation of the state is "natural" and whatever has followed it is artificial. "Man is a part of nature and the state is the highest expression of his nature. The state is a growth and not a manufacture";

9

4. T. H. Green aptly remarks that "it implies the possibility of rights and obligations independently of society". The idea that men enjoyed natural rights in the state of nature is false. Rights and obligations are possible only in the state and not prior to its existence. 5. According to Bluntschli, the social contract theory is in the highest degree dangerous, since it makes the state and its institutions the product of individual caprice. The theory is favourable to anarchy and encourages revolution. If the state is the creation of men they could overthrow it when they so desire. It undermines reverence for the state and has paved the way for great revolutions and unrests.

Value of the theory In spite of the above inadequacies and weakness of the social contract theory, we cannot overlook its elements of truth. It has been rejected as an explanation of the historical origin of the state. But as an explanation of the right relations between the state and individuals or the ground of political obligation, it is more satisfactory than theories of divine origin and force. It provides a satisfactory and human explanation of the fact of political authority and duty of obedience rendered by men in political societies. 1. It emphasizes the role of human will in the formation and continuance of political institutions. It laid down the fundamental truth that obedience to political authority rested on .the voluntary consent of free individuals, and that the powers that be had no right to act arbitrarily. In working out this truth, the theory laid down the foundation of democracy. Locke's idea of "consent" and Rousseau's concept of "general will" served as the basis for modern democracy. 2. The theory emphasizes the importance of the individual and the human purposes for which the state exists and the government exercises its authority. Political institutions are not sacrosanct; they exist for human welfare. Human beings can modify such institutions to serve their needs and purposes. 3. The theory was primarily responsible for discrediting the theory of divine origin and thereby rejecting the claims of absolute monarchs and despots. 4. 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 respectively. Again Locke's theory of separation of powers, as a safeguard of political liberty was later developed by Montesquieu. Although Hobbes's writings have an anti-democratic undertone, his emphasis on secularism (subordination of the Church to the State) helped the cause of democracy. 10

5. The theory emphasized the value of rights. Men form political societies for the protection of certain fundamental rights like rights to life, liberty and property. Right, not might, becomes the basis of the state. People possess the inherent right of resistance against unlawful and despotic authority. Decline of the Theory The growth of historical and empirical methods of enquiry istered a severe blow to the social contract theory primarily based on speculation and deductive methods of reasoning. Darwin's theory of biological evolution influenced different disciplines and led to the evolutionary theory of the origin of political institutions. State was considered as the result of slow, gradual growth, rather than a manufacture based on social contract. The Patriarchal Theory The patriarchal and matriarchal theories, tly known as the "Kinship theories" seek to explain the origin of the state in of the expansion of the family which is the oldest social organization and basic unit of society. The state is an expanded family. The family served the simplest and earliest link in the evolution of the most complex of all human organizations – the state. Long back Aristotle believed that the state came into existence as a result of the natural expansion of the family. Sir Henry Maine, the chief advocate of the patriarchal theory, stated it 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 derived his historical evidence from three sources: (i) s by contemporary observers of civilizations less advanced than their own; (ii) records which particular races (e.g. the Greeks) have preserved concerning their primitive history; and (iii) ancient law (e.g. Roman and Hindu). Maine believed that the unit of primitive society was the family, not the individual. Descent was traced through males and the eldest male parent 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 (the Chief or Patriarch ). The multiplication of families held under the supreme control of one head and bound by kinship (blood relationship) led to the origin of the tribe. In course of time tribes proliferated. When several tribes belonging to the same kin-group acted together for common purposes, especially for defence, and rallied round a common authority, the state came into existence. As Maine explained this process of development in his "Ancient Law". The elementary group is the family connected by common subjection to the highest male ascendant. The aggregation of families forms the genes or house. The aggregation of houses makes the tribe. The aggregation of tribes constitutes the common wealth". The state is thus an extension of the family. It is the family writ large. In 11

of his theory Maine provides examples of the Patriarchs of the Old Testament, the "Brotherhoods” of Athens, the patria protests in Rome and the t family system in India. The theory is based on three fundamental assumptions: (i) That the patriarchal family is based on permanent marriages and male kinship. of the patriarchal family traced their descent through males (ii) That the state is a collection of persons descended from the progenitor of an original family; and (iii) That the ultimate source of political authority is traced back to the supreme power exercised by the head of the patriarchal family who on his deathbed bequeathed to his successor all the power he enjoyed. Criticism 1. It is held that patriarchal family system was by no means universal. McLennan, Morgan and Jenks, the exponents of the Matriarchal theory have held that in early societies descent could be traced through females on of the existence of polyandry. They seek, to prove that the matriarchal system was the earlier social organization and the patriarchal system developed later when p01yandry developed into monogamous family in subsequent phase. 2. It has been further argued that the process of social evolution is just the reverse of what Henry Maine contended. According to Jenks, the tribe instead of the family is the earliest and primary group. The tribes break into clans, clans to households and then finally come the family. Jenks cites the examples of some primitive races such as those of Australia and the Malaya Archipelago in of his contention. 3. The assumption of the institution of permanent marriage in primitive societies is held to be untenable. The existence of polyandry and transient marriage relationships in some primitive communities run counter to the universality of the patriarchal system. 4. The theory does not for the origin of the state. Critics say that it is at best a speculation into the beginnings of early society, particularly the family. The state as the most complex organization came into being as a result of the interplay of many factors and forces. 5. MacIver holds that the family is the basis of government, rather than of the state. Government may be regarded as "the continuation and expansion of the regulation developed within the family". Besides the family, the elements which lead to the formation of the state are, according to MacIver property, customary law, war and conquest. However, the theory has the merit of drawing our attention to the role of kinship in the making of the state. The Matriarchal Theory The Chief exponents of the matriarchal theory are Mc Lennan (Primitive Society, 1865 ), Morgan (Studies in Ancient Society, 1877) and Jenks (A History of Politics, 1900). As distinguished from the patriarchal theory, this theory holds that matriarchal family is the 12

earliest form of social organization. Descent in such societies was traced through females. Evolving through a number of stages the matriarchal family ultimately gave rise to the state. The aborigines of Australia and certain communities in India provide illustrations of the matriarchal system. The fundamental features of this society are: 1. Transient marriage relationships, 2. Female kinship, 3. Maternal authority, and 4. Succession of only females to property and power.

According to the ers of this theory polyandry (one woman having several husbands) and transient marriage relationships were more common in primitive society. Under such a system the usual husband-wife relationship was non-existent. Instead of family, there were loosely connected groups or "hordes" within which promiscuous sexual relations prevailed. Children belonged to the clan of the mother. On of the prevalence of exogamy, the father belonged to a clan separate from that of the mother. Under such a system descent was traced through the mother; for as Jenks pointed out, motherhood in such cases was a fact, while paternity was only an opinion. Jenks illustrated the system from the living conditions of Australian aborigines who live in "packs" or "totem-groups" and may not marry within the totem. Rejecting Maine's contention that the process of social evolution started from the family, he held that the earliest group was the tribe which broke into clans and later into households and families. With the advent of pastoral life and settled living, monogamous or polygamous marriage system gave rise to patriarchal family. Criticism 1. Sociological and anthropological researches have proved that neither patriarchal nor matriarchal family system was universe in primitive societies. It is incorrect to regard matriarchal family as the oldest form of social organization everywhere. 2. According to MacIver the "matriarchal" and "matriarchate" implying some sort of "mother-rule" or "woman-rule" are misleading. For, in primitive society woman was "the agent of transmission, not the active wielder or even the participant of power". 3. Other factors and elements besides "kinship" stressed by patriarchal and matriarchal theories have entered into the origin of the state. 4. It is not possible to believe that a complex social organization like the state developed through the expansion of the family, whether patriarchal or matriarchal. As Willoughby observes: "It would not be true to say that the state developed out of this small social unit. The two institutions are different in essence. In the family the location of 13

authority is natural (i.e., in the father). In the state it is one of choice. Subordination is the principle of the family; equality that of the state. Furthermore, the functions or aims of the state are essentially different from, and even contradictory to those of the family". The conclusion to which we are led with regard to both the patriarchal and matriarchal theories is that they are "more sociological than political". They seek to explain the origin of the family rather than that of the state. Nonetheless they highlight a vital element in the formation and evolution of the state, namely, kinship. Evolutionary or Historical Theory of the origin of the State: The theories discussed so far, for reasons already stated, have been rejected as unsatisfactory. The generally accepted and most satisfactory theory of the origin of the state is known as the evolutionary or historical theory. In rejecting the earlier theories largely based on speculation Garner writes: "The state is neither the handiwork of God, nor the result of superior physical force, nor the creation of resolution or convention, nor a mere expansion of the family". According to the evolutionary theory, "the state is growth, not a make". It is the product of a gradual evolutionary process in which more than one factor participated. It is a historical growth and a continuous development. Leacock says, "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 point of time. Its origin lies in the long evolutionary process through which it has ed. As Burgess puts it: "The proposition that the state is a product of history means that it is a gradual and continuous development of human society out of a grossly imperfect beginning through crude but improving forms of manifestation towards a perfect and universal organization of mankind".5 Slowly and imperceptibly, the state developed from simple to a complex political organization of the modern type. As Gettell writes: "Like all other social institutions, the state arose from any sources and under various conditions, and it emerged almost imperceptibly. No clear-cut division can be made between earlier forms of social organizations that were not states and later forms that were states, the one shading off gradually into the other". The evolutionary theory highlights the forces and factors that created the necessary unity and organization 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. Kinship Kinship or blood relationship was the first and strongest bond in early society. The belief in common descent bound the early people together. Kinship bound family 14

together and they subjected themselves to the authority of the head of the family, either a matriarch or a patriarch. W. Wilson points out that government must have begun in clearly defined family discipline. In course of time blood relationship went beyond the boundaries of the original family. Families developed into clan and clans into tribes and when a tribal chief conquered and subjugated other tribes and established his sway over a sizeable territory, the state emerged. MacIver maintains that "the authority of the father es into the power of the chief Kinship creates society and society at length creates the state". The contribution of kinship to the development of the concepts of authority and obedience cannot be minimized as it imparted a feeling of unity and social cohesion which is essential to political life and organizations. Religion Along with kinship, religion played an important part in forging the links of unity in primitive society. As Gettell observes, kinship and religion were simply two aspects of the same thing. Common worship strengthened the bond of unity among families, clans and tribes. This worship evolved from animism (worship of. natural forces) to ancestorworship. Common belief in Gods and deities and worship of common ancestors served to promote community discipline and group solidarity. The head of the family, clan or tribe became the chief-priest, magic man and the medicine man. Most of the early rulers were priest -cum- Kings. Religion provided the sanction for law and customs. It subordinated barbaric anarchy and accustomed early man to authority and discipline. It was a unifying force in early communities. Long after Kinship ceased to bind the people together because of expanding social organizations, religion was a sufficient binding force to unite people into dynasties and to create states. Force and War In early times, wars and conquests brought into existence larger political units. With the weakening of the bonds of kinship and religion consequent upon the expansion of the group, open use of force was necessary for maintaining peace and order and securing unity and obedience to laws and customs. Force was also necessary for purposes of defence and attack. War brought together families, clans and tribes under the leadership of the tribal chief. Survival of the fittest was the rule in early societies. Demands of constant warfare led to the rise of permanent leadership. Coercive force exercised by leaders laid down the foundation of the sovereign state. Further, war and conquest helped to give the state the mark of territoriality. Force was the Chief instrument of the territorial expansion of the state. MacIver writes, "Conquest and domination was the pathway of the extended State". Great empires had been built up by the use of military force. Soltau aptly observes: "Struggle and warfare are therefore historically a most important element in state formation, and it is certain that the union of two groups even by force, develops after a while common interests, out of which is born a sense of unity".7 Force has been a factor in the origin, expansion and maintenance of the state.

15

Economic Factors Gettell writes, "The economic activities by which men secured food and shelter, and later accumulated property and wealth, were important factors in state building". Cooperation is necessary for every form of economic activity. Primitive men, ing through different stages of economic life like huntsmen, herdsmen and husbandsmen evolved roles and regulations to govern their common life. These rules and regulations contained the nucleus of the state. With the development of agriculture, primitive people settled in fixed places permanently. Permanent residence and secure income from agriculture gave rise to the idea of private property and social distinction based on wealth. The need for protecting property and regulating complex economic activities hastened the process of governmental regulation and the emergence of the state.

Political Consciousness Man is by nature a political animal. Common consciousness among men for order, security and welfare gave rise to early political organizations. People organized themselves under political authority and rendered willing obedience to its commands in order to solve their manifold problems and to promote common welfare. Thus the state came into being because people wanted it and voluntarily submitted to rules and regulations of social living. The day people realized that the advantages of organizing politically with others were greater than those of living an independent, isolated life, political consciousness had dawned upon them and the stage was set for the formation of political authority. With the growing complexity of political organizations, instinctive desire was gradually replaced by conscious purpose. Political consciousness thus provided the psychological basis of the state, by preparing the people to obey the laws and commands of the state voluntarily. It is said that the evolutionary theory highlights the evolution and not the origin of the state. One cannot say with precision as to when and at what point of time, the state emerged simply because as MacIver observes, "Origins are always obscure". A complex social organization like the state is a product of slow and steady evolution. It is the outcome of various factors and forces which have acted both separately and contly at different historical periods. The evolutionary theory, based on a pluralistic explanation, is the most satisfactory one as it takes into the multifarious factors and forces that have operated in the formation and growth of the state. REFERENCES 1. A. Roy and M. Bhattacharya, Political Theory: Ideas and Institutions, Calcutta, The World Press, Ninth ed. 1985, P.58. 2. R.N. Gilchrist, Principles of Political Science, London, Longmans, P.74. 16

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

S.Leacock, Elemecnts of Political Science, London, Constable. Willoughby, The Nature of the State, P.20. Quoted by A.Appadorai, The Substance of Politics, OUP, Seventh editft}n, 1954, P.38. RM. Mac Iver, The Modem State, London, OUP, 1926, P.33 Soltau, An Introduction to Politics, P 53. Gettell, Introduction to Political Science, P .65.

17