THE STATE

DEFINITION AND ELEMENTS OF STATE

Political Science and Psychology - Psychology helps explain political behaviour — why people vote the way they do, why leaders behave in certain ways, and how public opinion is formed and manipulated. Concepts like political socialisation and leadership studies borrow heavily from psychological theory.

The state is the most fundamental and universal concept in political science. It refers to a politically organised body of people, occupying a definite territory, exercising supreme authority (sovereignty) within that territory, free from external control, and possessing an organised government.

Important definitions to memorise:

• Aristotle: The state is "a union of families and villages having for its end a perfect and self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honourable life."
• Woodrow Wilson: "A state is a people organised for law within a definite territory."
• Garner: "The state is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent or nearly so of external control, and possessing an organised government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience."
• Bluntschli: "The state is the politically organised people of a definite territory."

Garner's definition is the most frequently used in Indian university answers because it explicitly lists all four elements of the state — population, territory, government, and sovereignty — which examiners expect you to identify.

Evolution of the State

The state, as we understand it today, did not spring into existence suddenly. It evolved gradually through several stages of human social organisation. Broadly, the stages are:

Elements of State

Every state, by definition, must possess four essential elements. If even one is missing, the entity cannot be called a state in the full legal-political sense.

• (a) Population A state is, first and foremost, a group of people. Without population, there is no one to be governed and no government to speak of. There is no fixed ideal number — states range from a few thousand (small island nations) to over a billion (India, China) — but a population must exist, and it must be reasonably permanent, not a nomadic or transient group. Population is essential because sovereignty and government are meaningless concepts without people to be subject to them.
• (b) Territory A state must occupy a definite, fixed portion of the earth's surface, including land, internal waters, territorial sea, and airspace. Territory gives the state a physical basis for exercising exclusive jurisdiction. Nomadic tribes, however organised, are not states because they lack a fixed territory. Territory is essential because sovereignty is inherently a territorial concept — a state's laws and authority operate within defined geographical limits, and this is what distinguishes it from other associations like international organisations or NGOs, which have members but no territory of their own.
• (c) Government is the organised machinery through which the will of the state is formulated, expressed, and enforced. It comprises the legislature (which makes laws), the executive (which implements them), and the judiciary (which interprets and applies them). Without a government, population and territory would remain an unorganised mass incapable of collective political action. Government is essential because it is the visible, functioning agency of the state — the state is often described as an abstract, invisible entity, while government is its concrete, working instrument.
• (d) Sovereignty is supreme, final, and absolute authority, both internally (over all persons and associations within the territory) and externally (independence from control by any other state). Sovereignty is what distinguishes a state from other associations such as clubs, companies, or even federating units like Indian states (which lack external sovereignty). Austin defined sovereignty as the power of a "determinate human superior" who receives habitual obedience from the bulk of society and does not himself obey any other superior. Sovereignty is essential because it is the very mark of statehood — an entity without supreme authority, whether internal or external, is not a state but a dependency, colony, or subordinate unit.

THEORIES OF ORIGIN OF STATE

A. Divine Theory (Theory of Divine Origin)

Main arguments

Meaning The Divine Theory holds that the state is a divine institution, created by God, and that political authority is derived directly from God rather than from the people. The ruler is regarded as God's representative or vicegerent on earth, and obedience to the ruler is treated as a religious duty.

• The state is not a human creation but a divine ordinance, since God alone can create political authority for the welfare and moral discipline of mankind.
• The king or ruler derives authority directly from God, not from the people, and is accountable to God alone, not to his subjects.
• Since the ruler's authority is divinely sanctioned, resistance or rebellion against the ruler is treated as a sin against God, not merely a political wrong.
• The theory is closely linked with the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings," which further held that the monarchy is hereditary, and that kings are above earthly law.

Historical background and supporters

This theory dominated political thought in medieval Europe and was used to justify absolute monarchy. It found support in religious texts across civilisations — Christian doctrine (drawing on biblical passages such as "there is no power but of God"), and similarly in Hindu political thought, where the king was sometimes regarded as an incarnation of divine authority. In Europe, thinkers and rulers such as James I of England and Sir Robert Filmer (author of Patriarcha) were prominent defenders of the Divine Right of Kings.

Criticism

• It has no scientific or historical basis; it cannot be empirically proved that any state was literally established by divine command.
• It was used chiefly as a political tool to justify absolute and unchecked monarchical power, suppressing any legitimate claim to popular sovereignty or accountability.
• It is inconsistent with modern democratic values of popular sovereignty, consent, and accountability of rulers to the people.
• It fails to explain the existence of republics, democracies, and elected governments, which owe nothing to divine sanction.
• John Locke, in his First Treatise of Government, directly attacked Filmer's patriarchal-divine theory, arguing that political authority arises from human reason and consent, not divine appointment.

B. Social Contract Theory

Present relevance/status

The Divine Theory has no acceptance in modern political thought and has been almost entirely discarded, surviving only in a symbolic or ceremonial sense in a few constitutional monarchies, where religious sanction is retained for tradition rather than as the actual legal source of authority.

General meaning

The Social Contract Theory holds that the state is not a natural or divine institution but an artificial creation, arising out of a voluntary agreement (contract) among individuals who originally lived in a hypothetical "state of nature," to secure order, protection, and the benefits of organised society. The theory was developed differently by three major thinkers — Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau — each starting from a different view of human nature and reaching a different conclusion about the powers of the sovereign.

(a) Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Leviathan (1651)

• State of Nature: For Hobbes, the state of nature was a condition of complete anarchy and chaos, without law, government, or morality. He famously described life in this state as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
• Nature of human beings: Hobbes viewed human beings as inherently selfish, competitive, and driven by fear and self-preservation. In the absence of a common authority, this led to a perpetual "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes).
• Social Contract: To escape this unbearable condition, individuals agreed among themselves to surrender all their natural rights to a single sovereign authority, in exchange for protection and order. Crucially, for Hobbes, the sovereign was not a party to the contract — only the individuals contracted among themselves, and the sovereign received absolute power without any reciprocal obligation.
• Origin of government/state: The state, or "Leviathan," arises as an all-powerful sovereign (who could be a monarch or an assembly) with unlimited and absolute authority, since Hobbes believed only an unchecked sovereign could prevent society from collapsing back into anarchy.
• Rights of individuals: Individuals retain almost no rights against the sovereign once the contract is made, except the right to self-preservation (Hobbes accepted that a person could resist only if the sovereign directly threatened their life).
• Sovereignty: Absolute, indivisible, and unlimited; the sovereign is above the law and cannot be bound by the contract since he is not a party to it.
• Right to revolt: Hobbes did not recognise any general right to revolt or resistance, since this would undermine the very purpose of the contract, which was to escape anarchy.
• Criticism: Hobbes's theory has been criticised for justifying absolute despotism, for its unrealistically pessimistic view of human nature, and for offering no real remedy against a tyrannical sovereign.

(b) John Locke (1632–1704), Two Treatises of Government (1689)

• State of Nature: Locke's state of nature was far more benign than Hobbes's. It was a state of peace, goodwill, and reason, governed by natural law, though it lacked an impartial authority to enforce that law consistently.
• Nature of human beings: Locke believed human beings were basically rational and moral, capable of understanding and largely following the law of nature, though a few "bad men" could still violate others' rights, creating inconvenience.
• Social Contract: Individuals agreed to form a civil society and establish a government mainly to remedy the "inconveniences" of the state of nature — chiefly the absence of a known, settled law, an impartial judge, and a power to enforce judgments. Unlike Hobbes, the contract for Locke was between the people and the government, and it was conditional.
• Origin of government/state: Government is established as a trustee to protect the natural rights of individuals — life, liberty, and property — which existed even before civil society was formed.
• Rights of individuals: Individuals retain their natural rights (life, liberty, and property) even after entering civil society; the government's job is only to protect these rights, not to create or dissolve them.
• Sovereignty: Limited government; sovereignty ultimately rests with the people, and government exercises only delegated, trust-based power.
• Right to revolt: Locke explicitly recognised the right to revolt — if the government violates the trust placed in it (particularly by threatening life, liberty, or property), the people have the right to dissolve the government and form a new one. This idea directly influenced the American Declaration of Independence.
• Criticism: Locke's theory has been criticised for being historically unverifiable (there is no evidence of an actual state of nature or contract), and for being overly optimistic about human rationality and consensus.

(c) Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), The Social Contract (1762)

• State of Nature: Rousseau imagined the state of nature as one of simplicity, equality, and even a kind of primitive happiness, where individuals were self-sufficient and largely peaceful, guided by natural compassion rather than reason.
• Nature of human beings: For Rousseau, human beings were naturally good, but the growth of private property and social inequality corrupted this natural goodness, leading to competition, greed, and conflict — his famous line, "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains," captures this fall from natural freedom.
• Social Contract: Individuals agreed to surrender their individual rights not to a ruler or government, but to the community as a whole, creating what Rousseau called the "General Will" (volonté générale) — the collective will directed at the common good.
• Origin of government/state: The state arises as an expression of the General Will; government is merely an agent or instrument through which the General Will is carried out, and it can be changed if it fails to serve that will.
• Rights of individuals: True freedom, for Rousseau, consists in obeying the General Will, since the General Will represents the collective good of all, including oneself — a controversial idea often described as making people "forced to be free."
• Sovereignty: Popular sovereignty — sovereignty resides permanently and inalienably with the people as a whole (the General Will), and cannot be delegated or transferred to any ruler or representative body.
• Right to revolt: Since sovereignty always remains with the people, government that departs from the General Will can be legitimately changed or resisted.
• Criticism: Rousseau's concept of the "General Will" has been criticised as vague and potentially dangerous, since it can be used to justify majoritarian tyranny or totalitarian control in the name of the "common good."

C. Marxist Theory

Historical materialism

Karl Marx's theory of the origin of the state is rooted in his broader theory of historical materialism, which holds that the economic structure of society (the "mode of production") is the real foundation on which all political, legal, and social institutions are built. Political institutions, including the state, are not autonomous or neutral; they are shaped by, and serve, the underlying economic relations of a given historical period.

Class struggle

According to Marx and Engels, human history is the history of class struggles — between masters and slaves, lords and serfs, and, in the modern capitalist era, between the bourgeoisie (owners of capital and the means of production) and the proletariat (the working class, who own only their labour). This struggle arises because the interests of the economically dominant class are inherently opposed to those of the exploited class.

Economic basis of the state

Marxist theory rejects the idea that the state is a neutral, impartial body serving the common good. Instead, the state is seen as arising directly out of, and in response to, the division of society into economic classes. Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884), argued that the state emerged historically once private property and class divisions developed within primitive communal societies, since some mechanism was needed to manage and contain the resulting class conflict.

State as an instrument of class domination

For Marx and Engels, the state is essentially a coercive instrument used by the economically dominant class to maintain its control over the subordinate class. Laws, courts, police, and the army are seen as tools that primarily protect the property and interests of the ruling class, giving this domination the appearance of legitimate, impartial authority.

Bourgeoisie and proletariat

In the Communist Manifesto (1848), Marx and Engels argued that "the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie" — meaning that in a capitalist society, the state primarily serves the interests of the capitalist class, despite claiming to represent all citizens equally.

Withering away of the state

Marxist theory predicts that, after a proletarian revolution overthrows the bourgeois state, a transitional "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be established to suppress any counter-revolutionary resistance from the former ruling class. Once class distinctions disappear entirely and a classless, communist society is achieved, the state — being merely an instrument of class domination — would no longer serve any purpose and would "wither away," since there would be no class to suppress and no class conflict to manage.

Criticism of Marxist theory

• It reduces all political phenomena to economic causes, ignoring the roles of religion, nationalism, culture, and ideology in shaping the state.
• The prediction that the state would "wither away" has not been historically realised; in practice, communist states (such as the erstwhile Soviet Union) developed exceptionally powerful, centralised state machinery rather than a diminishing one.
• It underestimates the state's capacity to act as a genuinely neutral or welfare-oriented institution, as seen in modern welfare states that regulate capitalism in the interest of the working class as well.
• It treats class as the only significant social division, ignoring other important lines of division such as caste, ethnicity, religion, and gender.

D. Evolutionary Theory

Meaning

The Evolutionary Theory (also called the Historical or Sociological theory) holds that the state is neither of divine origin, nor the result of a deliberate contract, nor purely an economic phenomenon, but the product of a slow, continuous, and natural process of historical evolution, developing gradually out of the family through several intermediate stages. This is regarded by most modern political scientists as the most scientific and historically defensible theory of the origin of the state.

Major factors in the evolution of the state

• Kinship: The earliest bond holding early human groups together was blood relationship. The family, expanding into clans and tribes united by common ancestry, provided the first framework of authority and obedience — the germ of later political organisation.
• Religion: In early societies, religion and political authority were closely intertwined. Common worship, sacred rituals, and the authority of priests or god-kings helped unite scattered kinship groups into larger, more organised communities, and provided early rulers with legitimacy.
• War and conquest: Warfare compelled loosely organised groups to unite for common defence or offence under a single strong leader, accelerating the development of centralised authority. Conquest also brought different groups under a single ruler, laying the seeds for larger political units such as empires.
• Economic factors: The shift from nomadic, hunting-gathering life to settled agriculture created surplus production, private property, and division of labour, all of which required more formal rules of ownership, exchange, and social order, contributing to the rise of organised political authority.
• Political development: Over time, informal customs of tribal leadership evolved into more formal, recognised institutions of leadership, law-making, and dispute resolution, gradually giving rise to a distinct governing authority separate from ordinary members of the community.
• Social development: As communities grew larger and more complex, informal social control through custom and kinship loyalty proved insufficient, requiring a more organised and enforceable system of authority — this social complexity itself became a driving force behind the emergence of the state.

Why the state is a product of gradual evolution, not a single event

The Evolutionary Theory rejects the idea of the state being founded at one definite moment (as the Social Contract Theory implies) or through a single divine act. Instead, it argues that the state emerged as the cumulative result of numerous interacting historical forces — kinship, religion, war, economics, and social complexity — operating gradually over centuries, with the state at any given point in history representing only one particular stage in an ongoing process of political development. This explains why different states around the world display different structures — because they evolved under different historical, geographical, and social conditions.