STATE

MEANING OF THE STATE

1. It is significant that though some sort of political organization has existed since ancient times, such as Greek city-states and the
Roman empire, yet the concept of the 'state' as such is comparatively modern.
2. The contemporary concept of the state owes its origin to Machiavelli (1469-1527) who expressed this idea in early sixteenth
century as 'the power which has authority over men' (The Prince; 1513).
3. This was an important idea because it describes the nature of the state, not the end of the state which was a question of political
philosophy rather than political sociology or political science.
4. This peculiar feature of the state has been the focus of attention of many recent thinkers.
5. one can define the modern state sociologically only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it, as to every political association,
namely the use of physical force.
6. From this standpoint, Weber arrives at the following definition which is widely acknowledged in modern political theory: 'A state
is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory'.
7. it has the special function of maintaining social order. It performs this function through its agent, the government 'which speaks
with the voice of law'.
8. Similarly, R.M. Maclver has observed: "The state is distinguished from all other associations by its exclusive investment with the
final power of coercion."
9. Harold J. Laski, in An Introduction to Politics (1931), similarly points out: Whereas all other associations are voluntary in
character, and can bind the individual only as he chooses membership of them, once he is a resident of some given state, legally
he has no choice but to obey its commands.
10. The state, so to say, is the crowning-point of the modern social edifice, and it is in its supremacy over all other forms of social
grouping that its special nature is to be found.
11. defines the state as 'a geographically delimited segment of human society united by common obedience to a single sovereign'.
12. The supremacy of the commands of the state is an essential element which distinguishes it from all other associations of men.
13. A territorial area in which a population is governed by a set of political authorities, and which successfully claims the compliance
of the citizenry for its laws, and is able to secure such compliance by its monopolistic control of legitimate force.

ELEMENTS OF THE STATE

In the light of the various definitions of the state, it is customary to identify the state by its constituent elements which include:
population, territory, government and sovereignty.

Population
1. The state is a human institution. The population is, therefore, an essential element of the state. However, the population can
constitute a state only when it is united by the condition of interdependence, consciousness of common interest, and general
regard for a set of common rules of behaviour and institutions.
2. The size of population for constituting a state cannot be fixed, yet it is always better that such population is self-sufficient to meet
all the needs of life. economic self-sufficiency is essential for the stability of a state.
3. The population of a state need not belong to a single race, religion, language or culture. A homogeneous population is no longer
considered an essential feature of the modern state. The modern state claims to reconcile the interests of various groups of its
citizens.
4. The ideal size of the state will be in which it can remain, self reliant, can defend itself from enemies, and can be rules properly. In
the ancient Greece, there were so many small city states. They were spread in not more than some hundred square meters. Their
population was also limited to some thousands. Aristotle and Plato have limited the population of the idea state to some
thousands, it seems that their views were correct.

Territory
1. Territory is another essential element of a state. Other associations either exist within the state or they extend their sphere to
several states; they do not need separate territory. But the state must possess a territory where its authority is accepted without
dispute or challenge.
2. A state comes into existence only when its population is settled in a fixed territory. the formation of the state is accompanied by a
division of population according to territory.
3. In the pre-state society when people live as nomadic tribes, moving from one place to another in search of food, the members of
the tribe are held together by the ties of kinship. With the formation of the state, citizens are allowed to exercise their rights and
duties wherever they settle, irrespective of gens and tribes. The organization of citizens according to locality is the common
feature of all states.
4. It was held that a fixed territory is not an essential aspect of a state. The nomadic tribes, who do not possess fixed territory, do
constitute a state. This view is, however, no longer held valid. Moreover, the modern state is not a matter of internal organization;
it needs international recognition as well, so as to enjoy its rights and perform its duties as a member of the comity of nations.
International law regards possession of a fixed territory as the essential attribute of the state. Demarcation of physical boundaries
is, therefore, essential for establishing the real identity of a state.
5. The territory of a state includes the land, water and air-space within its boundary. It also extends usually to a distance of three
miles into the sea from its coast, and is known as territorial waters, which may be sought to be extended further in times of war.
6. Territory symbolizes the sphere of sovereignty of the state. Territory provides for natural resources for the sustenance of the
population of the state.
7. Territory provides for a sense of security and immense opportunities for a fuller life for its residents; it is an object of sentimental
attachment—people love and worship their motherland and are prepared to make supreme sacrifices for the protection and
maintenance of the territorial integrity of their state.
8. The feeling of patriotism— the sense of belonging to a state—binds the people of different races, with different religions,
languages and cultures, by the thread of national unity and mutual cooperation.
9. Like population, the size of the territory of a state cannot be fixed. Territory is usually a geographical phenomenon, dividing
different states by sea, mountains or other big natural barriers. Sometimes territories are demarcated mainly on a political basis
rather than on a geographical basis. In such cases, the peoples' sense of identification with a particular state becomes the basis of
territorial demarcation. Reallocation of territories can bring about a merger or alteration of the existing states or emergence of
new states. This can be observed by taking the example of Tibet.

Government
1. According to J.W. Garner, 'government is the agency or machinery through which common policies are determined and by which
common affairs are regulated and common interests promoted'.
2. The state represents an abstract concept, government is its concrete form. In other words, authority of the state is exercised by
government; functions of the state are performed by government. Laws of the state are made, declared and enforced by
government; justice is dispensed by the judicial organ of government.
3. Government is responsible for the maintenance of law and order and for the provision of common services— defence, issue of
currency, foreign relations, roads, bridges, and even transport, communications, water, electricity, health and education, etc. and
it is entitled to levy taxes for the provision of all such services.
4. Without government, the people are a chaotic mass of disjointed particles, without common aims, common interests or a common
organization.
5. A citizen has to deal with government of the state; any transaction between different states, including war, takes place through the
medium of their governments.
6. However, government and state should not be treated as co-terminous.
7. Governments may rise and fall without disturbing identity of the state, so long as they are formed and dissolved according to the
established custom, procedure or constitution of the state.
8. But a state will lose its identity if it is suppressed by an alien power so much so that the established procedure of forming a
government is also suspended. When the people of a state lose their right to have a government according to the established
procedure, i.e. a legitimate government enjoying customary respect and obedience of the people, the state is reduced to a colony
of the imperial power which suppressed it.

Sovereignty
1. Sovereignty denotes the supreme or ultimate power of the state to make laws or take political decisions—establishing public
goals, fixing priorities and resolving conflicts—as also enforcing such laws and decisions by the use of legitimate force.
2. In fact, sovereignty denotes the final authority of the state over its population and its territory.
3. This authority may be exercised by the government of the day, but it essentially belongs to the state from which it is derived by
the government.
4. It is by virtue of its sovereignty that a state declares—through the agency of the government—its laws and decisions and issues
commands which are binding on all citizens, claims obedience thereto, and punishes the offenders.
5. It is also by virtue of its sovereignty that a state similarly deals independently with other states.
6. Commands of the state are treated as superior to those of any other association or institution, even to the dictates of social
customs or conscience of individual, because sovereignty is the sole preserve of the state.
7. As Max Weber (1920) points out, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the
extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence.
8. Other associations are either voluntary or based on custom or necessity. The right to use legitimate coercion in its own right is the
exclusive prerogative of the state.
9. A state continues to exist so long as it is armed with sovereignty.
10. If a state loses its sovereignty because of internal revolt or external aggression, the result is anarchy and disappearance of the state
as such.
11. Some writers regard 'international recognition' as an essential element of the state. This denotes formal recognition of the
sovereignty of the state over a given territory and population by other states. International recognition, however, is the outcome of
the sovereignty of the state, not a condition of its existence. When a new state, like Bangladesh, comes into existence, it may be
recognized by some states immediately while other states thay withhold their recognition for quite a long time. Much depends on
the foreign policy of a state whether to recognize the new state immediately or to delay it. USA had withheld recognition of the
new states of USSR and People's Republic of China for decades after they came into existence, but they did exist as states.
Hence, international recognition is only incidental to the sovereignty of the state, not a fundamental element of the state itself.

STATE AND GOVERNMENT

1. Government is regarded as an essential element of the state. In actual practice, the state is represented by the government.
Governments exercise all authority and functions on behalf of the state. However, the terms 'state' and 'government' should not be
used synonymously. 'State' represents a wider and more stable entity than 'government'.
2. The state is greater and more inclusive than government. A state has a constitution, a code of laws, a way of setting up its
government, a body of citizens. When we think of this whole structure we think of the state.
3. Thus, so long as a state maintains its identity and independence, governments may be formed and dissolved according to the
established procedure without affecting the character of the state. But a state itself may lose its identity when it is suppressed and
conquered by an alien power and its constitution or the established procedure of forming a legitimate government is suspended.
The subjugated people may, however, retain or revive their feeling of national solidarity and re-establish their state in due course.
4. The state serves as a symbol of unity of the people. The image of the state inspires unity among the people and provides them
with an identity as a nation. It arouses national pride and a spirit of sacrifice among the people. Government only represents a
working arrangement to carry out functions of the state.
5. It is, however, essential that our duties and obligations toward the state should be determined by the character of the government
it creates. If the government loses its credibility, it should either be replaced according to the established procedure, or the
credibility of the state itself will be eroded. The government should be subjected to constant watch so that it conforms to the
image of the state as the protector and promoter of our common interests.
6. Marxist theory treats government as agency of the state. It attributes any imperfection of government to the state itself.
Accordingly, so long as society is divided into dominant and dependent classes, any government is bound to serve as an
instrument of the dominant class. Thus, Marxist theory regards the state itself as an instrument of class exploitation, and
advocates transformation, and ultimate withering away, of the state in order to restore 'authority' to a classless society.
1. Government is only an element of the state:
A State has four essential elements—Population, Territory, Government and Sovereignty. Government is only one element of the
State. It is just one part of the State which acts for the state.
2. Government is an Agency or Agent of the State:
Government is an agency of the State. It acts for the state. It is that agency of the State which formulates the will of the state into laws,
implements the laws of the state and ensures conformity to the laws of the state. Government exercises power and authority on behalf
of the state.
3. State is Abstract, Government is Concrete:
State is a concept, an idea or a name used to denote a community of persons living on a definite territory and organised for the
exercise of sovereignty. State cannot be seen. Government is made by the people of the State. It is formed by the representatives of
the people. It has a definite and defined organisation and form. It can be seen as a team of people exercising the power of the State.
4. Government is organised only by a portion of the population of State:
The whole population is a part of the State. All the people are citizens of the State. However, government is made by the
representatives of the people. Only some people, who get elected act as representatives of the people, form the government of the
State. Their number is limited to few hundred only. In India around 5500 MPs and MLAs represent the total population of around 110
crores and exercise the political power at the centre and in all states of India.
5. Membership of a State is compulsory but not of Government:
All people are citizens of the State. They together constitute the population of the State. Each one normally gets the membership
(citizenship) of a state automatically right at the time of one’s birth and continues to live life as such. However, membership of the
government is not automatic. No one can be forced to become its part. Anyone can voluntarily seek an election, get elected as a
representative of the people and become a part of the government. Only some persons form the government.
6. Sovereignty belongs to State and not to Government:
Sovereignty is the hallmark of the State. It belongs to the State. The government exercises power on behalf of the State. It acts on the
basis of the sovereignty of the State. Sovereignty is comprehensive, absolute, unlimited and all inclusive supreme power of the State.
The government exercises only well defined and limited powers.
7. Territory belongs to the State:
The State has sovereign ownership and jurisdiction over its territory. State is a territorial entity and territory belongs to it. The
government has the responsibility to preserve, protect and defend the territory of the State. The laws made by the government are
applicable to all parts of the territory of State but territory belongs to the State and not to the government.
8. Every State has uniformly four essential elements, however the forms and features of Government differ from State to
State:
Each State has a uniform personality with its four essential elements Population, Territory, Government and Sovereignty. However,
governments can be of different forms— Parliamentary or Presidential, Unitary or Federal or a mixture of these. A government can be
monarchical or aristocratic or democratic or a dictatorship. The people can by choice change the form of their government. But the
State exists independently and has a uniform character.
9. State is Permanent, Government is Temporary:
Governments come and go regularly. After every general election the government changes. It can also undergo a total change through
an election or even through a revolution. State is permanent. It continuously lives so long as it continues to enjoy sovereignty.
Independent India continues to live as a sovereign independent state since 1947. However, she has witnessed the rise and fall of
several governments at the national and state levels.

STATE AND SOCIETY

1. The term 'state' is sometimes used synonymously with 'society' because it draws a vague distinction between both the entities then
hence for political precision it is desirable.
2. The state is usually described as 'society politically organized' whereas society is an association of human beings which fulfils all
their needs of life—from cradle to grave.
3. The state fulfils their particular need of political organization—it subjects them to binding laws and decisions to provide for order
and security, and common services whereas Society is the web of social relationships
4. When a society is governed by a common set of rules, regulations and a supreme decision-making authority, only then does it
qualify for being a state. Society binds men into multifarious relationships—all such relationships do not fall in the domain of a
state.
5. Society which concerns itself with social relationships are usually determined by necessity, custom, courtesy, morality, mutual
understanding, agreement or even contract but political relations are mainly determined by command and obedience
6. Society may coincide with the state, especially when society takes the form of a nation
7. Social relationships can extend beyond the state also. Thus, you can have friends, relatives, acquaintances, sympathizers,
admirers, clients, customers or even colleagues beyond the national frontiers of your state. They belong to your society, but not to
your state. Then, there can be a society without a state. Primitive tribes who constitute society need not constitute a state. Even
the groups of hunters, root-diggers and food- gatherers of a primitive type form a society though they are not aware of the idea of
the state.
8. The state is formed out of society. So society is a primary association. It is society which chooses the pattern of its political
grouping.
9. States may be created, altered or dissolved, but society goes on for ever. Men can live without a state, but not without society.
That is why man is described as a social animal by nature.
10. Growth of the state is an attribute of civilization, whose form is subject to change with the .advance of civilization. The state
depends on society for its existence, not vice versa. Thus, man owes much more to society than what he owes to the state.
Difference between State and Society
(1) Society is wider in scope than State:
Society is a very broad and comprehensive organisation of human beings. It is formed by all types of relations (social, economic,
cultural, political, moral, religious, and others) that emerge and develop among the people who are members of the society.. As
against this, State is only a political institution or organisation. It is concerned primarily with the exercise of power in society. State
constitutes the sovereign power-system of the Society.
(2) Society is prior to State:
Society is rooted in human nature. As social animals people naturally enter into social relationships and form society. The birth of
society took place in the earliest period of history. State also has a very long history behind it and yet, everyone agrees, it came after
the birth of society. The need for protecting the social relationships is the need for law and order led to the birth of the State. State had
its birth after the evolution of society into a territorially settled society of people.
(3) State is a politically organised unity of the people, Society is a natural unity of people bound together in social
relationships:
Society includes both organised and un-organised groups of people, their activities and relationships. It consists of the vast network of
all human relationships in society. . State is a politically organised community of people living on a definite portion of territory and
characterised by the exercise of sovereignty over the people. State is the organised political community of the people of a society.
(4) Government is the agency of the State; Society has no formal organised agent:
State acts through its government. Government is the agent of the State. It exercises the sovereignty of the State. . Society has no
agent or agency. It is a self-regulating system of relationships. It functions naturally on the basis of its customs, traditions, usages and
naturally evolved moral codes of conduct. Society lacks a formal organisation.
(5) Sovereignty belongs to State and not to Society:
Sovereignty is the most essential property and the hallmark of the State. State alone exercises supreme power over all its citizens and
their institutions. It is the law and order-maintaining institution of Society. Its laws bind all the members of the Society. Society is a
system of social relations.
(6) Territory belongs to State and not to the Society:
State is a territorial entity. Definite territory is an essential element of the State. Society has no territory. Even vagabonds bound by
social ties constitute a society, non-residents Indian who have got the citizenships of other States continue to members of Indian
society.
(7) Society is concerned with both internal and external human behaviour, State is concerned with external aspects of human
behaviour:
State is concerned with external human behaviour. Its laws lay down rules which regulate the external behaviour of the people and
their groups, institutions, and organisations. State uses its coercive power on each such person/group/institution which commits any
breach of law.
In contrast, the society is concerned with all aspects of human behaviour and relations in society. Social customs and traditions, and
rules of morality cover all types of social relations at all levels—individual, family, community, neighborhood, regional and national.
(8) Sociology studies Society and Political Science studies State:
From our point of view society i.e. social relations constitute the object of study in Sociology whereas State and political relations are
the objects of study in of Political Science. Since all political relations and institutions are parts of the social system/society,
Sociology is also interested in these. State always works for
securing laws, order and security in the Society. Its power
regulates all social relations likewise social relations always
have a deep and big impact upon political relations. Caste
groups, communities, religious groups, family, customs,
traditions, ways of social life, ethnic relations, and the like
are all important factors of Politics. Hence, both State and
Society are closely related and yet quite different from each
other.

STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY

1. Originally the terms 'civil society' and 'political society'

were used as coterminous. Thus the term 'civil society'
was applied synonymously with 'state'. But under the
complex conditions of present-day society it is
necessary to recognize the distinctive features of civil
society.
2. Initially the term 'civil society' stood for a society whose members lived together as citizens, abided by civil laws and led a
civilzed, cultured and dignified life. In this sense, the barbarian communities did not qualify to be described as civil societies.
3. Locke equated civil society with political society. He observed that when people relinquish the state of nature and set up a
government for the protection of their natural right to 'life, liberty and property', they enter into civil society. Thus civil society is
a means to establish discipline, order and security for the human community.
4. Rousseau also treated 'civil society' and 'political society' as coterminous. It provides for legal equality of all citizens who thus
become equal in the eye of law in spite of their natural differences.
5. Hegel sought to distinguish 'civil society' from the state which were based in 'universal egoism' and 'universal altruism'
respectively. In Hegel's view, civil society represented an organization in which an individual dealt with all other as means to
serve his self-interest. It is the sphere of economic activities where an individual tries to know the need of others and to satisfy
them in order to satisfy his own needs. Marx accepted Hegel's description of civil society, but he did not accept Hegel's
distinction between civil society and the state, Marx believed that in actual practice civil society represented the state itself.

6. Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), an Italian Marxist, identified two levels of the superstructure of capitalist society: (a) civil society
which was nearer the base; and (b) political society which exercised overall control. Civil society includes family, school and
church which transmit capitalist value-system to the new generation; political society includes police, judiciary, prisons, etc. Civil
society embodies 'structures of legitimation'; political society embodies 'structures of coercion'. Together they form 'structures of
domination'. Capitalist society largely depends on the efficiency of the institutions of civil society for its stability.
7. Base and Superstructure
The terms used in Marxist theory to describe the relation between economic structure of society and other aspects of social life. In
this building-like metaphor, mode of production (i.e. the economic structure of society) constitutes the base, while legal and
political structure, religion, morals, and other forms of social consciousness constitute the superstructure. It is believed that any
change in the base results in corresponding changes in the superstructure.

Conclusion

8. distinction between the state and civil society must be maintained in order to prevent authoritarianism.
9. In the contemporary discourse, the term 'civil society' is also used to describe the 'intermediate' associations between individual
(or family) and the state. It is the product of 'freedom of association'.
10. It is the bedrock of civil liberties.
11. It serves as a channel of communication between individuals and the state and functions as a shock-absorber in the event of
mounting tension between individuals and the state.

STATE AND NATION

1. The modern state usually takes the form of a nation-state. The frontiers of the state are called national frontiers; the interest
of the state is described as national interest; the character of the people of a state is called its national character. Relations
between different states are known as international relations.
2. At the outset, a nation may be distinguished from nationality. Nationality usually denotes a set of people inspired by a feeling
of unity based on common race, language, religion, culture, geographical compactness, common political aspirations and
historical development. Most of these factors are based on birth and provide little scope for expanding the horizons of social
relationships. Feelings of nationality separate one set of people from other such sets. Sometimes this is accompanied by a
sense of one's own superiority, or a sense of disdain for others which may lead to tensions, wars and other disastrous
consequences. In any case, the feeling of nationality grows from a relatively narrow base.
3. A nation grows on a much wider base. It refers to people living in a defined territory, inspired by a sense of unity, common
political aspirations, common interests, common history and common destiny though they may belong to different
nationalities. In other words, groups of people of different races, with different religions, languages and cultures, etc. may
live together and feel united as citizens. of the same state, owing their undivided allegiance to that state.
4. Thus, nationhood transcends the conditions of birth and extends to the permanent residents of a state. Members of a nation of
course distinguish themselves from other nations. They may sometimes be prejudiced against other peoples.
5. principle of national self-determination has been almost universally accepted which has led to the establishment of nation-
states, and rapid development of international law to regulate relations between nation- states. The principle of national self
determination that each nation has the right to be independent and to choose a suitable form of government for itself.
6. Nation-building involves inculcating a feeling of unity and the process of their integration into compact groups. The attempt
is, however, bound to remain elusive unless they contain their widening economic disparities and free themselves completely
from the foul play of neo-colonial powers who continue to exploit them despite their political independence. The developing
countries, i.e. the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America who won their independence from colonial and imperial
domination after the Second World War (1939^45), are faced today with the gigantic task of nation- building. Most of them
evolved a national sentiment during their struggle for independence, but disruptive tendencies started to emerge after they
achieved their independence.
1. The elements of State and Nation are different:
The State has four elements—population, territory, government, and sovereignty. In the absence of even one element, a State cannot
be really a State. A state is always characterised by all these four elements. On the contrary, a nation is a group of people who have a
strong sense of unity and common consciousness. Common territory, common race, common religion, common language, common
history, common culture and common political aspirations are the elements which help the formation of a nation, and yet none of
these is an absolutely essential element. The elements which go to build a nation keep on changing.
2. State is a Political Organisation while Nation is a social, cultural, psychological, emotional and political unity:
The State is a political organisation which fulfills the security and welfare needs of its people. It is concerned with external human
actions. It is a legal entity. On the other hand, a Nation is a united unit of population which is full of emotional, spiritual and
psychological bonds. A nation has little to do with the physical needs of the people.
3. Possession of a Definite Territory is essential for the State but not for a Nation:
It is essential for each State to possess a fixed territory. It is the physical element of the State. State is a territorial entity. But for a
nation territory is not an essential requirement. A nation can survive even without a fixed territory. Love of a common motherland
acts as a source of unity. For example, before 1948 the Jews were a nation even though they had no fixed territory of their own.
When, in 1948, they secured a definite and defined territory, they established the State of Israel.
4. Sovereignty is essential for State but not for Nation:
Sovereignty is an essential element of the State. It is the soul of the State. In the absence of sovereignty, the State loses its existence. It
is the element of sovereignty which makes the state different from all other associations of the people. It is not essential for a nation to
possess sovereignty. The basic requirement of a nation is the strong bonds of emotional unity among its people which develop due to
several common social cultural elements. Before 1947, India was a nation but not a State because it did not have sovereignty. (State =
Nation + Sovereignty).
After her independence in 1947, India became a State because after the end of British imperial rule it became a sovereign entity.
However, each nation always aspires to be sovereign and independent of the control of every other nation.
5. Nation can be wider than the State:
The State is limited to a fixed territory. Its boundaries can increase or decrease but the process of change is always very complex.
However a nation may or may not remain within the bounds of a fixed territory. Nation is a community based on common ethnicity,
history and traditions and aspirations. Obviously its boundaries can easily extend beyond the boundaries of the State. For example in a
way the French nation extends even to Belgium, Switzerland and Italy because people in these countries belong to the same race to
which the French claim to belong.
6. There can be two or more Nationalities living in one State:
There can be two or more than two nations within a single State. Before the First World War, Austria and Hungary were one State,
but two different nations. Most of the modern states are multinational states.
7. Nation is more stable than State:
A nation is more stable than the State. When sovereignty ends, the State dies, but not the nation. A nation can survive even without
sovereignty. For example, after their defeat in the World War II, both Germany and Japan lost their sovereign statuses and outside
powers began to control them. They ceased to exist as States. But as nations they continued to live as nations, which after some
months regained their sovereign statuses and became sovereign independent states.
8. A State can be created while a Nation is always the result of evolution:
A State can be created with the conscious endeavors of the people. Physical elements play an important role in the birth of a State. For
example, after the Second World War, Germany got divided into two separate states West Germany and East Germany. But Germans
remained emotionally as one nation. Ultimately in Oct., 1990 the Germans again got united into a single state. In 1947 Pakistan was
created out of India as a separate State. A nation is a unity of the people which emerges slowly and steadily. No special efforts go into
the making of a nation.
9. The State uses police power (force) for preserving its unity and integrity, the Nation is bound by strong cultural and
historical links:
State has police power. Those who dare to disobey it are punished by the state. A nation does not have police power or force or
coercive power. It is backed by moral, emotional and spiritual power. A nation survives on the power of sense of unity of the people.
A nation appeals, the State orders; a nation persuades, a States coerces; and a nation boycotts, the State punishes. State is a political
organisation, while the nation is a unity. State and nation do not have the same boundaries, and yet there is a tendency for a nation and
state to be one. Most of the nations today stand organised into different states. Most of the modern States are multinational States. The
modern state is called a nation-state because all the (nationalities) living in one state stand integrated into one nation. A state
continuously pursues the objective of national- integration. The State tries to secure this objective by securing a willing blending of
the majority nationality and all the minority nationalities, through collective living, sharing of all the ups and the downs in common
and development of strong emotional, spiritual and psychological bonds. Unity in diversity or more really, unity in plurality stands
accepted as the guiding principle by all the modern civilised multinational states like India, USA, Russia, China, Britain and others.

DIVINE ORIGIN THEORY

The Divine Origin theory is the oldest theory which seeks to explain the emergence of the state. The divine origin theory is as old as
the state itself. This theory strongly holds the view that the state is a divine institution created by God. This theory firmly believed that
it was the will of God that human beings should live in a political society and therefore, God has created the state to save mankind
from destruction. God has created the state for the welfare of all people. According to this theory, the state is governed by God
Himself who sends His representative to govern the state. Thus, the theory believes that the King is the divinely appointed agent and
the representative of God and that’s why he is responsible to God and not to the people. On earth, the King has unlimited power and
nobody can limit his power or question his authority. All actions and orders of the King are supposed to be just and benevolent. The
King derives all powers and authority from God and resistance to the authority of the King reflects disobedience to God and thus, it is
a sin. According to this theory, obedience of the people towards the King is a religious duty. Another important point to be mentioned
here is that the supporters of the Divine Origin theory believed in the hereditary monarchical form of government, and hence all the
powers and rights that a King possesses should pass from father to son. Thus, the theory establishes divine sanctity of the state and
places the King above all people and law. In the ancient period, it was strongly believed that the state was the creation of God. During
that period, the authority of the state was connected with certain unseen powers and the ruler was a combination of priest and King.
The order of the King was supposed to be supreme and resistance to the King’s authority was considered as an act against God. There
are many references to this Divine Origin theory in the old religious books, such as the Mahabharata, the Old Testament etc. The
theory of divine rights of the kings also known as the Divine Origin theory is one of the oldest theory of the origin of the state. The
theory explains about how the state came into being. The supporters of this theory believed that the state doesn’t come into being
by the people but it is the handiwork of God on the earth. The state was created by the God and the King was the representatives or
agents of God on the earth. The king was given the divine power and he was to be responsible to the God alone for his deeds and was
not responsible to the people for any of his works. The king was given the supreme power to rule over the people through God. This
theory has made the king above law and no subjects will have the right to question his authority or his action.
The theory prevailed in the old age where religion has dominated the minds of the people. The subjects believed that as the king is the
agent of God so they have to abbey the king and to go against the king will be a sinful act. But in the twentieth century, this theory has
been criticized or we may say it came under a criticism being an incorrect explanation of the origin of the state.There are many causes
for the decline of the theory. In the first place it was the emergence of the social contract theory as a more acceptable theory, the
divine origin theory was dashed into the ground as this social contract theory has suggested that the state is the handiwork of man and
not the creation by the grace of God. Second, was the separation of the church and the state. Thus the secular outlook made the divine
origin theory totally unacceptable. Third, is the emergence of democracy because democracy it glorified the individual and not the
king who was considered as the agent of God. The people was no longer superstitious and have no blind faith, they began to accept
only those things that stood the test of logic and reasoning, for this reason the theory suffered a setback.

CRITICISMS OF THE DIVINE ORIGIN THEORY

The Divine Origin theory of the state was relevant in the ancient period but now, it has lost its relevance. This theory is subject to
criticism on many grounds. Some of the criticisms levelled against this theory are mentioned below:
1.  Critics have pointed out that the argument of the Divine Origin theory that the state is a divine institution created by God does
not find any relevant place in the present context, as the state is essentially a human institution.
2.  The Divine Origin theory may give rise to the despotic ruler since this theory tries to justify unlimited and arbitrary powers of
the king.
3.  This Divine Origin theory stands only for absolute monarchical form of government. But in the present context, such
monarchical form of government has lost its relevance.
4.  The Divine Origin theory supports absolute power of the King without any say of the people. This reflects that in such a state,
people did not have any individual freedom. Though the Divine origin theory is no longer valid today, it had its utility in the
primitive period, when the society was semicivilised and there was no authority to impose rules and regulations. The Divine

Origin theory inculcated the belief that the powers and laws of the King had religious sanctions and thus, obedience to the state is a
religious duty. Thus, this theory taught people to obey the King when the people were not in a position to govern themselves. In such
a context, the Divine Origin theory helped to maintain order which established the belief that the King is the representative of God
and people have to obey him.

EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
It explains that the State is the product of growth, a slow and steady evolution extending over a long period of time and shaping itself
into the complex structure of a modern State. Of its hypotheses, the speculation to that amount deductively makes sense of, then is
mentioned as much a persuading starting about the State, is the Historical and Evolutionary Theory. It makes sense concerning so the
State is the end result concerning development, a mild development stretching abroad above a large stretch of age or sooner or later
making itself of the complex construction over a modem State. The State is, so Garner said, “neither the makeup about God, nor the
aftereffect on predominant authentic power, nor the production on purpose than show, nor an easy extension on the family.” It is an
establishment on normal development as start of the broad necessities about the entity regarding soul then suffice concerning within
availability for the reason concerning helpful life.
Evolutionary theory about foundation over the Administration
Several factors contributed in accordance with the state’s growth. Family ties, religion, war, movement, monetary activities, or
political attention had been on the list. The consonant is a vital element so contributed to the imitation of the state’s development:
1. Family relationship
2. Religion
3. Property then protection
4. War and Force
5. Political awareness
Family kinship
Connection is the near massive yet dependent on blood kinship yet coalition was the primary most grounded discipline concerning
solidarity. The family comprised the primary connect during the day past the improvement concerning the administration with the
development regarding the family arisen new households then the duplication regarding households brought about the association
concerning companies then clans. Connection used to be the fundamental thing which certain individuals together.
Supported the feeling of family relationship, namely the course regarding a long time amplified the gathering. The gore discipline on
sonship modified vaguely between the convivial discipline over the more sizeable fellowship. The rule regarding the later passes in
the pressure of the rule again under the aegis concerning amalgamation modern constructions put in appearances who upward push on
it. Connection makes society or tribe finally makes the state.
Religion
In early society, faith imposed assistance on solidarity. It also had an impact on human beings from various backgrounds. A feel
regarding convivial fortitude used to be made by way of the amour on a regular producer and ordinary items. Taking everything into
account, at that place was funk between the hearts concerning men. Even now, we take a look at succinct processes, commitments, or
have confidence within uniting persons. In the strong old days, worship delivered people about whole races together, then team spirit
was imperative because of the establishment of a state.
Individuals have been no longer fostered yet advanced in the past. The man was once impotent among the rear about habit at its point.
As a result, she tried in conformity with impact habit via a variety of parts as opposite grew to be regarded as magic. With the
communication over time, men progressed and ended up cleric lords. Religion developed come to be a robust tool because of keeping
government upon humans above time. Religion, at last, performs a vital role in a range of regimen functions.
War yet Force
Force has an enormous effect on the state’s development so well. The establishment concerning geographical regions or domains was
structured about the software on genuine power. War then power performed a necessary position in the state’s development. When the
limit is used, even is a compelling purpose because of doing so. To start with, the pressure was back in accordance with capturing
creatures, resources, or areas the place like had been neighboring clans. As a result, certain should dispute and conflicts have been
fought forward or most important because of economic gain. Since conflict has grown to be an altogether long-lasting part of
hereditary life, the initiative has also come to be pretty long-lasting. With the bargain about time, primeval states had been converted
of realms, and the reducing edge regime was founded alongside its lines. The importance of its thinking is to that amount that makes
sense up to expectation the State is the outcome of development, a gradual progression atop a long length of time or sooner or later
molding itself into an intricate structure over a cutting-edge State.
Property then Defense
Through old times, religion then defense played an essential function over the emergences about that state, especially these sorts about
whoever were wanderers yet vagabonds yet tribals. Prof. Laski has alluded in accordance with the want of securing religion by way of
the citizenry or safeguarding the faith purchased between coalition together with population referenced previously. The accordant
triggered working changes of the associative skeleton or the correlation of the persons beside a number of gatherings. The need to
protect the law, in the end, forced the historical humans into conformity with the layout of the status. The earliest people live in
imitation of a high quantity because lotos then fields. They did now not too really know what agribusiness was. They did now not
encompass a precise house then be brought paid out incidence into light over this. The ordinary population was extended together
with the exchange regarding epoch yet the body was compelled to imitate of offer down.
Political attention
This precise suggests the risk of records concerning which political job is in the situation. There was at the beginning the prerequisite
for sentry or affirmation of life, chance then property, regime regarding associative relationships, or therefore forth The second choice
is political attention emerging out of the fundamental desires of existence insurance plan coverage yet request. At the loving website
now persons quiet below on a precise area into consignment along think in imitation of their, ability and yearning in accordance with
know that beside others. The use of directing things and of us is felt inescapably.
Enough factors helped the introduction concerning their state. Due to conformity with the starting point, no individual aspect single
used to be answerable. Occasionally whole connection half of that period a sizeable spiffy on as assist the subject matter whereby
savage tribe used to end up busy as much a state. For it kinsman large numbers regarding speculations which seem in accordance with
resonating of forwarding the states, the growing speculation certain amongst the almost palatable. Its assignment in imitation of
remain seen as no speculation pin- focuses half time at as the government started as like a final result regarding many elements deed
between affiliation at a number of times.

FORCE THEORY OF ORIGIN OF STATE:

According to force theory, force is the only reason for origin of state. State is result of control and dominance of the stronger over the
weaker. When human life began, men used to wander in groups here and there in search of food. Often, there were quarrels among
those groups. In that struggle, stronger groups dominated the weaker ones and thus the state was created. The leader of the stronger
group became the king and made the defeated group his subjects. Thus, force is the basis of state and state was created by wars.
Development of Force Theory: Sophist thinkers of ancient Greece supported the force theory. They asserted that, ‘Justice is nothing
but benefit of the powerful’. Struggle between church and state in medieval Europe proves the fact that state was originated by brutal
force, whereas church is the best source of spiritual power. According to Individualists also, the basis of state is Force. Anarchists
consider state as an unnecessary vice and consider force as its base. According to Karl Marx, state is based on force. Rousseau also
accepted that state is originated through war. According to Aietreya Brahaman scripture, king originated from war between Gods and
demons. Alexander expanded his state only through force. Presently, making of power groups in the world on the basis of economic,
materialistic and military powers, monopoly of U.S.A., all these are examples of force. Supporters of force theory in the present times
include Plow-in, Jacques, Ward, Oppenheimer and Ratzel, etc.

Criticism of Force Theory: Force theory has been criticized on the following basis:
1. Force is helping element in making of state, not the deciding element. Apart from force, blood relations, religion, and political
awareness also contributed to the development and origin of state.
2. This theory accepts that state developed only through force. Establishment of Federal system in many countries proves that state
can be expanded and developed through co – operation.
3. Basis of state had not been brutal force only. Wherever this force had an upper hand, there the kings were destroyed. Basis of states
of Hitler and Mussolini was brutal force only, thus they were destroyed soon.
4. Real and permanent basis of state is moral force, not brutal force, because states came into existence for the welfare of people.
5. This theory believes in war and revolutions, thus, it is against democracy.
6. This theory promotes extreme nationalism and colonialism. Importance of Force Theory: Force theory has its own importance
despite having many shortcomings. This theory has explained in detail the contribution of force in the development of state. Police is
compulsory as a symbol of force to maintain internal peace and harmony. State cannot be protected from foreign attacks without
armed military forces. Aforesaid analysis makes it clear that force theory contributed a lot in the origin of state.

MARXIST THEORY OF ORIGIN OF STATE

Marx, Engels and their supporters (particularly Lenin) had no faith on the social contract theory as the origin of state. They have
observed the origin from a materialistic’ viewpoint which emphasises that though the state is the formation of man, behind this there
is no emotion, idea but the influence of material conditions which they termed as economic conditions. They have divided the
development of society into old communist social system, slave society, feudal society and industrial society. In the old communist
society, there was no state because there was no existence of private property. The system of private property worked as a potential
cause of the rise of state. The owners of private property felt insecurity as to its protection and they felt the requirement of a super
power which could provide protection eventually.
1. As soon as there was private property, two classes of men there appeared such as one was the owner of property and the other was
without property.
2. The conflict between them became prominent. Property owners wanted to subjugate the other class.
3. Property owners formed a force within the society and this force ultimately assumed the status of state.
Marx and Engels have established that the state for all practical purposes, was set up in the slave society. Because in the slave society,
there were mainly two classes, the owners of slaves and the slaves themselves. The owners of the slaves required an organisation to
control and dominate slaves. Engels in his The Origin of Family, Private Property and State has intricately analysed the origin and
development of state. The state is not something originated from the society. It is the product of society. It is quoted that “The state is,
by no means, a power forced on society from without Rather it is a product of society at a certain stage of development”. People
living in society laid the foundation of state for the realisation of their class interests. Engels in this book has firmly stated that the
interests of the owners of property are at completely opposite to those who are not the owners; because of this there were rattles of
interests between these two classes and the interests were irreconcilable. Simultaneously, there developed a hostility between these
two classes and again this antagonism could not be settled. All these led to a situation which necessitated a state structure. The owners
of the property came to be regarded as a separate class whose only aims were to control the persons who were not the owners of
property and to develop a mechanism to help the property owners. The state in this way was created as a public power. The man-made
state had two main functions that include to provide security to the owners of wealth or owners of means of production and to collect
taxes from the members of society. Engels has observed that though the state is the product of society, gradually but steadily it
became the owner of huge power and it stood above society. But though the state stood above the society, it was always responsive
with the owners of property. It is to conclude that the state is the outcome of human contrivance and was made with specific aims.
According Marx and Engels, the origin of the state has nothing to do with the social contract or the divine right theory. They have
analysed the origin from materialistic standpoint.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY OF THE ORIGIN THE STATE

Regarding the origin of the state, the Social Contract Theory holds that the state is the outcome of a contract or an agreement made by
people among themselves. This theory considers the state of nature as the original condition of mankind. In the state of nature, there
was no organization or authority to regulate human behaviour and their relation with one another. To escape from such a deregulated
life, people felt the need of some sort of authority or civil society where everyone could lead a life of stability and peace. So, the
people entered into contract or agreement which was deliberate and with this, the state came into existence. Thus, according to the
social contract theory, the state is a human institution and an outcome of a contract among people. The state is created by the people
for their welfare. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau are the main exponents of the Social Contract theory.

The social contract theory is not only the most ancient but also the most famous of the theories regarding the origin of the state. The
substance of this theory is that state is the result of an agreement entered into by men who originally had no governmental
organisation. In the first period there was no government and no law. The people lived in a state of nature. After some time they
decided to set up a state. That they did by means of a contract. The social contract theory described the original condition of men as
the 'state of nature'. To escape from the condition of the state of nature man made a social contract. To some writers the contract was
pre-social and to others it was pre-political. Writers on this theory are agreed on the point that the state of nature preceded the
establishment of government there was no organised life in the state of nature. Each lived according to his own wish and fancies. No
man made laws were there to control man. The law known to men living in the state of nature was the law of nature or natural law.
There was none to interpret the law or adjudicate. Hence men lived under uncertain conditions. When men felt the need to escape
from this type of life he did so by common agreement or contract. As a result of this, a civil society was created. Thus creation of civil
society preceded the emergence of the state. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the supporters of the social contract theory
multiplied and there was more or less universal acceptance of the doctrine. Hooker was the first scientific writer who gave a logical
exposition of the theory of social contract. The theory found real support in the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques
Rousseau who are known as contractualists.

THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679): CONCEPTION OF SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

(e) POWERS OF THE SOVEREIGN The state embodied in one single individual or an assembly possesses sovereignty or the term
used in De Cive 'dominiurn: has the absolute power to enact laws as it deems fit. The power, which is used to enforce these laws, is
fully legitimate. The powers and authority of the sovereign must be defined with least ambiguity. The Leviathan is the sole source and
interpreter of laws. He is the sole interpreter of divine and natural law. Hobbes did not circumscribe the power of the sovereign by
placing h i under divine and natural laws. The Leviathan is not subject to civil laws since he is the sole source of these laws. He is,
however, bound by these as long as these are not repealed. The law is regarded as the command of the sovereign. Therefore no law
can be wrong or unjust or immoral. The sovereign is not only an administrator of law but also its enforcer. The sovereign represents
the will of all the people and hence its actions are as good as the actions of the people. commands unquestioned obedience from all the
people. This absolute authority is essential for controlling the anti-social instincts in man. The sovereignty of the government is
indivisible and inseparable. No other power in the state has the right to challenge or punish the sovereign. The sovereign does all the
functions of the state namely the legislative, executive and judiciary. The sovereign alone has the right to decide what is good for the
people. Neither an individual nor a power has the right to question the sovereign. Though Hobbes preferred monarchy, he stated that
the sovereignty maybe located in an assembly of men. But, Hobbes emphasized that the sovereign whether represented by one man or
a body of man, should necessarily be absolute. The law of sovereign is not a counsel but a command2' to be immediately obeyed. The
sovereign is authorized to declare war or to conduct peace. The words of the sovereign cannot be questioned or challenged or
disobeyed. Hobbesian absolutism does not mean that people have no rights to be enjoyed. The individuals have the rights. which the
law of nature grants for self-preservation. No sovereign can force an individual to kill himself. Even after the contract the individuals
enjoy the following rights; (1) what the sovereign has permitted, (2) what the sovereign has not prohibited and (3) what is necessary
for self-preservation. Strictly speaking, what is granted by the sovereign by his mercy cannot be considered as rights. They are only
privileges. The sovereign grants these privileges in his own interest. The Leviathan or sovereign is created by the social contract. This
sovereign either as an individual or a body of individuals attempts for the peaceful life of all. The Leviathan is both the lawmaker and
law interpreter. Whatever the sovereign commands is law. No one is allowed to disobey. Neither the law of nature nor the law of god
can challenge the power of Leviathan. There is only one limitation to the absolute powers of the sovereign. As it is the duty of the
sovereign to protect the life of individuals, the sovereign cannot command an individual to kill himself. Except this limitation, the
sovereign enjoys unlimited powers. There is no power above the sovereign to punish him.

Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Thomas Hobbes

- Thomas Hobbes theory of Social Contract appeared for the first time in Leviathan published in the year 1651 during the Civil War in
Britain. Thomas Hobbes legal theory is based on Social contract. According to him, prior to Social Contract, man lived in the State of
Nature. Mans life in the State of Nature was one of fear and selfishness. Man lived in chaotic condition of constant fear. Life in the
State of Nature was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
- Man has a natural desire for security and order. In order to secure self- protection and self-preservation, and to avoid misery and
pain, man entered into a contract. This idea of self-preservation and self-protection are inherent in mans nature and in order to achieve
this, they voluntarily surrendered all their rights and freedoms to some authority by this contract who must command obedience. As a
result of this contract, the mightiest authority is to protect and preserve their lives and property. This led to the emergence of the
institution of the ruler or monarch, who shall be the absolute head. Subjects had no rights against the absolute authority or the
sovereign and he is to be obeyed in all situations however bad or unworthy he might be. However, Hobbes placed moral obligations
on the sovereign who shall be bound by natural law.
- Hence, it can be deduced that, Hobbes was the supporter of absolutism. In the opinion of Hobbes, law is dependent upon the
sanction of the sovereign and the Government without sword are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all. He therefore,
reiterated that civil law is the real law because it is commanded and enforced by the sovereign. Thus, he upheld the principle of Might
is always Right.
- Hobbes thus infers from his mechanistic theory of human nature that humans are necessarily and exclusively self-interested. All men
pursue only what they perceive to be in their own individually considered best interests. They respond mechanistically by being
drawn to that which they desire and repelled by that to which they are averse. In addition to being exclusively self-interested, Hobbes
also argues that human beings are reasonable. They have in them the rational capacity to pursue their desires as efficiently and
maximally as possible. From these premises of human nature, Hobbes goes on to construct a provocative and compelling argument for
which they ought to be willing to submit themselves to political authority. He did this by imagining persons in a situation prior to the
establishment of society, the State of Nature.
- Hobbes impels subjects to surrender all their rights and vest all liberties in the sovereign for preservation of peace, life and
prosperity of the subjects. It is in this way the natural law became a moral guide or directive to the sovereign for preservation of the
natural rights of the subjects. For Hobbes all law is dependent upon the sanction of the sovereign. All real law is civil law, the law
commanded and enforced by the sovereign and are brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular
men, in such a manner, as they might not hurt but to assist one another and join together against a common enemy. He advocated for
an established order. Hence, Individualism, materialism, utilitarianism and absolutions are inter-woven in the theory of Hobbes.

JOHN LOCKE (1632 - 1704): CONCEPTION OF SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

CONTRACT
Locke tried to explain the origin and nature of political authority within the framework of social contractualism. He justified the
Glorious Revolution and wanted to establish a constitutional government. He proclaimed that the government should exist for the
people to protect their liberty, property and life, but not vice versa. If the government fails to work for the welfare of the society,
people have every right to rebel against the government and they can change the government. Locke developed his theory of social
contract from the notion of state of nature. For Locke, the state of nature is only a pre-political state. It means that there is existence of
an organized society, but there is no established government. Man gives up his freedom and power, because the enjoyment of it is
very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others. Since, all men are equal in the state nature; there is no strict observer
of equity and justice. Consequently, the enjoyment of property that they possess in the state of nature is unsafe and insecure. This
makes the individuals to look for a way out of this condition that is full of fears and continual dangers. If the vicious and degenerate
men are forbidden to enter into the contract, then there is need of any society, but the state of nature. The most important end of men's
uniting into a commonwealth is for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates. Hence the power of society can never
be supposed to extend farther than the common good. It is by means of contract the individuals agree to submit their powers (natural
rights) to a majority rule in order to organize themselves as a community. Although people surrendered their natural rights, it should
not be understood that they surrendered all aspects of those rights. In fact, they partially surrendered those natural rights to make the
contract functional. Once the contract becomes functional, the civil society is established. This facilitates the individuals to form a
government in the nature of a fiduciary power, which is supreme for it represents the power of the people. The government thus
established enjoys prerogatives. However, it is subordinate and accountable to the legislature. Also, it must be mentioned here that the
legislative power is separate from the executive power. The third is the ,whose function is to make treaties and conduct external
relation of the state.
Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by John Locke
- John Locke theory of Social Contract is different from that of Hobbes. According to him, man lived in the State of Nature, but his
concept of the State of Nature is different as contemplated by Hobbesian theory. Locke’s view about the state of nature is not as
miserable as that of Hobbes. It was reasonably good and enjoyable, but the property was not secure. He considered State of Nature as
a Golden Age. It was a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation. In that state of nature, men had all the rights
which nature could give them. Locke justifies this by saying that in the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind was a state
of perfect and complete liberty to conduct ones life as one best sees fit. It was free from the interference of others. In that state of
nature, all were equal and independent. This does not mean, however, that it was a state of license. It was one not free to do anything
at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in ones interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there was no
civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, was not a state without morality. The State of Nature
was pre-political, but it was not premoral. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally
capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. So, the State of Nature was a state of liberty, where persons are free to
pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon
persons, it is relatively peaceful.
- Property plays an essential role in Lockes argument for civil government and the contract that establishes it. According to Locke,
private property is created when a person mixes his labour with the raw materials of nature. Given the implications of the Law of
Nature, there are limits as to how much property one can own: one is not allowed to take so more from nature than oneself can use,
thereby leaving others without enough for themselves, because nature is given to all of mankind for its common subsistence. One
cannot take more than his own fair share. Property is the linchpin of Lockes argument for the social contract and civil government
because it is the protection of their property, including their property in their own bodies, that men seek when they decide to abandon
the State of Nature. - John Locke considered property in the State of Nature as insecure because of three conditions; they are:- 1.
Absence of established law; 2. Absence of impartial Judge; and 3. Absence of natural power to execute natural laws.
- Thus, man in the State of Nature felt need to protect their property and for the purpose of protection of their property, men entered
into the Social Contract. Under the contract, man did not surrender all their rights to one single individual, but they surrendered only
the right to preserve / maintain order and enforce the law of nature. The individual retained with them the other rights, i.e., right to
life, liberty and estate because these rights were considered natural and inalienable rights of men.
- Having created a political society and government through their consent, men then gained three things which they lacked in the State
of Nature: laws, judges to adjudicate laws, and the executive power necessary to enforce these laws. Each man therefore gives over
the power to protect himself and punish transgressors of the Law of Nature to the government that he has created through the
compact.
- According to Locke, the purpose of the Government and law is to uphold and protect the natural rights of men. So long as the
Government fulfils this purpose, the laws given by it are valid and binding but, when it ceases to fulfil it, then the laws would have no
validity and the Government can be thrown out of power. In Locke’s view, unlimited sovereignty is contrary to natural law.
- Hence, John Locke advocated the principle of -a state of liberty; not of license. Locke advocated a state for the general good of
people. He pleaded for a constitutionally limited government.
- Locke, in fact made life, liberty and property, his three cardinal rights, which greatly dominated and influenced the Declaration of
American Independence, 1776.

JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU (1712 - 1778): CONCEPTION OF SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

(c) CAUSES OF SOCIAL CONTRACT When equality and happiness disappeared, man in the state of nature became a cunning
brute. War, murder, wretchedness and honour become universal. He could not abolish them and go back to the golden age of the state
of nature. Man wanted to harmonize the institution of family and property with liberty, equality and individualism of the state of
nature. Men are forced to create a society when the condition prevailing in the state of nature became intolerable. Rousseau found a
solution for this problem by initiating a 'Social Contract'. Through social contract man created a society by surrounding their natural
rights.
CONTRACT His concept of social contract is a mixture of Hobbes' method and Locke's view of substance. Liberty is fundamental.
So is authority. One may not exist meaningfully without the other. They are interdependent. Human beings are living in the society.
The life in the society becomes miserable in the absence of liberty. Therefore, liberty is the fundamental necessity of human beings
for Rousseau. Suppose, people have liberty without authority, people begin to behave like animals. They would create tension in the
society. In order to avoid these kinds of unwanted things to happen in the society, maintained Rousseau, a commonly accepted
authority is needed to control the activities of the subjects. But, between freedom and authority, it is the former, which is accorded
primary status by Rousseau, because it is man's most important instinctive urge in the state of nature. Thus Rousseau is regarded as
the champion of human freedom. The contract of Rousseau consists of a moral and collective body including as many members as the
assembly contains. By the act of contract, the collective receives its unity and common identity. Its will and life are distinguished
from the constituent members. As each member has surrendered his natural rights become, there is no scope for any individual to seek
special privileges. The contract preserves individual liberty.According to Rousseau, the community is a party to the contract. By the
contract each individual has two relations, namely, personal and corporate. Every individual in his personal capacity enters into
contract with another individual, and in his corporate capacity he enters into contract with the community as a whole. Putting an end
to the state of nature, the contract creates the state, the civil society. This new society replaces mere instincts by justice and reason. It
gives moral meaning to man's action. And it transforms man from the status of a stupid animal into an intelligent being. According to
Rousseau, the contract is continuous, and constant to the acts of the state. This continual participation makes the individual a citizen
and sovereign. It keeps the regards for community over and above the regard for self-interest. Social duty as an obligation gets the
priority over the rights of the individual.
GENERAL WILL There are some aspects of the general will that Rousseau articulates. First, the general will is directly tied to
Sovereignty: but not Sovereignty merely in the sense of whomever holds power. Simply having power, for Rousseau, is not sufficient
for that power to be morally legitimate. True Sovereignty is directed always at the public good, and the general will, therefore, speaks
always infallibly to the benefit of the people. Second, the object of the general will is always abstract, or for lack of a better term,
general. It can set up rules, social classes, or even a monarchial government, but it can never specify the particular individuals who are
subject to the rules, members of the classes, or the rulers in the government. This is in keeping with the idea that the general will
speaks to the good of the society as a whole. It is not to be confused with the collection of individual wills which would put their own
needs, or the needs of particular factions, above those of the general public. This leads to a related point. Rousseau argues that there is
an important distinction to be made between the general will and the collection of individual wills: “There is often a great deal of
difference between the will of all and the general will. The latter looks only to the common interest; the former considers private
interest and is only a sum of private wills.Rousseau felt that each and every one in the state of nature surrendered their person and all
power under the supreme ordering of the General Will. The General Will receives the power of each one of us in which they are as a
party indivisible from the whole.
SALIENT FEATURES OF GENERAL WILL
1. Unity: General will is rational and not self-contradictory. It thus give us unity in the sense that it is indivisible because once divided
it will not be called General Will rather it would be only called sectional will.
2. General Will is Permanent: Since General Will is based on reason, wisdom and experience and thought about the good of all. It is
not to sway with the time but is permanent. It cannot be alterable and is pure. Even though it may be dominated by other wills for
sometime yet in the ultimate analysis this will dominate.
3. Right will: It is the will that takes into consideration not only the political and social, but also moral conditions.
4. General Will is unrepresentable: It cannot be represented by any body. In other words, Rousseau insisted on direct non-
representative democracy. Similarly, General Will also cannot be represented. Rousseau's General Will is only applicable when there
is direct democracy.
5. It is indivisible: The General Will cannot be divided, because it is an act of the whole people for the whole people. If you still
divide the General Will, it simply means that it is dead and it will be called 'sectional will'.
6. It is inalienable: General Will cannot be separated because it cannot be represented or delegated. It is inseparable from the common
interest. It is a single whole and must remain as such. Rousseau's sovereign is General Will and not any human being. His sovereign,
in fact, cannot give up the sovereignty and also cannot pass that on to any other individual because sovereignty is vested in the
community as a whole community could not pass on the sovereign authority to any other individual or organisation but to the General
Will. Thus sovereignty and General Will are inseparable and hence inalienable.
7. It is infallible: It is always right and tends to the public good. The people cannot be corrupted but can be deceived.