Scribd
Upload
202 views

Origin of State Theories

The theory of divine origin of the state argues that God founded the state and kings derive their authority from God. This justifies absolute monarchy and the oppression of citizens. However, the theory is flawed as it overemphasizes religion and ignores other factors in the evolution of states. The social contract theory and separation of church and state weakened the divine origin theory by showing states are created by people, not God, and religion should not dominate politics. While the theory provided moral justification for laws and order, it is not democratic and can be used to prop up tyrannical rulers.

Uploaded by

Tariq Khan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
202 views

Origin of State Theories

The theory of divine origin of the state argues that God founded the state and kings derive their authority from God. This justifies absolute monarchy and the oppression of citizens. However, the theory is flawed as it overemphasizes religion and ignores other factors in the evolution of states. The social contract theory and separation of church and state weakened the divine origin theory by showing states are created by people, not God, and religion should not dominate politics. While the theory provided moral justification for laws and order, it is not democratic and can be used to prop up tyrannical rulers.

Uploaded by

Tariq Khan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Q. How far is it correct to say that the origin of the state lies in force?

Discuss critically the


Theory of Force regarding the origin of the state. [20]
Ans. Force theory of origin of the state:
This theory argues that history of mankind is nothing but a story of endless wars, conquests and
invasions. This theory asserts that state is a child of war, conquest, force and aggression.
According to this theory, force was not only responsible for the origin of the state but also for its
defense and maintenance. In ancient society, a physically stronger man established his authority
over the rest of the tribe and became the chief of that tribe. As population increased along with
pressure on natural resources like food, water and land, there was a concomitant improvement in
the art of warfare. This allowed tribes to attack their neighbouring tribes and capture their wealth
and resources. Thus, a tribe grew into a kingdom. All the kingdoms fought among themselves till
one of them conquered all others. Thus, a kingdom grew into an empire. After establishing the
state, force was required to compel people to obey the laws of the state and defend the state
against foreign aggression.
Merits of the theory:
The theory of force has some redeeming features. Firstly, many states were definitely created by
force. For instance, the victory of Babur in the Battle of Panipat in 1526 marked the beginning
of the Mughal Empire in India. Similarly, William the Conqueror founded the kingdom of
England after his victory at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Secondly, force is indispensable to
the defense of the state. Every modern state has a ministry of defense which gets the lion’s share
of the budget to preserve the independence and territorial integrity of the state. Thirdly, without
the use of force there would be anarchy and chaos in society. Unless the state has the power to
use coercive authority, it will not be able to compel people to obey the laws of the state and
respect the rights of other people. Fourthly, force is one of the pillars of sovereignty. The
possession of the right to use force to compel obedience to its laws, distinguishes the state from
all other associations.
Demerits of the theory:
1) The theory overemphasizes the role played by force, conquests and invasions in the
origin of the state:
The theory of force stresses the importance of force in the creation of the state and completely
ignores other factors which played a crucial role in the birth of the state. For example, the
Pakistan Movement was a political and non-violent struggle for the creation of Pakistan on the
basis of Two-Nation Theory. Similarly, the American Revolution from 1775 to 1783 and the
French Revolution of 1789 were the children of enlightenment. Likewise, the Russian
Revolution of 1917 was the outcome of Marxist ideology.
2) Too much emphasis on force leads to rebellion:
When a state uses force to crush opposition to its laws instead of persuading and convincing the
people to obey its laws, it is bound to invite criticism and opposition from the people. A state that
only relies on force to enforce its laws and administer the country without taking into
consideration the interests and desires of the people, is more likely to be torn apart by political
and social upheaval. When the frustration and sufferings of the people reach a climax, they rise
in rebellion against the government.
3) The theory is opposed to individual liberty:
Liberty doesn’t exist when force is used as an instrument to make people subordinate and
subservient to the state. Liberty cannot flourish when people are deprived of their share in the
government and excluded from participation in decision-making. Liberty is destroyed when
people are denied civil and political rights in order to keep them under control. In such a state,
the individual is a means to the attainment of the ends of the state.
4) The theory is incompatible with modern nation-states:
In the past, the main function of the state was to defend the country against foreign invasions and
internal disturbances in order to preserve the independence and unity of the state. However, in
the modern age, the state performs a host of functions which need neither command nor use of
force. These functions include postal services, railways, construction, education and health.
5) Will, not force, is the basis of the state:
The state is a voluntary association of individuals that came into being because of the will of the
people. The desire of the people to live a peaceful live and put an end to perpetual strife and
conflict among them led to the establishment of a common authority. This authority derived its
powers and legitimacy from the people and was directly responsible to them.
6) Faulty application of the theory of survival of the fittest:
The theory of force uses the theory of survival of the fittest to justify the exploitation of man by
man. The theory of survival of the fittest was used to describe the process of natural selection in
the animal word. A theory that deals with the behaviour of animals cannot be used to justify the
behaviour of human beings. In addition, intelligent and wise people like scientists, artists, writers
and philosophers are not necessarily strong people. They have a very strong mind but not a very
strong body.
Conclusion:
No doubt, force played a key role in the origin of the state; however, it is wrong to emphasize
force as the only factor and exclude all other factors. Moreover, indiscriminate use of force has
always led to rebellions and revolutions. Thus, force must be used as a medicine and not as a
daily diet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The force theory is harmful for the development of the state:
Too much emphasis on force makes the state rigid. The rigid nature of the state clogs the wheel
of progress and makes adaptation to changing social conditions very difficult. The rigidity of the
state hinders the adoption of progressive laws, impedes the development of the state and crushes
all intelligence and creativity of its subjects.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Critically examine the theory of divine origin of the state.
Ans. Theory of divine origin of state:
The theory of divine origin of state is as old as political thought itself. The theory of divine
origin holds that God founded the state. The ruler of the state, the king, is the deputy or
vicegerent of God on earth. The king derives his authority from God and is accountable for his
actions to God alone. To disobey the king is not only a crime but also a sin because to disobey
the king is to disobey God. Hence, even if a king is wicked, the people have no right to rebel
against him. Rival parties exploited the theory of divine origin during the Middle Ages to support
their claims in the controversy between the church and state. Some used it to establish the
supremacy of the church over the state, while others used it to prove the supremacy of the state
over the church.
Critical analysis:
1) It justifies misrule by bad rulers:
The theory of divine origin claims that a king is not accountable for his actions to anyone other
than God. As he is not accountable to the people, his authority is restricted neither by the wishes
of the people nor the law of the land. The king is free to rule his people in any manner he sees fit.
The theory thus justifies the subjugation, oppression and exploitation of the people by bad rulers.
2) It is undemocratic:
The theory advocates the establishment of absolute monarchy capable of exercising absolute
control over its citizens. It is antithetical to democratic ideas such as parliamentary supremacy,
election and popular sovereignty and deprives people of their civil and political rights. It defends
the dictatorial powers of the ruler and suppresses individual liberty.
3) State is the result of a process of evolution:
Political scientists unanimously agree that the state is the result of a process of evolution.
Various factors like family, religion, force and political consciousness have played their role in
the development of the state. The theory of divine origin is wrong because it overemphasizes the
role played by religion in the development of the state.
4) It gives the state a moral basis:
God personifies justice, virtue and morality, and so should His deputy. The ruler must dispense
justice and act morally so that people live a happy and good life and achieve moral and
intellectual perfection. The ruler should serve his people as commanded by God and satisfy their
needs and aspirations. He should not oppress his people or treat them harshly; otherwise, he
would incur the wrath of God.
5) It secured peace in the troubled periods of human history:
Belief in the divinity of the state motivated people to obey the laws of the state. The laws of the
state were regarded as the laws of God and thus held in high esteem by the people. Obedience to
the state was deemed a religious duty and disobedience was considered an unpardonable sin.
Causes of decline of theory of divine origin:
1) Theory of social contract:
The theory of divine origin received a severe setback from the theory of social contract which
proved that the state was an artificial creation of man and not a divine creation. The theory of
social contract was the first materialistic approach to explain the origin of state. It attributed the
origin of state to a social contract that men entered into in order to escape the hardships of the
state of nature.
2) Separation of church and state:
The separation of church and state also contributed to the decline of this theory. The domination
of Roman Catholic Church over Europe and the superiority of church over state broke with the
Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The separation of church and state reduced religion to a position
of private affair of the individual and made religion subservient to the state. It stripped the state
of its theocratic nature and laid the foundation of secularism.
3) Growth of democratic ideas:
The growth of democratic ideas like parliamentary supremacy, election and popular sovereignty
demolished the theory of divine origin which defended absolute authority of the king and
deprived people of their civil and political rights. Democracy glorifies the individual as opposed
to the ruler and asserts that rulers are not appointed by God but elected by the people through
elections.
4) Growth of scientific outlook:
The growth of scientific outlook caused people to change their old ways of thinking. It
disassociated people from the past and replaced faith and superstition with reason and logic. It
prompted people to question the validity of old institutions and beliefs and encouraged them to
adopt a rational line of thinking instead of succumbing to myths and superstitions.
Conclusion:
The theory remained popular as long as religion was the chief motivating force of human life.
The theory disappeared into oblivion with the decline of religious influence.

You might also like