Rumi Roy

Asst Prof, VSLLS/2024

Topic: What is State? Evolution and Development of the State
Historical development of the evolution of the state : The preceding article in tracing the origin
of the state, found difficulty in fixing he exact process by which the state came into existence
and in separating political institution from other closely related forms similar problems
confront an attempt to outline the historical development of political institution. The state has
not had a single origin or a regular and continuous evolution. The idea held by many writers
that political development tends inevitably to pass through regular and clearly defined cycles
is not borne out by historical facts.
Various forms of state have arisen at different times and places as a result of causes by no
means uniform. These states have had widely different histories, and have worked out
governmental organizations far from similar. Thus, at first glance, it seems almost as difficult
to follow the state’s evolution as it was to determine its origin. However, if attention is directed
chiefly to those states that occupied the leading positions [in the world of their day and that,
contributed most to the development of later political forms and ideas, a fairly uniform course
of development may be discovered.
In broad outlines, the state has evolved through the following forms :
The tribal state
The Oriental empire
The Greek city state
The Roman world empire
The feudal state
The national state
The periods of time during which each of these forms predominated show wide variation, and
within the general type important governmental changes took place. Besides, earlier forms
usually survived in some parts of the earth long after later types had arisen elsewhere. There
have also been tendencies at times to revive earlier forms among peoples who had passed to
the new and types strikingly similar have arisen independently at different times in widely
separated places.
The Tribal State:
As the previous chapter indicated the first states appeared in the form of tribes. These had
certain elements in common, though in other respects they showed marked differences. They
were usually comparatively small in sing and were governed by chiefs, often assisted by
advisory councils. Some Were nomadic others were permanently settled in definite areas.
While the main purpose of their existence was the preservation of internal order and the waging
of aggressive of defensive war, they often retained strong traces of common birth, common
religion, and common economic interests.
The scope of their political power was narrow, most of the affairs of like being controlled by
long established customs. In some the authority of the chief was despotic in others his power
Wan strictly limited by a democratic public opinion, or by assemblies of warriors in some
authority was transmitted by heredity or by some accepted rule of succession in Others the
rulers were chosen freely by members of the tribe. Sometimes the tribal organization was
permanent in other cases it was temporary, the group easily falling apart into smaller units. In
still other cases a number of tribes might be combined into a loose confederation.
The tribal form of organization has existed in some parts of the earth through the entire period
of recorded history. The aborigines of Australia never progressed beyond that stage, and but
little advance had been made in the Western Hemisphere before its contact with Europe. Even
today, in underdeveloped parts of the earth and among backward peoples, the type persists.
The Oriental Empire:
The next step in state building resulted from the aggregation of population, the accumulation
of wealth, and improvement in the arts of peace and war in regions favored by nature. Warm
climate, fertile soil, abundance of water, and a considerable area free from geographic barriers
were required to support a large population and to bring about those permanent relations among
men that demanded increasing government.
In the fertile valleys of the Nile, the Euphrates, the Ganges, the Yellow River, and the Yangtze,
which are called the “cradles of civilization,” wealth accumulated and cities arose. Such areas,
furnishing abundant food with little effort, attracted surrounding peoples and led to that conflict
and intermingling which was so important in creating the state, as contrasted with the earlier
kinship organizations.
Through loose alliances, or through the conquest of the weaker by the stronger and more
aggressive city, the inhabitants of these valleys were bound together into the empires of Egypt,
Babylon, Assyria, India, and China. These empires were not strongly centralized, but were
made up of subordinate units, practically autonomous in local affairs, yet under central
supervision, obliged to furnish soldiers and to pay tribute.
Warm climate and easily obtained food made possible the beginnings of civilization, but soon
checked energy and caused stagnation. Abundant population and frequent conquests created a
large servile class with resultant social differences castes and despotism. Religion crystallized
into temple worship, over shadowing the ancient rites of the household, and a lose corporation
of priests developed into an exclusive and highly organized instrument of social control.
The need for serial protection, especially in connection with increasing property and with
frequent wars, and the ambition for power on the part of the ruling classes, led to a hierarchy
of officials, culminating in a king or emperor, surrounded by a court of growing complexity,
and with a code of manners and a mode of life that set it apart from the rest of the people.
Rulers were exalted with corresponding abasement of subjects, since free political cooperation
over a large area was impossible because of the difficulty of communication.
A permanent armed force replaced the spontaneous mustering of the tribe, and the military
order became a strong conservative force translating the idea of service into the fulfillment of
a command. With the political, priestly, and military classes reinforcing each other in
stabilizing society through authority and subordination, the way was prepared for leaders who
imposed the principle of dominance over their own subjects and who were ambitious to extend
it by conquest over others.
The creation of empire brought new political problems. To unify authority over a large area
was difficult in an age of slow communications. The provincial magistrates, possessing a large
measure of autonomy, were frequently tempted to revolt against: the central authority. Powerful
nobles in the court stood jealously ready to defy the emperor, especially when hereditary
succession placed the scepter in weak hands.
Thus the early empires present a picture of instability at best they were a loose aggregation OE
semi independent states, with authority shifting from dynasty to dynasty and from city to city.
Some fell from external invasion others were destroyed by internal dissensions.
The problem of government is largely one of proper adjustment between authority and freedom,
and of extending this Adjustment in a permanent and stable union aver a considerable tea. The
Oriental empire accomplished neither. Based on conquest, they had no teal cohesion and fell
apart whenever the ruling dynasty Was weakened based on fear, they represented bellied the
people only the slave driver and the tax-collector. Neither unity in the state not liberty for the
individual was possible under such conditions.
While these great empires per formed valuable service in establishing the beginnings of culture,
in breaking down the narrow local basis of tribal organization, and in breaking mankind with
widespread authority, they offered little hope of individual or political progress. Despotic
power, unchecked by popular will, viewed the state as property, and the people merely as
subjects. This defective basis of political authority the Oriental empire could never remove,
and the course of political development was transferred to new peoples and a new form of state.
The Greek City State:
The Oriental empires were essentially agricultural, land powers. To them the sea was a barrier,
not a highway and the centers of their civilization lay, not on the coasts, but in the valleys. As
civilization spread to the region around the Aegean and Mediterranean, important physical
differences were found. Europe is a peninsula, oceanic rather than continental. It has a climate
more temperate and products more varied than the river valleys of Asia.
The land is broken up into small units adapted to both intercourse and defense while the seas,
though permitting communication, made invasion from Asia difficult. Hence civilization,
though arising later reached a much higher and more varied development than in Asia, and the
nature of political organization was correspondingly different.
On the coasts of the Aegean Sea and on the islands stretching across it appeared the first
maritime states, a new and epoch making form of political power. In this area diverse types of
peoples intermingled and fused. Products and ideas were exchanged and the minds of men were
liberated from the tyranny of fixed customs. While pastoral nomads had mobility without
wealth, and agricultural peoples had wealth without mobility the seafaring peoples possessed
both advantages.
In contrast to the expansion of land empires by conquest, requiring constantly increasing armies
and making the problem of government ever more difficult, sea powers expanded by
colonization, linking strategic centers together by the common advantages of economic ties.
Although advanced civilizations appeared early in Crete, Troy, Mycenae, Troy, and other
maritime centers, it was in Greece, between the fifth and fourth centuries b.c, that this form of
culture reached its highest development and made its chief contribution to political
development. Greece has been called the “most European of European lands.” In a little district
of ten thousand square miles are found, in miniature, all the characteristic features of Europe.
The mountains and the sea break up this area into numerous valleys and islands, easily
defended, yet, because of the sea, not isolated.
In contrast to the uniformity of Asia, the variety and moderation of nature in Greece developed
a different mental attitude and genius. Growth of population led naturally to trade, commerce,
and colonization the wine and olive oil which her hillsides furnished being an excellent medium
of trade. Under these conditions a new form of state was created. Patriarchal tribes, coming
into this area as invaders from the north, built their villages on easily defended hills.
In the secluded valleys, guarded by mountains and the sea, yet in constant contact through their
harbors, with the outside world, groups of villages united under a single polity and gave a new
emphasis and a distinctive form to city life. Natural barriers made the union of these cities
difficult hence each city developed an intense life of its own. Before its claims all other human
relationships took second place, and earlier ties of kinship were replaced by a patriotic sense
of citizenship.
Many influences combined in the Greek cities to prevent the despotism that fettered the earlier
empires. Religion bore less heavily on the Greeks and no priestly class existed to reinforce
authority. The small size of the city destroyed the mystery of authority remote and secluded.
The active, changing life of the city sharpened men’s wits, made them more critical and
competitive and less likely to endure oppression without question.
The more complex order of city life demanded more regulation, brought government closer
home to each citizen, and led him to examine and question his laws and his government. The
city Is the natural home organized democracy, in contrast to the formless equality of tribal life
and the despotic rule of empire.
The internal development of these city states followed, in general, the same political evolution,
though the form of government that finally resulted differed in the various cities. Tribal chiefs
became the kings of the Homeric period. their powers diminished and passed into the hands OI
oligarchs, aristocratic nobles who controlled the councils and magistrates of the city. The
selfishness and oppressiveness of the oligarchs led to a contest with the common citizens, as a
result of which a more or less democratic constitution was set up.
In this process a dictator, or “tyrant,” frequently arose who suppressed the nobles by the aid of
mercenary armies and popular support, but who was removed by the people when they realized
their strength. While a large Part of the population of the city was composed of slaves and other
unfranchised residents, within the citizen class political and civil rights were widespread. Each
citizen was expected to take active part in holding public office and in deciding public
questions.
Thus each city developed an intense, patriotic life, absorbing the energies of its citizens, and
identifying their life with that of the city. Factions within the city, however, foreshadowing the
political parties which seem an inevitable accompaniment of democracy, created internal
dissension, and weakened the cities within. Besides, this democracy adapted to the city state,
was effective only in small areas. Its perfection intensified jealousy among the cities and
prevented the formation of a national Greek state.
Neighboring cities were viewed as enemies, although leagues, under the headship of a
dominant city, were sometimes formed. Lack of unity was the chief weakness of the Creek
political system. Facing east, Greece came into contact with the powerful Oriental empires,
and was compelled to wage defensive war. This checked expansion and compelled a
concentrated internal development.
Mutual jealousy prevented my union except loose confederations, and frequent wars among
the cities destroyed in turn, the power of the strongest, Greece thus weakened, was at length
united only when conquered by an outside power, first Macedon, then Rome.
In one respect the city state made an important contribution to political thought. Organized self
government and individual freedom had been developed and on this basis a brilliant, if brief,
civilization had arisen. Only in small states, however, was this form of political life possible.
The remainder of the world was not yet ready for democracy, much in the way of perfecting a
wider organization first being needed. This was secured by Macedon and Rome at the expense
of democracy, and the work necessary for modern civilization destroyed much of the Greek
contribution to politics. It was not until the Teutonic barbarians later grafted their individual
freedom with Roman organization, and devcloped the system of representation and local self
government, that a democracy stable over large areas became possible.
The Roman World Empire:
The conquests of Alexander the Great about the middle of the fourth century B.C. destroyed
the independence of the Greek cities, extended the control of Macedon over a large part of the
Eastern empires, and restored for a time the Oriental-empire type of despotism. His empire,
however, was short lived, and fell to pieces after his death. The main line of political
development passed westward to Rome.
The beginnings of political life in Italy were similar to those in Greece. Natural advantages of
location, climate, and resources led to increase of population, mingling of peoples and advance
in civilization. While the mass of inhabitants lived in loose tribal organizations, a number of
small city states gradually arose. These were not commercial, as in Greece,but were the centers
of the surrounding agricultural area. One of these at first by no means the most important, was
formed by the union of several tribes occupying a group of hills in the fertile plain of the Tiber.
A number of causes led to the preeminence of this city. Its central position and its location at
the head of navigation of the only important river gave it considerable advantage. Besides, the
various settlements on neighboring hills soon compelled isolation to yield to federation or
conquest, and numerous hostile neighbors kept warlike ability. These conditions resulted in
fusion of peoples. Thus in Rome the rigid letters of custom were broken earlier than usual, and
necessary compromise amt treaty, resulting from the relation of various tribes, began the
growth of Rome’s wonderful system of law thus the walk of conquest began that was finally to
create the Empire.
In its early internal development Rome showed the same tendencies as the Greek city states.
King, council and assemblies grew out of the patriarchal family organization monarchy Was
replaced by an aristocracy of birth and wealth, as consuls praetors and senate replaced the king
and a strong movement toward democracy was indicated by the widening of the assemblies
and the increased privileges of the plebeians.
The ruling classes of Rome perceived what the Greek cities never learned, that a city state
cannot resist its enemies without if torn by dissension from within. By extending citizenship
within the city they secured stability and union. But before this tendency toward a democratic,
compact city state could be carried to its logical conclusion, as it had been in Athens, a new
series of event changed the whole course of Roman development, resulting, in a new type of
state and in several important contributions to political ideas.
Geographic conditions in the main account for the difference in the trend of Greek and Roman
politics. Italy is better adapted for internal unity than Greece. The divisions are larger and less
distinct, the plains and uplands better suited to agriculture, and the absence of harbors and
islands offers fewer ,advantage for commerce.
Hence, while civilization was delayed, energy was kept at home until Italy was united into a
single date under Rome’s headship. Here again, as the armies of Rome triumphed, her former
enemies were incorporated into the state ,and made citizens, and the territory of Italy was
consolidated the process, however, did not stop at this point.
The direction of external effort further affected Rome’s progress. With the Apennines near the
eastern coast, and the fertile plains, rivers mid harbors on the west, Rome naturally had little
contact with eastern peoples until her institutions were well established on the contrary, she
faced toward Gaul and Spain, and through Sicily, toward Africa. Her first wars were with
inferior nations and led to conquest, to expansion of territory, and to the civilizing of fresh,
vigorous peoples.
Adding sea power to land power, she emerged victorious from a life-and-death struggle with
Carthage by the end of the third century b.c, Later, the fragments of Alexander’s empire in the
East came also under hot sway, her central position enabling her to concentrate her forces and
conquer her enemies in detail. Rome thus entered on the final stage of empire, extending her
control over world over dominions, within which power and citizenship could no longer
advance successfully together.
It was this career of conquest and expansion that compelled Rome to develop a new form of
state. The city state constitution broke down When it was applied to a wide empire, and that
tendency toward democracy was checked by the need for a vigorous and consistent policy in
dealing with various peoples in all parts of the earth. Only at Rome could the citizens share in
government and real power fell into the hands of the wealthy aristocrats, who controlled the
votes of the Roman mob and of the army, which alone could control the provinces.
The attempts of various leaders to use one of both of these sources of power resulted in the
series of civil wars that marked the end of the republic. Bureaucratic and despotic empire was
the inevitable outcome of such conditions. A religious sanction was added to the new authority,
and worship of the Emperor became a patriotic duty. Concentration of authority, uniformity of
law, centralized organization-these were needed to bind the wide domain of Rome in to a state
and to secure order and peace throughout her reach.
How well Rome succeeded in creating a successful imperial organization is shown by the fact
that her rule lasted for five centuries in the West and for Eileen centuries in the East. The
Christian church developed its organization on a Roman basis the ideal of world empire long
outlived the destruction of actual unity and Roman law and Roman methods at colonial and
municipal administration underlie modem systems.
Sovereignty and citizenship were worked out by Rome, and her methods of binding divergent
nations into political unity have never been surpassed. The maintenance of peace for centuries
within the civilized world was a gloat boon to mankind. Rome taught the world that a large
state might be stable and successfully governed and her ideal of world unity underlay the later
development of international law and later attempts at world organization.
The formation of this united and well governed empire was not accomplished, however,
without accompanying evils. From the time of Caesar onward, citizenship was extended, but it
no longer carried with it any Share in government. To secure unity and authority, individual
freedom and democracy were sacrificed local self government disappeared as centralized
administration grew. Greece had developed democracy without unity Rome secured unity
without democracy.
Rome’s system prevented political education, and its very perfection brought about its ultimate
fall. The ability to combine sovereignty and liberty, to make democracy possible over large
areas, and to secure the best interests of both individual and state was reserved for a later time
and a new people. Rome contributed but one side of political development, sovereign
organization, wide unity, uniform law, and world peace, the side most needed at that period of
state formation.
The Feudal State:
The unity which the principle of citizenship gave to early Rome became meaningless with the
expansion of Rome to world empire. Imperial Rome depended increasingly on the army and
the doctrine of power, and this gave no satisfactory basis for solidarity. When the state failed,
men sought refuge in kingdoms not of this world and in individualistic philosophies.
The state was thereby disintegrated, and this internal decline made it difficult for Rome to
maintain her frontiers against those Teutonic barbarians whom she had been unable to conquer.
Great numbers of these were gradually admitted and many found service in the army. By the
fifth century of the Christian Era the boundaries were so indistinct, the army so largely
barbarian, and the pressure along the frontiers so great that the declining empire in the west fell
to pieces and was parceled out among the various Teutonic tribes in the east the Byzantine
Empire maintained for many years the framework of authority and the rise of the Mohammedan
religion created again a great state of the Oriental empire type but in western Europe the state
disappeared and had gradually to be rebuilt in a primitive society.
The work of the Middle Ages was the gradual fusion of Roman and Teutonic population and
institution the former predominating in the south of Europe, the latter in the north. This process
was marked at first by considerable destination. In the Dark Ages, Roman civilization and
Roman political ideas seemed almost lost. Society crystallized around the church, which set up
its dominion in the name of Rome, and mound the fragmentary territorial units ruled by warrior
or noble. With the Renaissance came the gradual emergence of many of the old ideas and
institutions, modified, of course, by ideas and institutions of the Teutons. The result of this
process was modem civilization and the modern state, and during this process such political
life as existed was largely of the peculiar transitional form commonly known as “feudal.”
To an understanding of the feudal state some knowledge of political methods among the
Teutons is necessary. Before entering the Roman Empire their organization was of the tribal
form. Largely because of physical conditions and undeveloped economic life, the Teutons had
continued their rural organization and had not created the city state. Their system emphasized
the importance of the individual as opposed to the sovereignty of the state. Such authority as
existed was based largely on personal loyalty.
Leaders were chosen by the people, and ability in the activities that a vigorous, warlike people
love was the basis of choice. Popular assemblies in the various units were held, and all freemen
had a voice in affairs. Teutonic ideas of law and justice, while crude and unsystematic,
contained possibilities of growth and added an important element to the Roman law, which had
been codified and was in danger of stagnation.
These elements, emphasizing individualism liberty, and local self-government, were directly
opposed to the Roman ideals of authority and centralization and the immediate result of their
fusion was the apparent destruction of all organized political life. The absence of central
authority, and the need for some form of protection and order, placed political power in the
hands of every man that was strong enough to wield it.
Destruction of Roman commerce and an undeveloped economic system made land the thief
form of wealth and as land was parceled out among the conquerors, governing authority went
with it. Thus were brought together the holding of land, the exercise of political power, and the
Teutonic personal relation of vassal and lord. The increasing wealth of the leaders, the influence
of Roman ideas, and the confusion of the times strengthened the nobility, while the popular
assemblies decreased in importance and, in many parts of Europe, disappeared.
Thus Europe was split up into a large number of political fragments, some of Which were held
together by more or less definite ties to a common superior, to whom they owed allegiance and
military service but in practice each fragment knew no law but its own. Such a condition
naturally resulted in disorder and anarchy, in Conflicting law and authorities, in the complete
subordination of the mass of the people. Neither unity nor liberty was possible in feudalism,
and the political development of centuries seemed wasted.
The only institution that retained its unity during the Middle Ages was Christian church.
Growing up on the ruins of the Roman Empire, it adopted imperial organization, and its power
was further strengthened by the superstitious reverence in which it was held by the converted
barbarians. The absence at strong government and the power of religious ideas over the minds
of men led the church to take upon itself many functions of the state. Preservation of peace and
order was largely in its hands, and with its growing wealth in land came corresponding political
authority. Even a separate system of law and courts for its clergy was developed, and its
monopoly of learning made great church-men the chief official and advisers in government.
The head of the church claimed superiority to all princes and the power to release subjects from
their oaths of fidelity thus another element was added to the already confused sovereignties
and the way was paved for the bitter conflict 13th between church and state.
In spite of actual conditions, the idea of a common superior resulting from the prestige of the
Roman Empire, and the idea that it should be eternal, survived and the titles of “king” and
emperor remained, even though their holders had little real authority. Naturally the church was
the champion of authority, and by its aid efforts were made to restore the political unity of
Europe, to set up a Holy Roman Empire.
Charlemagne came nearest to success but his work was temporary, and his successors could
not again unite even his domains. Decentralization, doubtful sovereignty, conflicting
allegiances and laws, union of church and state, and the association of landholding, political
power, and personal loyalty these characterized the politics of the Middle Ages. The world
empire of Rome had been destroyed and as yet no new form of state had arisen to replace it.
The revival of commerce, toward the close the Middle Ages restored the trading centers and
cities especially in German and Italy, where the central political authority was weakest grew
rich and powerful. The mercantile and commercial aristocracy of the cities differed from the
landed aristocracy of the country and was hostile to the feudal system. It asserted and achieved
independence from the feudal lords and revived for a time the ideals and institutions of free
city states. As usual progress toward democracy was made in the free cities but their
independent life was short and they were soon brought under the control of the new type of
state that marked the beginning of the modern period.
The National State:
Out of the chaos of feudalism a definite form of political life gradually appeared. The spiritual
principle and temporal power of the church were not in harmony and movements for reform
within the church weakened its unity and attacked its claim to political leadership. As
population became stationary and common interests developed. it became increasingly evident
that new states would, in general follow geographic and ethnic lines. Bonds of nationality and
language strengthened by natural boundaries, grouped the feudal fragments into more and more
permanent combinations and France, Spain, England, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Russia
and, later, Germany and Italy arose. This separation into distinct states, each with its own
national spirit, destroyed the idea of a common superior and made possible the rise of
international law and the modern theory of the sovereignty and legal equality of states.
Similarly, the growth of a strong government each of these states destroyed the independence
of local ruler attacked the influence of the church, and separated religion and political ideas,
although more than a century of religious wars, civil and international, was needed before this
distinction was realized.
Monarchy:
These national states emerged as absolute monarchies. The great enemies of centralized
authority were the feudal nobles, and their destruction was necessary before a strong state could
exist. The Crusades killed off many of these nobles and impoverished others in England the
Wars of the Roses served the same purpose. The growth of industry and commerce and the rise
of towns created other forms of wealth in addition to land, making the nobles no longer the
only wealthy class and the use of gunpowder destroyed their military supremacy.
As the power of the nobility diminished, their strength passed into the hands of the growing
kings. A national in and a national system of taxation replaced the feudal levies. The mass of
the people, just rising from serfdom, ignorant and unorganized, were no match for the monarchs
when the nobles, who had so long stood between them and the kings, were gone.
In fact, in many cases the people welcomed the strong government of their king‘s, partly
because they desired peace and security, and partly because of the growing national spirit that
centered in the monarch as representing the state. The revived study of Roman law reinforced
the doctrine that law is Will of the king. In this general way arose the absolute monarchy of the
Tudors in England, of Charles V in Spain, and of Louis XIV in France.
Democracy:
The next step concerned the conflict of king and people within the national state. With the
growth of intelligence and wealth the mass of the people demanded a more political rights and
privileges the forces of nationality, which had at first found the symbol of their unity in the
king, demanded a fuller and more active expression. The overthrow of the feudal system
destroyed the innumerable vertical group of the society and led to a horizontal division into
classes or estates that had common aims and interests. Economic changes diminished the
importance of the landed aristocracy and treated a new that m industrial workers whose outlook
was different from that at the peasant and whose power to influence the state was vastly greater.
In addition, representative government was created. Thus both the motive and the machinery
of democracy existed, and absolutism in reality hastened its progress. Power in the hands of
the monarch was more apparent and more easily attacked than when possessed by a number of
feudal aristocrats and when the divine authority of the ruler was questioned, people began to
realise that power lay in their hands if they Wished to wield it. The nineteenth century witnessed
the rise democracy, accompanied by more on less disturbance in proportion as the old order
was established and refused to yield.
The growth of democracy was accompanied by the belief that the sphere of authority should
be limited. Civil liberty, as we as political rights, was demanded, and freedom of religion and
of opinion was desired. Even in the economic field it was believed that the state should interfere
as little as possible Democracy and individualism were at first closely associated with the
successful accomplishment of democracy, however the people changed their attitude toward
government, and were Willing to in trust it with wider powers.
Thus modern democratic national states represent the most advanced form state evolution with
ethnic and geographic unity they have a strong natural basis and by combining local self
government and representation they secure that adjustment of liberty and sovereignty which
even over large areas, may sub serve the interests of both individual and society.
Colonial empire:
The Great war, with its emphasis on the “self determination of nations,” gave a strong impetus
to this tendency. A number of well organized, yet distinct and often rival national states is the
logical outcome of this movement. On the other hand, many influences interfere with this
process. The formation, during the past few centuries, of great colonial empires, composed of
widely scattered areas and most divergent peoples has tended to destroy the geographic and
ethnic unity On which the national state was based.
The process of colonial expansion began. The subjection of dependent peoples is not
compatible with the self determination of nations or with the theory of democracy. Besides, the
growth of enlightenment Which makes sympathy more cosmopolitan and the unity, of mankind
more real is attacking the former narrow idea of unquestioning patriotism and of national
supremacy.
Finally the enormous expansion of economic interests, by which the whole world become a
single market, with trade and investment no longer limited by natural or political boundary
lines is destroying the economic unity and self sufficiency of national state. Internationalism,
as well as nationalism is a powerful force in present day political thought, and plan of Would
organization receive serious consideration.
Factors responsible for the growth of the state
There were a number of factors which helped the evolution of the state. They were kinship,
religion, war, migration economic activities and political consciousness. The important factors
which contributed to the growth of the state are
1. Kinship
2. Religion
3. Property and defense
4. Force
5. Political consciousness
Kinship
Kinship is the most important and was based upon blood relationship and kinship was the first
strongest bond of unity. Family constituted the first link in the process of the evolution of the
state with the expansion of the family arose new families and the multiplication of families led
to the formation of clans and tribes. Kinship was the only factor which bound the people
together.
According to Professor Mac Iver, the magic of names ‘reinforced the sense of kinship, as the
course of generations enlarged the group. The blood bond of sonship changed imperceptibly
into the social bond of the wider brotherhood. The authority of the father passes into the power
of the chief once more under the aegis of kinship new forms arise which transcend it. Kinship
creates society and society at length creates the state'.
Religion
Religion provided the bond of unity in early society. It also affected all walks of life. The
worship of a common ancestor and common goods created a sense of social solidarity. There
was fear in the hearts of men as far as religion was concerned. Even today we see religious
practices, affairs and faith in uniting people. In the early days a number of races are united by
religion and unity was essential for the creation of state.
Religion not only helped the unification of political communities; it was also responsible for
subordinating barbaric anarchy and for teaching reverence and obedience. When the bonds of
kinship steadily weakened with the expansion of the family into the gens, the clans and the
tribes, a common form of worship reinforced the sense of unity and respect for authority. The
sanction of law in primitive society was religion and the breaking of law was followed by
terrible punishment. Thus, the relation of command and obedience, which was natural in family
relations, was definitely established by religion. Early kings were priest-kings, combining the
duties of ceremonial observances and secular rule
Force
Force also played an important part in the evolution of the state. It was the use of physical force
that was responsible for the growth of kingdoms and empires. Force also played an important
part in the evolution of the state. As property increased, organized force was needed to repel
the plundering raids of adjacent tribes. It was the use of physical force that was responsible for
the growth of kingdoms and empires. Concerted action for common defense against the hostile
designs of others strengthened the solidarity of the tribe and increased the authority of the tribal
organization. The institution of private property and its systematic development, thus, brought
the nomadic herdsman to the threshold of the State. The State came into existence when the
people became permanently territorially settled.
Property and Defense
Property and defense played a vital role in the evolution of state in ancient times particularly
among the people who were nomads and vagabonds and tribals. Prof. Laski has referred to the
necessity of acquiring property by the members of society and protecting the property acquired
with reference to the population mentioned above. The need to protect the law, in the end,
forced the historical humans into conformity with the layout of the status. The earliest people
lived in imitation of a high quantity because of lotos then fields. They did now not too really
know what agribusiness was
This led to making adjustments in the social system and relationship between the members of
different groups. The need to protect property ultimately compelled the ancient people to
establish the state.
Political consciousness
The last is political consciousness arising from the fundamental needs of life for protection and
order.
When the people settle down on a definite territory in pursuit of their, subsistence and a desire
to secure it from encroachment by others. The need for regulating things and persons is felt
imminently and this is the essence of political consciousness.
Functions of State
The activities undertaken by the modern state are complex and varied. This is because there is
a strong demand by the people for active state intervention in the social and economic affairs
of the country. The statesmen of today do not place any limitation on the powers of the
government to interfere in the social and economic spheres. The only governing principle is
whether state action promotes the general welfare. In every country of the world, the 'laissez-
faire' policy has been discarded, and there is a strong swing toward adopting Socialism. Frase
is right when he says, "Socialism or Collectivism is upon us, horse, foot and gun."
The main functions that the modern state now performs are as follows:
Maintaining Law and Order
The state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its territory. This means that the
state is responsible for maintaining law and order and for protecting its citizens from crime and
violence. The state does this through its police and judicial systems.
The police are responsible for investigating crimes and apprehending criminals. The judicial
system is responsible for trying criminals and seeking out justice. The state also has a
responsibility to protect the civil rights of its citizens. This includes ensuring that everyone is
treated equally under the law and that no one is discriminated against on the basis of race,
religion, gender, or other factors.
Providing Public Goods and Services
The state also provides a variety of public goods and services. These include education,
healthcare, infrastructure, and welfare programs. Public goods are goods that are non-
excludable and non-rivalrous. This means that it is impossible to prevent people from
benefiting from public goods and that one person’s consumption of a public good does not
diminish the amount available to others.
Education is a public good because it benefits everyone in society, regardless of whether they
pay for it or not. Healthcare is also a public good because it is essential for the health of the
population, and it is difficult to exclude people from receiving healthcare. Infrastructure, such
as roads, bridges, and public transportation, is also a public good because it is essential for the
functioning of the economy.
Welfare programs are designed to help those in need. These programs can include food stamps,
unemployment benefits, and housing assistance. Welfare programs are a way for the state to
ensure that everyone has a basic standard of living.
Regulating and Facilitating Economic Activities
The state also plays a role in regulating and facilitating economic activities. This includes
market regulation, consumer protection, economic development, and trade policies.
Market regulation is designed to protect consumers and businesses from unfair practices.
Consumer protection laws, for example, prohibit businesses from selling unsafe products or
from engaging in deceptive advertising. Economic development policies are designed to
promote economic growth and create jobs. Trade policies are designed to regulate the flow of
goods and services between countries.
Conducting Foreign Relations
The state also conducts foreign relations. This includes diplomacy, international agreements,
and defense. Diplomacy is the process of negotiating with other states to resolve disputes and
promote cooperation. International agreements are binding contracts between states. Defense
is the responsibility of protecting the state from external threats.
These are just some of the many functions that the state performs. The specific functions of the
state can vary from one state to another, depending on the state’s size, shape, and form of
government. However, all states perform some combination of these functions in order to
maintain order, provide for the welfare of their citizens, and promote their interests in the world.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the state is a complicated and dynamic entity that has various elements and
functions. The state can be defined as a political organization that has sovereignty, territory,
population, and government. The state performs functions such as maintaining order, providing
public goods, ensuring security, and promoting welfare. The state is also influenced by internal
and external factors, such as culture, ideology, economy, and international relations. The state
is not a static or monolithic concept, but rather a changing and contested one that reflects the
interests and values of different groups and actors.