• UNIT 2

STATE AND ITS ELEMENTS

 TOPICS TO BE COVERED
➢State
➢Meaning
➢Definitions
➢Elements
➢Characteristics
➢Difference with Country and Nation
➢Difference with Society and Government
➢Nature of the State
➢Conclusion
 The state and it’s elements
• State is an assemblage of politically organized
people who permanently reside on a definite territory,
have their own government whose laws are obeyed by
them as a habit and they are completely free from any
sort of control both internal and external.
• The modern term 'state' is derived from the word
'status'. It was Niccolo Machiavelli ( 1469 - 1527) who
first used the term 'state' in his writings. His important
work is titled as 'Prince'.
• The state is the highest form of human association. It is
necessary because it comes into existence out of the
basic needs of life. It continues to remain for the sake
of good life.
• The aims, desires and aspirations of human beings are
translated into action through the state
 Definitions
• Garner--- 'State is a community of people
occupying a definite form of territory free of
external control and possessing an organized
government to which people show habitual
obedience.‘

• Aristotle--- defined the state as a 'union of

families and villages having for its end a perfect
and self - sufficing life by which it meant a happy
and honourable life'.
 Sedgwick---'State is a combination or association of
persons in the form of government and governed and
united together into a politically organized people of
a definite territory.‘

Prof. Laski ----'state as a territorial society divided

into government and subjects whose relationships
are determined by the exercise of supreme coercive
power.'
Essential Elements of the State
Physical Base
Population Fixed territory

Political Base
Government Sovereignty
Differences
State

Country

Nation

Society

Government
State Country Nation
State is a political concept. Country is a geographical Nation is a spiritual
(Laws, power, domination, concept.(climate, soil, concept.
sovereignty, citizenship etc seasons, boundaries,
plains, plateaus, natural
resources etc)
State is always Country may be slave as Emotions unite people in a
independent well. nation.
State without sovereignty Country exist with or Elements of nation are
is non existence without sovereignty. indefinite and varying
State is a territorial Every country is not a state Nation is a cultural unity.
organization like a state always. (common land, language,
literature, history, heroes,
religion,)
State’s elements are always It may be smaller than a
definite. state.(North and south
Korea)
Meaning of society-: Society is a comprehensive association of peaceful and willed
relations of men who join together for the fulfillment of their common objectives. for
the fulfillment of his various needs an individual forms various associations,
institutions and communities and all these are the component of society

State is political in nature.

State regulate the external

behaviour of the human.

State is the organized

organisation

State’s rule is the

command

State is a formal
organization
The state
exist within
the society
State
appeared at a
larger stage
of the
development
of society.
 State and Government
• Meaning of Government-: government is the
agency, express and implement the will of the
state. An organization that takes decisions and
enacts laws on behalf of a country’s
population is called a government.
 Distinction between state and government
State Government
• State is an abstract. • Government is concrete.
• Sovereignty belongs to the • Government used the
state. sovereignty on the behalf of
• Fixed territory is essential state.
for the state. • Fixed Territory is not essential
• Membership of state is for government.
compulsory. • Membership is not
• State is permanent. compulsory.
• State is similar everywhere. • Government is temporary.
• State is master. • Governments are not similar.
• People can not oppose the • Government is its servant.
state. • People can oppose the
government.
 Functions of the State
1. Provide safety and security to the people.
2. Maintain law and order in the society.
3. Safeguard the boundaries from aggression of the
foreigner.
4. Fulfill the primary needs
5. Maintain the social order
6. Protect private property
7. Provide infrastructure
8. Provide and maintain such public facilities.
9. Provide education, employment, health facilities
etc.
 Nature of the State
• Legal Concept of the State: The Roman Empire gave birth to
the legal concept of the state's nature. Thinkers like Bodin,
Hobbes, Bentham, and Austin are the most prominent
proponents of the legal concept of the state in the modern era.
They consider the state to be solely a legal construct. To
regulate human behaviour, the state was established for the
purpose of making, interpreting, and enforcing law. It's a
separate legal entity. If the law is broken, the government can
use coercion to punish the offender. The legal concept of the
state is criticised as a skewed perspective. Critics point out that,
in addition to making laws, the state is also responsible for
promoting people's moral and spiritual lives.
• Ethical Notion of the State: Plato and Aristotle
proposed an ethical notion about the nature of the
state. For intellectual, moral, and material
development, the state is required. It is not a man-
made institution, but rather a natural one. The state,
they believed, represented the highest morality. The
government's actions are always justified. Many
political philosophers, including Rousseau, Kant, Hegel,
T.H. Green, and others, believed that the state was the
ultimate ethical institution. In modern times, such a
viewpoint has served as the foundation for the
totalitarian state concept.
• The State as a Necessary Evil: Individualists saw the
government as a necessary evil. The state, they
believe that If each person is left to his or her own
devices and allowed to do whatever they want, they
will pursue their own selfish interests at the expense
of others. There will be no rule of law. As a result, the
state is required to maintain law and order in society.
This viewpoint was shared by Adam Smith, Jeremy
Bentham, and Herbert Spencer. The critics argue that
State is not a negative institution. The state is
capable of performing a wide range of beneficial
functions for society as a whole
• The Anarchist view of the state as an Unnecessary Evil: The anarchist
view of the state is that it is an evil, and that the sooner it is abolished,
the better for the spontaneous development of a person's personality
will be. They believe that as human nature improves, the state will
become less and less necessary as a means of regulating human
behaviour.
• Pluralist View of the State: According to the Pluralist view of the state,
the state should be given co-equal status with other permanent groups
that cater to our various needs, such as the family, the church, the trade
union, the social club, and so on. Pluralists advocate for
decentralizationa of political power and do not regard the state as
superior to other organisations that carry out their responsibilities in
society. MacIver and Laski are two prominent proponents of this
viewpoint. Critics, on the other hand, believe that a superior
organisation in the form of the state is necessary to regulate and
coordinate the activities of the various organisations in society
• Totalitarian state: The totalitarian view of the state holds that the state has
absolute power and that individuals have no right to oppose it. The state
has complete control over the individual's entire life. The totalitarian state
was supported by philosophers like Hegel and Nietzsche, writers like
Bernhardi and Treitschke, and dictators like Mussolini and Hitler. Critics
argue that such a state view is undesirable because it is undemocratic and
denies the value and dignity of the human person
• The state as a source of power: Supporters of this viewpoint interpret the
state solely I terms of‘ might.' The state was interpreted exclusively as a
power system with unlimited authority to make war and peace by German
writers, particularly Berhandi and Treitsche. Conflicts and contradictions
arise in society when individuals come into contact with one another. This
necessitates the use of force to meet the demands of various segments of
society while also maintaining social peace and harmony. Many writers
disagree with the power view of the state's nature. They do not deny that
force is an important part of the state, but they emphasise that it is not the
state's foundation. It is necessary to transform power into authority. To put
it another way, the state's use of power must be for social purposes and
based on popular consent.
• The State as a Welfare System: The welfare state is
the contemporary liberal view of the state. Thinkers
like J.S. Mill, T.H. Green, MacIver, and Laski are major
proponents of this viewpoint. According to this
viewpoint, the state is more than just a law
enforcement agency. Apart from maintaining law and
order, the state as a welfare system performs a
variety of beneficial functions. It promotes the well-
being of people. It is in the best interests of the
entire society. Workers' working conditions must be
regulated, education must be spread, people's health
must be promoted, social services must be provided,
and social evils must be eradicated.
• View of the state from an organic standpoint: The state is
compared to a living organism, and individuals are compared to
its organs in the organic view. Individuals' existence and worth
are dependent on the existence of the state, just as the
existence and worth of organs (hands, legs, etc.) are dependent
on the existence of the organism (the living body as a whole).
The state is like a living organism, and the people who make it
up are completely interdependent. Individuals separated from
the state have no meaningful role to play, and the state has no
meaning without them. Some of the political thinkers
associated with the organic view of the state include Hobbes,
Rousseau, Herbert Spencer, and Fichte. Fichte, a German
philosopher, was the first to recognise society's and individuals'
interdependence. Each has its own constituent parts, organs,
functions, and life processes. Critics argue that making a
superficial comparison between the state and the organism is
pointless
• Class Perspective on the State: The state has been
described as a class structure by some writers. With
the advent of private property, society was divided
into two classes: the dominant class, which owned
private property, and the oppressed or dependent
class, which was propertyless. The dominant class
attempts to protect its own interests at the expense of
the oppressed or dependent classes. The state,
according to Karl Marx, is an organisation for the rich
to exploit the poor. Critics of this theory argue that
society cannot be divided into two rigid classes, the
dominant and dependent classes. They argue that a
normal state exists to serve the common good rather
than the interests of the powerful
 The Evolution of the State
• The modern state is the result of thousands of years
of evolution. The emergence of the state was aided
by the interaction of several factors such as kinship,
religion, property, war, technological development,
and political consciousness. The Tribal State, the
Oriental Empire, the Greek City-State, the Roman
World Empire, the Feudal State, and finally the
Modern Nation-State have all been identified by
sociologists as forms of state throughout history.
• The Tribal State: The tribal state was the most primitive form of
government. The tribal states were small in comparison to the rest of the
country. The tribe's chief wielded power and governed the state, often
with the help of an advisory council. The tribe's leader dictated, and the
members of the tribe followed his orders. Anyone who disobeyed was
punished by the tribe's leader, according to the tribe's customs and
traditions. The main reason for these tribal states‘ existence was to
maintain internal order and wage war against other tribal states. These
states maintained strong ties to one another in terms of common birth,
religion, and trade interests Ganges, and China's Yellow River and Yangtze
Kiang. Increased prosperity resulted in the development of the art of war
and territorial conquests. The inhabitants of these valleys were united into
the empires of Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, India, and China as the stronger
groups defeated the weaker ones. The Oriental Empires were neither
centrally controlled nor intertwined. They were made up of subordinate
units that were supervised by the central government despite being
practically autonomous in local affairs. The units were required to provide
soldiers as well as pay tributes. The vastness of these empires, on the
other hand, weakened central authority, resulting in local revolts and
external invasions. As a result, empires gradually disintegrated over time.
• The Greek City-State: The Greek city-states were the next
stage. Greece's unique geographical location aided the
development of a new type of political organisation known as
the city-state in ancient times. Mountains and the sea divided
the land into small sections in the form of valleys and islands.
The various communities that inhabited these small areas
developed characteristics that were unique to them. As a
result, in ancient Greece, several city states arose, each with
its own set of political institutions. The Greek states were
limited in size to the city, which served as the hub of all
activity. Local patriotism gave rise to the city-states. Athens
and Sparta were two such city- states that had progressed in
terms of political development and individual liberty. The
Greek city-states gradually disintegrated as a result of internal
rivalry, frequent wars, and external invasion
• The Roman Empire: Following the fall of the Greek city-states, the emergence of the Roman
empire was the most significant political development. The Roman Empire was divided into
several periods. The monarchical state was in power during the first period. During that time,
the king served as both the head of state and the community's chief priest. The king was
required to consult and follow the advice of the Council of Elders. During this time, the
Patricians, a group of nobles, shared political power with a monarch. However, the Plebians
who included common Roman workers such as farmers, bakers, builders, and craftsmen, had
no political rights. The monarchy was gradually replaced by a republic governed by elected
representatives, and Patricians and Plebians were given equal political rights. Rome began
annexing neighbouring territories during this time. As a result, the Republic was supplanted by
the Roman Empire, which spanned Austria, Germany, France, Spain, England, the Balkans,
Greece, Asia Minor, and the entire Mediterranean coast and hinterland. The Roman Empire
began to fall apart over time as democratic institutions and local self-government vanished.
The Feudal State: After the Roman Empire fell apart, central authority was eroded, and vast
swaths of land fell into the hands of powerful feudal chiefs, i.e., landowners with large estates.
Each of these nobles established his own community based on the ownership of large estates.
In the fifth century A.D., these feudal chiefs began to wield power. Land was given by feudal
lords to tenants-in-chief, who in turn gave it to tenants. This resulted in a land-based
hierarchical political structure, with the king as supreme lord at the top and serfs or landless
peasants at the bottom. In reality, the king had only a semblance of control over the feudal
vassals, who held the real power in their domain. The decline of kingly authority led to the
emergence of the Christian church as a new symbol of authority. The church's authority was
challenged and monarchy's power was restored by the beginning of the fourteenth century,
when Popes used their authority arbitrarily
• The Nation-State in the Modern Era: The modern state is commonly referred to as
a nation-state. Nation-states succeeded feudalism, each founded on the bonds of
nationality and language, which were bolstered by natural boundaries. By the
sixteenth century, France, Spain, England, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Russia,
and later Germany and Italy had emerged as nation-states as a result of this
process. Initially, most of the nation-states were monarchies. In large parts of
Europe, however, there has been a slow transition from absolute monarchy to
constitutional monarchy and democracy since the middle of the eighteenth
century. The principles of liberty, equality, and popular sovereignty became
established in a large part of Europe as democracy grew and expanded. Many
European countries began expanding their dominance over Asia, Africa, and Latin
America in the seventeenth century in search of new sources of raw materials,
cheap labour, and new markets. Several colonial empires arose during the
nineteenth century, with Great Britain having colonies all over the globe. Most of
these colonies' political awakenings and national movements for independence
eventually led to popular uprisings against foreign powers, particularly after World
War I. (1914-18). Following the Second World War (1939-45), many of these
countries, including India, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Nigeria, and others,
gained independence from their colonial rulers one by one. As we can see from
the above discussion, various types of state systems have evolved over time in the
history of mankind, leading to the modern nation-states of today.
 Conclusion
On the basis of above we come to the conclusion
that population, fixed territory, government and
sovereignty are essential attributes of a state and in
the event of the absence of any one of theses four
attributes, the state can not exist.
State and society are two different institution
and both have wide differences. But in spite of it
both have close relationship. There is also wide
difference between state and government. State
needs a tool to get its policies implemented and this
organization and tool is government.