THE STATE

The term 'State' occupies the highest place and central theme in the study of political science.
The modern term “state” is derived from the word “status” earlier used by the German tribe
'Teutons'. The Greeks used the word 'Polis' to denote the 'city-state' and Romans used the term
‘Civitas’ which means state. It was the Italian scholar Machiavelli who used the term ‘state’
in political science in the modern sense. In political science the term ‘state’ we mean an
association of people who live within a geographical area under an organised government and
subject to no outside control.

State is an institution to ensure law and order and maintain harmony of

social relations. It creates those conditions, which are necessary for the development of
individual personality. It creates laws and rules to regulate human behaviour. It stands for the
welfare of society as whole and protects the rights and life of citizen from internal and external
disturbances or war.

The ordinary people usually use the word state in a wrong way. It is wrong to equate the word
state with government, nation or society.When they say ‘state aid to industries’ ‘state bus’ etc.,
actually they mean ‘government aid to industries’ ‘government bus’ etc. Further, the
constituent units of a federation are called “states”, for example, various states in India and the
federal states in the U.S.A. But as far as our study is concerned the term state is used in a
different ways.

In the scientific sense of the term “the state means an assemblage of human beings occupying
a definite territory, organised under a government supreme within the country and subject to
no outside control”.

Definitions of state

The term 'state' has been defined differently by various political thinkers. Some of the popular
definitions are given below:

To quote Mac Iver “some writers define the state as essentially a class structure, others regard
it as a one organisation that transcends class and stands for the whole community. Some
interpret it as a power system, others as welfare system. Some view entirely as a legal
construction either in the old Austinan sense which made it a relationship of the governors and
governed or as a community organized for action under legal rules. To some it is a necessary
evil and to a very few, an evil that will someday be unnecessary"

1. According to Bodin, the state is " an association of families and their common possessions
, governed by supreme power and by reason".

2. Dr. Garner- “A state is a community of persons more or less numerous, permanently

occupying a definite portion of territory independent or nearly so of external control of
possessing an organised government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual
obedience"
3. Woodrow Wilson- “The state is a people organised for law within a definite territory”.

4. H.J. Laski- “State is a territorial society divided into government and subject claiming with
its allotted physical area, a supremacy over all other institutions”.

5. Bluntschli- “The state is politically organised people of a definite territory”.

6. Holland defines the state as “a numerous assemblage of human beings generally occupying
a certain territory amongst whom the will of the majority or class made to prevail against any
of their number who oppose it ".

7. Aristotle defined the state as “a union of families and villages having for its end a perfect
and self - sufficing life by which we mean a happy and honourable life".

8. According to Marxist opinion; “the state arose as a result of division of society into
antagonistic classes for the purpose of curbing the exploited majority. The state is the political
organisation of ruling classes which uses it for the purpose of suppressing the resistance of its
class enemies. It is an organisation for the maintenance of the rule of one class over the other
classes. To achieve this state possesses such instrument of power as an army, the courts, a
police force, etc."

9. The modern conception of the state, Views of Gabriel Almond and Robert Dhal: Almond
used the term “political system” instead of the state. According to him” political system is the
system of interactions to be found in all independent societies which perform the functions of
integration and adaptation (both internally and vis-a-vis other societies) by means of
employment or threat of employment, of more or less legitimate physical compulsion". “The
Political System" he explains,” is the legitimate, order maintaining or transforming system in
the society".

Elements of the State

The above definitions given by various writers show that there are four elements of a state
namely Population, Territory, Government and Sovereignty.Of these four elements, the first
two are physical, the third political and the fourth spiritual. The essential four elements are
discussed below.

1. POPULATION
Since state is a human institution and highest of all human associations there can be no state
without human beings. State can exist in an uninhabited land. There is no limit for the number
of citizens in a state. According to Plato, an ideal state should consist of 5040, while Aristotle
fixed the population of state at 10.000. However, in the modern times the scholars have not
ventured to fix any upper or lower limits of population. Their number should either be too small
to be self neither sufficient nor too large to be well governed. The People’s Republic of China
is the largest state in respect of population and San Marino in Italy is the smallest.

The modern state gives preference to the big size population because, the bigger the population,
the greater will be its man power. They can fight for a longer period of time during the war
period. This is the reason why Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and communist Russia encouraged
mothers to have more issues. Such mothers were called “Heroine mothers”. While the problem
of these countries is one of decline of population, the problem of state like India is one of
phenomenal increase in her population. The acceptable rule, as Dr. Garner says that, population
must be sufficient to provide a governing body and number of persons to be governed and of
course sufficient to support a state organisation.

2. TERRITORY

A modern state cannot exist without territory. Nomadic tribes and gypsies wandering from one
place to another could not form a state. But no limit can be laid down on territory as in
population.

The largest state in size is the former U.S.S.R, whose area covered about one by sixth of the
worlds, whereas Vatican in Rome has an area of about 4square miles. The advantage of small
state is that they remain compact and well governed. But at the same time, they are at great
disadvantage as in the matters of difference and natural resources. But size is no index of
greatness. Any how the modern age is definitely of large territorial state because a large state
can mobilise all its resources for the economic and social welfare and defence.

3. GOVERNMENT

Government is an essential element of the state. It is the agency through which the will of the
state is formulated, expressed and realised. It is the duty of the government to protect the
sovereignty and integrity of the state, maintain law and order, protect citizens from external
aggression, solve the dispute among citizen and work for the all round development of the
people. Hence Government is indispensable because there can be no civilized existence without
it.

Government may vary from state to state. Democracy is popular in India, England, America,
France, Italy etc, communist government is popular in Nepal and Military government in
Pakistan, Turkey etc.

4. SOVEREIGNTY
Sovereignty means supremacy of the state. It is the most important element of the state. It is
sovereignty that differentiates the state from all other social organisation. Since state is supreme
in internal and external matters. Sovereignty is of two types-internal sovereignty and external
sovereignty. Internal sovereignty means that the state has no control over the institutions and
the people of the state. External sovereignty means that the state is free from the control of
other states.

Origin of State

State is the central subjects of study of political science.So political scientists have shown keen
interest in understanding the origin and development of state. Many theories have come up on
the origin of the state. But there is no precise answer to the question how and when the state
came into being. The theories advanced so far by the political thinkers on the origin of the state
are;

• The theories of divine origin.

• The theory of force
• The theory of social contract
• The patriarchal theory
• The matriarchal theory and
• The Evolutionary theory or Historical theory
Of these except the Evolutionary theory the other theories are not accepted as correct theories
on the origin of the state.
The Evolutionary theory or Historical theory.
This is the most scientific theory on the origin of the state. The theory assumes that a state is a
historical growth. The state is neither the result of an artificial creation nor it originated at a
period of time. To quote Leacock “the state is a growth, an evolution, the result of a gradual
process running through all the known history of man and reading into remote and unknown
part”. John Morley, Gettel, Garner, Burgess and Leacock are the supporters of this theory.

According to the advocates of the Evolutionary theory, Kinship, Religion, Force, War and
Conflict, Economic activities and political consciousness were some of the various factors
which contributed to the origin of the state. The part played by each of them may be stated as
follows.

1.Kinship

In the primitive societies people were united on the basis of Kinship. It has been a significant
factor in the evolution of the state. It has played an important part in early civic development.
R.N. Gilchrist says that “blood relationship is an inevitable bond in society”. The closest bond
of kinship is the family composed of father, mother and children. With the expansion of the
family arose new families and by the multiplication of the families of the same stock, tribes or
clans were formed. These tribes or clans play a very important part in the organisation of the
state by their unification.

Henry Mane says “Kinship created a common consciousness, common interest and common
purpose". According to Mac Iver it is the Kinship which creates the society and society at
length create the state. Thus we understand that kinship played an important role in the growth
and development of the state.

2. Religion

Influence of religion over primitive society was very great. National phenomenon like floods
and thunderstorms were believed to be the will of God in ancient times. They, therefore, sought
remedies for them in the worship of god alone. Since everyone did not know the procedures of
worship they authorized a priest to worship god on their behalf. The priest in course of time
turned into a ruler, and thus, the state came into existence.
As supplementary to the religion the influence of magic may also be mentioned here. Magicians
exerted some influence on the minds of the people, who were ignorant and superstitious.

We have historical evidences in support our view. The Jehova worship was the strongest force,
which united the tribes of Israel. Prophet Mohamed united the scattered and unsettled races and
tribes of Arabia. Consequently the people of Arabia emerged into a powerful nation. Thus
religion assisted in the formation and the development of the state by strengthening the unity
of the tribe and authority of the chief.

3. Force

Force played a dominant role in the growth of the state. The formula generally accepted in the
primitive communities was “might is right”. Huntsmen and herdsmen possessed a crude type
of organisation. But they were powerful and subjugated the peasants who were compelled to
pay tribute to their victor. Big groups called tribes, having some common features, organised a
joint force. The tribe having a better organisation started attacking and conquering its group.

War and conflict help in the amalgamation of families into clans, of clans into tribes and
tribe into larger units that become the state. With the weakening of kinship, the application of
forces becomes necessary for the maintenance of peace and order. The coercive force exercised
by the leader eventually developed into political sovereignty. This resulted in the domination
of the strong over the weak. According to Mac Iver conquest and domination paved the way
for the emergence of the state.

4. Economic Activities

Economic factors such as possession of wealth and property contributed much to the origin of
the state. The primitive people had three successive economic stages that brought about
corresponding changes in the social organisation. They were Huntsman stage, the Herdsman
stage and the Husbandman or Agricultural stage.

In the huntsman stage people were wandering people and had no private property -there was
no distinction between the rich and the poor. Hunting was only the source of livelihood. In the
herdsman stage there was some accumulation of property in the hands of some people, so
certain laws became necessary. In this stage, private property emerged in the elementary form.
The state acquired territorial character only in the husbandman stage. With the growth and
development of agriculture, people were forced to settle down in a particular territory. Laws
became necessary to protect property and to settle disputes regarding property.

Gettle says “Differences in occupation and wealth created social classes or casts and the
domination of one class by another for the purpose of economic exploitation was an important
factor in the rise of Government"

5. Political Consciousness

Political consciousness of the people is the last contributing factor for the development of
modern state. Political consciousness means an awareness among the people of common
purposes and end to be realised through political organization, which including the security of
life and property, to protect from external attack , social ,economic, moral and intellectual
development and the like. With the rapid increase in population and the wealth, a political
organization like the state was needed for the maintaining law and order and for settling the
disputes. All these led to the emergence of political power and the conscious adaption of
political institutions contributed much to the origin of state.

We can conclude by saying that the Historical or Evolutionary theory appears to be more
realistic theory than any other theory regarding the origin of the state. Mac Iver says," we
cannot say when and where the state begins. It is implicit in the universal tendency to leadership
and subordination, but it only emerges when authority becomes government and custom is
transacted into law".

Marxian Theory of State

Marxian Theory of State emerged as a protest against the Liberal Theory of State. The
exponents of this theory are Karl Marx and Frederick Engles Marxism believes in ‘Dialectrical
Materialism’ and the materialistic interpretation of history. He was totally against the
Liberalists view of state as a natural institution or an artificial body created by the free will of
the individuals and exists to promote the well being of all the people. He believed that the state
originated at a certain stage of economic development. The society broke into classes, and the
state which arose, was controlled by the dominant class. This created a wide gap between the
haves the have-nots and led to class struggle. Thus the state becomes a class institution and it
is used to promote the interests of the ruling and exploiting classes.

Frederick Engels throws ample light on this point by stating that “The state has not
existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no conception
of the State and the State power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was
necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society into classes, the state becomes a necessity
owing to cleavage".

Lenin, the founder of Communist Party in Russia, further clarified this point by saying that."
State is an organ of the oppression of one class by another and it creates order which legalizes
and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the collision between the classes".

Marxism holds the view that all phenomena that we experience are material, concrete and
objective. Again it holds that all phenomena are characterized by internal contradictions. The
process of development through internal contradictions is called Dialectical Process. So to
understand any phenomena one must grasp its nature as changing. Human life necessitates the
consumption of certain articles. These articles are really produced by men. The way by which
these articles are produced is called means of production. The relations of production divided
men into two basic classes. They are the class controlling means of production through
ownership or otherwise and the class which contributes its labour power. These classes are
opposed to each other because their interests are mutually opposed. This leads to class conflict
or class struggle.
 In the Marxian theory, the state is first of all considered as superstructure and so the
nature of the state depends on the nature of mode of production. Again Marxian theory holds
that the state is a system of violence and coercion, historically created in the class societies in
order to maintain and protect the mode of production. The state ensures the dominance and
exploitative power of the class that owns the means of production. Thus state becomes a class
institution. It is used to promote the interests of the ruling and exploitating classes. Thus state
arises in class societies and it is an instrument of exploitation.

Marx and Lenin interpreted the functions of the state mainly in terms of the use of legalized
violence and forces of the state; The Neo Marxist theorists like Antonio Gramsci have drawn
attention to the control of ideas and opinions of ruled and exploited class. Their purpose is to
legitimize the power of the state in terms of moral ideological grounds. Thus the Marxist view
of the state promotes the domination of the class or classes that own the means of production
by a combination of methods ie.The use of direct force and through the hegemonic creation of
consensus and consent.

According to the Marxian view, state exists only in class societies because it is an
instrument of class domination. As soon as classes disappear, the state will automatically
disappear. Marx believed in the classless and stateless society. He said that after the communist
revolution, dictatorship of the Proletariat Class will be established, the capitalist or bourgeoisie
class will be liquidated and the state will wither away, and a classless and stateless society will
emerge.

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY- HOBBES, LOCKE ITS LIMITATIONS

Social contract theory made consent as the basis of state. Individual is central to the formation
of state. A shared concern for better living prompted people to form a political association and
invest power in it. The theory stressed the concept of equality. Each individual was sovereign
before the state was formed. Then state represented the collective sovereignty of the people.
This theory postulates the end of the state as providing a better life for people.

Although a vague reference to the idea that people who had no state found a state
through contract could be found in Shantiparva of Mahabharata or in writings of Greek writer
Glaucon, it was systematically developed by three modern thinkers. They are Thomas Hobbes
(1588–1679) of England, John Locke (1632-1704) of England and Jean Jacques Rousseau
(1712-1778) of France. These three writers developed a systematic theory of the origin of state.
These writers share certain common features in their theoretical analysis of the social contract
theory of state. They also exhibit some differences. The common features are the existence of
state of nature before state came into existence and the factors that prompted the formation of
contract to create state. The writers, however, differ on the conditions of life in state of nature,
terms of the contract and the powers of state once it is established. The theory nevertheless had
a great impact on subsequent political thinking.
Social contract theory as developed by Thomas Hobbes:

Thomas Hobbes (1581-1769) was one of the greatest philosophers produced by English
speaking people. He was born in the family of Anglican clergy man and had a long life. He
was well versed in the subjects like Philosophy , History, Mathamatics and was a multi-
linguist. As a tutor in Royal family, he got an opportunity to travel far and wide in Europe.

In his life-time he witnessed the Civil War in Britain. There were continuous wars between
parliamentary and monarchical forces. He was the supporter of monarchy. Charles I was
beheaded and monarchy was abolished in England. This incident had great impact on his
thoughts and subsequent writings. He argued that anarchy or the lawlessness situation is the
most dangerous and the worst situation a human society could face. Human actions need to
be systematically and even ruthlessly curbed for the benefit of society.

His idea of origin of state could be found in his famous work Leviathan. This describes an
absolute state which is sovereign both within and without. How and why such a powerful
political institution came into existence is the question one should ponder. Hobbes had
pessimistic view of human nature. For him human beings are always selfish, greedy and
aggressive. With such a dark picture of human nature Hobbes builds up the theory of origin of
state.

State of Nature: There was a time in the history of human civilization when people lived
without a government or state. In this ‘state of nature‘ each and every individual was sovereign.
There was no master above them. The state of nature was gloomy and sordid. Social life was
not existing. There were no shared values like justice, notions of right and wrong. The only
rule was power--physical force – the basis of all action. You could take a thing it you have
power and keep it as long as you have strength. There were continuous fights among human
beings. These factors were responsible for this warfare.

Competition, diffidence and glory guided human actions. Competition for securing scarce
natural wealth compelled the primitive man to invade. Diffidence forced him to fight for his
survival as there was no trust between human beings. The third factor glory induced him to
fight for reputation. So, basically violence was at work in state of nature. The state of nature is
a state of war. A war of every individual against every other. In such a situation where would
be scope for industry, innovation, culture, and art. In short, according to Hobbes, ”the life of
human beings in state of nature was solitary, poor, nasty, selfish and short.”

This state of nature was governed by certain natural Laws. Life and property were inalienable
rights. No one should be denied them. But to make laws effective we need a centralized
authority which is above all. Since in state of nature each individual was master over himself,
a way had to be found by which the individuals could pool their sovereign rights together and
create new power structure. Thus the state is formed. The point to be noted is all individuals in
the state of nature decide to surrender their sovereign rights to a third party. In a hypothetical
way each person says to other, ''I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this
man or this assembly of men, on this condition that thou give up thy rights to him and authorise
all this action in like manner.”(Hobbes).
 So a state was formed or a centralized power structure came into existence. Individual would
lose his sovereignty. Following are the features of this contract.

1) The parties to the contract are individuals and not groups.

2) The ruler is not a party to the contract. He is an outsider.

3) The contract once signed is final. There is no way one can back out from the contract. The
sovereign state thus emerged is final arbitrary of all disputes. The command of ruler is law.

Strict obedience to the command of ruler is the sacred duty. Even bad laws need to be complied
with because the alternative is anarchy, lawlessness’ and a return back to the dark days of state
of nature.

However, although individual surrenders all his rights to a sovereign master- an outside
agency- he still has right to life and properly with him. No state can ask an individual to kill
himself or confiscate his property. Yet, the state has right to regulate the property and punish
the criminals.

The state once established would be a final entity. Individuals have no right to appeal against
the orders of the sovereign. The subjects have no right to change the government. The powers
of the sovereign are too vast. Hobbes opposes the division of sovereignty. The state thus
formed with the consent of individuals becomes the supreme governing body. It covers all
aspects of human life. Freedom is what is permitted by state and to do what is not prohibited
by state. As the sovereign is above law, there is no power to control him. Political obligation
is based on reason. Since any disruption in the power structure of state might bring back state
of nature individual would obey the state, out of his own interest. Thus, Hobbes' theory explains
the origin and formation of an absolute state.

John Locke’s social contract theory: a guidance to Liberal state:

John Locke is called as the father of Liberal Theory of Democracy. His writings had a
profound influence on the concept of liberalism. The modern ideas of constitutionalism, right
of citizens, welfare activities of the state, and the democratic power of people to effect and
change the government could be discovered in his writings. Perhaps the greatest contribution
of Locke to the set of human values is his plea for religious tolerance. Modern secular
democratic states are founded on the basis of religious tolerance. In multi-religious,
multicultural societies, the value of religious tolerance is too clear to need an explanation.

Life and Times (1632-1704): John Locke was born in the family of a puritan Somerset
lawyer in 1632. After his education at oxford he became a tutor at oxford. However he did not
continue for long and showed interest in medicine. He came in contact with Lord Ashley,
became his physician and personal assistant. Lord Ashley was active in British politics and
Locke had a good experience of political life of those times. In 1683, Locke went to exile in
Holland because he was to be prosecuted for his support to Monmouth’s rebellion, which
wanted to curb the Royal Powers. During the exile he met many outstanding thinkers, who
shaped his thinking At that time he completed, ”Essays Concerning Human Understanding”.
After the Glorious Revolution he returned to England in 1681. William of Orange was invited
to occupy the throne following its vacation by King James II. After his return to England Locke
became very famous. He was appointed as commissioner of Appeals.

His contemporary events had a great impact on Locke’s thinking and writings. That was the
period when people resorted to peaceful change of rulers without bloodshed. A new breeze of
democracy and freedom was blowing. Significant recognition of individual freedom, the
capacity of ordinary man to understand the complex state matters and a general economic
prosperity around Europe, made Locke to have an optimistic and rosy picture of human nature.
Locke’s Two Treaties on Government, gives a clear picture of this assessment of the theory of
state.

Like all the earlier thinkers who visualized the emergence of state from an analysis of human
nature, Locke also begins his analysis. Unlike Hobbes who could see only negative side of
human nature, Locke views human nature from a positive angle. Human beings are basically
good natured, decent and co- operative. They are not always selfish, many times altruistic..
They are essentially peace loving.

With such a rosy picture of human nature it is not surprising that Locke should view State of
Nature as one of paradise. Though individual free from authority of ruler in state of nature, his
conduct is governed by Laws of Nature. From natural law an individual gets Natural Rights.
Individuals realise these laws of Nature by reason. All individuals in a State of nature get
certain rights- i.e life ,liberty and property. As they have natural right, the human beings in
state of nature also have certain natural duties. Nobody has the right to dominate others. All
are entitled for equal sharing of natural endowment.

But there are always some corrupt elements in human society. Their selfish deed might disrupt
the otherwise peaceful nature of the state of nature. Though the state of nature was well founded
on twin principles of liberty and equality peace was not secure. Because there were always
some men who are by nature ‘vicious and degenerated character.’ So an institutional
framework was needed to make the life of society more secure and peaceful. An established
law, impartial Judiciary, the willingness of the executive to effectively implement the accepted
laws., were required to make the conditions in state of nature more meaningful and secure. So
the individuals decide to organize a state. From society to state is a natural and logical
transformation.

There is view that Locke’s theory explains two contracts. At first free individuals living in a
state of nature, decide to form a society. This is “original contract.” After society came into
existence, a sense of mutual co-operation developed among the members of that society. Their
actions were regulated by natural Law. They respected natural rights of others. They were
industrious but not greedy. They were “social beings,” not Hobbesian type of warmongering
animal type. This ‘civil society’ creats a “state” through a contract. But the nature of this
“state” is totally different from that of Hobbes. Firstly the members who constitute the
government to administer the society are the members of society only. They are not outsiders.
The state thus constituted does not get absolute powers. This is second difference. The
individuals in the society would still keep; certain natural rights with them and surrender their
sovereignty partly to the state. Most important thing is the society has the ultimate power to
repudiate the contract entered into. Either a new government is installed by peaceful methods
or the government is thrown out in violent form and society may slip back into state of nature
for sometime till some alternative arrangements are made to install a new govt. In a way
Locke’s theory of state pictures modern constitutional democracies. In a well established liberal
democracy, the constitution and the election machinery process could be a contract. People are
supreme. They can either renew the contract with the existing ruler or install a new one. In
extreme cases of constitutional break down, there could be peoples’’ revolt, a situation where
no government exists- till such a time a new ruler is installed by society.

Ultimately it is the society which is supreme. State is only a representative body with specific
powers and responsibilities. There would be periodically reviewed by the people. The purpose
of the State is to guarantee Natural rights and make their implementation effective. There are
large areas of human life in society which are outside the control of state.

Locke gives the individuals the sovereign rights to revoke the social contract and enter into a
new contract. He specifies the following circumstances where such an eventuality may emerge.
I) There might be a ruler or set of rulers who establish their own arbitrary will in place of the
established laws. II) When the rulers prevent the legislature from assembling and acting freely
for the purpose for which it was established. III) when by the arbitrary power of the ruler the
elections and the method of elections are altered without the consent of the society. iv) The
prince or ruler sometimes may fail to protect his countrymen from foreign aggression. In such
cases he had delivered his subjects into foreign power domination so naturally the people have
a right to disown the ruler. v) A situation where the person who had the supreme executive
power neglected the laws already enacted and could not be executed.

Locke’s state is a state based on pluralism. He emphasized a higher law which is above state
law. While he grants the right of the people to revolt against an unjust ruler, he specifically
emphasizes that people should resort to this only when they realize that revolution would result
in a better social order. This should not be used for tiny mismanagement of public affairs. But
the very fact that people have this right is significant. It is a defense against arbitrary rule.
Government based on consent coupled with right of people to rebel was the ”best fence against
rebellion”.

Limitations of the Theory: Hobbes’ Theory of state of nature lacks historical proof. Right
from beginning men lived in groups. It is not very clear how a solitary living would create a
civic consciousness for the creation of state. The theory is too narrow. It bases fear as the only
base of obedience to law. The rulers’ misdeeds are overlooked and citizens are at the mercy of
rulers. It is anti-democratic, anti-liberal and paved way for the growth of fascist state. When
Hegel proclaimed “state is a marching God on earth.” He is only giving an ideological
refinement to Hobbes theory. Maintaining Law and order is not the only function of the state.
But for Hobbes it is the fuction. In the process, the interests of the subjects for whom the state
in created is pushed to back ground.
 Although Locke’s theory is an improvement in many ways, yet his social contract theory also
has some limitations. Though his assessment of human nature is drastically different from
Hobbes’- the same limitation-how would individuals who had no political knowledge develop
the idea of state-applies to him. There is also some confusion about the ”original contract
theory.” Did Locke mention two contracts one for society and one for state, or is it critics’
interpretation.

In many places Locke implies that the state is the result of the consensus of the majority. This
leaves a serious lapse in the theory. What happens to minority? Those who could not and did
not give their opinion on the formation of state? Should they blindly adopt themselves to a new
power structure? Who would guarantee that their concerns would be addressed to?

Modern thinkers like Edmund Burke and Jeremy Bentham criticize natural rights theory. For
them rights are only those legal provisions recognized by state when there is not legal sanction
for violation of a right, that right is just as good as non-existence.

Locke was also attacked by the Marxists for his insistence that right to property is natural right
and it is the sacred duty of the state to protect it. For Marxists property is the results of
exploitation of poor by rich and Locke’s theory only gives legitimacy for propertied clases to
suppress the poor.

These are some limitations of the social contract theory developed by Hobbes and Locke. It
emphasized equality and made man as the centre to state formation.

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY AS DEVELOPED BY JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU

Rousseau is a champion of “ Popular sovereignty.” It is often said that without Rousseau there
would have been no French Revolution. Because the very foundation of the French Revolution-
- popular sovereignty found a theoretical explanation in Rousseau’s writing. While
appreciating the advantages of a Democratic form of government, Rousseau found serious
lapses in the Representative model. Here the citizen exercises his sovereign right only for a
few seconds - during voting. At that point of time he has absolute freedom to transform his
sovereignty to whom so ever he likes. But, then till next elections he is only a mute spectator
to all the misdeeds of his representative to whom he has willingly delegated his power of
sovereignty To over come this short coming Rousseau visualized a system where government
affairs are run on regular referendum. People will be actually governing themselves not
through their representatives. The essence of this philosophy is the capacity of human beings
to manage their affairs. The basis of the state is the popular will, not mere law or force.
Rousseau wanted to give an ethical basis to the foundation of the state structure. There is a
clear domination of state over society in Hobbes’ theory, a clear demarcation of powers and
functions between state and society in Locke’s writing. But in Rousseau’s writings we find a
new trend emerging, society will transform itself into state. State will be an extended political
hand of society. State will implement what society wills and society wills what is good for
entire community. There would not be any conflicts between society and state. In fact they are
one and same, what binds them together is the sprit of ‘General Will.” While analyzing the
concept of ‘General will,” Rousseau makes a historical review of human progress through
ages. His assessment of human nature, about the reasons for its degeneration from one of
compassion to greediness, makes all interesting readings. Subsequent questions like why
society needed state, what would be the nature of such a political system are answered. In fact
Rousseau’s treatment of these issues are highly radical to the point of controversies and
contradictions.

Life and Times: Like all the social philosophers Rousseau’s life and times influenced his
writings. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was the greatest thinker France had produced.
His father was a watchmaker and Rousseau lost his mother within a month of his birth. A
disintegrated family background, had an impact on his life and thinking. He was a born
protestant and converted to catholic by de-walans, whom Rousseau befriended. At the age of
30 Rousseau went to Paris and befriended Dide lot. In fact, Rousseau’s vagabond life, his
affairs with many women, his unconventional approach to the institution of marriage, his views
on sex and family life, had some bearing on his writings.

He pictured the human being as a pure person became corrupt because of the institutions
created by society. He would want to dismantle the ‘artificial institutions’ like ‘family’
‘property’ and would like to go back to “original state of nature.” That would be an utopian
dream, since that would not be possible, what would be desirable is creating a society of
common interests, where general consensus would strive to achieve ''common good''. It would
not be "We vs them'' but 'we with them'. There is a need to create a society, based on good
will, concern for other’s interests, where individual would rise from his narrow selfish interest
and willingly participate in general social welfare. For that a total transformation of the thinking
of the individual in society is important.

Rousseau’s writings include ‘Discourses on Inequality, The Social Contract, Emile. He faced
the wrath of the rulers of his time. He was to be prosecuted for religious blasphemy. He went
to hiding to avoid imprisonment. In 1778 he died leaving a rich heritage of literature on politics,
history and human civilization.

Thinkers like Plato and Locke influenced Rousseau. Plato’s concept of the ethical basis of the
state and supremacy of the community in guiding individuals’ actions, together with Locke’s
theory of natural rights had an impact on his writings. Rousseau proceeded with his analysis of
human nature. Rousseau in a way picturizes two stages of human life. The early stage of solitary
life and the second stage of group living. The early stage of solitary life, contrary to Hobbes’
description was one of peaceful conditions. There could be no “War” in a situation of isolations.
According to Rousseau, in a world of ”natural men” men roamed alone and had at most only’
the most occasional and fortuitous meetings and connections. Men in this primitive conditions
had hardly anything to quarrel about. Primitive, non-social man would be neither egoist nor an
altruist, in any moral sense, he would pre-moral.

With the advent of civilization, group life started and with that many complications arose.
Rousseau’s famous quotation “man is born free but found himself in chains, everywhere,”
explains the fall of man from an ideal position of natural free individual to a selfish person
pursuing narrow selfish desires.
 The first result of joining the group life is to carve out a separate identity for himself. The
day an individual started to fix fences around a piece of land and claimed that piece of land
belonged to him he drew a distinction between himself and the rest So all the inequalities that
society inherited started from this selfish desire of an individual to carve out a separate identity
for himself. Money, trade and commerce, only widened this cleavage, so the social divisions
of rich and poor, high and low, clever and dumb appeared on the scene. They are all artificial
inequalities created by society. These created a false prestige and status. Men forgot their
‘original nature’. Earlier they were healthy, good, dumb and roughly equal to one another. Now
they became sickly evil, intelligent and highly unequal. This is the result of ”social; life.” The
“Progress is nothing but adding more misery to human beings. Civilization had only multiplied
the desires and inability to fulfill them made human beings unhappy. Material progress ushered
by modern technology, reflected artificial inequalities, was corrupting and wrong.

In order to overcome these shortcomings of group life, men decide to create an institution
which would lessen the selfish character of the individual, kindle a light of social co-operation
and establish a social order based on justice. So the emphasis is creating a “Right Social order.”
It is possible to achieve this. Because beneath the artificial civilized human being lies the
natural human being. He has a distinct quality- going back to primitive stage. The quality of
compassion, in him makes it painful for him to witness the suffering of any fellow- being he
could recognize as resembling himself. That feeling has not yet dried up. In fact it is a
stimulating force that drives him to do something for the members of his Community. Thus a
background is formed to create a social contract.

In this new social order- state-equality would be the basic foundation stone. Despite the
artificial inequalities created by the modern civilization, all human beings possess equal power
in creating a new social order. So all the members of the society surrender their individual
sovereignty to themselves. The contract is among them. A society in a way transforms itself
to a state. That means an individual gives up his power to the community. Since he is also a
member of that community, what he loses as an ’individual’ he would gain a “member of the
society.” So nobody has lost anything. What has happened is the “social goodness” priority
outwitted individual preference. Here Rousseau introduces his famous terms”General will” and
“Common good”. Common good is the end for which the new social order is created and the
“General Will” is the motivational force to achieve it.

In Rousseau’s thought every individual is a split personality. There is a ‘particular will’ which
makes him to pursue his selfish desires, even at the cost of the social good, and the ‘General
will’ which views the community well being as a desired objective. The formation of a new
state through the contract should help to evolve the General Will. General Will will represent
the will of the community as a whole. It reflects “Popular Sovereignty.” Rousseau Proclaims
“General will is always right. It can never be wrong.”

The General will will be the source of all laws. It cannot be represented by anybody. Rousseau
had the concept of “participatory Democracy” when he talked of General Will. Freedom means
not following the arbitrary orders of others, but following one’s own will. If the community
passes the law which reflects the will of entire community, that cannot be called arbitrary.
Because the individual is also a party to the formation of General will. So what is required is
the spirit of reconciliation between individual actions and community welfare. It is possible
only when direct democracy takes roots.

Since General Will represents the common good, any opposition to it would be disservice to
the community welfare. In those conditions, we should presume that an individual under the
impulsions of “Particular will” had behaved that way. So he needs to be free from his selfish
desires and made to see the advantages the Community is getting through that particular Public
Policy. In these circumstances the use of coercion is justified ‘Some times men are forced to
be free’ Rousseau proclaims. One can easily discern the dangerous implications from such
thesis. If you proclaim, that after the community will has arrived at a public policy and
opposition to it is based on selfishness and its suppression is ‘Justified, then naturally it turns
out to be a handmade device for dictators. Every ruler would proclaim the opposition to his
policies are not reflection of “Vox populi” (voice of people) but of a greedy selfish voice, which
need to be curbed in the interest of “People.”

The problem of discovering General Will is complicated and Rousseau did not provide any
institutional mechanisms to it. Is General will the majority will of the community? Is it
unanimous will? Or is it wisdom of certain members of the Community who have risen above
particular will and give guidance to the community?- an idea Plato developed in Republic (the
Guardians).

Many thinkers argue that Rousseau started as a great champion of’ Democratic Will’ but
eventually paved the way for elite dictatorship. It is not uncommon for the dictators to proclaim
that they “represent General Will”, and opponents are enemies of people,”

Yet despite these shortcomings Rousseau sounded a warning that the real democracy cannot
be substituted by representative system. Because “General will cannot be alienated nor
represented.” People should be constantly watching the legislative will. General will could be
treated as vocal public opinion, it is such a strong force, that no government can afford to ignore
it. Rousseau’s ideal of direct democracy though not feasible in modern complex industrial
Societies, it could still be tried as an experiment it small rural settings.

Rousseau’s social contract is a contract by the entire society to give a better state for
themselves.

FUNCTIONS OF MODERN STATES

• Maintenance of law and order.

• Protect life, liberty, property of the people.
• Determination of contract rights between individuals.
• Defining and punishing crime.
• Administration of justice.
• Determination of political duties, privileges and relations of citizens.
• Maintenance of foreign relations, protection of its sovereignty –internal and external.
• Financial functions like taxation, currency, and coinage etc.
• Military functions.
Optional Function.

• Regulation of trade and industry.

• Regulation of wages.
• Management of transportation.
• Maintenance of communication system.
• Maintenance of sanitation
• Providing education etc.
Nation
Latin word ‘natio’ is the root of the word nation. In Latin natio means birth or race. This gives
the term a racial or ethnical meaning. Etymologically a nation is a people descended from a
common stock. Burgess and Leacock defines nation in a racial sense. They talk of ‘ethnic
unity’, which means a population with common language, literature, common customs,
traditions and common consciousness of right and wrong.

However race and nationality are two distinct terms. There is no pure race anywhere in the
world. Hence nation as such has no racial significance. What makes a group of people a nation
is not necessarily a community of race, language, religion, but a sentiment of common mass-
consciousness or like-mindedness. Language and religion are not necessary conditions. Swiss
has no common language, no common religion and yet they constitute a nation. Similarly in
1971 East Pakistan became Bangla desh though the people of East Pakistan and West Pakistan
had common religion. This is why one must study the definition given by Barker which is more
realistic. Barker defines nation as ‘a nation is a body of people inhabiting a definite territory
and thus united together by the primary fact of living together on a common land’.

Nation and State: Modern nation-state is limited by national frontiers. But state and nation
are different. A mere organization of people under one government does not make them a
nation. Before World War –I , Austro-Hungary was one state, but it was not a nation. A nation
signifies consciousness of unity reinforced by psychology and spiritual feelings. Nationhood
is subjective and statehood is objective.

SOVEREIGNTY

The word sovereignty is derived from the Latin word “superanus” which means supreme or
paramount. Although the term sovereignty is modern yet the idea of sovereignty goes back to
Aristotle who spoke of the “supreme power of the state". In this technical form it was first
used by the French writer Bodin in his book ‘Republic’. According to Bodin “sovereignty is
the supreme power of state over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law.”
Sovereignty is the most important characteristic which distinguishes the state from all other
organizations. The state is supreme and it is above all individuals as well associations. In one
word we can say sovereignty denotes the supremacy of the state internally and externally.
Hence the concept of sovereignty is one of the most fundamental concepts in the study of
political science.

Definitions of sovereignty.

1. "Sovereignty is the supreme power of state over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law.”
- Bodin

2. “ Sovereignty is the supreme political power vested in him whose acts are not subject to any
other and whose will cannot be over ridden” - Grotious

3. "By sovereignty I understand the original, absolute, unlimited universal power over the
individual subject and all association of subject. It is un derived and independent power to
command and compel obedience - Burgass

4. " Sovereignty is the supreme will of the state" - Willoughby

5. Sovereignty is the “commanding power of the state; it is the will of the nation organised in
the state, it is the right to give unconditional orders , to all individuals in the territory of the
state" - Duguit

6. "Sovereignty is the daily operative power of framing and giving efficacy to the laws"
-Woodrow Wilson

Two aspects of sovereignty

There are two aspects of sovereignty: internal sovereignty and external sovereignty. Internal
sovereignty- It refers to the supreme authority exercised by the state over the people and
territory that it controls. It is absolute in authority over all individuals or associations within
the state. It issues orders to all men and all associations within that area and it receives orders
from none. The will of the state is absolute and it is subject to no legal limitations. In the words
of Laski, "Sovereignty is legally over an individual or group, he possesses Supreme Coercive
Power." External sovereignty- By external sovereignty we mean that the state is independent
of any compulsions or interference from the part of other states.Each independent state
reserves the authority to renounce trade treaties and to enter into military agreements. Thus
by external sovereignty we mean that every state is independent of other states .In other words,
external sovereignty means national freedom.

Characteristics of sovereignty

According to Garner, following are the characteristics or attributes of sovereignty:

1. Permanence: It is the chief characteristic of sovereignty. Sovereignty lasts as long as an

independent state exists. The death of a King or the overthrow or the change of a particular
system of the government does not lead to the destruction of sovereignty. Justice Sutherland
of U.S.A. said “Rules come and go; governments end and forms of government change; but
sovereignty is never held in suspense". This is the reason why people in England used to say
"King is dead, long live the King".
2. Exclusiveness: The sovereign power is exclusive prerogative of the state and is not shared
by it with any other authority or group. In the state there can be only one sovereign who can
legally compel obedience from all persons and associations within its jurisdiction. By this we
mean that there can be no two sovereigns in one independent state. If two sovereigns exist in a
state the unity of that state will be destroyed. There cannot exist another sovereign’s state within
the existing sovereign state.

3. All comprehensiveness: The state is all comprehensive and the sovereign power is
universally applicable. Every individual and every association of individuals is subject to
sovereignty of the state. No association or group of individuals however rich or powerful
cannot resist or disobey the sovereign authority. Sovereignty makes no exception and grants
no exemption to anyone.

4. Inalienability: Sovereignty is inalienable. By inalienability we mean that the state cannot

part with its sovereignty .In other words we can say that the sovereign or the sovereign state
does not remain, "if the sovereign or the state transfers his or its sovereignty to any other
person or any other state. Sovereignty is the life and soul of the state and it cannot be alienated
without destroying the state itself.

5. Indivisibility: It is the essence of sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot be divided without being

destroyed. The division of sovereignty leads to the disunity of state. In the words of Gettell "
the concept of divided sovereignty is a contradiction in terms .If the sovereignty is not absolute
,no state exists; if sovereignty is divided , more than one state exists ".American statesman
Calhaun has declared” sovereignty is an entire thing to divide it is to destroy it.It is the supreme
power in a state and we might just as well speak of half square or half a triangle as half a
sovereignty".

6. Absoluteness: Absoluteness of sovereignty means that there is no legal power within the
state or outside the state superior to it. The authority of the sovereign is not subject to any
internal or external limitations. He is absolute and unlimited the sovereign is entitled to do
whatever he likes.

PLURALIST THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY:

Meaning of Pluralism:
Pluralism is a powerful protest against the monistic theory of sovereignty which endows the
state with supreme and unlimited power. Harold Laski, J.N. Figgis, Ernest Barker, G. D.H.
Cole, A. D. Lindsay, Duguit, MacIver and others are the exponents of Pluralism. According to
Pluralists, sovereignty resides not with the state but it resides with many other institutions.
There exist many social, political, cultural and economic institutions in society and many of
these institutions are prior to the State. For example, Family and Church are prior to the State.
According to Pluralists, the State is not only the supreme institution. On the contrary, like other
institutions the State is also one of the institutions of society. There the State does not reserve
the authority to exercise sovereignty according to his will. Sovereignty is not his private
property.
The Pluralistic state is, therefore, “simply a state in which there exists no single source of
authority”. According to Pluralists, sovereignty is not indivisible and exclusive”. One the
contrary it is a multiplicity in its essence and manifestation, it is divisible in two parts and
should be divided”.

The pluralist theory of sovereignty was a reaction to monistic or legal theory of

sovereignty. To monistic theory state is supreme association and all other associations are the
creation of state and their existence depends on the will of the sovereign power.
The pluralist theory rejects this and tries to establish that there is no single source of
authority that is all competent and comprehensive.
Laski says that sovereignty is neither absolute nor a unity. It is pluralist, constitutional and
responsible. State has no superior claim to an individual’s allegiance. It can justify itself as a
public service corporation. State exists to coordinate functions of human association in the best
interest.
Another exponent of pluralist theory Robert M.Maclver propounds that state is one
of the several human associations, although it exercises unique functions. Important feature of
the state is supremacy of law.
Pluralists believe that state enjoys a privileged position because of its
wider jurisdiction, which covers all the individuals and associations within its boundary. This
does not mean that it is superior to other associations. It is also true that state has power to
punish those who defy its command but that does not mean that it is absolute. The state must
justify the exercise of its special powers. Pluralist is divided and limited.
The pluralist demands that the same must justify its claim to allegiance on
moral grounds. Actually to them the management and control of society must be shared by
various associations in proportion to their contribution to the common goods. This theory
stands for the decentralization of authority.
The pluralist also rejects the distinction between state and government. They
insist on a realistic political science and consider the distinction between two as artificial.
The pluralists are not against the state but would discard sovereign state with its absolute and
indivisible power.

The chief tenets of pluralist theory of sovereignty are as follows.

a) Pluralist sovereignty deals with political aspects of sovereignty. b)State is one of the several
human associations catering to various interests of the individuals. c) State is arbiter over
conflicting interests of different associations. d)State should compete with other human
associations to claim superior authority. e)State was not absolute or supreme legally. f) State
is not the only source of legislation or law .g)Law is very antithesis of command. h) The state
is both the child and parent of law. i) He roots of obedience of law aren’t coercion but the will
to obey. j)State and government are not different.

The pluralist theory of sovereignty is also not free from criticism. Critics
maintain that without establishment of a classless society, sovereignty can neither be divided
nor be limited. In order to limit the sovereignty of the state there must be a classless society.
The demands for freedom from different associations also are criticized. Division
of sovereignty among different associations is not only impossible but also improper. The
pluralist view will lead to political anarchy and social instability.
The pluralist limits the sovereignty in order to maintain independence of
individuals and other associations, however in order to maintain the rights of the individuals
and associations, the state must have sovereign power. The interest of individuals and
associations, will conflict and the state will be helpless if it does not possess sovereign power.
 In spite of all these criticism it cannot be denied that the pluralist theory of sovereignty
protested the rigid and dogmatic legalism of the Austin’s theory of sovereignty. It supports
humanist and democratic ideas. It challenged the concept of unlimited sovereignty.

This theory also pointed out the importance of other associations. Only state is not important
but in a society there are also many other associations, which play important role in its
development. At last we can say that the greatest contribution of this theory is that it gave state
a human face, and checked it from being a threat to the liberty.
AUSTINS THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY (MONISTIC VIEW):
In the 19th century the theory of sovereignty as a legal concept was perfected by Austin, an
English Jurist. He is regarded as a greatest exponent of Monistic Theory. In his book Province
of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) Austin observed if a determinate human superior, not in
the habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given
society, that determinate superior is sovereign in that society and that society (including
superior) is a society political and independent. To Austin in every state there exists an
authority to whom a large mass of citizen show compliance. This authority is absolute,
unlimited and indivisible.
Austin’s theory of sovereignty depends mainly upon his view on nature of law.According to
Austin Law is a command given by a superior to inferior the main tenets of Austin’s theory of
sovereignty are as follows-
1. Sovereign power is essential in every political society.
2. a. Sovereignty is a person or body of persons. It is not necessary that sovereign should be a
single person. Sovereignty may reside in many persons also. Austin explains that a Sovereign
is not necessarily a single person, in the modern western world he is rarely so; but he must have
so much of the attributes of a single person as to be a determinate. To Austin state is a legal
order, in which there is a supreme authority, which is source of all powers. Sovereignty is
concerned with man, and every state must have human superior who can issue commands and
create laws. Human laws are the proper subjects of state activity.
2. Sovereign power is indivisible. Division of sovereignty leads to its destruction. It cannot
be divided.
3. The command of sovereignty is superior to over all individuals and associations. Sovereign
is not bound to obey any ones order. His will is supreme. There is no question of right or wrong,
just or unjust, all his commands are to be obeyed.
4. Austin’s theory says that the obedience to sovereign must be habitual. It means that obedience
should be continuous. He also includes that is not necessary that obedience should come from
the whole society. It is sufficient, if it comes from the lay majority of people. Obedience should
come from bulk of the society otherwise there is no sovereign.
In brief we can say that sovereignty according to Austin is supreme, indivisible and
unquestionable.
Like all other theories of sovereignty Austins theory is also not free from criticism. The first
criticism is regarding sovereignty residing in a determinate superior. Even sovereigns acts are
shaped by so many other influences, such as morals, values and customs of the society.
Sir Henry Maine gives the example of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. He pointed out that the
Maharaja could have commanded anything. The smallest disobedience to his command would
have been followed by death or mutilation. In spite of this, the Maharaja never once in all his
life issued a command which Austincould call a law. The rules which regulated the life of his
subjects were derived from their immemorial usage.
Secondly Austin says that the sovereign is possessed of unlimited powers, which is
again not acceptable. It is possible only in theory not in practice. Laski points out that no
sovereign has anywhere possessed unlimited power and attempt to exert it has always resulted
in the establishment of safeguards.
Thirdly Austin says that sovereign is indivisible. All powers must be centered in the hands of
one person or a body of persons called sovereign. But this has been also disproved by Federal
system of governments. It is characteristic of federal state that power must be divided between
the federal government and its units.
Austins theory is criticized further on the grounds of his definition of law. Austin defines law
as command given b a superior to inferior. This is also not true. No sovereign can ignore the
existence of customary law, which has grown through usage in every country.
It seems to be that Austin’s theory may not be accepted as valid for political philosophy.His
legal theory of sovereign.Narrows down the meaning of vital terms. It should, however be
admitted that as an analysis of strictly legal nature of sovereignty. Austin’s theory is clear and
logical.
Nationalism
Nationalism is regarded as one of the most powerful ism of modern world. It has been defined
by various scholars in various ways. Quite often it is assumed to be ‘a state of mind, permeating
the large majority of people and claiming to permeate all its members; it recognizes the nation-
state as the ideal form of political organization and the nationality the source of all creative
energy and the economic well-being the supreme loyalty of man is, therefore, due to his
nationality, as his own life is supposedly rooted in and made possible by its welfare’ Hans
Kohn.

Nation is derived from Latin word ‘natio’, which means ‘birth’. This gives it a racial and
ethical meaning. Hence scholars like Burgess defines nation ‘as a population of an ethnic unity
inhabiting in a territory of geographic unity’.

It is consciousness of belonging together in a group which possesses certain common

characteristics. It is a state of mind, a psychological concept which is very difficult to define’.
Nationalism can also be defined as ‘a force which holds a community in a defined territory
together for the maintenance of rights against arbitrary powers with the State and preservation
of its independence against aggression from without’

DEFINITIONS OF NATIONALISM

There are numerous definitions of nationalism given by many scholars. We must look at some
important definitions mentioned below: Barker offers a broad and realistic definition ‘a nation
is a body of persons inhabiting a definite territory and thus united together by the primary fact
of living together on a common land’.

Ramsay Mair has a definition ‘a nation is a body of people who feel themselves to be nationally
linked together by certain affinities and cannot tolerate subjection to other’.
 In the dictionary of International Relations, Graham Evans and Jeffroy Newnham defines
nationalism as a term used in two related senses ’in the first usage, nationalism seeks to identify
a behaviroural entity-the nation- and thereafter to pursue certain political and cultural goals on
behalf of it. In the second usage, nationalism is a sentiment of loyalty towards the nation which
is shared by people’.

Alfred De Grazia defines ‘nationalism combines love of country and suspiciousness of

foreigners. Love of country comes from shared values and suspiciousness of foreigners comes
from the belief that foreigners do not share such values in the same strength. The first shared
value is the love of familiar place, the neighbourhood, the land, the homes, the valleys and the
mountains, all of the surroundings that one loves because they have been part of oneself from
infancy’

In the classical sense, nationalism encompasses two phenomenons: [1] attitude that the
members of a nation take with their identity as members of the nation [2] actions they take to
achieve or sustain some form of political sovereignty.

FEATURES OF NATIONALISM

Scholars have identified following features:

[1] Nationalism is a psychic attitude of political homogeneity. [2] It is a kind of mass

consciousness that gives the State the proper form for its expression. [3] It has led to the
coincidence of political boundaries with ethnic, linguistic or cultural frontiers. [4] It involves
in the realization and full expression of nationality. [5] It expresses desire for national self-
sufficiency. [6] It involves the submergence of the individual into nationality and the
consequent sacrifice for the State. [7] It has a cultural facet. Various national groups put
forward their rival claims for cultural superiority. [8] It stands for the principle of ‘one nation-
one state’ and hence advocates the right of self-determination.

Evolution of nationalism: The early phase of human history indicates that among the ancient
people, the Greeks and the Jews had some characteristics of nationalism. However the
nationalism in the modern sense has evolved during the 18th and 19th centuries. In the modern
history, England and France evolved national feelings during the Hundred Years war. Then
came Renaissance and Reformation. These made the English conscious that they are a distinct
national unity. In case of France, the French Revolution 1789 played an important role in
building up national sentiments.

In this context we must also mention two writers who are regarded as the arch-priests of
nationalism. The first is Joseph Mazzini, the Italian writer and politician. Though he primarily
supported the cause of Italian nationalism, Mazzini later thought that each nation possessed
certain talents which collectively formed the wealth of human race. The other scholar was
Fichte who had delivered his famous ‘Addresses to the German Nation’. This had stirred up
enthusiastic spirit of nationalism.

After dominating the politics of Europe and spreading across the Europe, the nationalism
traveled to the people of the East. In the 20th century, the nationalism became the powerful
creed with the people of Asia and Africa. There were nationalist movements in almost all parts
of Asia and Africa to free themselves from bonds of slavery. The guiding star of these
nationalist movements was the principle of self- determination.

Merit and demerit of nationalism: Though today nationalism is universally popular, one
must note the merits as well as the demerits of nationalism. The merits are as under:

Merits:

[1] It infuses the spirit of patriotism in the minds of the people. If a country is under the yoke
of foreign rule, the people can be united for attaining freedom under the banner of nationalism.
Inspired by the national feelings, the people in India fought against British Empire and won
freedom in August 1947.

[2] Nationalism can mobilize and unify people under a common bond. It has achieved much
and has integrated large groups into nation. It helps to establish social unity.

[3] Nationalism generates finer virtues like patriotism among men. Men, under the impulse of
national sentiments, sacrifice their lives for the nation. Many poets, orators and painters have
been inspired by the spirit of nationalism.

[4] Nationalism breeds legitimate pride and self-respect in a country. It creates a healthy spirit
of competition among the nations. Suppressed nationalism is a threat to world peace. For
example, German nationalism which suppressed after the World War I ultimately led to the
World War II.

[5] The feeling of nationalism unites the people and they work hard for the economic prosperity
of the country. They bear the burden of extra taxes for national interests. It enables the country
to face the economic or political crisis effectively. Every nation faces an economic or political
crisis once or twice in its history. If the people have national sentiments, they will have unity,
and the spirit of self-sacrifice. With the help of this spirit, the people of a country will be able
to face the crisis boldly.

[6] It creates the feeling of heroism and self-sacrifice. Every nation has to make several
sacrifices for the attainment and preservation of its freedom. The history of freedom struggle
in every country is replete with examples of people sacrificing their lives at altar of national
salvation. India is no exception. The stories of such heroes always inspire people.

Demerits: [1] Nationalism leads to acquisition of other’s territory. It becomes a weapon in the
hands of selfish and power-hungry politicians. Nationalism in the hands of Hitler in Germany
became a great curse to the whole world.

[2] It may lead to exploitation and finally results in imperialism. Ravindranath Tagore wrote,
‘nationalism is an organized self-interest of whole people and the organization of politics and
commerce for selfish ends and an organized power for exploitation’.

[3] It is narrow, blind and intolerant. It is based on the principles that ‘my nation is always right
and other nations are always wrong’. Aggressive nationalism is a threat to world peace. Prof.
Laski was of the opinion that nationalism ‘is built on conditions which are in the atmosphere
of contemporary civilization, fraught with grave danger’.

[4] Economic nationalism has led to commercial competition among nations to acquire more
and more colonies. Thus, the motive force of modern imperialism has been spurred by the
economic nationalism. It has resulted in the exploitation of colonies by ‘superior nations’ but
at the cost of poor nations. Here too, extreme form of economic nationalism is known as
‘autarchy’ which aims at complete economic self-sufficiency. This type of economic
nationalism is an immediate cause of international tension. Autarchy is a dangerous policy. It
does not bring any good either to the nation which practices it or to the other nations of the
world. This sort of nationalism led to the burning of wheat in the USA and the dumping of
surplus coffee into the sea in Brazil, while millions were starving in other parts of the world.

[5] In the totalitarian state, nationalism has led to the establishment of statism. Individuals have
been sacrificed at the altar of the State. In this sense, totalitarian nationalism has not proved
conducive to the enjoyment of freedom and individual liberty. The State as the supreme
embodiment of national spirit has swallowed up the creator. ’Nationalism is the arch-enemy
of the human race. It is the old win of tribalism in new bottle of territorial sovereignty’.
Likewise, Mr. Emery Reves has observed ‘the modern Bastille is the nation-state, no matter
whether jailors are conservatives, liberals or socialists. That symbol of our enslavement must
be destroyed, if we ever want to be free again’.

[6] Nationalism is antithetical to internationalism. Aggressive nationalism has rendered

peaceful organization of international relations impossible. National prestige has impelled the
States to seek the solution for their problems through force and violence.

TYPES OF NATIONALISM

One can mention political nationalism, cultural nationalism, and ethnic nationalism. In
political nationalism, an attempt to use the nation ideal to further specific political ends. In
cultural nationalism, emphasis is placed on regeneration of a nations a distinctive civilization,
stressing on the need to defend or strengthen, say for example religion, language or the like.
On the other hand ethnic nationalism overlaps with cultural nationalism as it implies a stronger
sense of distinctiveness and exclusivity.

Changing Nature: Today nation-state has become a basic pattern throughout the world. It
has replaced the old concept of State based on bonds of nationality strenghed by national
frontiers. This process of evolution of the State brings into focus the concepts of nationality,
nation and the State. One needs to clearly understand these concepts.

Nationality: Till recently, nation and nationality were used interchangeably. Now they are
two distinct terms. Nation has become a political in meaning as a consequence of universal
acceptance of the principle of ‘one nation- one state’. It means a political unity-a body of people
distinct from others having their own distinct and separate political identity. But nationality has
no reference to political unity. It serves to indicate the totality of the natural qualities that
characterize the nation, without the idea of legal status which is connected with the term
‘nation’. James Bryce defines nationality ‘ a nationality is a population held together by certain
ties as for example- language, literature, customs, etc. in such a way as to feel itself a coherent
unity distinct from other populations similarly held together by like ties of their own.’ Whereas
a nation is a nationality’, which has organized itself into a political body either independent or
desiring to be independent’. Nationality thus indicates common spiritual or psychological
sentiments among the people having some common affinities or a socio- cultural complex’. It
is like a religion, a matter of feelings, thinking and living in pursuit of such a conviction.

Nation: Latin word ‘natio’ is the root of the word nation. In Latin natio means birth or race.
This gives the term a racial or ethnical meaning. Etymologically a nation is a people descended
from a common stock. Burgess and Leacock defines nation in a racial sense. They talk of
‘ethnic unity’, which means a population with common language, literature, common customs,
traditions and common consciousness of right and wrong.

However race and nationality are two distinct terms. There is no pure race anywhere in the
world. Hence nation as such has no racial significance. What makes a group of people a nation
is not necessarily a community of race, language, religion, but a sentiment of common mass-
consciousness or like-mindedness. Language and religion are not necessary conditions. Swiss
has no common language, no common religion and yet they constitute a nation. Similarly in
1971 East Pakistan became Bangla desh though the people of East Pakistan and West Pakistan
had common religion. This is why one must study the definition given by Barker which is more
realistic. Barker defines nation as ‘a nation is a body of people inhabiting a definite territory
and thus united together by the primary fact of living together on a common land’.

Nation and State: Modern nation-state is limited by national frontiers. But state and nation
are different. A mere organization of people under one government does not make them a
nation. Before World War –I , Austro-Hungary was one state, but it was not a nation. A nation
signifies consciousness of unity reinforced by psychology and spiritual feelings. Nationhood
is subjective and statehood is objective.

Idea of Political System

Input and Output model of Analysis
The concept of system, as well as a language of inputs and outputs, demands and supports, and
feedback, were brought to politics by David Easton in the early 1950s, when he was a young
political scientist. The political system was considered the fundamental unit of analysis, and
the infra-system behaviour of various systems was the primary focus of his research, which
was carried out through the use of system theory.

Easton's Definition:

Political system, according to Easton, is "a series of interactions that are abstracted
from the totality of social conduct and through which values are authoritatively allotted
for a society." Politics is one of many different social systems, and it is one among many
different types of social systems. It is the part of the social system that is responsible for the
'authoritative allocation of values. It is sometimes referred to as input-output analysis or the
conversion process in the context of Easton's systems analysis. His theory of politics holds that
the political system takes inputs from the environment in the form of demands and
supports, and then translates them into outputs in the form of policies or decisions. During
the input-output analysis process, the political system is considered to be both open and
adaptive.. In this method, the nature of communication and transaction between the
political system and the other systems that exist in its immediate environment is
the primary subject of investigation.. Various effects from other systems are brought into
contact with the political system, which reacts in a manner consistent with those influences.
Consequently, input-out theory conducts a systematic or scientific investigation into the
interaction between the political system and its surrounding environment.

David Easton presented the input-output analysis in his article “The Analysis of Political
Systems” published in “World Politics” in 1957. It is like a small box consists of two sets of
inputs, one output and feedback mechanism to the input side. On the input side, Easton includes
demands and supports. Demand is the name of pressure which flow from the environment to
the political system to bring about a change in the allocations of score values. And support is
the second input. It is the energy in the form of actions or orientation promoting and resisting
a political system.

But here the question arises what it does for society. The answer is policy-making. Here comes
Easton’s concept of outputs. Outputs are the decisions or policy made by authorities. Further
the policies made by the authorities are supported by the people or not. Thus the response or
reaction of public to the outputs are feed-back into, the input system. Again the system convert
it into output. This cyclic process of input, output and feedback mechanism constitute the
Easton’s input-Output analysis, which make decision for the society.
Input-Output Analysis.

The inputs are the pressures of all kinds which are exercised on the system. David Easton was
the first political scientist who analyze political system in explicit systems terms distinguishes
two types of inputs into the political system, demand and supports. Demand and supports are
received by the system from the environment.

Demands.

Demand according to Easton as an expression of opinion that an authoritative allocation with

regard to particular subject-matter should or should not be made by those responsible for doing
so. The demands may include the demand for wage and working hour, laws, educational
opportunities, recreational facilities, roads and transports etc.

There may be demands of behaviour, demand of the right to vote, right to hold office, right to
be elected for the office, to petition government bodies and officials and to organize political
associations. The demands keep the system operating.

Support.

For survival of the political system, Easton prescribes the concept of support. No political
system could last long without the support of the society of which it is a part. This support may
be, by accepting the decision of the political system or by obeying them, is the most common
way of showing support. Inputs of demands are called as the raw material, out of which finished
products called decisions are manufactured.
They are not enough to keep a political system operating. Thus, a political system receives
considerable support from the environment. The support is both overt and covert. The overt
supports are forms of actions which are clearly and manifestly supportive.

The covert supports are attitudes and sentiments towards the political system. The political
system also face support stress by several ways. According to Easton support stress is due to
failure of output. The political support decline if the political system fails to deliver the goods.

Conversion Process.

A process through which a political system converts input into output is called the conversion
process. It comes through the process of selection, limitation, or rearrangement. The conversion
process operates dynamically because the selection can take place over a period of time. This
conversion process depends upon the capability of the political system for extraction of
resources, regulation and control over individuals and goods.

Outputs.

The outputs of the political system are the decisions of the authorities. It may be rules,
regulation, actions, laws and so on. In the first place, authoritative decisions are either
application on interpretation of rules. Secondly, the authoritative decisions affect the
environment of the political system. Outputs help to maintain support for the political system.

Feedback.

Feedback is a process through which information about the performance of the system is
communicated back to it. This information is essential to the authorities who take decision for
the system. Through feedback loop the system may take advantage of adjusting its future
behavior. Without information feedback, about what is happening in the system, the authorities
would have to operate in the dark. It consists of production of outputs by the authorities, a
response by the members of the society to these outputs, the communication of information
about the response to the authorities and possible succeeding actions by the authorities.

This is a cyclical process. This has been described as a ‘flow model’ of the political system.
Easton says that the outputs are not the terminal points. They feedback into the system and
which in turn shapes the subsequent behaviour. The feedback thus has a profound influence on
the capacity of the system to persist and to cope up with the stress.
STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

Structural-Functional is based on the concept of Political System. This model of political

analysis has been widely used in the methods of comparative politics because it provides for
standard categories for different types of political systems. It originated in the sphere of social
anthropology in the writings of Radcliffe Brown and B. Malinowski. Then it was developed in
the field of sociology by Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton, and Marion Levy. Gabriel Almond
and his associates develop it into a tool of political analysis.

A structural-functional approach is a form of systemic analysis that looks at the political system
as a coherent whole that influences and is in turn influenced by their environments. A political
system is held together by the presence of legitimate force throughout the system. It has three
characteristics: comprehensiveness, independence, and the existence of boundaries. The
interactions that take place within a system are not between individuals but between the roles
which these individuals adopt. Lastly, the political system is an open system and is involved in
communications with systems, beyond its boundaries.

GABRIEL ALMOND: STRUCTUTRAL - FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

Gabriel Almond and J.S. Coleman in The Politics of Developing Area, 1960 identified four
characteristics of the political systems. These are

i) All political systems have structures.

ii) ii) The same functions are performed in all political systems with different
frequencies and by different kinds of structures.
iii) iii) All political structures are multifunctional.
iv) iv) All political systems-are mixed in the cultural sense i.e. they are based in a
culture which is always a mixture of the modern and the traditional.

The structural-functional approach was further developed by Gabriel Almond and Powell in
Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach, 1966. He and his associates argued that all
political systems, regardless of their types, must perform specific sets of tasks if they are to
remain in existence as systems in working order or equilibrium i.e. ongoing systems’. These
are the functional requirements of the system. They suggested the use of ‘functions’ and
‘functional requisites’ instead of ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ as modifications to Easton’s modal.
They have provided seven functions that a political system has to perform to sustain themselves
and stay relevant. Accordingly, Almond and his associates discerned his functional categories
classifying them into as ‘Inputs’ and ‘Outputs’. There were a total of seven functions, four
input functions, and three output functions respectively.

The Inputs functions are:

i) Political Socialisation and recruitment: Political socialisation is the process

whereby an individual acquires attitudes and orientations towards political
phenomena; it also implies the process whereby society transmits political norms
and beliefs from one generation to the next. Recruitment stands for the process
whereby political groups obtain members for various important roles in the political
process, either in addition to the existing members or as a replacement for other
members. Primary socialization at home, locality, and educational institutions
indoctrinate and inculcate the members with attitudes, opinions, and orientations
towards the political phenomenon.
ii) Interest articulation: It implies the process whereby opinions, attitudes, beliefs,
preferences, etc. are converted into coherent demands on the political system. This
function may be performed by various structures, but interest groups are most suited
to perform this perform. Coherent demands are placed by various structures such as
 peer groups, pressure groups, interest groups, associations, etc to preserve and
further their interest.
iii) Interest aggregation: It is the process by which demands are translated into
policies and decisions which could be acted upon. Political parties are most suited
to perform this function.
iv) Political Communications: It is a process by which the components of a political
system such as individuals, groups, and institutions transmit and receive
information regarding the functions of the political system. Mass media and lately
social media are most suited to perform this action.

The Output Functions are:

i) Rule-making
ii) Rule – application
iii) Rule – adjudication

Of these, output functions correspond to conventional governmental functions, which are

performed by formal governmental organs, viz. legislature (rule-making), executive (rule-
application), and judiciary (rule- adjudication). Almond has paid special attention to input
functions that are performed by non-governmental structures or institutions. Although all
structures are multi-functional, yet some structures are especially suited for specific functions.

Almond and Powell identified two chief characteristics of the development of political system
i.e. political development’. These are i) structural differentiation, and b) secularisation of
culture. As they have elucidated: ‘’ A principal aspect of the development or transformation of
the political system is role differentiation or structural differentiation. By differentiation, we
refer to the process whereby roles change and become more socialised or more autonomous or
whereby new types of roles are established or new structures and subsystems emerge or are
created.’’ (Comparative Politics: A Development Approach; 1966). The more evolved and
mature the clearer is the distinction and differentiation between the roles of political structures.
The secularization of culture denotes the process by which traditional attitudes and orientations
give way for more dynamic making processes involving the gathering of information, the
evaluation of the information, the laying out of the alternative course of action. Objective
gathering and evaluation of information along with analysis of alternative policies transcending
parochial loyalties would enable the realization of the collective good of the entire community.
These two criteria will enable us to measure the level of development of any political system.
The Structural- functional framework of political analysis has been particularly useful for
comparative politics. A developed political system is characterised by the differentiation of
structures for the performance of specific functions. In less developed political systems,
functions of interest articulation, interest aggregation, and political communication might be
performed by some structures which have not taken a definitive shape, but in a developed
system growth of interest groups, political parties and mass media would be discernible.