This educational content delves into the origins of state. It uncovers how early societies transitioned from family units to state structures through kinship, patriarchy, and other theories. It explains concepts like the social contract theory of philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. For young law students, this content simplifies complex ideas about theories on the origin of state

Theories on the origin of State

Political philosophers have given different theories on the origin of the state-

Theory of Kinship of the origin of State

The theory of kinship on the origin of State is based on Sociological facts.
The earliest advocate of this theory is Aristotle (384-322 BCE).
In his treatise, ‘Politics’ Aristotle states,-

‘Society of many families is called a village and a village is most naturally composed of the descendants of one family, the children and the children’s children…, for every family is governed by the elder, as are the branches thereof, on account of their relation, there unto…. and when many villages so entirely join themselves together as in every respect to form but one society, that society is state and contains in itself that perfection of government’.

Formation of state:

Family :

family was the unit of society at the beginning. The blood relationship and kinship brought the members of the family together and they all accepted the authority of the head of the family.

Clans:

With the expansion of family arose new families and multiplication of families led to the formation of clans.

State:

With the expansion of clans, tribes came into existence and ultimately the state came into existence.

Family, discipline, command and obedience are supposed to represent the origin of government.
This view finds support from the writings of R.M. MacIver (1882- 1970) according to which curbs and controls that constitute the essence of government is first seen in the family.

There is a difference of opinion among the scholars regarding the nature of kinship.

Patriarchal Theory of the origin of State

According to Patriarchal Theory, in the origin and development of State, the eldest male descendant of the family had an important role to play.
The Patriarchal theory finds its support from Sir Henry Maine (1822-1888).
In his book ‘The Spirit of Laws’ (1861), Maine explained that-

the state developed out of the family as legitimate legal system developed out of the unrestrained autocracy of the family head (patria potestas).
Under patria potestas, the eldest male parent of the family had the final and unqualified authority over the family and the household. He expanded the family ties by polygamy and thus created the bondage among the individuals on the basis of kinship to form a state.
The congregation of families formed villages, and extension of villages formed tribes or a clan, ultimately to form State.

Read more: What is state

Matriarchal Theory of the origin of State

Matriarchal Theory finds support from political thinkers like McLennan (1827-1881), and Edward Jenks (1861-1939).
According to them, patriarchal families were non-existent in the primitive ages.
Polyandry (where a woman had many husbands) was the highest authority of the household. McLennan described mater familias (mother as the head of family) as the martia potestas (mother as the final authority) in matters of possession and disposal of property of the family.

Edward Jenks illustrates this process from his studies of primitive tribes in Australia.-

The Australian tribes were organized in some sort of tribes known as totem group.
The totem groups were not organized on the basis of blood relationship but they were united by a common symbol like a tree or an animal.
Men of one totem group would marry all the women of their generation belonging to another totem group.
Thus, the system of marriage included polygamy as also polyandry. Kinship and paternity in such cases could not be determined but maternity was a fact.

Edward Jenks points out that with the passage of time and beginning of pastoral stage in human civilization, the matriarchal society evolved into the patriarchal one.

Criticism of Patriarchal and matriarchal theories of state

It have been criticized on the ground that the authority of a state as a political institution over its individuals is not by nature but by the choice of individuals.
The purpose of forming a state also differs to a great extent from that of a family.
The authority to run a state is conferred on the ruler not because of his seniority, but on account of his status and competence.
The Minangkabau is the largest matriarchal society in the world. They are the indigenous tribe of the Sumatra region of Indonesia which is made up of 4.2 million members. Ownership of land, as well as the family name, is passed from mother to daughter whereas men are involved in political matters.

Divine Theory of the origin of State

According to the Divine Theory, state is established and governed by God or some super human power or the King as his agent and the religious scriptures.
As God created the animals, plants, trees, rivers, hills and other inanimate objects, the God also created the state for a particular end in view, that is, peace, protection and preservation of creatures on this earth.
This theory found support from political thinkers such as James I (1566-1625) and Sir Robert Filmer (1588-1653).
This theory implies individuals to obey and support some definite ruler with a high moral status equivalent to God.
This theory adds moral character to state functions. Laws backed by religious sanctions appealed more to the primitive man to live under the authority of the king.

Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and many other faiths of this world hold a similar view, that the origin of political authority had divine sanction.

Hinduism considered King Rama and King Krishna as divine incarnations on this world.
The Islamic states also seek to uphold the reign of God (Allah) on earth.
Christianity also traced the origin of political theory to the will of God.

Social Contract Theory of the origin of State

The Social Contract Theory traces the existence of the State to the mutual agreement and mutual consent of the people, to form a State.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, both from England, and Jeans Jacques Rousseau from France, are the three political philosophers who propounded this theory.
They assumed that, to escape from the pre-political condition of society, individuals entered into a social contract.
These theories served as the basis for modern democracy.
This theory established the obedience to political authority and that ultimate political authority rested with the consent of the people. The pre-political condition of mankind was described as the state of nature.

Social Contract Theory of Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679):

He is an English political philosopher, in his literary work Leviathan explains the origin of the state.
He explains that prior to the emergence of a civil state, human beings were in the state of nature.

State of nature/Pre-social phase

Hobbes began his thesis with the concept of a state of nature, which he characterised as the pre-social phase of human nature.
Their lives were under constant struggle with nature.
The state of nature was a condition of unmitigated selfishness and capacity. It was a condition of perpetual war ‘where every man was enemy to every other man’. The life of a human being was ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’.

Reason for social contract:

To evade the state of nature, and for securing their natural rights of life, liberty and property as civil rights, individuals entered into a social contract to establish a state.
The people authorized their right of governing themselves to the sovereign, which came into being as a result of the contract.
The person or assembly of persons to whom the rights were surrendered became the sovereign and the individuals who agreed to submit to the authority become subjects.

Social contract

Sovereign,The ruler was not a party to the contract, and was not bound by any terms of social contract and free to rule as per his whims.
The commands of the sovereign were laws for the governed and the sovereign was not accountable to people.
People gave their ruler unquestioned obedience.

In the words of R.G Gettle, Hobbes created the all powerful sovereign on account of his belief that without such sovereign power, law, order, peace and security could not be maintained in society.

Criticism of Social Contract Theory of Thomas Hobbes

Hobbes deprived the people of their right to revolt against the sovereign.
Hobbes allowed individuals to disobey the commands only when the sovereign deprived them of their right to self-preservation or the ruler got conquered and submitted authority to a new emperor.
According to Hobbes, a change in the government meant the dissolution of the State. Thus, he did not maintain the difference between state and government as a political institution.

Social Contract Theory of John Locke

John Locke (1632-1704)

In his book ‘Two Treatises of Government’ explained that the state of nature was not a state of war, but a state of peace, natural rights, preservation, goodwill and mutual assistance.

State of nature/Pre-political phase

Locke’s state of nature was pre-political.
The people were social and had rights and liberties.
The state of nature ensured three rights to individuals relating to life, liberty and property.

Reason for social contract:

The state of nature was one of inconvenience.

Life was inconvenient because each individual had to interpret the law of nature for himself and had also to enforce it without the help of any other authority.
The state of nature did not have the machinery to enforce the natural rights of individuals. To preserve such state of affairs two contracts were made:

social and
Governmental.

Social contract

Social contract led to the formation of civil society and governmental contract to the establishment of government.
Social contract was among the individuals to surrender their natural rights in exchange of civil rights.

Governmental contract

Governmental contract was between the individuals and the ruler, to establish a system of law and justice in the form of a State.
The ruler was the party to the contract and was bound by its terms. Unlike Hobbes, Locke traces the source of government’s authority to the consent of the community.

Importance Social Contract Theory of John Locke:

Locke introduced the concept of limited government, in terms of the rulers, their powers, functions and tenure.
He believed in limited monarchy.
The King was the trustee of the people.
If the ruler abused his powers and breached the popular trust, he may be changed by revolt by the people.

Social Contract Theory of Rousseau

Jean Jaques Rousseau (1712-1778):

According to Rousseau ‘the general will of the people’ led to the creation of the institution called the State.

State of nature

Rousseau in his literary work, ‘The Social Contract’ described the state of nature as a state of bliss and happiness.

Reason for social contract:

With the passage of time, increase in population and disparity of wealth and power, life became intolerable.
Simplicity and happiness disappeared.
Human beings then started to build their relations on cooperation and dependency. They entered into a ‘social contract’ to preserve their natural rights without submitting or subordinating to any ruler or authority.

Social contract

Individuals surrendered their rights to the general will of which individuals themselves were part, and hence they shared rights even after transferring them.
Individuals were governed by a new authority in the name of general will (common good) of the people, in the form of direct democracy.
Rousseau regarded general will of the people as sovereign.
The common good depends on the prevailing circumstances of a society.
According to Rousseau, the government is merely the tool to execute the popular will. Thus, popular sovereignty is in continuous exercise and there is no scope of revolt in his theory.

Criticism of Social Contract Theory of Rousseau

This theory is criticized on certain common counts:

First, the individuals who were naive to the concept of political authority and civil rights could not, from any particular point of time, enter into an agreement and start living a collectivized civil life.
Second, if the existence of state is based on agreement of the members of a society, then the old agreement may be revoked for new in accordance with the self-interests of the members. Thus, a mechanically originated state will run under the constant fear of destabilization.