THEORIES OF ORIGIN OF STATE(BA LLB political science NOTES)
Q. 1. Discuss the Evolutionary theory of the origin of the state. (BA LLB notes)
Ans. The origin of the state is shrouded in mystery. It is not possible to point out to any particular period of history when the state may be said to have come into existence: The political thinkers have tried to find out an explanation of the origin of the state and have offered several theories but none of them is a valid explanation. These various theories are mere speculations in the remote past and do not offer any convincing or scientific arguments to support their thesis. Some thinkers hold that the state was created by God; while others hold it to be the result of superior others regard it to be the product of human contrivance, while others regard it a mere expansion of the family. But none of these theories is held valid. In fact, the state is the result of a gradual process running throughout the centuries. The state, as Burgess puts it, is a continuous development of human society out of a family imperfect beginning though crude but improving forms of manifestation towards a perfect and universal organization of mankind.” In this process of growth, several factors have played their part. These factors are-(i) Kinship, (ü) Region, (iii) War, (iv) Political Consciousness.
· Kinship – This is the earliest bond of unity. What bound the early people together was a belief in common descent. As MacIver puts it, “Kinship creates society and society at length creates the state.” Belief in common descent, the dominance of a patriarch, respect for the rights and obligations among people of the same blood – all strengthened the bonds of unity and contributed to the form of early political organization. Though there is some controversy whether the primitive family was patriarchal or matriarchal and whether family or tribe was the earliest unit, yet it may be safely assumed that blood relationship remained the fundamental bond of union everywhere, and in training the primitive men to obedience and discipline the two main pillars of the state.
Religion – Next to kinship, religion has played the part in the growth of that consciousness which led to the emergence of the state. According to Cattell, “Kinship and religion were two aspects of the same theory”. Religion in the earliest and most difficult periods of political development reinforced the sense of unity and respect for authority. It covered every act of human life. Every idea, every custom and every habit of primitive man was governed by religion. Religion
subordinated barbaric anarchy and taught reverence and obedience to the primitive people. Even today religion continues to play an important part in determining the nature of the state. The worship of Jehovah united the tribes of Israel. The Greek and Roman city-states grew up around the citadel on which stood the temple of the gods or goddesses. In Afghanistan religion has much to do with politics. Pakistan is the creation of religion. In England also the legacy of religion may be found in the coronation ceremonies. Thus, not only in primitive society but even in modern society it continues to exercise a powerful influence on the growth of political institutions. The influence of the priestly class in government and politics has been powerful throughout all history. Long after kinship has caused to bird the people together because of their expansion in their members, religion was a sufficient force to unite people dynasties and to create states.
War – War or force also has played an important part in the origin and development of the state. With the weaker of the tie of kinship application of force was necessary for the maintenance of peace and order. For the purpose of defense or aggression, the members of the group had to work converted under the authority of a recognized leader. A coercive force exercised by a powerful person developed into political sovereignty. In its beginning political organization was simple and it controlled only every few acts of the individuals but once political authority was established, it furnished the beginning for which the modern state could develop by extending its control over wider range of human activities. In the opinion of the German thinkers like Nietzsche and Trietchke, the motive that supplies the impulse to the forming of the state is love for power and passion for sell assertion. As one writer puts it, “Struggle and warfare are, therefore, historically most important elements in state formation.
Political Consciousness – By political consciousness is meant the recognition of certain ends to be attained through political organization. As soon as man emerged from primitive conditions, he felt a number of needs. The need for order and protection for person and property and the need for social, moral and intellectual improvement led man to recognize the need for the creation of some agency to control the manifold relations of the individuals. The growth of population and increase in wealth made this need felt still more. The state at first came into
existence merely as an Idea. Later on, it became a physical fact as the end of the political organization became evident. Gilchrist writes, “At the
beginning political consciousness is really political unconsciousness, but just as the forces of nature operated long before the discovery of the law of gravitation, political organization really rested on the community of minds unconscious, dimly conscious or fully conscious of certain moral ends present throughout the whole course of development.” When political consciousness became mature, the state became complex in structure. Its functions increased and its area widened. Custom formerly enforced by religion grew into law enacted and enforced by a governmental authority. The instructive desire was replaced by conscious purpose. As Gettell puts it, “The primitive forces of kinship, religion, need for food and defense became the tool, as it were, of active minds willing something coherent and organized and usually improving their wills on individuals in the group and on other groups.” ..
Economic Factor – In order to live, man must eat and to eat man must carry on some activity. The activities by which men secured food. and shelter and subsequently come to across wealth and poses property, contributed greatly to the evolution of the state. Among primitive peoples three economic stages prevailed – huntsman stage, the herdsman stage, and the husbandmen stage. Every one of the forms of economic life demanded a certain amount of cooperation among the people. Where the ‘third stage (is husbandman’s) reached land became the chief form of wealth, Social distinctions based on wealth increased. Hence there arose the need for laws to protect property and settle disputes cropping up due to property. According to Marx and Engels, it is the institution of private property which states class, society and leads to the emergence of the perpetuate the domination of the properties classes. MacIver also opines, that the interaction of the forces of sex and properly is highly significant in building the social structure.”
Q. 2. In spite of the fact not a theory of the origin of state, why do accepting the social contract we study it? Explain state the Marxist theory of the state.
Social Contract Theory
Explanation of the Theory. According to this theory, the state has come into existence as a result of a contract. Before this contract, the man was in a state of nature. He made a contract’ willingly compelled by his needs and the state came into existence, The exponents of this theory divide this period into two parts. (1) The state of nature of man. (2) The State posterior to contract. The exponents differ regarding the estate of nature. According to one, the man was very miserable in the state
of nature. There was always a state of war. According to others, the man was happy and prosperous in the state of nature; but all agree that there was happy and prosperous in the state of nature, but all agree that there was no administrative structure in the state of nature. There were no man-made laws: only a few natural laws were followed. Hence man passed a life in accordance with his own will. All the scholars of social contract theory on this point: that the state of nature was whether miserable or full of happiness, people wanted to get rid of it. Due to a natural contract, all accepted restrictions on is liberty and then their rights were partially lost. They were protected according to the laws of the newly formed state. They accepted to abide by the laws of the state, and this was a part of the contract; in this men acquired state made laws instead of their own in the state of nature. There is much difference of opinion among the scholars as to what were the conditions of the contract and who were the parties to it.
Development of the Theory. In India too this theory finds support. In Shanti Parva of Mahabharat, it has been explained in detail. According to its, there was anarchy on all sides in the absence of the state. The strong had begun to oppress the weak. Under the circuṁstances, all collected together and went to Brahma. They explained their difficulties and insisted on the appointment of a king. Brahma appointed Manu. as the king. According to the contract, people accepted to part with a portion of their wealth and hand it over to Manu and besides his, promised him to provide many facilities. Accordingly, the highest honors were showered on Maharaja Manú. According to this contract, it was settled that Manu will punish wrongdoers and oppressors and will protect people from enemies. In Kautilya’s Arth Shastra too there is a reference to this theory.
In western literature, we find a clear form of the theory. Plato and Aristotle have not supported this theory. Though in the beginning, the church held that the state was the result of man’s sins, but subsequently, it also admitted that the king’ as a result of the mutual contract. Manegold said in the 11th century, that is the king did not behave in accordance with the contract, he can be dethroned. Thomas Aquinas also supported this theory in the 13th century. In the 16th and 17th Centuries, many philosophers supported this theory. Richard Hooker and Grotius are also advocates of this theory. But the strongest exponents of this theory were Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau following are given the ideas of these three exponents-in details :
(A) Social Contract Theory of Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes. (1508-1679) He as an English philosopher and had been the tutor of Charles II, In those days, there was a conflict between the king and the subjects. Hobbes was a strong advocate of the power of the king. He believed that in England only a powerful monarchy could establish peace and order. He advocated for absolute Monarchy in his
book ‘Leviathan’. ‘
(1) Human Nature. Hobbes did not regard man a social being. The man was unsocial selfish, corrupt, and self-centered. The joy and grief incite him. He does what he likes. The things that grieve him, he hates. As the man by nature, selfish or corrupt he works closely, to acquire his object. The becomes enemy in this struggle and does not hesitate from shedding blood. Hobbes believes that the ego, the fear, and best for fame are the responses to ignite the struggle.
(2) The state of Nature. Hobbes has described the state of nature in the first part of his book according to which man was then unsocial, selfish and treacherous. He did not feel joy in living together. Man executed his functions having selfishness and fear in view. Whatever he did, he did 10 serve his selfish end ends and whatever he refrained from was due to fear, A man of such nature passed a life with no restrictions in the state of nature. Naturally, there was always a state of quarrel and warfare among the people. Men quarreled among themselves to obtain articles of their needs. Hobbes says, “The life of man in the state of nature was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” The spirit of passing a peaceful life gave birth to a social contract.
Characteristics of State of Nature. Following are the
characteristics of the views expressed by Hobbes on the State of Nature : (a) This was the age prior to the State when man was uncivilized, (b) There was no peace, (c) There was no justice, “might is right” was the rule, (d) Constant struggle among men was the order of the day, (e) Fear of violent death was imminent. (1) There was no property.
(3) Social Contract. Man created a powerful organization by means of a contract amongst themselves. All handed over their powers to one individual or group of individuals and accepted to obey his orders. Each individual says to another thus, “I authorize and give up my right to governing myself to this man or to this assembly of men on this conditions that those gives the right to him and authorize all his actions in like manner.” (Hobbes) According to this contract a state was born in which people had no right to oppose even a bad ruler.
Treason or opposition of the state carried capital punishment because such an individual does not abide by the contract.
Characteristics of Social Contract: Following were the characteristics of contract advocated by Hobbes :
(1) The contract was one-sided: According to Hobbes the contact was made amongst the people themselves; the king was not a party to it. Hence the power of the king was not limited and be bound by the contract people could not oppose the king.
(2) The ruler is not responsible to anybody: The laws will be made with the will of the ruler, hence this law will not be applicable to the ruler. He will not be responsible for any physical power.
(3) No right to speech: In this Leviathan Hobbes does not give freedom of speech to people. The ruler can impose restrictions on religious freedom also.
(4) The ruler can impose property tax: The king can declare war or can make peace. He has also the right to impose property tax; because he is the source of property.
(5) Sovereignty is indivisible: According to Hobbes sovereignty is indivisible. Even the king has no right to alienate or transfer it. Criticism
(1) Contemporary opinion: In Hobbes’s times this theory did not find support. The public as well as the Royalists both disliked it. The displeasure of the public was natural because Hobbes’s theory was a commandment to the public to pass the life of a slave. He advised the people to perform duties and deprived them of rights. The Royalists too could not support Hobbes’s theory because till then the origin of the state was regarded as divine and Hobbes, for the first time impressively established that the state is man-made, hence Hobbes’s theory was opposed. The supporters of the monarchy were not ready to accept a tyrannous and worthless king. But Hobbes did not believe in the opposition of the king. Clarendon had for this reason ordered all the copies of the bus book to be destroyed. “I never read any book which contains so much sedition, treason, and impiety.” (Clarendon).
(2) is not based on reason: Hobbes’s arguments are not even rational because :
(a) Hobbes says that man was selfish and quarrelsome in the state of nature and in future those very selfish and quarrelsome people
formed the state judiciously. In fact, such a contract is possible only in a very civilized and peaceful society.
(b) in the state of nature, there always was a state of war and man was unsocial. This fact is not admissible in the present age. Today it is recognized by all that man has always been a social animal. Even in animals herd instinct is present.
(c) The fact that men who were quarrelsome in the state of nature became obedient all of a sudden with the formation of the state ; is also inadmissible.
(d) Hobbes says that people should abide by the contract under all circumstances. This fact also is not rational; because man does everything for the purpose of serving his ends and rejects everything at the clash of self-interest.
In this way, Hobbes’s arguments are not based on reasons.
(3) It is not complete from a practical point of view. Hobbes’s view is not complete from practical point of view, (a) In the modern age, the aim of the state is the fulfillment of many duties to the people but the state of Hobbes is confined only to police action; there is no aim of ethical and material advancement of the people. (b) Hobbes did not make any distinction between the state and government and makes use
of the one for the other, ; (B) Social Contract Theory of John Locke
John Locke (1632-1704) was also an English philosopher. He supported the success of the Glorious Revolution. According to him dethronement of James II and the accession of William and Mary to the throne was justifiable. He opined that in any state decision of the people should be above everything. He said that state was a manmade association; its basis is not divine for natural but is the assent of the people and sovereignty is also inherent in the people. In fact, Locke supports constitutional Monarchy.
(1) Human Nature. Locke does not agree with Hobbes with regard to human nature. His man is cooperative, tolerant gracious, and peaceful. He embodies love, mercy, sympathy, unity, and sincerity, and has human and spiritual qualities. He believes in equality because he . sees it in nature.
Locke admits that all human activity is directed towards the achievement the joy or grief, what gives him joy is good and that which grieves him is bad for him. Man is peaceful as against quarrelsome (Hobbes) and works for moral and natural goals.
(2) The state of Nature. Like Hobbes, Locke also describes the state of nature which is totally different from
that of Hobbes. Hobbes mentions
the absence of political or social spirit in the state of nature but Locke
admits that in spite of absence of political consciousness man was full of social spirit. He felt happy in passing a corporate life. He was not selfish and quarrelsome. According to Locke men’s needs then were very few which were easily satisfied by him. At that time there was some natural law also which regulated his life. He enjoyed rights of life, liberty, and the property also. All men were equal and acted on the principles, “Do unto others as you wish to be done by”. For this reason, the man was happy in the state of nature.
According to Locke, this happy state of affairs did not last long. Gradually many inconveniences crept in. The first inconvenience was that there is no definite definition of law, everybody twisted the facts in his own favor. Secondly, in the absence of judges, everybody decided cases himself according to his whim. To get rid of these inconveniences people made a contract.
(3) Social Contract. People mutually made a contract to end the state of nature, and as a result of this contract society came into existence. People did not surrender to the society all their rights, but only those of protection of life, liberty, and property and punishing the accused. Locke makes a mention of another contract also which was made between people and rulers; this contract led to the establishment of government.
Characteristics of the Contract. Three things become clear from Locke’s contract theory :
(1) The contract was made between the parties: Unlike Hobbes contract, this contract was made between two parties. It imposes some conditions on the ruler. If the ruler does not rule justly, the public can remove him.
(2) The ruler does not possess unlimited powers: According to the contract, the ruler possesses only limited powers i.e., only the rights of protection of life, liberty and property and punishing the accused are surrendered by the people. The government cannot do anything without the consent of the people; hence rulers are not given unlimited powers.
(3) Locke is the first to distinguish between the state and the Government because he has advocated for the fulfillment of two contracts. This is his great contribution.
Criticism. Locke’s theory can also be criticized on many grounds.
(1) Locke states the man of the state of nature as the most civilized
and social. He possessed properly, he was bound by natural law,
respected one another and passed a just life. Under the circumstances, it cannot be believed how he passed such organized life in the absence of government.
(2) Today it is universally admitted that rights can be acquired only in the state. The state not only gives rights but also arranges for its fulfillment. People could not possess rights of life, liberty, and property in Locke’s state of nature.
(3) According to Locke, the state is an assembly of people who cannot have any moral him. Its function is confined only to a watchman. (C) Social Contract Theory of Rousseau
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a French philosopher. In harmony with the absolute monarchy of Hobbes and constitutional monarchy of Locke, he has stressed individual liberty. He wanted to annihilate the social and political complexities of his times. His ideas created a revolution in Europe, especially in France. This is why Rousseau is called the fore-runner of the French revolution. His book Social Contract was published in 1762 in which he advocated theories of direct democracy and equality and completely denounced the social privileges. He opined, “The farmers, laborers and other people of the middle class should have equal rights.”
(1). Human Nature. Rousseau’s man (like that of Hobbes) was neither selfish, proud, cruel, vain, corrupt, aggressive and struggling nor (like that of Locke) peaceful, just, tolerant and loving but wild. He could not discriminate between good and bad; moral and immoral. In the natural state, he was not proud, vain, corrupt or harmful and lived a life of freedom, contentment. He lacked quick decision, speech, and justice and was given to self-love and self-preservation. His behavior reflected them. Civilization created evil tendencies in him.
(2) The state of Nature. Rousseau also begins his study with the state of nature of men. He regards the man of the state of nature better than of the social and political state. Before the state, his man was also unsocial. He possessed no cunningness, artfulness, jealousy, hatred, and fear. He moved freely and his needs were very few which were fulfilled without much difficulty. There was an abundance of everything in the state of nature and therefore there were no quarrels and all passed their lives in love and affection. This is why Rousseau advises men to return again to the State of nature. This amicable happy life did not last long. Increase in population, and the prosperity of industries led to mutual conflicts. Some possessed more and some less land; the equality
of the society came to an end. Rousseau says, “The first man who, after enclosing a piece of ground, bethought himself to say, this is mine and sound people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society, (Rousseau), He thinks that the spirit of selfishness led man to establish a civil society.”
(3) Social Contract. As the wants of men increased, conflicts among them also began to multiply and their happy life came to an end, Sin and corruption reigned supreme. Hence to get rid of this state and to get again the pleasure like that of the state of nature, men mutually made a contract. Rousseau says, “Man is born free but everywhere he is in the chain. One who believes himself to be the master of the rest is only more of a slave than they. How does that change come about? I do not know. What can render it legitimate? That question, I think, I can answer.” (Rousseau). In this way, Rousseau determines the relations between society and the government. In fact, harmonizing political society and liberty which are contradictory to each other in his social contract.
To solve the above mentioned knotty problems, Rousseau says, “Each of us puts into a single nian his person and all his power under the subphrenic direction of the general will, and we receive as a body each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” (Rousseau). In this way, man sacrificed all his powers for the society and they were surrendered to the general will and each person became a part of the society. This constituted the state which was based on general will because in this general will evolves the sovereignty of the state. Suppose A, B and C surrender all their rights to the group of A, B, C; all gained by it and none lost anything; because such surrendered those rights which were surrendered by others. In this way, in return for our rights surrendered to the people society, we got in exchange again some of the rights surrendered by other people. By this, whereas on the one hand a collective power was created, on the other all got equal rights. Characteristics of Rousseau’s Social Contract
(1) Acquisition of happiness in Natural State: Man was happy in a natural state. With the rise of population and introduction of scientific inventions, competitions increased. Tendencies of selfishness and Inhumanity surfaced. This deprived him of natural joy. His life became competitive and miserable. He wished to return to the natural state,
soon he found it impossible, then he strived to retrieve natural joy through social contracts.
(ii) Contract with the entire society: Rousseau’s individual enters into a contracts with the organized group of men. A, B, C, and D separately as individuals, enter into the contract with the collective group comprising of A, B, C, and D. The individuals part with some of their natural rights not to a man or a group but to the entire people society.
(iii) The individual retrieved his rights: In Rousseau’s Social Contract Theory on individual loses nothing. The rights he surrendered to the society, retrieved them as its member.
(iv). The contract established a Sovereign State: The members, of the society surrendered their rights, of their own will, to the society. Every man is, therefore, an indivisible part of the sovereign society. The sovereignty of the state rest in the general will of the people.
What is meant by General will.
The principle of general will in the theory of Rousseau is important and interesting. This is his great contribution to political philosophy. It is original and serves as the basis of his views. He sometimes refers to it as the will of all the individuals and sometimes the will of the majority, He asks the individual to obey the state. It appears that he makes his individual lose his rights. The general will of the state becomes oppressive and on the other hand when he employs general will for the welfare of the people, then he strengthens the concept of democracy.
Rousseau defines general will is the ‘will of the people and applicable to all general will is the will. Which must come from all and apply to all and what makes it general is less the member of voters than the common interest uniting them – Rousseau. Explaining the general will Bosauquet says that. The general will is the will of the whole society as such or the will of all’ individuals in so far as they aim at the common end (of all) – Bosauquet.
‘Common consciousness of the common end’ – Green Rousseau explains general will in context with the group and says that if the members fail to care for the general good of the group then the group can not achieve its objectives. Such general-good reflects the general will – General good is the basis of general will. He does not feel the will of all of the will of the majority, or will of minority, necessary for the general will. If all of them reflect selfishness has they can express the general will. General will have no relation with general harm: It is not the number that is important. It is the general good that should be reckoned.
Rousseau finds the actual will and real will in an individual. He says actual will is false, selfish, narrow, irrational, unstable, and unethical. Real will is rational and aims at the general good of the people. It is self-less and aims at the welfare of the people. Ideal will synthesizes the general good of the people. “An organization or synthesis of the real will of the individuals comprising society-Ashirvatham.”.
Highlighting another aspect of the general will, Rousseau says that, is an individual overlooking the ideal will insists upon actual will because of his vested interest should be compelled by the society to fall in life and think independently.
“Whenever refused to obey the general will be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means, nothing less than that he will be forced to be free — Rousseau.”
Main features of the general will. In the light of the discussion following are the four main features of general will –
(1) General will reflect the general good of society.
(2) The number is of little importance in determining the general will. It may by majority or minority but the will that goes along with the good or welfare of the people is a general will.
(3) General will embody the ideal and real wishes of all the individuals.
(4) if an individual works for his narrow selfish ends, the society would force him to do the general good. Criticism of Social Contract Theory
After the death of Rousseau, this theory lost its importance in the 17th Century. In the 18th Century, it was bitterly criticized. This criticism can be classified under three heads :
(a) No mention in History. There is no mention as to when, where and how this contract was made. If there was any such contract, we must have not got some reference to it in history. Therefore, this theory is not historical.
(b) The formation of the state through war and conquest. In fact, many states were formed through war and conquest, and not on the basis of the contract.
(c) The description of the state of nature is merely an imagination. On the basis of much research, it has been admitted without opposition that man never lived so happily in the state of nature as he has been
described in the social contract theory. Man has always been a social creature and the description of the state of nature is purely a fantasy
(d) The concept of the establishment of the state is misleading. If we admit that man ever lived in a state of nature; the man having no experience formed the state by means of the contract is pure imagination
(a) A weak basis for the formation of the state. The formation of a thing based on contract is always weak, but the contract is made by assent and the lack of it can lead to its dissolution. Under the circumstances, the state will be disintegrated. Therefore, Bluntschli, says that the basis of the social contract is a very weak base for the formation of a state.
(b) Acquisition of rights in the state of nature. Right, exist or.ly in society. The question of rights apart from society does not arise. According to T.H. Green “, the real flaw in the theory of contract is not that it is unhistorical but that it implies the possibility of right and obligations independently of society’.
(c) Obedience to orders is not possible on the basis of assent. It has also been said against social contract theory that on the one hand, it accents assents as the basis of state and on the other, it stresses obedience to the orders of the state. In fact, obedience of orders is not essential on the basis of assent. We do not obey an order because all agree to it.
(a) The theory is defective from a legal point of view. The basis of the social contract is its assent. There is no political power which can compulsorily enforce obedience; because the state was established by contract, hence it is defective from a legal point of view too.
(b) The future generation is not bound by the contract. Some scholars say that only those people who made the contract are bound by it. The posterity cannot be compelled to accept it.
(c) The contract among individuals does not create public rights. One more objection is that the contract between individuals can bear only individual rights, and not public rights.
Q. 3. Discuss the Evolutionary or Historical theory of the origin of the state.
Ans. The Evolutionary Theory
In the modern age the theory which is accepted almost
unanimously by all scholars is the Evolutionary or Historical theory. According to this the state has evolved with the social evolution of man and has been the state in all states. However much unevolved might have been its form. According to Burgess, “It is the gradual realization of the universal principle of human nature.” It this way the state has a gradual evolution. The form of the state might have been awkward and incomplete in the beginning, but gradually along with the purification of social organizations, the form of state too became lucid and led to the evolution of the modern state. According to Leacock, “State is the result of gradual process running throughout all the known history of man and leading into the remote and unknown past.” Garnier rightly remarks, “The state is neither the handiwork of God, nor the result of superior physical force, nor the creation of revolution of convention nor a more expansion of the family. The state is not merely an artificial creation but an institution of natural growth of historical evolution.”
The above statement proves that the state was evolved from that form of human society in which man would be living in a savage state, killing animals and eating their sesh. At that time society would be in an anarchic state and man might be living in groups. There might be a chics of the groups, obedience to whose orders would be compulsory. Gradually cattle were regard and their milk, skin, etc. began to be consumed. Now property came into being. The tribe possessing more cattle might have been considered wealthier. The invention of agriculture made stable life possible and the form of the society was further improved. In fact, society made rapid progress from this state. Industrial state ushered in the modern complex state. On the basis of the explanation, we can say that the state underwent a gradual evolution.
Factors helping the evolution of state
Contribution of several elements is present in the evolution of state. At some age one element and at the other, some other element has made it, contribution. Sometimes the form of state was evolved as a result of several elements combined, together. We described all these in detail in the following:
(1) Social Instinct. According to Aristotle man is a social creature 1.e., he has an inborn instinct to pass a corporate life. He cannot live in society. The evolved form of this social instinct of man is a state.
(2) Kinship. Kinship is the earlier bond of man’s social unity. nen a man passed his life patriarchal families, he lived together due
blood relationship. He learned the equality of obedience from the family. This is very equality is the basis of a political association, i.e., the state. It is essential to obey the head of the family. This very essentiality is applicable to the obedience of orders of the state. Though many scholars agree to this fact that the state is an evolved form of the family; but they differ in the process of this evolution. When the number of families increased, they constituted clans and tribes. The orders of the Patriarch of the chief of the tribe were willingly obeyed by the people of that family or tribe. This tribe gradually was transformed into a state and the orders of the chief into the obedience of rulers orders. Kingship has played a very important part of building a man in unity. Maclver says “Kinship creates society and society at length creates the state.”
In this way, kinship contributed to the creation of the state in very old times because if created unity in society.
(3) Religion. Religion came into strengthening the bonds of unity created by kinship. The formation of society began on the basis of kinship and religion. History is evidence that there was no specific form of religion in that age. This spirit began with the worship of ancestors and gradually evils spirits and ghosts were included in it. In fact, he began to worship all forces which were beyond his comprehension and from the bad effects of which he wanted riddance. These included many forces of nature like thunder, lightning, wind, and water, etc. Rules and methods of worship of these forces were determined. Religious, teachers and Mahants assumed importance who performed sites. The man of that age attached great importance to religion. In this way, religion led to the gradual formation of the state. The close relationship between religion and politics is influencing many societies even today. In modern days, there are many states with which own a definite religion.
(4) War. War greatly contributed to the formation of the state. Man has always been a lover of peace and follows people who protect him. It became essential to obey the powerful for defense in war. The impress of his leadership proved permanently helpful in exacting obedience. Conquests established the supremacy of warriors and they captured a definite territory and ruled over it. In this way, along with the people of kinship, people of other tribes were also forced to obey the conqueror. “War begot the king.” On the basis of this saying, Galetan has said that this saying is at least semi-true; because from family life, the political form can be created only on the basis of military force.
(5) Economic needs. With the evolution of man’s social life, his economic needs also to increase. Due to the multiplicity of wants people’s
economic interests clashed and quarrels and conflicts increased. From primitive age, such cases had been settled on the basis of customs but in the evolved society necessity was felt for definite laws to settle these disputes and for some association who could exact obedience to these laws and this led to the evolution of the state.
In civilized society man’s want multiplied to such an extent that he also wanted the help of some powerful association for their fulfillment: The state fulfilled this need. In modern days, according to many theories, the basis of the state is economic and political.,
(6) Political consciousness. Aristotle calls a man a political being, but a primitive age man was especially influenced by kinship and religion. Political consciousness was not created. The man accepted a thing because it was said by the head of his family or was in accordance with the tenets of the religion. It is rational or not, was in the material. In modern days, man has become politically conscious and he understands the necessity of the state. The state is most essential for self-protection, the fulfilment of needs, the establishment of law-and-order, and on this basis man can evolve himself. Today he does not obey the orders of the state due to emotions. Men have framed states according to their notions; somewhere we find democracy and monarchy elsewhere. In this way, political awakening has established the extremely-evolved form of state.