3.

1 Definitions of the State

There is no clear definition of the state. However, some
radical writers like Marx and Engels argued that the state is
essentially an expression of class relationships generated by
the particular mode of production and unambiguously
involved in the class struggle on the side of the dominant
economic class. Thus, Marx and Engels (1976, P.486) wrote
that in capitalist society, The executive of the modern state
is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the
whole bourgeoisie.
Some regard the state as one organization that transcends
class and stands for the whole community. Other definitions
have emphasized the political authority, the monopoly of
force through government and political allegiance of citizens
to the state. Some have regarded the state as moral and good
society where justice and the promotion of the general
welfare of the people are established. Broadly speaking, the
state is the political form of society. What we call the state is
a community of men organized for preserving and creating
order and general well-being of its members.
3.1.1 Theories of the State Origins of the State
The most obvious characteristic of early statehood are
monarchy supported by royal bureaucracy. The king becomes
a national figure that replaced the family and tribal head,
while the Kings councilors take the place of tribal elders. The
origin of the state thus is marked by the introduction of
centralized authority, formalized hierarchy, specialization of
task in the performance of public duty, and writers (instead
of oral) communication. Although there are many theories of
the state, we are going to discuss four major ones in this
section.
3.1.2 The divine rights of kings
Prior to the organization of the state, tribal authority was
based on traditions and conventions. However, with
emergence of a kingship system, there was a need for
creating legitimating principles to make a ruler (King)
acceptable to rule the subjects. To achieve this legitimacy
politics was united with religion and the King as then
presented to the people as choosing by the Divine Will. Thus,
the idea that the ruler (King) was Gods appointed agent on
earth legitimized the Kings power and made it both
unquestionable and unassailable. Thus, to challenge the king
was to challenge the Divine Will (Gods authority). Because of
this, later Kings/Queens could claim descent from the first
King divinely appointed.
The Divine Right of Kings idea is the longest living doctrine in
politics.
The theory helped the early kings to usurp tribal autonomy
and allowed many tyrants to disguise their actions as an
expression of Gods will.
By contrast, the Divine Right theory helped to stabilize the
political process and prevented violence and revolutionary
activities by making the king and his orders divine.
Finally, the doctrine of divine right of kings aided the rulers
to impart to their subjects a sense of group cohesion and
collective purpose that formed the bedrock of most of
modern day European states.
The theory of Divine Right of kings is a powerful doctrine as
this has been demonstrated by its endurance to date. For
example, until 1917 the
Divine Rights of kings operated in Russia by the Romanov
Dynasty.
And as at 1974, Emperor Haile Salasie was still claiming the
Divine Rights to rule over the people of Ethiopia.
3.1.3 The Force theory Might makes right
The doctrine of might makes right is a simpler doctrine for
legitimizing state power or power between individual or
groups. This is an appeal to force or the battlefield where the
fittest survive. What this theory amount to is that ruler who
know how to get power and how to keep it are the effective
and legitimate rulers. Thus, whoever has the power to rule
either by the use of force or fraud, can also legitimately claim
to have the authority to rule.
Theorists who support the force theory are concerned with
ensuring political stability. According to Thomas Hobbes, all
the good things of life, material and spiritual, depend first and
foremost on the security of life itself. For Hobbes, if there is
no power to enforce the will of the sovereign, then there is
no government, no state, no security.
Hobbes and Machiavelli argued that any form of government
could rightly claim legitimate authority, as long as it had the
power to enforce its will. Both thinkers preferred monarchy
because they believed that a strong monarchy was the
strongest government of all and so the most entirely to
ensure stability. What this means is that if a government lose
power it loses the legitimacy for claiming power. And that
power legitimizes itself.
Finally, the force theory opens the way for an
undistinguished play for power between states competing for
position on the stage ofinternational politics. Those states
that conquer others can rightfully claim authority over their
territorial conquests precisely because they are the
conquerors and not the conquered. And those revolutionary
movements and military coups that succeed can legitimately
claim all the rights and privileges formerly enjoyed by the old
political order.
In fact, this is the primary criterion at work in the granting of
diplomatic recognition to new governments, whether they
are established by conquest from within or without. Does the
new government in fact govern the people and territory it
claims to govern? Thus, most governments avoid the
troubling questions of right and wrong, justice and injustice,
in their dealing with each other.
3.1.4 Social Contract Theory
The alternative views of the origin of the state, and the
principles that legitimizes its power are found in the social
contract theories. The social contract theory is premised
upon the idea that the state is a human creation by means of
agreement - a social contract agreed upon by individual in a
given society. Thomas Hobbes who was the first of the social
contract theorists argued that prior to the existence of the
state, life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short
because there was no organized authority to preside over the
affairs of men.
In fact, life was a free for all fight and every man was for
himself and God for us all. It was man, in realization that this
state of nature was not benefiting them that they decided to
surrender their individual natural rights of self- government
to an absolute sovereign authority by means of a contract.
John Locke, another social contract theorist argued that
because men are rational, they can be trusted to pursue their
self interest without infringing on the equal rights enjoyed by
other citizens. And because men are rational, they can be
trusted to judge the legitimacy of government as it legislates,
administers, and adjudicates states laws.
Although this line of thinking would lead to total freedom
and so no government as such, however, rational men
perceived the advantages of organizing a government. It can
impartially settle disputes between citizens, it is necessary to
conduct foreign relations with other governments, and it is
essential authority for divining and maintaining a system of
monitory exchange which allows for the accumulation of
material wealth.
The idea of social contract was taken further by Jean-Jacques
Rousseau who insisted that no government was legitimate
unless the people gave their consent to its authority. Thus,
Russeaus social contract includes all citizens in the initial
agreement to by the terms of the contract, all citizens enjoy
an equal right to participate in the making of law, and so to
participate in the decision making that defines the
appropriate boundaries of the law and the proper domain of
the state activity.
Finally, Rousseau insisted that government is legitimate only
in so far as it operates according to the principles of popular
sovereignty.
3.1.5 The Evolutionary / Natural theory of the State
According to evolutionary theorists, the state is best
understood as an evolving organism that develops naturally
according to some inherent dynamics of growth.
Aristotle in the forth B.C. had argued that the state
developed from the evolving interests and needs of the
individual. In contrast to social contract and force theories,
the evolutionary theories believed the individuals needs and
interests have been progressively met by the family, the clan,
the tribe, and finally, by the complete community of social
existence that is best expressed by the state. The guiding
principles of growth of the state has been self sufficiency (not
self interest) and the development of ever more elaborate
institutions essential to satisfying mankinds unique and most
distinguishing characteristic reason.
Finally, war and conquest played an important role in the
evolutionary emergency of the modern state and its
institution war and conquest helped the consolidation of
gained territory through war. And in the origin and
development of the state, common religious worship and
language had a great influence by welding together families,
clans and tribes into larger organized community better
known as the state.