A

PROJECT ON
THEORIES OF ORIGIN OF STATE
SUBMITTED TO: DR. ANITA SAMAL
FACULTY OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE
SUBMITTED BY:
PUNEET TIGGA ROLL NO. 96
1ST SEMESTER: B.A. L.L.B (HONS.)

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR (C.G)

CERTIFICATE OF DECLARATION
This is to certify and declare that the present study on the Theories Of Origin Of State is an
original piece of research work. However, references have been made at places where the help of
different books, articles and journals and web sources has been taken.
Thereby, this piece of research work is purely based on original research analysis and wholly
based on the secondary sources like judgments, commentaries, journals and even articles related
to the topic.
PUNEET TIGGA
BATCH-X
SEM-I
ROLL NO- 96

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2

I, Puneet Tigga, feel myself highly elated, as it gives me tremendous pleasure

come out with work on the topic. Words fail to express my deep sense of glee to my teacher, DR.
ANITA SAMAL who enlightened me with her beautiful work on this topic. I would like to thank
her for guiding me in doing all sorts of researches, suggestions and having discussions regarding
my project topic by devoting his precious time. I thank H.N.L.U for providing Internet facilities.
And lastly I thank my friends and all those who have helped me in the completion of this project.

THANKING YOU,
PUNEET TIGGA
SEMESTER-I
ROLL NO-96

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Topics
Pg No.

Acknowledgement..3
Research Methodology.4
Introduction..5
Thory Of Divine Origin...6
Thory Of Social Contract .....12
Theory Of Force.14
Conclusion...16
Reference..1
7

CHAPTER-I
4

INTRODUCTION
There are various theories regarding the origin of state and the question about the origin of the
state has been discussed for centuries. In the historical and philosophical arena, this question is a
debated issue among scholars. With no concrete evidence to support any of the proposed
theories, it remains as speculation. All of the most accepted theories do agree that the state must
have certain basic elements: territory, population, government and sovereignty.
In this project we will focus on the three theories of origin of state which are Dvine theory,social
contract theory and force theory.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND OBJECTIVE

This research paper is descriptive and analytical. It is largely based on secondary and electronic
sources. Books and other reference are primarily helpful for the completion of this project.
Footnotes have been provided wherever needed, either to acknowledge the source or to point to a
particular provision of law.

OBJECTIVE
The main objective of the project is to analyse the three main theories of origin of state which are
Dvine theory,social contract theory and force theory.

LIMITATION
The project work is focused on the three theories of origin of state- Dvine theory,social contract
theory and force theory.

The Theory of Divine Origin

The theory of divine origin is the oldest concerning the primary origin of the state. It looks upon
the state as a divine institution. The state is created by God and ruled by him either directly or
indirectly through some ruler who is regarded as the agent or representative of God on earth. 1
The Jews were the earliest advocates of this theory. In the Hindu epic Mahabharata, it has been
said that when people were tired of anarchy and lawlessness, they prayed to God for respite and
he appointed specific rulers for the purpose. In the Bible it is stated: "Let every soul be subject
unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of
God". Thus God is the source of all powers and the rulers are considered his agents. The early
church fathers also propounded this theory. During the middle ages a fierce controversy
developed between the state and Church for supremacy on the basis of this theory. Gradually the
theory of divine origin of the state was transformed into the theory of the divine rights of kings.
In England, James I, the first Stuart King and Sir Robert Filmer were the leading exponents of
this latter doctrine. In his work, The Law of Free Monarchies, James I wrote: "Kings are justly
called gods, for they exercise a manner of resemblance of divine power upon earth". They are the
"breathing images of God upon earth" and the King "is master over every person, having power
over life and death". In France the despotism of Louis XIV was supported by Bossuet on the
strength of this doctrine. The main features of the theory of divine rights of Kingship are the
following:
1. Monarchy is divinely ordained. Kings derive their authority directly from God.
2. Hereditary right is indefeasible. Succession to the throne is governed by the law of
primogeniture.
3. Kings are accountable to God alone for all their acts.
4. Resistance to a lawful King is sin. To go against the King is to go against God. Disobedience
is sacrilegious.

1 http://www.shareyouressays.com/88711/essay-on-the-theory-of-divine-origin-of-state
7

Criticism
1. In modern times it has been rejected as "unsound in theory and dangerous in practice". It is
based on certain assumptions which cannot be verified. There is no empirical proof of any
divine delegation of authority to the rulers. Its propositions are to be accepted as matter of
faith rather than of reason.
2. The theory is dangerous in practice as it leads to royal despotism. It leaves the people at the
mercy of despots. Since the rulers are responsible to God alone for all their acts of omission
and commission, it undermines the democratic principle of the responsibility of the rulers to
the ruled and leads to autocracy.
3. It is illogical as it is used to justify the rule even of a bad king. Kings as the agents of God are
supposed to be virtuous. The theory should not be advanced in support of bad and autocratic
rulers.
4. It is highly undemocratic. It rules out the role of popular control in political affairs. People
remain perpetually in a state of servitude. It stifles the political consciousness and
participation of people.
5. The theory is lopsided as it admits the possibility of only the monarchical form of
government.
Value of the Theory
Notwithstanding these criticisms the theory of divine origin served some useful purposes.
1. At a time when societies were suffering from anarchy and disorder, it taught men the values of
obedience and discipline and brought them together under a common authority. It has been a
powerful factor in preserving order and did a lot to strengthen the respect of people for
person, property, and government.
2. It emphasizes the unifying role played by religion in the development of the state.
3. It invests the state with a high moral status. As Gilchrist remarks: "To regard the state as the
work of god is to give it a high moral status, to make it something which the citizen may
8

revere and support, something which he may regard as the perfection of human life. It
introduces an element of morality into politics.
4. It highlights the moral responsibility of the rulers to the ruled as they are accountable to God
for the manner in which they exercise their power.

The Social Contract Theory

The most important speculative theory relating to the origin of the state is the social contract
theory. It was the most popular and influential theory relating to the origin of the state and the
nature of political authority during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Statement of the Theory

The exponents of the theory hold that the state is the result of a deliberate and voluntary
agreement (contract) entered into by primitive men who originally had no governmental
organization. They divide history into two periods: the period before the state was formed, called
"the state of nature" and the period after the state was instituted. Contract or voluntary
agreement, which is instrumental in the formation of the state, divides these two periods of
history. In the state of nature men were subject to no law or governmental regulation. Men were
subject only to such regulations as nature was supposed to prescribe (natural law). They enjoyed
some rights known as natural rights. The state of nature was either too unbearable or too
inconvenient for primitive men to put up with it or too idyllic to last long. Hence men decided to
abandon the state of nature and set up a political society through contract or covenant. As a result
of the contract, each man lost his natural liberty partly or wholly, and agreed to obey the laws
prescribed by the government. There is difference of view among the exponents of the theory
relating to the conditions of the state of nature, the character of the laws of nature, nature of the
contract, the features of the political society and other details. But they agree on its fundamental
idea, namely, that the state is a human creation, the result of a voluntary agreement among
primitive people.
9

History of the Theory

The idea of contract is very old and goes back to the writings of Plato and Sophists of ancient
Greece and Kautilya's "Arthasastra". While sophists described the state to be product of contract
among men, Plato and Aristotle dealt with the theory only to reject it. In political discussion, the
theory assumed significance during and after the Middle Ages. Two forms of the theory, viz., the
governmental contract and the social contract, are found in such discussions. The first postulates
a tacit agreement between the government and the people; and the second, the institution of a
political society (State) by mess of a contact among individuals.
The idea of governmental contract was employed by antimonarchist writers in the Middle Ages
in defence of popular liberties. Manegold, St. Thomas Aquinas, Du Plessis-Mornay, Buchanan
and Mariana are some of the outstanding theorists of governmental contract.

Social contract, as distinguished from the governmental contract, is probably first mentioned in
Hooker's "The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity". Althusius and Milton also used the idea of social
contract in constructing their theories of limited government. The theory traversed a long way in
the history of political thought until it received the most systematic and comprehensive treatment
in the writings of two Englishmen, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke and the Frenchman J. J.
Rousseau.

Views of its Modern Exponents2

Thomas Hobbes: Hobbes, who wrote his book "Leviathan" against the backdrop of the English
Civil War (1642-51) presented a very gloomy picture of the state of nature. It was a condition of
perpetual war and conflicts among men who were essentially selfish and power craving. It was
both pre-social and pre-political. Natural right was another name for might. "Kill whom you can,
take what you can" was the order of the day. Life was totally insecure and Hobbes described it as
2 http://www.academia.edu/3138759/Social_Contract_Theory_by_Hobbes_Locke_and_Rousseau
10

"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Men made a contract among themselves to come out of
this horrible state of nature and formed a civil society or the state. It was contract of each with all
and all with each whereby men gave up their natural rights except the right to self-preservation to
a "common power' who was called the sovereign. His command was law. This sovereign enjoyed
absolute and indivisible power and guaranteed security of life and protection of property to every
other individual. Hobbes was basically an individualist philosopher who justified absolute power
of the government in the interest of peace and security which are the basic needs of human
beings.

John Locke: While Hobbes's philosophy was used in defence of absolute government, Locke in
his "Two Treatises of Government" sought to justify the English Revolution of 1688. He was an
ardent advocate of constitutional government and rule of law. He analyzed human nature in
terms of essential social virtues and characterized the state of nature as a condition of "peace,
goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation". Men were free and equal. The state of nature was
pre-political but not pre-social. Men enjoyed the natural rights to life, liberty and property under
the governance of the laws of nature. But men experienced three inconveniences, viz. the
absence of settled and fixed laws; the absence of known and impartial judge and the absence of
an executive power to enforce just decisions. Men made a contract to escape from the state of
nature, which was an will condition and establish the civil society in which the whole community
enjoyed supreme power. Each individual surrendered his natural right of interpreting and
enforcing the law of nature so that his fundamental natural rights to life, liberty and property
could be secured. Supreme power was vested in the community which set up a government as a
"fiduciary trust" to carry out the functions delegated by the community. Government was based
on the consent of the people who could overthrow it when it acted against the trust reposed in it.
Locke's theory thus results in constitutional or limited government.

J. J. Rousseau: Rousseau's views on Social Contract inspired the French Revolution of 1789
and also provided the basis of the theory of popular sovereignty. Man, according to Rousseau, is
essentially good and sympathetic. The state of nature was a period of idyllic happiness. Man was
11

a "noble savage" and led a happy and simple life. With the growth of population and the idea of
private property men became selfish, greedy and aggressive. With the dawn of reason, human
nature became increasingly complex. Conflicts and tensions in the later stages of the state of
nature forced men to enter into a contract whereby they surrendered all their natural rights to the
community or the "General Will". The people as a collective body became sovereign and each
member was an inseparable part of the general will which was the voice of all for the good of all.
Law is an expression of the general will and can be made only in an assembly of the whole
people. As the general will is the will for collective good, so it is always just and right and every
member of the community is under an obligation to obey its commands. Government remains an
agent of the community and exercises only executive power delegated to it by the community.
Freedom of the individual consists in acting in accordance with general will. Rousseau's ideas
inspired the movements for democratic rights in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; and at the
same time his doctrine of general will has been manipulated to serve the purpose of the
totalitarian states.

Criticism of the Theory

The theory of social contract has been assailed from various angles. It has been characterized as
bad history, bad law and bad philosophy. In other words, it has been attacked from three different
angles the historical, the legal, and the philosophical or rational.

Historical
1. Historically, the theory is untenable. It has no basis in fact. Historical records are lacking as to
those primitive times when, if at all, such contracts must have been made for the institution of
the state. The idea of a contract is too advanced for primitive man. Formation of a state
through common consent presupposes a high degree of political consciousness which
primitive people hardly possessed.

12

2. Anthropological studies have demonstrated that people always lived under some form of
political organization, however crude it might be. The concept of a state of nature as pictured
by Hobbes, is without any basis in history.

3. There have been instances of governmental or political contracts whereby rights and duties of
the rulers and the people have been defined. Such contracts have been made by people already
living in the civil state. The idea of social contract whereby the state originated for the first
time is a fiction.

4. The theory assumes that primitive man enjoyed ample freedom to enter into contracts with his
fellow men. Sir Henry Maine's historical researches have disproved this. Primitive society
was governed by communal laws and the individual was not free to change his status through
contract. Individual's position was determined in society. Primitive society rested not upon
contract but upon status. Maine shows that the movement of societies has been from one of
status to one of contract. Contract is not the beginning but end of society. Under such
conditions, the idea of free contracting individuals forming a state, seems highly improbable.
Legal
1. A contract, in order to be valid, must be backed and enforced by adequate sanctions. But there
is no such sanction behind the contract among primitive men for the formation of a political
society. There was no common authority in the state of nature to enforce it. In the words of T.
H. Green, "the covenant by which a civil power is for the first time constituted cannot be a
valid covenant. The men making it are not in a position to make a valid covenant at all".

2. If the original contract has no legal meaning and validity, all subsequent contracts based upon
it are equally invalid, and the rights and obligations derived from it have no legal foundation.

13

3. It is illogical to suppose that the original contract made by one generation of people should
bind succeeding generations who have had no say in the matter at all. As a matter of fact each
generation must be free to shape its own future. Tom Paine criticized the conception of
contract for being eternally binding on future generations. He asserted: "Every age and
generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which
preceded it".

4. A contract presupposes at least two parties who must be bound by its terms and conditions.
But the contract in Hobbes's writing does not bind the sovereign who is not a party but a
product of it. Such a notion of contract is one-sided and illegal.

Philosophical
1. The social contract theory is highly mechanical which reduces the state to an artificial creation
of man. State is the most natural and universal of all social institutions and membership of it
is compulsory" The relation between the individual and the state is not a voluntary one.
Individuals are born into the state. State is the result of slow, gradual growth. Various factors
like Kinship, religion, force, economic activities and political consciousness have gone into its
making and evolution. It was not created abruptly at any particular point of time by the
voluntary choice of individuals.

2. The theory reduces the relationship between the individual and the state to some sort of
partnership. The obligations of the individuals to the state are not contractual at all.
Individuals are not free to enter it or withdraw his membership at will. Burke states this point
well. "It ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade
of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a
little temporary interest and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties It is to be looked on
with other reverence It is a partnership in all science, a partnership in all art, a partnership in
every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in
14

many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but
between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born".

3. The entire concept of the state of nature and laws of nature is fallacious. It is wrong to assume
that whatever preceded the formation of the state is "natural" and whatever has followed it is
artificial. "Man is a part of nature and the state is the highest expression of his nature. The
state is a growth and not a manufacture";
4. T. H. Green aptly remarks that "it implies the possibility of rights and obligations
independently of society". The idea that men enjoyed natural rights in the state of nature is
false. Rights and obligations are possible only in the state and not prior to its existence.
5. According to Bluntschli, the social contract theory is in the highest degree dangerous, since it
makes the state and its institutions the product of individual caprice. The theory is favourable
to anarchy and encourages revolution. If the state is the creation of men they could overthrow
it when they so desire. It undermines reverence for the state and has paved the way for great
revolutions and unrests.
Value of the theory
In spite of the above inadequacies and weakness of the social contract theory, we cannot
overlook its elements of truth. It has been rejected as an explanation of the historical origin of the
state. But as an explanation of the right relations between the state and individuals or the ground
of political obligation, it is more satisfactory than theories of divine origin and force. It provides
a satisfactory and human explanation of the fact of political authority and duty of obedience
rendered by men in political societies.

1. It emphasizes the role of human will in the formation and continuance of political
institutions. It laid down the fundamental truth that obedience to political authority rested
on .the voluntary consent of free individuals, and that the powers that be had no right to
act arbitrarily. In working out this truth, the theory laid down the foundation of
15

democracy. Locke's idea of "consent" and Rousseau's concept of "general will" served as
the basis for modern democracy.
2. The theory emphasizes the importance of the individual and the human purposes for
which the stat~ exists and the government exercises its authority. Political institutions are
not sacrosanct; they exist for human welfare. Human beings can modify such institutions
to serve their needs and purposes.
3. The theory was primarily responsible for discrediting the theory of divine origin and
thereby rejecting the claims of absolute monarchs and despots.
4. The contribution of the modern contractualists to the theory of sovereignty has been
tremendous. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were the champions of legal, political and
popular sovereignty respectively. Again Locke's theory of separation of powers, as..a
safeguard of political liberty was later developed by Montesquieu. Although Hobbes's
writings have an anti-democratic undertone, his emphasis on secularism (subordination of
the Church to the State) helped the cause of democracy.
5. The theory emphasized the value of rights. Men form political societies for the protection
of certain fundamental rights like rights to life, liberty and property. Right, not might,
becomes the basis of the state. People possess the inherent right of resistance against
unlawful and despotic authority.

16

The Theory of Force

As an explanation of the origin and basis of the state, the theory of force is based on an analysis
of the two primary instincts in man craving for power and desire for self-assertion. In the dawn
of civilization, these instincts found expression in continuous conflicts and aggressions. The
strong attacked and enslaved the weak. 3 The strong exercised their rule over the weak. Powerful
men began to exercise control over a sizeable section of people and this led to the emergence of
clans and tribes. There were incessant fights between clans and tribes for supremacy. Through
such conflicts the authority of a successful tribal chief was established on a particular territory
and ultimately the state emerged. The state is the outcome of aggression, the result of superior
physical force. Leacock writes: Historically it (force theory) means that government is the
outcome of human aggression, that the beginnings of the state are to be sought in the capture and
enslavement of man by man, in the conquest and subjugation of feebler tribes and, generally
speaking, in the self seeking domination acquired by superior physical force. The progressive
growth from tribe to Kingdom and from Kingdom to empire is but a continuation of the same
process". In its simplest form, this theory may be stated thus: "war begat the King".
In his book "The State", Oppenheimer, a keen exponent of the theory, traces the origin of state
through various stages. Jenks, another prominent advocate of the theory, in his "History of
Politics" holds that, "historically speaking, there is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all
political communities of the modern type owe their existence to successful warfare". The state is
not only created by force but also maintained by force. The use of force is imperative to maintain
law and order inside the state and to defend the state against foreign aggression. Hence force or
physical power is the basis of the state.
Varied Interpretations of the Theory
The theory of force has been given different interpretations by thinkers to serve their own
purposes. In Europe, the middle ages were characterized by struggle between the Church and the
State for supremacy. The Church Fathers used the force theory to justify the supremacy of the
religious authority over political authority. They argued that the Church was a divine institution
3 http://classroom.synonym.com/four-widely-held-theories-attempt-explain-origin-state-20423.html
17

while the state was a product of force. Divine sanction imparted a greater legitimacy to the
Church and as such it was superior to the state. Individualists used the theory in support of
individual freedom and rights. The state as an organization of force is considered as a necessary
evil. It should have a restrictive function, namely, maintenance of internal order and defence
against external aggression. Restrictive state functions, they argue, will result in enjoyment of
maximum possible individual freedom.
The Marxists trace the origin and development of the state in conquest and domination of the
economically dominant class over the dispossessed class. They look upon the state as an
instrument of aggressive class exploitation. In the contemporary capitalist state the power of the
state is used by the capitalist class to maintain their own privileges by exploiting the working
class. Social change, according to Marxists, comes by force and revolution. Force is the midwife
of an old society giving birth to a new one. Only in a classless society (communism), the state
(along with force) will be abolished. Hence, the Marxian analysis of the origin and continuance
of political institutions runs in terms of power and force.
Perhaps the greatest use of the force theory has been made by German thinkers like Hegel,
Bernhard, Sorel, Nietzsche and Treitschke who preached a doctrine of naked force and coercion
with a view to placing Germany on the summit of glory. According to Bernhard, might is the
supreme right and the dispute as to what is right is decided by the arbitration of war". Nietzsche
and Sorel enunciated the doctrine of the revolutionary right of the strong. Treitschke identified
the state with power and power is moralized by the assumption that it is the condition of
upholding and spreading a national culture. These views provided a philosophical basis to the
emergence of Nazism in Germany and Fascism in Italy which practiced a rule of mass
subjugation and forcible suppression of dissent in domestic politics and militancy in international
relations.
Elements of Truth
Force has no doubt played an important role in the historical development of the state. Wars and
conquests have led to the emergence of permanent leadership and to the establishment of
political authority on a fixed territory.

18

Again the use of force is imperative to maintain internal order and eternal security. No state can
last long without the employment of force or coercion. The defence forces and the police
organization of modern states are illustrative of their superior physical power over individuals
and other associations.
Fear of punishment by the state is one of the plausible grounds of political obligation. It is a
truism that law is obeyed because it is backed by force.
Criticism
In spite of its slender historical truth the theory of force has been subjected to severe criticism. It
is one-sided. It exaggerates only one aspect of human nature -man's craving for power. It ignores
the noble aspects of human nature. Besides, his power hunger, man displays his cooperative
social sentient by forming society and subjecting himself voluntarily to the rules and regulations
of social and group life.
Force is only one of the elements which has contributed to the origin, evolution and continuance
of the state. According to Leacock the theory "errs in magnifying what has been only one factor
in the evolution of society into the sole controlling force". No state has emerged solely by brute
force. State is the product of several factors such as Kinship, religion, economic activities and
political consciousness.
Force is an essential element of the state but not the real and ultimate basis. Common will or
consent of the people is the real basis of the state. As T. H. Green remarks, "Will, not force is the
basis of the state". According to MacIver, coercive power is a criterion of the state, but not its
essence. No state can last long by mere use of naked force, Laski writes: "successfully to coerce,
it (the state) must be able successfully to persuade. It wins his (individual's) allegiance not by
being the state, but because of what as the state, it is seeking to do".
The theory is not conducive to democracy. Democracy is government by consent, discussion and
criticism. The use of force suppresses people's right to discuss and debate public issues and to
control the government. Force without constitutional checks and safeguards leads to tyranny and
dictatorship, Force is a means to an end, namely, public welfare, Force is inimical to healthy
international relations. With the growth of international law and organizations like the U.N.
19

interstate relations cannot continue to be governed on force. The international community puts a
premium on the settlement of interstate disputes by peaceful means, not through the arbitrament
of war.

20

Conclusion
The question about the origin of the state has been discussed for centuries. In the historical and
philosophical arena, this question is a debated issue among scholars. With no concrete evidence
to support any of the proposed theories, it remains as speculation. All of the most accepted
theories do agree that the state must have certain basic elements: territory, population,
government and sovereignty.

21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
I.

GaubaO.P., An Introduction to Political Theory. 5th edition. Macmillan Publisher

India ltd.

WIBLIOGRAPHY
I.
II.
III.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/
http://beadsinstitute.com/
http://www.answers.com/

22