Monistic Theory of Sovereignty

Jean Bodin (1530-1596), Thomas Hobbes 1588-1679) and John Austin (1790-1859) articulated the ‘Monistic
theory’ of sovereignty. This theory emphasized the vesting of supreme power in a single central authority which
is bestowed the power to make supreme laws. In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most
essential attribute of the state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory that
is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one.

Jean Bodin: He examined the problem and concluded that the out of date medieval notion of
segmented society could not solve the present problem and rather there was a need of unitary
body politic that was above human law. Earlier the medieval notion was that, law is a part of
universal and eternal law and it conceived kings and rulers who enforced this law to be under it
themselves. The notion of state being the source of law as propounded by Bodin was
completely a new notion. Bodin propounded this theory of sovereignty to make the state as the
supreme political institution. His ‘Six Livres de la republique’ (Six Books of the Republic)
which appeared in 1576 is one of the most celebrated work where ‘Souverainete’ (sovereignty)
forms the central concept.

Thomas Hobbes: Hobbes considers sovereignty as an essential need to escape this state
of nature which he describes as ‘solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short’ and one which leads to
war of all against all. To escape this insecurity Hobbes recommends absolute sovereignty which
according to him many may consider dangerous but its positive aspects overshadows the
negative ones. He considers ‘selfish motive’ to be the reason for every human action. Man
to avoid the insecure state of nature enters into a contract and sets up a civil society. Here the
citizens surrender their power and liberty to a person or group of people whom they authorize to
govern them. This authorized person becomes the sovereign and the rest are his subjects.
Hobbes attaches different attributes to a sovereign and justifies each of them in detail.
Sovereignty, for Hobbes, should be unlimited, irrevocable, inalienable and indivisible. To offer
a rational explanation for unlimited sovereignty, Hobbes points out that by nature man is
provided the right of self defense but in spite of it he faces continuous danger to his life during
civil wars and in a state of nature. To avoid this condition, we enter into the political state and
authorize the sovereign of our security and protection. As the ultimate aim of sovereign power
is to establish peace, justice and maintain security, to impose restrictions on a sovereign
becomes completely irrational. (Book- Leviathan, 1651)

John Austin: Austin was the most important contributor to legal theory or Monistic theory of Sovereignty.
The first theory which exerted wide influence was that of Jean Bodin. In his view sovereignty was the highest
power in a state which is subject to no laws but is itself the maker and master of them. It may reside in either
one person or in a number of persons, but in either case it is above law, incapable of any limitation and having
an absolute claim to the obedience of all. He admitted that in some way the sovereign is subject to Law of God
and laws of nature, and is therefore he is bound to respect the rights of property and personal freedom. Nearly a
century later a similar theory was put forward by Thomas Hobbes. He based his sovereignty on a covenant of
each member of a community with another member to surrender all their rights and powers into the hands of
one person or body who thereby becomes the sovereign. Since the sovereign is not himself a party to the
contract it cannot be annulled by those who made it. The authority of the sovereign is therefore permanent and
unlimited. Jermy Benthem revived Hobbes theory of absolute sovereign and justified it. (Book- The Province
of
Jurisprudence Determined)

Monistic Theory of Sovereignty: A Critique:

1.
The authority of the sovereign is absolute and unlimited has been contested on several grounds. It conflicts with
the basic ideas of democracy, Austin talks in terms of a hierarchical order
characterized by superior-subordinate relationship while democracy is a society of equals. Austin's idea is
inconsistent with a democratic polity based on popular sovereignty.
2.
The Pluralists argue that the state is but one association among several and, therefore, it cannot be invested with
the unique sovereign power of the community. They urge that associations grow
naturally, that they have a will of their own and that the life lived in the group is an important part in the life of
the individual. They contend that the voluntary associations should not be dictated to by the
state.
3.
Austin's third proposition is that the, sovereign in the sense of a "determinate human superior" is the supreme
law-maker. Whatever he commands is law. This view has been criticised by the historical
jurists on the ground that it ignores the great body of customary law which has grown up through usage and
interpretation and which never had its source in the will of a determinate superior.

Pluralistic Theory of Sovereignty

The pluralistic theory of sovereignty is based on the views of Robert M. MacIver (1882-1970), A.D Lindsay
(1879-1952), Leon Duguit (1859-1928), Harold J. Laski (1893- 1950). The pluralists were against the monistic
theory of sovereignty which believes the state to be the single source of law. For them, the state is a social
institution among various other associations rather than a sovereign entity. They do not believe, as the monists
did, in the unity of life as for them life is multilayered and each layer of it is important or it may be said that
they stress upon the plural dimension of life. They consider variety of association as one of the basic quality of
modern society or society for them is a web of associations. Each association performs certain functions which
correspond to different needs of man in modern society. They do not consider state to be all omnipotent but for
them it is one of the several associations present in the society. This joint venture of people’s association to
sovereignty makes it strong and more effective in its functioning for the welfare of the citizens. The state,
accordingly, should not monopolize the power.83 They argue that it is wrongly assumed by us that state is more
important association rather the sum total of association and group action exceed that of the state.84 The state
should rather be federally organized and not be absolute with indivisible power. As Laski puts it, “But because
society is federal, authority must be federal also.”
Pluralistic View of Sovereignty-A Critique:
We may conclude that sprit of their convincing arguments; the pluralists fail to “expunge” the notion of
sovereignty from political theory as they claim. Pluralists fail to go clear over to their goal of a non
Sovereign state. Notwithstanding their desire to establish a position of equality for all essential associations, the
logic of the situation compels them to give a supreme place to the state. "Virtually all the great driving forces in
modern society combine in a centralist direction". The social, economic and political forces in the contemporary
society has, as Lipson observes, "Aggrandized the state and made the twentieth a century of monism" The
objections of pluralists to Austinian concept of law tends to confuse the substance with the form of law. It is
true that the substance of law is derived from usages, practices and needs of a community. Austin's chief interest
is in the form of law -its legal source