1.

The force theory:

The theory of force held that the state came into existence as a result of the
forced subjection of the weak to the strong. One group of thinkers used this
theory to justify the state on the ground that the state is power, that might
makes right and that the essence of the state is a sovereign will. Another group
of thinkers used this theory to attack the state because of its injustice and to urge
individual freedom and limited state action.

The theologians of the Middle Ages argued that the state was based upon force
and injustice, and decried the origin of earthly sovereignty in order to
subordinate temporal to spiritual power. Individualists and anarchists believe that
the state is an evil, because of their desire for individuals freedom. Socialists
argue that the state resulted from the aggression and exploitation of laborers by
capitalists; and attack, not |the idea of the state itself, but the particular form of
the present state, which they ascribe to its iniquitous origin,

2. The natural theory:

The natural theory viewed man as a political animal, and the state as a natural
result of the instinct of sociability. It justified the state as a necessity determined
by the very nature of man. It was not the creation of man but an inevitable and
natural result of human nature. Accordingly, man could have no existence outside
the state. His interests and those of the state were identical, and the state needed
no further justification. A modification of this theory viewed the state as arising to
meet the essential needs of man, and justified it on the grounds of its usefulness.
The purpose of the state was to promote general welfare, and it was justified in
taking any action that would be conducive to justice and the general good.

3. The divine theory:

During a large part of human history the state was viewed as of direct divine
creation, and its government was theocratic in nature. In the early Oriental
empires rulers claimed a divine right to control the affairs of their subjects and
this light was seldom questioned. The Hebrews believed that their system was of
divine origin, and that Jehovah took an active part in the direction of their public
affairs

The rise of Christianity and the growth of the temporal power of the Catholic
Church in the medieval period led to a bitter conflict between church and state
and to an active discussion of the divine origin of political power. All were agreed
that the ultimate source of authority was divine, but the supporters of the church
declared that the Pope alone received his power directly from Goad. The
Emperor, they held, received his authority indirectly through the Pope. The
supporters of the state argued that the authority of the church should be limited
strictly to spiritual affairs and that God delegated to rulers directly the control of
temporal affairs.

The leaders of the Protestant Reformation gave further impetus to the theory of

divine origin, and taught that civil authority is delegated by God to the temporal
rulers and that subjects should give obedience. When the medieval conflict
between church and state was replaced in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries by the contest within the state between king and people the
controversy took a new form.

In opposition to the growing ideals of popular sovereignty and of the state as a

deliberate creation of the people, the rulers again appealed to the theory of
divine origin and looked to the church or support. Interest centered, not so much
in the origin of political power itself as in the question of the persons by whom
and the manner in which it could rightfully be exercised.

Those who supported royal power argued that God had delegated authority
directly to kings, and that resistance to royal power was sin. Even after the
success of the popular revolutions by which modem democracy was established,
the idea of the “divinity that doth hedge a king” continued to exert a
considerable influence upon the ideas of the people.

4. The social contract theory:

The social contract theory starts with the assumption that man lived originally in
a “state of nature,” antecedent to the formation of political organization. In this
condition he was subject only to such rules of natural law as are prescribed by
nature itself, and was the possessor of natural rights. This primitive condition he
was compelled to abandon, either, as some held, because it was too idyllic to last,
or, as others held, because it was too inconvenient or terrible to be tolerated. In
its plant: men deliberately formed an agreement, or contract, by which they set
up a body politic.

Submitting to the control of all, they received in return the protection of all, thus
losing their natural liberty but receiving in return Security. Human law replaced
natural law, and each individual became the possessor of political rights and
obligations. The Mate was thus of deliberate human creation, and authority Wag
derived from the consent of the people.

While none of these earlier theories gives a satisfactory explanation of the actual
historical and evolutionary nature of political origins, nevertheless each
contributes elements of value. The, force theory overemphasizes one factor in
state origin, but points out the important fact that the state, unlike all Other
associations of mankind possesses the physical power to compel obedience.
Force and power are distinctive Characteristics of the state, and war has played a
prominent part in state origin and development.

The natural theory, while explaining neither the actual influences that created the
state nor the nature of the process, emphasizes the important fact that the state
is not an artificial creation but an inevitable and, at first, largely unconscious
result of man’s nature and needs. The divine theory, while used mainly to bolster
the claims of rulers and of churchmen, nevertheless suggests the moral
responsibility of political authority and points out the important part played by
religion in the early period of political life.

The social contract theory. While historically inaccurate, suggests the value of
consent as a mythological basis for the spirit of unity necessary for state
existence, as well as the necessity that law should be “natural” in the sense that it
should represent accepted principles of justice and correspond to the needs of
human nature and the circumstances of its time and place. This theory supported
the revolutions by which tyrannical governments were overthrown and served as
a basis for the growth of modern democracy.
The Genesis of Divine Origin Theory:
The oldest theory about the origin of the state is the divine origin theory. It is
also known as the theory of divine right of Kings.

The exponents of this theory believe that the state did not come into being by
any effort of man. It is created by God.

The King who rules over the state is an agent of God on earth.

The King derives his authority from God and for all his actions he is
responsible to God alone. Obedience to the King is ordained to God and
violation of it will be a sin. The King is above law and no subject has any right
to question his authority or his action. The King is responsible of God alone.

Essay # 2. The Patriarchal Theory as the Origin of the

State:
The principal exponent of this theory is Sir Henry Maine.

According to him, the city is a conglomeration of several families which

developed under the control and authority of the eldest male member of the
family.

The head or father of the patriarchal family wielded great power and influence
upon the other members of the family.

His writ was carried out in the household. This patriarchal family was the most
ancient organised social institution in the primitive society.
Through the process of marriage the families began to expand and they gave
birth to gen which stands for a household. Several gens made one clan. A
group of clans constituted a tribe. A confederation of various tribes based on
blood relations for the purpose of defending themselves against the
aggressors formed one commonwealth which is called the state.

Sir Henry Maine’s analysis of the growth of the state is- “The elementary
group is the family connected by the common subjection to the highest
male ascendant. The aggregation of families forms the gens or the
houses. The aggregation of houses makes the tribe. The aggregation of
the tribes constitutes the commonwealth.”
Edward Jenks who is the other advocate of the patriarchal theory is of the
view that the foundation of the state was caused by three factors, namely
male kinship, permanent marriages and paternal authority. Thus, the salient
feature of the patriarchal theory is that the families grew through the
descendants of the father, not the mother.

The male child carried on the population though marriages with one or several
women, because both monogamy and polygamy were the order of the day.
The eldest male child had a prominent role in the house.

Another important supporter of this theory was Aristotle. According to

him- “Just as men and women unite to form families, so many families
unite to form villages and the union of many villages forms the state
which is a self-supporting unit”.
As for documentary evidence in support of this theory, there were twelve
tribes who formed the Jewish nation as we gather from the Bible. In Rome, we
are told that the patriarch of three families that made one unit exercised
unlimited authority over the other members.

Criticism of the Theory:

The patriarchal theory as the origin of the state is subjected to the
following criticisms:
In the first place, the origin of the state is due to several factors like family,
religion, force, political necessity, etc. So by identifying the origin of the state
with family, one makes the same fallacy as taking one cause instead of
several causes. To say in the words of J. C. Frazer- “Human society is built
up by a complexity of causes.”
In the second place, the theory is incorrect, because in the opinion of several
critics the primary social unit was a matriarchal family rather than a patriarchal
family. According to Meclennan, Morgan and Edward Jenks who are staunch
supporters of the theory, the matriarchal family and polyandry were the basis
of the state.

The kinship through the female line in primitive society was responsible for the
growth of the state. The process was that polyandry resulted into matriarchal
society and the matriarchal society led to the state.