The Origin of the State | ISC Class 11 Political Science Notes

This note covers the origin of the state: why the question of how the state arose matters, the divine origin theory and its features and criticism, the social contract theory and its common features, the versions of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, how the three thinkers differ, and what the social contract theory contributed to modern political thought.

Why does the origin of the state matter?

The state is the most important political institution in modern life. It makes laws, collects taxes, punishes crime and claims the obedience of everyone living in its territory. Political theory therefore asks not only how the state works but how it came into being and why people should obey it.

No one witnessed the birth of the earliest states, so thinkers have offered theories rather than records.

Each theory is also an argument about the basis of political authority: if the state was created by God, rulers answer to God; if it was created by an agreement among people, rulers answer to the people.

Two theories are especially important for this unit. The divine origin theory holds that the state was created by God and that rulers are God's representatives. The social contract theory holds that the state was created by human beings through an agreement, or contract, among themselves.

Definition: State. The state is a political community of people living in a definite territory, under an organised government, possessing sovereignty, that is, supreme power within its territory and independence from outside control.

Studying these theories helps us understand the long shift in political thought from obedience based on faith and tradition to obedience based on consent and reason, which underlies modern democracy.

What is the divine origin theory?

The divine origin theory is the oldest theory of the origin of the state. It holds that the state is a creation of God, not of human beings. God either established the state directly or appointed a ruler to govern on His behalf.

Ideas of this kind appear in many ancient traditions. Rulers were often seen as chosen by the gods, as descended from them, or as their agents on earth.

In medieval Europe, the theory was developed into the divine right of kings, which was defended by supporters of absolute monarchy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

King James I of England was a well-known defender of the divine right of kings. He argued that kings derive their authority from God alone, so subjects must obey them and have no right to resist, even an unjust king.

The theory gave rulers great authority and helped hold early societies together, because obedience to the ruler became a religious duty. It also gave a sense of order and stability at a time when other bases of authority were weak.

What are the main features of the divine origin theory?

The main features of the divine origin theory can be listed as follows.

1. The state is created by God: it is a divine institution, not a human invention.
2. The ruler is God's representative: the king rules as God's agent or deputy on earth.
3. The ruler is answerable only to God: he is not accountable to the people for his actions.
4. Obedience is a religious duty: to disobey the ruler is to disobey God and is a sin.
5. Kingship is hereditary: the right to rule passes by birth within the royal family.
6. The people have no right to resist: even a bad ruler must be obeyed, and he will be judged by God.

Note: The divine origin theory explains who holds power and why, but not how states actually developed. Its real purpose was to justify obedience to rulers, which is why it is often treated more as a theory of political authority than of historical origin.

Why was the divine origin theory rejected?

The divine origin theory declined as modern ideas spread. Critics raised several objections. First, it is a matter of faith that cannot be proved by reason or historical evidence, so it cannot explain how states actually arose.

Second, it supports absolute and arbitrary rule. If a king is answerable only to God, there is no check on his misuse of power, and people are left with no remedy against tyranny.

Third, it is undemocratic. It denies that authority comes from the people and treats them only as subjects. Modern democracy rests on the opposite principle, that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed.

Fourth, the separation of religion and the state in modern times weakened the theory, and history shows that states arose through many human factors such as kinship, force, economic needs and political consciousness. The social contract theory replaced it by grounding the state in human agreement.

What is the social contract theory?

The social contract theory holds that the state is the result of an agreement among human beings. It was developed most fully in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

The theory divides human history into two stages. Before the state there was a state of nature, in which people lived without any government, law or political authority. Life in the state of nature had problems, which the different thinkers described differently.

To escape these problems, people entered into a contract, an agreement among themselves or with a ruler, to set up a political authority. Through the contract the civil society or state was created, and people accepted obligations to obey it in return for its protection.

The theory therefore treats the state as man-made, created by the will and consent of the people, rather than natural or divine.

What are the common features of the social contract theory?

Although Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau reached different conclusions, their theories share several features:

• A state of nature: before the state, people lived without government, law or political authority.
• Natural rights or natural law: even in the state of nature, people had certain rights or followed a natural law.
• A contract: people agreed among themselves, or with a ruler, to create political authority.
• Consent as the basis of the state: the state rests on the consent of the people, not on God or force.
• Political obligation: people obey the state because they agreed to it, and the state owes them protection in return.

The differences among the three thinkers lie in how they describe the state of nature, the terms of the contract, and how much power the people give up to the state.

A useful way to read the theory is to ask three questions of each thinker. What was life like before the state? What did people give up in the contract, and to whom? And what follows for the relationship between the citizen and the state today? The answers explain why the same idea of a contract could support absolute monarchy, limited government and popular sovereignty.

What did Thomas Hobbes say about the social contract?

The English thinker Thomas Hobbes set out his theory in Leviathan (1651), written after the English Civil War. He believed that human beings are by nature selfish, driven by fear and the desire for power.

In Hobbes' state of nature there was no government to keep order, so there was a constant war of every man against every man. In his famous words, life in such a condition was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".

To escape this condition and secure peace, people agreed among themselves to surrender all their rights to a single sovereign, a person or assembly, who was not a party to the contract. The sovereign's power was absolute and indivisible, and the people had no right to rebel against him.

Hobbes thus used the social contract to defend absolute sovereignty. He is regarded as a supporter of absolute monarchy, though on rational grounds rather than divine right.

Hobbes is criticised for taking too dark a view of human nature and for leaving citizens with no protection against a sovereign who abuses power. Yet his argument was new in one important way: it based the authority of the state on the interests and agreement of individuals, not on God.

What did John Locke say about the social contract?

The English thinker John Locke set out his theory in Two Treatises of Government (1690), at the time of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. He had a more hopeful view of human nature than Hobbes.

Locke's state of nature was a state of peace, goodwill and mutual help, governed by a natural law known through reason. People enjoyed natural rights to life, liberty and property.

Its only drawback was the lack of an established law, an impartial judge and a power to enforce judgements, which made rights insecure.

People therefore made a contract to set up a government to protect their natural rights. They gave up only the right to interpret and enforce the natural law themselves, not their rights to life, liberty and property.

The government's power was limited, held in trust for the people. If it violated their rights, the people had the right to resist and replace it. Locke is therefore regarded as the father of liberalism and of limited, constitutional government.

Locke's emphasis on property has been criticised for favouring those who own it, and his state of nature has been called too idealised. But his ideas of natural rights, government by consent and the right to resist tyranny became the foundation of modern constitutional democracy.

What did Jean Jacques Rousseau say about the social contract?

The French thinker Jean Jacques Rousseau set out his theory in The Social Contract (1762). It opens with the famous line that man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.

Rousseau's state of nature was at first a happy condition in which people lived simple, free and equal lives, the condition later summed up in the phrase "noble savage", though Rousseau himself did not use it. The growth of population, the rise of private property and inequality later corrupted this condition and led to conflict.

To restore freedom and equality, people made a contract in which each person gave up all his rights not to a ruler but to the community as a whole. The community was governed by the general will, the will of the community directed towards the common good.

Because each person is part of the community, by obeying the general will he obeys himself and remains free. Rousseau thus placed sovereignty in the people, and is regarded as a champion of popular sovereignty and democracy.

Rousseau has been criticised because the general will is hard to identify in practice, and some argue that it could be used to justify forcing individuals to obey whoever claims to speak for the community. His lasting contribution was the idea that legitimate authority belongs to the people as a whole.

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau compared: how do they differ?

The three thinkers used the same idea of a social contract to reach very different conclusions about the state.

The table shows that the decisive difference lies in how much power the people hand over. Hobbes' people surrender everything to a ruler outside the contract, so they cannot reclaim it. Locke's people keep their natural rights and only lend power to a government that serves them. Rousseau's people give everything to a community of which they are themselves members, so they lose nothing in the end.

The three versions also reflect their times. Hobbes wrote after a civil war and valued order above all; Locke wrote in support of a revolution that limited the king's power; Rousseau wrote in an age of absolute monarchy and growing inequality, and his ideas pointed towards revolution.

How do modern thinkers explain the origin of the state?

Besides the divine origin and social contract theories, thinkers have offered other explanations. The force theory holds that the state arose when stronger groups conquered weaker ones and ruled them by force. The patriarchal and matriarchal theories trace the state to the expansion of the family under the authority of the father or the mother.

Most modern political scientists accept the evolutionary or historical theory. It holds that the state was not created at any one moment, by God or by a contract, but grew gradually over a long period. As the American political scientist J. W. Garner put it, the state is not an artificial mechanism but an institution of natural growth or historical evolution.

According to this theory, several factors helped the state to develop: kinship, which bound families and clans together; religion, which strengthened obedience and unity; force, which helped build larger political units through war; economic activities, which created the need for rules about property and trade; and political consciousness, the growing awareness of common needs that required organised government.

The evolutionary theory does not deny the importance of the older theories. It treats religion, force and consent as some of the many forces that together shaped the state over centuries.

What is the significance of the social contract theory?

Critics point out that the social contract theory is unhistorical: there is no evidence that any state of nature existed or that people ever signed such a contract. They also argue that the state is a natural growth over time, not a deliberate creation.

Even so, the theory had great significance. It replaced the divine origin theory with the idea that the state is made by human beings and rests on their consent. It made the people, not God or the ruler, the source of political authority.

Locke's ideas of natural rights and limited government influenced the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, and Rousseau's ideas of liberty, equality and popular sovereignty inspired the French Revolution of 1789. Modern democratic constitutions rest on the same principle of government by consent.

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution reflects this principle when it begins with the words "We, the people of India", declaring that the Constitution, and the state it creates, draw their authority from the people themselves.

In this sense the social contract theory is better read as a theory of the basis of political obligation than as a history of how states began.

Glossary

• State: a political community with population, territory, government and sovereignty.
• Divine origin theory: the theory that the state was created by God and that rulers are God's representatives.
• Divine right of kings: the doctrine that kings derive their authority from God alone and cannot be resisted.
• Social contract theory: the theory that the state was created by an agreement among human beings.
• State of nature: the condition of human life before the creation of the state and government.
• Natural rights: rights people hold by nature, which for Locke were life, liberty and property.
• Sovereign: the holder of supreme power in the state; for Hobbes, an absolute ruler.
• Leviathan: Hobbes' work of 1651, named after a biblical sea monster that stands for the all-powerful sovereign state.
• General will: in Rousseau's theory, the will of the community directed towards the common good.
• Popular sovereignty: the principle that supreme power rests with the people.
• Political obligation: the duty of citizens to obey the state.
• Consent: the agreement of the people, which social contract thinkers made the basis of the state.

Common errors and misconceptions

• Misconception: the social contract theory describes a real historical agreement. Correct: there is no historical evidence of such a contract; the theory explains the basis of political authority.
• Misconception: all social contract thinkers supported democracy. Correct: Hobbes used the contract to defend absolute sovereignty; Locke favoured limited government and Rousseau popular sovereignty.
• Misconception: Hobbes' sovereign is a party to the contract. Correct: in Hobbes' theory the people contract among themselves, and the sovereign stands outside the contract.
• Misconception: in Locke's contract people give up all their rights. Correct: they give up only the right to enforce natural law; their rights to life, liberty and property remain.
• Misconception: under the divine origin theory a ruler is accountable to the people. Correct: the ruler is answerable only to God, and the people have no right to resist.
• Misconception: Rousseau's general will is simply the will of the majority. Correct: it is the will of the community directed towards the common good.

Exam-style questions with model answers

Q1. Name the work in which Thomas Hobbes set out his social contract theory. [1 mark]

1. Leviathan, published in 1651.

Q2. State any two features of the divine origin theory. [2 marks]

1. The state is created by God, and the ruler governs as God's representative on earth.
2. The ruler is answerable only to God, so obedience is a religious duty and the people have no right to resist.

Q3. What is meant by the state of nature? [2 marks]

1. It is the condition of human life before the creation of the state, without government, law or political authority.
2. Hobbes described it as a war of all against all, Locke as peaceful but insecure, and Rousseau as at first happy and free.

Q4. Explain the common features of the social contract theory. [4 marks]

1. Before the state, people lived in a state of nature without government.
2. They had natural rights or followed a natural law even then.
3. To escape the problems of that condition, they made a contract to create political authority.
4. The state therefore rests on the consent of the people, who obey it in return for its protection.

Q5. Explain John Locke's version of the social contract. [4 marks]

1. Locke's state of nature was peaceful, governed by natural law, with natural rights to life, liberty and property.
2. Its drawback was the lack of an established law, an impartial judge and an enforcing power.
3. People contracted to set up a government to protect their rights, giving up only the right to enforce natural law.
4. The government's power was limited, and the people could resist and replace a government that violated their rights.

Q6. Compare the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. [8 marks]

1. All three described a state of nature before the state and a contract that created political authority.
2. Hobbes saw human nature as selfish and the state of nature as a war of all against all.
3. To secure peace, people in Hobbes' theory gave all their rights to an absolute sovereign with no right of rebellion.
4. Locke saw the state of nature as peaceful but insecure, with natural rights to life, liberty and property.
5. Locke's people gave up only the right to enforce natural law, creating a limited government they could resist.
6. Rousseau saw the state of nature as happy until private property and inequality corrupted it.
7. Rousseau's people gave their rights to the community, governed by the general will, placing sovereignty in the people.
8. Hobbes thus defended absolute monarchy, Locke liberal constitutional government, and Rousseau popular sovereignty.

Q7. Give two criticisms of the divine origin theory. [2 marks]

1. It rests on faith and cannot be proved by reason or historical evidence.
2. It supports absolute and arbitrary rule, since a ruler answerable only to God has no check on his power.

Key takeaways

• Theories of the origin of the state are also arguments about the basis of political authority and obedience.
• The divine origin theory holds that God created the state and that the ruler, answerable only to God, must be obeyed.
• It was rejected as unprovable, supportive of absolute rule and undemocratic.
• The social contract theory holds that people left a state of nature by agreeing to create the state.
• Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651), used the contract to defend an absolute sovereign.
• Locke, in Two Treatises of Government (1690), defended limited government protecting life, liberty and property.
• Rousseau, in The Social Contract (1762), placed sovereignty in the people through the general will.
• Though unhistorical, the social contract theory made consent the basis of the state and shaped modern democracy.

Test yourself

What does the divine origin theory say about the creation of the state?

It says the state was created by God and that the ruler governs as God's representative on earth.

Which English king defended the divine right of kings?

King James I of England, who argued that kings derive their authority from God alone.

How did Hobbes describe life in the state of nature?

As "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", in a war of every man against every man.

Which natural rights did Locke identify?

The natural rights to life, liberty and property, which government exists to protect.

What did Rousseau mean by the general will?

The will of the community directed towards the common good, which each member obeys as part of the community.

To whom do people surrender their rights in Rousseau's contract?

To the community as a whole, not to a ruler, so that sovereignty remains with the people.

Why is the social contract theory called unhistorical?

Because there is no evidence that a state of nature existed or that people ever signed such a contract.

Which revolutions were influenced by social contract ideas?

Locke influenced the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, and Rousseau inspired the French Revolution of 1789.