FORCE THEORY OF STATE ORIGIN

1.4 Political science-I

Submitted By:

Nakul Chadha

UID – 19_66

Semester I

Academic Year 2019-20

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. Madhukar Sharma

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3
AIM .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions: ............................................................................................................................... 4
Research Methodology:.......................................................................................................................... 4
Origin Of the State .................................................................................................................................. 5
FORCE THEORY OF STATE ORIGIN ........................................................................................................... 7
HISTORY OF THE THEORY ........................................................................................................................ 8
THEORY USED IN SUPPORT OF DIVERSE PURPOSES ............................................................................... 9
CRITICISMS OF THE THEORY ................................................................................................................. 10
MERITS AND DEMERITS OF THE THEORY .............................................................................................. 12
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 13
INTRODUCTION:
According to this theory, the state originated due to force exerted by the strong over the weak.
The idea contained in the statement is that 'war begat the king'. The same view is expressed by
Hume, Oppenheim, Jenks-Bernhardy and Trietschke are the exponents of force theory. A
number of rulers also believed in this theory. The powerful conquered the weak state is the
outcome of the process of aggressive exploitation of the weaker by the stronger. Might without
right is antagonist to individual liberty.

Force theory treats force as the foundation of state. Consent,reason,rationality and such other
factors are not needed.What is required is mere brutal force. It is an old dictum “might and
right”. Physical strength or brutal force is the foundation on which state rests and expands.

Force theory speculates a situation of wandering tribes. The tribes would be constantly
wandering in search of food. Then there would be a fight with other tribes.The stronger tribe
would defeat the weaker tribes and state emerges.The vanquished tribes are subjugated. The
victorious tribe will establish its authority. Once victorious, the tribe would strive to conquer
as many small tribes as possible and firmly establish its role. So a large state with fixed territory
came into being.We can clearly understand that this theory glorifies war and aggression.
Vanquished tribes are treated as slaves. Since it is force which was the prime factor for the
emergence of state, all efforts are made to sustain it. The preservation of the strength of the
state is the primary aim. A ruthless suppression of all opposition or dissent is “justified”. A
strict obedience to all the laws and orders of the tribal chief is the essential character of this
state.There is hardly any scope for freedom, or a different set of values other than those decided
by the state. In fact, there is no difference between state,society and government. It is all one
centralized power structure. State will decide on all social matters like customs, morality,
religious beliefs and so on. This theory was later used by the dictators and war mongering
states.
AIM
The aim of the researcher is to deeply study the force theory of origin of state in order to
understand the characteristic and importance of force theory of origin of state. The researcher
also aims to deeply understand the criticism of the force theory of origin of state. The researcher
also intends to study all the related concepts and theories of origin of state in order to
completely comprehend the topic.

Research Questions:
 What is force theory of origin of state?
 What were the characteristics of force theory?
 What was the need of the force theory for the origin of state?
 What is the importance of force theory?

Research Methodology:

The researcher has used the doctrinal or principal approach to research for the paper. For the
purpose of the research, the researcher has referred to various books journal articles and
websites to gather information regarding the modern system approaches in political science.
Origin Of the State

Political thinkers and philosophers have tried and attempted to trace out and explain the origin
of the state in various methods, according to the nature and the social condition prevailed at
the time of their thinking. However, there is no valid answer to “what is the origin of the state”?
There were many contradictions in the thesis on what the origin of States. Nowhere in the
history has it been recorded when the state came into existence. There were various beliefs
regarding the origin of the state, some believe that the origin of the state lie in the hands of God
whereas others believe that they are based on social contract and some trust on single force,
the family or the process of evolution. The research anthropology ethnology and comparative
philosophy had tried to focus on the origin of the state but it was not adequate.

Prof. R.N.Gilchrist aptly mentioned that “of the circumstances surrounding the dawn of the
political consciousness, we know little or nothing from history, where history fails, we must
restore to speculation”1. Historical method and evolutionary course of action failed to prove
when mankind originally came under the control of state. It is only the imagination of the
political scientist and historical researchers that various elements which might have made
contribution for the origin of the state. As such, there was no agreeable and acceptable
conclusion among the political thinkers regarding the fundamental question of origin and
establishment of state.

As a result, there were various theories concerning the primary or pre historical origin of the
state propounded by the political scientists and historical researchers. These theories are:

1. The theory of Divine Origin

2. Social Contract Theory

3. Matriarchal and Patriarchal Theory

4. Force Theory

1
Professor R.N. Gilchest“ Principle of Political Science: 1957 , page No.48.
5. Historical or Evolutionary Theory.

The examination and comparison of elements of truth in these thesis shall pave way for finding
out the secret in the origin of the state and its generally accepted explanations.
FORCE THEORY OF STATE ORIGIN

The exponents of the force theory were of the view that the origin of state and its development
was based on force, that is, force used by the strong over the weak and their consequent control
over them. In such a way, wherever the strong group out did the weak the strong became the
master and ruled the weak. The strong group became vested with ruling power and the fedeated
were made their subjects. According to the Jenks “Historically, there is not even the slightest
difficulty in proving that all political communities of the modern type owe their existence to
the successful warfare”2. The warring clans and tribes established their authority in a definite
territory. Their chief became the ruler on the basis of his physical force. The state is born out
of force. Exist in force and die in the absence of force. According to Bluntschli, force is an
indispensable element of the organization of the state3. In the two world wars, Great Britain
defended its territory against the Nazi forces only with the military power. Further, the Russian
military power stopped the aggression of the German forces.

They rely on the oft-quoted saying “war begot the King” as the historical explanation of the
origin of the state.

The force or might prevailed over the right in the primitive society. A man physically stronger
established his authority over the less strong persons. The strongest person in a tribe is,
therefore, made the chief or leader of that tribe.

After establishing the state by subjugating the other people in that place the chief used his
authority in maintaining law and order and defending the state from the aggression from
outside. Thus force was responsible not only for the origin of the state but for development of
the state also.

History supports the force theory as the origin of the state.

Historically speaking, there is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all political
communities of the modern type owe their existence to successful warfare.4

2
E.Jenks, “A History of Politics : Page No.71
3
R.C. Agarwal, “Political Theory” Page No. 116.
4
Edward jenks definition
As the state increased in population and size there was a concomitant improvement in the art
of warfare. The small states fought among themselves and the successful ones made big states.

The kingdoms of Norway, Sweden and Denmark arc historical examples of the creation of
states by the use of force. In the same process, Spain emerged as a new state in the sixth century
A.D. In the ninth century A.D. the Normans conquered and established the state of Russia.

The same people established the kingdom of England by defeating the local people there in the
eleventh century A.D. Stephen Butler Leachock sums up the founding of states by the use of
force in these words:

“The beginnings of the state are to be sought in the capture and enslavement of man-by-man,
in the conquest and subjugation acquired by superior physical force. The progressive growth
from tribe to kingdom and from kingdom to empire is but a continuation from the same
process.”

HISTORY OF THE THEORY

This theory is based on the well-accepted maxim of survival of the fittest. There is always a
natural struggle for existence by fighting all adversaries among the animal world. This analogy
may be stretched to cover the human beings.

Secondly, by emphasising the spiritual aspect of the church the clergymen condemned the
authority of the state as one of brute force. This indirectly lends credence to the theory of force
as the original factor in the creation of the state.

Thirdly, the socialists also, by condemning the coercive power of the state as one bent upon
curbing and exploiting the workers, admit of force as the basis of the state.

Lastly, the theory of force is supported by the German philosophers like Friedrich Hegel,
Immanuel Kant, John Bernhardi and Triestchki. They maintain that war and force are the
deciding factors in the creation of the state. Today in the words of Triestchki – “State is power;
it is a sin for a state to be weak. That state is the public power of offence and defence. The
grandeur of history lies in the perpetual conflict of nations and the appeal to arms will be valid
until the end of history.”
“Might is the supreme right, and the dispute as to what is right is decided by the arbitrement of
war. War gives a biologically just decision since its decision rest on the very nature of things.”5

THEORY USED IN SUPPORT OF DIVERSE PURPOSES

The theory of Force has been advanced by different thinkers and writers for advocating their
own point of view. It was first used by the Church Fathers in the medieval period to discredit
the State, and to establish the supremacy of the Church. They claimed that the Church was
divinely created whereas the State was the outcome of brute force. “Which of us is ignorant
that kings and lords have had their origin in those who, ignorant of God, by arrogance, rapine,
perfidy, slaughter, by every crime which the devil agitating as the prince of the world, have
continued to rule over their fellowmen with blind cupidity and intolerable presumption.”6

In modern times the Individualists owned the theory to protect individual liberty against
government encroachment. They characteristic the State as a necessary evil and argued that the
State should leaf the individual alone, laissez faire, and should not interfere in what he does,
except for the maintenance of internal peace and external security. The Individualists base their
arguments on the principle of survival of the fittest and try to prove that it is only the strong
who survive and the weak go to the wall. The Socialists, on the other hand, hold that the State
is the outcome of the process of aggressive exploitation on the weaker by the stronger the latter
constituting the propertied class who had ever manned administration and directed the
machinery of the government to their own benefit. The existing system of industrial
organization, it is maintained, hinges upon force because a part of the community has
succeeded in defrauding their fellows of the just reward of their labor. They further argue that
force is the origin of civil society and government represents merely the coercive organization
which tends to curb and exploit the working class in order to maintain the privileged position
of the propertied class. The theory of Socialism is a revolt against the State, as it is the product
of force and power is its justification and raison d etre. Karl Marx, accordingly, concluded that
the State must ultimately ‘wither away’.

During recent times the theory of Force was a favorite theme of political philosophy with
German writers. Imbued with the desire to make their country a Greater Germany, and at the

5
Benhardi “Political science” Page no. 12
6
George VII
peak of its glory, they lavished praise on force and considered its indiscriminate use as the most
important factor for the solidarity of the nation. Treitschke said that “the State is the public
power of offense and defense, the first task of which is the making of war and the administration
of justice,” War, he said, consolidates a people, reveals to each individual his relative
unimportant, causes factional hostilities to disappear, and intensifies patriotism and national
idealism. “The grandeur of history,” he further maintained, “lies in the perpetual conflict of
nations” and “the appeal to am will be valid until the end of history.” General Von Bernhardt
held might as “the supreme right, and the dispute as to what is right is decided by the
arbitrament of war. War gives a biologically just decision, since the decision, rests on the very
nature of things.” Nietzsche preached the doctrine of the will to power and the superman.

The individual who can command the highest admiration, according to this doctrine, is the
strong man who compels other men to act in fulfillment of his will. Nietzsche, while glorifying
the masterly virtues of man, says that a truly moral person has no place for the vulgar and
slavish virtue of humility, self sacrifice, pity, gentleness. Hitler and Mussolini put into real
practice the doctrines of these writers. They regarded force as the normal means for maintaining
a nation’s prestige, cultural influence, commercial supremacy in the world and for holding the
allegiance of citizens at home. This general doctrine of political authoritarianism, both with
Hitler and Mussolini, became a creed of dominance by intimidation militancy in international
relations, and forcible suppression of political dissent in domestic government. Hitler and
Mussolini pushed mankind into another World War, causing unprecedented misery,havoc and
destruction. The United Nations Organization was established after the War to save the
succeeding generations from the I scourge of war. Yet there is no end to war. There is a show
of might everywhere and a never ending race between all powers, big and small, to invent and
manufacture deadly weapons of warfare, some to defend, others to offend.

CRITICISMS OF THE THEORY

Following criticisms are levelled against the theory of force. In the first place, the element of
force is not the only factor in the origin of the state; religion, politics, family and process of
evolution are behind the foundation of the state. Thus to say that force is the origin of the state
is to commit the same fallacy that one of the causes is responsible for a thing while all the
causes were at work for it.

This has been rightly pointed out by Stephen Butler Leacock- “The theory errs in magnifying
what has been only one factor in the evolution of society into the sole controlling force.” 7A
state may be created by force temporarily. But to perpetuate it something more is essential.

In the second place, the theory of force runs counter to the universally accepted maxim of
Thomas Hill Green- “Will, not force, is the basis of the state.” No state can be permanent by
bayonets and daggers. It must have the general voluntary acceptance by the people.

In the third place, the theory of force is inconsistent with individual liberty. The moment one
accepts that the basis of a state is force, how can one expect liberty there? The theory of force
may be temporarily the order of the day in despotism as against democracy.

In the fourth place, the doctrine of survival of the fittest which is relied upon by the champions
of the force theory has erroneously applied a system that is applicable to the animal world to
human world. If force was the determining factor, how could Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence
triumph over the brute force of the British Imperialists?

Lastly, the force theory is to be discarded because political consciousness rather than force is
the origin of the state. Without political consciousness of the people the state cannot be created.
This is so because man is by nature a political animal. It is that political conscience that lay
deep in the foundation of the state.

“The state, government and indeed all institutions are the result of man’s consciousness, the
creation of which have arisen from his appreciation of a moral end.”8

7
Stephen Butler Leacock”Economic Crisis in British Empire”
8
R.N. Ghilchrist “Principles of Political Science” Page No. 81
MERITS AND DEMERITS OF THE THEORY

The theory of force, though untenable as an explanation of the origin of the state, has some
redeeming features:

First, the theory contains the truth that some states at certain points of time were definitely
created by force or brought to existence by the show of force. When the Aryans came to India
they carried with them weapons of all kinds and horses to use in the war against the non-Aryans
and by defeating the non-Aryans they carved out a kingdom in India.

Later on, the Aryans sprawled their kingdoms and broad-based their government and ruled
with the backing of the people.

Secondly, the other silver lining of the theory is that it made the slates conscious of building
adequate defence and army to protect the territorial integrity of the state. That is why we find
commanders of war or Senapati as an important post in the ancient kingdoms.

In the modern state, we find a substantial amount of money used on defence budget. Every
state in the modern world has got a defence minister which unmistakably recognises the use of
force in modern statecraft too.

The force theory is scientific, its application could be seen through the historical incidents.
Herbert Spencers doctrine of the “Survival of the Fittest” proves and upholds the
theory.Through “blood and iron” some greatest states have been established. In practice, this
theory is very dangerous. It is endangering the peace and security of the world. The very basis
of this theory was direction to the states towards preparation of war, war is known for
destruction and killing of mankind and suppressing the moral forces. The theory justifies
despotism. It is against the freedom of small nations, international peace and amity.
International law rejects this theory. Interstate relations cannot be based on force. Force ceases
only to be the basis of the state which does not stand on solid foundation.
Conclusion

By the above project we are able to conclude that force theory of state origin do not sounds an
ethical way of creating a society. Exerting pressure will never create a harmonious society. It’s
not the right way of making people live together. And the rule is also not certain in it. Each day
new groups and leaders will come, show their physical strength and will defeat people. So
much violence will be there in the society. There will be no peace. People will shed blood each
day. They won’t obey their leaders but try to defeat them and become the leader. Survival of
the fittest is the main gist of this theory. But it won’t go longer. There is no certainty of it.
Bibliography

1.Benhardi’s book “Politcal science”

2. https://www.politicalscienceview.com/force-theory-of-origin-of-state/
3.R.C. AGARWAL”Political Theory”
4.Edward Jenks “A history on politics”