Course Title:

Government & Politics

Course Code:
Law 604

Submitted To:
Omar Faroque
Lecturer
Department Of Law & Justice
BUBT

Submitted By:
Name : Osman Hossen Nova

Theory Id: 181191105023

Name : Jannatul Umme Salma Jahan
Of Api
Id : 18191105024
The Origin Of State Intake : 36

Date Of Submission:
16th November, 2018
 Abstract
Traditional theories of state origins are considered and rejected in favor of a new ecological hypothesis. It
explains why states arose where they did, and why they failed to arise elsewhere. It shows the state to be a
predictable response to certain specific cultural, demographic, and ecological conditions. Thus, it helps to
elucidate what was undoubtedly the most important single step ever taken in the political evolution of
mankind.

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:

MONISTIC THEORIES
Psychological theories concerning the nature of man and the relations of body and mind are classed as
Dualistic and Monistic. Dualism teaches that Mind and Body are two really distinct principles; whilst
Monism maintains that both mental and corporeal phenomena are merely different manifestations of what
is really one and the same Reality. According to the character of the opposition and mutual independence
ascribed to the two principles by different thinkers of the former school, we have Ultra -Dualism and
Moderate Dualism. To the previous class belong Plato and Descartes; to the latter Aristotle and the
leading Scholastics. As both forms of dualism agree in teaching the spirituality of the soul, we shall defer
further comparison of them for the present.

This theory overcomes all difficulties as to the relations between body and mind or the possibility of
inter-action between them by boldly denying the reality of any material substance existing in itself
without the mind. It holds that our consciousness of mental states is immediate and primary, whilst our
assurance as to the reality of matter is at best mediate and secondary. It insists on the fact that our notions
of substance, cause, energy, and the like, are all in the first place derived from the consciousness of our
own mental activities, and that in the final analysis we can never know anything about the nature of
matter except what is given in our psychical states. It assumes that matter could not act upon mind; and
finally concludes that the most philosophical course is to deny all extra-mental reality to matter, and to
look upon the seemingly independent material world as an illusory creation or emanation of mind itself.
But the Monist does not stop here. In his desire for unity he does not merely deny real being to matter, he
asserts that all minds are in reality one -- all individual conscious existences being but wavelets surging
on the one ocean of Universal Consciousness.

Marxician Theory
The Marxists give us a quite different picture about the nature of the state. The Marxists think that the
state has been created to protect the interest of the most dominant class that controls over the means of
production. It has not been created for maintaining law and order in the society as it is the common belief
about the nature of the state.
It is created with the class’ struggle and it will vanish away with the class struggle.

To say in the words of Fredrich Engels:

“The state is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class which, through the
medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class and thus acquires new means of holding
down and exploiting the oppressed class. Thus the state of antiquity was above all the state of slave-
owners for the purpose of holding down the slaves, as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for
holding down the peasants, serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is the instrument of
exploitation of wage labour by capital.”

Divine Origin Theory

The theory of divine origin is the oldest among all theories. According to this theory state is established
and governed by God himself. God may rule the state directly or indirectly through some ruler who is
regarded as an agent of God. The trace of divine origin is seen in the epic Mahabarat. According to the
Mahabarat there was anarchy in the beginning in the society and the people prayed to God to come to
their rescue. They offered the following prayer. 'Without a chief, O Lord we are perishing Give us a chief,
whom we shall worship and who will protect us'. It was under these circumstances that God appointed the
king to rule the people. To quote King James I of England, 'Kings are justly called gods for they exercise
a manner of resemblance of divine power on earth. Kings are accountable to God above and only. The
people cannot question him for the right or wrong done by him. The rise of Christianity and the growth of
the power of the church in the medieval period led to a conflict between church and state and 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 say that Pope alone received his power directly from God.
Kings are breathing images of God upon earth. Even if the king be wicked, the subject has no right to
rebel against him. To rebel against the king is to rebel against God himself for the God's chosen Vassal.

The main points in the doctrine of the divine right of kings may thus be summed up.

1. Monarchy is divinely ordained and the king draws his authority from God.

2. Monarchy is hereditary and it is the divine right of a king that it should pass from father to son.
3. The king is answerable to God alone.

4. Resistance to the lawful authority of a king is a sin. The theory of divine origin was popular for a long
time but later on it began to decline on account of many factors.

Theory Of Force
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.
There were other factors besides force which helped the expansion of the state. Similarly force alone is
not the basis of state and it cannot be maintained by force.

Criticism :

Force indeed has played an important part in the origin and development of the state. Some of the greatest
empires of today have been established through blood and iron. The theory of force unduly emphasis the
principle of the survival of the fittest. It means that might is right and those who are physically weak
should go to the wall. It is dangerous to employ such a principle in the internal existence of the state.
Every state will be at perpetual war with the rest. This is a condition of chaos, pure and simple
endangering the peace and security of the world. The attention and efforts of every state will be directed
towards war preparedness and to win the war if it comes. War which is an alias for murder, glorifies brute
process, suppressing the moral forces. This is the mean self of man and not his real self. This theory
justifies despotism. It is opposed to the idea of freedom. It is too much to believe that the state is created
and maintained by sheer force and the spiritual and moral values have absolutely no place in life.

Patriarchal Theory of State

According to patriarchal theory of the sate the state is nothing but an expansion of the family. In the
beginning there was a husband and wife and children. The father was the chief controlling authority. With
the passage of time, the family expanded and changed into clan which further developed into a tribe. This
tribe occupied a village, each having a chief. Many such villages united in a single community, which was
nearly self-sufficient. Aristotle has given the name of state to such a perfect community. The state was
headed by a king. So the family place was taken by the state and the father's position was occupied by the
king. The chief supporter this theory Sir Henry Maine who says that in every family the eldest male
parent was the controlling authority. He had complete control over the lives of the members and the
property of the family. Later on the family expanded and clans came into being. Further tribes were
formed and finally the state.

Criticism on Patriarchal Theory of State:

Patriarchal theory of statement explains the development of the state through one factor only that is
kingship. The supporters of this theory say that the state is nothing but an expansion of the family. This is
a very, simple explanation. There is great difference between family and the state. The authority of the
father is natural and limited while that of the ruler is political and unlimited. Besides, the authority of the
parent decreases as they grow old but the authority of the state increases with the passage of time

Matriarchal Theory of State

The Matriarchal theory of state is very old. There are many people who support this theory. There was a
time in human history when there was no system of permanent marriage and family. At that time people
were still in the hunting stage of human civilization. People lived in-groups. The life was dependent on
 the fruits and hunting animals. When two groups were met, there would be union between a man and
woman. After this the groups separated, children born as a result of this union did not know their fathers
and their mothers. So, all relationships and descent were traced through the mother. At this stage people
were still leading a nomadic life. So there was no concept of private property. In this way population
increased and finally people got settled and radical changes took place as a result of which Matriarchal
society changed into Patriarchal society and the state was born. Even today we find traces of Matriarchal
Society among the ancient people of Australia, Malaya, Indonesia, Madagascar and Red Indians of North
America.

Criticism of Matriarchal Theory of State:

The matriarchal theory of state explains partially the pre-history of man. It explains that pre-nature society
was very simple. It only explains the origin of the society and not sufficient to explain the origin and
development of the state.

Social Contract Theory

Social contract theory is another descriptive theory about society and the relationship between rules and
laws, and why society needs them. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1689) proposed that a society without rules and
laws to govern our actions would place be a dreadful place to live. Hobbes described a society without
rules as living in a “state of nature.” In such a state, people would act on their own accord, without any
responsibility to their community. Life in a state of nature would be Darwinian, where the strongest
survive and the weak perish. A society, in Hobbes’ state of nature, would be without the comforts and
necessities that we take for granted in modern western society. The society would have:
• No place for commerce
• Little or no culture

• No knowledge

• No leisure
• No security and continual fear

• No arts

• Little language