SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

SEMESTER II
1ST INTERNAL ASSESMENT
SUBJECT: POLITICAL SCIENCE
TOPIC: THEORY OF DIVINE ORIGIN & RELEVANCE OF
RELIGION IN POLITICS IN PRSESNT NATION STATES

SUBMITTED BY:
NAME: KOSHA DOSHI
COURSE: BA LLB (HONS.)
DIVISION: E
PRN: 19010125488
Question a] Explain the Theory of Divine Origin of State. Elucidate the political significance of
the theory with reference to the tussle for power in medieval Europe

The theory of Divine origin is one of speculation. It exhibits the spirit of time flourished
in, thoughts, environment and several forces which shaped the State. The theory is considered as
a political authority which can be traced back to remote antiquity. The theory is considered to
have been around 17th to 18th century.

The State was seen as a bliss of God, where God took position as a religious and political
entity. It was viewed as the oldest handicraft of God. The state was established and governed by
God himself in accordance with this theory. His will was the state of political authority and the
order of authorization. The speculation being that God created State to save mankind from
destruction.

The aspect of the State coming into existence has not been recorded, therefore different
theorists propose different hypothesis. The theory of Divine origin finds its traces and support in
various scriptures. The Old Testament has a reference to the appointment of the king which was
stated by St. Paul. Sir Robert Filmer’s book written in the year 1680 named “The Law of the
Free Monarchies” talks about Adam being the first king whereby rest of the kings which
followed were descendants of Adam.

Manu smriti also makes a reference to the theory of Divine origin wherein the world was
earlier an anarchy and the people prayed for improvement in their conditions. The prayer stated
that without a chief head, the people would perish and therefore needed God to appoint a king
who would rule them. The earliest ruler as per MacIver was a priest along with being a king and
a magic man. The Mahabharata also makes a reference to the beginning of anarchy and a state of
chaos coming into picture. The incarnation of Lord Vishnu along with various other Hindu
scriptures contain traces of the theory of Divine origin.

The theory considered state of monarchy to be the supremist on Earth. But the human
institution back then had religion and politics mixed up. It was a primitive society where a hazy
line of demarcation existed between religion and politics. The pope was considered semi-god,
the Muslim Caliph priest was considered king too. In addition to this, even Dalai Lama was the
theocratic head of Tibet. Similar situation can be seen in Pakistan in today’s times.

God ruled indirectly thorough a ruler who acted as a ruler, agent, deputy, vicegerent and a
representative of God. The king was God’s lieutenants and was eligible to ascend God’s throne.
Kings controlled anarchy and protected the life and liberty of the people. King James I of
England stated that king was equivalent to God and could exercise in a manner resemblance to
the Divine power. Further, the king would be accountable only to God and not the people.

Obedience to king was collateral to obedience to God, which formed an integral part of
one’s religious duty. Resistance to the same was treated as a sin. It was atheism and blasphemy
to dispute what God could do, so it is presumption and high contempt in a subject to dispute.
King was supreme power even above law, it was seen as that only God could remove him. The
word king was associated with law which further connected to just and benevolent. The people
therefore had no option but submission to the authority.

King was considered as breathing images of God and a rebelled king was equivalent to a
rebelled God. King was the chosen vessel and they were seen as vicars of God. Law is held to
reside in the breasts of the King and is tantamount to preaching absolutism and making the King
a despot. God personifies virtue, grace and benevolence and so should his deputy.

Religion played a major role in the development of the State. The law religious sanctions
were considered divine religious law. It appealed to the primate man more than human law. It
taught men to obey when they were not ready to govern themselves. It provided a moral tone to
the functions of the State and controlled uncivilized citizens. It served as a discipline and brought
law abidingness among the subjects at a time when these were the needs of the hour in those
anarchical conditions.

The Roman empire was a pagan empire where the Christians accepted authority as God.
The middle age Europe theory of divine origin of state transformed into the doctrine of Divine
rights of kings and their temporal authority. The Stuarts in England found refuge in the doctrine
of the Divine Right of Kings and its leading exponent was James I Sir Robert Filmer was its
enthusiastic supporter.
 The Protestant Reformation gave a new impetus to the divine theory. It was declared in
the Augsburg Confession (1530) that all authority, government, law and order have been created
and established by God himself.

James 1st had a dispute with the parliament over a share in the government of the
country. He told the parliament: A king can never be wicked. Even if a King is wicked, means
God has sent as a punishment for people’s sins and it in unlawful to shake off the burden which
God has laid upon them. It served as a bulwark against the claims of the Church, Fathers, was
later used by Kings and their supporters to defend their existence against the political
consciousness of the peoples: when the people claimed that ultimately power and sovereign
authority rested with them.

Further the divine theory took the form of doctrine of divine rights of kings thereafter
monarchy divinely ordained. The theory declined and began being criticized in the 12th century.
Social contract emerged and began to be readily accepted. Emergency of democracy glorified
individuals. Politics separated from religion whereby the church got separated.

The Divine theory of origin was criticized for the following aspects: no accountability,
unhistorical, birth of nationalism, God selection became contrary to common sense, unlimited
arbitrary powers given to the king, irresponsibility to humans would lead to tyranny, no support
in New Testament, advocated monarchial form, theory of evolution came into picture, growth of
scientific enquiry, Renaissance and emphasis on reasoning.

Prior to the state’s appearance, Europe was dominated by the papacy, then a secular as
well as a religious power, city states and a large Germanic empire called the Holy Roman
Empire. The pope and his entourage resembled a medieval king with a court. In 800,
Charlemagne had received from the pope the title of Emperor (Imperator Augustus).

The state emerged from Europe’s middle ages, as the local princes sought independence
from two great situations that claimed the ‘universal rule’ and saw themselves as heirs to the
original Roman Empire: The papacy and the Holy Roman Empire. The two struggled for
supremacy, the princes played against each other and as both grew weaker, princes gained more
autonomy. Thereafter the medieval Europe feudal system began to crumble. The papal- imperial
rivalry came to a climax in the late 11 th and early 12th century which was followed by a conflict
over investiture of high church officials. The dispute which pitted Pope Gregory VII against
Emperor Henry IV brought about the question that who should govern the church affairs. In the
end, the papacy triumphed but both church and empire were sorely weakened.

In the medieval Europe, the doctrine of divine rights was dangerous. The state and church
were divided. The state suggested secular authority whereas the church stated the king had direct
relations with God and therefore can dictate the humans. During the middle age, a centralized
and semi international institution came up which was the Roman Catholic Church. It formed the
image of a Roman state and used phenomenal religious influence to defend immediate economic
interests.

Rise of Christianity with the power of the Church led to State Church conflict. The
discussion of divine origin of political power came into picture increasing the tussle between the
State and the Church. The struggle for power between the kings and popes shaped the western
world. The Magna Carta also talks about the principal of separation. The first clause being tat the
Church would be free from the interference by the Crown. It prevented the Crown from using
Church as a political weapon. As per the Catholic doctrine, the Pope was the vicar of Christ on
Earth which meant that he had ultimate power over church and therefore indirectly over the
State.

Reformation that separated the church from the state debased the coin of the divine
theory. The post-Reformation period is a period of non-religious politics. Thus, the secular
outlook made the divine theory totally unacceptable.
Question b] Evaluate the relevance of religion in politics in present day nation- states. Analyze
one such example, throwing light on the positive and negative effects of religion-based politics.

Religion and politics have one common goal, though the methodology is different to
attain that goal. Religion mobilizes religious sensibilities of people in order to get their support to
capture power; while politics uses intrigue, diplomacy, and makes attempt to win public opinion
either democratically, if the system allows it, or usurps power with the help of army, if the
society is under-developed and backward.

In times of power struggle each of them attempts to undermine the other. Religion
claiming to derive its authority from divinity with a holy mission to accomplish and motivate the
society to reform itself to a better stand. Politics directs policy according to the needs and
requirements of society. Religion and politics are concepts that designate two different and
interdependent subsystems of society. Although the concepts are separated analytically, the
relationship between religion and politics is characterized by interdependence.

Three models exist when one talks about religion and politics

 Religion and Politics unite to monopolies political power by integration and

separation
 Politics overpowering religion and uses the same for its own interests
 Conflict with each other for separation, rivalry and compete for dominance

Under Khomeini the Iranian religious and political landscapes were dramatically
transformed, making Shia Islam an inseparable element of the country’s political structure.
Khomeini ushered in a new form of government anchored by the concept of  velayat-e faqih,
or rule of the Islamic jurist. In his 1970 book, Hokumat-e Islami: Velayat-e faqih, Khomeini
argued that government should be run in accordance to sharia, or Islamic law.
 For that to happen, an Islamic jurist—or faqih—must oversee the country’s political
structure. Constitutional changes following the revolution established a system of
government based on three pillars of power—the executive, judicial, and legislative
branches. But sitting atop the Islamic Republic’s power structure was Khomeini.

Today, Khomeini’s teachings and precedents have evolved into a system of

government that combines elements of Islamic theocracy with bits of democracy. Unlike the
U.S. system of governance, church and state are inexorably linked in modern-day Iran, and
religious precepts form the backbone of Iran’s political structure. In theory, the Iranian
power structure appears akin to Western frameworks, with clear demarcations of power. But
in practice the Iranian system is dominated by a small cadre of religious clerics and
revolutionary forefathers. While Iran’s massive clerical establishment may hold religious
sway, their political influence is contained to a few. 

Nationally elected to four-year terms, Iran’s president is constitutional mandated to

be a Shiite Muslim. Debate over Islam’s place in the Iranian political structure is as old as
the revolution itself; religion’s influence on politics has oscillated over time. During the
presidential tenure of Mohammad Khatami, for instance, political and diplomatic reforms
weakened the role of religion in policymaking, thereby reducing the clergy’s influence over
society. Among the influential critics of the theocratic regime during the Khatami era
was Abdulkarim Soroush, whose political magazine, Kiyan, long served as a monthly forum
for religious intellectualism in the 1990s until it was shut down in 2001.

Those who continue to advocate for the separation of church and state say they face
increasing hostility in the Ahmadinejad era. In late 2006, dissident cleric Seyyed Hossein
Kazemeyni Boroujerdi accused Iranian authorities of targeting his supporters and waging a
campaign to discredit his movement. The ayatollah told U.S.-funded Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty that "real Islam is free of political ornaments," and that the Iranian
public was losing faith in God because of the government’s lackluster economic policies.

While social unrest reached a peak during the so-called Tehran Spring of the late
1990s and early 2000s, thirst for reform continues today. "There is a rising tide of anti-
clericalism among ordinary Iranians as a result of the failures of the Iranian Republic,"
Molavi says. Staggering inflation, unemployment, and stagnant wages have prompted a
popular, if subdued, ideological backlash against the clerical elite.

The negative aspects of Iran having politics and religion mixed are: assuming
secularization, succumbing to selective separationist, shunning politics because of religion,
identification of the nation with a particular religion, overestimating humanity’s role in
redeeming the world and overstating religious references for policies made for the nation.

The positive aspects about the fusion can be seen as God had entrusted these powers
and therefore must be in accordance to his will, Individuals have more freedom to push
political concerns, human beings are deeply and inescapably religious therefore secure feeling
comes about. Suppression of religious feelings, absolute loyalty and cult of personality are the
basic aspects found in the political religion.

The survival of religion and politics together seems a complex but natural relationship in
which there can be mutual benefit. There must be healthy debate, balance, and the ability to
compromise. When religion and politics has no clear demarcation, the nation is bound to
downfall sooner or later.