Theory of Devine Origin

The theory of Divine Origin, though one of the earliest, has a simple explanation to offer. It is a theory of political authority and not a theory of the origin of the State. The State, its advocates maintain, was created by God and governed by His deputy or Vice-regent. It was His will that men should live in the world in a state of political society and He sent His deputy to rule over them. The ruler was a divinely appointed agent and he was responsible for his actions to God alone. As the ruler was the deputy of God, obedience to him was held to be a religious duty and resistance a sin. The advocates of the Divine Origin Theory, in this way, placed the ruler above the people as well as law. Nothing on earth could limit his will and restrict his power. His word was law and his actions were always just and benevolent. To complain against the authority of the ruler and to characterise his actions as unjust was a sin for which there was divine punishment. The theory of the Divine Origin of the State is as old as Political Science itself. There is sufficient evidence to prove now that early States were based on this conception and all political authority was connected with certain unseen powers. The earliest ruler was a combination of priest and king or the magic man and king. The authority and reverence which a ruler commanded depended upon his position as a priest or a magic man. Religion and politics were so inextricably mixed up in the primitive society that not a hazy line of demarcation could be drawn between the two. Even today, the State of Pakistan does not seem to draw a distinction between religion and politics. Sir Mohammad Zafarullah Khan, the then Pakistan Foreign Minister, while speaking on the Objective Resolution in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly in 1949, said: Those who sought to draw a distinction between the spheres of religion and politics as being mutually exclusive put too narrow a construction upon the functions of religion. The abrogated Constitutions declared Pakistan an Islamic Republic to be governed with the Islamic principles. President Zia-ul-Haq significantly modified the 1973 Constitution to bring it in conformity to the injunctions of Islam. In addition to Islamic Arab States, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic State of Bangladesh and the Islamic State of Afghanistan are the most recent examples of theocratic States. The theory that the State and its authority have a Divine Origin and sanction finds unequivdcal support in the scriptures of almost all religions in the world. In the Mahabharata, it is recounted that the people approached God and requested him to grant them a ruler who should save them from the anarchy and chaos prevailing in the state of nature. Without a Chief, O Lord, they prayed, We are perishing. Give us a Chief whom we shall worship in concert and who will protect us.

The theory of Divine Origin, however, received a new impetus with the advent of Christianity. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, said Jesus Christ, and Paul amplified this in his Epistle to the Romans, which has been quoted by writers time and again in support of the theory of Divine Origin. We are, thus, told, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisted the power, resisted the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive themselves damnation. The theory of Divine Origin so enunciated, believed in and accepted, thus, implied: 1. That God deliberately created the State and this specific act of His grace was to save mankind from destruction; 2. That God sent his Deputy or Vice-regent to rule over mankind. The ruler was a divinely appointed agent and he was responsible for his actions to God alone whose Deputy the ruler was. All were ordained to submit to his authority and disobedience to his command was a sin for which there was divine punishment. The Divine Right of Kings: There were direct and precise instructions to the faithful. Although the Roman Empire was a pagan empire, Paul had ordered Christians to accept its authority as derived from God and thereby admitted that the State, whatever the personal morality of the monarch, was divinely ordained. During the Middle Ages in Europe the theory of the Divine Origin of the State was transformed into the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. The temporal authority, having emerged victorious over the spiritual authority, claimed that it was a divine favour to the Viceregents of divine authority. Even today the Queen of Great Britain is a Queen by the Grace of God. 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. Bousset advocated it in France and supported the despotism of Louis XIV. It was claimed that Kings ruled by divine right and the subjects had no recourse against them. Kings, wrote James I, are breathing images of God upon earth and disobedience to their commands was disobedience to God. As it is atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do, so it is presumption and high contempt in a subject to dispute what a King can do, or to say that a King cannot do this or that.

Even rebellion in the cause of religion was deemed a sacrilege because, the State of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for Kings are not only Gods lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon Gods throne, but even by God himself they are called Gods. As men are children of God, so are men children of the King and they owe him an equal obedience, Without a King there could be no civil society, as the people were a mere heedless multitude incapable of making laws. All law proceeded from the King as the divinely instituted law-giver of his people. The only choice for the people was submission to the authority of the King or complete anarchy. The King could not be held answerable for his actions to human judgment. He was responsible to God alone. A bad King will be judged by God but he must not be judged by his subjects or by any human agency for enforcing the law, such as the estates or the courts. The law resided ultimately in the breast of the King. 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; and 4. Resistance to the lawful authority of a King is a sin. The theory of the Divine Right of Kings, originally used in the Middle Ages to serve 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 people when the people claimed that ultimately power and sovereign authority rested with them. Evaluation of the Theory: That the State is divinely created does not find any place in the present political thought. The State is essentially a human institution, and it comes into existence when a number of people occupying a definite territory organise themselves politically for achieving common ends. The laws of the State are made by men and enforced by them. The State, therefore, originated in the bare needs of the life of man and continues in existence for the satisfaction of those needs and aspirations for a good life. To accept it as the creation of God is to defy nature itself and to exalt the State to a position above criticism and change. The Divine Origin theory is dangerous as it justifies the arbitrary exercise of royal authority by holding that authority has a religious sanction and origin, and Kings are the vicars of God. When the

ruler is made responsible for his actions to God alone and law is held to reside ultimately in the breast of the King, it is tantamount to preaching absolutism and making the King a despot. Even if it be conceded that the King is the viceregent or deputy of God, then, how can the existence of a bad King be justified? History abounds in examples of bad and vicious Kings. God personifies virtue, grace and benevolence and so should be His deputy. It is, accordingly, bad logic to accept the dogma of James I that Kings are breathing images of God upon earth. Even in the scriptures the theory does not find unequivocal support. The Bible tells us, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods. This saying of Christ does not justify the Divine Origin of the State. Finally, the theory does not consider any other form of government except monarchy and that, too, absolute monarchy. Such a form of government is antagonistic to the democratic ideal which accepts consent as the basis of the State. The Divine Origin theory is dismissed as an explanation of the origin of the State. At the same time, the theory has a certain value. We cannot ignore the part which religion played in the development of the State. The early rulers combined unto themselves the authority and functions of a king and a priest. Law had a religious sanction and divine or religious law appealed to primitive man more than human law. Obedience to the State was deemed a religious duty and religious worship was supported by government. Belief in a common religion was, thus, a great combining factor which welded the people in the pursuit of common ends. It taught men to obey when they were not yet ready to govern themselves. Finally, the theory of Divine Origin adds a moral tone to the functions of the State. To regard the State as the work of God is to give it a high moral status, to make it something which the citizen may revere and support, something which he may regard as the perfection of human life.The Divine Origin Theory and with that the Divine Right of Kings was discredited in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the West and was replaced by the Social Contract Theory and Rousseaus concept of popular sovereignty. Thus, the Voice of God gave place to the voice of the people.

Fascism - definition
A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito

Mussolini , who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain.

Origins of Fascism
While socialism (particularly Marxism) came into existence as a clearly formulated theory or program based on a specific interpretation of history, fascism introduced no systematic exposition of its ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction against socialist and democratic egalitarianism. The growth of democratic ideology and popular participation in politics in the 19th cent. was terrifying to some conservative elements in European society, and fascism grew out of the attempt to counter it by forming mass parties based largely on the middle classes and the petty bourgeoisie, exploiting their fear of political domination by the lower classes. Forerunners of fascism, such as Georges Boulanger in France and Adolf Stker and Karl Lueger in Germany and Austria, in their efforts to gain political power played on people's fears of revolution with its subsequent chaos, anarchy, and general insecurity. They appealed to nationalist sentiments and prejudices, exploited anti-Semitism , and portrayed themselves as champions of law, order, Christian morality, and the sanctity of private property. Emergence after World War I The Russian Revolution (1917), the collapse of the Central Powers in 1918, and the disorders caused by Communist attempts to seize power in Germany, Italy, Hungary, and other countries greatly strengthened fascism's appeal to many sections of the European populace. In Italy, particularly, social unrest was combined with nationalist dissatisfaction over the government's failure to reap the promised fruits of victory after World War I. The action of Gabriele D'Annunzio in seizing Fiume ( Rijeka ) was one manifestation of the discontent existing in Italy. Appealing to the masses and especially to the lower middle class through demagogic promises of order and social justice, the fascists could depend upon support, financial and

otherwise, from vested interests, who could not muster such popularity themselves. Governmental paralysis enabled Mussolini in 1922 to obtain the premiership by a show of force. As leader of his National Fascist party, he presented himself as the strong-armed savior of Italy from anarchy and Communism. Borrowing from Russian Communism a system of party organization based on a strict hierarchy and cells, which became typical of fascism everywhere, he made use of an elite party militia-the Black Shirts-to crush opposition and to maintain his power. In Germany at about the same time a fascist movement similar to that in Italy steadily gathered strength; it called itself the National Socialist German Workers' party (Nazi party). Its leader, Adolf Hitler , won support from a middle class ruined by inflation, from certain elements of the working class, especially the unemployed, and from discontented war veterans; he also gained the backing of powerful financial interests, to whom he symbolized stability and order. However, it was not until 1933 that Hitler could carry through his plans for making Germany a fascist state and the National Socialists the sole legal party in the country. The military aggression so inherent in fascist philosophy exploded in the Italian invasion (1935) of Ethiopia, the attack (1936) of the Spanish fascists (Falangists) on their republican government (see Spanish civil war ), and Nazi Germany's systematic aggression in Central and Eastern Europe, which finally precipitated (1939) World War II . Fascism since World War II The Italian Social Movement (MSI), a minor neofascist party, was formed in Italy in 1946. It won wider support when the pervasive corruption of the governing parties was exposed in the early 1990s, and it became a partner in the conservative government formed after the 1994 elections. In 1995, however, the MSI dissolved itself as it was transformed into a new party headed by former MSI leader Gianfranco Fini and including the majority of former MSI members. Fini's right-wing National Alliance rejected fascist ideology,

including anti-Semitism, and embraced democracy as one of its principles and has participated in center-right governing coalitions. In postwar West Germany, neofascism appeared in the form of the temporary growth of the nationalistic National Democratic party in the mid-1960s. Following German reunification, neo-Nazi groups in the country gained increased prominence, with new members being drawn to the organization as a result of social upheaval and economic dislocation, and the nation experienced an increase in related violence, especially attacks on immigrants and foreigners. Neo-Nazi groups also exist on a small scale in the United States, and right-wing nationalistic movements and parties in countries such as France, Russia, and some republics of the former Yugoslavia have political groups with elements of fascism. For many of these parties, however, ethnic and racial animosity is often more significant than fascist philosophy.

Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy

Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens. A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma. Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected

only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche , Thomas Carlyle , and Richard Wagner , is closely linked with fascism's rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and "the will."

The Fascist State

Fascism has found adherents in all countries. Its essentially vague and emotional nature facilitates the development of unique national varieties, whose leaders often deny indignantly that they are fascists at all. In its dictatorial methods and in its use of brutal intimidation of the opposition by the militia and the secret police, fascism does not greatly distinguish itself from other despotic and totalitarian regimes. There are particular similarities with the Communist regime in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. However, unlike Communism, fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place and function. Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the corporative state is a part of fascist dogma. Although Mussolini's and Hitler's governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it as an obstacle to socialization. On the other hand, the state adopted a paternalistic attitude toward labor, improving its conditions in some respects, reducing unemployment through large-scale public works and armament programs, and controlling its leisure time through organized activities. Many of these features were adopted by the Franco regime in Spain and by quasi-fascist dictators in Latin America (e.g., Juan Pern ) and elsewhere. A variation of fascism was the so-called clericofascist system set up in Austria under Engelbert Dollfuss . This purported to be based on the social and economic doctrines

enunciated by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, which, however, were never put into operation.

Corporative state
The economic system inaugurated by the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy. It was adapted in modified form under other European dictatorships, among them Adolf Hitler's National Socialist regime in Germany and the Spanish regime of Francisco Franco. Although the Italian system was based upon unlimited government control of economic life, it still preserved the framework of capitalism. Legislation of 1926 and later years set up guilds, or associations, of employees and employers to administer various sectors of the national economy. These were represented in the national council of corporations. The corporations were generally weighted by the state in favor of the wealthy classes, and they served to combat socialism and syndicalism by absorbing the trade union movement. The Italian corporative state aimed in general at reduced consumption in the interest of militarization.

Charaecterstics of fasicm

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat

or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
The State is, as Garner said, neither the handiwork of God, nor the result of superior physical force, nor the creation of resolution or convention, nor a mere expansion of the family. The State is, as Garner said, neither the handiwork of God, nor the result of superior physical force, nor the creation of resolution or convention, nor a mere expansion of the family. It is an institution of natural growth which originated in the bare needs of the life of man and continues in existence for the sake of good life. The theory which explains, and is now accepted as a convincing origin of the State, is the Historical or Evolutionary Theory. It explains that the State is the product of growth, a slow and steady evolution extending over a long period of time and ultimately shaping itself into the complex structure of a modem State. Burgess has aptly said that the State is a continuous development of human society out of a grossly imperfect beginning through crude but improving forms of manifestation towards a perfect and universal organisation of mankind. It is difficult to say how and when the State came into existence. Like all other social institutions, it must have emerged imperceptibly, supported by various influences and conditions. Apart from the influences of physical environment and geographical conditions, there are five important factors which made men to aggregate at different places and separated one group from another, thereby paving the way for the rise and growth of the State. These important factors are: 1. Kinship; 2. Religion; 3. Property and defence;

4. Force; 5. Political consciousness. It must, however, be remembered that not any one of these influences has worked in isolation from others in the process of State building. They operated in various combinations, each playing its part in creating that unity and organisation that the State requires. 1. Kinship: The earliest form of social organisation was based upon blood relationship and kinship was the first and the strongest bond of unity. What bound people together and made them cohere into a group was the belief in common descent and the earliest and closest unit of kinship was the family. It is, of course, a disputed point whether tribe, group or family came first, yet it cannot be denied that family constituted the first link in the process of the evolution of the State, and government must have begun in a clearly defined family discipline; command and obedience. Even the advocates of the Matriarchal Theory ultimately veer round to the family and recognise the authority of the patriarch. With the expansion of the family arose new families and the multiplication of families led to the formation of clans and tribes. Throughout the process of this evolution sanction of kinship was the only factor which bound the people together. Persons unconnected by ties of blood, unless admitted into the tribe by adoption, were deemed strangers and treated as enemies. The name of the common ancestor was the symbol of kinship. The magic of names, as Maclver sums up, reinforced the sense of kinship, as the course of generations enlarged the group. The blood bond of sonship changed imperceptibly into the social bond of the wider brotherhood. The authority of the father passed into the power of the chief. Once more under the aegis of kinship new forms arose which transcended it. Kinship created society and society at length created the state. The origin of the political activity of man is, therefore, embedded in Aristotles cogent remark that man is a social and political animal. It is, then, clear that the germs of government must have begun in clearly defined family discipline and the patriarch evoked respect and obedience to authority. The authority of the father of the family over its members was complete, absolute and undisputed. The patriarch, who afterwards became the tribal chieftain, combined unto himself religious, administrative, judicial and military powers. This is the evidence of history. 2. Religion:

Closely connected with kinship, as a factor in State-building, is religion. Kinship and religion in the primitive society were two aspects of the same thing and both acted simultaneously in welding together families and tribes. Religion was the sign and seal of common blood, the expression of its oneness, its sanctity, its obligation. When the bonds of kinship steadily weakened with the expansion of the family into the gens, the clans and the tribes, a common form of worship reinforced the sense of unity and respect for authority. The primitive religion evolved from animism to ancestor-worship. The early man was surrounded by natural phenomena which he could not understand. He looked towards natural forces, such as storms, thunder and lightning, clouds and wind, the sun, moon and stars with awe and reverence. The changing seasons and the birth and death of vegetation made him stand aghast. To his innocent mind and uncultivated intellect the mystery of death and other psychological problems, like sleep, dreams and insanity, were insoluble. He interpreted all such phenomena as manifestation of some supernatural power. What he could not understand, he began to worship. He saw God in clouds and heard him in the wind. Under such conditions emerged two forms of religion, worship of nature, and worship of ancestors. The hallowed ceremonies of ancestor worship were conducted at the family altar. There the living came into the presence of their great dead, the spirits of the departed, who exercised power to evil as well as to good and who must be appeased by the meticulous performance of sacred rites. In this way, came to be established a family of deities around which abundant traditions and myths came to be formed. Ancestor-worship, thus, strengthened the bonds of family union which eventually contributed to the solidarity of the tribe. But these bonds were only local in character. When tribes expanded by incorporation or conquest, kinship and ancestor-worship proved weak ties of union among the diverse people spread over extended territory. Common belief in gods and deities, or worship of nature became the cementing bond of affinity and comradeship among such people, although remnants of the old family worship and legends of tribal heroes still formed a common national religion that served as a sanction of government and law. The sanction of law in primitive society was religion and, as it was the terrible aspect of religion that appealed to primitive minds, the breaking of law was followed by terrible punishment. This is how the relation of command and obedience, which was natural in family relations, was definitely established by religion.

Side by side grew up superstitions and magical customs. In primitive communities magical rites and incantations were practised both privately and publicly. Anyone who could propitiate the spirits began to acquire commanding importance and unique influence. He was looked upon with awe and reverence and all bowed to his authority, since none could dare incur the wrath of the magic-man. The sorcerer became the leader and it is here that we witness the emergence of magician-kings. From magician the step to chief or king was simple. Magicians gave way to priests, when people had lost faith in the spirits and the power of magic. The priests, too, came into eminence in the same way as the magicians. The evidence available sufficiently shows that early kings were priest- kings, combining the duties of ceremonial observances and secular rule. The rise of the magician and of his kingly successor has been the special thesis of Sir James G. Frazer. According to Frazers theory, the first form of tribal government was the gerontocracy or council of old men, representing the various families constituting the tribe. Their control over the tribe was perfect and complete as they alone were deemed to be familiar with the secret mysteries of the tribal religion, and they alone were considered eminently competent to know all that could be known about the spiritual world. Out of the council of elders emerged the magician, a resolute and ambitious man, a clever and unscrupulous man, who pretended to extraordinary powers of divination and sorcery. The fertility of the soil, rain or drought, the success or failure of crops seemed to depend more upon his incantations and rituals than upon human effort. His influence, especially among an agricultural people, assumed enormous proportions. The magician eventually made himself priest-king. Briefly, the value of religion in the evolution of the State can hardly be denied. In primitive society religion and politics were inextricably mixed up. Religion not only helped the unification of political communities, but it was religion alone which was responsible for subordinating barbaric anarchy and for teaching reverence and obedience. The importance of religion, as a force in the evolution of the State, was not limited to the earliest States alone. In Afghanistan religion has, even now much to do with politics. Islamic law is a force behind Pakistan, the Islamic Republic. Twenty-three Muslim theologists of Pakistan jointly pronounced a verdict (fatwa) against the election of a woman as the President or Khalifa of an Islamic State, when Miss Fatima Jinnah declared her intention to oppose President Ayub Khan in the Presidential election in 1964.

Although a secular State, yet in India, too, religion still plays an important part in the political life of the country. Indias political life is demarcated more on religion than on political issues. The legacy of religion in the political life of the country is found even in Britain as in the religious coronation of Kings or Queens and the still-half-consciously lingering view of law and of State commands as something sacred. The tradition of the divine origin of political power dies hard. 3. Property and Defence: In order to understand the origin of the State and government we must observe how the kinship group earned its living. The basic factor in any given society, says Laski, is the way it earns its living all social relations are built upon provision for those primary material appetites without satisfying which life cannot endure. And an analysis of society will always reveal the close connection between its institutions and culture and the methods of satisfying material appetites. As these methods change, so also will the institutions and culture of the society change? Changes in the methods of economic production appear to be the most vital factor in the making of changes in all other social patterns we know. For changes in those methods detuning the changes of social relationships; and these, in their turn, are subtly interwoven with all the cultural habits of men. The key to social behaviour must, therefore, be sought in the economic system. Among primitive peoples there were successive economic stages that marked the growing importance of property and that brought about corresponding changes in social organisation. The three economic stages are the huntsman stage, the herdsman or pastoral stage and the husbandman or agricultural stage. They are universal stages in the sense that groups generally passed from the one to the other, from lower to higher. The huntsman led a miserable existence, moving about in quest of game and of wild berries or roots. He had no property except the crude weapons and tools. It was a condition of primeval savagely and escape came through the domestication of wild animals. The domestic animals, originally kept as pets, proved a good way to provide against future periods of scarcity. Still later, it became apparent that the animals were useful for other purposes besides supplying meat in times of privation. The horse provided rapid means of movement, the cow provided milk and the sheep wool. He had also come to know that his flocks and herds could be vastly increased by systematic breeding. A huntsman became a herdsman and flocks and herds became his wealth. Simultaneously, other forms of property, for example, improved clothing, weapons, and domestic utensils, appeared.

Whatever may have been the earlier form of the family, pastoral life, which is marked with substantial property interests, increased the social dominance of the male. It strengthened, if it did not create, the patriarchate. The patriarch exercised absolute control over the family, and over all its property. When the family expanded into the gens and the tribe, the patriarchal discipline prepared the way for tribal government. Property introduced all sorts of complications. There must reside sufficient power with the tribal authorities to settle property disputes between different families, and to regulate and safeguard the rights of ownership. Thus, the gradual increase of property entailed a corresponding intensification of social control. Tribesmen, who were accustomed to giving unquestioning obedience to their respective family heads, accepted the authority of the Council of Elders and of the chieftain who rose out of the Council. At the same time, organised force was needed to repel the plundering raids of adjacent tribes. Concerted action for common defence against the hostile designs of others strengthened the solidarity of the tribe and increased the authority of the tribal organisation. The saying war begat the king is, according to Gettell, at least a half truth, since military activity was a powerful force, both in creating the need for authority and law, and in replacing family organisations by system purely political. These conditions called for individual leadership. Some member of the Council of Elders or patriarchs, whose personal qualities, such as, military prowess, knowledge of human nature, oratorical capacity, with or without the assistance of religious superstitions, pushed his way to the front and raised himself far above his peers in prestige and influence. Tribesmen rallied round him and he was recognised as the chieftain. Since the qualities of leadership were likely to be inherited, the office of the chieftain became attached to a particular family and was transmitted like other forms of property. Generally, it passed on to the eldest member of the family, though, in times of unusual stress, when war or domestic violence threatened, the office went not to the eldest, but to the most competent of the chiefly lineage. The institution of private property and its systematic development, thus, brought the nomadic herdsman to the threshold of the State. The State must possess the element of territoriality. Although the pastoral tribes confined their wanderings within roughly determined geographical limits, they were still nomads. The State came into existence when the people became permanently territorially settled.

The territorial State did not appear until population began to press upon subsistence. The herdsman needed much more land than the husbandman. As the pastoral tribe grew in numbers and flocks and herds multiplied, one of the two courses became imminent to follow: either new land might be acquired by migration or the old land put to more productive use. Fertile pastures, when brought under cultivation, could support a bigger population, and the tribesmen had long been experimenting with agriculture, with as crude methods as their tools. Rather than leave the region to which they had become attached, they supplemented their prevailing pastoral economy with the rudiments of agriculture. Gradually the herdsman became husbandman. The transition took place slowly, as, by trial and error of by the imitation of some neighbouring agriculturists the methods of tillage are improved and their potentialities realised. When a pastoral kinship group settled on the land, the State began. The group had already set up a government; it acquired territoriality as well. The three elements of the State are: people; government and territory. When three had been attained, search for the fourth, sovereignty, followed. Along with the new system of production, that is, agriculture, came great social changes. The first was, sharpening of class distinctions with the unequal distribution of wealth. The rise of social classes occurred in pastoral society and they were perpetuated in agricultural society. Besides nobles and commoners, there were slaves. When one tribe attacked the other, the captives were no longer killed and perhaps eaten. The pastoralist had plenty to eat, but felt the need of supplementing the labour resources of the family to care for the expanding herd and to protect it from beasts of prey and human marauders. He invented slavery as a substitute for cannibalism. It was a beneficent invention and in the agricultural society systematic resort was made to slavery. 4. Force: The new system also placed a great emphasis upon military life, first for defence, then for conquest. It is often contended that the State began in conquest when the herdsmen conquered the husbandmen or peasants. The conquest theory is favourably received by the Sociologists. Oppenheimer, the most prominent advocate of this theory, maintains that the cause of the genesis of all States is the contact between peasants and herdsmen, between labourers and robbers, between bottom lands and prairies. The conquest theory does not explain the origin of the State. But the part played by warfare in moulding political institutions at any stage of human development cannot be discounted, more so in a primitive society. Private property, in the form of flocks and herds, afforded a strong incentive to

looting, which in turn had to be checked by systematic defence and punitive expeditions against hostile tribes. Concerted action for common defence and chastisement of the warring tribes created the dire need for military leadership which was an important factor in creating the chieftainship and strengthening its powers. The office of the chieftain became hereditary and consequently it led to the establishment of the monarchy. Yet, the emergence of the State, as Maclver says, and he is supported by the weight of evidence, is not due to force, although in the process of expansion force undoubtedly played a part. 5. Political Consciousness: The last is political consciousness arising from the fundamental needs of life for protection and order. When the people settle down on a definite territory in pursuit of their subsistence and a desire to secure it from encroachment by others, the need for regulating things and persons is felt imminently and this is the essence of political consciousness. It is doubtful whether there was ever a conscious expression for such a need. But there is no denying the fact that the institution of private property and the requirements of self-defence, both from within and without the tribe, and consequently the emergence of military leadership was probably the first distinctive political authority to which the people ungrudgingly submitted. This military leader commanded the confidence of his people and he established some sort of political organisation, i.e., government, to meet the needs of protection and order. In some such way the State arose. People, territory, government and independence from others or sovereignty, as we describe it now, had come in. Much of this, which we present as a regular process, was, of course, very slow and confused. The course of events must have also varied with the character and circumstances of each people. All the same, the spirit of organisation, as Woodrow Wilson says, Is natural twin born with man and the family. In its simple and rudimentary form germs of governmental organisation were found in the family discipline. Religion reinforced family discipline and gradually created the wider discipline necessary for the existence of the State. Custom was the first law and there was a religious sanction behind every custom and the magicians who controlled religious sanctions were more powerful than any agent of political authority. When human wants, economic, social and political, increased through the combination of diverse circumstances and conditions, the State, territorially established and forming a distinct group of

people independent of others, became more complex in form, more universal in its range of activities, more indispensable to the needs of mankind. The distinction we now make so carefully between the State and society is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, a double process had been at work through all these centuries: one by which the State takes over powers hitherto enjoyed by society, and the other by which it abandons to society powers it no longer needs.