Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
There are many speculations regarding the nature of the State and the
relation between the State and the individual. Six important theories
deserve special mention The first is the monistic theory. The advocates of
the monistic theory argue that individuals who compose the State have no
independent existence but are mere automatic units in the whole mass,
each dependent on the other and upon the whole for its continued
existence.
They have no independent individuality of their own and all that they are,
they owe it to the society of which they are a part. This is really the
Idealist or the Absolutist theory of the State and we discuss it at a later
stage. Sharply opposed to the monistic theory is the monadnistic or purely
individualistic theory which conceives society as a mere aggregation of
individuals each in large measure living in isolation and independent of his
associates, capable of surviving and even flourishing without the aid of the
State beyond a mere minimum of collective restraint for the protection of
the weak against the aggression of the strong.
With the decline of the Social Contract Theory, in the early part of the
nineteenth century, the theory of the organic nature of the State found a
new and vigorous expression. The ancient and medieval writers had
merely drawn analogy between the State and an organism. They held that
the State resembled an organism. But writers of the nineteenth century
regarded the State as an organism. Even fanciful and very often vain
elaborations of the organic. conception attributing, for instance, to the
State an alimentary system a nervous system,-a circulatory system, etc.
became the theme of the time. Indeed, the fascination of the theory with its
biological analogies and parallelisms became so widespread that political
science, for a time, seemed in danger of being swallowed up by natural
science.
The new theory, that the State is an organism, took root in German soil
and there it found its most notable advocates. But the culmination of the
theory Was reached in the writings of Bluntschli. The State, he assented, is
the very image of human organism. As an oil painting he said, is
something more than a mere aggregation of drops of oil, as a statue is
something more than a combination of marble particles, as a man is
something more than a mere quantity of cells and blood corpuscles, so the
nation is something more than a mere aggregation of citizens, and the State
something more than a mere collection of external regulations. He
stretched his biological analogy to the extreme and endowed the State with
the quality of sex, describing it as having a male personality.
So far we agree and accept the proposition that the State is like an
organism. But the farther these analogies are carried, the more misleading
they become. The user of analogy tends to forget that the resemblances he
notices hold good only within the limits where they overlap. The objects
compared are plainly not identical, as to compare identical is useless, but
possess, besides their common features, other traits that distinguish them.
It is, again, true that the State has grown from similarity and simplicity to
dissimilarity and complexity. But even common reason does not believe
that it is subject to the same process of birth, growth and decay as an
organism. An animal organism comes into existence by the union of two
organisms. This is not the method of the birth of the State. The process of
its growth is also not similar. Organisms grow from within and through
internal adaptation. They grew unconsciously independent of volition,
entirely dependent on its environment and the natural laws of the
biological world. The machinery of the State and its laws, on the other
hand, Change to adjust themselves to the altered cheek and requirements
of the people And all this change is brought about as a result volition and
conscious efforts of its members. Its growth, if such it may be called,
largely the result of the conscious action of its individual members and is
to a great extent self-directed. Then, an organism dies. The State is not
liable to death. It is permanent it endures. To sum up, in the words of J
ellinek “Growth, decline and death are no necessary processes of State life
though they are inseparable from the life of the organism The State does
not originate or renew itself as a plant or as an animal does.”
The Organic Theory does not help us in answering the baffling, but
practical question of what the State should do. In fact, the Organic Theory
has been used to support views on the province of the State ranging from
Individualism to Socialism. Herbert Spencer uses it as a basis, for the
theory of laissez faire and limits the functions of the State only to the
prevention of violence and fraud.The State should, accordingly, limit its
activities to those particular functions for which it arose. From the
“discrete” nature of the social body, he Concluded that every individual
exists for his own good only and not for the happiness of the whole. In
close contrast to Spencer’s theory of Individualism are .the supporters of
extreme socialism and absolutism of the State. Relying upon the organic
nature of the State, the German writers maintained that the State, as the
highest organism is the important unit, and. collective activity is the ideal
of social progress.
Juristic Theory.
The Juristic Theory of the State embodies the point of view of the jurists
who seek to explain the nature of the State in terms of legal concepts. They
endow the State with a fictitious legal personality,as they look upon the
State as a legal “person” possessing, like a natural physical person, an
individuality, self-consciousness and a will of its own. They view the State
as an organ for the creation, interpretation and enforcement of law, and for
the protection of all legal rights.
Not all jurists agree amongst themselves There are some who regard the
State as the sole and exclusive creator of law while others reject this
opinion and maintain that a large body of law in the past was never
enacted or created by the State It essentially, the latter claim, consisted of
customs and usages which no legal sovereign could afford to ignore. A
jurist like Duguit Would go to the length of asserting that law may exist
anterior to the creation of the State, and therefore is independent of its will,
and that the State is bound by this law and has no right to override or
disregard its prescriptions.
But German jurists, like F. J. Stahl, Lorenz Von Stein, Otto Gierke, and
H.G Trietschke, vest the State with a real, as opposed to a fictitious,
personality having a legal will of its own distinct from the sum of the wills
of the individuals composing the State, and a capacity for expressing its
will in words and acts, and as the creator and possessor of rights.
Thus jurists themselves look differently on the nature of the State. As long
as the,conception of the State being a person means nothing more than that
it is a sovereign corporation, that is, an artificial person, as the law regards
all corporations, and as such possesses a collective will, a legal Capacity,
and power of collective action, apart from the Will, the capacity and the
power of action of the numerous individuals who compose, it, just as a
private corporation has a continued existence and possesses rights and
obligations which are distinct from those of the shareholders, the juristic
analysis is good and useful and may be accepted.
But the conception of the real personality of the State, as asserted by some
eminent German jurists, is pregnant with pernicious results. Que may
accept the proposition that the State, like other corporations, has a legal
personality and it can sue and be sued. It may own property, and States do,
direct and undertake economic enterprises and perform other functions as
the custodian of the interests of the present and future generations.
Citizens of the State suffer from telescopic defects they discount the future
and put premium on the present.
The Marxian theory rejects the very basis of the State, namely, that it is a
natural and necessary institution. The State is an artificial vehicle of
coercion and is a product of society at a certain stage of its economic
development. The State, Federick Engels wrote, has not existed from all
eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no
conception of the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic
development, which was necessarily bound up with the cleavage of society
into classes, the state became a necessity owing to cleavage? The State
has, therefore, no moral stature and useful purpose to serve. It is an organ
of class rule, fan organ for the Oppression of one class by another it
creates order which legalities and perpetuates this oppression by
moderating the collision between the classes.
The ancient and the feudal States were organs for the exploitation of the
slaves and the serfs and the contemporary representative state is an
instrument of exploitation of wage-labor by capital. The revolution of the
past was that of the slaves and serfs against feudalism and it found its
expression in the French Revolution. The one in the future, Marx
predicted, will be the revolution of the wage-earners against the
bourgeoisie in their bid to establish the Socialist Commonwealth.
When the revolution comes, the capitalist class will disappear and a
classless society headed by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat takes its
place. “In order to break down the resistance of the bourgeois,” says Marx,
“the workers invest the State with a revolutionary spirit.” A few remaining
elements of capitalism must be swept away and the minds of men purged
of the remnants of capitalist mentality with which they were infected. The
Dictatorship of the Proletariat will continue with the State, but it will be a
revolutionary State invested with oppressive and autocratic powers The
proletarian dictatorship takes up the work of both construction and
destruction construction of Socialism and complete destruction of
Capitalism. Once the bourgeoisie has been completely suppressed and the
remnants of the Capitalist system are removed, the necessity of the State
will cease to exist. The State will “wither away” and the emerging society
will be classless and Stateless.
The Marxian Theory of the State ignores human nature altogether and the
development of historical events and processes. The entire historical
economic thesis of Marx is untenable. The influence of non-economic
interests, such as religious and historical, cannot be brushed aside with
contempt. Both these influences, inter alia, have played a significant role
in the historical growth of society and the State. Then, the State is not the
result of exploitation pure and simple, as the Marxist theory claims.
Exploitation may have played a Vital role in the formation of the State, but
it cannot be the only cause of the origin of the State. Maclver has tightly
said, Significant as that motive was, it did not work alone. The authority of
the elders over the younger kin was not exploitation, but it played a part in
the making of the State. The tribal sense of justice evoked agencies of
jurisdiction, and they too were conditions of the emerging State. And
many factors contributed to create the kind of political loyalty without
which the State would have never grown to maturity.
Secondly, Will the State at all “wither away”? There was no trace of it
under the former Soviet Russia. Nor is there any in China and other
Communist countries that exist. Both these vital instruments of
Communist ideology constitute the whole of development of a Communist
Society.