Force Theory of the Origin of the State

chVoltaire’s remark that ‘The first King was a fortunate warrior’ exemplifies the notion that a superior force must be behind the origin of the State. Force theory typically implies that the origin of the State is found in the subjugation of the weak by the stronger. In the primitive stage of evolution, physically stronger people must have prevailed over the weak and politically unorganized people, thereby establishing authority as rulers and commanders. This is also true in the case of stronger tribes and clans in relationship to the weaker tribes and clans. Physical force of a person or a tribe or a clan must have established domination over the weaker ones in the process of war and conquest. This might have resulted in the institution of kingship, which continued as a hereditary institution.

Two of the main proponents of the Force theory are Edward Jenks and Franz Oppenheimer. A History of Politics (1900), supported the Force theory of origin of the State. He cited the example of emergence of state power in several countries of Europe to prove that the State has been based on force.⁷ The growth of kingdoms in many Scandinavian countries such as Norway, Sweden, etc. initiated by tribal overlords; conquests of Russia by the ethnic groups such as the Normans in the ninth century AD and the founding of kingdom of Normandy in the tenth century AD may be cited as examples in support of the Force theory. Jenks held that ‘there is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all political communities of the modern type owe their allegiance to successful warfare.’⁸ Franz Oppenheimer in his book, The State, Its History and Development (1914), also advanced ‘a conquest theory of State origins …’⁹ and traced the origin of the State through various stages. The main features of this theory can be summarized as:

• State is a product of superior physical force of individual or clan or tribe
• It is the war that begets the State
• War, conquest and domination of a person or a tribe/clan over the others who were weak and unorganized resulted in the institution of kingship
• The relationship between a war chief and his followers in the early periods finds its parallel in the modern feature of military allegiance
• Territorial character of modern states owes its link to the coming together of different races, tribes and people under the domination of a single ruler

The Force theory, by its very focus on force as a single most factor of origin of the State, is partial and one-sided. It ignores other historical and evolutionary factors like kinship, religion, customs, etc. that contributed to the development of the state. Some writers even doubt whether conquest could be a reason for origin of the state. Lowell Field remarks that ‘it may be accepted as a rule that the larger states of the ancient and medieval periods became larger through conquest. Whether in all cases the tiny nuclei of State organization—the city-states—began in the same manner cannot be proved.’¹⁰

Even if force can be reckoned as one of the factors in the origin of the state, the same may not qualify for its continuance. Force, domination and coercion alone cannot provide the basis for sustaining the State, it requires willing acceptance of the power of the State by the people. As Thomas Hill Green would say, ‘will’ not force is the basis of the state. Jean Jacques Rousseau says, ‘force is a physical power … To yield to force is an act of necessity not of will—at the most an act of prudence.’¹¹ R. M. MacIver also finds fault with the argument that force alone can bring a group together to form the state.

However, in modern times, many writers and theorists have used force as an element of the State to extend their own arguments. Anarchists, for example, treat the State as a repository of force, which impedes self-realization of individuals and hence an ‘unnecessary evil’. Marxists feel that the State represents domination and exploitation of one class by the other due to economic power. Individualists treat the State, as ‘necessary evil’, which though can perform useful role, is against individual liberty.

The role of force, coercion and violence in establishing and sustaining colonial rule in Asia and Africa by various European powers (particularly Britain and France) give some degree of credibility to the force theory. Mahatma Gandhi’s view that the State was a repository of force, coercion and violence was shaped during his stay in South Africa and the British rule in India. Even in contemporary times, we find various manifestations of state power like police and military force. Force remains one of the important elements in present-day state power as well.