State and Government—Sovereignty of Fallible Men?

Laski makes a distinction between the State as a concept and its reflection in practice as government. Government for all practical purposes invokes the power of the State and makes decisions, issues orders and enforces obedience. Thus, power of the State is expressed in the government. Laski says, ‘A theory of State … is essentially a theory of governmental act.’⁸⁰ This makes us infer that for Laski, government is the operative organ of the State and all the powers or authority or sovereignty that is attributed to the state would be in practice enjoyed by the government concerned. In his Grammar of Politics Laski suggests that it is ‘the realization that the State’s claim to pre-eminence always means, in fact, the sovereignty of a government composed of fallible men whose intentions alone are not a sufficient justification for so vast a claim’⁸¹ that pluralist doctrine was derived. It is this notion of government, being the short hand for the state and being its agent, that makes Laski deny handing over of overwhelming power to a group of men who constitute the government. The fallibility of these men can arise due to their own selfish interest or mistaking private interest of a few for interest of the whole community. Further, we have seen Laski arguing for wider representation. Given his doubt regarding adequate representation of all aspects of society in the existing set-up of government, he would prefer not to assign supreme authority to the State to be misused by government. And this provides yet another reason of Laski’s criticism of the concept of absolute sovereignty of the State.