Force/power and conquest

Undeniably, force, at times in connivance with cunningness or otherwise, has the effect of ensuring domination of a few or a group or a person over others. Historically, force has been the weapon of slavery and colonialism, and has served as an institution of coercive means. Physical or economic power of social groups or individuals is reflected in coercion and domination in society. In ancient times, power and privileges held by the tribal chiefs might have contributed in emergence of leadership and subjugation. MacIver ruefully says that ‘rulers are privileged beings who gratify their senses of personal power by the capricious and arbitrary exercise of it over their subjects’.⁷⁸

Added to this interplay of power and leadership was, as Edward Jenks says, ‘facts of migration and conquest’. Social and tribal groups moved from places to places in search of food, pastures, water and inhabitation. This resulted in conflict with other groups and conquest over other groups and their territory. This might also have resulted in expansion of authority over larger groups and territory. War, conquest and migration, all helped in expansion of territory, subjection of other social groups into one order and leadership, emergence of rank and hierarchy of command. Some writers hold that in social organizations under very simple conditions, the ‘nearest approach to political office was that of the leader of a war band, accepted for the occasion only.’⁷⁹ However, it is possible that permanent nature of inter-tribal or inter-group war and conflict might require permanency of a chief and also loyalty of the people to the chief. This, along with invocation of religious or hereditary right to rule, would have further sanctified concept of rulership. It has also been suggested that merger of the permanent office of tribal priest (having religious importance) with the temporary one of war leader (having political importance) gave the form of early kingships.⁸⁰ It seems that compulsion of war and conquest as well as protection might have led to emergence of ruler seeking political loyalty from their subjects. This loyalty might have changed its nature from kinship, clan or tribal based to one based on territory.

The Marxian perspective holds that economic power resulted in domination of one class over the other and the State emerged as an instrument of this domination. In fact, it treats force as an integral element of the State and envisages that a counter-force, i.e., revolution of the working class is required to abolish the force of the state. Further, it maintains that till the classless society is established, the State and its force would continue to be used by the working class as an instrument of force to remove all vestiges of class domination.

MacIver is of the opinion that force or power may not have played a crucial role in the evolution of the State. He gives primacy to the service aspect of the state. For him, service or need to serve some function is the cause of development of the State and power might have helped extension of this intention or requirement.⁸¹ However, he cautiously concedes that ‘the State becomes the embodiment of power, but only in proportion as it becomes the instrument of a class, only as it is identified with a privileged order.’⁸² Notwithstanding MacIver’s reservations, we may be correct in pointing out that in present times, the concept of war-time conscription and loyalty of subjects and citizens by states may be a reminder of the factor of force. War and conquest still continue as a means of absorbing people from one state to another. This reminds us that many stateless people might have got absorbed in the process of territorial expansion of existing states.