We discussed the concept and elements of the State, and the evolution of the State to its present form—the nation-state. We will study the various perspectives and theories of the State by taking into account rival and contested approaches that seek to find out how and when the State originated, its nature, its sphere of action, the roles and functions it performs for the society, its ends and objectives, and what is and should be its relationship with the individual.
We may argue that any enquiry into ‘political’ or ‘politics’ in contemporary times invariably deals with the State as the central operating agency, notwithstanding variations in the understanding and definition of what is ‘political’ or what constitutes ‘politics’. There is no denying the fact that we study the political aspects of non-state and supra-state actors such as regional and global organizations—NATO, UNO, ASEAN, WTO—as well as aspiring states like Palestine. Nevertheless, the logic and the concept of the State remain central.
Politics and the political process may apply to even institutions and processes prevalent in stateless societies, tribes, communities, clans, etc. Hence it has broader scope than the State. We that the theorists of the political system approach—David Easton, G. A. Almond, G. B. Powell—suggest that any system, which makes resource allocation in the society in an authoritative and binding manner by use of threat or by use of (legitimate) physical force, qualifies as a political system. As such, the study of political system has a larger scope than the study of State. While this is true that politics of stateless societies can be studied through the political system approach, study of the State has been the main focus of political science.
The Greek words polis and politeia, which roughly stand for ‘city’ or ‘city-state, indicate a relationship between the State and politics. Plato’s Republic was an enquiry into and an examination of the polis and so was Aristotle’s Politics. The focus of Greek political thought allows us to assume that political science and political thought started with a concern with the State. In medieval times, Bluntschli echoed this when he declared that ‘Political Science in the proper sense is the science which is concerned with the State.’1
In the similar way, some recent commentators and writers like D. D. Raphael (Problems of Political Philosophy, 1970), N. P. Barry (An Introduction to Modern Political Theory, 1981) and others have stated that ‘political’ is generally related to the State and history of political theory has been mainly concerned with the state.2
Perspectives and theories regarding the origin, nature, sphere, role, functions and ends of the State are diverse and mostly partisan—diverse because of their approach and partisan because of their focus. Diversity of approach arises from how the State is viewed in terms of its:
- Origin: Whether the State is a product of force (Force theory); historical and social evolution (Sociological theory); divine dispensation (Divine theory); social contract; private property and class division (Marxian theory), etc.
- Nature: Whether the State is an organism/real personality (Organic theory); ethical or teleological institution (Idealist theory); legal or corporate personality (Legal/Juristic theory); artificial and utilitarian machine and coordinator and referee (Social Contract theory/Utilitarian theory); class instrument (Marxian theory); an agency/association like various other associations in society (pluralist theory), etc.
- Sphere of action: Whether the State should encompass limited aspects of life of the people and interfere sparingly (minimalist approach) or whether it should cover entire aspects of people’s life (maximalist approach).
- Roles, functions and ends: Whether the State has its objective as ensuring achievement of moral self-realization by individuals or maintenance of natural rights and fulfilling the terms of social contract only or role in economic growth, equity and redistribution and welfare or being a means of class exploitation, etc.
We may begin by looking at the classification of various perspectives and theories attempted by some commentators and writers like C. L. Wayper, J. W. Garner, Andrew Vincent and Andrew Heywood (See Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 Classification of Various Perspectives and Theories on the State
| Commentator/Writer | Perspectives/Theories |
|---|---|
| C. L. Wayper(Political Thought)3 | State as Organism (Organic Theory)State as Machine (Contract and Utilitarian Theory)State as Class (Marxian Theory) |
| J. W. Garner(Political Science and Government)4 | Juridical TheoryOrganismic TheoryContract TheoryIdealistic or Metaphysical Theory |
| Andrew Vincent(Theories of the State)5 | Absolutist TheoryConstitutional TheoryEthical TheoryClass TheoryPluralist Theory |
| Andrew Heywood(Politics)6 | How the State has been understood:Idealist approachFunctionalist approachOrganizational approachHow Nature of State Power is seen:Pluralist StateCapitalist StateLeviathan StatePatriarchal StateHow the role of the State is viewed:Minimal StateDevelopmental StateSocial–Democratic StateCollectivized StateTotalitarian State |
The functions and roles of the State can be studied in terms of the Idealist, Liberal, Neo-Liberal, Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Communitarian, Gandhian and other approaches. Further, it can be also studied in terms of social and developmental strategies such as private sector economy, public sector economy or mixed economy and stages of economic development vis-à-vis the First World, the Second World and the Third World. This, in turn, may also inform classifications like capitalist states, communist states, welfare states, post-colonial states, social-democratic states, etc.
Various perspectives and theories have evolved to understand the State in terms of its origin, nature of state power, role and the functions, and ends it serves. To organize our discussions on these, we propose to group these perspectives and theories as shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Grouping of Perspectives and Theories
Leave a Reply