The philosophical foundation of state

1. 1. Discuss the philosophical foundation of State
The philosophical foundation of state is linked with certain level of human society.
Obviously since that level of development human society has maintained existence. In this
regard, various historical, archeological and anthropological studies indicate the existence of
organized societies since the beginning of human history at least in their rudimentary level.
There is a broader consensus among scholars that advanced civilization with their resultant
political organization in the human society can be traced back to the ancient eastern
civilizations as far as 5000 B.C. During that time, large scale political organizations and state
systems. For which there are recorded history, developed particularly in the Tigres, Ephratus
and Nile valleys and later in the valleys of the great rivers of China. The emergence of
organized societies in these areas was because of importance of great river valleys that
facilitated crop cultivation and surplus production.In effect the transition of human society
into process of crop cultivation and production is a significant step towards civilization and
the rise of politically organized human societies. The argument is therefore that the rise of
agricultural made of economy in the great river basins encouraged permanent settlement of
people by leading to the creation of states.
There are also historical records in the western civilization that indicate the embryonic
foundation of modern state and the principles of politics. This is particularly true that to the
ancient Greeks where city state or Polis as they were called in Greeks developed and
operated on narrowly based democratic system. However, the political system of the ancient
Greek was constantly nourished by the varieties of ideas of Greek philosophers.
One of the prominent figures of ancient Greek philosophers was Aristotle whose work
contributed much to development of ideas and particulates of modern state systems.
(Axtmann, Roland 2004 P.259–279)
As there are many places where state emerged, there are also many contending theories that
try to explain the origins and purposes of the state. We now turn out line to contending
theories.
1. Devine right theory
2. Evolutionary theory
3. Social contract theory
4. Force theory
5. Marxist theory
6. Theory on development of agriculture
7. Patriarical and Matriarical theories

2. 1. Devine right theory
The theory of divine origin is one of the earliest theories regarding origin of the state. According
to this theory, the state is seen as an institution created by God. This theory clarifies state to be of
a divine creation. Rulers were regarded as God’s own representative on earth. That is, it is of
God’s will that in human society some are born to while others are born to be ruled.
Moreover, the theory assures that the social order, in which the position of the individual is
determined hierarchically on the basis of birth, was given and thus immutable.
The king is deputy or representative of God, and must as such be obeyed and reserved by the
people. There is no one on earth above the ruler. His command is law, and all his action are
justified. To disobey the ruler is to defy the divine will. It is not merely crime: it is sinful.
James I of England has given a clear exposition to the Devine rights of kings in his book entitled
The Law of Free Monarchies. He claims that the king derives his authority from god, and is not
responsible for the people on earth. He is above the law, and is subjected to God alone. He has
authority over every person and enjoys the power of life and death. Even if the king wicked, the
people have no right to rebel against him.To disobey the king is to rebel God himself. According
to James I, Kings are justly called Gods, for they exercise a manner of resemblance of divine
power on earth.
The silent feature of the doctrine of divine right of kings may be summarized up as follows:
a. The king derives his authority from God and that monarchy a divinely ordained.
b. Hereditary right is indefeasible (incapable of being voided).
c. Kings are not answerable for their subjects. They are accountable to God alone.
d. Resistance to the authority of king is sinful.
Now days the theory of divine origin of state is being discred ited. According to Glichrist, there
are three causes responsible for decline of this story;
 The emergence of Social Contract Theory which laid emphasis on popular will;
 The separation of church and state which diminished the importance of religion in
secular manners and
 The rise of democracy which made peoples conscious of their rights.
According to J.N. Figgis, the reason for decline of this theory lies in the fact that there is general
belief in the supreme role of reason, and faith has its proper place only in matters spirituality.
The theory justifies and favors only the monarchial form of government. It also undervalues the
role of man in the emergence of state and is also opposed to the principle of democracy. Latterly
the theory is reactionary and politically dangerous. (Endale, Tesfaye (2011), P.36-38)

3. 2. Evolutionary theory
This theory is generally accepted because it did not consider the state neither as a divine
institution nor as a deliberate human contrivance. Rather, it conceived the state coming into
existence as the result of natural evolution. Based on this conviction, it is evident according to
scholars that the theories previously discussed must for reasons already stated, be rejected as
unsatisfactory.
The proposition therefore of the state as a product of history was aptly captured succinctly by
J.W. Burgess who explained that the evolutionary theory is premised on a gradual and
continuous development of human society out of a grossly imperfect beginning through crude
but improving forms of manifestation towards a perfect and universal organization of mankind.’
The beginnings of government cannot be traced to a particular time or cause because of the result
of various factors through ages such as the influences as kinship, religion, war and political
consciousness.
Now let us explain the key influences one after the other.
1. Kingship: In early society, the first and strongest bond and government was kingship. This
bond expectedly, clearly defined family discipline which would scarcely be possible among
races in which blood-relationship was subject to profound confusion and in which family
organisation, therefore, had no clear basis of authority on which to rest. In every case, it would
seem the origin of what we should deem worthy of the name of government must have awaited
the development of some such definite family as that in which the father was known and
known as ruler.
However, whether or not the patriarchal family was the first form of the family, it must have
been adequate as the first form of government.
2. Common worship: This undoubtedly is another element in the welding together of families
and tribes. This worship evolved from primitive animism to ancestor-worship. When ancestor
worship became the prevailing form of religion, religion was inseparably linked with kinship for,
at the family or communal altar; the worshipper did homage to the great dead of his/her family or
group and craved protection and guidance. In some tribes, also we find that the medicine-man or
magician, who naturally held a predominant position, acquired or was elevated to the position of
kingship. The primitive man had implicit faith in the existence of spirits, the spirits of the dead
and the spirits of nature. The medicine-man or woman, professing ability to control them by
means of his/her sorcery, naturally came to be regarded with mysterious awe and acquired
unique influence. At this point, the student would have seen so far the point we have made about
war and migration as important influences in the origin of the state. The point at issue is that the
demands of constant warfare often led to the rise of permanent headship. In effect, when a
tribe was threatened by danger or involved in war, it was driven by necessity to appoint a leader.

4. This continuity of war conduced to the permanence of leadership. Accordingly, war and
conquest helped to give the mark of territoriality to the state. In the patriarchal society or tribe,
the nexus had been that of blood; but when leader established his/her authority over a territory by
conquest, over a people with whom he/her had no blood relationship, all those who lived in that
territory become his/her subjects thus making blood no longer the essential bond of unity.
3. Religion: it has emerged out of the way of life of people living in the families.
4. Force: it has played its own part in the form of conflict and wars.
5. Economics: it is for the sake of living which is from simple primitive food gathering in
the complex globalization economic activities.
6. Political Consciousness: it has helped human beings for social, moral and intellectual
development. (Johari 2006 p.127 )
Finally, political consciousness on the other hand, originally government was spontaneous,
natural, and twin-born with man and the family.
Indeed, Aristotle could be said to be stating a fact when he said ‘man is by nature a political
animal’. This act becomes more cogent based on the fact that the need for order and security is
an ever-present factor; man knows instinctively that he/she can develop the best of which
he/she is capable only by some form of political organisation. Obviously, though at the
beginning, it might well be that the political consciousness was really political unconsciousness;
however, ‘just as the forces of nature operated long before the discovery of the law of
gravitation, it is only apt to agree that political organisation really rested on the community of
mind, unconscious, dimly conscious, or fully conscious of certain moral ends present throughout
the whole course of development’.
Generally this theory emphasized on all theories on the origin of state by rejecting all theories
separately as theory of the origin of state. (Appadorai. A. (1968.) P.141-142).
3. Social contract theory
The social contract theory believes that the state is an artificial creation based on the volume of
agreement or contract among people. The state is the creation of deliberate human effect derives
its authority from the consent of the people who, through the instrumentality of the agreement,
organized themselves in to a body politic at same remote period of history.
As to the terms of this agreement, individual writers have held different views. According to
some thinkers, the contract was responsible for the institution of civil society alone, while others
look upon it as a governmental contract made between the rulers and the ruled. Some hold that
the parties to the contract were individuals emerging from the state of nature. Others maintain

5. that the parties to the contract were the people in their corporate capacity on the one hand and the
ruler on the other.
The idea of basing the authority of the ruler up on agreement or contract with their subjects was
first forwarded by the Sophists who live before Plato. The Sophists regarded the states to be an
artificial creation built for the benefit of its members. Plato and Aristotle dealt with this theory
only to repudiate it. The Epicurean philosophers, who followed Plato and Aristotle, Subscribed
to this theory. The held that justice exists only as a result of contract.
The social contract theory had little vogue as a political instrument in the early Christian era.
However in the Bible there are some instances of covenants between the people and the king.
Roma law also kept the contract theory alive. Under the Roma law, the people were regarded as
the source of political authority. From Cierio onwards the idea that the people are the source of
political authority constantly recurs. The Teutonic theory, Political authority was derived from
and continued under the people.
The Feudal society, as it was based on contractual relationship between the lord and vassal, was
quite friendly with the idea of contract. In the political discussions of the middle ages also, the
idea of contract found a significant place.
The contract theory, which began to grow in influence, since eleventh century, received
widespread acceptance from the 16th century onwards. Hooker was the first English writer to
give definite statement of this theory. The central question which Hooker set out to consider in
his book, Laws of Ecclesiastical Policy is whether subjects must obey and authority they
themselves have not set up. His answer is that original contract obliges the people to obedience
the contract cannot be revoked, except by general agreement. Yet, Hooker did not regard the
statements completely artificial and contractual. As different from Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau,
he held the people concluded the contract as a result of their instincts.
After Rousseau, the theory of social contract began to decline, through and Fitchte made use of
the theory to some extent. (Endale, Tesfaye (2011), P.40-43)
4. Force theory
This theory proposes that the state is the result of the subjugation of the weaker by the stronger.
The reason for this perhaps may not be far from the fact that historically ‘there is not the slightest
difficulty in proving that all political communities of the modern type owe their existence to
successful warfare’.
In effect, as a justification of this, in the eighteenth century, Hume expressed that: ‘It is probable,
that the first ascendant of one man over multitudes began during a state of war, where the
superiority of courage and of genius discovers most visibly, where unanimity and concert are

6. most sensibly felt. The long continuance of that state, an incident common among savage tribes,
inured the people to submission”.
The basic argument by Hume is that consequent upon the increase of population and the
consequent pressure on the means of subsistence invariably there would be also an improvement
in the art of warfare. It is therefore in this light that he conceived that a state is founded when a
leader, with his band of warriors, gets permanent control of a definite territory of a considerable
size.
This may occur in one of two ways:
1. When the leader, after firmly establishing his or her position as ruler of his/her own tribe,
extends his/her authority over neighboring tribes until he or she comes to rule over a
large territory. This is what seems to have happened in Scandinavia, where, in the ninth
century, ‘the innumerable tribes became gradually consolidated, as the result of hard
fighting, into the three historic kingdoms of Norway, Denmark and Sweden’. .
2. A state is founded by successful migrations and conquests. This was the history of the
Normans, ‘who, in the ninth century, became the ruling power in Russia. In Nigeria,
we have the cases of the conquests of the Sakkwato Conquests of Hausa Speaking lands
in the North.
Expectedly, the new type of community founded by consolidation or by migration and conquest
in order words differed from the tribes because of their territorial character. The understanding
here therefore is that all those who live within the territory of the ruler (and not only those who
were related to him by blood) were bound to obey his/her commands.
This theory like others has also been criticized not only on the claim that force is a factor in the
formation of a state but rather as an element like various causes such as kinship, religion,
force and political consciousness. (John, Locke. (1689.) P.232)
5. Marxist theory
According to Marxist theory the state originated with the emergence of class difference or
extended division of labor inside the community. That means the state was an instrument of
exploitation established by the rich (those who have property) against the poor’s (have not’s)
prisoners of war, and improvised (exploiter and exploited) let to emergence of state that
safeguard the in burst of those who have property.
The advocators of Marxist theory see the state as unessential element as it was established at the
expense of the poor. Hence the ultimate goal of this group is to eliminate the state to create ideal
society (communism). (Tewodros, Yakob; (2007) P.36)

7. 6. Theory on development of agriculture
This theory draws from a common understanding that early states were established around
valleys like Tigres and Ephratus in the Middle East, the Nile Valley in northern Africa and the
great rivers (Yang-Tse and Hwang-Ho) of China. Since those rivers enabled ancient people to
produce surplus production and made state formation possible.
From the above theories one can say that different factors contributed for the formation and no
single theory explain exclusively state formation; since we can understood that state originated
with family and later developed to the clan and tribe. In the due course of times war and
conquest had also played a key role in rise of the state.
There were also states that emerged on the consensus of its people like USA.
A state like Israel is a good example that explains divine theory of state formation. So, all
theories try to explain a certain experiences in different parts of the world. But state formation
cannot be explained in terms of one factor. (Tewodros, Yakob; (2007) P.37)
7. Patriarical and Matriarical theories
The genetic theory holds that the state was the product of natural expansion of the family. In
course of time, by a natural process of expansion, one family gave rise to several. Several
families or kinship groups united to form a village. Through time one village expanded into a
several settlements, which in turn united to form a state. As Aristotle observes, “The first form of
association naturally instituted for the satsfaction of the daily recurrent needs is thus the family...
the next forn association... is the village... when we come to the final and perfefct association,
formed from a number of village, we have already reached polis” there are two versions of this
theory that is, the patriarchial theory and the matrarichal theory.
7.2 The Patrarchial Theory
Sir Henry Maine is the chief exponent of the patriarchial theory. According to this theory, the
state is the natural expansion of the origional family unit in which descent was traced through
males, and the eldest living male parent ruled absolutely.
In his famous book, the Ancient Law Henry Maine wrote that “over the members of his
household the ealdest male parent possesed despotic authority. He was not only absolute
owner of property, including even what his children had accured but he could chastise and
even kill, could sell or transfer by adoption, could marry or divorce any of his children at
will” when the children married, there was a natural expansion of family. However the
authority of the head of the first family was acknowlaged by all his descendats. On his death,
authority passed to the eldest male desendant. The multiplication of families, living under

8. control of one head, led to the emergence of tribe. In this course if time, many members of
the tribute withdrew from the parent tribe and and settled in new terittories. This resulted in
the founding of many new tribes and sub tribes. The tribes united by blood acted together for
common pueposes, particularly in defending themselves against external foes. This involved
recognition of some common authority that weld them together and protect them. The
members belonging to the tribe rallied around common authority and the state potentially
come in to existance.
7.2.The Matriarchal theory
The exponents of the matriarchal theory if state are McLennan, Morgan and Jenks. Theories that
the earliest unit was not in the patriarchal family. According to them the marriage of monogamy
and poligamy alone could ensure descent from the male ancestor. But in societies, polyandry i.e.,
one woman having several husbands, was current . when the polyandry prevails, the usual
husband –wife relations are nonexistent. Instead of a family were in those days loosely
connected groups or hordes, with which promiscuous sexual relations prevailed. Under such a
system, kinship was traced the clan of mother. According to Jenks , the earliest group was the
tribe which broke in to later into house hold families. With the advent of pastoral life prevailance
of monogamous or polygamous marriages, the matriarchal family came into existance.
In brief the main features of matriarchal system are:
i. Transient marriage relations (group marriage)
ii. Female kinship
iii. Maternal authority
iv. Succession of only females to family property.
The conclusion to which we are led with regard to both patriarchial and matriarchial theories that
none of them help us in understanding the true genesis of the state. Their merit comes
emphesising the role and significance of kinship in creating and cementing social bonds which
the state could never has arisen.
Generally, the emergence of state were charactorized by relatively large number of people living
in a definite territorial expansional area under a government with corrective power that is ability
to use force and punishments to make people obey.
State emerged at certain development of human society that level of development was when
human society has maintained organized existence societies in there rudimentary societies
include the family, the clan, the tribe etc.
State refers to territorial entity that is politically organized and has a government and people.
state can be understood as the highest and most powerful political organization of society.
Theories for the emergence of state probably the emergency resulted from such factors:

9. 1. Religion
2. War
3. Leadership
4. Control of trade routes
5. Irrigation are cases of the emergence of state
Religion was an important because in its way it explained the world to mankind and gave people
some feeling of society sometime religious and state and politic functions were combined as
kimgs emerged there authority was based on religions.
Trade it was a factor for the emergence of state chiefs of localities through which trade passed
could collect payments in goods for giving protection in time such payment might become
regular tribute and the tribute levied on trade. (Endale, Tesfaye (2011) P.39-40).
Inconclusion, there is no single and the only acceptable argument about the philosophical
foundation of state.

10. References
Appadorai. A. (1968.). “The Substance of Politics.” Oxford University Press. (P.141-142)
Adeigbo, A. (1991.) “Readings in Social and Political Philosophy.” Volume one. Claverianum
Press. Ibadan.
Axtmann, Roland (2004). "The State of the State: The Model of the Modern State and Its
Contemporary Transformations". International Political Science Review 25 (3): 259–279.
Tewodros, Yakob (2007.) “Civic and ethical education”. Dilla University. (p.32-35).
“Grade 11th Students History Book”, 16th edition (2012), (P.20-21).
Endale, Tesfaye (2011); “Module for distance learners civic and ethics-CvEt-201”, Dilla
University Print. (35-44).
Module 2 Civic Education Project “17”. (P.41)
John, Locke. (1989.) “Treatise of Government.” (P.48).
Johari, 5th ed., (2006). “Social Change: The Colonial Situation.” John Wiley and Sons.
(P.126-129)