–Political theories of state
What is the state?
Defining a state has been a contentious matter. However, the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States in 1933 defined state as a space that possess the following: “A permanent population, a defined territory and a government that is capable of maintaining effective control over the corresponding territory and of conducting International relations with other states.”
Why does it matter?
That the state plays a central role in our lives is not under contest. Our palpable daily experiences give us to this overbearing, towering behemoth we see at each turn of our life and our works. It is this that makes it of much concern to social and political thinkers over the ages. This has spurred a lot of speculation and theorizing from different scholars. As Shapeera (2012) noted: “Several political writers and schools of thought have developed ideas about the nature and purpose of the State according to different points of view.”
Dominant theories of state
In spite of the plethora of theories and variants of theories, five main theories surrounding the origins of government stand out: these are the natural theory, the divine theory, the social compact theory, the force theory and the conflict theory of the state. These five theories can be applied to any form of government that has existed over the centuries.
According to Shapeera, “None of the theories can therefore claim absolute authority or validity over another; hence, their merits and demerits need constant examination before arriving at any consistent conclusions.”
The Natural theory
The Natural theory propounded by Aristotle and others views the state as a natural product of development of society arising out of the myriad human relationships that inexorably lead to need for coordinated effort and handing over leadership to one or a few individuals. Since all cannot rule at once without creating confusion, there is a need to have a committee to coordinate the communities’ affairs. Hence the need for a state. As Shapeera narrates, scholars of the state like Aristotle argue that man was, by nature, a political animal. The need for order and security is an ever present factor man knows that he can develop the best of what he is capable only through the State; man outside the State was, naturally, indeed, not a man at all but either a god or a beast.
Unlike the notions of the social contract theorists, the natural theory of the States origin, like the force theory, has no provision for citizen’s independence of the government, including the rights of political participation in the affairs of the State. The State assumes unrestricted power over its subjects. This theory thus believes man’s natural interdependence in the course of evolution and his need to protect against aggressors necessitated creation of and handing undivided power to the state. The state under this theory therefore, is the absolute power and authoritarian.
Critics of the natural theory of state argue it gives unbridled power to the state making the citizen subordinated to and subjugated by the state. Freedoms, liberties and property of the citizen are thus not truly his as the state can usurp them without recourse.
The divine theory
The divine theory of the state takes the source of state and its powers away from man. It believes the state is ordained and handed down by God. As Anifowose (1999) explains the theory of divine origin of the State holds that the State has been established by an ordinance of God and so its rulers are divinely ordained and are accountable to no other authority but God.
The natural implication of this is: whatever the rulers or the state does is God’s work and should not be questioned. This theory therefore promotes docile followership and meekness in the face of an oppressive ruler or state. The natural theory was most amenable to the absolute rule of monarchs of old and could be seen in various guises in the old African empires such as Oyo, Kanem-Borno and Songhai. It still prevails in rural settings in Nigeria where Kings and Chiefs claim to be ordained to rule with the authority of God.
The coming of colonial masters and deposing of chiefs and kings dealt blows to this theory. Furthermore, the conduct and misdemeanours of Kings and rulers in today’s Africa has discredited their claim to divine mandate.
The social contract theory
The Social Contract theory arose as a challenge to the Divine pretensions of the feudal lords of old. From About 14th to 15th Century, the rise of industrial production and massive capitalist development began to show that the feudal state of affairs could not be sustained. Capitalist production required liberalization of the land and other resources which hitherto had been held by the feudal lords and doled out to the serfs and peasants on lease basis. The rising middle class in Europe needed free, unencumbered access to resources.
Thus as Ebenstein (2000) observed: “the divine pretensions of royal absolutism where later challenged by the rising middle classes who advanced the doctrine of popular sovereignty. The divine right was therefore challenged by the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes and other British Political thinkers who mostly considered the whole idea of State as a social contract between the rulers and the ruled”.
The social contract theory believes the state is a pact between the citizens and the rulers where in return for a consideration of loyalty and cooperation, the state shall undertake to protect and provide for the welfare of its citizenry. Variants of this theory exist but all point to the fact that there is a mutual understanding and a mesh of rights, responsibilities and duties agreed between the citizens and the state, breach of which each party suffers sanctions.
However, as argued by Shapeera (2012), the states in developing countries have acted with seeming indifference to their part of the contract of protecting the people and providing for the good and well being of the citizens.
The force theory
The force theory is predicated on the assumption of might is right. Thus the strong conquered the week and subjugated them to their authority. Power and the state thus came out of conquest of the weaker of the community by the more powerful. De facto power of the conqueror was thus justified as booty of conquest. This theory, like the natural and divine theories encourage absolutist and tyrannical rule with untamed abuse of power. To some extent, this theory might have explained the state in the earlier times in both Africa and the rest of the world.
Old African empires actually grew large by conquering and subjugating smaller communities. Similarly, the so-called “first world” of today became big and bloated as it is now by conquering weaker nations in African and subjecting them to colonial and now neo-colonial domination.
The conflict or Marxian theory
While other theories sought to explain the state and its overbearing might in terms of natural need for cohesion, divine ordainment or conscious accord or conquest, the conflict theory leans more towards strife as cause of the state. The conflict theories mostly originated from the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Advocates of this school believe Lening’s work tittled the “The State and Revolution” was seminal in advancing this perspective. Others such as Poulantsas and Walter Rodney have added insights especially as it pertains to developing countries.
The Marxian perspective believes that the state arose out of the struggle of classes to appropriate for themselves the means of production and hence shape the societal infrastructure of laws, institutions and instruments to their advantage. It believes a state is a product of class struggle where one class called the ruling class, takes control of the state and wields it for its own interests against the other classes.
Marxist theory thus sees the state as a machine for enforcement of class interests. It explains why the state appropriates the monopoly for violence (via arm, police etc.) to itself. It also explains that laws, courts, press and other infrastructures in a state are actually appendages and tools of the ruling class to keep other classes down and dominate them for its own interests.
Marxist theory further explains that as class struggle deepens, the other especially working classes will rise in their own interest and break up this oppressive machine that keeps them down. Thus social revolution will occur smashing the state and ultimately ushering in an era of classless society where every citizen will no more be oppressed but shall receive the good things of life according to his needs.
The Marxian perspective believes the present Nigerian state is a state for the interest of the middle class (petty bourgeoisie) working to protect the interests of their international, ex-colonial bourgeoisie masters. It is thus according to them, a neocolonial state incapable of serving the welfare of the Nigerian people.
Q2: Which theory best conforms to reality?
The choice of the theory of state that most conforms to reality is a complex one as each theory seemingly has some explanations that are valid and tenable in light of realities of society at different times.
However, for the sake of this paper, the theory that seems to most fit the Nigerian reality is the social contract theory. The social contract theory by holding that people come together to agree on handing over their sovereignty to a group and set of institutions that oversee and direct their affairs in the best interest of all seems most fitting for Nigeria from independence. The Nigerian state came into being from the independence struggles to free us from British colonial lordship. In the course of this constitutional conferences were held with representatives of various sections of the country coming to agree on how to run our affairs and the grund norms of our existence as a nation. Since independence, despite the aberration of the military coups this has always been the case. Holding constitutional conferences to agree our collective laws is a form of social contract where each section of the country pledges allegiance and provides its own input into how our nation should be.
Other theories like the natural and divine theory fail to adequately capture the Nigerian situation because our state did not evolve but was developed by our people. The question of divine ordainment is not scientifically provable as their no scroll handed down to any Nigerian declaring the state or its rules of engagement; these are of our making not divine dictat. While the Marxian perspective may have a lot going for it in explaining the Nigerian situation.
The Marxian theory seems of better explanatory power for the Nigerian situation as it shows that our rulers are just comprador bourgeoisie (gate keepers) acting in the interests of their international bourgeois patrons. They were hurriedly put in place by the imperialists to look after affairs of state and continue to exploit our minerals and resources for the metropolitan (“super power”) masters. This explains a lot of the irresponsibilities and lack of concern for the welfare and development of the people shown by our elites. It also explains their mentality of being above the rest of us and thus unaccountable as they feel they are not in for us and only accountable to their foreign masters. The move to SAP and IMF in the 1990s showed the neocolonial leanings of our rulers especially the military that are less accountable.
References
Anifowose, R. (1999), “State, Society and Nation”, in Anifowose, R & Enemuo, F.C. (eds.),
Elements of Politics. Lagos: Malthouse Press Limited.
Ebenstein, A. (2000). Introduction to Political Thinkers. Bartimore: Wordsworth Limited.
Shapeera, S.A. (2012). Theories of the state: perspectives on the Nigerian variant. European Scientific Journal September vol. 8, No.20 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 743111
Acadamania 