Republic of the Philippines

Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

Commission on Higher Education
ILLANA BAY INTEGRATED COMPUTER COLLEGE, INC.
Tomawis Bldg. Poblacion 1, Parang, Maguindanao, BARMM, Philippines
Telephone No. (064) 425-0257; Email: registrar.illiana@yahoo.com

POLSCI1 : POLITICAL SCIENCE WITH PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT

AND NEW CONSTITUTION

MODULE 2
THE NATURE AND MEANING OF STATE
 I. INTRODUCTION

This module discusses the meaning and nature of state, including its purposes. The study of a
state has preoccupied the minds of political scientists from the ancient period of the Hebrew
tribes as narrated in the bible to the days of ancient Athens when the Greek city sate came into
being, and to the development of nation states in modern times.

II. OBJECTIVES

At the end of the module, students should be able to:

A. familiarized the meaning of state; and

B. identify the different theories about the origin of state.

III. DISCUSSION

ORIGIN OF THE STATE

On the significant questions about the state is: how did it originate? since there is no
sufficient historical records explaining how the state came into being, political thinkers had no
alternative but to speculate and theorize. Various hypotheses were offered by medieval and
modern political philosophers. Some of them assumed that the state was a divine creation. Others
believed that evolved from the family which gradually enlarged into bigger groups of individuals
united by kinship and other common ties. There those who asserted that the state was established
by social contract: men living in a state of nature mutually agreed to form a state. Others
surmised that the state was created out of wars of conquest, suggesting that in some cases
territories increased in size and eventually developed into empire-states.

THEORIES AND STATE ORIGIN

In order to have a cleaner view and understanding of the origin Of the state it is necessary
that the major theories be presented more elaborately. These theories are: (l) the divine right
theory; (2) mg social contract or social compact theory; (3) the force theory; (4) m; natural
theory; (5) the patriarchal theory; (6) the instinctive theory; and (7) the economic theory. Of
course, theme are other (henna according to some political scientists, but those explained here
are the most common and well known.

A. The Divine Right Theory

The development of kingship among the ancient Hebrews who were also military
leaders (e.g. Gideon, Saul, David, and later, Sobmon) brought about the outlines of a formal
state. Although the activities ' of a “state” during this biblical period were the activities of the
modern state, some activities were more or less the same. There were subalterns who were
charged of aiding the king in maintaining peace and order in his tribal kingdom, in the collection
of taxes, in the administration of the kingdom’s finances, supervision in the construction and
maintenance of public works, in building of a strong army, and in the administration of justice.’

This pattern of development “may be applied to the origins of all the world’s ancient and
great civilizations." though, perhaps, with mine: variations.2 The most viable form of the “state”
was the ancient monarchy supported by royal bureaucracy. The king became the kingdom’s
counterpart to the family head and the tribal patriarch among his subjects. Thus, the marks of the
“state” were absolute centralized authority, formalized hierarchy, specialization of task in the
performance of public duty, and written instead of oral communication.

The institution of kingship required that the king’s rule was legitimate in the minds of his
subjects. To give legitimacy to his actions, there was a need to construct a theory which merged
politics with religious belief a doctrine which gave a more powerful and persuasive sanction for
kinship that divine will.

The divine right theory may be considered as the oldest of the seven theories stated
above. This theory presents the view that the state was created by God. The authority to govern
the people was ordained by God upon rulers who were regarded as of divine descent.

The idea that the ruler was God’s appointed agent on earth legitimated the king’s rule,
and that no matter how absolute his powers were, such powers could never be questioned or
assailed by anyone. To challenge the ruler was to challenge God’s authority. The essence of this
divine right of king’s theory was first stressed in the New Testament in Apostle Paul’s teaching
to his Christian followers.

The divine right theory was dominant up to the end of the middle ages. Monarchs during
the period invoked this theory to justify their absolute rule. The” Protestant Reformation
strengthened their claim to rule with divine right. As the bourgeois began to advance the doctrine
of popular sovereignty in order to enjoy rights and liberties, national monarchs insisted more
strongly on the divine right to rule over the people. They declared that any opposition to their
“divine rule” was an act of heresy. Thus, from this claim of the monarchs, the following
expression was evolved: “The king does no wrong.” The subjects owed their ruler a duty of
passive obedience. In this view, the king was subject to judgment only by God for his acts, but
not by his subjects or by any agency.

B. The Social Contract Theory

The social contract or social compact theory became popular during seventeenth an
eighteenth centuries. This theory explained the state was formed by means of social contract of
men of who live in a state in nature. What the “state of nature” meant was men lived together
without any super body to establish peace and order and settle conflicts. Men possessed natural
rights derived from natural law which was perceived only by the few who exercised their human
reason. There are several versions of the social compact theory that came into being during
religious wars in Europe and during the popular revolutions in England, America and France. At
least three, well known versions may be explained here, those of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke
and jean Jacques Rousseau.

C. The Social Contract Theory of Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes viewed man in a state of nature as despicable. nasty ma brutish. He

compared the conditions of life as those prevailing jungle where the stronger animals despoiled
the weaker ones. Thus. man's desire for self-preservation, order and peace could he attained only
if they surrendered all their natural rights and submitted their will to an absolute sovereign
monarch. The great Leviathan. or the “mortal God.” In return, this great Leviathan would
preserve the peace and give his people the security they needed. 80 absolute was the monarch
that the people had no right to revolt.
 Hobbes wrote at the time of the civil wars in England. Particularly in the period of the Stuart
Restoration in 1660. Thus, his writings wen: influenced by the chaotic conditions of life in which
he lived. Hence, it was not surprising that his political views wen inclined to support absolute
monarchy. Hobbes thought that an absolute monarchy would be much more effective than any
other kind of government. George H. Sabine and homas L. Thorson interpreting the Leviathan.
believed that Hobbes’ theory is equally workable in any modern government that needs to
preserve order, peace and security. Finally. they opined that in Hobbes’ political and social
philosophy, sovereignty is indivisible and inalienable in the sovereign.

D. Rousseau’s Social Contract.

Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract published in 1762 emphasized his theory about
the general will. Rousseau conceived a social community, which he considered to be the “true
state” as the rightful substitute for anarchy in a state of nature. This community possessed a
“general will” shared by every member, who would be stronger and freer than an individual
living independently in .a state of nature.

Rousseau viewed the state as completely and directly democratic. He believed that the
only free government was a direct democracy in which the citizens actually participated in a
town meeting to perform the functions of government. All citizens, have equal right to
participate in the making of laws and in the decision-making process. Popular participation,
Therefore, connotes participatory democracy, and that “the government is legitimate only insofar
a; it Operates according to the principles of popular sovereignty.””

E. The Force Theory

According to this theory, the state came into existence out of conquest, force or coercion.
Before the state existed there were always leaders strong enough to assert their leadership and
power through force, conquest or violence. They subjected the people and compelled them to
obey their law. Consequently, these leaders became the seat of sovereign power.

F. The Natural Theory

The natural theory held that the state was a natural institution and not an abstract or
artificial being. It was a natural system that unified its citizens. As part of the state, men were not
self-sufficient without it. They lived in the state, subjected themselves to law and order, kept
themselves busy in the sciences, in the arts, in politics or any other aspect of the many-sided
creations of civilization. In Aristotle’s view, man living without the state was either a god or a
beast.

G. The Patriarchal Theory

Sociologists and anthropologists maintain that the state arose through a process of
evolution. At the beginning, the state evolved from the smallest unit of society the family.
Gradually, the family headed by a parent enlarged into a clan (a group of closely telnet! families
headed by a Chieftain) and later on the clan expanded into a tribe. the tribe into a nation. and the
nation into a state.

H. The Instinctive Theory

The advocates of this theory claimed that the state was created because of the natural
inclination of men towards political association. A social being by nature, a man associated
himself with other men for self-preservation and security. Thus, the state was born
 I. The Economic Theory

The exponents of the economic theory believed that the state developed out of man's
economic wants. Man in isolation could not procure all the necessary things that he needed. To
satisfy his wants he could not be an island. He had to associate with other men in order to
provide themselves with their various needs through exchange of goods and services and led a
societal existence

The economic theorists were perhaps influenced by P110 in h analysis of the typical
state, in which he claimed that societies arose: out of the needs that could be satisfied only if men
cooperated with one another. He conceived the state as a social system of service: 'in which the
members both gave and received not only for their mm benefit but also for the general well-
being of the community."

THE MEANING OF THE STATE

What is the state? According to James Garner, the state is a community of person: more or
less numerous occupying a definite portion of territory completely free of external control and
possessing an organized government to which the body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.

Benn and Peter refers to the state as a human society composed of individuals bound
together by an order of normative rules “which defend the rights and duties which they may
pursue. and the ways in which it is legitimate to pursue them. The state, according to Rodee et.
At., consists partly of government institutions. but “state” is not synonymous to “government
institutions, but “state” is not synonymous to government.” And to Burke, the state is an idea that
extends through time, and so its characteristics are drawn from long history of governments
marked by a series of crises and accomplishments.” for purpose of this study, the definition of
James Gamer is given more importance since it presents more fundamental characteristics or
attributes of the state of modern contemporary world.

These are the four essential element of the state mentioned above.

1. People
2. Territory
3. Government
4. Sovereignty
A. Internal sovereignty
B. External Sovereignty

STATE VERSUS NATION

Many people believed that state and nation In one end the same and therefore can be
med interchangeably. However, political scientists distinguish the two terms as different
concepts.

A state it a political concept, a legal fiction. It has perpetual existence as long as its four
elements people. Territory, government and sovereignty are intact. A nation on the other hand is
an ethnic concept, a sociological collectivity of individuals who possess in common certain non-
political characteristics, such as common racial origin, common language, common religion,
common histories experience, a common cultural and social tradition. or common belief: and
creeds. There must be among them I common unifying bond that holds them together
emotionally, culturally, spiritually and socially.

Even if some of the essential elements of a nation may not be present, like absence of
common racial origin, or religion, 0: common culture, or those of a state, like absence of
sovereignty or lack of territory, provided the spirit of nationalism is strong among the people,
they still constitute a nation although they do not form a state.

The United States and Switzerland may be cited as good examples of countries having
peoples of different racial origins, languages, religions, cultures, and traditions. Yet their people:
are animated by a strong sense of solidarity and love for their country. It is important to present
here the statement of Lester B. Pearson. Former Canadian prime minister and Nobel Prize
winner, about nationalism. He said that the most frequently recurring factor in the molding of
nationalism is what he called “a common culture. common habits, common traditions, common
customs,” but above all, “a common desire to live together as a separate group, a communal
society with certain welI-defined loyalties and objectives." The latter part of Pearson’s statement
characterizes the nationalism of the peoples of the United States and Switzerland. it may also
refer to the nationalism of the Israelites. in spite of Israel’s internal factions which originated
from various origins, her overriding concern is her security and preservation as a nation-state.
“National morale in lsrael IS high. and it centers around the determination to survive as a nation-
state, to maintain the homeland for the Jews.” nationalism is enhanced by the presence of an
enemy near my borders (referring the Arab states) equally conscious of having mission of
preserving a homeland for a nation coming from a variety of backgrounds.

The Philippines is composed of population groups with diverse cultures, customs,

languages, and religions. But over and above thy regional ties is the more predominating and
overriding belief they are first and foremost Filipinos, rather than Ilocanos. Pampang Tagalogs,
Bicolanos, Visayans, or Muslims. The Filipinos successfully gained their national independence
successively from two colonial powers Spain and the United States. Their nationalist leaders
kept aflame the embers of anti-colonial nationalism successfully staved off American influence
in the removal of U3 bases in the Philippines.

Nationalism is associated with such famous names a Rousseau, who aroused love of
one’s country through his writings Renan, who called the nation a soul, a spiritual principle; John
S Mill, who considered nationalism as a necessary condition for government to function
according to nationalities; Mazzini, who championed liberal nationalism; Hitler, who vigorously
insisted the purity of blood or race is the only element that molds a nation. And to Rizal, a nation
is built by a bond of national unity of people that becomes desirable and enduring due to their
sacrifice.

Indeed, nationalism is a very strong force that cements together a people into a nation,
which, in turn, is sine qua non to the emerge and continued existence of the modern state.
Nationalism is probably the most important ingredient in making a nation. When it becomes
identified with a political community given the necessary elements, gives rise to a nation-state.
RESOURCE MATERIALS

Online
Modular platforms

REFERENCES
Florenteno G. Ayson and Dolores Aligada-Reyes,PP 33-59.“Fundamentals of Political
Science”. National Book Store.2000