The state refers to a distinct
set of political institutions whose specific concern is said to be with the
organization of domination in the pursuit of common interest within a
delineated territory. It has thus been defined as a “body of people occupying a definite territory and
politically organized under one government”.7
The essential components of a state according to this definition are people, land (territory) and government. Of these three components, only one appears missing in the case of the nation- government. Government, therefore, constitutes a major and essential institutional difference between the modern state systems, and the nation or ethnic or cultural group. As the established and recognized “form of political administration” of a state, government is different from other administering or ruling agencies in the national, as such agencies may not be recognized outside the territory they hold forth. Consequent upon this non- recognition, such agencies can neither authoritatively allocate values or resources within their territories nor engage in any form of political interaction with other states as representatives of their people. Since it is the government of a state that can perform this important function, then only the state can participate in international relations as a political unit.
The essential components of a state according to this definition are people, land (territory) and government. Of these three components, only one appears missing in the case of the nation- government. Government, therefore, constitutes a major and essential institutional difference between the modern state systems, and the nation or ethnic or cultural group. As the established and recognized “form of political administration” of a state, government is different from other administering or ruling agencies in the national, as such agencies may not be recognized outside the territory they hold forth. Consequent upon this non- recognition, such agencies can neither authoritatively allocate values or resources within their territories nor engage in any form of political interaction with other states as representatives of their people. Since it is the government of a state that can perform this important function, then only the state can participate in international relations as a political unit.
This is so because the state is a legal entity imbued
with the legal concept of sovereignty, while the nation is a socio-cultural term restricted to the homogenous
culture groups within a state, or at times, extending beyond
the borders of any one state. The state
can thus be conceived as the most central concept in the study of political
science, and by extension, international relations. It has also been conceived in terms of its
role as a “coercion-wielding priority in decision – making and claim
paramountcy in the application of naked force to social problems within
territorial boundaries”8 Niccolo Machiavelli is often credited with
the first use of the concept of state in reference to a “territorial sovereign
government”. This was in his classic, the prince, completed in 1513, and
published in 1532. It was not until the time of Jean Bodin (1579-96), that his
legal instrumentality of sovereignty was developed as a distinguishing characteristic
of the state. We shall return to this later.
Another
influential conception of the state is that provided by Weber in his, politics
as a vocation. Under it, Weber isolates three attributes of the state which he considers very important - “its
territoriality, its monopoly of the
means of physical violence and its legitimacy”. 9 These
attributes would appear synonymous with those already highlighted by Barker,
except the second attribute- monopoly of the means of physical violence; as the
third attribute – legitimacy corresponds with Barker’s established government.
Looked at critically, the ‘so- called monopoly of the means of physical violence
or coercive machinery of the stat is actually an attribute of a state in pursuant to its
possession of the legal concept of sovereignty, a concept we have
promised to return to later.
Three main theories exist within the social science tradition in trying to understand the state. These include the pluralist, the Marxist and the statistic. The pluralist tradition sees the state as largely “an area for contending interest”. In this scenario, state policy becomes the outcome of the current bargaining between the various contending interests. The framework maintains that all groups in principle retain the right and opportunity to pressure the state such that state policy in the end becomes the result of pressure applied by the various groups and interest.
The Marxist theory of the state presents an instrumentalist view. It follows from Karl Marx’s famous statement to the effect that the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. This instrumentalist view of the state arguers that the ruling class uses the state as its instrument of dominance in society by virtue of the interpersonal ties between, and the social composition of state officials and the economics elites. In other words, the capitalist state serves the interest of the capitalist class only, as apposed to communist state which is theoretically given to serve the interest of the working classes, and therefore the mass of the people.
Three main theories exist within the social science tradition in trying to understand the state. These include the pluralist, the Marxist and the statistic. The pluralist tradition sees the state as largely “an area for contending interest”. In this scenario, state policy becomes the outcome of the current bargaining between the various contending interests. The framework maintains that all groups in principle retain the right and opportunity to pressure the state such that state policy in the end becomes the result of pressure applied by the various groups and interest.
The Marxist theory of the state presents an instrumentalist view. It follows from Karl Marx’s famous statement to the effect that the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. This instrumentalist view of the state arguers that the ruling class uses the state as its instrument of dominance in society by virtue of the interpersonal ties between, and the social composition of state officials and the economics elites. In other words, the capitalist state serves the interest of the capitalist class only, as apposed to communist state which is theoretically given to serve the interest of the working classes, and therefore the mass of the people.
The statistic view
concludes that the state pursue goals which cannot be derived from interest
group bargaining or from the class structure of capitalist societies. States
are thus seen as distinctive structures operating in an environment of real
autonomy. Each of these theories has its strengths and
weaknesses and thus attracted varying degrees of criticisms. But space constraints
would not allow us to go into them presently.
Five other views on the origin of a state. There are various theories
regarding the emergence of a state.
These include: the social contract theory, the divine right theory, the
force theory, the patriarchal theory, the matriarchal theory and the
evolutionary theory. The social contract theory contends that the state is the
result of agreement entered into by people who originally had no governmental
organization. This implies that before the existence of the state, people lived
in a state of nature in which they were subject to the rules and regulations
prescribed by nature. In a state of nature, which is devoid of government, the
life of man is said to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Therefore,
to ensure peace and order, the state is constituted (formed) or established.
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Rousseau and other contributed to the development of
social contract theory. But there is no
historical records to support the theory.
In
line with that, the theory of divine origin or divine right of kings sees the
state as establishment based on the ordinance of God. It goes on to point that its rulers are accountable to the
people. The Reverend Fathers, Priests,
Pastors, Bishops etc are God’s representative’s agents here in the word. Those who belief in God must accept their
teachings about God and government as well. The major set back of the theory is
that it involves propositions that are to be accepted as matters of faith
rather them of reason. Further more, the force theory implies that the state is
the result of the subjugation of the weaker by the stronger. A state comes into
existence when a leader of a group established permanent control over a
definite territory and declares him a ruler over it. But it has been argued that force is not the
only factor that accounts for the formation of the state. Good examples of this
theory are US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan though did not intend to rule
them but directed them against their will. Again is Iraq invasion of Kuwait
etc. the factors that led to this theory may be kingship position, political
and religious consciousness, for the patriarchal theory, the state is
regarded as an extension of the family
where the head of the state is the
father, and the people , his children
this means that the ruled (common people ) are the children of the ruling class (those who
direct the activities of what goes in
and out) in the country. All the same,
the matriarchal theory argues that the primitive group had no common male head.
Kingship was traced through the woman. Queen Elizabeth II of England is a good
example of this theory. Finally is the
evolutionary theory also called historical theory is the generally accepted of
all the theories. It sees the state coming into being as the result of natural
evolution. The beginning of government may not be traced to a particular. Or cause, but the belief is that some factors
such as kingship, religion war and political consciousness brought about
government.
The state
therefore, is considered as a means to the enrichment of individual
personality. According to Aristotle, the state originated for the sake of life,
it continues to exist for the sake of good life. The end of the state is
ethical. State is therefore greater than any individual citizen or group of
individuals. On that note, no particular section of a country has monopoly of
violence or control the other. For instance, Nigeria otherwise referred to as
united state of Nigeria made up of the Yorubas, Hausas and
the Ibos, no nation or section above has the power to disorganize
Nigeria or control the other by means of
violence Jeremy Benthaam and John Stuart
mill, among others, see the state from the point of utilitarianism.
They opined that the number of persons affected by the action of government must be considered, and the law contemplated must bring the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The basic idea of utilitarianism is that their results which must be primitive of improved living conditions of the people. In this regards, the state must provide the means of existence for the citizens. People must be afforded the opportunity to participate in the political process of their country. In summary, the individual is the end, whereas the state is the means.
They opined that the number of persons affected by the action of government must be considered, and the law contemplated must bring the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The basic idea of utilitarianism is that their results which must be primitive of improved living conditions of the people. In this regards, the state must provide the means of existence for the citizens. People must be afforded the opportunity to participate in the political process of their country. In summary, the individual is the end, whereas the state is the means.