See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/370904160

CITIZENS AND THE STATE

Chapter · January 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 1,206

2 authors, including:

Isa Mohammed
Taraba State University
45 PUBLICATIONS 54 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Isa Mohammed on 20 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHAPTER FIVE
POS 105: CITIZEN AND THE STATE
Isa Mohammed & Murshadi Bello Yahaya
Department of Political Science and International Relations
Taraba State University, Jalingo
Introduction
This chapter introduces students to the concept, origin and theories of the state. It discusses the
meaning, types of citizen and how to acquire citizenship. The main aim of the course is to
provide explanations on the duties and obligations of the citizen to the state. It further
elucidate on the responsibilities or functions of the state.
What is a State?
Different political scientists have given different definitions of state. According to the opinion
of Aristotle, the father of political science, "The state is an organization consisting some
families and villages. According to Woodraw Wilson, "State is a conglomeration of people
within a definite territory organized by law".
Garner has given a nice and complete definition of state. "The state is a community of persons
more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of
external control and possessing an organized government to which the great body of
inhabitants render habitual obedience" (Johari, 1989). From these definitions of state, it can be
said that the state is a political institution of definite territory, organized government,
population and with sovereign power.
Features of the State
There are various characteristics of the state among which the following are essential;
Territory, population, government, sovereignty, recognition, legitimate use of force and
permanence among others.
The Functions of the State
According to political scientists Willoughby, Gettell, Gilchrist the functions of the modern
welfare states can be divided into two classes:
1. Essential or Main functions
2. Welfare or Optional functions
1. Essential or Main functions:
To maintain the existence, independence and sovereignty of the state and to protect the rights
of the people the functions performed by the state are called the essential function. To form
and maintain the defence force for the deference of the country and to protect the country from
the foreign invasion are the essential duties of the state. It is the responsibility of the state to
give security of life and property of the citizens and to ensure personal freedom. For that, to
maintain internal peace and order is another essential function of the state. In the field of
international affairs to sign pact, form alliance to establish diplomatic relation with other
states, to conclude different contracts etc. are also essential functions relating to foreign
affairs. Besides, to conduct good administration by establishing the rule of law is the essential
responsibility of the state.
2. Welfare or optional functions:
The modern states are doing various types of welfare works for the total development of the
citizens' moral, social, economic and cultural life. All these activities helpful in development

67
are optional functions. The more the state makes development, the more the scope of its
optional functions expands.
The optional functions of the state are as follows:
1. To spread education: The development of a state depends on its educated citizens. So, it
is the function of the state to take all out efforts for the spread of education.
2. To maintain public health: Strong and healthy people are the wealth of the state. For that
reason, to establish medical centres to maintain public health, to take preventive and
curative measures and to take steps for safe drinking water etc. are under this
responsibility of the state.
3. Development of industry and commerce: The economic development of the state
depends on industry and commerce. To encourage establishing heavy industry, to
conduct Bank, Insurance etc. are the optional functions of the state.
4. To maintain communication: The state maintains the communication system both
internal and at international levels. Good transportation and Communication are
indispensable for the development of the state.
5. Welfare of the workers: The state takes step to fix up the working hour and wage, to
provide medical, housing facilities, to establish Labour Court etc. for the welfare of the
workers.
6. Social security: The welfare state takes up social security measures helping the
destitute, giving pension to old and unemployed persons etc.
7. Public works: Construction of roads and bridges, development of agriculture and
irrigation, helping people at the time of natural calamity, prevention of famine and
epidemic, providing sports ground, park, garden etc. are done under the supervision of
the state. The aim of the state is to do the over-all welfare of the people. As a result the
scope of the optional functions is also increasing extensively.
Origin of the State
Divine Origin Theory
The oldest theory about the origin of the state is the divine origin theory. It is also known as
the theory of divine right of Kings. The exponents of this theory believed that the state did not
come into being by any effort of man. It is created by God. The King who rules over the state
is an agent of God on earth.
The King derives his authority from God and for all his actions he is responsible to God alone.
Obedience to the King is obedience to God and violation of it will be a sin. The King is above
law and no subject has any right to question his authority or his action. The King is
responsible of God alone.
The conception of the divine creation of the state may be traced back to remote antiquity. It
was universal belief with the ancient people that the King is the representative of God on earth
and the state is bliss of God. Thus, the King had both political and religious entity. In the
religious books also the state is said to be created by God. In some religions this conception is
explicit, but in others it is implicit.
The divine origin of the state is gleaned first the Old Testament of the Bible. There we find St.
Paul saying- ―Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of
God; the powers that be, are ordained by God. Whosoever resists the power resisted the
ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.‖
In 1680 Sir Robert Filmer wrote a book entitled The Law of the Free Monarchies, where it is
stated the Adam was the First King on earth and the Kings subsequent to him are the
68
descendants of Adam. In the Manusmriti it is said that when the world was thick in anarchy,
the people prayed to God to remedy the condition. God was pleased to appoint Manu to rule
over the earth. This theory prevailed in the old age when religion and politics were combined
in the person of the King.
In the medieval period the Christians held the Pope in semi-God status. In the Muslim world
the Caliph was the Priest-King. The Dalai Lama was the head of the Theocratic state of Tibet.
He was considered there as the incarnation of the Buddhist god, Avalokitesvara.
Both the church and the state in their mutual rivalry used the theory of the divine origin in the
medieval age. The church asserted the supremacy of the church over the state. On the other
hand, the state because of its divine nature emphasized on its supremacy over the church.
The Stuart King James I claimed that he derived his authority directly from God. According to
him, the King is wise and intelligent, but his subjects are wicked.
Even if the King is bad, the people have no right to rebel against him. Even in the nineteenth
century the Kings of Austria, Prussia and Russia formed the Holy Alliance under the notion
that they were appointed by God to rule over their people. Anyway, the European Kings took
shelter under the divine origin theory in order to justify their dictatorships.
Be that as it may, during a large part of human history the state was viewed as direct divine
creation and theocratic in nature. The theory was in currency so long as religion was
considered to be the chief motive force of all human activities.
In the twentieth century, this theory came under criticism being an incorrect explanation of the
origin of the state. With the growth of scientific outlook this theory faded into oblivion.
Today‘s trend is that the state is a historical growth. We shall now discuss the causes of the
decline of the theory.
Causes of the Decline of the Divine Theory
In the first place, when a more acceptable theory like the social contract theory came out, the
divine theory was dashed to the ground. The new theory suggested that the state is a
handiwork of men, not a grace of God.
In the second place, the Reformation that separated the church from the state debased the coin
of the divine theory. The post-Reformation period is a period of non-religious politics. Thus,
the secular outlook made the divine theory totally unacceptable.
In the third place, the emergence of democracy was a big blow for the autocratic dogma of
mixing religion with politics and thereby it blunted the edge of identifying God with the King.
Democracy not only glorified the individual but shattered the divine halo around the origin of
the state.
Last but not the least was the growth of scientific enquiry and materialistic view of the
political mechanism. The result was that the erstwhile blind faith and superstition was no
longer acceptable. The people began to accept only those things that stood the test of logic and
reasoning.
The Patriarchal Theory of the State
Literature has it that the greatest supporter of this group is Sir Henry Maine (1822 – 88) who
in his books Ancient Law (1861) and Early History of Institutions (1875) stated that he
derived his evidence from three sources which are:
1. Accounts by contemporary observers of civilizations who invariably are less advanced.
2. The records which particular races (e.g. the Greeks) have kept of their own history.
3. The records from the ancient law (e.g. Roman and Hindu).

69
Henry Maine argued that the city is a conglomeration of several families which developed
under the control and authority of the eldest male member of the family. The head or father of
the patriarchal family wielded great power and influence upon the other members of the
family. His writ was carried out in the household. This patriarchal family was the most ancient
organized social institution in the primitive society.
Through the process of marriage the families began to expand and they gave birth to gen
which stands for a household. Several gens made one clan. A group of clans constituted a
tribe. A confederation of various tribes based on blood relations for the purpose of defending
themselves against the aggressors formed one commonwealth which is called the state.
Maine‘s analysis of the growth of the state is- “The elementary group is the family connected
by the common subjection to the highest male ascendant. The aggregation of families forms
the gens or the houses. The aggregation of houses makes the tribe. The aggregation of the
tribes constitutes the commonwealth.”
Edward Jenks who is the other advocate of the patriarchal theory is of the view that the
foundation of the state was caused by three factors, namely male kinship, permanent marriages
and paternal authority. Thus, the salient feature of the patriarchal theory is that the families
grew through the descendants of the father, not the mother. The male child carried on the
population though marriages with one or several women, because both monogamy and
polygamy were the order of the day. The eldest male child had a prominent role in the house.
Another important supporter of this theory was Aristotle. According to him- “Just as men and
women unite to form families, so many families unite to form villages and the union of many
villages forms the state which is a self-supporting unit”.
As for documentary evidence in support of this theory, there were twelve tribes who formed
the Jewish nation as we gather from the Bible. In Rome, we are told that the patriarch of three
families that made one unit exercised unlimited authority over the other members.
The Matriarchal Theory of the State
Among the chief exponents of this theory are McLennan (Primitive Society, 1865). Morgan
(Studies in Ancient Society, 1877) and Jenks (A History of Politics, 1990). A distinguishing
feature of this theory from the patriarchal theory is the fact that the matriarchal theory holds
that the primitive group had no common male head, and that kinship among them could be
traced only through the woman. It is important to highlight Jenks illustrative proposition from
primitive society in Australia which posits that:
‗The real social unit of the Australians is not the ―tribe‖, but the totem group. The totem group
is, primarily, a body of persons distinguished by the sign of some natural object, such as an
animal or tree, which may not intermarry with one another….The Australian may not marry
within his totem. ―Snake may not marry snake. Emu may not marry emu.‖ That is the first rule
of savage social organization. Of its origin we have no knowledge; but there can be little doubt
that its object was to prevent the marriage of near relations…. The other side of the rule is
equally startling. The savage may not marry within his totem, but he must marry into another
totem specially fixed for him. More than this, he will not only marry into the specified totem,
but he marries the whole of the women of that totem in his own generation.‘
The chief exponents of the matriarchal theory are Morgan, Mclennan and Edward Jenks.
According to them, there was never any patriarchal family in the primitive society and that the
patriarchal family came into existence only when the institution of permanent marriage was in
vogue. But among the primitive society, instead of permanent marriage there was a sort of sex

70
anarchy. Under that condition, the mother rather than the father was the head of the family.
The kinship was established through the mother.
Edward Jenks who made a thorough study of the tribes of Australia came to the conclusion
that the Australian tribes were organized in some sort of tribes known as totem groups. Their
affinity was not on the basis of blood relationship but through some symbols like tree or
animal. One totem group men were to marry all the women of another totem group. This
would lead to polyandry and polygamy also.
This matriarchal system continued until the advent of the pastoral age when the permanent
marriage was introduced. We find the existence of the Queen ruling over in Malabar and the
princesses ruling over the Maratha countries. These are examples of the matriarchal systems of
life.
The Force Theory of the State
Another early theory of the origin of the state is the theory of force. The exponents of this
theory hold that wars and aggressions by some powerful tribe were the principal factors in the
creation of the state. They rely on the oft-quoted saying “war begot the King” as the historical
explanation of the origin of the state.
The force or might prevailed over the right in the primitive society. A man physically stronger
established his authority over the less strong persons. The strongest person in a tribe is,
therefore, made the chief or leader of that tribe.
After establishing the state by subjugating the other people in that place the chief used his
authority in maintaining law and order and defending the state from the aggression from
outside. Thus force was responsible not only for the origin of the state but for development of
the state also. History supports the force theory as the origin of the state.
According to Edward Jenks:
―Historically speaking, there is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all political
communities of the modern type owe their existence to successful warfare.‖ As the state
increased in population and size there was a concomitant improvement in the art of warfare.
The small states fought among themselves and the successful ones made big states.
The kingdoms of Norway, Sweden and Denmark are historical examples of the creation of
states by the use of force. In the same process, Spain emerged as a new state in the sixth
century A.D. In the ninth century A.D. the Normans conquered and established the state of
Russia.
The same people established the kingdom of England by defeating the local people there in the
eleventh century A.D. Stephen Butler Leacock sums up the founding of states by the use of
force in these words:
―The beginnings of the state are to be sought in the capture and enslavement of man-by-man,
in the conquest and subjugation acquired by superior physical force. The progressive growth
from tribe to kingdom and from kingdom to empire is but a continuation from the same
process.‖
The Social Contract Theory
The most famous theory with regard to the origin of the state is the social contract theory. The
theory goes to tell that the state came into existence out of a contract between the people and
the sovereign at some point of time.
According to this theory, there were two divisions in human history – one period is prior to the
establishment of the state called the ―state of nature” and the other period is one subsequent to
the foundation of the state called the “civil society”. The state of nature was bereft of society,
71
government and political authority. There was no law to regulate the relations of the people in
the state of nature.
There were three exponents of this theory. They are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-
Jacques Rousseau who differed about the life in the state of nature, reason for converting the
state of nature to civil society and the terms of the contract. They all, however, agreed that a
stage came in the history of man when the state of nature was exchanged with civil society to
lead a regulated life under a political authority.
The net result of this changeover was that the people gained security of life and property and
social security, but lost the natural liberty which they had been enjoying in the state of nature.
The crux of the social contract theory is that men create government for the purpose of
securing their pre-existing natural rights – that the right comes first, that the government is
created to protect these rights. These ideas were based on the concepts of a state of nature,
natural law and natural rights.
According to John Locke, prior to the establishment of society, men lived in a ―state of
nature‖. Thomas Hobbes, an anti-democratic philosopher, emphasized, that in the state of
nature there was no government to make and enforce laws, men made war on each other and
life was ―solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short‖.
Background of Social Contract:
The doctrine of social contract is faintly mentioned in the ancient period by both the western
and Indian philosophers. Plato was the first among the western thinkers to use the term. It is
also referred to in the Arthasastra of Kautilya. The ideas of the contractual obligations were
mouthed by the anti-monarchical writers like Richard Hooker, Hugo Grotius, John Milton, Sir
William Blackstone, Immanuel Kant, Johann G. Fichte and Edmund Burke. It is admitted at
all hands that the two English political thinkers, namely Thomas Hobbes and John Locke as
well as the French political thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau, gave the concrete shape to this
theory. This trio is considered as the godfathers of the social contract theory.
The theories of foundation of the state were laid down in the great works on social contract,
particularly those of the English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in the
seventeenth century and the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the eighteenth
century. The back ground of their theories ‗was the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation
which had shaken the fundamental constitution of European Christendom and had broken up
the divinely sanctioned contractual relation. Another significant thing was that the Holy
Roman Empire was torn apart by the wars of the Reformation.
In England King Henry VIII made the Church of England independent of Rome. Under these
circumstances, there was a need to search for a new basis of order and stability, loyalty and
obedience. In such search, the political theorists, and especially the Protestants among them,
turned to the old concept in the Bible about a covenant or contract such as the one between
God and Abraham and the Israelites of the Old Testament. This gave the presumption that God
had created the political unit by choosing his partners in an eternal covenant.
The result was that the secular theorists of the social contract reversed the process of choice.
They discarded the old idea that God choose his subjects. The new theory was that it was the
people who, through their representatives, succeeded in choosing their rulers and the method
of governance by means of a social contract or construction. The social contract theorists
suggested that the political unit was established by means of promise or promises in the
Biblical fashion.

72
Nature of Social Contract Theory:
According to the social contract theory the state was the creation of the people living in a state
of nature which was a lawless and order-less system. The state of nature was controlled by
unwritten laws prescribed not by men but by nature. The exponents of the theory gave
conflicting views about the nature of the state of nature. Some considered it gloomy, while
others painted it as bright like paradise.
For some reasons the people did not like the system and terminated it by an agreement to save
one man from the rapacity of the other. The nature-made laws were replaced by man-made
laws. The originally independent people subordinated themselves to the will of either the
whole community or a particular person or a group of persons. The three proponents of the
theory interpreted the theory in their own way.
Thomas Hobbes Theory of the Social Contract
Thomas Hobbes in his book ―Leviathan‖ delineates very precisely and straightforwardly the
creation of the state by an agreement. To begin with, before the state was created, there was a
state of nature in which a war was raging. There was no law or justice. Human life was
marked by force and deceit. Might was right in that situation. Hobbes gave a gloomy picture
of the state of nature in his oft-quoted words ―Solitary, poor-nasty, brutish, short‖.
The people became fed up with the state of nature. In order to get rid of the unbearable
condition they entered into an agreement by which they established a government or authority
to which they surrendered all their rights. The surrender was unconditional and irrevocable.
The authority was a single person or a group of persons endowed with unlimited power. The
authority to rule was the result of the contract.
Since he was not a party to the contract, he was not bound by the terms of the agreement. The
people had no right to depose the ruler or to agitate against the ruler. If the people revolted
against the authority they would be guilty of violation of the contract and would face the
consequence of going back to the state of nature. This theory of Hobbes supported the
despotism of the Stuarts in England.
In Hobbes‘ view there was one single contract in the creation of the state and the
establishment of the government. From that it would follow that if the state was gone, with it
would go the government. It is apparent that Hobbes was supporting legal sovereignty and had
no quarter for political sovereignty. Disgusted with the useless dispute between the monarchy
and parliament in England, he supported despotism, keeping chaos as its only alternative. So
he gave all powers to the sovereign.
Thomas Hobbes called his state ―Leviathan‖ which came into existence when its individual
members renounced their power to exercise the laws of nature which was one of ―each for
himself‖ and at the same time promised to turn these powers over to the sovereign who was
created as a result of his promise and also to obey thenceforth the laws made by this sovereign.
These laws stood on a better footing since they enjoyed authority because the individual
members of the society were, as a matter of fact, the co-authors of these laws.
Locke’s Theory of Social Contract
In his book Treatise on Civil Government John Locke, justifying the limited monarchy of
English type, drew his own state of nature. He did not agree that the state of nature was a
gloomy and dismal one as painted by Thomas Hobbes. In contrast, Locke‘s state of nature was
one of peace, reason and goodwill. Yet this semi-paradise could not satisfy the people because
they were pining for law and impartial authority.

73
So they abandoned the state of nature though for a different reason. So in replacing the state of
nature the people created the civil society by a contract. That done, they made another contract
by which the government in the person of the King was set up. Here the ruler was a party to
the contract. The people would obey him so long he would protect their life and property. So
in Locke‘s theory there were two contracts, one for the creation of the civil society and the
other for establishment of the government.
The people‘s surrender of rights was partial and conditional. If the people would violate the
contract, the people would be entitled to depose the worthless King. Thus Locke supported the
Glorious Revolution of 1688. His sovereign was political rather than legal as propounded by
Hobbes. He was clear in distinguishing the government from the state, which Hobbes failed to
do. While Hobbes destroyed individual liberty, Locke destroyed the authority of the state.
When Hobbes took brief for royal absolutism, England was getting disgusted with the
meaningless fights between the King and the parliament during the Stuart period. Locke‘s
timing was related to the period when the King was maintaining a low profile and the
parliament was in the ascendance. This would culminate in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
John Locke‘s view was that the individuals promised to accept the judgments of a common
judge (i.e., the legislature) when they agreed to the accord, which established civil society.
According to Locke, another set of promises was made between the members of the civil
society on the one hand and the government on the other. The government, in its turn,
promised to execute its trust faithfully. It was agreed that in case the government broke the
terms of the pact or in other words if it violated the constitution, the people would have the
right to rebel.
The subsequent generations by acceding to the terms of the compact accepted the inheritance
of private property which was created and guaranteed by the compact. If any individual would
disobey the constitution, he must leave the territory of political unit and go in vacuis locis, i.e.,
empty places.
The indication was that the disloyal people might take shelter in America which was an empty
place at that time. In his book Letters on Toleration, Locke excluded the atheists from
religious toleration since they were not likely to be bound by the original contractual oath or to
abide by the divine sanctions invoked for its violation.
Rousseau’s Theory of Social Contract
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the third player of the game of social contract theory, struck a middle
course between the two English counterparts. His book Social Contract published in 1762
reconciles the authority of the state and liberty of the individual. His state of nature had an
overflow of idyllic felicity.
The human lives were free, healthy, honest and happy. But there was debasement and
degradation with the increase of population and with the progress of civilization particularly
with the emergence of private property in land which destroyed the natural equality among
men.
To get out of this menacing position, men entered into an agreement with the pledges- “Each
of us puts his own person and all his powers in common under the supreme direction of the
General Will, and in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of
the whole.” Unlike Hobbes and Locke, the authority created was not given to the ruler, but
was retained by the whole community.

74
As a matter of fact, the whole community expressed the General Will in a public meeting.
Subsequently, the government was created by a legislative measure. The people delegated
power to the government. Rousseau‘s theory‘s hallmark is the General Will.
Rousseau’s General Will
Jean-Jacques Rousseau stood for the Popular Sovereignty as against Legal Sovereignty of
Thomas Hobbes and Political Sovereignty of John Locke. In his concept, political authority,
arrived at after the Social Contract, was not the King, absolute or delegated, but the people
themselves. Rousseau called his sovereign General Will. What was that General Will? It is as
monstrous a concept as Leviathan of Hobbes.
The kingpin of the General Will is the people. Does it mean the whole population of the state?
The answer must be an emphatic ―No‖, because Rousseau himself used two terms General
Will and Will of All. The general will is the best in the will of all. So the general will must be
the filtered cream of the will of all.
Thus common interest or welfare interest of the people is the general will. We may say with
certainty that the enlightened public opinion of a state is the general will of Rousseau. He
called it ―will for the general good‖. In practice, however, it may mean the majority opinion of
the people.
As we read Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau we find three interpretations of the social contract
theory. Hobbes‘ contract is one in which the people unconditionally surrender their rights to
the monarch who is bound to become a despot. In Locke‘s case, the people conditionally
delegate their power to the King and make the ruler accountable to them. Thus Locke supports
the limited monarchy in England. Rousseau is most radical in enthroning the people and
making the people themselves the rulers. Hobbes stands for legal sovereignty; Locke supports
political sovereignty and Rousseau, popular sovereignty.
According to Rousseau also, the essential ingredient of social contract was the ―general will‖,
to which the individuals agreed to subject themselves. The popular sovereign was the
embodiment of the general will. The experience of his native place Geneva in Switzerland
might have influenced Rousseau in taking this position. In Germany the Swiss confederation is
still officially referred to as Eidgenossenscaft which means ―fellowship of the oath‖.
Criticism of Theory
The social contract theory is strongly denounced on the following grounds. In the first place,
the theory is not borne out by any historical record. It is not known to history that any such
contract was made. The only historical instance of contractual obligation is said to be the
foundation of a state by the early settlers in America by the May Flower Contract of 11
November 1620 and the deposition of King Philip II in 1581 by the Netherlander where the
people said- “The King has broken his contract and the King therefore is dismissed like any
other unfaithful servant.”
But in both the cases the state existed there before it was said to be created or at least the
people had some knowledge of the state and the government before these were created, or the
contract was made. These examples do not establish that the primitive people who had no
knowledge of the state could establish a state by a contract. Similarly, a state of nature
antedating a real state is a fiction and has no historical basis.
In the second place, Sir Henry Maine attacked the theory as one of putting the cart before the
horse, because contract is not the beginning of the society, but the end of it. The universally
accepted view is that the society has moved from status to contract and not vice versa. With

75
the growth of age, status lost its rigor of fixity and its place was taken by contractual
obligations.
The other serious fault with the theory is that it presupposes political consciousness in the state
of nature even prior to the establishment of the state. How can one have the idea of the good of
a state when he has no experience of the state?
In the third place, there cannot be any right even if it is a natural right without the state. Right
follows from the womb of the state. Without an established civil society there cannot be any
right. It does not follow from logic that the people had a bundle of rights even before the
creation of the state.
In the fourth place, it is a fact in history that the state came into existence as a result of a long
process of growth and development. The sociologists have established that the state is created
by a long term process of social development. Kinship, force, divine sanction, family and
various other known and unknown factors are there behind the growth of the state. Modern
social scientists and historians are of the view that men are by nature social animals and they
never lived in a pre-social and pre-governmental state of nature. The state is never a
consciously created institution but is a development like the family.
Edmund Burke rightly observed- ―The state should not be reduced to the position of a
partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco or some such low
concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the
parties. It is to be looked upon with reverence. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in
all art; a partnership between those who are living and those who are yet to be born.‖
In the fifth place, the theory is dangerously wrong by certifying the state to be a handiwork of
human beings. The error is that the state is never a creation of man but it is an independent
social institution. The theory carries with it the portent of revolution by giving too much
importance to men as even the creators of the state. The truth is that the government, not the
state, is the creation of man.
Modern political scientists have rejected the contract theory as unacceptable. J. K. Bluntschli
condemned it as highly dangerous; Jeremy Bentham called it a rattle. Fredrick Pollock
discarded it as ―fatal of political impostures‖. According to Sir Henry Maine, there was
nothing more worthless than the social contract theory as an explanation of the origin of the
state.
Value of the Theory
Although as an explanation of the origin of the state the social contract theory is unacceptable,
it has some merits or values. First, the theory dashed to the ground the more worthless theory
that the state was the creation of God. There might not be any social contract anywhere in
history but it carried the message of the supremacy of the people in the statecraft and gave
encouragement to the growth of democracy and gave a deterrent to the arbitrariness of any
government.
Immanuel Kant Rightly Observed
―The contract is not to be assumed as historical fact for as such it is not possible; but it is a
rational idea which has its practical reality in that the legislator may so order his laws as if
they were the outcome of a social contract.‖
The second merit of the theory is that it helped the growth of the modern concept of
sovereignty. It is, therefore, said that John Austin‘s concept of legal sovereignty is a direct
outcome of Thomas Hobbes‘ concept of the Leviathan.

76
The third benefit of this theory is that John Locke answered some of the most critical
questions by clearly distinguishing the state from the government.
The fourth fruit from the social contract theory is the concept of popular sovereignty as
propounded by Jean-Jacques Rousseau so much so that Rousseau‘s social contract inspired
several peoples in the world to overthrow their despised rulers.
Thus the contractual theory of the government may be historically gleaned for the first time in
1581 in the Netherlands, where the people dismissed the lawful King Philip II. ―The King‖,
the people said, ―has broken his contract and the King, therefore, is dismissed like any other
unfaithful servant‖.
We have a good example of an agreement between the ruler and the people in Indian history.
On the death of Iltutmish, the Sultan of the Slave Dynasty in 1236 A.D. the throne passed on
to Ruknuddin Firoz Shah, who proved to be a worthless fellow. There was chaos and unrest all
over the country.
At this stage, on a Friday, Iltutmish‘s daughter Raziya came out to the public in red clothes
and gave the undertaking that he could deliver the goods to the country if she was made the
Sultan and she gave the undertaking that if she proved unequal to the task, the people would
have freedom to depose her.
A fifth boon of this theory of consent was constitutional experiments in several countries. In
the next two centuries this theory ignited three mighty world revolutions, first in 1688 in
England called the Glorious Revolution, the second in 1776 in America called the War of
American Independence and the third in 1789 in France called the French Revolution.
The English Revolution of 1688 proclaimed that the government is accountable to the people
and if the government goes astray the people can overthrow it and establish a new one. The
Declaration of Independence on 4 July 1776 announced- ―That to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.‖
The diction used in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen during the French
Revolution is- ―The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and
imprescriptible rights of man; and these rights are liberty, property, security and resistance of
oppression.‖ Thus, all these three big political experiments emphasized on the element of the
consent of the people as a factor to be reckoned with in the governance of the country.
In the political thought of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau may be found theoretical
considerations of the practical issues that were to confront the authors of the American and
French constitutions. The influence of theories of social contract, especially as they relate to
the issue of natural rights and the proper functions of government, effected the constitution-
making of the revolutionary era that began with the War of American Independence and was
indeed enshrined in the great political manifestos of the time, namely the Declaration of
American Independence, the Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of man
and citizen.
The constitutional experience of these countries had great influence on the liberal thoughts in
Europe and other parts of the world during the nineteenth century and these found expression
in the constitutions that were demanded from the European Kings.
The extent to which the ideal of constitutional democracy has become entwined with the
practice of constitutional government is the main features of the constitutions of the countries
of Europe, Asia and Africa in addition to the USA.

77
The Marxian Theory of the State
The Marxists are of the view that the state is a creation by the class-struggle with the help of
force. So it is altogether a different theory of origin of state with the recognition of force
which we have studied as a theory of origin of state. The Marxists began with the primitive
society where there was no surplus wealth to quarrel with and so there was no state.
With the passing of time, society was getting split over hostile classes with conflicting
interests. This class antagonism was the root cause of the state. When agriculture was learnt as
an art of culture there was ample food which resulted in private property. The insoluble
contradictions as a result of division of labour became so acute that it was not possible for any
class to keep reconciled in the state or to keep the quarrelling classes under control.
The most dominant class that controlled the mode of production came to establish the state to
ensure its dominance over the other classes who did not own the modes of production. The
state thus became an instrument of domination and oppression of one class over the other
classes.
Thus the state came in to ensure the right of the dominant class to exploit the other classes. As
the dominant classes kept on changing hands so also changed the character of the state. So V.
G. Afanasyev in his book Marxist Philosophy maintained that the state was not imposed from
outside, but it was a product of society‘s internal development at a certain stage of
development. With the break-up of the social order ensued class-conflict which the society
became powerless to dispel.
Emphasizing the economic factor as the key element in the class struggle, Fredrich Engels
observed- “But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests,
might not consume themselves and society in sterile struggle, a power seemingly standing
above society became necessary for the purpose of moderating the conflict, of keeping it
within the bounds of ‗order‘ and this power, arisen out of society, but placing itself above it
and increasingly alienating itself from it is the state.”
The state was the medium of the economically dominant classes. V.I. Lenin developed on the
above thesis by bringing the communist party as the dominant class, namely the proletariat
and his state, namely the USSR where the proletariat was the dominant class which was to
exploit the other classes. Lenin also emphasized on the element of force to be resorted to by
the proletariat against the bourgeois. Thus Lenin incorporated the element of force too in the
creation of the state.
The Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci made a little departure from the Marxist tenet by stating
that a state is the creation of the political party that holds on power. According to him, the
political party is the “modern prince”, evidently using the expression of N. Machiavelli. He
went to the extent of asserting that the party represents the national popular collective will and
aims at the realization of a higher and total form of modern civilization. Here we find that the
author is more in agreement with the German idealist Hegel than the Marxists.
This is in broad analysis of the Marxist views as culled from the writings and opinions of
Engels, Lenin and Gramsci. Now we shall draw up the criticism of it.
Criticism of Marxist Theory of Origin of State:
The Marxist theory of origin of state as based on class struggle is subjected to the following
criticisms:
In the first place, it is nowhere stated in history that state in its origin is linked with the class
struggle. In the second place, there might be different class interests, but it is difficult to say

78
that these classes were at arms as the Marxists have us to believe. The classes, on the other
hand, cooperated with each other and contributed in their way in the composite development
of the state.
The Concept of Citizen
Literally a citizen is an inhabitant of a city. In ancient Greece, the city-state was formed with
city and those who were directly connected with its administration were called citizen. The
founder of political science, Aristotle says that a person is a citizen who takes active part in the
administrative affairs of the city-state. Aristotle's conception of citizen is regarded as narrow.
There is a great difference between the modern and the ancient concept of citizenship. In
modern states the large population cannot directly participate in administration. So, in modern
time the definition of citizen has changed. According to Gettell, citizens are the members of
that political society who are obliged to discharge their duties to that society and have the right
to enjoy all the benefits from that society. Laski says, "A person is a citizen who enjoys the
facilities of the state and pays obedience to state." In the context of these concepts we can
argue that a person is a citizen who lives in the state permanently, owes allegiance to state,
wants the welfare of the state and enjoys all the social and political rights given by the state.
The citizens, as the members of state, enjoy the state given status. In civics, it is called
citizenship. That is; citizenship is the virtue or status of the citizens.
The Method of Acquiring Citizenship
The method of acquiring citizenship: Citizenship can be acquired in two ways: (1) By birth
and (2) by naturalization or formal grant.
Citizenship by birth: Those who acquire citizenship by birth are called the citizens by birth.
Naturalized citizen: Those who acquire citizenship on the approval, of law, fulfilling various
conditions of a state are called the naturalized citizens.
Citizen by birth: There are two methods of acquiring citizenship by birth. These are-(l) Jus
soli and (2) Jus sanguinis.
Jus Soli: According to the principle of Jus Soli, the place of birth determines the citizenship of
a man. Thus the children born within the jurisdiction of a state becomes the citizen of that
state, irrespective of their parents' citizenship. This rule is followed in the USA, Nigeria and
Ghana.
Jus Sanguinis: According to the principle of Jus Sanguinis the citizenship of the parents
determines the citizenship of the child no matter where it is born. This rule is followed in
Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc. The United Kingdom and the United States of America follow both
the principles of Jus sangunis and Jus Soli. Generally no difference is created between the
citizens by birth and citizens by naturalization. But in some countries some differences are
seen; Such as, in the United States of America a citizen by naturalization cannot be a
candidate for presidentship.
The Rights of the Citizen
In civics the word right is used in special sense. The benefits which the man enjoys as a
member of a state are called rights. These rights are indispensably necessary for the welfare of
the individual and society. The citizens enjoy these rights given by the state and by the help
and support of the state. The state inflicts punishment if anybody encroaches upon the rights of
a citizen. Then it can be said that the rights meant some fundamental privileges which are
recognised by the state with the help of which the individual develops his personality and does
the welfare of the society. What is this right? In this context a definition of Laskis may be

79
pointed out. "Rights in fact are those privileges of social life without which no man can seek
in general to be himself at his best" says Laski.
The classification of rights: rights are generally divided into two broad categories as: moral
right and legal right. The legal right is again divided into two divisions, such as; social right
and political right.
1. Moral rights: The rights that are created from the rules of society and conscience are called
moral rights; e.g. the right of the beggars to get alms. If the moral rights are violated, the
society hates or criticizes. But there is no provision for inflicting punishment for it.
2. Legal rights: The rights created and approved by the state are called legal rights; e.g. the right
to property. For the violation of this right the violator is punished. Civics deals with the legal
rights.
3. Social rights: The rights which help the citizens to lead a civil and improved life and the rights
which are indispensably necessary for safety and security of life in the society are called the
Social rights. These rights help to develop the virtues of the individual. Without these, it is not
possible on the part of a man to lead improved social life. The main Social rights are discussed
below:
1. Right to security of life: The right to security of life is the right to life. Unless there is the
safety of life other rights become meaningless. It is the responsibility of the state to save the
life of the citizens.
2. Right to property: The right to property means to acquire property, to enjoy property and the
facilities to transfer property. The meaning of this right is that one's property is not to be
encroached upon or plundered by others. It is the responsibility of the state to give security
of property.
3. The right to movement: All the citizens have the right to move freely everywhere in the state.
This is a fundamental right. But if the free movement of the individual becomes the cause of
harm to the state, the state can debar him from that.
4. Right to express opinion: This right is the right of freedom to express opinion. This is an
important right without this right democracy cannot work. But if the opinion is anti-state or
destructive, the state can control it. It is desirable that the opinion should be reasonable,
constructive and beneficial to the people.
5. Freedom of the Press: This is the right to express opinion freely through newspapers or
books. Newspapers criticize the government activities and policies. They publish opinions of
the government or opposition. These are necessary to form public opinion. To express anti-
state and obscene opinion does not fall within this right. In a democratic state this is an
important right.
6. Right to hold meeting: The state recognizes the right of holding meetings on different
matters. But if holding of meeting and association are not creative and noble rather they are
anti-state or with unlawful motive, the state can control those activities.
7. Right of contract: The citizens have the right to contract for trade and commerce, transfer of
property or any other matter. The state helps the citizens to maintain the terms of the
contract. But a contract against the state or public welfare cannot be entered into.
8. Right to form family: Right to form family is indispensably necessary for a civilized society.
Social life grows up centering round the family. To marry, to produce children, to bring
them up and inheritance are under this right.
9. Right to religion: With the right to religion the citizens at their own will can accept religion,
perform the religious rites and preach the religion. Others cannot put obstruction to it.
10. Right to work: A citizen can take up any lawful profession according to his qualification.
11. Equality in the eye of law: Equality in the eye of law means that law is applicable equally to
all. The rich and the poor, the strong and the weak- all must obey the law of the state. For
committing crime all will suffer the punishment.

80
 12. Right to health and education: For the development of life, health and education are
indispensably necessary. The state must ensure the security of public health providing
treatment of illness, cleanness, nutrition and safe drinking water. Education makes worthy
and conscious citizen. Every citizen has the right to education. It is the duty of the state to
provide opportunity of education for all.
13. Right to culture and language: Every citizen has the right to maintain the identity of his own
culture and language. This right is indispensably necessary for the citizens of all religion and
community to maintain their own independence and identity.
Political Right
The facilities by which the individual can actively participate in conducting the administration of
the state are called the political right. Some important political rights are discussed below:
1. Right to live: Every citizen has the right to live in any corner of the state without
encroaching upon the right of other citizens and not doing any harm to the state.
2. Right to election: The right to election is of two types. One is the right to election and the
other is the right to be elected.
3. Right to security during the stay in foreign land: When any citizen stays in a foreign land
and if he faces any difficulty or danger, he can demand security from his own state.
4. Right to get government service: Every citizen has the right to get government service
according to his qualification. Through this the citizens take part in state affairs.
5. Right to apply: Every citizen has the right to apply to the proper authority informing of his
problems and to expect justice on his application.
6. Right to individual freedom: Every citizen has the right to individual freedom. In a
democratic country if this right is violated unlawfully, the citizens can prevent it.
7.

Duties of the Citizens

With the enjoyment of the rights given by the state, the citizens have to discharge some duties also.
In civics these responsibilities are called the duties. The main duties of the citizens are described
below:
1. Allegiance: One of the responsibilities of the citizen is to owe his allegiance to the state.
Allegiance means to remain obedient. The citizens will always be ready to make sacrifice
also at the necessity of the state. It is the duty of the citizens to join the armed forces and to
fight for the defense of the country. To always help the government employees to maintain
law and order of the state is also included in owing allegiance.
2. To obey the law: To obey all the prevalent laws of the state is another important duty of the
citizens. Everybody must obey the laws for the maintenance of peace, discipline and security
of the state.
3. To cast vote with honesty: The citizens take part in the administration of the state through the
casting of vote. Without electing the fit candidate through casting vote honestly, the
government will be weak and unfit.
4. To pay tax: Money is necessary for conducting administration, defense and development
works of the state. The activities of the government are hampered for want of money if the
taxes are not paid timely.
5. To perform Government activities properly: This is another important duty. On the
performance of proper activities of the citizens depends on the success, development and
progress of the government.
6. To give education to the children: Another duty of the citizens is to impart proper education
to the children and to build them up as good citizens. The success of a democratic
administration depends on well-educated citizens.
The Qualities of Good Citizens
The development, progress and success of any state depend on the citizens. For that reason the
citizens should be good. According to political scientist Lord Bryce the virtues of good
81
 citizens are three: 1) Intelligence 2) Self-control and 3) Conscience. These three virtues
described by Lord Bryce are essential for a good citizen.
1. Intelligence: Intelligence is necessary for the performance of the state duty, forming
government, conducting the administration, formulating government policy etc. Along
with the enjoying of state facilities, the intelligent citizens become active to do his
duties. For the development of knowledge education is necessary. It is the duty of the
government to make all the citizens conscious introducing universal education.
2. Self-Control: Self-control is an indispensable virtue of the citizens to build up a
disciplined state obeying the government and the laws. Self-control inspires the citizens
to sacrifice the small self interest in the greater interest of the state. Besides, self-control
is also necessary for toleration of others opinion. Self-control is also indispensably
necessary to remain free from corruption and nepotism remaining aloof from all
temptations. So, self-control is one of the best qualities of a citizen.
3. Conscience: The citizens must have conscience to discharge the duties and
responsibilities of the state and for the welfare of the state. A conscientious citizen
remains alive to his own responsibilities and duties. He becomes eager to take any step
for the development of the state. The right and the unjust depend on judgment and
conscience. Social welfare and patriotism give rise to the sense of conscience. So the
citizens with the qualities of intelligence, self-control, conscience etc. are called good
citizens.

Conclusion, this chapter discussed the concepts of citizen and the state and show their
interplay in the context of political organization and state-building of the modern state. Every
state has some fundamental responsibilities to provides to the citizens and on the other hand
the citizens have duties and obligations to the state. This is what kept the state system since the
Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. The state remains the most powerful human organization that
has the monopoly of the use of force to ensure compliance and claims legitimacy on the
populace.

References
Appadorai, A. (1972). Substance of Politics. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Hobbes, T. (1651). The Leviathan. The British Library.
Jenks, E. (1990). A History of Politics. Stanford University Press.
Johari, J.C. (1989). Principles of Modern Political Science. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.
Locke, J. (1690). The Two Treatises on Government. Awnsham Churchill.
Machiavelli, N. (1532). The Prince, Antonio Blado d‘Asola.
Mahajan. V. D. (1988). Political Theory. New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.
Otite,O. (1990). Ethnic Pluralism and Ethnicity in Nigeria. Onitsha: Abbot Books.
Peter P. (1975). Colonialism and Two Publics in Africa: A Theoretical Statement,
Comparative Studies in Society and History. Vol 17. No 1.
Laski, H. J. (1925). Grammar of Politics. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.

82

View publication stats