THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN AND THE Development of GOVERNMENT1

In the preceding chapter the origin and the development of government were briefly explained, but the impelling force which led man to unite his efforts with other men to accomplish a common end remains to be considered. Various theories have been formulated and advanced by political thinkers as to the incentives which have drawn men together and have led them to submit to a common regulation of the various relationships which individuals bear to one another. Chief among the theories which have been advanced are (a) the instinctive theory, (b) the force and necessity theory, (c) the divine-right theory, (d) the social-contract theory, (e) the evolutionary theory, and (f) the economic theory.

The Instinctive Theory. Since the time of the Greeks there have been those who have traced the origin of political institutions to the natural instincts of man. Aristotle, one of the first exponents of this theory, presented the view in the first book of The Politics that man is by nature a political animal. While the state is an association of human beings and has been preceded by the family relation and the village, the instinct for political association

1 Some of the classics on government which present the foundation for modern political theories and which should be read are: The Republic of Plato, The Politics of Aristotle, The Prince by Machiavelli, Civil Government by Locke, The Leviathan by Hobbes, The Spirit of Laws by Montesquieu, and The Social Contract by Rousseau.

is, he maintained, inherent in man. All forms of association, simple and complex, are but the outward expression of this inherent quality. Cicero also set forth the same conception in his Commonwealth. The first cause of an association of the entire people for the purposes of justice and utility, he thought, is not so much due to the weakness of man as to a certain spirit of congregation which naturally belongs to him. When a consciousness of mutual rights and duties existed in a community, it was thought that there likewise existed at that time the element necessary to create an organized state as an outward expression of this consciousness.1 The universal instinct of human society is toward external organization of the common activities of man. Greek philosophers thus considered political authority as a "necessity arising from the social life of man as existing in and of and for itself and as determined by the very nature of things." To them the essential psychological element of unity in action existed subjectively in the minds of people and became objective when expressed in laws and political institutions. But this subjective idea of unity was thought to have been the essential element of the state and necessarily antedated the objective bond as manifested in the body politic.

The instinctive theory has an element of truth which has led to its acceptance and exposition by certain modern political thinkers.

The Necessity and the Force Theories.-To other thinkers the necessity of self-protection appears to have been the primary motive for the formation of political societies. The necessity theory recognizes that men, because of their many wants, are mutually dependent, and are compelled by them to seek aid through political association. Plato in The Republic says "that owing to our many wants, and

For a survey of the development of Political Theories the scholarly work of Prof. W. A. Dunning is recommended, Political Theories, Ancient and Mediaval (The Macmillan Company, 1902), Political Theories from Luther to Montesquieu (The Macmillan Company, 1905), an Political Theories from Rousseau to Spencer (The Macmillan Company, 1920).

because each seeks the aid of others to supply his various requirements, we gather many associates and helpers into one dwelling place and give to this joint dwelling the name of city." It was thought by other theorists that civic subordination was originally established by violence and submitted to under the pressure of force. Self-defense and aggression then occasioned the centralization of control in a common political agency whose power extended over a definite territory or community. Along with the concept of necessity as a basis for organized community life came the growth of the force theory, and with it the idea that might makes right. The best account of this theory is to be found in Machiavelli's The Prince, where force and expediency, as the prime motives in state control, are succinctly set forth. Recent advocates of the force theory are to be found chiefly in Germany. To quote one of its influential expounders,

force can be found only among people possessed of a strong vitality and of a progressive civilization. Progress makes for victory. If it were not for war, we should probably find that inferior and degenerated races would overcome healthy and youthful ones by their wealth and numbers. The generative importance of war lies in this, that it causes selection, and thus war becomes a biological necessity. It becomes an indispensable regulator, because without war there could be neither racial nor cultural progress.2

An expression quite common in German papers, articles, and books prior to 1916 was that "war is the most sublime and most holy expression of human activity." To these advocates of war "the ideal of perpetual peace is not only impossible, but immoral as well,"3 and Germans have been constantly urged to combat the peace propaganda, arbitration at The Hague, and the regulation of international affairs by conventions. Thus, running counter to the agreements among nations, the German Army-Law Manual

F. W. Coker, Readings in Political Philosophy (The Macmillan Company, 1914), pp. 173-185.

2 F. von Bernhardi, Britain as Germany's Vassal, trans. 1914, pp. 110–111. 3 H. von Treitschke, Politics, 1916, vol. ii, p. 599.

declared that the laws and customs of war must yield to the demands of military necessity whenever the observance of the law would prevent or hinder the attainment of the object of the war. Although there are many advocates of the force theory at the present time, its significance seems to be declining before the principle of common consent and agreement as a more reasonable and fair basis for the adjustment of civic affairs.

The Divine-Right Theory.2-Probably no concept as to the origin of government has held so prominent and enduring a place in the political evolution of society as the divineright theory. The basis for this theory can be traced to the period of development when the control of civic association was synonymous with the execution of what were considered by primitive peoples the dispensations of the deities. In the early history of the Orient can be found the idea of the divine origin of civic mandates, when the ruler was high priest as well as king and military leader. The foundations of the civic institutions of the Orient, as well as the despotism of those in authority, supposedly rested upon the divine sanction of the community god. In Oriental countries the divine will was evoked and executed by the king or ruler, who was looked upon as the spokesman of the tribal god.

The close union of priestly, civic, and military functions, likewise, existed everywhere in Europe in the earlier development of political institutions. Thus, in ancient times, government and religion were inseparably associated. And it was largely through the religious fear and superstition which the ancient peoples had for an unseen will expressed through what was supposed to be a divinely appointed agent that the barbarous elements of liberty and license in man were brought into check by a common agreement or political mandate.

The German War Code, issued by the Committee on Public Information, War Information Series No. 11 (February, 1918), p. 3.

2 J. N. Figgis, Divine Right of Kings and the Divine Rule Theory (Second Edition; Cambridge, 1914).

Alexander reinforced the idea of the divine right of rule when, during his series of conquests, he made a visit to the ancient sacred shrine in Egypt and claimed to have received there the divine sanction for the campaigns which followed in Europe as well as in Asia. Later throughout Europe further progress in political organization was effected on the theory of a close union of kingship with a divine being, just as had been the case with the despots of Asia. Support of the theory that the king or ruler obtained his power and authority from a divinity to whom alone he is responsible has continued throughout the ages.

Adherence to this idea was manifested by Charlemagne when he accepted coronation from the Pope of Rome and thus recognized a union of civil and religious authority. Such a recognition helped to restore order and political unity amid the chaos which prevailed throughout Europe during the later mediæval period. After the long and bitter struggles which followed between the Church and the state, the temporal ruler gained undisputed control over things temporal, while the Church was recognized as supreme over things spiritual. Although this contest ended by establishing the authority of the king as independent of that of the Pope, the former, whenever it was advantageous, still harked back to the divine origin of royal edicts. In the rise of modern nations, kings have often resorted to the time-honored theory that their power is an inheritance from God. Such was the case with the despotic rulers of England, James I, Charles I, and Charles II, and Louis XIV of France. In the words of James I, "that which concerns the mystery of the king's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit on the throne of God." Louis XIV held a similar idea as to the divinity of kingship and expressed it in the following statement, "It appears from all this that the person of the king is sacred, and that to attack him in any way is a sacrilege-kings should be