MODULE 1

DEFINITION, MEANING
AND NATURE OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE

[Link] @manupatra
 DEFINITION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
The terms 'politics' and 'political ' have been derived from the Greek word 'polis' which
means 'City -State'. Polis itself is hard to translate- perhaps ‘polity’ comes nearest, but the
word is archaic and pompous sounding. For the Greeks 'politics' meant the science of the
City-State which was the highest organization of the community through which men strove
for moral perfection. ‘Polis’ also implies community, and not merely an independent
community.

For Aristotle, politics or the government of the polis must always involve interaction
between citizens; it was because of the small size of the population in the city-state. The
Sparta, the city-state had only 5000 population. In states of this size it is obvious that there
is intimacy and closeness between citizens, even between rulers and ruled when
aristocracies predominated. Rulers could not pose as gods. Even tyrants had to be
somewhat political, had to exhibit the common touch rather than imperiousness. It is same
with the Panchayat Raj system even today in India.

Therefore, Politics today means ‘applied’ or ‘practical’ politics dealing with day-to-day public
affairs and the actual problems of government. Those who take part in the actual conduct
and management of the State, government, political parties etc. are known as politicians. On
the other hand political science refers to the theoretical aspects of the study of politics.

Using the term politics in the broadest sense, Sir Frederick Pollock divides it into:
[Link] politics and
[Link] or applied politics.

In theoretical Politics he includes:

(a) The theory of the State,
(b) The theory of government,
(c) The theory of legislation, and
(d) The theory of State as an artificial person.

Under the practical or applied Politics he includes:

(a) The State (actual forms of government),
(b) The government (the working of government, administration etc), laws and legislation,
and
(c) The State personified (diplomacy, peace, war, and international relations).
Thus everything that relates to the basic problems of the State including the principles of
political organization and administration falls within the domain of 'theoretical' politics,
while that which is concerned with actual working of the government and other political
institutions comes under 'practical' or ‘applied’

[Link] @manupatra
politics. The majority of writers, however, prefer the term ‘political science’ to ‘theoretical
politics’ and the simple term ‘politics’ to ‘applied’ or ‘practical’ politics.

The term political science in its current usage is, however, more comprehensive than the
term politics. It includes both theoretical and applied politics. It includes both the theory or
State and the actual conduct of affairs of State.

TWO POINTS OF CLASSIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF

POLITICAL SCIENCE
Political Science may be classified into two point of view of definition:
[Link] point of view (Legal and Institutional) definition
[Link] Point of view (Behavioral) definition

From the traditional point of view we may define political science as “the study of the state
and government in all their manifestations, aspects and relationships”. In this sense, politics
can be domestic, national, federal, municipal or international.

These early definitions of political science dealt generally with state and government.
1.J.W. Garner: “Political Science begins and ends with the state”; “Politics is the study of
State & Government”.
2.R.G. Gettel: “Political Science is the historical investigation of what the state has been,
an analytical study of what the state is and a political, ethical discussion of what the
state ought to be”.
[Link]: “Political science deals with government only”.
[Link] Janet: “Political science is that part of the social science which treats the
foundations of the state and the principles of government”.
[Link]: defined it as "a study of State and Government"

In the beginning of the 20th century there developed a new way of looking at political
science. This new focus looking at political science was on behaviour. The main thrust of the
new view is the treatment of politics as an activity and a process.

In this context, new definitions emerged.

[Link] Laswell: “Politics is the study of influence and the influential” or “the study of the
shaping and sharing of power”
[Link] Easton: “Politics is the authoritative allocation of values.”
[Link]: “Political Science is the study of the act of human and social control”.
[Link] Heywood: “Politics can be defined as an activity through which people make,
preserve and amend the general rules under which they live.”

[Link] @manupatra
 THE VIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE FROM MODERN
POLITICAL SCIENTIST
Modern political scientists consider politics as a process centering around power and
influence. They are concerned with not just the state and the government, but also the study
and evaluation of political activities, political power, processes and non-governmental
institutions.

MEANING OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Politics is not only a mere institution of governance but also a mechanism for achieving
societal goals. Political science is a social science concerned with the theory and practice of
politics and the description and analysis of political systems and political behaviour. It
includes matters concerning the allocation and transfer of power in decision making, the
roles and systems of governance including governments and international organizations,
political behaviour and public policies.

Political science is thus a study of the state in the past, present and future; of political
organization, political processes and political functions; of political institutions and political
theories.

Political science has several subfields, including: political theory, public policy, national
politics, international relations, human rights, environment politics and comparative politics.

FATHER OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Aristotle is known as the Father of Political Science. He is famous for his statement “Man is
a political animal”. Man is a social animal. He cannot live in isolation, because he is not self-
sufficient and the natural instinct to survive compels him to live a collective life. According
to Aristotle, this collective life necessitates a political mechanism of rules, regulations and
leadership. An organized society needs some system to make and enforce rules for orderly
behavior in society. This led to the evolution of a political system with elaborate
governmental institutions & procedures in each society. Therefore, man is also a political
animal. Political science is one of the oldest subjects of study of this political life of man.

[Link] @manupatra
 STAGES OF EVOLUTION
(1) Philosophical: concerned with ends and purposes
(2) Institutional: concerned with political organization
(3) Behavioural: concerned with motivations and mechanism of human behavior
(4) Pluralistic: concerned with the interaction among groups and organizations
(5) Structural: concerned with the connection between the individual and the community
(6) Developmental: concerned with the process of growth, industrialization and change and
the impact on government forms and policies.

SCOPE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

The scope of Political Science implies its jurisdiction or subject matter. Political Science is a
very wide and comprehensive subject. There is no agreement among the Political Scientists
as regard to the scope of Political Science. Despite this disagreement, we may make an
attempt to define the scope of Political Science which includes the followings:

A study of the State and Government:

Political Science primarily studies the problems of the State and government. The state is
defined as a group of people organised for law within definite territory. The State possesses
four characteristics, viz. Population, territory, government and sovereignty. Government is
an agent of the Stale. Political Science studies the activities of the State and explains the
aims and objectives of the State and government.

A Study of Political Theory:

Political theory is a major branch of Political Science. On the basis of the political ideas or
thoughts of political thinkers, political theory formulates definitions or concepts like
democracy, liberty, equality, grounds of political obligation, etc. A student of Political
Science must start his lessons with political theory. Political theory explains the
rudimentary concepts of Political Science. It also includes the study of political philosophy.

A Study of Political Institutions

The field of Political Science is rather vast. It includes the study of political institutions. This
covers a study of constitutions and comparative government, explains their merits and
demerits, their structure and working and arrives at different conclusions on comparative
basis. Besides, the study of public administration and local government may be included in
this area. These institutions are useful to the nation and hence they are studied along with
the State.

[Link] @manupatra
A study of Political Dynamics:
The study of political dynamics has become significant in the 20th century. It means the
current forces at work in government and politics. It covers a wide range and includes the
study of political parties, public opinion, pressure groups, lobbies, etc. A scientific study of
the working of these political dynamics helps to explain the political behaviour of individuals
and different groups. The study in this field is often done in collaboration with other social
sciences like sociology,, anthropology and psycholosiy.

A Study of Adjustment of the Individual with the State:

The scope of political science also includes a study of the nature of relationship between the
individual and the State. It examines how man should adjust himself with the society. Man is
the root of politics. The process of adjustment of men with the society is an important aspect
of Political Science.

A study of International Relations and international law

Lastly, the scope of Political Science includes a study of international relations which has
become significant since the first quarter of the 20th century. It covers a wide range and
includes diplomacy, international politics, international law, international organisations like
the Untied Nations, etc. The States are the subjects of international law. International law
has assumed greater importance in recent times.

The above contents show the wide range of subjects that come under the fold of Political
Science. Broadly speaking, political science contains the topics dealing with both empirical
facts and philosophical values. Questions of facts are concerned with “what is” and those
dealing with values are concerned with “what should be”. The contents of political science
fall in either of these two broad categories.

For more notes and flashcards, visit Manupatra Academy – your one-stop hub
for curated legal content and structured learning in law

Copyright © 2025 Manupatra. All Rights Reserved.

[Link] @manupatra
@manupatra
 LESSON 2
THE STATE

DEFINITION AND MEANING OF SATE

The word state and its cognates in some other European languages (stato in Italian, estado in
Spanish and Portuguese, état in French, Staat in German) ultimately derive from the Latin
word status, meaning "condition, circumstances".
The English noun state in the generic sense "condition, circumstances" predates the
political sense. It is introduced to Middle English in the 13th century both from Old
French and directly from Latin.

The term came to refer to the legal standing of persons (such as the various "estates of the
realm” – noble, common, and clerical), and in particular the special status of the king with
the revival of the Roman Law in the 14th-century Europe. The highest estates, generally
those with the most wealth and social rank, were those that held power. The word also had
associations with Roman ideas (dating back to Cicero) about the "status rei publicae", the
"condition of public matters". In time, the word lost its reference to particular social groups
and became associated with the legal order of the entire society and the apparatus of its
enforcement.

The early 16th-century works of Machiavelli (especially The Prince) played a central role in
popularizing the use of the word "state" in something similar to its modern sense. The
contrasting of church and state still dates to the 16th century. The North American
colonies were called "states" as early as the 1630s. The expression L'Etat, c'est moi ("I am the
State") attributed to Louis XIV of France is probably apocryphal, recorded in the late 18th
century. In common parlance, State is a country considered as an organized Political
community by one government.

THE DEFINITION OF STATE

A form of political organization in which a group of people who share the same history,
traditions, or language live in a particular area under one government.

According to one definition, a state is a community formed by people and exercising

permanent power within a specified territory.

[Link] @manupatra
The term ‘State’ is central to the study of Political Science. But it is wrongly used as
synonym for nation, society, government etc. The term ‘state’ is also used as State
management, State aid and so on. Also as the States of Indian union or the fifty States that
make the United States of America. But in Political Science, we use this term differently; it
has a more specific meaning.

Some of the definitions of the concept of State are as follows:

“The State is the politically organized people of a definite territory”

Bluntschli
State is “a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite
portion of territory, independent, or nearly so, of external control, and possessing an
organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.”

Garner
State is “a territorial society divided into governments and subjects, whether individuals or
associations of individuals, whose relationships are determined by the exercise of this
supreme coercive power.”

Laski
State “is a people organized for law within a definite territory”.
–Woodrow Wilson
“The State is a concept of political science, and a moral reality which exists where a number
of people, living on a definite territory, are unified under a government which in internal
matters is the organ of expressing their sovereignty, and in external matters is independent
of other governments.” –Gilchrist

Human beings are social animals and cannot live alone. When people live together, they
fulfill their socials needs. But everybody is not good and kind. There are all sorts of men and
women, who exhibit various emotions such as pride, jealousy, greed, selfishness and so on.

According to Burke, “Society requires not only the passions of individuals should be
subjected, but that even in the mass and body as in the individuals the inclination of men
should be thwarted, their will controlled and their passions brought into subjection.” The
best is to control human perversity through means of political authority. Therefore people
are bound by rules of common behaviour. If these are broken then they can be punished.
Society fulfills people’s need for companionship; the state solves the problem created by
this companionship.

[Link] @manupatra
The state exists for the sake of good life. It is an essential and natural institution and as
Aristotle said, “The State comes into existence originating in the bare needs of life and
continues its existence for the sake of good life.”

It is only within a state that an individual can rise to his or her ability. If there is no authority,
no organisation and no rules, then society cannot be held together. The state has existed
where human beings have lived in an organized society. The structure of the state has
evolved gradually over a long period of time, from a simple to a complex organization that
we have today.

The essence of state is in its monopoly of coercive power. It has a right to demand obedience
from the people.

However, the Marxists believe that state is a class organisation, which has been created by
the propertied class to oppress and exploit the poor. They refuse to believe that the state is
a natural institution. To them the propertied class created the state and it has always
belonged to them only. Thus, the state is just a means of exploitation. Therefore, they
visualize a situation of classless society or communism in which there will not be any need of
the state. State will, thus, wither away. Attaining the status of a state

MONTEVIDEO CONVENTION 1933

According to international law, a state is typically defined as being based on the
1933 Montevideo Convention. According to Article 1 of the Convention, the state as a person
of international law should possess the following qualifications:
[Link] population
[Link] territory
[Link]
In practice, it is difficult to determine when a people exercising power within a certain
territory forms not only a country and a nation but also a sovereign state. Many disputed and
developing statehoods only partially fulfill the criteria laid down in the Montevideo
Convention.

Currently, there are several territories that have declared themselves to be sovereign states,
but whose status has not been recognised by any other state. For example, Somaliland
declared independence in 1991 but it has never been recognised. In addition, there are
several states that have been recognised by only a small section of the international
[Link] Republic of China (Taiwan) declared its independence in 1912, but due to the
“One-China policy” of the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of China (Taiwan) is
currently only recognised by about 20 countries. The interests of unrecognised states are
advocated by an international organisation called Unrepresented Nations and Peoples
Organisation.

[Link] @manupatra
Attaining the status of a state requires recognition by other states. The recognition of
a state depends on legal and political factors. Particularly during the Cold War, states
refused to recognise new states within the enemy bloc on political grounds, although
from the perspective of international law, their recognition would have been
justifiable.

In practice, the recognition of a state means that an official decision is made by a

government to recognise a state, that a diplomatic mission is established or an
international treaty is drawn up. The recognition of a state may also take place
unofficially. If a state has voted in favour of a membership application submitted to
the UN by a newly independent state, this has been deemed as de facto recognition,
even if the two states do not have diplomatic relations.

For more notes and flashcards, visit Manupatra Academy – your one-stop hub
for curated legal content and structured learning in law

Copyright © 2025 Manupatra. All Rights Reserved.

[Link] @manupatra
@manupatra
 LESSON 3
ELEMENTS OF THE STATE
THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ON STATE
The essential features of a state are best summarized by Oppenheim’s International Law:
“There are [...] four conditions which must be obtained for the existence of a state.
There must, first, be a people...
There must, second, be a territory in which the people is settled...
There must, third, be a government...
There must, fourth and last, be a sovereign government.”
Without people, there can be no state. This means a population is the first thing a state
needs. States require fixed boundaries relative to other states. That means you need to be
able to draw the state on a map, which also involves the recognition or lack of recognition
from neighboring states.
Furthermore, the state needs to be able to exercise sovereignty over their own territories.
When a state lacks that authority, it's prone to becoming a colony, which is typically
developed to be exploited the colonizer.
Like the body needs a brain, the state needs a government to maintain order, enforce laws,
and provide services. Governments exercise what political theorists like Thomas Hobbes
have called a monopoly on legitimate violence. The state's use of violence is legitimized
based on the consent of its people, which allows the state to collect taxes, punish
wrongdoers, and so on.

From the above lines we understand that the state possesses four essential elements.
These are:

ELEMENTS OF THE STATE

Population
The State is a human institution. It is the people who make a State. Antarctica is not a State
as is it is without any human population. The population must be able to sustain a state. But
the question is; how much should be the population?

Plato’s and Aristotle’s ideals were the Greek City – States of Athens and Sparta. Plato fixed
the number of people in an ideal state at 5040. Aristotle laid down a general principle that
the state should neither be large nor small; it should be large enough to be self-sufficing and
small enough to be well-governed. Rousseau put the number at 10,000. But it is difficult to
fix the size of the people of a state. In modern times we have India and China which have
huge population and countries like San Marino with a very small population.

[Link] @manupatra
Countries like former Soviet Union gave incentives to mother of large families. In India, over-
population is a big problem while China has enforced a one-child norm. Dictators like
Mussolini had openly encouraged large population of the state.

So no limit-either theoretical or practical-can be put on population. But it must be enough

to constitute governing and governed classes, sufficient to support a political organization.

The population should be in proportion to the available land and resources. It should be
remembered that the differences in the size of population, other things remaining the same,
does not make any difference in the nature of State.

The quality of the population is also important. A state requires healthy, intelligent and
disciplined citizens. They should be possessed with qualities of vitality. The composition of
population is also very important. A state with a homogenous people can be governed easily.

Territory
Just as every person belongs to a state, so does every square yard of earth. There is no state
without a fixed territory. Living together on a common land binds people together. Love for
the territory inculcates the spirit of patriotism. Some call their countries as fatherland and
some call it motherland. But there is a definite attachment with one’s territory.

The territory has to be definite because it ensures exercise of political authority. Mobile
tribal’s had some sort of political authority but they did not constitute a State because they
lacked a fixed land. The Jews were living in different countries and they became State only
with the creation of Israel, which had a definite territory. Without a fixed territory it would be
difficult to conduct external relations. It is essential for the identification if one state
attempts to conquer the territory of another.

The territory may be small or large. But the state has to have a definite land. It may be as
small as an Marino, which has an area of 62 Square kilometers, or it may be as large as India,
USA, Russia or China. The size of a state influences the form of government. For example,
smaller states can have a unitary form of government but for the large states like India and
the USA, the federal system is relatively suitable.

The quality of land is also very important. If the land is rich in minerals and natural resources,
it will make the state economically powerful. It should be able to provide enough food for its
people. The States of West Asia were insignificant but they acquired prominence after the
discovery of oil. Large territory of a State gives it strategic and military advantage during
the times of war. Mostly the territory of a state is contiguous and compact though there are
exceptions also. Before the creation of Bangladesh, the two wings of Pakistan were miles
apart. Hawaii and Alaska are far away from the main territory of USA.

[Link] @manupatra
Land, water and airspace comprise the territory of the state. The sovereignty of a state is
exercised over its land, its rivers, mountains and plains and airspace above the land. The sea
up to a certain limit from the land border is also a part of the territory of a State.
Government
Government is the working agency of the State. It is the political organization of the State.
Indian political scientist Prof. A. Appadurai defined government as the agency through which,
the will of the State is formulated, expressed and realized. According to C.F. Strong, in order
to make and enforce laws, the State must have a supreme authority. Government is a fixed
structure. Political executives who get elected to offices may change but Government as a
system is a permanent body of State. The State existed before the people come to power
and it will exist after these men and women in power leaves the control of the State.

The purpose for which people live together cannot be realized unless they are properly
organized and accept certain rules of conduct. The agency created to enforce rules of
conduct and ensure obedience is called government. Government is also the focus of the
common purpose of the people occupying the definite territory. It is through this medium
that common policies are determined, common affairs regulated and common interests
promoted. Without a government the people will lack cohesion and means of collective
action. There would be groups, parties and warring associations and conditions of wars and
chaos. So there is a need for common authority and order where people live. This is the pre-
requisite of human life. The state cannot and does not exist without a government, no matter
what form a government may assume. The government is a must, though it may take any
form. It may have a monarchy like Bhutan or republic as in India. It may have a parliamentary
form of government like India and Great Britain or a presidential form of government as in
the United States of America.
Sovereignty
A people inhabiting a definite portion of territory and having a government do not constitute
a state so long as they do not possess sovereignty. India before 15 August 1947 had all the
other elements of the state but it lacked sovereignty and therefore it was not a
State. Sovereignty is the supreme power by which the state commands and exerts political
obedience from its people. A state must be internally supreme and free from external
control. Thus sovereignty has two aspects, internal and external. Internal sovereignty is the
state’s monopoly of authority inside its boundaries. This authority cannot be shared with any
other state. The state is independent and its will is unaffected by the will of any other
external authority.
Therefore every state must have a population, a definite territory, a duly established
government and sovereignty. The absence of any of these elements deprives it the status of
statehood.

For more notes and flashcards, visit Manupatra Academy – your one-stop hub
for curated legal content and structured learning in law

Copyright © 2025 Manupatra. All Rights Reserved.

[Link]
[Link] @manupatra
@manupatra
@manupatra
 LESSON 4
STATE AND SOCIETY
THE SOCIETY
A study of any aspect of the state must begin with a definition of society, since a state
is a society politically organized. A society may be defined as any association of human
beings. Among such peoples as the British or the French, for example, there is a vast
system of relationships among men and women dividing them socially into groups
which by no means coincide with their political grouping. Sometimes, and more
frequently, the group is very much smaller than the state, but often it passes right
across the political frontier, and this is especially the case in commercial relationships.
The fundamental units of the association of the members of a community, considered
socially and not politically, may be said to be three. The first is the family, the
association into which men are born. The second is the type of association to which
men are compelled to belong through some strong incentive as such as economic
interest or social advantage, as for example, a trade union or professional society. The
third is what may be called the voluntary association, such as club or a church. Now,
while it is true that the state does not use its force, as a rule, actively to interfere with
such associations as these, the fact remains that it could and is sometimes obliged to
do so for reason either of social health or of political expediency. While, on the one
hand, such associations as we have mentioned play an important part in influencing
and determining state action, on the other, many of them could not continue to exist
without the conditions which the agency of the state alone can enforce, such as
marriage laws, rights of property, laws of contract, and so on.

THE STATE
The state is something more than a mere collection of families, or an agglomeration of
occupational organizations, or referee holding the ring between the conflicting
interests of the voluntary associations which it permits to exist. In a properly
organized political community the state exists for society and not society for the
state.

All associations make rules and regulations for their conduct, and when men are
associated politically these rules and regulations are called laws, the power to make
these being the prerogative of the state and of no other association. Thus in the words
of [Link], a “state is the fundamental association for the maintenance and
development of social order, and to this end its central institution is endowed with the
united power of the community. But this definition might conceivably cover a pastoral
or nomadic family who in some sort discharged the powers of government.
[Link] @manupatra
Such a society however lacks territoriality an indispensable condition of true political
organization. According to J.W. Hetherington , “The state is the institution or set of
institutions which, in order to secure certain elementary common purposes and conditions
of life, unites under a single authority the inhabitants of a clearly marked territorial area. But
what is this ‘United power of the community’ (society) and this ‘single authority’ (state). It is
the power or authority to make laws. So we come to the definition given by Woodrow Wilson:
“A state is a people organised for law within a definite territory”.

The essence of a state, then, as distinct from all other forms of association, is the obedience
of its members to the law. If they don’t obey, a penalty to be inflicted on any persons those
who disobey the command of the state.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN STATE AND SOCIETY

Society is wider in scope than State:
Society is a very broad and comprehensive organisation of human beings. It is formed by all
types of relations (social, economic, cultural, political, moral, religious, and others) that
emerge and develop among the people who are members of the society.. As against this,
State is only a political institution or organisation. It is concerned primarily with the exercise
of power in society. State constitutes the sovereign power-system of the Society.

Society is prior to State:

Society is rooted in human nature. As social animals people naturally enter into social
relationships and form society. The birth of society took place in the earliest period of
history. State also has a very long history behind it and yet, everyone agrees, it came after
the birth of society. The need for protecting the social relationships is the need for law and
order led to the birth of the State. State had its birth after the evolution of society into a
territorially settled society of people.

State is a politically organised unity of the people, Society is a natural unity of people
bound together in social relationships:
Society includes both organised and un-organised groups of people, their activities and
relationships. It consists of the vast network of all human relationships in society. . State is a
politically organised community of people living on a definite portion of territory and
characterised by the exercise of sovereignty over the people. State is the organised political
community of the people of a society.

Government is the agency of the State; Society has no formal organised agent:
State acts through its government. Government is the agent of the State. It exercises the
sovereignty of the State. . Society has no agent or agency. It is a self-regulating system of
relationships. It functions naturally on the basis of its customs, traditions, usages and
naturally evolved moral codes of conduct. Society lacks a formal organisation.

[Link] @manupatra
Sovereignty belongs to State and not to Society:
Sovereignty is the most essential property and the hallmark of the State. State alone
exercises supreme power over all its citizens and their institutions. It is the law and order-
maintaining institution of Society. Its laws bind all the members of the Society. Society is a
system of social relations.

Territory belongs to State and not to the Society:

State is a territorial entity. Definite territory is an essential element of the State. Society has
no territory. Even vagabonds bound by social ties constitute a society, non-residents Indian
who have got the citizenships of other States continue to members of Indian society.

Society is concerned with both internal and external human behaviour, State is concerned
with external aspects of human behaviour:
State is concerned with external human behaviour. Its laws lay down rules which regulate
the external behaviour of the people and their groups, institutions, and organisations. State
uses its coercive power on each such person/group/institution which commits any breach of
law.

In contrast, the society is concerned with all aspects of human behaviour and relations in
society. Social customs and traditions, and rules of morality cover all types of social
relations at all levels—individual, family, community, neighborhood, regional and national.

For more notes and flashcards, visit Manupatra Academy – your one-stop hub
for curated legal content and structured learning in law

Copyright © 2025 Manupatra. All Rights Reserved.

[Link] @manupatra
@manupatra
 LESSON 5
STATE AND NATION
MEANING OF NATION
By nation, as you know, we mean a historically constituted stable community of people
formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and physiological make
up manifested in a common culture. Nation, Bluntschilli says, is “a union of masses of men
bound together specially by language and customs into common civilization which gives
them a sense of unity”. A nation is a culturally homogeneous social group.

The state, as we know, is a people organized for law within a definite territory; it is always
sovereign-supreme internally and independent externally. The nation is a group of people
psychologically bound together while sharing common joys and sorrows.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN STATE AND NATION CAN BE

EXPLAINED AS UNDER:
Nation and state are distinct entities. A nation may not be always a state; India was not a
state before August, 1947. A state may not always be a nation. Austria - Hungary was a
state but not a nation before World War I because the heterogeneous people did not
form a culturally homogeneous people.

The state is a state because it is sovereign. The nation is not a state if it is not sovereign.
Sovereignty is the chief characteristic of a state; it is not a feature of the nation. A nation
becomes a nation-state when the nation attains statehood.

The state is a political concept while the nation is a cultural, and a psychological body.
Hayes says, “Nation is primarily cultural, and only incidentally political”. What it means
is that nation is not a political concept, it is only spiritual.

Laws bind the people together in a state; sentiments and emotions bind the people in a
nation. The unity of the state is always external; the unity of the nation is eternal. In the
case of the state, unity is imposed; it comes from above through laws. In the case of
nation, unity comes from within, through emotions.

There is an element of force connected with the state. The state’s laws are binding.
There is a coercion exercised by the state if its authority is defied. In the case of the
nation, there is the element of persuasion.
[Link] @manupatra
 The elements of the state are definite: population, fixed territory, government and
sovereignty. The elements of a nation are not definite. Somewhere common language
helps constitute a nation, somewhere else, common race makes a nation. Common
religion, for example, was a factor in making Pakistan as a nation; it was common
language in the case of the United States as a nation whereas it was common heritage
that made India a nation.

A state may be larger than a nation. The former USSR had, within it, more than a hundred
nationalities. Conversely, a nation may be larger than a state; a nationality may spread
over two states. The Korean nationality is spread over two states: North Korea and South
Korea.

In common usage, the terms State and Nation are often used as synonyms. For example,
when we say ‘Western nations’ or ‘Asian nations’ or ‘African nations’, we do not mean nations
but States. Similarly, the ‘United Nations’ is in reality an organisation of nation-states. Each
modern state is a Nation State; nevertheless there exist some important distinctions
between the State and the Nation.

For more notes and flashcards, visit Manupatra Academy – your one-stop hub
for curated legal content and structured learning in law

Copyright © 2025 Manupatra. All Rights Reserved.

[Link] @manupatra
@manupatra
 LESSON 6
THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURES AND
FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE

INTRODUCTION
Some see a "state" as an ancient institution, going back to Rome, Greece and before, and
theorized by Plato, Aristotle and other classical philosophers. Others insist on the unique
features of the modern state, with its extensive rule of law, citizenship rights, and broad
economic and social responsibilities.

A state is more than a government; that is clear. Governments change, but states endure. A
state is the means of rule over a defined or "sovereign" territory. It is comprised of an
executive, a bureaucracy, courts and other institutions. But, above all, a state levies taxes
and operates a military and police force. States distribute and re-distribute resources and
wealth, so lobbyists, politicians and revolutionaries seek in their own way to influence or
even to get hold of the levers of state power.

States exist in a variety of sizes, ranging from enormous China to tiny Andorra. Some claim a
long lineage, while others are of modern construction. In all but the short term, states are in
flux. They expand and contract as military and political fortunes change. Some, like Poland,
even disappear and re-appear later. Or they may be divided up (sometimes peacefully) by
communities that prefer to go their separate ways (Czechoslovakia). Others, such as Iraq,
may be occupied or run as a colony or protectorate. States can also "fail" - their governing
institutions collapse due to civil war and internal strife (as in Somalia) or because the state
has little authority outside the capital city (Afghanistan). While globalization and regional
integration (like the European Union) challenge the state's powers, the state is still the
dominant arena of domestic politics as well as the primary actor in international relations.

Some states occupy a unique status in the international community of states, due to a very
small population or very small land area, but usually both. Microstates or small states and
territories (SSTs) are sovereign state and enjoy a disproportionately large influence in the
United Nations General Assembly thanks to the one state, one vote rule. Experimental Stats
such as Sealand, Freedom Ship, Cyber Yugoslavia are among the hundreds of experimental
states that people have founded in order to avoid taxation, feel independent, or to create a
tourist attraction.

[Link] @manupatra
 DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF THE STATE
In addition to the essential elements,- population, territory, government and sovereignty, -
states possess certain distinguishing characteristics. Burgess gives

All –Comprehensive:
First, I would say that the state is all-comprehensive. Its organization embraces all
persons, natural or legal, and all associations of persons. Political science and public
law do not recognize in principle the existence of any stateless persons within the
territory of the state.
Exclusive:
Second, the state is exclusive. Political science and public law do not recognize the
existence of an imperium in imperio. The state may constitute two or more
governments ; it may assign to each a distinct sphere of action ; it may then require of
its citizens or subjects obedience to each government thus constituted ; but there
cannot be two organizations of the state for the same population and within the
same territory.
Permanent:
Third, the state is permanent. It does not lie within the power of men to create it to-
day and destroy it to-morrow, as caprice may move them. Human nature has two
sides to it, —the one universal, the other particular ; the one the state, the other the
individual. Men can no more divest themselves of the one side than of the other ; i.e.
they cannot di- vest themselves of either. No great publicist since the days of
Aristotle has dissented from this principle. Anarchy is a permanent impossibility.
Sovereign:
Fourth and last, the state is sovereign. This is its most essential principle. An
organization may be conceived which would include every member of a given
population, or every inhabitant of a given territory, and which might continue with
great permanence, and yet it might not be the state. If, however, it possesses the
sovereignty over the population, then it is the state.

STATE AND ITS FUNCTIONS

A good deal of controversy exists as to the functions of the state or what is called the sphere
of state action. The theories that have prevailed regarding the necessity and functions of the
state range all the way from those which deny the necessity or utility of the state altogether
(anarchism) and which limit the state’s functions to the bare minimum (laissez faire
individualism) to those which invest it with enormous range of functions and laud it as the
indispensable agency by which all social, economic, artistic, literary and scientific progress
has been achieved (socialism and welfare state).

[Link] @manupatra
Some of the important functions of a state are as follows:
There is incessant controversy about what the state shall do. Political thinkers have from
time to time advanced many theories to define the sphere of state activity. On the one hand,
there are thinkers like anarchists, communists, syndicalists who question the very existence
of the state and advocate a stateless society.

On the other hand, there are the absolute thinkers like idealists who regard the state
omnipotent and entrust to it every action pertaining to human life. In between these two
extreme types of thinking there are the individualists who hold that Government is the best
which governs the least.
Thus, there is no unanimity among the political thinkers as to what the state should do.

The state is a limited agency:

The very nature of the state sets a limitation on the functions of the state. The state has
limits to what it can do. The state, as stated above, though universal yet it is a limited agency.
It is limited by the means at its disposal. It is limited by the customs of the community.
It is limited by the fear of resistance. And it is limited by the existence of other associations
in society whose function ii cannot perform or undertake. MacIver says, “It is needless and
futile to concentrate in one agency all the activities of life. Certain tasks the instrument can
perform, but badly and clumsily—we do not sharpen our pencils with an axe. Other tasks it
cannot perform at all and when it is directed upon them it only ruins the material.”
From what MacIver says the conclusion may be drawn that there are certain functions which
only the state can perform; others, which it is wholly incapable of performing and those
which it can with advantage perform and for which it is well adapted.

FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE ACCORDING TO MACIVER

MacIver sums up the functions of a modern state into two major functions, one is
compulsory functions which include- order, protection, conservation and development;
and the other is Optional functions (non-complusory)

COMPULSORY FUNCTIONS
1. Maintaining Order:
Taking the first type of functions, i.e., which the state alone can perform, the primary
function is the maintenance of order in society. The state is possessed of peculiar attributes
which enable it to perform this function. For this purpose each state maintains a police force
and keeps a watch on the disruptive elements. It protects the life and property of the
citizens.

[Link] @manupatra
2. Formulations of Laws
Formulation of laws and maintenance of law courts to settle disputes amongst individuals as
well as individual and the state. Those who are guilty of violating the law must be brought to
book.
3. Protection of the country from outside aggression
For this purpose, each state maintains an army. It also tries to maintain friendly relations
with other countries through exchange of diplomatic envoys.

THE OPTIONAL FUNCTIONS

The Optional functions or the ministrant functions of the state include those functions which
a state may or may not perform depending on its capacity and resources. The non-
performance of these functions by the state does not in any way jeopardize its existence.
However, in recent years due to emergence of the concept of welfare state, there is growing
tendency among the modern states to undertake more and more optional functions. The list
of optional functions performed by the modern states is so exhaustive that it is not possible
to enumerate all of these functions here. However, some of the important functions which
are performed by majority of the states are described below:

Public Works: Under this head are included all those industries and institutions which the
State not merely regulates, but owns and manages. The control of coinage and currency
are undoubtedly among the necessary functions of government. Almost equally
necessary is the government postal service. Telegraphs, telephones, railways, water
supply and lighting may in a sense be called optional functions, since the general
welfare does not always require them to be operated by the State. When public
operation is clearly superior to private operation, all things considered, the State
undoubtedly neglects its duty of promoting the common welfare if it fails to manage
these utilities. It is a necessary part of the State's functions to provide such public
safeguards as fire departments, lighthouses, buoys, and beacons; to maintain such
instrumentalities of communication as roads, canals, bridges, and wharves; and to
conserve such natural resources as forests, water powers, and watersheds. None of
these activities can be satisfactorily performed by private enterprise.

Public Education. As the child belongs primarily to the parents, so the function of
education is primarily theirs. Both these propositions are demonstrated by the facts and
requirements of human welfare. In very exceptional cases only can the education and
upbringing of the child be controlled and carried on as well by the State as by the
parents. Nevertheless, the common welfare does require the State to take a rather
important part in the work of education. It is summarized in the following excerpts from
the Pastoral Letter of the American Hierarchy, issued in 1920.

[Link] @manupatra
 As the public welfare is largely dependent upon the intelligence of the citizen, the State
has a vital concern in education. This is implied in the original purpose of our government
which, as set forth in the preamble to the Constitution, is "to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
In accordance with these purposes, the State has a right to insist that its citizens shall he
educated. It should encourage among the people such a love of learning that they will
take the initiative and, without constraint, provide for the education of their children.
Should they, through negligence or lack of means fail to do so, the State has the right to
establish schools and take every other legitimate means to safeguard its vital interests
against the dangers that result from ignorance. In particular, it has both the right and the
duty to exclude the teaching of doctrines which aim at the subversion of law and order
and therefore at the destruction of the State itself.
The State is competent to do these things because its essential function is to promote
the general welfare. But on the same principle it is bound to respect and protect the
rights of the citizen, and especially of the parent. So long as these rights are properly
exercised, to encroach upon them is not to further the general welfare, but to put it in
peril. If the function of government is to protect the liberty of the citizen, and if the aim of
education is to prepare the individual for the rational use of his liberty, the State cannot
rightfully or consistently make education a pretext for interfering with rights and
liberties which the Creator, not the State, has conferred. Any advantage that might
accrue even from a perfect system of State education would be more than offset by the
wrong which the violation of parental rights would involve. In our country, government
thus far has wisely refrained from placing any other than absolutely necessary
restrictions upon private initiative. The result is seen in the development of our
resources, the products of inventive genius and the magnitude of our enterprises. But our
most valuable resources are the minds of our children, and for their development at least
the same scope should be allowed to individual effort as is secured to our undertakings
in the material order.
Public Charity. The principle that the State should do only those things which cannot be
done as well by private action, applies with especial force to the field of charity. In
general, this principle rests upon the fundamental truth that the individual reaches a
higher degree of self-development when he does things for himself than when the State
does things for him. In the province of charity this fact is illustrated with regard both to
the receiver and the giver. The former is more likely to seek unnecessary assistance from
the State than from an individual; the latter is more likely to infuse his charity with
human sympathy than is the State; and his incentives to charitable action are diminished
if the State does too much. In both cases harm is done to individual development.
Nevertheless, the charitable functions of the State are numerous and important, In the
field of prevention, it can and should use all proper and possible methods to provide that
kind of social environment which renders charitable relief unnecessary.

[Link] @manupatra
 Under this head comes a large list of industrial, educational, sanitary and moral
provisions, to assure people a reasonable minimum of the material conditions of living.
Some of these are stated in detail in later paragraphs of this chapter. In the field of relief,
the State is frequently required to maintain hospitals, asylums, almshouses and
corrective institutions; to grant subsidies to private institutions and agencies engaged in
these works, and even to provide for needy persons outside of institutions. Whether and
to what extent the State should undertake any of these tasks, is always to be determined
by the answer which the actual situation gives to the question: can the State do the work
better, all things considered, than private agencies? "All things considered," refers to
remote as well as immediate results. For example, it is conceivable that the State might
take care of all dependent children more cheaply than could private associations, but this
action ought not to be taken if it would lead to a notable decline in charitable feeling,
responsibility, and initiative among individuals.

Public Health, Safety, Morals. The State should protect its citizens against disease, by
sanitary regulations, such as those relating to quarantine (corona virus in 2020),
inoculation, medical inspection of school children, impure drugs, adulterated food, and
the disposal of garbage. It should safeguard their physical integrity, by such measures
as traffic rules, safety requirements for public conveyances, and building regulations. It
should, as far as possible, provide them with a good moral environment through the
regulation or repression of the liquor traffic, through the suppression of divorce,
prostitution, public gambling, and indecent pictures, printed matter, theatrical
productions, and places of amusement.
Industrial Regulation, Owing to the complexity of modern industrial conditions, this
function of the State is more important than in any preceding age. Owing to its effect
upon the pecuniary interests of individuals, it has been more strongly criticised than any
other activity of the State. Not much opposition has been offered to State regulation of
banks. All reasonable men recognize that the public must he protected through
requirements concerning incorporation, minimum of capital and surplus, liability of
stockholders, nature of investments, amount and kind of reserves, the issuing of notes,
and public inspection and supervision.
The regulation of commerce, public utilities and manufactures, has a varied scope and
may be exercised in various ways. Foreign commerce may be regulated through taxes
and embargoes on imports and exports, and by other methods of restriction. The
regulation of domestic commerce takes many forms: intoxicating liquors, tobacco,
explosives, drugs and other commodities are subjected to a system of licensing, or
special taxation, or other kinds of legal supervision; railroads are forbidden to exact
more than certain maximum charges for carrying goods and passengers, and are
compelled to maintain certain standards of service; and such municipal utilities as street
railways and lighting concerns must submit to similar requirements.
Commercial contracts which are clearly extortionate, such as loans of money at usurious
rates, are generally prohibited by law. In this matter the policy of governments is not in
accord with the individualistic theory that all technically "free" contracts ought to be
legally enforced. As a matter of fact, such contracts are not free n any fair sense. All the
foregoing regulations promote the public welfare and are evidently among the proper
functions of the State.
[Link] @manupatra
 The most important public regulation of manufactures is that which strives to prevent
unfair dealing and extortion by monopolistic corporations. In some form this is a very
ancient practice of the State. Many centuries ago, legislators became aware that human
beings cannot be trusted to exercise monopoly power with fairness to either
competitors or consumers. Today the most enlightened governments have numerous
and complex statutes to prevent and punish both these forms of injustice. Such
measures are clearly justified, not only to promote the public good, but also as an
exercise of the primary function of the State, namely, the protection of natural rights.
They are intended to prevent and punish unjust dealing and extortion. Nevertheless,
they have not adequately attained that end. Additional measures are required, to limit
still further the "individual freedom" of the monopolist to treat his fellows unjustly. Legal
determination of maximum prices, government regulation of supply and distribution,
and State competition in the manufacturing or other business carried on by a
monopolistic concern, -- are the principal new methods that have been suggested. In so
far as they are necessary and would prove adequate to protect the general welfare, they
can undoubtedly be classed among the proper functions of the State. Since the main
object is to prevent the imposition of extortionate prices upon the consumer and the
receipt of excessive profits and interest by the monopoly.
Probably the most necessary and beneficent group of industrial regulations are those
which apply to the labor contract and the conditions of labor. The principal subjects
covered are wages, hours of labor, child labor, woman labor, safety and sanitation in
work places, accidents, sickness, old age and unemployment. As regards wages,
legislation has been enacted regulating the manner and frequency of payment, and
fixing minimum rates of remuneration. Underlying most of the latter measures is the
theory that no wage earner should be required to accept less than the equivalent of a
decent livelihood. So long as millions of workers are unable to obtain this decent
minimum through their own efforts or through the benevolence of the employer, they
have clearly the right to call upon the intervention of the State. In other words, the
enactment of minimum wage legislation is among the State's primary as well as
secondary functions. Laws prohibiting an excessively long working day, the employment
of young children, the employment of women in occupations unsuited to their sex, the
existence of unsafe and unsanitary work places, -- are all likewise included among both
the primary and the secondary functions of government. Legal provisions for the
prevention and adjustment of industrial disputes, and to insure the workers against
accidents, sickness, unemployment, invalidity and old age, have been made by various
countries. They evidently represent a normal exercise of, at least, the secondary
functions of the State.
Conservation and development: MacIver includes in this category “the conservation and
development of human capacities as well as of economic resources.” The state is well
adapted to regulate the exploitation of natural resources in the interest of present and
of future generations of the entire community. If the exploitation of natural resources is
left in the hands of private individuals, then they will seek their own gain at the cost of
communal gain. The state can better uphold the interest of the whole and the interest of
the future as
[Link] @manupatra
 against the competitive interests. So conservation of forests, fisheries, and exploitation
of mineral resources are functions which the state should undertake. The conservation
and development of human capacities are no less important than that of the natural
resources. The state should provide for education, public parks, museums, playgrounds,
and contribute to the development of science, and to the encouragement of art. Though
other agencies can perform these tasks but none so efficiently and on so great a scale
and with such authority as can the state.

It is thus clear that the modern state has expanded its activities in various directions. The
ratio of the number of Government employees to the total population has steadily
continued to increase. Whether the recent expansion of governmental activities is
advantageous or not depends upon how one feels about the value of the increased
functions and services and the cost of these functions and services.
On this question there may be strong difference of opinion. While the critics on the one
hand point out to the evils of the growth of bureaucracy, the inevitable outcome of the
expanding governmental activities; on the other hand it is pointed out that the recent
social and technological changes have made it necessary for the state to take over the
functions formerly carried by other institutions.

We are living in an era characterized by the establishment of large centralized

Governments which perform innumerable functions and exercise enormous powers.
Perhaps it is not now possible to go back to the society of the small community.
Accordingly, our problem is not to reduce the functions of the state or abolish it but to
develop more adequate scientific knowledge and techniques for the efficient exercise of
these powers in the public interest.
The functions the State should not Undertake according to MacIver:
Should not control public opinion:
Taking up the functions which the State should not undertake, MacIver says, “The
State should not seek to control public opinion, no matter what the opinion may be,”
provided there is “no incitement to break its laws or defy its authority.” “To urge law
breaking is to attack the fundamental order, the establishment of which is the first
business of the state, and for the preservation of which it is endowed with coercive
power.”

Should not enforce morality:

Secondly, the state should not enforce morality. ‘The sphere of morality is distinct
from the sphere of political law. “Morality is always individual and always in relation
to the whole presented situation, of which the political fact is never more that an
aspect.” There is no such thing as ‘state morality’. There is no morality save individual
morality. Law cannot prescribe morality it can prescribe only external conditions. It
cannot cover all the grounds of morality. “To turn all moral into legal obligations
would be to destroy morality.”

[Link] @manupatra
 Should not interfere with custom and fashion:
Thirdly, the state should not interfere with custom and fashion directly. “The state has
little power to make custom, and perhaps less to destroy it, although indirectly it
influences customs by changing the conditions out of which they spring.” MacIver
states in forceful words: “Custom, when attacked, attacks law in turn, attacks not only
the particular law which opposes it, but, what is more vital, the spirit of law
abidingness, the unity of the general will.”

The state has even much less control over that minor and changeful form of custom
called fashion. MacIver states, “A people will follow eagerly the dictates of fashion
proclaimed by some unknown coterie in Paris or London or New York, But were the
state to decree changes in themselves so insignificant, it would be regarded as
monstrous tyranny; it might even lead to revolution.”

Should not create culture:

Lastly, the state cannot create culture because culture is the expression of the spirit of
a people or of an age. “It is the work of community, sustained by inner forces far more
potent than political law.” Art, literature and music do not come directly within the
purview of the state. “In all these activities a people or a civilization goes its own way,
responsive to the influences and conditions for the most part un-comprehended and
uncontrolled by the state.”
It may be emphasized here that in recent times there has been a tendency towards the
growth of state functions. Today there is no citizen and almost no organization which
operates outside its orbit of power. The barriers between the field of economics and
government are rapidly being lowered. The welfare state is now a popular ideal. There
is now hardly a phase of life in which the state does not participate either as a
Renderer of services, as an arbiter, or as a controller.
The two world wars have further broadened the functions of the state. The trend
towards expansion of governmental functions is likely to continue. This trend is the
result of the growth and diffusion of the idea that the state is responsible for the
economic and psychological, as well as the physical security of its citizens.
The conclusion to which MacIver is driven on the whole question of state action is
that, in general terms the state should control those external conditions of social
living which are of universal concern in view of the acknowledged objects of human
desire. It should not meddle with concerns which are not its own. “If it attempts
those things which it ought not to attempt it will fail in the things which properly fall
within its charge.”
The end of the State, we have seen, is to promote the welfare of its citizens as a
whole, as members of families, and as members social classes. Anyone who is
inclined to doubt the propriety of including the second and third of these clauses,
will dismiss the inclination as soon as he looks beneath formulas and; fixes his
attention upon realities.
[Link] @manupatra
Theories concerning the Functions of the State
Classification of the different political theories concerning the function of the state in
Society are:

Liberal and conservative theories of the state tend to believe the state is a neutral entity,
separated from society and the economy. These theories assume a capitalist economic
system exists.
Marxist theorists believe the state is a partisan instrument that primarily serves the
interests of the upper class. Marxists see a close relationship between political and
economic power.
Anarchists would like to completely dismantle the state apparatus and replace it with an
alternative set of social relations that are not based on state power.

Pluralists view the state as a neutral body that simply enacts the will of the groups who
dominate the electoral process.
A polyarchy, a concept Robert Dahl developed, refers to the idea that the modern
democratic state acts in response to the pressures a variety of organized interests
apply.

For more notes and flashcards, visit Manupatra Academy – your one-stop hub
for curated legal content and structured learning in law

Copyright © 2025 Manupatra. All Rights Reserved.

[Link] @manupatra
@manupatra