Political Power and the State: A Sociological Perspective
I. Political Power and the State
Power is the ability of a person or social group to impose its will on others. It involves a relationship of control and determination. Political power refers to power dynamics within society (the polis). It encompasses the management, control, and distribution of common goods. In contemporary societies, the state regulates political power.
Broadly, a state exists where there’s political organization—organisms wielding power to control, regulate, and manage common property and citizens’ rights/obligations. The modern state emerged around the 16th century.
Machiavelli (The Prince) defined the state as a permanent, unchallengeable power within a territory. Max Weber characterized it by its monopoly on force within its territory. A state has these characteristics:
- Territorial power: Limited by its borders.
- Sovereignty: No higher authority within its territory (though supranational bodies challenge this).
- Maintains order: Protects members from internal and external dangers, enforces laws, guarantees peace/security, and manages international relations.
Sociologically, the state, like any political association, is defined by its means: physical violence. As Trotsky said, “Every state is founded on violence.” While not ideal, violence is the state’s specific medium. The state claims a monopoly on legitimate physical violence, granting this right to others only as it allows. It is the sole source of the “right” to violence.
II. Early Forms of Political Organization
II.1. Athenian Democracy
Archaic Greek communities comprised tribes structured around sibships (hierarchical units) grouped into families sharing a mythical ancestor. This hierarchical system managed political decisions and defense. Political theory emerged when this system faced crisis (second half of the 8th century BC, especially the 7th century BC).
Aristocracy held special virtues. Dike (justice) represented order given by rules and tradition. The aristocratic ideal was the hero with arete (virtue), encompassing the ability to express the best opinion and lead a higher life (Euphrosyne).
This “pre-classical theory” evolved. It aimed to extend dike to the disadvantaged (demos). The concept of “measure” emerged as the ideal governing actions, linked to knowing one’s limits. This rationalized and moralized behavior, constitutionally expressed in Solon’s Athenian system (549 BC). The universe was seen as rational, governed by a common Logos. This had significant consequences for democracy.
Reforms: Post-Solon reforms aimed to limit aristocratic power. While aristocracy couldn’t be eliminated as a class, its political functions could be transferred to the assembly, where the demos had greater presence. Political, administrative, and economic decisions were organized to incorporate the demos into governance.
In the 6th century BC, Athens achieved Isonomia (equality before the law) and Isegoria (equality in the Assembly). Demokratia emerged in the 5th century BC during the Medical Wars. Divisions within democracy arose during the Peloponnesian War and the Athenian civil war.
II.2. Personal Forms of Political Authority
Ancient political authority was primarily personal, legitimized by religious, historical, or salvation-based narratives. This prevailed in despotisms, where power was linked to a hero, founder, or dynasty. Power was often hereditary.
After the Roman Empire, Europe saw personal power in vassalage, where vassals swore allegiance to lords for defense in exchange for land use rights (not ownership). The focus was controlling land and its population.
The late Middle Ages had two main political institutions: Empire/States and the Church. Both developed complex administrative and governance systems, leading to modern states.
II.3. Modern Civil Society and Social Contract Theories
Modern society emphasizes the right to property, guaranteeing free, autonomous individuals who form social ties while respecting individuality. This links autonomy to socio-economic policy, prioritizing the individual over the collective.
Rejecting divine power, thinkers (Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Mill) explored power’s source. Since individuals are free, power over them must originate from violence or a covenant between them. Violence was rejected as unstable, requiring constant coercion.
A covenant involves rules beneficial to all, ensuring property possession and safety. This led to the concept of the state, which enforces the pact. Social contract theories distinguish between the covenant of association (creating civil society) and the pact of submission (granting authority to the state).
They also contrast the state of nature (individual freedom without coercion or guarantees) with the marital status (legally regulated relationships and collective action under agreed standards).
Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes aimed to ensure order and avoid a “war of all against all”—a widespread conflict hindering human potential and culture. His argument rested on three premises:
- Humans are equal in intellectual/physical capabilities, leading them to pursue the same ends.
- Humans seek self-preservation and pleasure.
- This leads to widespread competition.
To avoid conflict, individuals must submit to a political power preventing confrontation. The “state of war” is permanent, with individuals relying on their strength and ingenuity for security. It stems from human nature and passions. Force and fraud are virtues in war, rendering justice meaningless.
This “state of war” isn’t historical but logical—a pre-societal state where everyone fends for themselves. Hobbes argued against Callicles’ principle of the stronger’s natural right to impose their will. To limit this, power must be concentrated in a state strong enough to prevent chaos.
The state’s foundation lies in the “Laws of Nature,” precepts discovered through reason. These laws prioritize self-preservation. They are not metaphysical or theological but based on survival. They require a coercive power to ensure compliance through threats and punishment.
Citizens transfer power to a man or assembly, reducing all wills to one. This transfer follows an agreement where individuals renounce self-government and allow rule by an assembly or individual who also renounces self-government. This creates society (civitas) and the Leviathan—the “mortal god” ensuring peace and defense.
The ruler is the sovereign, and others are subjects. The contract is between subjects, not between subjects and sovereign. The sovereign’s legitimacy comes from the subjects’ contract. Sovereign power is absolute and cannot be granted conditionally. Subjects cannot change the government or repudiate the established order. The sovereign cannot be blamed for their actions.
However, the sovereign cannot demand subjects renounce their survival rights or force self-incrimination or killing. Subjects are released from obedience if the sovereign relinquishes sovereignty or cannot protect them.
John Locke
Locke agreed that men are naturally in a state of nature until they join a political society. However, his “state of nature” differs from Hobbes’. For Locke, the “state of nature” involves men living together according to reason, without a superior to resolve conflicts. The “state of war” arises when force is used outside law.
Locke’s state of nature is governed by a natural moral law discovered through reason. This law dictates equality, independence, and respect for life, health, liberty, and property. It justifies natural rights.
The civil state arises from human nature. God created man free but with a “strong inclination” for social life. Society fulfills needs unmet in the state of nature, particularly preserving freedom and natural rights.
Despite natural law and rights, Locke recognized the need for positive law—laws recognized and accepted by all. Political society forms when men enter into partnership to form a community under one government, or when a man joins an established community. This requires consent.
Joining the state means relinquishing legislative and executive powers used in the state of nature to ensure safety and freedom. Power is given to the majority unless otherwise agreed. While the majority might be tyrannical, this is less likely than absolute monarchy, which Locke considered incompatible with civil society.
Acceptance of the majority’s power stems from the advantages of society. Enjoying citizen rights implies accepting citizen duties. Locke implicitly established two pacts: one forming the government and transferring sovereign power.
Unlike Hobbes, where overthrowing the sovereign dissolves society, Locke’s political society can only be dissolved by its members’ agreement. Dissolution can occur internally by changing the legislature. For example, if the legislature transfers power to a prince who conflates law with personal will or prevents assembly meetings, the legislature is dissolved.
Similarly, government dissolves if the legislature abandons its duties or acts against citizens’ interests. Rebellion is justified in these cases. Locke’s theory allows rebellion if the government fails to defend collective interests. The people judge the justification for rebellion.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Rousseau observed increasing poverty and inequality, solvable only by a contract creating a fairer society. He believed in the “innate goodness of men,” arguing that social life creates inequalities leading to unequal wealth distribution. The culprit is not the individual but civil society.
He envisioned a “civil society” reflecting everyone’s will in a “general will”—a moralized body above individual desires. This general will is expressed through direct, not representative, democracy.
III. State Forms
The main historical state forms are:
A] Authoritarian State: Unlimited authority, no control or criticism. Citizens cannot engage politically. No independent judiciary. Individuals are defenseless against state abuses. Two forms exist:
- Absolutist State: Typical of the early modern age (e.g., Philip II of Spain, Henry VIII of England, Louis XIV of France). Unlimited sovereign power, no restrictions or legal opposition.
- Totalitarian State: The state controls all aspects of life, including non-state institutions and private life (media, religion, morals, family).
B] Rule of Law: State authority is subject to law. Power is exercised within legal limits, protecting individual rights. Early forms stem from American and French revolutions. Characteristics include:
- Constitution: Supreme law regulating state function and structure, outlining general rules, bodies, procedures, and fundamental principles. It explicitly states individual and collective rights.
- Division of Powers: (Montesquieu) To prevent power abuses and control its exercise. Branches include:
- Legislative: Makes laws (Parliament).
- Executive: Enforces laws (Government).
- Judicial: Enforces laws and sanctions noncompliance, ensures constitutionality (Courts).
C] Democratic Rule of Law: Citizens participate in elections (representatives and sometimes members of the three branches), and sometimes directly in power administration (voting, juries). Formation requires:
- Renunciation of violence by individuals and groups.
- State monopoly on force.
- Legal conflict resolution.
- Legal limits on domination.
- Public legitimation of power through a constitution and citizen participation.
Western democracies focus on who governs, under what conditions, and in what areas. Individual and collective freedoms are essential but insufficient. The state must be just, addressing inequalities. The labor movements of the 19th century highlighted the need for social equality for effective freedoms.
To ensure minimum social equality, the state intervenes in healthcare, education, housing, etc. This is the Welfare State, which protects rights and promotes welfare and economic security.
IV. The Legitimacy of the State
Legitimation explains why citizens respect laws and submit to the state. Max Weber identified three forms:
- Traditional: Appeals to tradition and hereditary/divine power (e.g., monarchies, empires). Non-rational, difficult to argue for or against.
- Charismatic: Based on a leader’s charisma and ability to attract/mobilize people (e.g., Hitler, Franco, Che Guevara, Gandhi, Stalin, the Pope). Personal, not hereditary. Non-rational, based on psychological/emotional factors.
- Rational-Legal (Bureaucratic): Based on law and democratic processes. The state’s power comes from a reasonable agreement. Allows rational argument (e.g., modern democracies).
These forms are not pure but often mixed. Modern democracies increasingly emphasize charisma, potentially replacing rational political debate.
V. Representative Democracies
Post-WWII Europe (except Spain) adopted democratic regimes based on universal suffrage and parliaments. Political parties act as intermediaries between citizens and government.
Citizen participation occurs at different levels:
- Mass Population: Limited to voting. Choices are predetermined by party structures.
- Party Structures: Analyze, profile, and decide options. Hierarchical, often governed by interest groups.
- Government Branches: Members of the winning party govern on behalf of all, seeking to maintain power.
Party dynamics resemble market competition. Citizens are like consumers, with political production restricted to elites. Consequences include:
- Citizens reduced to “social atoms” with limited choices.
- Reduced citizen power due to specialized governance.
- Parties detach from their social base, becoming state political apparatuses.