What is the State?—The word “state” is so short and simple that everybody is assumed to know just what it means. And in a general way everyone does know what it means. But it is used in more than one sense and with a good deal of latitude. When we speak, for example, of the “newly-created states of Europe” we mean Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and Jugo-Slavia. The term “state”, so used, designates a country with an independent political existence. But we also speak of “the states of the Union”, by which we mean merely the political divisions of a single country. Then, again, one frequently encounters such expressions as “a statesman who served the state” or “state control of railroads”, or “the relations between Church and State”. To what does the term in such cases refer? Here the expression is used in a generic sense to include politically organized society, and those who so use it are thinking more particularly of the political agencies through which organized society acts.

A simple definition will cover all these uses of the term. A state is a body of people, possessing a definite territory, and politically organized. Territory is essential. The Jews for many centuries did not constitute a state because they had no territory of their own. Now they are once more in the way of obtaining a national homeland. Population is also essential. The territory around the South Pole does not form a state because it is uninhabited. And a political organization, a government, is the third essential. The territory which is now the United States did not form a state before the first European settlers reached it, for, although it was inhabited, the savages who roamed over its vast expanses were not politically organized. They had, for the most part, neither government nor laws. Persons, territory, and organization—these are the essential attributes of a state.

The Government and why we obey it.—By the government we mean the various officials and bodies by whom the people are ruled. By the government the will of the state is carried out. But why should people obey a government? We obey the rules of voluntary organizations because we are free to join them or not; but no individual is free to disobey the laws or to remain aloof from the control of his government. By what right does the government take money from us in taxes, call upon us for service in war, compel us to adjust all our controversies in its courts, and insist that we obey its laws?

Two theories have been offered to justify the government’s right to the obedience of the people. The first is known as the theory of divine right. According to this idea all governmental authority was originally bestowed upon the rulers by the Creator. And having received their authority from God, the rulers were not responsible to the people. This theory of governmental authority is very old, as old as the Ten Commandments and probably older. It was argued that kings ruled and princes governed by divine right because “the powers that be are ordained of God”. This doctrine of the divine right of rulers was maintained throughout the mediaeval period and was put forth by the Stuart kings of England as a justification of their despotic rule.^[17]

The other theory, which is that government has its foundation in the “consent of the governed”, appeared in the writings of the English philosopher, John Locke, during the seventeenth century and was incorporated into the Declaration of Independence about one hundred years later. When the Stuart dynasty was finally expelled from the throne of England, the new sovereigns were declared to be rulers “according to the desire and resolution of parliament”, in other words by the consent of the English people through their representatives. Since the beginning of the nineteenth century the theory that government rests on the consent of the governed has been accepted in all democratic countries.

Now if we hold this doctrine to be sound, as most men do today, it follows that when people establish a government by their own consent, they are under obligation to submit to its authority. Every right imposes a duty. The right to frame a constitution and to adopt it as the basis of a new government carries the duty of supporting the constitution and upholding the hands of those who exercise authority under it. The people who claim the right to make the laws must be ready to obey these laws when they are made. When men and women by their own consent establish a government they do this because they expect to obtain some advantages such as security, peace, and order. In return for these advantages they must expect to yield obedience, pay taxes, adjust their differences in the courts, and do whatever else a government reasonably requires.

How Government Began.—But admitting that government rests on the consent of the governed, how was this consent obtained, and how did the first government come into existence? Here, again, there are two theories as to what happened. The first is that the state and government originated in a “social contract”. Primitive men, living in a condition of political chaos, made a general covenant, by which they created a sovereign power to rule them. This idea is as old as the days of Plato, but it did not take strong hold on the minds of men until a few centuries ago. It was put forward by Thomas Hobbes in England to defend absolutism, his argument being that to dethrone a king was to break the contract upon which the state had been founded. On the other hand it was used by John Locke to prove that the people of England had a right to dethrone a monarch if the monarch failed to abide by the terms of the social contract, and those who compare certain passages in Locke’s book with the Declaration of Independence will see that the framers of that daring document were much influenced by his assertions. Even in America the contract theory took a strong hold. The Mayflower pilgrims, lying off the rock-bound shores of New England, drew up and signed a formal document wherein they solemnly covenanted and combined themselves into a “civil body politic”. The doctrine found frequent expression in the writings of Jefferson and Madison; but while it afforded an excellent basis for arguments in defence of revolutions against despotism the theory that the state had its origin in a social contract has long since been abandoned as unhistorical. It assumes that primitive men were free and equal individuals subject to no paternal authority, whereas, as a matter of history, freedom and equality among men arose only after states had been formed.

The true explanation of how government began is to be found by applying to the study of political science the methods of biology. We do not know exactly where or when the first government came into existence, but we do know that all political institutions are the result of a gradual evolution or development.

We have already seen that the earliest social unit is the family—a small group of individuals bound together by intimate ties. But the family was but one unit in a larger group, the clan, made up of families assumed to be descended from a common ancestor. The various clans united to form the tribe which, as an organization, rested upon a common race, language, and religion. These tribes, although at first roving bodies, wandering from place to place, at length acquired some definite territory and settled permanently there. The beginnings of a state were then at hand and with the state, or even before it, came government. In all probability that is the process through which the earliest governments came into being,—a process extending through many generations. The tribal chiefs became kings and passed on the kingship to their sons. As time went on the kings gathered greater power until despotism became the customary form of government in most countries of the world. It was not until near the end of the eighteenth century that the world began to shake off the despotic authority of kings and to establish governments based upon the consent of the people.

The Classification of Governments.—During this long evolution from the early tribal organizations down to the complex governments of the present day many forms of rule have been tried in various countries. Even in ancient Greece the philosopher Aristotle was able to divide states into six classes, three of which he called normal types and three perverted. Where political power was lodged in the hands of a single individual, he called the state a monarchy; where it was lodged with a few men he called it an aristocracy; and where it was vested in many hands he called it a democracy. Each of these normal types had its corresponding perversion or travesty. A perverted monarchy he termed despotism; a perverted aristocracy he termed oligarchy; and a perverted democracy he called a demagogism or state ruled by mob methods. This method of classifying states is of little value today and would be in many ways misleading.

Modern states are more commonly classed as monarchies and republics. The former includes those in which the chief executive officer of the state—be he king, emperor, or other potentate—holds his position by hereditary right; the latter includes those in which he is selected in some other way. But even this classification is not very enlightening. It does not tell us anything definite about the degree of actual control which the people of a state exercise over their government. In some monarchies like Great Britain the power of the people, exercised through their representatives, is very great; in some republics, in China for example, this power is very slight. The term republic is nowadays far from being synonymous with democracy; nor is the term monarchy incompatible with it. Various so-termed republics of Central and South America have been in fact little more than military despotisms.

Another classification, much more useful, is that which separates national from federal states. By the former term we mean a unified state with a single government which reaches down directly to the citizen. Great Britain is a national state with a monarchical form of government; France is also a national state with a republican form of government. A federal state, on the other hand, is an agglomeration of smaller states, each of which retains its own government but with a central government possessing certain powers over them all. The German empire, a few years ago, was an example of a federal state under a monarchical form of government, while the United States affords an illustration of federalism with republican institutions. This classification is worth while, for it tells us something tangible about the states so classified. When we say that a state is of the federal type we imply that it has two spheres of government within it; that is has a written constitution defining these spheres; that the upper house of its parliament or legislature in some way represents the component units of the federation and that it has, in all probability, some powerful arbiter such as a supreme court to decide conflicts of authority between the nation and its component parts. Practically all federal states, at any rate, have these political characteristics. One cannot imagine a successful federal state without a written constitution, without division of political powers, without some existing authority to decide between the respective claims of the whole and its parts.

But the most important thing that a student of government ought to know about any state is whether it merely possesses the forms of democracy or whether the people in fact control the government. Nearly all present-day states have the external forms of democracy, that is to say, they have representative legislatures or parliaments which bulk large in the general scheme of government. But as to the actualities of democracy, the extent to which these representative bodies really direct and control the affairs of state, there is a considerable difference among the nations. A classification of states from this point of view can be made only after a careful study of their actual governments. It is not the form of government which makes a democracy, but the way in which popular control of public affairs is actually secured and sustained.

Is Democracy the Best Form of Government?—During the past few years democracy has been rapidly gaining ground. The governments of Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and other countries have been reconstructed in such way as to give them, outwardly at any rate, the rank of democratic states. But in spite of this phenomenal progress, which came on the heels of the World War, it remains a fact that more than half the population of the world is still living under systems of government which the people do not control. The world has not yet been made safe for democracy, nor half of it.

This suggests the question whether democracy is the best form of government for all races and under all circumstances. Is it best for backward races, for races only partly civilized? Is it the best system for people who have had very little political experience, such as the Egyptians, the Chinese, and the Filipinos? Are we quite certain, in fact, that it is the best form of government for fully civilized mankind? Most people have always felt sure that democracy is the nearest approach to an ideal form of government, but if you ask their reasons for this belief, you will frequently find that they have never thought of any reasons. Democracy has been and is being severely criticized by various writers who declare that it merely places political power in the hands of the ignorant and unthinking masses, that it leads to wastefulness, extravagance, and corruption, that it fosters incompetence in public office, and that it results in woeful misgovernment.^[18]

Now it is quite true that democracy does all this in some cases, but however grave the indictment may be, the friends of democracy can always answer: “What better alternative do you offer?” The great Italian statesman, Cavour, once remarked that, whatever faults it might have, a legislative chamber was better than a king’s antechamber. The justification of democracy is that it ensures, not necessarily the best government, or even good government; but the sort of government the people earn for themselves. A stream does not rise higher than its source. Nor can a representative government reach any higher level than that on which the people maintain it. It will reflect the intelligence, honesty, and patriotism of the governed. That is one reason why we should not apply to backward races the same principles of government which we apply to more civilized people. Democracy is the best form of government for those who are able to govern themselves, but this does not include all the people of the earth by any means.

The Purpose of Government.—Having seen how governments originated, what forms they have assumed, and why they ought to be obeyed, it may be well to ask ourselves: What is the purpose of government? What ends does it serve?

The purpose of government is to promote the interests of each by promoting the interests of all. This end it seeks to attain in various ways. It protects the whole body of its people against external aggression, against foreign invasion. It also in this connection maintains the rights and liberties of its citizens against wrongful interference on the part of foreign states or citizens. It is for this purpose that armies and navies are maintained. The government safeguards its own citizens from injustice at the hands of one another. This it does by laws which define the relations of individuals to one another, and of one group of individuals to other groups. These laws prescribe the relations of husband and wife, of parent and child, of landlord and tenant, of employer and employee, of office-holder and citizen—they define and regulate every person’s rights and duties towards others. In order that we may exercise our rights and perform our duties we must first know what they are. The state, through its laws, tells us. Through its courts, moreover, it applies such pressure upon reluctant individuals as may be necessary to make these rights and duties real. In a word, government exists to enforce rights and to secure liberty.

Were every individual immune from the jurisdiction of any superior authority, and free to do as he pleased, he would have to accord every other individual the same immunity and the same freedom. He would then have no rights that anyone else would be bound to respect. He would have no liberty that others could not, by force, take away from him. He would have no security against violence to his person or property. The strength of his own strong arm would be his only protection. What a condition of chaos, injustice, bloodshed, and anarchy that would be!

Not all the government’s work, however, takes the form of protection and regulation. Its functions are constructive as well. Through its various departments it actively promotes the general interest and thereby the interests of each citizen. It not only protects the public health by regulations and restrictions; it fosters and promotes things that help to raise the general standards of health among the people. It does not merely make rules to prevent ships from colliding with one another; it sets out buoys and beacons, builds lighthouses, and maintains life-saving stations. It does not merely protect agricultureagriculture by regulations to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and pests; it actively assists the improvement of agriculture by means of experiment stations and the distribution of educational literature. The government, indeed, is the greatest of all the agencies through which society undertakes its tasks of using the resources of nature to the best advantage, eliminating friction and waste, adjusting the conflicting claims of individuals, and giving to each and all an equal opportunity.

From all this it ought to be apparent that the state and its government are the agencies through which the individual obtains rights, protection, assistance, and liberty. But neither rights nor liberty can be achieved without incurring an obligation in return. To the state, which secures us rights and liberties, we owe the duty of patriotism. Patriotism is not a mere sentiment. It is a concrete expression, by thought, word, and act, of the citizen’s respect for the state to which he belongs. It should be based upon recognition of the fact that without the security, the justice, and the freedom which the state provides, life would not be worth living. Patriotism is a mixture of pride, gratitude, and faith,—pride in the great community to which a man belongs, gratitude for what it is doing, and faith in what it may do for posterity.

How Far should Governments Go?—One of the live questions of the present day concerns the extent to which the government ought to go in trying to fulfil these various purposes. Should it merely make laws, coin money, establish post offices, maintain an army, or should it actively engage in such activities as operating the railroads, the coal mines, and even the factories of the country? On the one hand there are those who take an individualistic or laissez-faire attitude towards governmental policy and maintain that the government should interfere as little as possible with the daily life of the people. It should confine itself, the individualist claims, to political matters purely, leaving economic affairs entirely alone. At the other extreme are the socialists, who believe that the government ought to step in and directly control all important agencies of production. It should own all the land, the public utilities such as railroads and telegraph lines, the mines, and all the agencies of production (pp. 481-488).

Both individualism and socialism represent extremes; most men take a midway stand as regards the proper functions of government. The greatest good of the greatest number among the people cannot be secured unless the government interferes to some extent with the free play of economic forces. It must prevent gross injustice wherever gross injustice appears. No government fulfils its highest aim unless it becomes an ever-active force in making our common life more human and more fruitful in the good will of class toward class and of man toward man. On the other hand it must take care not to invade the field of private enterprise so far as to take upon itself greater burdens than can be properly carried.

Too much government is as bad as too little. In a democracy, where public officials are chosen by popular vote, often with little reference to their personal ability, there are obvious limits to what a government can do and do well. The individualist starts with the assumption that governments are always inefficient when they meddle in affairs of everyday life. The socialist, on the other hand, assumes that governments can always secure better results than private enterprise in any field of economic activity. The truth, as usual, lies between the extremes. To fix a rigid line between the two sets of functions, as one would draw the boundary of two countries on a map, is impossible. To attempt this would be to forget that civilization is ever moving on, bringing new social needs in its train. Every proposal to extend the functions of government must be determined on its own merits and not upon the basis of its conformance to any rule.

The World a Great Laboratory for Experiments in Government.—Everywhere throughout the world the process of experiment in forms of government is going on, twenty-four hours a day, in ceaseless round. And it has been going on for more than two thousand years. Every experiment in political organization that the human mind can suggest has had, or is having, its trial somewhere. During the past few years we have seen earth’s proud empires pass away and new republics rise in their stead, just as two thousand years ago the great Roman republic collapsed and an empire took its place. The astronomer who scans the heavens with his telescope commands no such laboratory of endless experiment and sees no such continuous panorama of change as the student who watches with naked eye the political activities of his fellow-men. That is what makes the study of government, when carefully pursued, the most interesting and most instructive of all studies. “On earth”, as the poet Pope has said, “there is nothing great but man”. And it is in his organized activities that man shows himself at his best.

James Bryce, Modern Democracies, especially Vol. I, pp. 24-50; II, pp. 335-610;

Woodrow Wilson, The State, pp. 1-68;

J. Q. Dealy, The State and Government, pp. 119-181;

J. W. Garner, Introduction to Political Science, pp. 86-204;

Stephen Leacock, Elements of Political Science, pp. 3-51; 141-153;

Cyclopedia of American Government. (See under State Government, Social Compact Theory, Separation of Powers, etc.).

1. To what extent should the government engage in business? The original functions of government. Growth of governmental activities. Extent of governmental enterprises in European countries. Government enterprises in America. Effects of government enterprises on private initiative. Effects on the government itself. Relation of government activities to the maintenance of democracy. Conclusions. References: J. W. Garner, Introduction to Political Science, pp. 273-310; Woodrow Wilson, The State, pp. 41-57; Stephen Leacock, Elements of Political Science, pp. 386-409; J. G. Brooks, The Social Unrest, pp. 46-67.

2. The faults of democratic government. References E. L. Godkin, The Unforeseen Tendencies of Democracy, pp. 96-144; Emile Faguet, The Cult of Incompetence, pp. 12-36; A. M. Kales, Unpopular Government in the United States, pp. 21-90; Alleyne Ireland, Democracy and the Human Equation, pp. 80-118; A. B. Cruikshank, Popular Misgovernment in the United States, pp. 1-27.

3. The merits of democratic government. References: C. W. Eliot, American Contributions to Civilization, pp. 1-102; James Bryce, Modern Democracies, especially, Vol. II, pp. 527-610; J. Q. Dealey, The State and Government, pp. 338-353.

1. What end does the state serve? Woodrow Wilson, The State, pp. 58-68.

2. The stages in the development of government. J. Q. Dealey, The State and Government, pp. 24-45.

3. The divine right of kings. R. G. Gettell, Readings in Political Science, pp. 118-120; Cyclopedia of American Government, Vol. I, p. 605.

4. The Mayflower compact. William MacDonald, Documentary Source Book of American History, p. 19; Edward Channing, History of the United States, Vol. I, pp. 308-310.

5. Does federalism mean weak government? A. V. Dicey, The Law of the Constitution, pp. 162-172; James Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 334-341.

6. The system of checks and balances. W. B. Munro, The Government of the United States, pp. 47-52; The Federalist, No. 47.

7. The meaning of self-government. P. L. Kaye, Readings in Civil Government, pp. 15-21.

8. The relation of government to economic life. S. P. Orth, Readings in the Relation of Government to Property and Industry, pp. 25-38.

9. The first principles of democracy. F. A. Cleveland and Joseph Schafer, Democracy in Reconstruction, pp. 48-66.

10. Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy. A. C. McLaughlin, Steps in the Development of American Democracy, pp. 78-116.

11. The outlook for democracy in America. F. A. Cleveland, Organized Democracy, pp. 438-448.

12. The economic functions of government. C. J. Bullock, Introduction to the Study of Economics, pp. 478-492.

1. What is the difference between a state and society? Is India a state? Are the Esquimos a state? Are pirates citizens or subjects of a state? Did the Mayflower Pilgrims constitute a state before they touched land?

2. Has the doctrine of evolution affected our ideas concerning the origin of government? Are there any primitive types of government in the world today?

3. Give some examples of the “constructive work of government” besides those mentioned in the text.

4. Why are ancient classifications of government practically useless today? When you say that the United States is a federal democratic republic what ideas do you intend to convey in each of the three italicized words?

5. Do you believe that the plan of government now existing in the United States would be suitable for (a) the British Empire; (b) China; (c) Switzerland; (d) Canada? Tell why or why not in each case.

6. Make up lists of the functions which properly belong to national, state, and local governments respectively. Give your reasons for placing such things as “education”, “fire-protection”, “public health”, “criminal law”, “conservation of natural resources”, and “regulation of commerce” in one or the other list.

7. James Madison once said that the concentration of legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands would be “the very definition of tyranny”. What did he mean? Was he right? Does the same danger exist today?

8. Arrange the mandatory functions of government in what you believe to be their order of importance and give reasons for your arrangement.

9. Can you name any characteristics of American government other than those given in the text? Do the following things distinguish American government from other governments: woman suffrage, an elective president, the absence of an hereditary nobility, two-chambered legislatures, a supreme court?

10. In what ways may direct government be better than representative government and in what respects not so good? (Consider such general problems as ensuring responsiveness to the will of the people, deliberation, the absence of corruption, educational value, and expense.)

11. What did President Wilson mean when he said that the world must be made “safe for democracy”? Can the world be safe for democracy while great and powerful monarchies remain? What changes in addition to the dethronement of the Kaiser did Americans consider essential in order to make Germany a democracy?

12. Argue against the proposition that the study of government is the study of a science.

1. Written constitutions have been a hindrance rather than a help to the development of American democracy.

2. Andrew Jackson was more of a democrat than Thomas Jefferson.

3. It is not right under any circumstances to subject a people to government without their own consent. #/