Evolution of State : According to David Held & Rival Theorie’s For The Understanding of State

Evolution of the State According to David Held

David Held, a political theorist, offers a detailed analysis of the evolution of the state, emphasizing its historical transformation from early political entities to modern states shaped by global forces. His work focuses on how state authority, governance, and sovereignty have developed in response to changing political, economic, and social conditions. Held’s theory of the evolution of the state is deeply connected to his views on democracy, sovereignty, and globalization.

Stages in the Evolution of the State According to David Held

1. City-States and Empires
   • Characteristics: The earliest political organizations were small-scale city-states (e.g., Athens) and large empires (e.g., the Roman Empire). These entities were often ruled by monarchs or emperors who concentrated power and legitimized it through religion or divine right.
   • Authority: Political authority was centralized in a single ruler or small elite, and the population had little or no direct influence over governance. The power of these states often expanded through conquest and territorial control.
2. Medieval Feudalism
   • Characteristics: After the fall of classical empires, Europe saw the rise of feudalism (around the 9th to 15th centuries), a decentralized system of governance based on land ownership. Local lords exercised power over their territories, and kings had limited central control.
   • Authority: Authority was fragmented between kings, nobles, and the church. The state was not a unified entity but rather a patchwork of local powers, with limited reach beyond their immediate territories.
3. Absolutist States (16th–18th Century)
   • Characteristics: The rise of absolutist states saw monarchs centralize power, reducing the influence of feudal lords and expanding national territories. Rulers like Louis XIV of France claimed divine right, concentrating political, military, and legal authority in the monarchy.
   • Authority: Power became more centralized, and states began to take on more defined territorial boundaries. Absolutism laid the groundwork for the modern state by establishing greater centralization of political power and state bureaucracy.
4. The Modern Nation-State (Post-Westphalian State)
   • Characteristics: The Peace of Westphalia (1648) marked the birth of the modern nation-state. It introduced the principle of state sovereignty, where each state had full control over its domestic affairs without external interference. This period also saw the emergence of constitutional monarchies and republics, particularly after the American and French revolutions.
   • Authority: The nation-state became the dominant political structure, characterized by clear territorial boundaries, centralized authority, and sovereignty. States also began to develop democratic institutions and the rule of law, moving away from monarchies and towards more participatory governance.
5. The Welfare State (20th Century)
   • Characteristics: After the Great Depression and World War II, many states expanded their roles in economic management and social welfare. The welfare state emerged as a model in which the government took responsibility for citizens’ social and economic well-being, providing services like healthcare, education, and social security.
   • Authority: The state played a more active role in ensuring economic stability, reducing inequality, and providing public services. The welfare state represented a significant shift from the laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century.
6. Globalization and the Crisis of the Nation-State (Late 20th Century–Present)
   • Characteristics: In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, globalization began to challenge the traditional nation-state model. Global economic and political networks, transnational corporations, international organizations (e.g., the UN, EU, WTO), and global governance structures have increasingly influenced state sovereignty.
   • Authority: According to Held, states no longer have absolute sovereignty; their authority is increasingly constrained by global forces. International cooperation, human rights norms, and supranational institutions dilute state sovereignty, leading to what Held calls “cosmopolitan democracy”—a system where governance is shared between local, national, and global institutions.

Rival Theories for Understanding the State

Various theories challenge or provide alternative explanations for the nature, function, and evolution of the state. These rival theories approach the state from different ideological perspectives, highlighting different aspects of its role in society and history.

1. Marxist Theory of the State

• Key Idea:
  • The state is an instrument of class domination. Karl Marx argued that the state exists to serve the interests of the ruling class (the bourgeoisie in capitalist societies). The state’s laws and institutions are designed to maintain the economic exploitation of the working class (proletariat).
• Function of the State:
  • The state enforces private property laws, protects capital, and suppresses challenges to the capitalist system. In Marx’s vision, the state would eventually “wither away” after the proletarian revolution, giving way to a stateless, classless society (communism).
• Criticism:
  • Critics argue that Marxist theory reduces the state to a purely economic function, ignoring other dimensions like political, cultural, and legal factors.

2. Pluralist Theory of the State

• Key Idea:
  • The state is a neutral arena where competing interest groups (e.g., businesses, labor unions, environmentalists) vie for power and influence. Pluralists argue that no single group dominates the state, and policy outcomes result from compromises between these groups.
• Function of the State:
  • The state functions as a mediator, balancing the competing demands of different groups in society. In this view, democracy is seen as a system that allows diverse groups to influence state policy.
• Criticism:
  • Critics, particularly from Marxist and elitist perspectives, argue that pluralism underestimates the influence of wealthy and powerful elites who disproportionately shape state policy.

3. Elitist Theory of the State

• Key Idea:
  • The elitist theory argues that the state is dominated by a small, cohesive elite that controls decision-making processes. C. Wright Mills, in his work “The Power Elite,” described how political, military, and economic elites dominate the state in both democratic and non-democratic societies.
• Function of the State:
  • The state serves the interests of this elite, even in democratic systems. Elections and democratic institutions, according to elitists, are often symbolic and do not meaningfully challenge elite power.
• Criticism:
  • Elitist theory is criticized for being overly cynical and dismissing the role of democratic processes and institutions in representing public interests.

4. Social Contract Theory

• Key Idea:
  • Social contract theorists like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argue that the state is the result of a contract between individuals who agree to give up certain freedoms in exchange for protection and social order.
• Function of the State:
  • The state exists to protect individuals’ rights and maintain social order. For Locke, the state is limited and must protect life, liberty, and property, while for Rousseau, the state represents the “general will” and serves the collective interests of society.
• Criticism:
  • Critics argue that social contract theory is overly idealistic and assumes equality in bargaining power, ignoring historical inequalities that shape the formation of states.

5. Institutionalism

• Key Idea:
  • Institutionalism emphasizes the role of formal institutions (e.g., laws, bureaucracies, constitutions) in shaping political behavior and outcomes. New institutionalism goes further by focusing on how institutions evolve and influence social norms and behaviors over time.
• Function of the State:
  • The state is seen as a set of institutions that structure political action. Political actors behave within the constraints and opportunities provided by these institutions.
• Criticism:
  • Institutionalism is sometimes criticized for focusing too narrowly on formal structures and ignoring the broader social, economic, and cultural forces that shape state behavior.

6. Feminist Theory of the State

• Key Idea:
  • Feminist theorists argue that the state is a patriarchal institution that perpetuates gender inequality. They contend that the state enforces male dominance through its laws, policies, and institutions.
• Function of the State:
  • The state reinforces traditional gender roles and marginalizes women’s interests. Feminists advocate for a state that actively promotes gender equality and women’s rights.
• Criticism:
  • Feminist theories can be criticized for focusing too much on gender at the expense of other forms of inequality, such as class or race.

Conclusion

David Held’s analysis of the evolution of the state emphasizes the historical transformation of political authority from city-states and empires to modern nation-states and welfare states, while acknowledging the impact of globalization on state sovereignty.

His theory is part of a broader debate about the role and nature of the state, with rival perspectives offering different explanations. Marxists focus on class domination, pluralists emphasize competing interest groups, elitists point to the power of small elites, while social contract theorists, institutionalists, and feminists offer additional lenses through which the state can be understood. Each theory offers valuable insights into the complexity and evolution of the state over time.