Problem of Ends and Mean: The views and theories about the end or purpose of the State varied from age to age, country to country, people to people and even thinker to thinker. Some regard the State as an end in itself, while others consider it as a means to an end-the end being the freedom, the well-being and happiness of the individual. Some believe that it is a power-system, a compulsive- organisation, while others regard it as a welfare agency. Each of these groups is further divided into various subgroups and into various schools of political philosophy. Broadly speaking, we can divide these theories and thinkers into two main groups, that is, those who regard the State as an end in itself and as a power system, and those who regard it as means to an end and as an agency for the welfare and freedom of the individual.
The State as an end in itself
Historically, the view that the State is an end in itself is much older than the one that it is only a means to an end. The ancient Greek philosophers, the first people means to an end. The ancient Greek philosophers, the first people who consciously thought over the nature and purpose of the State, regarded it as an end in itself rather than as a means to the realisation of an end. According to Plato and Aristotle, the State was all and the individual was the part of the whole, who could not live in all without the whole. The State existed for the good life, while an individual had no rights or freedom apart from his life in the State. Aristotle put it thus: “the State is prior to the individual”. It could regulate and control all the activities of the individuals who could have no rights apart from the collective rights of society. He further said that man was by nature a political animal. It means that an individual could be at his best, develop his personality and realise his good only when he lived in the State. Outside the State, he was either a beast or a god but not a human being. From this followed that the interest of the State was the interest of the individual. He could achieve his end only through the State and, therefore, no limits could be put on the power or actions of the State.
In modem times, the German Idealist philosophers and their English followers, like Green and Bosanquet, also hold the same view of the State. They too have glorified the State as an end in itself. Hegel, the most important of the German Idealist philosophers, believes that the State is a collective person, more real than the individuals who compose it. Its will represents prefect reason and therefore its acts are above criticism by the individuals. The individual exists for the State, while it does not exist for the individual. It has a life, a history of its own end. It is marching towards the fulfilment of its own end and purpose. The authority of the State is supreme and unlimited and cannot be restricted by the rights or freedom of the individual, by morality or religion or by the international law or rights of other nations Thus the Idealists idealized the State, or,to be more exact, idolized the State as a supernatural and superhuman being, as a god whose thoughts are not our thoughts and whose ways are not our ways.
In recent times, several collectivist philosophers also assert that the State is an end in itself. They are mostly influenced in one form or other by the idealist view. Among them, on the one side, are the Socialists and Communists who believe that the State is a collective whole, against which the individual has no rights. On the other side are the German Nazis and Italian Fascists who regard the State as a power-system “with a life of its own.
- The theories which regard the State as an end in itself usually emphasise the following principles:
- The State is a higher unity, a collective whole or a natural organism, whose life and interests are quite different from the lives and interests of the individuals composing it.
- The individual has no life apart from the State; he has no right or freedom outside or against the State.
- The State is an eternal or permanent reality, while the individuals are temporary or transient beings; “the tree stands but the leaves wither away.”
Hence the power and authority of the State is unlimited. No limits can be placed on what it wills or does. The individual has only one right, which is also his duty, viz., to render unconditional obedience to the State. The part cannot be greater than the whole; the individual cannot have rights against the State.
This view makes no distinction between the State and the society. It really believes that the two are one and the same thing. The State is the society.
But the advocates of this view do not agree as to what that end is. For the ancient Greek philosophers the end was the moral perfection of human beings. To them the State was a moral being with an ethical end. To the Idealists the end is the Idea of the State, as an unlimited development of the nation. To the socialists, the end is the common welfare of the workers and for the communists; it is the establishment of a communist society in the world, based on the equality, liberty and fraternity of the whole mankind. To the Fascists and Nazis, the end is power and national aggrandisement. These theories are described in subsequent chapters.
The State as a means to an end
- The second view is that the State is only a means to an end, the end being the rights, happiness and freedom of the individual. This view emphasises the individual as against the State. It lays stress on these principles:
- The State is nothing but a collection of individuals who compose it. It does not exist over and above them.
- The individual has life of his own and has rights, interests and freedoms which may not be the same as those of the State.
- Hence the individual has a sphere of life and activities, the boundaries of which should not be transgressed by the State and interfered with by its action or power. Thus alone can the individual develop his personality and realise his real self.
- The powers of the State are not unlimited. There are limits to what the State can do and what it should not do, if the individual is to develop his personality and realise his ends and aims of life and be his true self. The State is a means to this end or ends of the individual.
- The State and society are quite distinct and the State cannot regulate and control the whole of human society. The State is government and, therefore, is not superhuman or supernatural. It consists of one, few or many rulers, who, as human beings, have their weaknesses and limitations. They cannot exercise unlimited power or authority over all other individuals. Hence the advocates of this view assert that to regard the State as an end in itself is to sacrifice the individual at the alter of the power of the State.
This view of the State was first dimly thought of by the ancient religious teachers and prophets. The early Christians taught “to render unto Christ what was Christ’s and unto Caesar what was Caesar’s.” Istem also maintained the principle of limited sovereignty of the State. But these ancient thoughts did not become conscious political philosophies, as did the ancient Greek thought. The reason was very simple: the human individual had not yet come into his own. His life, his rights and interests were dependent upon the social group of which he or she was a part, namely, the family, the tribe, the caste or the estate.
It was only in the modern times, first in the fifteenth-century Europe, and now all over the world, that the individual has come to acquire interests and rights of his own; hence he is now besieged with the problem of defining the sphere of the activities and powers of the State so that it does not interfere with the rights and liberty of the individual.