Some writers regard the State as a power-system and exalt power, coercion and violence as the ends of the State. They subordinate the rights and freedom of the individual to this end. They declare that the will of the State is supreme over the wills of the individuals. They regard the exercise of power as the characteristic expression of the State and coercion as the primary condition of social control and organisation. Ancient Sparta, Napoleonic France, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany are examples of States which made power and domination their main aims and ends. Such a view of the State is based old belief that it is the “natural law that the strong rules.” Modem German writers are the most outspoken in defining State as a power-organisation.
Treitschke, the Prussian historian, defined the State as “the public power of offence and defence, the first task of which is the making of war and the administration of justice.” Another German writer, General von Bemhardi, said, The first and paramount law is the assertion of one’s own independent existence. Might is the supreme right, and the dispute as to what is right is decided by the arbitrament of war. War gives a biologically correct decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of
things.” Herr Hitler, the Fuhrer of Nazi Germany, declared that the ultimate object of the State, organised as a power-system, is the utter destruction and extermination of all rival power, nations and races, for, as he said, “the strong is the strongest when alone.”
Criticism
There is an element of truth in the conception of the State as power. Power or force and coercion do play a role in the evolution, organisation and maintenance of the State, both inside the State and outside, with other States. Power, is indeed, necessary to organise social life. It is, as Bertrand Russell says, as necessary to politics as energy is to physics. Political relationship between the rulers and the ruled are really power relations, actual or potential.
Viewed thus, the State appears as the mechanism by which the will of the rulers or government is able to influence the wills of the individuals and determine their behaviour through its orders, and laws, even against their wishes. The State is the regulating power of the society. It has the monopoly of the coercive power, for thus alone can the unity, peace and security of the society be preserved. It enforces laws to maintain peace and justice. According to Laski, “Men moves differently to the attainment of conflicting desires; a coercive authority is therefore necessary to define the terms on which that movement may legitimately proceed, to lay down the rules of permissible social behaviour.”
Although power is a necessary weapon in the hands of the State, it is, however, not its essence and4>asis. Paradoxical though it may seem, the less the State uses actual coercive power, the stronger it will become and the better it will be for all concerned. It will make the State stable and it will give freedom to the individuals. It will afford greater opportunity for the development of human personality. It will promote general welfare. Excessive and unintelligent use of power will destroy not only “material goods but also the cultural gains, the spirit of truth, the work of the mind, the fertility of thought.”
Hence, instead of extolling the State as power- system, the need is to see that it uses power to enhance the common welfare and promote common interest. In a true theory of State’, the use of power, as Maclver says, “comes to be adjudged by its value to the society rather than by its value to the ruler.” In fact, the advocates of the State as a power- system believe that the State exists only to perform the essential functions of peace and order, defence and security. They neglect its optional functions. Modern view regards the State as a welfare State. We judge a State not by what it is or claims to be, but what it actually does for the good of the people.