The theory of force has been advanced for two purposes: to explain how the State originated, and how it was maintained afterwards. According to this theory, the State is a child of force, that is, of aggression, war, conquest and subjugation. In the primitive ages, a strong man or king, with the support of his warriors, subjugated the weaker men of his tribe and established the political relation of command and obedience. Hence the saying: “War begat the king”. Such was the beginning of the State. A strong man enslaved the weaker men and became the chief of his tribe.
A strong tribe subdued its weaker neighbours and founded a kingdom. The king of a strong kingdom conquered the weaker kingdoms around him and established an empire. The States are always fighting among themselves, {iistory of mankind is nothing but an endless story of constant wars, invasions and conquests. Edward Jenks, in his book, A History of Politics, explains this theory in these words: “Historically speaking, there is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all political communities of the modem type owe their existence to successful warfare.” He goes on to say that as population increased faster than wealth, pressure on the means of subsistence increased and forced man to improve the art of fighting or warfare to capture the wealth of others. The State was bom”, he says, “When a leader with a number of warriors had under him conquered a territory of considerable size.
This happens when a leader becomes the ruler of his own tribe and conquers the neighbouring tribes and begins to rule over a large territory”. For example, England was originally a country of Anglo-Saxon tribes, constantly fighting with one another. At last they came to be divided into seven kingdoms, called the Heptarchy. Wars continued among these seven kingdoms till at last one of them conquered all others and founded the kingdom of England, as we know it today. Severa) centuries later, the English kingdom enslaved several other kingdoms of the world and became the British Empire of the 19th century.
Leacock also explains this theory in these words: “Historically it means government is the outcome of human aggression that the beginnings of the State are to be sought in the capture and enslavement of man by man, in the conquest and subjugation of feebler tribes and, generally speaking, in the self-seeking domination acquired by superior physical force. The progressive growth from tribe to kingdom and from kingdom to empire is but a continuation of the same process”. President Woodrow Wilson says that war or the methods of blood and iron, has not only created great empires in the past and the present but “we shall see more of blood and iron methods in future”.
According to this theory, the use of force does not end with the establishment of the State. Once it is established, force is till required to preserve it by maintaining law and order within the State, by suppressing internal disturbances and revolts and repelling foreign aggression. Coercive power is necessary to punish the lawbreakers and criminals and compel others to obey law and authority of the State. Thus, might becomes right and right is enforced by the coercive power of the State. In shot, the Theory may be summarized as thus: the State is the outcome of human aggression in the past and is subsequently maintained, defended or destroyed by force, coercion and compulsion.
Criticism:
The Role of Force in the State. How far is the Force Theory- true? Bluntschli points out that it has “a residuum of truth since it makes prominent one element which is indispensable to the State, namely force and has a certain justification as against the opposed theory of Social Contract which bases the State upon the arbitrary will of individuals and leads logically to political importance”.
Most of them submit to law and authority willingly or by habit But there are always some individuals in every State who do not obey law except under compulsion or fear of punishment Such are the criminals, the habitual law-breakers and the like. The use of force is necessary to compel or coerce them to obey the law and not to disturb public peace and the rights of others. Similarly the State requires force to preserve it against the disruptive elements within itself, suppress revolts against it, and also to defend it against foreign invaders and aggressors. It would be a great mistake to underestimate the importance of force in the evolution, maintenance and preservation of the State. Force is, therefore necessary to organise social life. It is in this sense that, as Bertrand Russel says, force or power is as necessary to politics as energy is to physics. This is what Laski means when he said, Hit is the possession of this legal right to resort to coercion which distinguishes the government of the State from the government of all other associations”. Woodrow Wilson has rightly said, “Government in its last analysis is organised force”.
Its Defects:
The Theory” over-emphasizes the part played by force. It is, indepd, a mistake not to realise the importance of force in the evolution and maintenance of the State. But it is also a mistake to regard it as the only exclusive element and not an element which brought the State into being and preserves it today. Force or coercive power, as Maclver puts it, is a criterion of the State, but not its essence. It is an instrument of State-action, not the State itself. This Theory overemphasizes the part played by war and violence in the development of the State, when it regards them as the sole factors in the building of the State. According to the Evolutionary Theory as described hereafter, there were several other factors and influences, like kingship, religion etc; they determined the evolution and emergence of the State and made it what it is today.
The State must have the power to command and be obeyed, if it is to remain a State. But force alone will not enable it to last long. Use of sheer force for a long time will defeat its own purpose and boomerang in destroying the Rulers who relied on it alone. The truth is, as a French proverb says, “you can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it”. As an old saying puts it those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. We come to this conclusion that though force is necessary, but it must be used as a medicine, and not as daily food.
Moreover, even for a’ successful application of the force, other motives and factors besides the fear and force must be present In simple words, force or might must be supported by right.
Will, not force, is the basis of the State. Without force no State can exist and the sovereignty of the State ultimately rests on force. But the theory of force “errs in magnifying what has been only one factor in the evolution of society into the sole controlling force”. Force alone will defeat its ends, because “force always disrupts—unless it is made subservient to common will”. The authority of the State must be based on the consent of the people. This is the lesson of all the great revolutions in human history: of the French Revolution of 1789 and of the Russian Revolution of 1917.
When a State ceases to be upheld by the consent of the people and makes too frequent a use of force, that is, of bullets and bayonets, it cannot long stay in power. It means, therefore, that not force but moral force and consent are the bulwarks of the State, the real bases of its stability and permanence. The English idealist, T.H. Green, has expressed this fact thus, “It is will and not force which is the real basis of the State”. He says further, “It is not coercive power as such but coercive power exercised according to law, written or unwritten, for maintenance of the existing rights from external and internal invasions that makes a State.”