Value of Speculative Theories

Speculative theories are based on such arguments, generalizations, and inferences which critical examination has proved to be fallacious. But this fact does not lessen their utility for the students of Political Science. The first advantage of their study lies in the assistance they give us in understanding the truth. To examine and reject a fallacious theory is often a means of arriving at the truth. Leacock has rightly said: “The rejection of what is false in the speculative theories of the past will aid in establishing more valid conclusions on the residual basis of what is true”. By discussing incorrect theories, we can discover the correct theories of origin of the State.

In the second place, the study of the speculative theories is useful in showing us the spirit of the times when they were first expounded by their advocates. Although we now believe them to be false, yet in their days they were believed to be true. They exercised powerful influence on the minds of millions of men and women and shaped political institutions in the day of their popularity and influence29. Their study will also enable us to understand the nature of the State and of the institutions which were established under their influence. They were the forces which shaped political thought and practice. They tell us about the people, their thoughts, beliefs, their environment and development. For instance, the Divine Origin theory will show us how despotic kingship was justified.

Its History:

The theory of the divine origin of the State is as old as political thought itself. In ancient times politics and religion were not separate. It was then believed that God created the State as He did everything else. He made certain persons kings to rule over others. In ancient times, in such countries as Egypt, the kings were both rulers and priests or god-kings. Later, the great religions taught the belief in the divinity of the kings and enjoined obedience to their authority and laws as of divine origin.

In the middle Ages, it was believed that the kings were “the shadows of God on earth”. In the early modern times, however, this theory assumed a new form: viz., the Divine Rights of Kings, as expounded by King James I of England and Sir Roberts Filmier, in his book Patriarchy (1680). But that was its last flicker. With the rising importance of the Social Contract Theory and the Age of Reason in the 17th and 18th centuries, the theory of Divine Origin lost its former appeal and influence. It became discredited and was discarded.

The Theory explained:

The theory of divine origin can be summed up in three basic ideas: the State is created by God; the kings are divinely appointed; they are answerable to God alone for their rule and to no human authority. In other words, the State and its laws are divine institutions. Therefore, to disobey the king is not only a crime but also a sin, because to disobey the laws of the State is really to disobey the laws of God. The king is the representative or vicegerent of God (or vicar of God, as the Christians in the Middle Ages used to say) on earth; or he was the “shadow of God on earth” as the Medieval Muslims used to call their sultans and emperors. The king is, therefore, responsible to God for his government. As he was chosen and appointed by God, he possessed superior wisdom and his acts were beyond human criticism and accountability. The people must obey the laws of the kings as blindly and unquestioningly as they obey God.

” Lord Keynes says. “The ideas or political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else”.

The Divine Right of Kings:

The theory of divine right of kings, as presented by King James I of England and Sir Robert Filmier, in the 17th century A.D. was the modern version of the age-old theory of divine origin. King James quarrelled with his Parliament because it claimed a share in the government of the country. He told his Parliament: “A king can never be vicious. Even if a king is wicked, it means God has sent him as a punishment for people’s sins and it is unlawful to shake off the burden which God has laid upon them”. Thus King James justified the divine right of the kings to do wrong and to be tyrants and oppressors of their people in the name of God.

In his book, entitled True Law of Free Monarchy, King James wrote, “It is atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do, so it is a presumption and high contempt in a subject to dispute what a king can do, or say that king cannot do this or that, the Kings are breathing images of God on earth.” The Stuart apologist, Sir Robert Filmier, showed in his book, Patriarchy, how the Kings had obtained divine authority. God created Adam and gave him supreme authority over Eve and their children. The paternal power vested in Adam by God Himself had passed by descent to the Kings and princes of Europe, because “present Kings are, or are reputed, to be next heirs to him”. Thus Filmier endeavoured to justify the divine right of Kings to be tyrants by means of pseudo-historical myths of the Bible and primogeniture.

Criticism:

The theory of divine origin and its later offshoot, the theory of divine right of kings, do not require a serious refutation in present times. They are now universally discredited and discarded. The Kings are nowadays considered no more divine than the mendicants. The theory is, however, refuted on these grounds:

The State is a human, not a divine institution. Religion has undoubtedly played a part in the evolution of the State, but political authority cannot be justified on religious grounds. Reason rather than faith must explain the origin of the State, and the exercise of political power. The theory goes against human reason and experience. The kings cannot possess the divine right to do wrong. Moreover, we live in an age of evolution and science which shows us that every institution has its own laws of evolution and development. Religion cannot explain the operation of these laws. It deals only with things spiritual, which the State is not.

The theory supports reaction. It leaves the people at the mercy of a despot. It justifies misrule and oppression of the people by bad rulers. History is full of bad and vicious kings who justified their misrule by means of such a theory.

It is dangerous because it justifies ^not pnly misrule and tyranny of the kings but also engenders passivism and conservatism among the people. It was an attempt to check popular awakening in England and other European countries. In short, it ignores human effort and reason to develop and perfect the State and other political institutions.

The theory explains only the monarchical form of government It tells us how the kingship began. But it throws no light on the origin of the republican and the other democratic forms of States. Even in respect of monarchies, its does not explain the whole thing. It does not explain such questions as the succession of a king by his son, the court intrigues, the place revolutions and the dynastic quarrels and the overthrow of one royal dynasty by an upstart dynasty of a successful rebel or of a victorious invader. For example, how can it say that the overthrow of the Mughal emperors by the Sikh rebels, the Marhata Rajas and British imperialists was ordained by God?

Nevertheless, it had some value in the past. It secured general peace and obedience in the troubled periods of early ages of human history. The kings of old checked anarchy, and protected life, property and government by claiming that they were divinely anointed and that their laws were the laws of religion or God. In those days only divine authority and divinely created laws and institutions could be obeyed by the people willingly and unquestioningly. It gave the State a moral basis; the king must be just and virtuous because God created the State for justice, virtue and morality.

 

  • Add Your Comment

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.