Prof. Dr. Syed Ammar Hamdani.

Cell# 0321-4308548
FB Page. Mukhliseen CSS Circle

Chapter. Monist and Plurast Concept of Sovereignty.

A Brief History of the concept ”Sovereignty”:

The concept of sovereignty is a modern concept, born with the modern state. The ancient
Greeks call it ”supreme power” of a state, but they did not analyse it further. The Roman
jurists and thinkers declared it to be the supreme authority of the emperor. Ibn Khaldun
was the first muslim thinker who made the concept of sovereignty the basis of the power
of the ruler, which rose and fell with his dynasty.. In medieval age, there were two causes
which gave rise to the concept of the state as well as to the concept of sovereignty. They
were, firstly, the crisis of monarchy in France and later in England and other European
states, and secondly, the Reformation or the religious revolt, which split European
Christianity into two warring sects of the Catholics and Protestants, which further
aggravated the monarchical crisis. In the sixteenth century, the French king, who sought
to unite France under their sole authority, were engaged in campaigns against the feudal
lords and church who refused to submit to the centralised auhtority of the king.. As a
result of this dual crisis of political authority that the concept of sovereignty was born. It
was propounded by Jean Bodin, who talked about the absolute authority of king. in
France. He was in the favour of strengthen the king against both the Church and the
feudal nobility.
Bodin said: ”It is clear that the principle mark of sovereign majesty is the right to impose
laws generally on all subjects regardless of their consent. If he is to govern the state well,
a sovereign prince must be above law.” Thus Bodin declared sovereign not only the
power to make law, but also to be itself above law. However, Bodin added that the
sovereign power of the king is limited by the Law ofGod and Law of Nature. Bodin was
the first political thinker to equate sovereignty with power.
It was Thomas Hobbes, however, who carried the concept of soverignty to its logical
conclusion. He declared that the power of the sovereign to make law is supreme,
absolute, unlimited and imprescriptible, and it cannot be limited by considerations of
religion, church, morality, loyalty, etc. Indeed, morality is what the law declares it to be.
Thus was born the monistic theory of sovereignty.
During the next three centuries after Hobbes, the monist theory of sovereignty was
accepted by all political thinkers of modern Europe. They only tried to find where the
supreme power lay, that is, whether in the king, parliament or with the people, e.g. To
Rousseau’s sovereign was a general will which was created by the means of social contract. By the social
contract, people give off their all rights which they possessed in state of nature to the sovereign. According to him,
sovereignty was absolute and indivisible belong to general will. His concept of sovereignty was known as popular
sovereignty.
..
During the last years of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth, a new
view of sovereignty was propounded, namely the pluralist view. According to it,
sovereign power in the state does not and should not reside at one centre, but at several
centres of authority. The reason is that modern society consists of several other groups
and associations beside the state, which are at least as important and as supreme in the
lives of their members as is the state. In the USA, the federalists also attacked the monist
theory and asserted that the federating units in a federation possess regional atonomy
with the central or federal government!. Thus both the political pluralists and the
federalists asserted that sovereignty must be viewed as a pluralist, not monist
phenomenon. It means that sovereignty is not absolute, unlimited and indivisible: instead,
it is limited and divisible.

AUSTIN’S THEORY OF SOVEREIGNTY

John Austin (1790-1859) was an English jurist. He expounded his theory in his book on
Jurispridence, published in 1832. severely criticised by the writers of Historical
Jurisprudence in the 19th Century who refuted Austinian theory on the basis of the
history of law and state, and by the Pluralists in the twenteth century.

Austin on Law.--

Austin begins his theory of Sovereignty by first defining law, which, he says, is ” Law is
a command given by a superior to an inferior.”.

Austin on Sovereignty.-

He then defines the Sovereign or Superior in a state as thus: If a determinate human

superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from
the bulk of a given society, that determinate superior is sovereign in that society, and the
society is society political and independent”. He adds further: ”to that determinate
superior the other members of the society are subject, or on that determinate sperior the
other members of the society are dependent”.

Analysis of Austin’s Definition.-

1. Only a determinate person or body of persons can be sovereign.-- It means that

sovereignty cannot belong to the general will, as Rousseau said, or to the people or
to the public opinion, as it is said by the advocates of popular sovereignty, or to
any superhuman being as is the Islamic view. It belongs to a determinate human
superior, i.e., a definite person or body of persons.
 2. 2. The power of the sovereign is legally unlimited or absolute, because the laws
which he makes are obeyed by all, while he himself does not obey any law. Hence
there can be no limit to his power. He makes his own limits. Legally speaking the
sovereign is almighty.
3. 3. Sovereignty is indivisible.-If sovereignty is divided by law between two or more
persons or bodies of persons, then one of the two things would happen. Either one
of them will limit the authority of the other, and thus become the real sovereign,
or any other person in a body of persons who has legally limited the authority of
the others would become the real sovereign. It means,’ therefore, that sovereignty
may be formally distributed, but cannot be really divided. This is the case in a
federal state..
4. 4. Sovereignty is necessary for the development of society. Sovereignty is as
necessary in the state ”as the center of gravity in a mass of matter”.
To sum up, Austin asserted that sovereignty is determinate, supreme, absolute,
illimitable, inalienable, indivisible, all-comprehensive and permanent power.. Hence, his
theory become the basis of the science of law or jurisprudence. his theory of sovereignty
is also called the lawyers’ view of sovereignty and law..

Criticism.

However much Austin’s theory may be useful for a lawyer or jurist, it does not properly
explain the nature of sovereignty.. The following objections are raised against it:-

1. History does not support Austin’s view of absolutism.

Austin’s view that the determinate sovereign Has absolute power was subjected to severe
criticism by Sir Henry Maine. Maine belonged to the school of Historical Jurisprudence.
He cited the examples of the rulers in India, Europe and America, to show that no one of
them possessed that supreme and absolute power which a determinate sovereign
possesses, as Austin asserts. Instead of it, the supreme power of every sovereign in
history is found to be limited by internal considerations and restrictions, such as, customs,
traditions etc. Hence, the custom was the real king and not the sovereign ruler.

2. Austin’s theory does not apply to existing states.

When Austin concept of determinate human sovereign is applied in England,

Austin was unable to give a clear-cut answer. Instead of it, he variously replied that
(i) Parliament is sovereign, or (ii) the King, the Lords and the electors are
sovereign or (in) the electorate is sovereign when Parliament stands dissolved, etc.
But obviously this answer has not the clarity of his definition. As the electorate is
sovereign, although it cannot at all be a determinate body, as Austin’s sovereign
must be.
As regards the USA, Austin was driven to the conclusion that the body which has
the power to amend the Constitution is the sovereign. But such a body cannot be
determinate. Moreover, its sovereignty is not absolute, because its power to amend
the Constitution is restricted to the specific amendments and no more. To find out
the determinate sovereign in a federal state, as Laski says, is an impossible
adventure. So Austin failed to show the determinate sovereign who is sovereign in
the present-days states.

3. Austin failed to distinguish legal and political sovereignty.

The reason why he found it difficult to apply his theory to the existing states was
that he did not distinguish legal from political aspects of sovereignty. His theory is
an attempt of a lawyer to give a lawyer’s view of sovereignty. It is a theory of
legal sovereignty. He was right, therefore, when he said that the King-inParliament
is sovereign. But when he tried to include the electorate in it as well, because it
elects the member of the House of Commons, he failed to keep in mind that it is
not legal sovereign, because electorate cannot make laws. At the same time, legal
sovereign, the King-in-Parliament, is not absolute, because it is conditioned by a
number of influences and forces which constitute political sovereignty.

4.’ It is opposed to the idea of popular sovereignty.

It is pointed out by Sidgwick, Clark, Ritchie and others that Austin’s theory is
inconsistent with the idea of popular sovereignty. It also ignores public opinion and
disregards the General Will. Austin’s sovereign has the support of force.

5. It gives a wrong conception of the nature of law.

Austin’s conception of law is severely criticised, as he says that law is a command

of the sovereign. Austin’s conception is attacked on two grounds, historical and
sociological. In history, law did not originate as the command of the sovereign but
as the custom of the people. Law grows, as Maine explained it, as the people grow:
it develops with the people. No sovereign, however despotic, could disregard
customs. The sociological role of law is that laws are obeyed on the basis of
popular opinion, the sense of right, the conditions of social life, habits, a sense of
common interests.

5. It ignores the right and freedom of voluntary associations.

6.
Pluralism.
Factors for Pluralism.--

Let us briefly describe the factors and conditions which led to the growth of the
pluralist theory of sovereignty. Firstly, the functions of the state have changed
radically. In former centuries, the state was only meant to preserve peace and order
and defend the country. But now it performs many functions for which the use of
supreme authority is not essential. These functions are postal services, public
works, education, health, railways, etc.. Hence the activities of the state must be
regulated by public law, based not on sovereignty or the power to command but on
the principles of public service.

Secondly, the progress of modern science, technology and industry has brought the
whole world together. Interdependence of the nations and countries, rather than
their independence and sovereignty, is the chief characteristic of the modern age..
Thirdly, modern society is complex. It has numerable associations, groups and
organisations, e.g., trade unions, churches, universities, clubs, families, etc. They
have their own rights and functions, which the state cannot fulfil nor should it
interfere in them. They must enjoy autonomy and should not be interfered by the
state, as the monistic theory asserts and justifies.

Important points of pluralism.

The pluralist thesis was based upon the following propositions:

1. Society is composed of a great variety of independent religious, cultural,

educational, professional, and economic groups or associations.

2. Individual realises his true self only in these small groups or associations.

3. The groups are more representative of the individual interests than the all-
powerful and centralised state.

4. The unrepresentativeness of the state is still greater, as its public or

administrative bodies are dispersed geographically over the country.

5. The associations are not dependent upon the state for their existence.

6. Associations are voluntary, because their members can also be members of other
groups or associations, while the membership of the state is compulsory.
7. State can act effectively only when it is supported by the groups and
associations.

Basic Principles of Pluralism.

1 1. The sovereignty of the state is not an absolute, indivisible and exclusive power.
The basic difference between monism and pluralism is their approach and attitude
towards the sovereignty of the state. The advocates of the monistic view of
sovereignty is that sovereignty to be absolute, indivisible and exclusive:
sovereignty is unitary.. On the contrary, pluralist proclaim that sovereignty is
pluralistic, constitutional and responsible.. There are many things which the state
does not or cannot do. ”Actually, the state is an association like other associations,
with the special function of coordinating them. State is a public service
corporation”..

2. Sovereignty is not the source of law: it is limited by law. The pluralists say that
law is before the state or the sovereign. Law limits the sovereignty of state.. The
state itself is a subject of law and is bound by the rule of law. Duguit says that law
is not; made by the sovereign. It arises from the religion, culture, usages, customs
and social interdependence of the individuals.. It serves certain social purposes and
is, therefore, obligatory both on the individuals and the state.

3. Society is federal and pluralist: The pluralists reject the monist view that society
is organised on the principle of the ”State versus the Individual.” They say rightly
that human society today consists of a different variety of associations,
groups, corporations and organisations which promote the economic, social,
religious, political, cultural, intellectual and other interests of their members. State
is not an association of individuals, as it was wrongly believed formerly; it is an
association of associations, a group of groups.

4. The associations are autonomous and sovereign. The pluralists deny that the state is a
unique organisation. Other associations are equally unique, important and natural. They
are, therefore, for their own purposes, as sovereign and autonomous with in their sphere
as the state. Sovereignty is pluralistic because society is federal. Every association must
be independent within its own sphere of interests and activities. Laski puts it thus:
”Because society is federal, authority must be federal also”.

5. State’s absolutism rejected. The pluralists do not abolish the state; they only
condemn the sovereign state. They still believe that the state is necessary to
perform one function that is to protect the common interests of the entire
nation. However, along with the state, the special interests should be regulated
 by the groups and assosiations themselves, uncontrolled by the sovereign state.
This is the essence of their doctrine..
Criticism.

1. Pluralism belittled sovereignty. Broadly speaking, there are three attitudes towards
sovereignty of the state among the pluralists: (a) some want to abolish the state
altogether; (b) others seek to reduce it to the level of other associations; (c) some
other still give it a superior but co-ordinate authority among other associations.
Hence, one can conclude that to destroy sovereignty is dangerous, and to talk of
destroying it is futile. The pluralist theory is dangerous. As it put into practice, it
will disintegrate society, cause anarchy and disorder, and destroy the possibility of
social development and progress. Modern society cannot exist without the
sovereign state. Thus, no sovereignty , no state; no society.
2. 2. Law originates with the state and is not superior to it. When the pluralists assert
that law existed prior to the state and is superior to it, they confuse law with
custom and fail to distinguish law from morality. Law has two important elements;
content and sanction. Its contents are the social, religious and moral needs.. But
what makes law a law is the force or sanction behind it which the state alone can
provide. Without this sanction it will never be a law binding on all to obey it. This
is the distinction between law and morals which the pluralists have overlooked,
Also law is not superior to the state.
3. 3. The state must possess supreme power to regulate the relations among various
associations.
The pluralists claim autonomy for the social groups or association, because they perform
certain social functions and fulfil some social needs which state-control and state-
interference disrupt or destroy. to abolish the sovereign state and to make all associations
autonomous and independent is to disintegrate society, and split it up into as many ’little
states’. This will result in anarchy and confusion. That is why the pluralists are forced to
grant some authority and some superior powers to the state.
Thus we have reached at the conclusion; no sovereignty, no state; no state, no social
groups. The state performs three functions with regard to the social groups: it adjusts
relations between itself and the groups, between the groups themselves and between the
groups and their individual members. It performs these functions for three purposes; first,
to preserve its own unity and integrity; secondly, to preserve the equality of associations
before the law, and finally, to preserve the individual from the possible tyranny of the
associations. If not so, the weaker associations will be at the mercy of the stronger ones,
and the liberty of the individual will be at the mercy of the group. Thus pluralism will
lead to the destruction of those ideals for which it stands, viz.,the independence of the
social groups and the liberty of the individual.

Value and merits of Pluralism.

In spite of the shortcomings and pitfalls of pluralism, it does not mean that it is a barren
political philosophy. The pluralist criticism of the monist theory of the state has corrected
many of its mistakes, widened political vision and has contributed much to the political
theory. First of all, pluralism has introduced groups and assosiations into political
thought. Formerly, political science and philosophy were concerned with the state and the
individual. But now they have to view society as a vast and complex organisation of
groups and associations and individuals..

Secondly, by insisting that sovereignty is not merely a legal concept, as the jurists think,
the pluralists have shown that it must be understood in a wider sense of groups,
assosiations, societies and individual.
Thirdly, they have pointed out the dangers of over-interference by the state in the affairs
and interests of the social groups. They must enjoy greater freedom and independence, if
they are to fulfil their social functions in an adequate manner. The pluralists recognise the
value of the group for social life, wellbeing and progress. Fourthly, they correct the
tendency of idealization and glorification of the state. They prick the bubble of
omnipotence and absolutism of the state, with which the Idealists, especially Hegelian
and absolutist idealists and Fascists and Nazis, have credited the state.
Fifthly, they emphasize the need for decentralisation of political powers, both
territorially and functionally. They provide us with a concrete programme for a
decentralised industrial and economic system, in which the workers, the producers and
the consumers have greater freedom and better life.
Lastly, the pluralists are the prophets of the future for they proclaim the need to limit the
external sovereignty of the state in the interest of humanity as a whole. They show a path
to international interdependence and co-operation..

Conclusion.

In short, the pluralists have protested against the rigid and dogmatic legalism of the
monist theory of the sovereignty of the state. They have insisted on the necessity of
studying the actual facts of political life. They have upheld the principle of federalism, in
social organisation. They have warned against too much interference by the state in
individual and group life. They have paved the way to internationalism as against
nationalism of the 19th century. They have insisted that the state is not a policeman writ
large, but has moral obligation to devote its supreme powers to the well-being and
progress of the individuals and groups. Thus, pluralist philosophy has directly contributed
to the conception and growth of the Welfare State. In this respect, monism has become a
conservative political theory, while pluralism has become a critical one. But pluralism, as
a political philosophy is dead or dying.. Sovereignty has not been expunged from
political theory, nor has the sovereign state been reduced in stature both in national and
international politics. Pluralism has only widened and deepened our understanding of the
sovereignty of the state. It has not expunged it from Political Science. But political
behavioralism, a new science of politics, has done so, as we shall now explain.
Behavioral Political Science and the End of Sovereignty:

Power not sovereignty, is the basis of politics and state: The concept of sovereignty,
which has played so great a role in modern political thought for more than four centuries,
has been totally discarded by the political scientists of the behavioral school of Political
Science, which came into prominence since
1950 in the USA. According to these political scientists, what distinguishes politics and
government is not sovereignty but power. They regard the concept of sovereignty as
unscientific, because it cannot be empirically tested and operationally verified by the
methods and techniques of scientific analysis. Power is an authoritative decision-making
relation between two persons or groups, and can be found in various kinds of associations
or social units. What distinguishes government (or state) is its monopoly of legitimate
power or coercive authority. But it is not sovereignty or supreme, absolute power,
because it is shared, checked and counterbalanced by another power. For instance, in the
traditional societies, it is shared with the family, clan or caste, religious bodies or some
other groups, while in the modern states, it is exercised as a monopoly of legitimate
physical coercion. By being legitimate is meant that it is accepted and consented to by the
ruled, and thus shared, checked and counterbalanced by their representatives.
In all political systems (societies, states, governments), power is exercised for
allocating goods, values and resources among various individuals, groups and
classes, as desired and willed by them. When their desires, demands , or wills
change, a new power arises to satisfy them after a conflict or not with earlier
powers. It means that power is a relation between persons, groups and classes for
allocative purposes. Hence the more the allocative resources of a political system,
the greater its power and vice versa. Power is a quantifiable phenomenon. It has
scope or extent, and amount or magnitude. By scope is meant the extent to which
power is exercised, or the number of individuals and groups who are ruled or
controlled. By magnitude or amount is meant the degree of effectiveness of or
compliance. It means how much its decision or policy can command the obedience
or compliance of the people. Thus it is mathematically or statistically possible to
measure the scope and magnitude of power. Furthermore, this analysis provides the
political scientists with such concepts as ”the center of power”, ”the ruling group”
or ”the prime movers”. For instance , the prime movers are those who stand at the
center of power, while the ruling groups constitute the political elites in a political
system.
With the concept of ”prime movers”, the behavioral political scientists came
nearest to the concept of sovereignty. However, they never use this term. The
prime movers are the top-men in a hierarchical political system or government. But
their power is not and cannot be equated with sovereignty, because their power is
not supreme, absolute or illimitable, which are the attributes of sovereignty. Robert
A. Dahl, a behavioral political scientist, writes, ”According to democratic theory,
in democracies the people are the prime movers; but few political analysts would
regard this as a satisfactory description of the actual political system of any nation-
state.