• The classical theory of sovereignty, developed by thinkers such as Jean Bodin and John Austin, focuses on the legal character of sovereignty.
• This theory describes sovereignty as absolute, perpetual, universal, inalienable, and indivisible.
• It envisions a single sovereign entity in the state, whether an individual or a body of persons, making it a monistic theory of sovereignty.
• Applying this monistic theory to politics creates problems, as it implies unlimited authority of the state over individuals, leading to absolute political obligation.
• This concept reduces individuals to mere subjects of the state’s authority, with the state’s dictates being followed regardless of the nature of its rulers.
• Governments, comprising fallible human beings, issue these dictates, making the theory problematic as it suggests complete subordination of one group of individuals to another.
• The pluralist theory of sovereignty emerges as a response to address the issues posed by the monistic theory.

GENESIS OF THE PLURALIST THEORY

• The classical theory of sovereignty, developed from Jean Bodin to John Austin, viewed sovereignty as an essential attribute of the modern state.
• This theory suggested that the state is superior to all other human associations due to its exclusive sovereignty, implying supreme legal authority.
• It coincided with the organic theory of the state, which glorified the state as the source of all moral and social values and created a juristic personality for the state.
• The organic theory compared the state to a living body, with individuals as its organs; separation from the state was akin to an organ being severed from the body.
• Marx and Engels, in the nineteenth century, highlighted how the economic interests of the dominant class determined state policy, threatening freedom in society.
• Thinkers like J.N. Figgis linked the rise of the absolute state to economic and industrial oppression under capitalism.
• The development of social sciences in the twentieth century challenged the classical theory of state sovereignty.
• Modern psychology debunked the myth of the state’s personality, while modern sociology showed that law is a product of social conditions rather than sovereign commands.
• This led to the pluralistic theory, which viewed the state as one of many associations in society, rather than an all-encompassing institution.
• Pluralism proposed that the state should act as an arbiter among various associations and compete for authority rather than claiming exclusive allegiance.
• The pluralist challenge emerged during World War I, questioning whether the state could justifiably demand extreme sacrifices from its citizens.
• Some individuals, known as ‘conscientious objectors,’ opposed war on moral grounds, questioning the absolute authority of the state.
• Harold J. Laski identified two factors prompting the pluralist attack on state sovereignty:
  • (a) The state’s claim to legal omnipotence was seen as a formal concept often invalid in practice, with real limits to its powers.
  • (b) The state’s claim to pre-eminence was viewed as the sovereignty of a fallible government, not justified solely by its intentions.
• The pluralist doctrine arose from historical conflicts between the state and various entities, including churches, trade unions, and individuals.

MAIN TENETS OF THE PLURALIST THEORY

THE PLURALISTIC NATURE OF SOCIETY

• The pluralist attack on sovereignty is rooted in the doctrine of political pluralism.
• Political pluralism asserts that certain groups in society, such as family, church, union, and local government, embody important social values independently of state authorization.
• The pluralist theory of sovereignty is based on the idea of the pluralistic nature of society.
• This theory shifts focus from the legal to the sociological character of the state.
• It recognizes the role of various associations formed by individuals pursuing diverse interests.
• Some associations predate the state, and others exist independently of it, without state creation, sponsorship, maintenance, or regulation.
• The state is seen as one among many associations, not superior to them.
• Examples of these associations include churches, trade unions, cooperative societies, chambers of commerce, and voluntary organizations focused on education, culture, and science.
• These associations embody social values and address specific needs and pursuits.
• Pluralists believe it is morally preferable for individuals to be involved in a range of associations to pursue their interests.
• Such associations offer opportunities for creativity and self-fulfillment in various life spheres.
• The state should only interfere in these associations when necessary for public order, safety, or morality.

ROLE OF THE STATE AS COORDINATOR

• According to the pluralist standpoint, the state does not exist above various associations in society.
• The state is seen as an association of associations, coordinating their activities rather than being distinct from them.
• The state’s role is to resolve conflicts among associations by harmonizing their interests rather than imposing its own will.
• The state aims to secure the ‘common good’, ‘common interest’, or ‘public interest’ by coordinating rather than dictating.
• This role is essential for maintaining order in society.
• Pluralist theory seeks to limit the absolute authority of the state, contrasting with the state-sovereignty theory.
• It does not aim to abolish the state but to define its functions.
• Recognized functions of the state include maintaining internal order and security, defending against external enemies, and enforcing voluntary contracts.
• Contracts should only be enforced unless deemed void on moral grounds.