Where does the authority to rule descend from? It’s a simple question, and today we have a simple answer, the people. In early years of civilisation this authority supposedly descended from God. We see this theory being propagated in the Mahabharata, in the Old
Testament, in Christianity, in Islam etc. It’s seen through the ages, even today, the Queen of England rules in the name of God.
Governments, rulers or state during this period and the many centuries after that mainly depended on persuasion rather than coercion. They didn’t have the kind of military and coercive power that the states enjoy/abuse today. Therefore, this theory became an instinct that fuelled this persuasion.
It’s the earliest theory about the origin of the State, although it’s more about origin of political authority rather than origin of the state. The main points of the theory were best put down on paper by St. Augustine in his book City of God written in the 5
th
century. In
this book he spoke about how people can leave behind the chaotic and selfish ‘City of
Men’ and create a ‘City of God’ on earth, but this can only be done when they are obedient to a ruler or government who has been blessed with divine authority and as such give up their rights in lieu of governance.
In Europe, this theory was given further impetus during the Reformation in the 17
th
century. King James of Scotland in his book ‘True Law of Free Monarchy’ said how that Kings even by God are called God. Its important to note the context of this book which is stepped in Scottish history and the experience of the King himself. In Scotland, the Kings were part of a contract, they stayed in power as long as they did their duties to their people. Therefore, when King James came to power he wanted to legitimise his kingship and reduce the possibility of being subjected to that contract. As such in his book he points out four basic things to ensure just that. 1.
Kings are divinely ordained
2.
They are answerable to God alone
3.
Succession governs monarchy
4.
Subjects have no right to resistance
This theory has been at the centre point of conflict between civil authority and sacred authority. Who would represent the voice of God, the Papacy or the civilian government? This power struggle came to a head during the Reformation period and as such it became important for the Protestants to claim a connection to God through their King, giving him the divine right to rule.
This is where the difference generated not only between the two Christian communities
but also between the ‘East’ and the ‘West’. While this mandate to rule was unconditional, or had become unconditional in the West, in the East it depended on the
ruler being just and committed to its people. For instance, In China, this ‘Mandate of Heaven’ was used to justify the overthro w of the Shang Dynasty by Zhou Dynasty where they claimed the former had become corrupt and unjust. Under Zoroastrianism, there is a concept called Farr, which is the divine right to rule and it can only be acquired by worthy moral behaviour. Ferdowsi in his epic the Shahnameh has given weight to this concept extensively. If we look at Shakespeare, in Macbeth, he talks about the healing powers of the King, where only his touch could cure a person giving him divine powers. Even though Shakespeare was influenced by this theory in his play, Richard II, he dares to bring in the question of whether a monarch could be or should be overthrown, questioning the unconditional mandate that the rulers said they had.
Such questions and criticism of the theory which was although was considered commonplace and obvious but nevertheless still have always been there, and in the last 150 years or so, they have gained more prominence. With the spurt in scientific growth and materialistic approach to such questions and issues, the theory today stands rejected. Also, the break-up of religion and politics has also added to the irrelevance of the theory. Apart from the brewing scientific growth another major setback to it came from the theory of Social Contract which proved that the state was a human creation and not divine.
Today, we can even
attribute democracy with helping break down such superstitious as it made the individual more important than those select few who claimed absolute powers.
