State in Traditional Societies

Introduction
Traditional Societies as Political Systems
The Nature and Scope of Political Authority
The Basis of Legitimacy of Political Authority
Institutions to Prevent Abuse of Authority

Introduction

In societies that fall somewhere between the two extremes of modern states with a government and executive and stateless societies, this article discusses centralized authority. Due to the absence of developed political institutions, which are primarily found in modern nation states, these societies can be referred to as traditional or pre-modem. In traditional or pre-modern societies, we find distinct and enduring political structures that are unmistakably dominated by kinship and religion, albeit to a lesser extent. The unit discusses the nature and reach of political authority in traditional societies after giving a brief overview of various traditional society types. After that, we examine the foundations of this authority before talking about the typical restraints placed on political power.

Traditional Societies as Political Systems

We have a wide range of pre-modern societies with political traditions that have shaped the political thought and issues of modern times, in contrast to modern democratic and totalitarian states on the one hand and the primitive stateless societies on the other. Understanding these traditions will help you to follow the intricate political structures of contemporary states.

The Nature and Scope of Political Authority

It is only natural that the nature and reach of political authority will differ significantly across the wide range of societies, as we have done within the category of traditional/pre-modern societies. The degree to which political authority is centralized is always a matter of fact. For instance, clan-lineage based polities might only have a symbolic tribal chief, whereas politically centralized principalities and states with political heads might exist separately from one another or might be a part of feudal systems.

The Central Authority

Let's concentrate on the character of the political authority, which is thought to be crucial.

Chief Authority as a Titular Head

A tribal group may increase productivity without changing its technology by recognizing a more centralized concentration of power to a chief. It might continue to have a segmented social structure and choose to have a political leader who will represent the group's unity and identity. According to anthropologist Surajit Sinha (1987: xi), "the chiefdom is a development of the tribal system to a higher level of integration.". A chief may or may not act as the head of state's executive branch in terms of secular power. He might merely serve as the group's emblem. Even a titular or symbolic authority carries with it some fairly significant political ramifications.

Such a ruler frequently commands great respect from his subjects and is greatly feared. He is thought to be almost divine. Politically, a symbolic head of state has the potential to become a figure of secular authority. For instance, Evans-Pritchard (1962) noted that among the Shilluk of the Upper Nile, the Shilluk king reigned but did not govern. In other words, he served only as a head in name. Later, this institution of a symbolic head evolved into a secular authority that made political decisions as a result of British influence.

Secular Authority Endowed with Sacredness

The secular authority of a king is frequently accompanied by "an aura of sacredness," just as we noted the possibility of a symbolic head being endowed with actual political power. Let's start with the Indian Rajahs. According to Surajit Sinha (1987: xv-xvi), "The Rajas not only oversaw their kingdoms on behalf of the presiding deities of their lineages, they also ingested the sacredness of the Deity into their social being.". The majority of monarchies almost everywhere in the world exhibit this tendency. The ruler's claim to have political authority is supported by myths about the families who hold the sway being descended from gods.

Necessity of Acquiring a King

In order to elevate the secular authority above the common people, ceremonial rituals are used. In some instances, the need to obtain a king of the proper status is so great that people of royal descent are stolen and raised to rule. According to Mahapatra (1987: 1–50), small-scale polities in Orissa's former princely states felt forced to sponsor kingship as a result of pressure from larger kingdoms. A legend claims that in 1200 A. D. The Bhuiyan tribal people of Keonjhar in Orissa stole Jyotibhanj of the Bhanja dynasty from his palace while he was in charge of the Khijjings mandala. This demonstrates the fact that they had to find a ruler who exuded the necessary aura of holiness. Therefore, the origin myth had to be recreated by the successors of such kings through rituals and ceremonies.

Territory and Demography in Relation to the Range of Political Authority

A fundamental aspect of the nature of political authority is the territory and the populace. The extent of a king's political power is determined by the community's acceptance of his authority. The geographical boundaries of a chief's administrative and judicial powers are defined by his territorial aspect of power. All other polities, with the exception of stateless societies' political structure, are tied together by a territorial reference. The concept of territory served as a constant intermediary between the forces of conquest and cooperation in India. In order to escape the dominance of a paramount ruler, the various units within the state always attempted to stake a claim to a small patch of land. Demography, or a population's numerical size rather than its particular size, typically adds complexity to a political system. However, Fortes and Evans-Pritchard (1940: 7) caution us against conflating population size and density. Writing about two African tribes, they make the following observation: "It might be assumed that the widespread dispersion of shifting villages among the Bemba would be incompatible with centralised rule, whereas the dense permanent settlements of the Tallensi would necessarily lead to the development of a centralised form of government.". Actually, it's the other way around.

Economy and Centralisation of a Polity

The results of studies on tribal politics and Indian state systems show a significant relationship between surplus growth and the growth of a centralized polity. According to Amalendu Guha (1987: 147–76), "in India, the use of the cattle-driven plough ensured a relatively large surplus and, consequently, also a higher form of political organization.". More developed was the state as the surplus increased. Contrarily, research in Africa demonstrates that there was little room for surplus growth in the majority of the continent's subsistence economies. According to Fortes and Evans-Pritchard (1940: 8), "Distinctions of rank, status, or occupation operate independently of differences of wealth.". In such societies, the political power has economic rights over labor, taxes, and other payments. In fact, the centralized authority is able to keep the political system in place thanks to economic privileges.

Scope of Political Authority

The scope of a ruler's political power is determined by how much he or she exercises that authority over his or her subjects. An actual more important factor in determining how centralized a polity is than the range of power is its scope.

Sometimes, a head of state can only demand that his subject show him respect and recognition. In other situations, the ruler may also require homage or ritual submission to his rule from subordinate vassals. In feudatory states of Orissa, India, the king's domain was surrounded by segmentary clan-lineage based units. These units served as vassals and took part in the important rites and ceremonies of the central kingdom. But aside from this feigned acceptance of centralized power, the extent of the political power used against them was virtually nonexistent.

What facets of the people's lives are under the political power's control must be discovered in order to determine the reach of a central authority. If people are free to use force or violence, it is obvious that the central government has very little power. On the other hand, if a political leader is strong enough, he will forbid the use of force. In other words, individuals are not permitted to control the legal system. The Upper Nile Shilluks' frequent blood feuds and the fact that the king has no control over how they are conducted show how limited the king's authority is among them. On the other hand, homicide is regarded as a criminal offense by the state in most feudal types of politics.

Patrimonial Authority

The question of whether a central authority's authority is diffuse or specific can also be raised. The power of the ruler is often very broad in many polities, encompassing almost every aspect of the lives of his subjects. This type of authority is known as patrimonial, according to Max Weber (1964), which means that it encompasses all different types of safeguards and cares provided by the ruler for his subjects. The ruler treats his people as his children and provides for them. The tribal people held the senior most queen, known as the pata-rani, in the highest regard and care, referring to her as their "mother," and she regarded the tribesmen as her children, according to Mahapatra (1987: 25). Even today, remnants of these expectations can be observed in both the ruler and the ruled.

Delegation and Distribution of Authority

We also notice the delegation of authority mechanism in polities where the ruler has a broader range of power. The ruler may appear to be in absolute control, but he actually shares his power with others. The pyramidal structure of authority provided by this system, i. e. The king was at the top, and successive levels of inferior officials were below. In the official hierarchy, each individual submits to the authority in charge above him. The Meiteis of Manipur State during the initial stages of state formation in the 18th century R.K are worthy of mention. According to Saha (1987: 214–41), under the kingship, services were institutionalized into three distinct categories: famdon (prestigious posts), lalup (nonmenial service), and loipot (menial service). The gradation of the functions carried out by the officials is readily apparent. There are two ways that this power is divided among the government officials.

Delegation of Authority among the Relatives of the Ruler
The ruler frequently chooses men from among his kinsmen for higher positions. Using the Meitei people of Manipur State as an example once more. RdotK. According to Saha (1987: 272), the most senior individuals in terms of genealogy were used to select the office bearers for all three levels of prestigious positions. In these political systems, it is possible to say that running the country takes on a familial feel. We can use some Southern Bantu states in Africa, like the Swazi, as an example of how this pattern is followed (see Kuper 1947).
Delegation of Authority among the Loyal Subjects
Family members of the ruler are frequently viewed as rivals and thus unreliable in many states. They cannot be invited to participate in the ruler's power in case they plot to usurp it all. Then, power is divided among the dependable and devoted friends. One's personal loyalty to the ruler is highly valued. A portion of the king's power is given as a reward for the loyalty. Even though loyalists rather than kinsmen share power, it is still possible for a subordinate chief to grow too strong and eventually overthrow the ruler.

Delegation of Authority as the Balance of Forces

The institutions of hereditary kingship, power sharing with kinsmen, and supernatural recognition of the king's status all serve to strengthen the central authority's hold over society. However, the king is subject to checks from other institutions like the queen mother's courts, the royal priest, and the king's council. The balance mechanism starts to work once power is split between the central authority and regional chiefs. Subordinate chiefs may break off if a ruler adopts an autocratic mindset. On the other hand, a subordinate chief who gains excessive power may be removed by the king or have his authority restrained with the aid of other subordinate chiefs. A paramount ruler may also pit one of his vassals against the other in an effort to keep all of his subjects tightly under control. We can see that the transfer of authority to regional chiefs is more than just a formality. It is also worried about how different groups and interests are represented in the legislative and executive branches of government. Or, to put it another way, authority and responsibility are always in balance. Despite the fact that power abuse is evident in the ways that constitutional arrangements are implemented in practice, the balance of forces is acknowledged and established in theory in every political system. Each central authority in traditional societies is also subject to the balancing forces that define their nature and sphere of influence.

The Basis of Legitimacy of Political Authority

We examine the process of state formation to determine whether the state evolved as an endogenous growth or emerged as a result of interaction with exogenous state systems when discussing the issue of the foundation of political authority. This type of research gives us a historical perspective. Both types of state formations are abundant in the ethnographic data we have available. Endogenous states are those that arise from within, independently of external influences, as a result of evolutionary processes. Also known as "primary states," these occasionally. Conquests are the building blocks of exogenous state systems. Or, systems from earlier eras or from outside their own countries have an impact on their specific formations. As was previously mentioned, some tribal groups in Orissa who lacked the controls of a centralized government went to extreme lengths to steal not the concept of kingship but the king himself. Southall (1956) described how the Alur people of Western Uganda established centralized political authority through peaceful means among decentralized tribal groups.

Legitimacy in Primary States

States of the conquest type are found to lack a certain level of social homogeneity that is reflected in a state based on endogenous evolutionary processes. R.K's description of the Meitei state-formation process in the state of Manipur. Inter-clan disputes among the tribal groups in the Manipur valley appear to be the cause of Saha (1987). This situation can serve as an illustration of a primary state. A primary state's indigenous traditions serve as the foundation for the legitimacy of its government. In a society like this, political relations are seen in terms of a common structural principle. Unilinear kinship or military and political alliances between states that coexist while maintaining their internal autonomy are two possibilities.

Legitimacy in Conquest Type or ‘Secondary States’

Conquest types, also referred to as "secondary states," develop as a result of larger political entities subduing weaker ones. The conquest might take the shape of actual combat. A secondary state is created when the political structures of neighboring states have an impact on the process of state formation in a region, even in the absence of an actual conquest. Constantly, conquered groups have non-native political institutions imposed on them. Sometimes, superimposing foreign political traditions is only superficial; the conquered people do not fully agree with the underlying principles. Therefore, subsidiary principalities are able to preserve both the established political order and older polities.

However, the majority of the time, the community relationships among the peasant groups (e. g. they stand in stark contrast to the feudal-style political relationships associated with the foreign government that are prevalent in Indian villages. The centralized authority only has the right to levy taxes and perform public works in such a circumstance. So, this is the scene of subordinate units attempting to flee at the first available chance. Any individual who has studied Indian history can observe this process at work in the emergence of political unification in India. Periodically, Hindu empires, Muslim dynasties, as well as British colonial powers, tried to unite India as a political entity. The ruling power was consistently contested by smaller political entities for the entirety of Indian history. As a matter of fact, Wittfogel (1957: 98) has demonstrated that in order to be legitimate, a political authority in Asian societies needs to be backed by religious authority. The Indian conception of a legitimate political leader was a king who received guidance from a priest (purohit).

The element of two levels of political organization and process is another factor. The central authority functions as a tax collection and public works body at the initial level because there is a lack of fundamental political integration. At the second level, the obligations of membership in a local community are used to maintain the unity of subsidiary states. In India, despite the fact that its citizens were subject to numerous different polities, the caste system and religion persisted as constant elements of the country's social cohesion. In most cases, even the general public is aware of the opposition and conflict between two levels. The reasons why people accept the claims of political power over their lives are undoubtedly influenced by these factors.

Legitimacy Derived from Myths

Every political system has a history that can be traced back. Such myths essentially represent the societal attitudes and values. It's possible to think of the origin stories of political systems as their "mythical charter.". Typically, myths depict the ruling line's divine origin. Such a myth serves to validate the political system that is currently in place. The political role of priests required religious approval in a closed system of stratification like the caste system. The priestly class in India wrote the legal texts, and the country's legal system has always been rooted in religion. Not only that, but caste ideology—more so than any other aspect of Indian society, according to Surajit Sinha (1987: xi]—provided a broad framework for state formation in the tribal areas. The priestly class's political influence on political thought and religion can be seen in India, and possibly also in Byzantium, the Inca Empire, and ancient Egypt.

Grounds on which People Accept Authority

The three bases on which people can accept authority are discussed by Max Weber in 1964. He argues that there are three different types of authority: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. Most pre-modern political systems, we discover, accept authority on the basis of long-standing customs. A ruler is said to have charismatic authority when the populace accepts him as their leader due to his inherent leadership abilities and is drawn to him due to his attractiveness. Naturally, when such authority is institutionalized, it becomes a crucial component of traditional authority. Many myths and proverbs in pre-literate societies reflect this attitude of faith in an orderly life. This is the last type of authority, which Weber called rational legal. It is predicated on the idea that people recognize a need for being governed and submitting to the rule of law. Law books in literate societies go into great detail about how useful a government and its machinery are. People typically express the material aspects of political relations in terms of their utilitarian and practical purposes.

Institutions to Prevent Abuse of Authority

Consistent adherence to the kingship's guiding constitutional principles is necessary to preserve it. The various parts of a king's apparent absolute power are actually channeled through various offices. All of these elements working together give the king control over his subjects. Therefore, it is important to understand that it can be difficult for a ruler to ignore certain social institutions that serve to check and balance the centralized authority. This does not imply that there are no despots. In actuality, the past of many political systems is replete with such individuals. In that regard, no constitution can actually shield a leader from turning oppressive. Nevertheless, in the majority of traditional societies, well-known mechanisms restrain tendencies toward despotism. Here are some examples of them:

Power is passed down from one ruler to the next either through patrilineal or matrilineal inheritance or through election or popular vote. When the subject chooses a particular son of the king as his successor, both achieved and ascribed criteria may be combined. On the other hand, breaking socially acceptable behavior norms can have very tragic results. J. B. Govindachandranarayan (1813–30) lost favor because he wed the widow of his elder brother, as Bhattacharjee (1987: 190) notes in his article on Dimasa State Formation in Cachar. Neither Hindu nor Dimasa rule in Cachar permitted this. Due to this, the ruler was overthrown. After the British had him back in power, he was assassinated in 1830, ending the Dimasa era in Cachar.
Oath-taking ceremonies, as well as counsel from the council to the new king, serve as guidelines for appropriate behavior on his part. For instance, Busia (1951) describes how the Ashanti chief was encouraged by his councillors at the time of his accession. In tribal societies, it is typical for councilors to chastise the ruler and even fine him. Interestingly, the role of a raja was highly despised by the populace in pre-colonial Jaintia state in northeastern India. The raja's position was despised as a lowly position that no respectable person would hold, according to Pakem (1987: 287).
The subject also had the option of making an appeal against the inferior officials. Many Muslim kings have a bell at their palace gates that anyone can ring to demand justice from the king.

We need to think about what happens when a ruler disregards these social institutions and abuses his power after looking at the mechanisms by which rulers were to be prevented from doing so. People who are familiar with the history of Shaka, the tyrannical Zulu ruler of South Africa, would also be aware of how his brother killed Shaka in response to popular disapproval of his rule. The following group of institutions can be used to overthrow a oppressive political regime:

The people may decide to migrate to another area, outside the jurisdiction of the existing ruler.
The paramount ruler may depose his subordinate who has abused the power delegated to him.
The king may be made to feel scared of sorcery or assassination by disgruntled people.
Lastly, there may be a revolt against the intolerable government of a despot. Such a revolt is generally in the form of a rebellion, in which the tyrant is replaced by a just ruler. As no change is brought in the basic values of the society, the revolt does not amount to revolution. It is simply reinstatement of a lawful authority.

Summary

We have covered the key facets of political authority in traditional or premodern societies in this article. We examined symbolic and secular facets of centralized power and discussed its reach and domain in terms of geography, demography, and economy. We then talked about the justifications for accepting authority before listing the institutions that constrain political authority and stop it from abusing its position.

These aspects of state in traditional societies, when viewed as historical forms of contemporary political institutions, shed light on contemporary political processes. Politicization of social issues has become a major factor in modern life, and this unit will give us some categories to organize our information so that we can fully comprehend the effects of this process.