Theories of the State

Country, Nation, and State: Conceptual Distinctions

A country is primarily a geographical term referring to a particular land or territory. It is not a strict political or legal concept like nation or state. The term is frequently used in everyday language as a synonym for the state, but technically it focuses more on physical space rather than on political authority. When someone says India is a beautiful country, the reference is to its land, rivers, and physical features rather than to its sovereign political character.

A nation is a community of people bound by shared identity. This shared identity need not be defined in fixed terms; it can stem from common history, culture, language, religion, collective memory, or shared political aspirations. A nation therefore exists primarily in the minds of its members and is based on psychological unity rather than legal authority. A nation may or may not have its own state. NCERT defines a nation as an imagined community held together by the collective beliefs, aspirations, and imaginations of its members. Indians before 1947 constituted a nation through shared history and culture even without a sovereign state. Because nationhood depends on subjective identification, its determination is often contested. The United Kingdom is viewed by some as a single nation and by others as a multinational state comprising English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish nations. The Kurds of the Middle East are recognised by many as a nation despite lacking a state of their own.

Compared to country and nation, the state is a more technical and precise term. The state is a political organisation of people living in a fixed territory, with a government and sovereignty representing supreme authority. It rests on four essential elements: population, territory, government, and sovereignty. The state possesses the legal right to make and enforce laws and may use coercive force when necessary. States take different forms depending on the relationship between political authority and identity. A city-state such as ancient Athens was centred on a single city. A nation-state such as Japan is characterised by the broad coincidence of political boundaries and national identity. A multinational state such as the United Kingdom contains multiple nations within a single political framework.

Government and Its Meanings

Government is the set of institutions and authorities through which the state functions. It includes the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Government is temporary and changes through elections or other political processes, while the state itself remains continuous.

The term government is used in two distinct senses in political theory. In the first sense, government refers to the permanent institutional framework through which the state operates: Parliament, the Supreme Court, the bureaucracy, police, and military. This institutional structure provides continuity regardless of which political party holds power. In the second sense, government refers to the group of people currently in power, typically the political party or coalition controlling the executive. This usage is common in everyday language: when someone says the government has introduced a new policy, they usually mean the ruling party rather than the permanent institutional structure.

The state is a broad and permanent political association that includes the entire public sphere, its institutions, and its citizens as members of the political community. It represents the long-term and collective interests of society such as order, security, and stability. Government is only a part of the state, referring to the temporary machinery or group of people in power. Governments change through elections or political processes, whereas the state remains intact. Government can be understood as the brain of the state because it gives direction and takes decisions, but it does not possess sovereignty independently. While the state represents permanent public interest, government may reflect the partisan interests of the ruling power. Excessive control of the state by government can lead to authoritarianism.

The State as an Essentially Contested Concept

The state is an essentially contested concept, meaning there is no single agreed definition of its nature, role, and purpose. Different ideologies interpret the state in fundamentally different ways, and these interpretations reflect deeper disagreements about power, society, and justice.

The liberal theory sees the state as a neutral arbiter that exists to protect individual rights and maintain order. Originating in the social contract tradition of Hobbes and Locke, this view holds that individuals created the state through collective agreement to escape the insecurity of the state of nature. The state acts as an umpire ensuring fair competition among individuals and groups and promoting the common good. Modern liberal democracies reflect this model through constitutional government, rule of law, and protection of rights.

Pluralism develops the liberal view further by arguing that power is widely dispersed among various groups such as trade unions, business organisations, and interest groups. The state is not dominated by any single group but responds to competing pressures and functions as a broker or coordinator. Robert Dahl described this arrangement as polyarchy, or rule by many centres of power. Neo-pluralists modify classical pluralism by acknowledging that power is not equally distributed. Business and economic elites often exercise greater influence over the state due to their control over resources and investment. Although the state appears neutral, it is biased towards powerful interests in capitalist societies. Dahl himself recognised this through the concept of deformed polyarchy.

The New Right, which includes neo-liberal and libertarian thinkers, criticises the expansion of the state, arguing that it has become a self-serving and overgrown institution that interferes excessively in economic and social life. New Right thinkers favour a minimal state restricted mainly to maintaining law and order and protecting property, viewing excessive state intervention as a threat to individual liberty.

Elite theorists reject the idea that power is widely shared, arguing that in every society power is concentrated in the hands of a small ruling elite. Pareto, Mosca, and Michels showed that even in democracies effective power is exercised by elites. C. Wright Mills highlighted how political, military, and economic elites form a power elite that dominates decision-making.

Marxism provides a fundamentally different view, arguing that the state is not neutral but an instrument of class domination. According to Marx and Engels, the state serves the interests of the ruling class, especially the bourgeoisie in capitalist societies. Marx famously described the state as the executive committee of the capitalist class. Later thinkers such as Gramsci added that domination is maintained not only through force but also through hegemony, meaning control over ideas and beliefs. Neo-Marxists like Poulantzas argue that the state has some autonomy but ultimately supports capitalism. The Marxist perspective on the state can be divided into two main variants: the instrumentalist theory and the structuralist theory.

Instrumentalist Theory of the State

The instrumentalist theory sees the state as a tool or instrument of the dominant class. Marx described the state as the executive committee of the capitalist class, meaning it mainly implements the interests of the bourgeoisie. Lenin argued that the state reflects the irreconcilability of class antagonism, meaning class conflict cannot be peacefully resolved within the existing order. For Marxists, real justice cannot come through reforms alone; it requires revolution and the capture of state power by the working class.

Ralph Miliband applied this argument to modern welfare capitalist societies, studying whether the welfare state had genuinely transformed the condition of the poor and working classes. His conclusion was that no qualitative transformation had occurred. Even in liberal democracies with welfare policies, wealth remained concentrated in few hands, and the class that controls the economy continues to influence political power. Miliband argued that institutions such as the bureaucracy, judiciary, and political leadership remain largely elitist in social background and orientation, so decision-making continues to favour the rich. He also rejected James Burnham's idea of a managerial revolution, which claimed that power had shifted from capitalists to professional managers, arguing that this was a myth because managers largely come from privileged backgrounds and serve capitalist interests.

Structuralist Theory of the State

The structuralist theory modifies the instrumentalist view. It argues that the state is not merely a direct instrument in the hands of the capitalist class but is also a structure in itself, possessing relative autonomy or limited independence from the capitalist class. In some situations the state may not directly follow the immediate wishes of capitalists. However, this autonomy is only relative and not complete. The state may appear neutral in normal times, but in times of crisis it ultimately protects the larger interests of capitalism.

Marx developed the idea of relative autonomy in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte through his analysis of Bonapartism. In a society where no single class is strong enough to dominate completely, such as one containing a powerful capitalist class, a surviving feudal class, and an organised working class, the state gains greater bargaining power and makes strategic alliances with different classes at different moments, creating an illusion of autonomy. However, Marxists do not accept that the state is completely autonomous. The economic structure remains the basic structure of society, and in crisis situations the state tends to protect property, capital, and the interests of the dominant economic class. The Obama administration's decision to bail out bankers during the 2008 global financial crisis while coercively responding to the Occupy Wall Street protests illustrates this tendency.

Nicos Poulantzas developed the structuralist Marxist theory further in Political Power and Social Classes. He argued that in Western liberal democracies the state does not function as a simple tool of one class. Universal adult franchise and competitive party politics force political parties to appeal to different classes, so the state appears to represent all sections of society. Yet Poulantzas maintained that in crisis situations the state ultimately protects the long-term interests of capitalism.

Louis Althusser added another dimension by arguing that the state controls society not only through force but also through ideology. He introduced the concept of the ideological state apparatus, referring to institutions such as schools, family, media, religion, and culture that shape people's thinking and make them accept the existing social order as natural. This process is called interpellation, referring to the way individuals are shaped into obedient subjects. Because this control often works invisibly, people resist it less.

Anarchist Theory of the State

Anarchists offer the most radical critique of the state. They see the state as both unnecessary and oppressive, a mechanism of domination that maintains order not through consent but through force, laws, and punishment. Anarchists argue that social order does not require a central authority and believe in voluntary cooperation based on mutual aid, trust, and decentralised decision-making. Mikhail Bakunin viewed the state as inherently corrupting and believed any form of political authority would lead to exploitation. Peter Kropotkin emphasised cooperation as a natural human tendency and argued that societies can function through collective self-management without coercive institutions.

Mahatma Gandhi shares some similarities with anarchist thought but differs in method and moral basis. Gandhi was critical of the modern state, which he saw as a centralised and violent institution that suppresses individual moral autonomy. He advocated a gradual transformation towards a stateless society through non-violence and moral self-discipline. His ideal was Gram Swaraj, a system of village self-rule in which small, self-sufficient communities govern themselves without heavy dependence on a central authority.

Role of the State: Minimal to Totalitarian

The role of the state has been a central issue in political theory. Except for anarchists, most thinkers accept the state as a necessary institution, but there is deep disagreement about how much power it should exercise. This debate is often explained in terms of the relationship between the state and civil society. While the state represents sovereign and coercive authority, civil society represents freedom and individual choice.

At one extreme, classical liberals argue for a minimal state limited to maintaining law and order, enforcing contracts, and protecting against external threats. This is called the nightwatchman state, associated with John Locke. Individuals should enjoy maximum freedom, and economic and social life should be left to the market and private actors. The New Right strongly supports this position, arguing that less state intervention leads to greater efficiency and individual freedom.

In the twentieth century, the role of the state expanded significantly with the rise of the welfare state. Governments began to intervene to reduce poverty and inequality by providing services such as education, healthcare, and social security. Modern economies also require economic management by a central authority, leading to managed capitalism in most Western societies. A more extreme form is seen in collectivist systems involving state control over the entire economy, as in communist countries such as the Soviet Union where private property was abolished and the economy centrally planned. The most extreme form is found in the totalitarian state, where the state controls not only the economy but also education, culture, media, and personal life. There is no space for opposition, and mechanisms like elections and free media are either absent or controlled. Examples include Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalin. Totalitarianism effectively destroys civil society and eliminates individual freedom.

Sovereignty: Meaning and Development

Sovereignty refers to the supreme and ultimate authority of a state. The idea emerged with the rise of the modern state in Europe between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, when centralised monarchies replaced the earlier system of divided authority between church and rulers. Sovereignty thus came to mean the absolute and unrestricted power exercised by the state within its territory.

Internal sovereignty refers to the location of supreme power within the state. An internal sovereign is a political body possessing ultimate, final, and independent authority whose decisions are binding upon all citizens, groups, and institutions. In modern democracies, sovereignty may be located in Parliament as in the United Kingdom, or in the constitution and the people as in the United States. Federal systems further complicate this by dividing powers between central and regional governments, making it difficult to identify a single location of internal sovereignty.

External sovereignty refers to the state's place in the international order and its independence in relation to other states. A sovereign state is free from external control and can conduct its foreign policy independently. However, in practice this sovereignty is often limited by global institutions, treaties, and the relative power of states. In the contemporary world, sovereignty is no longer absolute. Globalisation and the rise of international organisations have limited state autonomy, while the idea of human rights has challenged the notion that states have unlimited authority over their own citizens. Sovereignty today is therefore seen as flexible and evolving rather than absolute and indivisible.

Monistic Theory of Sovereignty

The monistic theory is the classical or traditional theory of sovereignty. It holds that sovereignty must be one, indivisible, determinate, and absolute. In every political society there must exist a final authority whose command is law and whose will cannot be overridden. This theory emerged against the background of medieval Europe, where fragmented authority between kings, church, feudal lords, and local bodies created disorder. The resulting instability encouraged the belief that peace and order require the concentration of authority in one supreme centre.

Jean Bodin is considered the first thinker to give a systematic modern theory of sovereignty. He defined sovereignty as the supreme power of the state over citizens, unrestrained by human law, and characterised it as absolute, perpetual, and indivisible. This idea emerged in the context of political disorder in sixteenth century France, where conflicts between monarchy, nobility, and church created instability. Bodin's aim was to establish a strong central authority to ensure order. However, his absolutism was not entirely unlimited: he accepted certain moral and natural limits such as respect for private property and family, which he regarded as the foundations of the state. The sovereign is also restrained by the fundamental laws of the realm.

Thomas Hobbes gave a more rigorous and philosophical justification of sovereignty through his social contract theory. According to Hobbes, human beings in the state of nature live in constant fear, insecurity, and conflict, a life he famously described as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. To escape this condition, individuals collectively agree to surrender all their powers to a sovereign authority. This sovereign must possess absolute, undivided, and unlimited power, because any division of authority would bring back conflict and instability. For Hobbes, law is simply the command of the sovereign, and obedience is necessary for peace. The only practical limitation on Hobbes's sovereign is that it cannot force individuals to destroy themselves, meaning it cannot violate the right to life.

The most systematic version of monism is found in John Austin. Austin held that if a determinate human superior, not in a habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of the society, that human superior is the sovereign and that society is a political society. The phrase determinate human superior means a clearly identifiable authority. Sovereignty cannot lie in vague ideas such as the people or public opinion; it must be located in a definite authority such as Parliament, a monarch, or a legislature. The sovereign does not obey any higher authority within or outside the state. Habitual obedience means people regularly and consistently follow the commands of this authority. A large majority, though not necessarily all, must obey. Without such a sovereign authority, Austin held, there is no proper state but only disorder or a pre-political condition.

This theory had an important historical role. It helped establish the legal supremacy of the modern state over rival authorities such as the church, feudal bodies, and local communities, giving legal precision to modern statehood and strengthening the idea that the state alone has the monopoly of legitimate coercion within a territory. This is closely related to the later Weberian understanding of the state.

The monistic theory has been criticised on several grounds. First, it is seen as too rigid and too legalistic, assuming that sovereignty is easy to locate when in modern democracies the real distribution of power is far more complex. In federal states, power is shared between central and regional levels. As Laski observed, with the rise of federal systems it has become extremely difficult to identify a single clear location of sovereignty. The monistic theory also neglects the role of customs, traditions, and social norms, since law often grows historically and socially rather than simply as a command of the sovereign. Critics further argue that monism lends support to authoritarian politics by glorifying the state and giving excessive importance to undivided final authority. Pluralists also argue that if each state treats itself as absolutely sovereign, the result may be rivalry, war, and refusal to accept international restraints.

Pluralist Theory of Sovereignty

The pluralist theory of sovereignty emerged as a reaction against monism. Scholars felt that the idea of completely unrestricted state sovereignty had contributed to intense rivalries and conflicts among states, ultimately leading to the devastation of the First and Second World Wars. Growing recognition of the need to limit state power led to the development of international law, international organisations, and human rights norms that placed constraints on state behaviour. The European Union further demonstrated that decision-making authority could be shared or transferred to supranational institutions.

Pluralists rejected the monistic claim that all power must be concentrated in a single authority. They argued that society consists of multiple associations such as family, church, trade unions, and professional bodies. The state is only one among these associations and cannot claim complete control over all aspects of life. Harold Laski argued that since society is federal, the state should also be federal. Some thinkers like Krabbe went so far as to question whether sovereignty as traditionally understood should continue to exist at all. Important pluralist thinkers include Harold Laski, R. M. MacIver, G. D. H. Cole, Duguit, and Krabbe.

Pluralists argue that human life is multi-dimensional. Individuals have many needs, loyalties, and identities, and no single institution including the state can fulfil all human needs. It is therefore unrealistic and morally undesirable to treat the state as the sole source of all obligation. MacIver argues that the state is not identical with society. Society is much broader, and the state exists within society, not above social life. According to MacIver, the state is both the guardian of law and a child of law, meaning it must uphold law but is itself limited by law and by the wider moral and social order.

Pluralist theory makes several major claims. Sovereignty is not determinate in the Austinian sense; in modern politics, real power is diffused and cannot be reduced to one identifiable human superior. The state is not the only source of law or authority since customs, traditions, associations, and social norms also shape conduct and command obedience. Associations should enjoy a large degree of autonomy in their own sphere, and the state should perform a coordinating rather than all-dominating role. Duguit held that law is rooted in social solidarity and interdependence. MacIver argued that the state does not write the whole book of law but only adds and removes parts of it.

Moderate pluralists, especially Laski, accept that the state is not absolutely supreme but still recognise its special importance. Since conflicts between groups are inevitable, the state performs a crucial role as coordinator, balancer, and conflict-resolver. Because of this function, Laski called the state the keystone of the social structure. Extreme pluralists like MacIver go further, arguing that the state is simply one association among many with no inherent superiority over others. He develops the idea of the service state, arguing that the state commands obedience only because it serves useful purposes, especially maintaining law and order, and cannot act arbitrarily.

Pluralism is attractive because it is more realistic about modern society, recognises that power is actually dispersed, supports democracy and decentralisation, and protects space for bodies such as unions, churches, and professional associations. It therefore acts as an important defence against totalitarianism and over-centralisation. However, critics argue that it underestimates the special position of the state. In the end, some institution must reconcile conflicts, maintain order, and make binding final decisions. Once pluralists assign this coordinating role to the state, they seem to restore to it something very close to sovereignty. Even Laski later admitted that legally there exists in every state some organ whose authority is unlimited. Thus, pluralism is stronger as a political and sociological critique than as a complete replacement for monistic sovereignty. It shows that sovereignty in practice is limited and shared, but does not fully eliminate the need for some final authority in the state.

An important distinction must be drawn between the pluralist theory of sovereignty and the pluralist theory of power. The pluralist theory of sovereignty, associated with Laski and MacIver, argues that supreme authority is not absolute or indivisible and that authority is dispersed among various associations, with the state being only one among many. This challenges the traditional monistic view. The pluralist theory of power and democracy, associated with Robert Dahl, examines how power is actually distributed and exercised in democratic societies. Dahl argued that power is spread across multiple competing groups and that no single elite dominates completely. Democracy works through competition, bargaining, and negotiation among these groups, a system Dahl called polyarchy. The first is primarily a normative theory concerned with how authority should be organised; the second is relatively more empirical, concerned with how power actually operates in practice.

Globalisation and State Sovereignty

Globalisation refers to the growing interconnectedness of the world through trade, technology, migration, and communication. In a globalised world, the state remains sovereign in the formal legal sense, but its ability to act independently is increasingly constrained by forces beyond its borders. The result is not necessarily the disappearance of sovereignty but its transformation.

David Held argues that globalisation changes the context in which states operate. As cross-border flows of goods, information, and people increase, governments lose some control over activities even within their own borders. Traditional policy instruments become less effective, and states are pushed into greater cooperation with one another and with international actors. One major effect is the decline of complete state autonomy. Governments must now consider global trade rules, foreign investment, and external political pressures, which narrows the range of free choice available to states.

The global economy is one of the strongest limits on state sovereignty. Multinational corporations organise production and investment across borders, financial markets move capital rapidly, and global supply chains reduce the ability of states to isolate their economies. Kenichi Ohmae, in his book The Borderless World, argues that the world is becoming increasingly borderless and that political boundaries are becoming less important for economic life. Individuals are increasingly exposed to global lifestyles and demand high-quality global products, reducing governments' ability to regulate consumption. Transnational corporations no longer remain tied to a single nation, further weakening state control over economic activity. Ohmae also suggests that economic interdependence reduces the likelihood of military conflict. Critics argue that this view exaggerates the decline of the state; countries such as the United States continue to use tariffs and military power, showing that states retain significant control.

Globalisation has also strengthened international organisations. Institutions such as the United Nations, the WTO, and regional bodies like the European Union influence what states can and cannot do. Another challenge comes from international law and the growing importance of human rights. Traditionally, sovereignty meant that a state could treat its citizens largely as it wished without outside scrutiny. Human rights conventions and international tribunals have created standards that increasingly constrain state behaviour. In Europe, individuals can even invoke supranational legal standards against their own state. Military alliances and power blocs also limit sovereignty. During the Cold War, many states had little real freedom because they were tied to either the American-led or Soviet-led bloc. Even now, weaker states often have to adjust their domestic and foreign policies to powerful states, alliances, and geopolitical pressures.

Scholars interpret the impact of globalisation on the state in three broad ways. The globalist view argues that globalisation has seriously weakened state sovereignty. The state-centric view holds that states remain the chief actors and continue to shape globalisation itself. The transformationalist view, supported by David Held, argues that sovereignty is neither simply destroyed nor fully intact but is being restructured. In some areas the state loses control; in others it adapts and even expands new forms of control. Held stresses that globalisation does not affect all states equally and that its impact is mediated by a state's place in global political, military, and economic hierarchies. It would be an exaggeration to say that globalisation has destroyed sovereignty, since states still make laws, collect taxes, maintain armies, and exercise authority. Yet sovereignty today is less absolute, less insulated, and more negotiated than before, operating within networks of treaties, markets, institutions, norms, and interdependence.

Susan Strange offers a balanced critique of globalisation by focusing on structural power, defined as the ability to shape the frameworks within which others operate rather than directly controlling their actions. She argues that both economists and political thinkers fail to fully understand the global financial system and that a proper analysis requires an integrated approach combining insights from both fields. Strange identifies four key structures of power in the global political economy: the security structure involving control over the provision of security; the production structure involving control over the production of goods and services; the financial structure involving control over credit, money, and financial flows; and the knowledge structure involving control over ideas, beliefs, and information. Actors who dominate these structures exercise deep and long-term influence over other actors.

Postcolonial Theory of the State

The postcolonial theory of the state examines the nature and role of the state in societies that emerged after colonial rule, mainly countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Such states continue to carry the legacy of colonialism, sometimes described as neo-colonialism involving indirect control through economic and political means.

The modernisation perspective, associated with Western scholars like F. W. Riggs and Gunnar Myrdal, views postcolonial states as transitional societies moving from tradition to modernity. It assumes that the Western model represents the ideal type of a modern state and that other societies will gradually move towards this model. Development is seen as a linear process from traditional to modern structures. Riggs characterises postcolonial states as prismatic societies, meaning societies in transition between traditional and modern structures. He identifies several features of these societies: formalism, which is the gap between formal rules and actual practice; poly-communalism, meaning the coexistence of multiple communities with low mutual trust; poly-normativism, referring to the presence of multiple and often conflicting norms; functional overlapping, describing the lack of clear separation of institutional roles; and heterogeneity, referring to the coexistence of modern and traditional elements. The Bazaar-Canteen model describes a mixture of traditional and modern economic practices, while the Sala model describes a dual administrative system where rules apply differently to different groups. These features suggest structural imbalance and administrative inefficiency in postcolonial states.

Myrdal, in his book Asian Drama, describes India as a soft state characterised by weak implementation capacity where laws exist but are not properly followed or enforced. Myrdal attributes this condition to corruption within the bureaucracy and political class, the Gandhian legacy of civil disobedience which normalised non-compliance with law, and social attitudes that show greater respect for those who bypass rules than for those who follow them. Ambedkar himself warned against this tendency, calling it the grammar of anarchy. As a result, the state struggles to implement development programmes effectively, leading to persistent poverty and underdevelopment.

According to postcolonial Marxists, colonialism created a system of dependency marked by unequal exchange and uneven development. Lenin argued that the integration of these regions into the global capitalist system led to exploitation rather than development. As a result, postcolonial states inherited weak economic structures but strong political institutions. Scholars like A. G. Frank, Samir Amin, and Immanuel Wallerstein developed dependency theory, which classifies states into core states and peripheral states operating within a capitalist world system. Core states are the advanced developed countries possessing high concentrations of economic, political, technological, cultural, and military power. The state in these countries largely functions as an instrument of the bourgeoisie, helping to protect and expand capitalist interests globally. Peripheral states are located in a condition of dependency characterised by unequal exchange and uneven development. These countries experience what Frank calls the development of underdevelopment, where integration into the global economy actually deepens poverty rather than reducing it. To overcome this condition, dependency theorists argue that peripheral countries must de-link from the global capitalist system and pursue national autonomous development.

Hamza Alavi provides a more nuanced view through the concept of the overdeveloped state. He argues that postcolonial states are not merely instruments of one class but enjoy relative autonomy. In Western countries, the modern state evolved organically alongside changes in the socio-economic structure, transforming gradually as societies moved from feudalism to capitalism. In contrast, postcolonial states did not follow this natural evolutionary path. Colonial administrators created a strong, centralised bureaucracy to protect imperial interests, given wide discretionary powers and legal protection through instruments such as the Official Secrets Act of 1923. After independence, the same institutional framework was largely retained. Political leaders who led the freedom struggle came to power with strong legitimacy, and their authority was rarely questioned. Postcolonial states also often adopted a state-led development model, which further strengthened the power of the executive and bureaucracy. The modern state was imposed externally by colonial powers, creating a mismatch in which the socio-economic structure remained largely traditional while the political structure became modern and centralised. The political system thus became overdeveloped in relation to society and economy, making the state, especially the bureaucracy and military, the most powerful actor. Pakistan is described as a military-bureaucratic oligarchy, and India's legacy of a strong bureaucracy known as the steel frame reflects this same pattern.

Note on the Relationship Between Theories of State and Ideology

A theory of state is closely linked with ideology. Each ideology develops its own understanding of the state based on its core principles. Liberalism focuses on individual freedom, Marxism on class relations, and feminism on gender justice. The liberal theory of the state, the Marxian theory of the state, the feminist theory of the state, the fascist theory of the state, and the postmodern theory of the state are each best understood as sub-components within their respective larger ideological frameworks. Students are advised to study the topic of theories of the state alongside the topic of ideologies for a holistic understanding of how these perspectives are grounded in deeper philosophical commitments about power, society, and justice.