The Evolution of Power Theory by F Oppenheimer, Karl Marx, Harold J Laski and Leon Duguit
Power Theory
In addition to the theories that assume that the state, ruler, and power are in the will of God.
That is the theory of theocracy, or because of the agreement of society, that is the theory of natural law, then there is another theory that specifically does not justify the premise of natural law, which says that human beings form a state by making a society agreement, with the aim of defending their rights.
The premise of the teachings of the laws of nature is human inabstracto beings, that is, human beings who still live in a state of free nature. Humans in this situation are always in turmoil, because each considers the other as their enemy.
After all, their lives are separate from each other, without any connection. This situation by force theory is rejected.
Because man is still in the state of the wild, his state is not as described by Thomas Hobbes or by John Locke who seems to according to the nature of man his life stands alone because the human figure everywhere lives in a unity, albeit very small.
This theory of power is also rooted in human beings in the state of the free, human inabstracto beings, as well as the theory of natural law. But the picture of the situation is different. Because according to the theory of human strength in the natural state has always been living in groups.
So each other already had a relationship with each other, even though at that time was still in a state of promissoiteit. A situation where there is no marriage board.
According to the theory theory the smallest group of human beings in the natural state is the family. This family consists of a mother plus her children. As human beings are living beings.
How can a newborn baby survive without the care of its mother ?Is it possible for such a baby to be born and live alone ?This is a situation that is unlikely to happen.
If in the small family the mother is the head of the family, then in fact the mother controls the group.
Then after the emergence of the institution of marriage, although the institution is still very simple in nature, the family has more members with one father. If then this father is now the head of the family, it means that in fact it is the father who controls the group. When the mother, or the father is in power, it is due to the presence of advantages or advantages over others. The bottom line is that they are the winners. The more he wins in the physical field, then he is the one in power.
So it is clear according to the theory of strength, whoever is strong is the one in power. What is meant by strength here is physical strength, physical strength.
Furthermore, according to the teachings of that power, if the family had developed into a society, and finally the country, then the former of this original power is still carried away as well.
Until in the end they are the ones who remain in power in the society or the country earlier. The development of the family so that it becomes a country through several phases and by way of, perhaps war, the loser then merges with the winner, or it can also be a voluntary merger, this is for example if there is a marriage between people from group members or family with one person from other group members or families.
Thus those who adhere to this theory of power argue that the origin of that power is due to the superiority of power from one person to others.
If in the wild state some individuals each live alone, and then meet each other, then the one who feels the strongest will certainly try to control the other, the weak, for his own benefit. So the superiority of his physical strength has the effect of controlling others to use the interests of the strong.
Such is the origin of the state and power according to the theory of power. In the so-called modern society or country that is in power is one or two people who happen to hold the government.
But in fact those who hold the government are a group of people who have a strong position.
Then one or two people from that group is just a tool to control the other group, for the sake of the powerful group. And further according to the theory of the strength of the country is actually a powerful tool earlier, to use the weak for the sake of strong interests.
It has been said that this theory of power, in its investigation ofthe origin of the country is rooted in human abstracto, man in the state of the wild. In this situation what is happening is what is called the law of the jungle.That is the law that determines that whoever is strong, what is meant here is strong in the physical sense, is the one in power. So it turns out that that power can give rise to power in a group, which will later become a state.And here the ruling party only pays attention to its own interests. Thus it is clear that these weak are really being manipulated by the strong.
What is described in this theory of power in history is also true. People like Dionysios, Djenggis Khan, Tamarlan, Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, are examples. They gain power because they have the advantage of power.
It is only here that power has another meaning. Because the sense of power here is not only strong in the physical sense, because other factors also determine. For example, the weapons system, even in modern times, politics, culture, economy and so on play an important role.
So according to the theory of strength, as has been said above the country is a tool of the strong to suck the weak, especially, now, in the economic field. It is true that sometimes the country or its concrete rulers, issue regulations that seem to benefit the weak. But in the end the figures that are taken into account are only the interests of the ruler.
- F. OppenheimerAs an example of the teachings of this theory of strength for example: F. Oppenheimer, his book "Die Sache", said that the country is a tool of the strong to implement a society order, which by the strong was implemented to the weak, with the purpose is to organize and defend the power of the powerful group, against the people both from within and from outside, especially in the economic system.
While the last purpose of all this is the economic sucking of the weak by the strong. - Karl MarxWhereas according to Karl Marx the country is an embodiment of the conflicts of economic strength. The country is used as a tool from the strong to oppress the economically weak.
What is meant by strong people or strong groups here are those who have production tools.
According to Marx, the country will disappear on its own if there are no more class differences and economic conflicts in the society. - H.J. Laski
Another believer in power theory is Harold J. Laski, his book "The State in Theory and Practice". Also, "Introduction to Political Science". H.J. Laski argues that the country is a tool of coercion, or ‘Dwang Organizatie’, to implement and implement a kind of stable production system, and the implementation of this production system will only benefit the strong, powerful group.That is, if, for example, the ruler is from the flow of capitalism, then the organization of the country will always be used by the rulers to carry out the capitalist economic system.
Whereas if the ruler is from the stream of socialism, then the organization of the country will be used by the ruler to carry out the production system according to the teachings of socialism.
So it is clear that the country is only a tool of the powerful, the powerful, to carry out its interests.
H.J. Laski goes on to say that there can be no doubt, that the reasons that determine the direction of the people of the government are acting, too convoluted to be explained in one way, there is not a single reason that can override the other reasons in unison- round.
But we can also make it a general benchmark, that in general the nature of each country depends on the economic system that applies in the community environment controlled by that country.Every social system is essentially a struggle to seize the pinnacle of economic power, because those who hold power, depending on the magnitude of the power they hold, can do their will. Thus the law becomes a system of relationships that formulate its will in the form of law .
Therefore, the way economic power is distributed in one place and time
certain, will determine the form of pattern of legal regulations that apply in that place and time.
In such a situation, the state creates the desires of the people who control the economic order. The rule of law is a mask, which behind it is an interest that is primarily economic in nature can guarantee for himself the benefit of political power. In its actions, the country does not deliberately seek justice and benefit for the public, but the interests (in the broadest sense) of those in power in society. - Leon Duguit
Meanwhile, Leon Duguit, in his book "Traite de Droit Constitutionel", gives a description of the lessons of law and country that are purely realistic.Leon Duguit did not acknowledge the existence of subjective rights over power, nor did he reject the teachings that said that the state and power existed by the will of God, he also rejected the teachings of community agreements on the existence of state and power.
In his opinion, the truth, and the truth is absolute, is that les plu forts, the strongest people, impose his will on others whom he considers weak.
The strongest people can gain power and rule due to several factors.
Those factors are none other than they have advantages in the field: physical, economic, intelligence, religion and so on.
Even later in a modern country politics is very decisive.
Such is the development of the theory of power. The first strength is the meaning of physical strength, then economic strength, and finally all the factors that lead to the emergence of strength.
Thus, three theories have been discussed that essentially want to explain the origin of the country, the essence of the country, power and authority.
The three theories are : the theory of theocracy, the theory of natural law and the theory of power or authority.
These three theories are called classical-traditional theories. It is so called because the teachings of these theories have existed since time immemorial, and to this day are still always studied, especially by people who want to learn about the state and the law.
And not a few of these theories, contribute to the development of the state system until today. Prof. Mr.R. Kranenburg, in his book "Algemene Staatsleer", referred to it in terms of rather old theories.
In conclusion is that the teachings of the three theories do not provide satisfaction. And then there are reactions to the teachings of the three theories, namely an attitude that does not agree with the efforts to investigate the origin of the country and the historical essence of the country.
Against this problem they are skeptical, and consider it no longer necessary to look for it or research it the origin of the country how, what its essence is, how its history and so on.
They say that we should just accept the country as it really is.
Is it not from the basic law as well as from the organic law that we can already read and we learn. The fastest we study the history of the formation of the constitution.
At a glance the opinion as mentioned above is also true. Because investigating the origin of the country historically has no meaning anymore, unless it also will not succeed.
The reason we can know from that history is history since the country itself has existed. So in fact we can only know empirically, that is, through the people who lived when or in the time before us, so on until the people who lived at the time the country was just formed for the first time.
Such a thing is actually not possible, because the country, it has long been preceded by the thought of the state and the law.
Thoughts on new countries and laws date back to the 5th century A.D., that is, from ancient Greek times.
While the country existed long ago. So definitely people start thinking about the state and the law, after the person himself has lived in the country.
But even so, let us not assume that we do not need to talk about those issues again. The reason, however, is that we are citizens of a country that is always faced with problems or questions that are closely related to the power that exists in that country.
So we are always limited in terms of freedom, both in big and small issues. As long as the power of the state that restricts our freedom is not directly about ourselves, and only about small things, as long as we can not have to question those things.
But it is the duty of those who both theoretically and practically have duties related to the constitution, to find sound policies on power which is a restriction or reduction of the freedom of the citizen.
If we ignore this issue, it means that we relinquish our responsibility as citizens. And we can only question the extent to which the country can interfere in the lives of its citizens, if we have an understanding of the essence of the country.
So we need to talk about the essence of the country, so that we can know the extent of the country's power, as well as the freedoms of its citizens. The main question in the country is the balance between the power of the country on the one hand, and the freedom of its citizens on the other.
It has been mentioned above that the teachings of the three traditional classical theories do not give satisfaction. This is because each of these theories has its objections.
Such objections are of such nature, that they may frustrate the effort. The objection that can be raised to the theory of theocracy is that the views or teachings of the theory of theocracy will ultimately be based only on belief.
While everything that is a belief will be difficult to analyze further according to or based on the ratio.
Also if for example there is a conflict or war between two rulers or a king, of course one of them loses or gives up.
Even though both are said to come from God.
Then which one is real ?
In this case the theory of theocracy finds it difficult, even unable to give an explanation, which of the two powers comes from God.
Then which one is real ?
In this case the theory of theocracy finds it difficult, even unable to give an explanation, which of the two powers comes from God.
The objection that can be put to the theory of natural law is that the theory of natural law is very hypothetical, less empirical, while such a nature often gives different conclusions, even from the same hypothesis if there is a slight change that has led to very different conclusions .
This is related to the teachings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke about the nature of power.
Moreover, the hypothesis that states that human beings before any country or human beings who are still living in the state of the wild is independent of their group or that each human being lives independently regardless of each other is contrary to reality.
Due to the fact that human beings are social beings who from birth have been naturalized to live in a group, even though the group is very small.
The objection that can be raised to the theory of power is that this theory is rooted in inabstracto man, that is, man before the formation of the state, and assumes that man was originally evil and weak, and that there is no other consideration to move other than economic considerations.
While the human being is real, his considerations to move are not only embodied by economic thoughts alone. But there are other thoughts that can sometimes even sacrifice economic interests, such as considerations: politics, culture, beliefs or religion.
Furthermore, this theory also assumes that what is right is only the country itself, and the country is sovereign.
It is not a group of people or people, who can economically control the life of a community or country.
But in reality they are just an indirect tool from the country. It is the state that decides what should happen, through its powerful people.
The ultimate goal of the country is nothing but the attainment of the interests of those in power, the strong.
But power in its modern form is reflected in the theories of national sovereignty theory, as taught by: Jhering, Laband, Georg Jellinek and Jean Bodin. From their teachings it is basically said that it is the country that owns and holds the highest power or sovereignty. Such an opinion is also evident in the teachings of Niccolo Machiavelli with the Staatsraison.
But in future developments it will appear that sovereignty does not exist in the country, so it is not the sovereign country.
Because sometimes a country can be blamed by its citizens, in the sense that a state that commits acts that harm the citizen can be blamed and punished to pay compensation.
In that case, it can not be said that the country is sovereign, because if the country is sovereign, the state can not be disturbed. Whereas in reality it can be, that is, if the State through its organs or its equipment commits an act or deed that violates or is against the law, in this case the state can be sued and punished to compensate.
So if that is the case with the country, the rules of law can also be applied, then if that is the case, this means that the law is higher than the state, so the sovereign is not the state, but the sovereign is the law.
Thus arose the theory of the rule of law, this theory among others was put forward by Krabbe.
This will be discussed later in the discussion of theories sovereignty.
