The State in the Third Millennium

2. The origins of the state (S. 17-18)
When, where, and how the first state was born is unknown. Moreover, political experts and historians are not in total agreement about what should be called a state and what should not. For the purpose of this book, I have used a very simple definition of the state as a geographical area that is more or less defined, with a population that in the majority has accepted a central authority or has been forced to accept such an authority over a long period of time. This central authority has to be in a position to defend its territory and its population against external aggression, either with diplomacy or with weapons.
Defined thus simply, the state has its origin in a time period when humanity consisted of hunters and gatherers. There are no written documents from this time, but we can study the hunter-gatherer societies that have survived into our time. Some historians might argue that the first state was born much later, in the agrarian period—perhaps with the Sumerians or the Egyptians— but certainly not with rather primitive nomads.
On the basis of my chosen definition of the state, however, hunter-gatherers without permanent residence are nevertheless able to create states. Nomadic tribes usually control a particular territory. The borders of the territories of hunter-gatherer societies were perhaps not as well defined as in the later agrarian period, but border disputes have existed throughout human history up to the present time.
This glance far back into history makes it easier to understand the origins and varieties of states. If states or state-like organizations have shaped human history not only over the last few thousand years but over hundreds of thousands of years, humanity should be much more receptive to the order of a state than if the state were a more recent phenomenon.
Those hunter-gatherer tribes that have survived until today usually have a chief in their village or tribal community. The office of chief is either hereditary or elective. One can assume that as early as the Stone Age there were hereditary and elected chiefs or monarchs. In larger communities today, the monarch is supported by a council, the membership of which is decided by age, through election, or on the basis of some other criteria. Monarchic, oligarchic, and democratic elements have probably existed in human society for much longer than the last few thousand years.
The ancient Greeks classified the different types of states and gave them the names of monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. In ancient Greece, monarchy meant the rule of a single person, the monarch, and the expression was not restricted to hereditary monarchy. Some monarchs have always been elected: the Holy Roman Emperor, for instance, was a monarch elected for life. A president might be considered a monarch elected for a limited period of time.
The rule of the few was known as oligarchy. Most people are not as familiar with this term as they are with monarchy and democracy, which are often and wrongly seen as being opposites. Quite early on the term oligarchy obtained a somewhat negative connotation, and oligarchs preferred to be called aristocrats, which means in Greek “the rule of the best.” As a member of an old aristocratic family, I have nothing against such a term, but it would be historically unjust to favor oligarchy over monarchy and democracy. Nevertheless, one cannot stress enough that in each state the monarch, elected or hereditary, and the people, have to delegate a number of important tasks to the oligarchy, in order to ensure that the state can function. These tasks can be in government, administration, defense, economy, the legal system, or the formulation and resolution of laws, for example by a parliament. The oligarchs, be they members of government, parliament, the courts, the administration, or political parties, could be described as the technocrats of state power. Without an oligarchy the duties of the state towards its population cannot be fulfilled over a long period of time. The oligarchy is therefore the strongest element in the state, but if it does not fulfill the interests of the state, it loses the trust of the people or of the monarch and the existence of the state is jeopardized.
Democracy means the rule of the people (demos). However, from antiquity until the American Revolution in the 18th century, the prevalent wisdom was that democracy is only possible in political units which are sufficiently small for the people to be able to gather to discuss and resolve together important questions of common interest. It was also generally believed that democracy leads to arbitrary rule, because people change their opinion too often, and that the rule of law is therefore not possible in a democracy over a long period of time. The fear was that democracy would be the first step towards anarchy and dissolution of the state order.