Theories of Sovereignty

Sovereignty is a core concept in political theory, shaping how states exercise power and authority. Over the centuries, scholars have debated the nature and location of sovereignty, leading to two primary schools of thought: the Monistic Theory of Sovereignty and the Pluralistic Theory of Sovereignty. These two theories explore different ideas on who holds ultimate authority within a political community.

1. The Monistic Theory of Sovereignty, also known as the Traditional Theory or Legal Theory of Sovereignty, holds that sovereignty is absolute and resides in one central authority. This view has been widely supported by thinkers like Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, and John Austin.

According to this theory, the state holds supreme power. Austin, a key proponent, argued that sovereignty is the command of the highest authority, to which all other members of society must submit. His works, particularly the Lectures on Jurisprudence (1832), emphasized that the sovereign’s power is absolute, binding, and indivisible.

Supreme Authority: A single person or group holds the power to make, enforce, and revoke laws. Sovereignty is centralized in one authority.

Indivisibility: Sovereignty cannot be divided among different entities; it remains with the state or the governing authority.

Arbitrary and Absolute: The sovereign power is uncontrolled and has absolute authority over the state and its citizens.

Laws as Commands: Laws are seen as the commands of the sovereign, and failure to obey these commands can result in punishment.

Eternal and Permanent: Sovereignty is considered a constant and unchallengeable authority.

For Austin, sovereignty had to be seen from a scientific perspective. His analysis portrayed sovereignty as something that stems from a recognized authority in society, which governs without needing the consent of the governed once in power.

The Pluralistic Theory of Sovereignty emerged as a counter to the monistic approach. Thinkers like H.J. Laski, G.D.H. Cole, and Ernest Barker argued that sovereignty is not exclusive to the state. Instead, it is shared among various organizations, institutions, and groups that form part of the broader societal structure.

This theory acknowledges that power exists not just within the government but also in other social organizations—religious bodies, labor unions, professional associations, and more. Lion Duguit and others in this tradition proposed that focusing sovereignty solely on the state is an oversimplification and that real power is distributed across multiple centers in society.

Decentralized Power: Sovereignty is dispersed among various institutions, not concentrated solely in the state.

Social Groups as Power Centers: Sovereignty is shared by different social organizations like churches, trade unions, and communities, each of which has its influence and authority.

Limitations on State Authority: The state is not the only source of legal and moral authority. It operates alongside other organizations that hold legitimate power.

Focus on Cooperation: In pluralism, power is seen as cooperative rather than coercive. Society functions as a network of groups that balance and check each other’s authority.

Flexibility in Authority: Unlike monistic sovereignty, pluralistic theory allows for flexible authority structures where power can shift and adapt to societal needs.

The Monistic Theory views sovereignty as an unchallengeable, indivisible power residing in the state. It stresses the centralization of authority and the legalistic nature of governance. In contrast, the Pluralistic Theory breaks this monopoly, arguing that sovereignty is spread across various institutions, making society more democratic and decentralized. While the Monistic Theory supports the supremacy of the state, the Pluralistic Theory recognizes the existence of multiple power sources within a society.

Both the Monistic and Pluralistic Theories of Sovereignty offer valuable insights into how power and authority operate within political systems. While the Monistic Theory emphasizes the centrality and absoluteness of state power, the Pluralistic Theory provides a more flexible and nuanced understanding of sovereignty, seeing it as shared across various social institutions. These theories have shaped modern political thought, influencing how we view the relationship between state power and the diverse groups that make up a society. Understanding these theories helps clarify the ongoing debates about the nature of political authority in both historical and contemporary contexts.