Introduction
The existence of government is a central feature of modern society, but the reasons for its necessity are fundamental to how we define it and understand its associated processes. This essay will discuss the aptness of the view that the need for government provides the functional basis for its meaning and for the role of political parties and elections. It will be argued that this functionalist perspective is highly apt, as the primary purposes for which government exists—such as providing security, order, and public goods—logically shape our definition of government and explain the competitive mechanisms, namely parties and elections, through which control of the state is decided. The essay will first explore the foundational needs for government as articulated in political theory. It will then connect these needs to the meaning of government itself, before examining how political parties and elections function as logical extensions of this framework. Finally, it will briefly consider the limitations of a purely functionalist view, before concluding that it remains an essential and largely accurate lens for understanding these core political concepts.
The Functional Need for Government
The most basic argument for the necessity of government stems from the need to avoid the chaos and insecurity of a society without a ruling authority. The political philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1651) provided one of the most powerful articulations of this, imagining a "state of nature" where life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". In this pre-political state, without a common power to enforce rules and keep people in check, individuals would be in a constant state of war with one another, driven by competition, diffidence, and the pursuit of glory. For Hobbes, the only rational escape from this condition is for individuals to enter into a social contract, surrendering some of their individual freedom to a sovereign authority in exchange for security and order. This establishes the primary function of government: to maintain peace and prevent society from collapsing into anarchy.
While Hobbes focused on security, other theorists expanded on the functions of government. John Locke (1689), for instance, argued that individuals possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property even in the state of nature. For Locke, the purpose of government is not just to provide security, but to protect these pre-existing rights through the establishment of known laws, impartial judges, and the power to enforce those judgments. This introduces the idea that government's function is also to uphold justice and the rule of law. More modern conceptions of government have expanded these functions further to include the provision of public services, economic management, and social welfare (Heywood, 2019). These different perspectives all share a common theme: government is necessary because it performs essential functions that individuals cannot effectively perform on their own. This 'need' is therefore the foundational reason for its existence.
The Functional Basis for the Meaning of Government
If the need for government is based on the functions it performs, it follows that the very meaning of 'government' is tied to this purpose. In simple terms, government can be defined as the system of people, laws, and officials that define and control the state. It is the institution through which a society makes and enforces its public policies (Bradley, Ewing and Knight, 2011). This definition is inherently functional. It does not describe government as a random collection of people, but as an entity with a purpose: to 'govern', which means to steer, direct, and control the actions of citizens to achieve collective goals, such as security, justice, and welfare.
Therefore, the meaning of government is inseparable from its role. When we speak of the 'UK Government', we are not just referring to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet in a vacuum. We are referring to the body that has the legitimate authority to carry out the functions of the state: to command the armed forces, to raise taxes to fund the NHS, to pass laws through Parliament, and to administer justice through the courts. The need for these tasks to be performed is what gives the institution of government its meaning and substance. Without the functional requirement for order, law, and administration, the concept of government would be an empty one. The statement that the need for government is a 'functional' for its meaning is therefore highly apt, as the purpose defines the entity.
Understanding Political Parties and Elections Functionally
The functionalist view also provides a clear framework for understanding political parties and elections. If government exists to perform certain functions, the question immediately arises: how should these functions be performed? There are often competing ideas within a society about the best way to achieve security, economic prosperity, or social justice. Political parties emerge as the primary vehicles for organising these different ideas. Edmund Burke famously defined a political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed" (Burke, 1770). In modern terms, parties aggregate different social interests and formulate coherent policy programmes that offer voters a choice of how the government should be run.
For example, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party in the UK both agree on the basic need for government to provide healthcare and education. However, they disagree on the principles by which this should be achieved. The Conservatives may favour a greater role for the private sector and individual choice, while Labour may advocate for a state-led, publicly funded model. These are competing visions for how to fulfil the same fundamental government function. Political parties, therefore, can be understood functionally as organised attempts to win control of the government in order to implement a specific programme for action (Heywood, 2019).
Elections are the logical consequence of this party competition. In a democratic system, elections are the mechanism through which citizens choose which party’s vision they prefer. They serve the function of conferring legitimacy on the winner to form a government and exercise the powers of the state (Lijphart, 1999). By voting, the public participates in selecting the approach to governance they find most convincing. Elections also function as a tool of accountability, allowing the public to remove a government that has failed to perform its functions adequately. Therefore, both parties and elections are not random features of the political landscape; they are functional components of a system designed to manage the disagreements over how the necessary tasks of government should be carried out.
Limitations of the Functionalist View
While the functionalist perspective is powerful, it can be criticised for being overly simplistic and rational. It presumes that political activity is primarily driven by a desire to solve societal problems. However, this may not always be the case. A significant limitation is that this view can underplay the role of power as an end in itself. Some political actors and parties may be more motivated by the pursuit of office for the associated status, prestige, and personal rewards than by a genuine desire to implement a specific policy programme for the public good (Heywood, 2019). The functionalist view struggles to account for political corruption or the cynical manipulation of voters, where the goal is simply to win and retain power.
Furthermore, ideology is often about more than just different methods for achieving the same function. Deep ideological divides, for instance on issues of national identity, religion, or fundamental constitutional change, are not just disagreements over the management of the state but are about the very identity and values of the political community. These conflicts can be more profound than a simple functional analysis would suggest. The view in the question is therefore apt, but not exhaustive; it provides the basic architecture but does not fully explain all the motivations and conflicts that animate political life.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the proposition that the need for government is a functional for its meaning and for the understanding of political parties and elections is a highly apt one. The foundational requirement for a sovereign authority to provide security, order, and justice, as theorised by thinkers like Hobbes and Locke, gives the institution of government its core purpose and meaning. Government is, by definition, the body that carries out these essential state functions. It follows logically that political parties and elections are the mechanisms that have evolved in democratic societies to manage the inevitable competition over how these functions should be discharged. Parties formulate competing policy programmes, and elections provide the means for the public to choose between them, thereby granting legitimacy to the winner. While this functionalist view has its limits and does not fully capture the complexities of ideology or the pursuit of power for its own sake, it provides an indispensable and coherent framework. It correctly identifies that the entire apparatus of government, parties, and elections is built upon the fundamental and enduring need for a body to govern society.
References
Bradley, A.W., Ewing, K.D. and Knight, C.J.S. (2011) Constitutional and Administrative Law. 15th edn. Pearson.
Burke, E. (1770) Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents.
Heywood, A. (2019) Politics. 5th edn. Red Globe Press.
Hobbes, T. (1651) Leviathan.
Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. Yale University Press.
Locke, J. (1689) Two Treatises of Government.
