Is the state built on tribes or tribal confederations, or on chiefdoms? Tribes or confederations characterized by equality cannot directly produce states characterized by inequality.
In practice, tribal or tribal confederation societies have evolved to the extent that there are widespread inequalities in chiefdoms characterized by a hierarchical system, and chiefdoms have further evolved into states.
In general, chiefships in patriarchal chiefdoms are usually inherited by the eldest son, while in matrilineal chiefdoms this position is inherited by the eldest nephew.
Sevez has pointed out an important difference between chiefdoms and states: chiefdoms have centralized administration, hereditary hierarchical arrangements with aristocratic qualities, but no formal, legitimate tools of violent repression. The organization seems to be generally theocratic in nature, and obedience to authority seems to be the obedience of a religious congregation to the priesthood-chief. If it is recognized that such a nonviolent organization occupies a stage of evolution, then the question of the origin of the state is greatly simplified: the institutionalized constraint of the state is the use of violence.
Historians such as Guo Moruo once believed that the legendary Five Emperors were equivalent to the period of military democracy of tribal alliances, which was a communist aspect of the development of Chinese and Western history. The power composition of tribal alliances: citizens' (similar) assemblies, councils, and military chiefs. Military chiefs are elected by the Council of Elders; the criteria for election are those recognized by tribal alliances as strong and capable; the power of military chiefs is subject to the Council of Elders; and military chiefs, once old and infirm, must withdraw from politics and give way to good young people, while respecting themselves only as ordinary elders. The outstanding characteristics of military democracy are: democracy and checks and balances. Democracy means that the citizens' assembly elects the Council of Elders, and the Council of Elders elects the military chief; checks and balances refer to the citizens' assembly that restricts the Council of Elders, which restricts the military chiefs, and the military chiefs exercise power in accordance with the covenant. So, how to explain the characteristics of the early democracy of ancient Greece and Rome, as well as the authoritarian characteristics of the ancient Chinese state?
During the Huangyan period, there was an unequal status and the supreme power of the consortium within the tribal confederation, and it was clear that its tribal consortium belonged to the type of chiefdom. The tribal alliance did not have a supreme leader, but the Yao Shunyu tribal alliance had a supreme leader, known as the Emperor. Yu used his supreme power to even execute tribal leaders who were late for meetings, "Xi Yu sent the gods to the mountain of Huiji, the wind clan arrived, and Yu killed and killed", which was unimaginable in a democratic tribal alliance.
The deliberative principles of the tribal confederation meeting were unanimously adopted by all the tribes, but the Yao Shunyu tribal consortium was decided by the supreme leader. Although the history books record that Yao Shun's selection of successors or officials also consulted with the members of the consortium, the final decision was in Yao Shun's hands, and there was no collective voting procedure or collective decision to collectively veto.
There are often three centers of power in the power structure of tribal alliances, namely the Council of Chiefs, the Supreme Military Commander, and the People's Assembly, which check and balance each other, and the chieftain is the only center of power in the chiefdom.
Sheviyan pointed out that it is probably not a problem to say that the chieftaincy system evolved from a typical tribal society. But worldwide, chiefdoms are not the inevitable result of all typical social developments. In the evolution of the political organization of the Athenians, Romans, and Germans, there is not enough evidence of the existence of chiefdoms. In this sense, the chiefdom system should again be seen as a type of development of human political organization. That is to say, China is a representative of the evolution of the chiefdom system, which is different from the era when Greek, Roman, German and other countries entered the state through tribal alliances.
The state formed by the clan model, at least initially, tended to be a democratic mechanism of political operation. For example, the athens and the Roman state were originally democratic republics. For the chiefdom model, the state it produces is the opposite in the initial development, and is more inclined to form an authoritarian political operation mechanism.