A 'concept' of Statehood is essential; in a Democracy, such a concept is 'real'.

A concept of 'Statehood' is essential for the sole purpose of 'governing'. A Democratic concept of the State is entirely dependent on the People at the Bottom of the governmental Structure, or Form. In an Autocratic concept, the Top of Government or the Form of the government, is not dependent on its People. Evidently, it is assumed, or presumed, to have 'existed' before the People enter the concept of, what 'constitutes Government'. In other words, the existence of the concept seems to be separate from the People it governs, and hence, may have had an 'existence', even before, the existence of any particular Autocratic government. Hence, in an Autocracy, the Government, or concept of the State, is more important than the People. In a Democratic form of Government, it cannot be said, that a Democratic form of Government can exist, separate from the People it Governs. If there are no People, who needs Government, and how can a Democratic form of Government, be said to exist, as a 'self sustained' form of Government, when there are no People to Govern. The people are essential to Democracy and the Democratic form of Government is essential to the People. One cannot have a 'chicken without an egg', or, an 'egg without a chicken'. The issue is from where does an Autocracy gets its 'authority' to Govern. Historically, the 'Divine Right of Kings' form of rule, purportedly, got its authority to govern from some Divine source. But, that theory doesn't work anymore. That failing, how can we justify the existence of the Autocratic Form of Government, and from where does it get its authority to Govern? Can it be, that it doesn't have the authority because the People have not given it? 'Real Government' needs permission, from its People, to be 'Governed'. That failing; we're right back to Government by the 'strongest'; and that's not Government, that's 'Rule'; that's 'Autocratic Rule'.