Chapter 3 Wednesday, 5 April 2023 3:06 PM States and Nation Highlights: • The state lies at the heart of government and politics, which is why it is so important to understand its features and evolution. • All states have five defining qualities: government, population, territory, sovereignty and legitimacy. • The modern state was born in Europe, and its form was exported to the rest of world by imperial powers such as Britain, France and Spain. • States differ from one another in terms of their population, their wealth and th reach of their political authority. • A nation is quite different from a state, even if the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, and nations and states often overlap. • The condition of the modern state is debatable. Some argue that states remain strong, some that they are declining, and some that they are simply evolving. Understanding State • The usual benchmark for understanding the state is the classic definition offere by the German sociologist Max Weber, who described it as ‘a human communi that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory’ (quoted in Gerth and Mills, 1948). • There is more to the state than physical force, though, and it is better understo in its modern context, where it can be defined as a legal and political entity wit five main features: a government, population, territory, sovereignty and legitim • As regards the difference between a state and a government, the former is a political community while the latter is the agency that manages the community • Where the government consists of the institutions, rules and processes through which states are governed, the state creates a mandate for rule which the government puts into effect. • Governments come and go, making them concrete but temporary, while states both more abstract and permanent. • What they both have in common is that they have people and territory that are subject to their authority. • When it comes to understanding the nature of that authority, we need to appreciate that states have sovereignty, a concept which the sixteenth-century f the he n ed ity ood th macy y. h s are e y • • • • • • • • • • both more abstract and permanent. What they both have in common is that they have people and territory that are subject to their authority. When it comes to understanding the nature of that authority, we need to appreciate that states have sovereignty, a concept which the sixteenth-century French philosopher Jean Bodin (1530–96) described as the unfettered and undivided power to make laws. The final feature of the state is legitimacy, which builds on, but is broader than idea of authority. When a state is widely accepted by its citizens and by other states with which it deals, we describe it as legitimate. Armed with all these features, states have a variety of roles and responsibilities These include responsibility for 1. law and order 2. the maintenance of internal and external security 3. the management of national economies and trade 4. the adoption and execution of regulations 5. the provision of welfare and infrastructure. True, most of these roles are shaped and influenced by governments and by political leaders with their own agendas, but these roles are all expected of stat no matter who controls the government at any given time. states are responsible for meeting their obligations under international law. Most states are members of a variety of international organizations – such as th United Nations and its multiple specialized agencies – and have also signed a variety of international treaties. They are expected to meet the terms of membership of these organizations an treaties and are legally responsible for any breaches or violations. Origins and Evolution • If a single event can be identified as marking the beginning of the state system, was the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. • This meeting resulted in treaties that brought an end to both the Thirty Years’ W in the Holy Roman Empire and the Eighty Years’ War between Spain and the Du Republic. • It so doing, it made several adjustments to European state borders, gave new definition to the idea of sovereignty and helped make national secular authorit superior to religious edicts from Rome, giving rise to what is often still known a the Westphalian system. • Biden argued that, within society, a single sovereign authority should be responsible for five major functions: law, war and peace, public appointments, judicial appeals and currency. • The sovereign still needed to be subject to limits and controls, though, and here e y n, the t s. tes, he nd , it War utch ty as e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • superior to religious edicts from Rome, giving rise to what is often still known a the Westphalian system. Biden argued that, within society, a single sovereign authority should be responsible for five major functions: law, war and peace, public appointments, judicial appeals and currency. The sovereign still needed to be subject to limits and controls, though, and here the English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) played a vital role. Locke argued that citizens possess natural rights to life, liberty and property, an that these rights should be protected by rulers governing through law. Citizens, he continued, agreed to obey the laws of the land, even if only by tacit means such as accepting the protection provided by law. Should rulers violate t natural rights of citizens, the people have the right to resist (Locke, 1690). The creation by the British of settler colonies (such as the predecessors to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) provide early examples the export of the state idea. The new arrivals ruthlessly supplanted indigenous communities, recreating segments of the European tradition they had brought with them, and – as a result – the political organization of these countries still remains strongly and recognizably Western. Elsewhere, states emerged out of different pressures and with different results Latin America, for example, wars of independence created new states in the period 1810–25, such as Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, but they lacked the liberal basis of their US predecessor. Economically, the second half of the nineteenth century saw the end of an era relatively open trade. Stimulated by economic depressions, many European states introduced protectionist trade policies. National markets gained ground against both local and international exchange, meaning that economies became more subject to regulation by central government. Internally, the functions performed by the state expanded to include education factory regulation, policing and gathering statistics. An important wave of state formation occurred in central Europe and the Midd East around the end of World War I, with the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires. The end of World War II brought another wave of changes. Peace in 1945 did n initially lead to a corresponding reduction in the role of the state, which now focused increasingly on the welfare of its citizens, accepting responsibility for protecting them from illness, unemployment and old age. There were just over 70 sovereign states in existence in 1945, 51 of which were founding members of the United Nations, but its membership roster grew in th wake of independence between 1945 and 1948. • • • • • • • • • • an era of relatively open trade. Stimulated by economic depressions, many European states introduced protectionist trade policies. National markets gained ground against both local and international exchange, meaning that economies became more subject to regulation by central government. Internally, the functions performed by the state expanded to include education, factory regulation, policing and gathering statistics. An important wave of state formation occurred in central Europe and the Middle East around the end of World War I, with the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires. The end of World War II brought another wave of changes. Peace in 1945 did not initially lead to a corresponding reduction in the role of the state, which now focused increasingly on the welfare of its citizens, accepting responsibility for protecting them from illness, unemployment and old age. There were just over 70 sovereign states in existence in 1945, 51 of which were founding members of the United Nations, but its membership roster grew in the wake of independence between 1945 and 1948. between 1945 and 1990 nearly 90 new states – almost half the world’s current total – were created. Unlike European states that had established their borders through war and diplomacy, many of these new states were colonial creations whose imposed borders brought together different ethnic, regional and religious groups that often had to struggle to cooperate with one another. Many experienced civil wars as a result of the challenges they faced in building workable states The most recent wave of state formation came in the final decade of the twentieth century, triggered by the collapse of communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union – in effect, a Russian empire – into 15 successor states. The diversity of States • Among the key markers of their diversity are their population numbers, the different size and structure of their economies, and their contrasting levels of political authority. 1. Population ○ The challenges of governing large states such as China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Pakistan and Brazil are usually much greater than the challenges faced by their smaller neighbours. contrasting levels of political authority. 1. Population ○ The challenges of governing large states such as China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Pakistan and Brazil are usually much greater than the challenges faced by their smaller neighbours. ○ The bigger states will have more cultural, geographical and economic diversity, making it more difficult to develop common policies or to ensure strong links between people and government. ○ Small size, though, is not necessarily a recipe for success. ○ While several European microstates (notably Iceland and Luxembourg) have combined political stability with economic success, many others are both people- and resource-poor; Pacific Island states such as Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands, Nauru and Palau have few people (none has more than 60,000 residents), little in the way of natural resources or economic opportunities, and poor trade and transport connections to the rest of the world. Many barely function as viable political and economic units. 2. Wealth ○ There are 4 categories 1. High income □ This category is dominated by developed economies in Europe, North America, Australia and parts of Asia. 2. Upper middle income □ The upper-middle–income category includes most of the fast-growing new economies; the economic dynamism and large population of some of these states has already sparked a rebalancing of world power away from the developed West. The category includes three of the BRIC countries 3. Lower middle income □ Lower-middle–income countries are found mainly in Africa and Asia. □ Although their economies are changing and growing, their levels of affluence and their global political weight has not always matched that of upper-middle– income states. □ India has long been something of a puzzle: its economy is one of the world’s largest, but it suffered for many years from unmet potential, and the benefits of its economic development have not reached down to the poorest of its citizens. income states. □ India has long been something of a puzzle: its economy is one of the world’s largest, but it suffered for many years from unmet potential, and the benefits of its economic development have not reached down to the poorest of its citizens. □ Core problems included the large role played by the state in the economy and the challenge of dealing with India’s rapid population growth. 4. Low income □ With per capita incomes of less than $1,000 per year (often substantially less), life for the majority of people in these countries remains challenging; □ resources and infrastructure are limited, economies are based mainly on agriculture, and several of these countries – such as those on the margins of the Sahara Desert – suffer handicaps inflicted by nature. 3. Political Authority ○ Even if all states are equally sovereign under international law, they do not necessarily have the same levels of internal cohesion and stability. ○ In some cases, political authority is compromised by the failure of states to win international recognition under the law, or to achieve complete control over their territory. ○ Some of these are what Jackson (1990) calls quasi-states, which he defines as states that won independence from a former colonial power but have since lost control over much of their territory. ○ They are recognized by the international community as having the rights and responsibilities of a state, but they barely exist as a functioning entity. Somalia is a prime example. ○ Others are what Pegg (1998) calls de facto states, meaning that they control territory and have their own governments, but are mainly unrecognized by the international community (and thus have no legal or de jure existence). ○ So while quasi-states are legitimate no matter how ineffective they are, de facto states are illegitimate no matter how effective they are. ○ Key examples include Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Somaliland, Taiwan and The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Understanding Nations ○ Key examples include Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Somaliland, Taiwan and The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Understanding Nations • If a state is a legal and political concept, then a nation is a cultural and historical concept (and it is wrong, strictly speaking, to call a state a nation, as many people do). • Where states exist under law, nations are considered by Anderson (2013) to be ‘imagined communities’ and are often seen as any group that upholds a claim to be regarded as such. • In two ways, though, we can be more precise. 1. First, nations are peoples with homelands. As Eley and Suny (1996) put it, a nation – like a state – implies ‘a claim on a particular piece of real estate'. ○ Second, when a group claims to be a nation, it usually claims a right to self-determination within its homeland. ○ It seeks sovereignty over its land, exploiting or inventing a shared culture to justify its claim. ○ This assertion of self-rule (not to be confused with democratic rule) gives the nation its political character. ○ A social group becomes a nation by achieving or seeking control over its own destiny, whether through independence or devolution. ○ In turn, a national identity unites people who do not know each other but who, nonetheless, find themselves living together under common rulers and markets. As Langman (2006) puts it, national identity provides a rationalization for participation in war, encouraging people ‘to die for the sake of strangers’. ○ Nations, unlike states, do not necessarily have tidy geographical boundaries, and the two ideas do not always neatly coincide. ○ At one end of the spectrum is the archetypal nation-state, which contains only the people belonging to a single nation (see Wimmer, 2013 ○ Much more usual is a multinational state, in which multiple national groups live under a shared government, a goal that is not always easy to achieve because of concerns by each group that it will be dominated by one of the others or lose out on a fair share of national resources. ○ Less common, but also important in terms of understanding the way that some countries struggle to build national unity, is the division of national groups among several states. that it will be dominated by one of the others or lose out on a fair share of national resources. ○ Less common, but also important in terms of understanding the way that some countries struggle to build national unity, is the division of national groups among several states. ○ The Kurds, for example, live in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and several neighboring states and thus form a stateless nation. ○ Another important effect of nations on states is found in the occurrence of nationalism, which has two different meanings. ○ Originally, and classically, as it was often applied in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it meant that nations had a right to shape their own destiny. ○ Nationalism has also taken on a second and more troubling meaning that goes beyond national identity and association; it describes the more extreme actions that might be taken by nationalist groups as they promote their interests through a combination of assumed superiority and exclusion. ○ For Greenfield (2019), nationalism has been behind every significant development in world affairs for several centuries, ranging from the American and French revolutions of the late 1700s to the communist and fascist movements of the twentieth century, finding a new form in recent decades in several countries as populism ○ For Walt (2019), nationalism is the most powerful force in the world, but one that many people do not understand in spite of its critical role in shaping history for at least the past 500 years. ○ For Mearsheimer (2018), the power of nationalism rests in part on its symbiotic relationship with the state: given increased international competition, states have strong incentives to encourage national unity so that citizens are loyal and more willing to make sacrifices for the state, helping ensure their survival as independent cultural groups and helping create more unified economies and more productive populations. ○ In many countries, nationalism has been encouraged in recent decades by a reaction to globalization and immigration. ○ Critics see them both as threats to national identity and sovereignty, and this criticism has fed into the rise of conservative parties and movements calling for a new kind of self-determination and a reaction against international cooperation. ○ Critics see them both as threats to national identity and sovereignty, and this criticism has fed into the rise of conservative parties and movements calling for a new kind of self-determination and a reaction against international cooperation. ○ These views have often overlapped with xenophobia and nativism, as reflected in the recent and sometimes emotional debate over immigration in parts of the European Union, as well as in South Africa and the United States ○ In most countries, though anti-immigrant sentiment is not as strong as the view that brings strengths and benefits. The future of the State • One school of thought argues that they are as strong as ever. • They still have a monopoly over the control and use of militaries, they are still the key actors in economic production and international trade, their citizens still identify mainly with their home states and are subject to the authority and rules of the state, and the ability of states to respond to new challenges has grown thanks to technological innovation. • Another school of thought argues that the grip of states is weakening, thanks to the many challenges they have faced in achieving internal unity and stability. • Not only had there been a steady expansion of interstate cooperation on a wide range of issues since the end of World War II, diluting the autonomy of states, but globalization appeared to be accelerating; • there was increased economic interdependence, changes in technology and communications, the growth of international markets, the spread of a global culture and the harmonization of public policies in the face of shared or common problems • As if all of this was not enough, the state was coming under increased criticism for its many failures • If globalization and new levels of interstate cooperation are broad signs that states are becoming weaker, the most extreme challenge to the future of individual states lies in the phenomenon of the failed, fragile or failing state (there is no agreement on the best term). • Criticisms of states 1. Imposing unnecessary divisions on human society. 2. Having a history of going to war with each other. 3. Limiting the free movement of people and capital. 4. Imposing limits on trade that handicap innovation and efficiency.
