The State

THE STATE

IT HAS A CAPACITY TO ENSURE ITS LAWS ARE OBEYED AND THE ABILITY TO PUNISH TRANSGRESSORS.

This article defines the ‘state’ and examines political ideologies to demonstrate how the ‘state’ plays a part within the values it espouses. It then goes on to link the concept of state with political thought and examines the current argument and debates whether the ‘state’ is the central concept to political thought.

The state is perceived in many diverse ways, some of which are an idealist, functional and organisational perspective.[1] Firstly, the idealist perspective has been reflected through the writings of Hegel, he identifies three moments of social existence: The family, civil society and the state. Hegel conceived the state as an ‘ethical community underpinned by mutual sympathy’ – ‘universal altruism’.[2] The criticism this idealistic perspective receives is by defining the state in ethical terms, it fails to differentiate effectively the institutions that form the state and those that are outside the state.

Secondly, the functionalist perspective of the state is centred on maintenance of social order. The state is perceived as an association of institutions, which uphold order and provide stability. The criticism of this perspective is that it tends to associate any institution that maintains order, for example, the family, the church, universities and mass media, part of the state. This can be problematic because it merges the state with society and dissolves the public/private divide. Without the existence of a private sphere outside of politics, people will find themselves at the mercy of a totalitarian state.

Thirdly, the organisational perspective is a set of institutions, which serve public interest that are responsible for collective organisation of social existence and funded by taxpayers money. In this theory, the state compromises of institutions such as the bureaucracy, police, military, courts, health service and social security system. They all come together to represent the entire ‘body politic’. The organisational view of the state, accommodates a view where the role of the state can be increased or decreased, often referred to as ‘rolling forward or rolling back the state’ by controlling through it institutional machinery.[3]

There is no specific model, which characterises all states. The differing historical experience of each state shapes the attitude it espouses, which in effect reflects the dissimilar perceptions and practices of each state. However, states do share some common features. The state is sovereign, in that it has absolute authority over its institutions and civil society. Secondly, state institutions serve a public role. They make and enforce collective decisions. Thirdly, the state acts in public interest and for the common good, ideally, a state reflects the interest of society and in return, it demands political obligation. Fourthly, the state’s authority is backed by coercion. It has a capacity to ensure its laws are obeyed and the ability to punish transgressors. Max Webber suggested in ‘Politics as a Vocation’, that: ‘…the state is a human community that claims the monopoly of legitimate use of physical force within given territory’ [4]. Finally, every state has a geographical territory and everything within those borders, citizens or non-citizen’s fall under its jurisdiction.

The state is a permanent entity, which comprises of all the institutions. It is important to differentiate between state and government. The government is the means by which the state exercises its authority. The government has been described as the state’s brain, implementing its policies. The state’s objective is the permanent interest of society and its long-term prosperity. Whereas, the government are, a temporary governing body, which reflects its ideological beliefs.

The concept of the ‘state’ derives from the writings of social contract theorists. These thinkers argued the state was a product of voluntary agreement made by individuals who recognised that only the establishment of a sovereign power could safeguard them from insecurity, disorder and brutality within the ‘state of nature’.[5] Hobbes held the state power should be unlimited. It is arguable, that Hobbes’s theory implies a near absolute state. Why would anyone give so much power to one body? There is a fear of attack within the state of nature, but from people of relatively equal strength, in contrast, an attack from the state has immense power. Locke however, stood opposed to an absolutist state and believed its power should be limited by men’s natural rights. Rousseau believed the state should be controlled to recognise the ‘General Will’.[6] There is no definite conclusion to be drawn about the nature of the state and its power from the writing of these contract theorists. However, Locke’s theory, which was concerned with security of life, liberty and property distinguished the state from civil society, thus creating a public/private divide.[7]

Mainstream political analysis is occupied by the liberal theory of the state. The pluralist concept, contends the state plays the part of a neutral arbiter amongst competing groups and individuals in society; and is therefore an ‘umpire’ or ‘referee’, capable of protecting citizens from encroachment of other citizens. The ‘nightwatchman’ state maintains the idea that the individual should enjoy the greatest possible liberty, which calls for the state to be confined to a minimal role, because state intervention is seen to impede the individual pursuit of one’s own interest.[8] Thus, the central function of the ‘minimal’ or ‘nightwatchman state’ is the maintenance of domestic order. It maintains order by providing the protection to the citizens from one another, through the police. Secondly, it ensures that voluntary agreements are respected, through a court system and finally the state provides its security from any foreign invasion through armed service. The state as neutral arbiter, diminishes it, as a value judgement in political thought because, the state in its neutral form can be bent to the will of the government of the day.

Marxism offers a challenging analysis of the state, to which most anarchists would adhere in attitude. The idea of the state as a neutral arbiter, is dismissed on the premise of the state as an oppressor. The state emerges out of the class system, the primary function of the state is to defend and maintain class domination and exploitation. The Marxist view is encapsulated in The Communist Manifesto, which asserts: ‘…the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie…’ [9] This was declared more openly by Lenin, who suggested the state was: ‘an instrument for the oppression of the exploited class’ [10] Nevertheless, Marx did not regard the state as unnecessary. He argued that the state was a capitalist one, and destruction of the bourgeois state would be constructively replaced with a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat state, during the transition between capitalism to communism.

The conservative, alternatively conceives the state as an integrated organism, an established plot of system inherited from forefathers. They contend the radical reform or remodelling of the state, will break the chain of continuity and thus break the ethos of conserving the state. For the conservative maintaining, a prudent defence of hierarchy and traditional order of the state provides certainty through wisdom that has been built through the ages.[11] The concept of the state for conservative captures, the ideal of sentiment and traditionalism. The state maintains absolutist authority, for its own holistic interest far above the interests of individuals.[12]

Linking the concept of the state with political thought helps grasp the relationship they have with one another. Each can be better understood when analysed in relation to a conceptual partner. Although, pairing the state with political thought creates a ‘contentious triad of contestable concepts’, and it is held the conceptual importance of the state is a debatable one. [13] Immediately the question arises, How is the state a controversial concept?

A reactionary response would be to challenge this question, considering the spectrum of classical political thought has best been understood in regards to the state. For example, a liberal would like the state’s power limited; a Marxist wants the state to be absolved by society. The anarchist would like the state eliminated, while the conservatives worship its sovereign acts of force. Thus, how can it be conceivable to question the importance of the state in political theory? Even the political thought of authoritarians and anarchists contend the state is central in understanding politics.

In spite of that, a feature of post-war political thought has been a disinterest in the state, as a utility of theoretical concept and a dismissal of its importance. Anti-statism existed prior to the Second World War, however, was not dominant and it was held the study of politics began and ended with the state. One of the reasons the state’s significance is now questioned is because the state is ‘considered just one government amongst many’ and that the ‘state’ is challenged for conceptual supremacy by the ‘government’ or even the ‘political system’ or just ‘politics’.[14] Although, nothing seems to suggest that these concepts used in preference to the state, will be any less challenged.

Decline of the states conceptual central character has been described by Jessop as ‘hollowing out’.[15] The reducing relevance of the state, and its decline in interest can be blamed on the discounting of state mechanisms. The function of state has reduced significantly and transferred to other institutions, in doing so, it has rapidly dismantled its identity. This is illustrated through globalisation, privatisation and localisation of the state.

Globalisation, is seen through the example of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, it demonstrates how the states’ social control through sovereignty is reduced, because decisions are made by European Institution rather than member states. It can be argued this is not a challenge to the state, but a transition towards a single European state. Secondly, privatisation, demonstrates that the state selling off, public functioning bodies to ‘Private Institutions’ can be seen as transferring its responsibility and reducing its role. In the United Kingdom, this is demonstrated in the state selling off public functional bodies such as British Telecom, British Gas, and the transport systems. Thirdly, localism sees the transferring of national responsibilities to a local community level. The United Kingdom in recent years has become centralised and this has led to demands for its decentralisation.

The question now arises whether contemporary political thought will profit from the state as a concept, which has been regarded so significant in classical political thought. Significance of a state theory is arguable because it is regarded as narrow, limiting in that politics is more profitably identified as occurring in a network of social relationships.[16] The state reflects and addresses only a limited degree of politics, one, which is complex with overlapping ideals and that, uses political practice as well as political thought. Does the state deserve status on this basis? Many who have argued the state holds no special significance also takes the stance political theory ought to be divorced with political practice. Analysing politics at first hand poses the problem of importing its practical conflicts and confusions into the realm of theory.

The importance of the state is seen in classical political theory as an important concept, which was used to tackle practical problems. For example: In Plato’s Republic, the political philosopher attempted to relieve society’s, inflictions and miseries through the restructuring of society into a different kind of state, called the ‘polis’. For Plato problems were so deeply rooted in society that only an institution such as the state could resolve these problems. Hobbes contented that a ‘Leviathan’ was needed to tackle, ‘the state of nature’. Humans in a brutish, chaotic and disorderly condition could only be saved by a sovereign state that demanded creation to manage order.[17] Classical political thought was preoccupied around, what modern theorist has defined the state. The concept of the state was brought into existence to address, the unsatisfactory social condition, which existed. Contemporary theorists, who see its significant role, have also stressed the importance of the concept of state in political theory.

A New Left writer, Ralph Miliband condemns the lack of conceptual interest of state in post-war theory and assigned this ‘remarkable paradox’ to the satisfaction of the consensus liberals[18]. Norman Barry a new right analyst has found the lack of literature on the state surprising and prescribes, that arguments about the state cannot comprehend without reference to ‘evaluate political principles in general’[19].

We have seen how the state has conceptual importance in political thought and this is seen through historical and contemporary theories. For example, Norzick’s ‘minimal liberal polity (1974), is disassociated with Fydor Burlatksy’s Soviet Political System (1978), although both theorist’s structure, their theory around some notion, of the state. This is historically demonstrated where classic liberals and Marxist both agreed on the conceptual importance of state sovereignty, but they both radically, took a different stance in relation to the class structure within it. It is observed political theories have been united by common adherence to evaluate tradition. Although, whether the state can be used in evaluate tradition in contemporary political thought is arguable.

Challenging the state as a central concept of political thought, Easton[20] has prescribed to the view, the state, as we know it was non-existent before the sixteenth century, and the state is a historical, ideological tool, which was used to justify the policies of absolute monarch. It makes sense then to suggest, the state existed before the sixteenth century, however, not in a form, which conforms to our modern definitions.

Although, the Greek ‘polis’, Roman republic and the medieval kingdom differ from the ‘state’ as we know today, they shared a sovereign institution, which exercised power over its territory. The term ‘state’ describes a unified and absolutist rule, draw together under one single sovereign body. The modern state conforms precisely to the general definition of the state as an ‘institution monopolising legitimate force’, but it does not follow from this that institutions concentrating power in a less unified way, or with less clearly distinguished public/private realms, are not states. Max Weber says, the concept of the state: ‘…has only in modern times reached its full development’.[21] Nevertheless, the less developed institutions still had sovereignty, and invested legitimate force in the hand of rulers who exercised power over their subjects. Therefore, the argument that the state did not exist before the modern period can be seen as unsound.

It is further argued if ‘statists’ centre politics on the state then what do we say of the stateless society, such as a tribal civilization where no institutions exist. Are they beyond the scope of political study, along with other stateless societies? Absolutely, is what Raphael contends[22]. One can defend the state centred theory of politics by arguing stateless societies are of no interest in political thought, and that only civilised and sophisticated society need be given attention.   Raphael in disregarding the stateless society is content. Hegel has pointed out the state has created its history and development through ‘the very progress through its own being’.[23] If the stateless societies are of no interest in political thought, then how can we justify Classical concerned around the emergence and origin of the ‘state’?

Claiming the state is the central concept of political thought highlights the very fact that we are wrestling with an institution of a very problematic and peculiar type, whose role has changed through history. The more we broaden the historical and social context in which we analyse the state, the ‘more distorted it actually becomes’.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vincent, Andrew, Theories of the State, 1987, Oxford: Basil Blackwell

Barry, N., An introduction to Modern Political Theory, 1981, London: Macmillan,

Bentley, A., The Process of Government, 1976, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, Harvard University Press

Connolly, William, Legitimacy and the State, 1984, New York: New York University Press

Dawson, R.E. and Prewitt, K., Political Socialization: An analytic study, 1969, Boston: Little, Brown & Co

Dahl, Robert, Modern Political Analysis, 3rd edn., 1976, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Easton, D., The political System, 1953, New York: Alfred Knopf

Gamble, Andrew, An introduction to Modern Social and Political Thought, 1981, London: Macmillan Press

Goodwin, Barbara, Using Political ideas, 4th ed., 1997, Chinchester: John Wiley & Sons

Hegel, G., The Philosophy of History, 1956, New York: Dover

Heywood, Andrew, Politics, 1997, London: Macmillan Press

Heywood, Andrew, Political Ideas and Concepts: An Introduction, 1994,London: Macmillan Press

Hoffman, J., State, Power and Democracy, 1998, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books

Lenin, V., I., The State and Revolution, 1973, Beijing: Foreign Languages Press

Marx, K., and Engels, E., The communist Manifesto, 1976 Harmondsworth: Penguin

Milband, R. The State in Capitalist Society, 1973, London: Quartet

Mellor, R., Nation State and Territory, 1991, London: Routledge

Raphael, D.,D., Problems of Political Philosophy, rev. edn., 1976,  London: Macmillan

Rosen, Michael, & Wolff, Jonathan, Political Thought, 1999, Oxford: OUP

Webber, M, Politics as a Vocation, From Mark Webber: Essays in Sociology. Trans and ed., Garth and Wright Mills, 1948, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Weber, M., The Theory of social and Economic Organisation, 1964, London: Collier Macmillan

FOOTNOTES

[1] Heywood, Andrew, Politics, 1997,London: Macmillan Press p. 84

[2] Hegel, G. W. F., cited in Heywood, Andrew, Politics, 1997,London: Macmillan Press p. 84

[3] Ibid., p.85

[4] Webber, M, Politics as a Vocation, From Mark Webber: Essays in Sociology. Trans and ed., Garth and Wright Mills, 1948, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, p.78

[5] Gaskin J.,C.,A.,  Leviathan, ed., With Introduction, 1996, Oxford: OUP, p. 86-7 (First published 1651) cited in Rosen, Michael, & Wolff, Jonathan, Political Thought, 1999, Oxford: OUP, p. 56

[6] Goodwin, Barbara, Using Political ideas, 4th ed., 1997, Chinchester: John Wiley & Sons, p. 316

[7] Ibid., p. 316

[8] Ibid., p. 316

[9] Marx, K., and Engels, E., The communist Manifesto, 1976, Harmondsworth: Penguin, p.82

[10] Lenin, V., I., The State and Revolution, , 1973, Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, p. 310

[11] Burke, Edmund, in Rosen, Michael, & Wolff, Jonathan, Political Thought, 1999, Oxford: OUP, p 326-328

[12] Goodwin, Barbara, Using Political ideas, 4th ed., 1997, Chinchester: John Wiley & Sons, p. 317

[13] Hoffman, J., State, Power and Democracy, 1998, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books, p.13

[14] Bentley, A., The Process of Government, Cambridge, 1976, Mass.: Belknap, Harvard University Press, p.236; p.300

[15] Jessop, B. State Theory: Putting Capitalist States in Their Place, 1990, Oxford: Polity Press cited in Heywood, Andrew, Politics, 1997,London: Macmillan Press, p. 97

[16] Dahl, Robert, Modern Political Analysis, 3rd edn., 1976, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, p.3

[17] Gaskin J.,C.,A.,  Leviathan, ed., With Introduction, 1996, Oxford: OUP, p. 86-7 (First published 1651) cited in Rosen, Michael, & Wolff, Jonathan, Political Thought, 1999, Oxford: OUP, p. 56

[18] Milband, R. The State in Capitalist Society, 1973, London: Quartet, p. 4

[19] Barry, N., An introduction to Modern Political Theory, 1981, London: Macmillan, p. 46 – 47.

[20] Easton, D., The political System, 1953, New York: Alfred Knopf, p.109

[21] Weber, M., The Theory of social and Economic Organisation, 1964, London: Collier Macmillan, p.156.

[22] Raphael, D.,D., Problems of Political Philosophy, rev. edn., 1976,  London: Macmillan, p.29

[23] Hegel, G., The Philosophy of History, 1956, New York: Dover, p. 61