Society, State and
Nation-State
1 State and Society
2 Nationalism and Nation-State
3 Civil Society
-
State
Though
politics is not defined entirely in terms of the state in modern times, the
state continues to be the central concept in politics. It is a universal and
powerful social institution. Voluntary cooperation as the means of societal
control was in adequate when the complexity of life increased. Not all matters
could be left to social management. The use of coercive force became necessary
to enforce full obedience to at least some definite laws. Social sanctions were
sufficient as long as a hierarchy was recognized and accepted in a tribe or a
clan. Therefore large human communities had to be governed either by brute
force or by establishing authority that is more or less accepted. Kinship
bonds, religion, economic power, force, consent and other instrumentalities
that came handy were used to evolve an authority that could demand and obtain
obedience from the people. Thus society was politically organized and was
vested with a monopoly of final coercive power and state emerged.
State
fulfilled mainly a single purpose, namely the enforcement of the law. The area
of state action is thus limited. State served the individual mainly in respect
of providing security of person and property. The state provided the atmosphere
within which all other social institutions and agencies functioned peacefully.
In its narrow sphere the state was supreme though society which was pluralistic
had wider sphere of activities.
Definitions:
Definitions
of state varied according to the functions fulfilled by the state at various
times.
For
the Greeks there was no distinction
between state and society. Aristotle defined state as “a union of families and
villages, having for its end, a perfect and self-sufficing life, by which we
mean, a happy and honourable life.”
The
Roman jurist Cicero defined state as
“a numerous society, united by a common sense of right and a mutual
participation in advantages.”
The
concept of state is comparatively modern and owes its origin to Machiavelli who expressed this idea as
the power which has authority over men.
According
to Bodin, “The state is an
association of families and their common possessions governed by the supreme
power and by reason.”
Harold Laski
defined the state identifying its essential elements. According to him, “the
state is a territorial society, divided into government and subjects claiming
within its allotted physical area, a supremacy over all other institutions.”
Garner
has defined the state as, “a community of person, more or less numerous,
permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent or nearly so
of external control and possessing an organized government to which the great
body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.”
Max Weber
sought to evolve a sociological definition of state. According to him state is
a human community that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical
force within a given territory.
Essential elements of state:
In
the light of the various definitions of the state, it is customary to identify
the state by its constituent elements which include: Population, Territory,
Government and Sovereignty.
1) Population:
The
state is a human institution. The population is, therefore, an essential
element of the state. However, the population can constitute a state only when
it is united by the conditions of interdependence, consciousness of common
interest and general regard for a set of common rules of behaviour and
institutions.
The
size of population of a state cannot be fixed and there is no unanimity of
opinion in this regard. Plato considered that an ideal state should have a
population of 5040. Aristotle believed that the population of a state should be
large enough to be self-sufficing and small enough to be well-governed. For
Rousseau 1000 was the ideal figure for a state. However these traditional view
do not hold good in the context of modern states. As there big states like
Russia and India and there are small states like Monaco and San Marino.
In
addition to the size of the population the quality of the population inhabiting
the state is also equally important. Aristotle maintained that a good citizen
makes a good state and a bad citizen makes a bad state.
The
population of a state need not belong to a single race, religion, language or
culture. A homogeneous population is no longer considered as essential feature
of the modern state. The modern state claims to reconcile the interests of
various groups of its citizens.
2) Territory:
Territory
is another important element of a state. Other associations either exist within
states or they extend their sphere to several states; they do not need separate
territory. But the state must possess a territory where its authority is
accepted without dispute or challenge.
A
state comes into existence only when its population is settled in a fixed
territory. Friedrich Engels, in his Origin of the Family, Private Property and
the state (1884), notes that the formation of the state is accompanied by a
division of population according to territory. The territory of the state
includes land, water and air-space within its boundary. It also extends to a
distance of 3 miles into the sea form its coast, and is known as territorial
waters.
Territory
symbolizes the sphere of sovereignty of the state. Territory provides for a
sense of security and immense opportunities for a fuller life for its residents.
It is an object of sentimental attachment- people love and worship their
motherland and ready to make ant sacrifices for tis protection.
3) Government:
Government
is another essential element of the state. According to J W Garner (Political
Science Government:1928), ‘government is the agency or machinery through which
common policies are determined and by which common affairs are regulated and
common interests promoted.’ If the state represents an abstract concept,
government is its concrete form.
In
other words, authority of the state is exercised by government; functions of
the state are performed by the government.
Government functions through its core three braches i.e. Legislature,
executive and Judiciary. Laws of the state are made, declared and enforced by
government. Government is responsible for the maintenance of law and order and
for the provision of common services- defence, roads, bridges, communication,
health and education etc. without government, the people are a chaotic mass of
disjointed particles, without common aims, common interests or a common
organization. However, government and state should not be treated as
co-terminous. Government may rise or fall without disturbing the identity of
the state.
4) Sovereignty:
Sovereignty
denotes the supreme or ultimate power of the state to make laws or to take
political decisions- establishing public goals, fixing priorities and resolving
conflicts- as also enforcing such laws and decisions by the use of legitimate
force. In fact, sovereignty denotes the final authority of the state over its
population and its territory. This authority may be exercised by the government
of the day, but it essentially belongs to the state from which it is derived by
the government.
It
is by virtue of its sovereignty that a state declares-through the agency of the
government- its laws and decisions and issues commands which are binding on all
citizens, claims obedience thereto, and punishes the offenders. This aspect of
sovereignty is called as internal sovereignty. It means that the state is
supreme in all its internal matters. It exercises supremacy over all the
institutions and people of the state.
On
the other hand state is also independent in the international sphere while
maintaining diplomatic and international relations with other states. It cannot
be forced or controlled by any other state in its external affairs. This aspect
of sovereignty is known as external sovereignty.
A
state continues to exist as long as it is armed with sovereignty. If a state
loses its sovereignty because of internal revolt or external aggression, the
result is anarchy and disappearance of the state as such. Some writers regard
international recognition as an essential element of the state. This denotes
formal recognition of the sovereignty of the state over a given territory and
population by other states
Nature of the state:
The
state possesses the power to enforce its norms on all those who live within its
boundaries. These norms are the law. Membership of the state is compulsory.
While other associations are voluntary in various degrees, an individual cannot
exempt himself from the membership of a state and conformity to its laws.
Legally, an individual has no choice but to obey the laws of the state. The
state is truly an instrument to regulate human life.
The
power of the state is not exerted by sheer arbitrary force. It is used to
achieve certain ends. These ends give validity to the laws or contribute to
their acceptance by the large body of inhabitants. This makes it easy for the
state to enforce its will. The state is not purely a legal order. It has also a
philosophical basis to justify itself.
The
authority of the state rests on the ability of the state to satisfy the demands
made on it by its people. The people may desire security of person and
property, freedom to worship in particular ways, some rights such as freedom of
expression and in general the freedom to pursue happiness as they conceive
it. If a state is proved incapable of
satisfying these demands it loses its credibility.
Laws
of a state are the response to the effective demands on the state, the needs of
those who have the means and will to take their demands to the center of
political power. The state always contracts a large number of competing demands
and is therefore under pressure to choose some and drop others while
translating them into policy decisions.
State and Society (Comparative
Analysis):
Society
is defined as a “Collection of individuals held together by certain enduring
relationships in pursuance of common ends.” On the other hand, the state is
defined as, “a particular portion of society politically organized for the
protection and promotion of its common interests.” The state is necessarily a
political organization but society is not.
Society
regulates all forms of social conduct but state can regulate only the external
relationships of the people.
The
state derives its strength mainly from law but society from traditions, customs
and conventions.
The
state possesses the power of coercion. If a person violates the law the state,
he is punished according to law. However, society does not enjoy the power of
coercion. There may be no physical punishment even if the rules of society are
violated. The only basis of the authority of society is social customs,
conventions and morality. The weapon use by the society is persuasion and
coercion.
The
state is a territorial organization. Its territory is well defined. However
society is not limited to any geographical area. The Jews, the Christians the
Muslims and the Hindus are spread all over the world. There is no territorial
limitation on society. Moreover even within a state, there may different
societies.
The
membership of a state is compulsory while the membership of a society may be
voluntary.
Society
has a wider scope than the state. The aim of society is to develop all aspects
of human life, but the state is concerned mainly with the political relations
of man.
Society
came into existence prior to the state. From the very beginning man has lived
in society. Society began with the birth of man on earth. Society is
instinctive to man because he cannot live in isolation. Aristotle rightly says
that man is a social animal by nature and necessity. However, the state is the
creation of will and reason. It is man’s political consciousness which brought
the state in society.
State
is sovereign but the society is not. Without sovereignty, there can be no
state. State has the supreme power to command and nobody can challenge its
authority. Society does not necessarily possess any sovereign power and cannot
punish those who disobey it rules. Society can put only moral pressure.
State
controls only the external activities of man whereas society controls both
internal and external activities. State has to act through law which can
regulate only the external actions of man. It cannot control his thoughts.
Society is concerned both with internal and external activities of man.
The
rules and laws of the state are clear and definite as those are enacted by the
legislature, but the rules and principles of society are based on customs,
traditions and conventions of the people and hence are not clear and definite.
Thus
although both the terms are different from each other they are connected and
inter-dependent. Social conduct must conform to the way of life prescribed by
the laws of the state, but the state must not trespass into the sphere not
assigned to it. Barker concludes, “State and Society have the same moral
purpose. They blend and borrow from each other.”
Nation
The
term nation is derived from the Latin word ‘Natio’ which means birth or race. A
nation is a people descended from a common stock. It means a people brought
together by the ties of blood relationship.
According
to Burgess, a nation is a “Population of an ethnic unity inhabiting a territory
of a geographic unity.”
Lord
Bryce defines a nation thus: “A nation is a nationality which has organized
itself into a political body, either independent or desiring to be
independent.”
The
view of Prof. Hayes is that, “a nationality by acquiring unity and sovereign
independence becomes a nation.”
Dr.
Garner says,” A nation is a culturally homogeneous social group which is at
once conscious and tenacious of its unity of psychic life and expression.”
E
H Carr says, “the term nation has been used to denote a human group with the
following characteristics:
a)
the idea of a common government whether as a reality in the present or past, or
as inspiration of the future.
b)
a certain size and closeness of contact between all its individual members.
c)
A more or less defined territory.
d)
Certain characteristics (of which the most frequent is language) clearly
distinguishing the nation from other nations.
e)
Certain interests common to the individual members.
f)
A certain degree of common feeling or will, associated with a picture of the nation
in the minds of the individual members.”
What
makes a group of people a nation is not necessarily a community of race,
language or religion, but the sentiment of consciousness or like-mindedness.
Nationality:
Nationality
is a collective name given to that complex of psychological and cultural
factors which furnish cohesive principle uniting a nation. Nationality is a
sentiment of ‘oneness’ that unites the people of a particular kind and thus
differentiates them from others who do not share similar feelings and
sentiments.
The
word nationality is used in three different senses.
1)
It refers to the legal status of citizenship of a particular state. That is
nationality of a person refers to his status as a citizen of the country which
he belongs to. E.g. Indian, American etc
2)
Nationality means a group of people having their distinct identity within a
particular nation. E.g. there were many nationalities as Byelorussians,
Ukrainians and Uzbeks etc.in the former USSR. In India also Kashmiris are
identifying themselves as a separate nationality although they still do not
have a separate state of their own.
3)
Nationality signifies a particular kind of feeling and sentiments that bind a
people and differentiate them from the people of other nationality.
Zimmern
writes,
“Nationality, like religion is subjective,
statehood is political;
Nationality
is a condition of mind, statehood is a condition in law;
Nationality
is a spiritual possession, statehood is an enforceable obligation;
Nationality
is a way of feeling, thinking and living, statehood is a condition inseparable
from all civilized ways of living.”
Thus the sentiment of nationality
makes a nation and the establishment of self-rule by the people of one
particular nationality makes their Nation-state
Nationalism:
Nationalism
means a special spirit of oneness, or common consciousness or unity among the
people founded on political, historical, racial, religious, linguistic,
psychological, emotional and other factors
in a state.
Nationalism
is also defined as, “a force, which holds a community in defined territory
together, for the maintenance of its rights against arbitrary powers within the
state and preservation of its independence against aggression from without.”
Nationalism
implies burning love for one’s own nation or country. People love and worship
their nation in the same way as they do in the religious field. The county is
always addressed as ‘motherland’. Thus nationalism is idealised and idolised.
Factors promoting and creating
Nationalism:
1) Common Residence or Geographical
Factors:
Geographical
unity or naturally defined territory is one of the most powerful factors that
create, promote and sustain national feelings among people inhabiting a common
land often described as homeland or motherland. The two wings of Pakistan created
in 1947 could not remain together and in 1971, the people of East Pakistan
revolted and ultimately the new state of Bangladesh came into existence. The
people who inhabit a common territory for a long time naturally cherish common
traditions and cultures and start loving their motherland. However centuries
ago the Jews ran away from their motherland, Palestine, when they were attacked
by the Arabs. They dispersed themselves in various parts of Europe and
continued their separate feeling of nationalism. Ultimately they succeeded in
having in 1948 a new state of Israel.
2) Common Race:
Common
race is also a great unifying force. Blood relationship brings people together.
Blood is always thicker than water. People having common ancestors are
unconsciously brought together. There is an inner force that unites their
hearts. Thus a common race is helpful for the growth of the sentiment of
nationalism. However modern nation-states are example of confluence of multiple
races e.g. USA, Canada, and Switzerland etc. Experiences show that different
nationalities have come into existence in spite of the lack of racial unity.
3) Common Language:
A
common language is a great unifying force. The people speaking the same
language have more chances of understanding one another and acting together.
According to Joseph, a common language enables people to i) project common
ideas, ideals, sentiments and feelings, ii) set up common standards of
morality, manners and justice, iii) conserve historical traditions and iv)
generate a common psychology.
However
despite diversity of languages in USA and Canada the national feeling is high
in these countries. Whereas diversity of languages ia a major obstacle in
generate a unifying Indian Nationalism.
4) Common historical Traditions:
The
most significant and indispensible factor that vitalizes national feeling among
people is the common historical traditions. In the words of Ramsay Muir it
includes, Memory of sufferings endured, Victories won in common, Expressed in
songs and legends, National memory enshrined in heroic achievements, agonies
historically endured and sentiments attached with sacred places. These all
nourish the spirit of nationalism and are the soul of it.
5) Common Political Aspirations:
It
also plays a prominent role in promoting the feeling of nationalism. In such a
case a common nationality grows in spite of differences of language, caste,
creed and culture. The people living under foreign yoke develop a sentiment of
nationalism. They come together and organize themselves to fight for their
freedom. It was this factor which fostered feeling of nationalism in India,
Africa and Asia. National feelings also grew in Germany, Austria-Hungary and
Italy against Napoleon.
6) Common Religion:
Religion
has played a very important role in creating, promoting and sustaining national
spirit. During, middle ages crusade have been fought between Christians and
Muslims. Among the Jews, the Japanese, The Poles and the Irish religion has
been the mainspring of their national life. The demand for Pakistan was based
on the two nation theory rooted in two different religions. However, most
modern states today tolerate all religions because faith has today become a
personal affair.
Nation-State:
The
theory of “One Nation, One State” became popular after the World War I and many
new states were created on the principle of self-determination. The term nation
and state began to be used as synonymous. It is desirable that we should not
identify nation with the state as the two terms are distinct.
The
essential elements of the state are population, territory, government and
sovereignty. Wherever these are present, there is a state. It is not necessary
that the people living within the state must have a feeling of oneness. On the
contrary the term nation refers to a feeling of unity among the people. It is
necessary for a state to be independent. There can be no state without
sovereignty. In case of a nation, it is not essential that the people concerned
must be independent. It is enough if they are determined to have an independent
state of their own in future.
The
modern state usually takes the form of a nation-state. The frontiers of the
state are called national frontiers; the interest of the state is described as
national interest. Relations between different states are known as
international relations. A nation-state grows on a much wider base. It refers to people living in a defined territory,
inspired by a sense of unity, common political aspirations, common interests, common
history and common destiny. People of different races, with different
religions, languages and cultures, etc. may live together and feel united as
citizens of the same state, owing their undivided allegiance to the state. Thus, nationhood transcends the conditions of
birth and extends to the permanent residents of a state. Members of a nation of
course distinguish themselves from other nations. They may sometimes be
prejudiced against other peoples. Yet a logical outcome of the idea of a nation
postulates equality among nations, their co-existence and cooperation.
Principle of National Self-determination:
Since
1920, the principle of national self-determination has been almost universally
accepted which has led to the establishment of nation-states and rapid
development of international law to regulate relations between nation-states.
National self-determination is the principle that each nation has the right to
be independent and to choose a suitable form of government for itself. The
congress of Vienna (1815) after the battle of waterloo gave recognition to this
principle for the first time.
At
the end of the First World War (1914-18), Woodrow Wilson conceived of it
primarily as a criterion for the break-up of the empires defeated in the war,
i.e. Austro-Hungarian, German and Ottoman empires which redrew the map of Europe.
In Wilson’s view, “Self-determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative
principle of action, which statesmen will, henceforth, ignore at their peril.”
Lord Bryce and J S Mill are also some other exponents of the same principle. Around
this time, V I Lenin conceived of this principle essentially as the ground for
granting independence to the dependent nations from colonial and imperial
domination. After the Second World War (1939-45), the United Nations upheld
this principle through various international documents. Thus many nations
emerged in Asia, Africa and Latin America. However they are faced today with
the gigantic task of nation-building. Most of them evolved a national sentiment
during their struggle for independence, but disruptive tendencies started to
emerge after they achieved their independence.
Civil Society:
In
contemporary discourse, the term ‘civil society’ is used in two senses. In one
sense, civil society comprises the social institutions like school, church and
peer groups of citizens which serve as structures of legitimation of the state.
These institutions largely lend support to the state. This view of civil
society corresponds to Gramsci’s view of its role in sustaining the capitalist
system.
In
the second sense, civil society stands for a set of public interest
organisations set up by some conscious citizens which make various demands on
the state or launch social movements to mobilise ordinary citizens on the way
to social reform. The state must respond promptly to their demands in order to
ensure smooth functioning of society. The role of civil society in this sense
has assumed special significance in recent years.
Present
day concept of civil society closely corresponds to Tocqueville’s view on the
role of ‘intermediate voluntary associations’. With the emergence of democracy,
old centers of power were destroyed. Power was now concentrated in the hands of
majority. This led to the danger of tyranny of majority. In order to protect
the freedom of citizens, Tocqueville suggested a vigorous system of voluntary associations
could act as counterweights to the state power. They could crystalise and
publicise opinions and interests which would otherwise go unheard. Moreover,
these associations could stimulate collective self-help rather than reliance on
state initiative. They could draw people into cooperative ventures, breaking
down their social isolation and making them aware of their wider social
responsibility. They could function as ‘schools of democracy’, instilling
habits of civic virtue and public spirit into their members. In short, these
associations would serve as an effective instrument of defence of individual
liberty and close cooperation between the citizens to solve their common
problems. Tocqueville was an ardent champion of freedom of association.
Civil
Society is now regarded as an important organ of democratic society. It
includes a wide range of associations and social movements which provide ample
opportunities to the citizens to develop their capacities and express their
varying interest and diverse identities. It creates an atmosphere where the
citizens are able to enjoy some level of autonomy or independence from
government control or influence. It promotes a moral sense of obligation among
the citizens and motivates them to participate in civic causes. It discourages
their dependence on the government for the solution of their common problems.
Thus t serves as the true sense of democratization.
In
recent political discourse, the concept of civil society has been further
refines. Jean L Cohen and Andrew Arato, in their essay civil society and
political theory(1992), have defined civil society as an area of public
activity distinct from both the state and the market. Paul Hirst, a British
academic, has visualized civil society as a set of voluntary associations which
would be the primary base of democracy. He has evolved a model of democracy in
which self-governing associations would perform public functions. Robert
Putnam, an American Social scientist, has suggested that the associations of
civil society can create ‘social capital’ i.e. a set of social practices which
involve civic engagement and ideas of reciprocity.
It
is now increasingly realized that the civil society can prove to be an
effective instrument to counter the citizens’ indifference toward their civic
duties. Today the people seldom participate in political discussion; they are
hardly interested in criticism of the government. Under the circumstances,
civil society movement can motivate them to take active interest in public
affairs and freely articulate their opinions. This will strengthen democracy.
It would prove to be an effective instrument of removing economic inequalities
and securing social justice.
