Do Modern Forms of Administration Undermine the Liberties and Rights Promised by the Modern State - Essay Example

?Do modern forms of administration and discipline undermine the liberties and rights promised by the modern Introduction In the current context of modern state administration, issues on whether these forms of administration undermine the liberties and rights which have long been promised and secured by the modern state have been raised. Various theorists and interest groups have forwarded their analysis on this subject matter. Such discussions and analysis shall be presented in this paper, with ideas mostly revolving around the question of whether or not the modern forms of administration and discipline compromise the liberties and rights promised by the modern state. An initial discussion of what the modern state represents shall be presented, followed by an evaluation of the current forms of administration. A deeper analysis of how these modern forms of administration impact on the modern state shall then be presented. Body The modern state The Montevideo Convention explains that a state is one which possesses the following elements: a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter to government relations. This criterion for statehood was arrived at in 1935 and supported by the world in general. Max Weber presents another conceptualization of the state, one which is derived from the early beginnings of statehood. He defines the state to be “a human continuity that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Weber, 1958, p. 78). Weber’s definition also points out that the state must have the absolute control over the legitimate application of force (New York University, 2002). The concept of legitimacy has not always been easy to define with various actions being carried out by the state in the name of such legitimate authority; however, these actions have not always been technically legitimate. Moreover, for purposes of securing state functions, the components of legitimacy have not been strictly met (New York University, 2002). The use of force which is attributed to the state is therefore not always based on a legitimate exercise of power. This also suggests that a state’s use of force may not always need to be legitimate, for as long as the perceptions of the people are assuaged in terms of the legitimacy of such force (New York University, 2002). Another element of Weber’s concept of the state is on the monopoly by the state on the legitimate exercise of force. This monopoly has always been a source of issue among theorists and scholars because there have been acknowledged instances where non-state actors have legitimately used force (Foucault, 1980). This was seen in instances when force was used by non-state actors like the Irish Republican Army, the Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestine areas, and the exercise of force by the Al-Qaeda in Iraq; these actions are considered by many experts as a legal application of force in response to foreign interference and oppression (New York University, 2002). However, in terms of other perspectives on the use of force, one’s side in the conflict can often make a difference on the judgment made on such force. The bottom line is that it is not clearly apparent that a state actually has a monopoly on the application of force (New York University, 2002). In effect, other scholars have not actively considered the use of the term monopoly in characterizing a state’s application of force. Modern administration Political analysts discuss that the modern state has now a significant control over the practice and use of violence in the country. They echo Max Weber as he expresses that the state’s exclusive right to use force is crucial to its ability to function. These idea for the modern state was not however true during the 16th and 17th century when the concept of the modern state was still being introduced (Hirst, 1997). At that time, small and contentious political entities did not have the right to claim these territories, and on the other hand, other leaders could not also make the same claims. This then saw the French monarchy ceding their control of some of the fortresses to the Huguenots (Hirst, 1997). The Roman Emperor’s power to control the application of force by the lesser leaders within the Empire or to recruit leaders who would support his military power was very much restricted. And yet it is important to note that states were built from wars, and now the state has the authority to make war (Tilly, 1975). This, in nutshell would define the rise of the modern state. “The needs of modern, industrialized war drove the formation of the modern state” (Grygiel, 2011, p. 663). Thereupon, in order for the state to survive, it has to participate in a slow but steady centralization of fiscal management and of military showing of power as a means of exhibiting its power as a modern state. In the current context, the violence has become an exercise exclusive to the political authorities running the state. It has become a tool of control and of managing the citizens and to some extent ensuring the peace and order in the state. There are instances in the management of state functions when external threat has a primacy over state politics (Grygiel, 2011). War manages the state because its main goal is to establish security for its members; in effect, the overall structure of the state adjusts to the overall demands of war. Since not all wars are the same, not all state structures would also likely be the same. The qualities of war and how it unfolds, including the tools it uses and the individuals involved all change with the passage of time. In effect, the qualities of political entities that exist to ensure security are congruent with the type of war they are challenged with. As a result, major shifts in the types of warfare, and in the quality of military forces have caused the related changes in the political processes (Poggi, 1990). Modern administration as threats to liberty and rights The modern nation-state has served to be the most logical example of the argument stated above. Modern war, which has exemplified a need to deploy large armies armed with the latest tools of warfare have triggered the need for the centralization of state functions, as well as the support of state capacity in order to ensure the adequate management of its resources. This called for the need to coordinate capital and coercion to be under the control of the state. The state can only utilize the force needed in order to be victorious in the wars by effectively centralizing resources. With more fiscal capacities, larger armies could be utilized; in turn, the larger the armies, the more destructive the wars. Such show of strength however only served to strengthen nation states by allowing them to use their legitimate place in governance to support both their legitimate and illegitimate actions (Porter, 1994). There seems to be an enormous amount of endowment given to the state to exercise force in its governance, and this often implies a threat to the rights of the citizens to express their grievance or exercise their rights to depose an oppressive state. In reviewing the above representation of violence, it is important to note that violence was originally thought of as part of the democratic processes (Thomson, 1994). Non-state violence was also a dominant feature in the international scene before the 1900s and individuals have also been known to use violence in order to pursue their ends to power and wealth. Current society has distanced itself away from these violent activities with the history of state-building playing a huge role in reducing bloody and violent struggles within society (Thomson, 1994). The practice of violence was also defused to urban militias, private armies, and police armies; as a result, the “authority and control over domestic violence was dispersed, overlapping and democratized” (Thomson, 1994, p. 3). The centralization of control over violence was carried out with the state imposing itself as the only legitimate perpetrator of violence. In effect, the use of violence remains to be a state function, and a necessary part of governance where the peace and order is secured and the non-state actors would not practice violence as a means of expressing their grievances. There is a possible unfavorable impact of the legitimacy in the use of state violence as a tool of governance. It is likened to the crude ‘might is right adage’ which diminishes the negative implications of the violent act as long as it is carried in the name of what is perceived to be right or as long as it is wielded based on the legitimate powers of the state. Regardless of how the application of state force and discipline is perceived by the society, the society which expresses its grievances against the state are still part of the reformist processes which are meant to respond to the needs of society in general (O’Neill, 1986). The bigger question which must be considered is the dynamic and changing relationship of industrialization, law, as well as criminality among laborers in the city and in the urban areas. It is not often convenient to decide whether activities like rioting, poaching, and even machine breaking were part of popular politics of mob activities (O’Neill, 1986). Based on the perspective of the more affluent members of society, these activities were considered crimes, not political activities. These propertied individuals were hard put to consider or imagine a world where political activities could be decided through violence (O’Neill, 1986). However, based on the perspectives of the peasants and urban laborers who were facing unfavorable labor conditions, these activities were their only legitimate recourse to their depressing plight as workers. Such rights are also supported in a major way by the right to strike, as well as the right to speech, and the right to organize in the work place (O’Neill, 1986). The state in this case cannot be considered the exclusive repository of legitimate violent or disruptive acts because it would place a significant restriction on the right of the people to be heard and to seek legitimate recourse for their valid issues. The contrast in this study may be explained with the application of two theories or views: the contractarian and the predatory views of the state (New York University, 2002). Based on the contractarian view of the state, while the establishment of the state may resolve the political issues which people have with each other, it may also cause new issues to emerge between the people and the state. In effect, if control is surrendered over the exercise of violence by the state, then there would be no stopping the state in using violence over the people. There would be no “guard for the guardian” (New York University, 2002, p. 29). One of the unfortunate realities in this case would therefore be based on the fact that the possible solutions to political issues may cause changes in behavior and often reduce their perceived benefits. The contractarian view emphasizes the presence of conflicts in interest which is often apparent from individuals (New York University, 2002). On the other hand, the predatory view emphasizes on the potential issues which may emerge between the state and the people. This view wants to understand which conditions would be ideal for the state to legitimately implement rules and ensure cooperation, or the conditions where it may employ force (New York University, 2002). In effect, the state roles may be based on existing or potential violence. Nevertheless, the exercise of force may be justified based on these conceptual perceptions. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, the modern state is now understood to mean an entity with territory, population, government, and independence. With its governmental processes, it is allowed to exercise violence and other legitimate government activities in order to maintain the stability of the state. The application of violence as an exclusive right of the state is however also a practice which may compromise the rights and liberties of the people – especially those which support free speech, the right to seek redress for their legitimate grievances, their right to organize, as well as their right to strike. The monopoly of violence by the state may also lead to abuses by the state authorities in terms of how they utilize this right in the general performance of their functions. All in all, it is proper to conclude that the modern forms of administration can compromise the liberties and rights which are promised by the modern state. References Foucault, M. 1980. Lecture 14 January 1976. In: Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977; edited by Colin Gordon. London: Harvester Press., pp. 92-108. Grygiel, J. 2011. To Survive, Decentralize: The Barbarian Threat and State Decentralization. Foreign Policy Research Institute, pp. 663-684. Hirst, P. 1997. The international origins of national sovereignty”. In Politics and the ends of identity; edited by Kathryn Dean. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. pp 265-287 Koslowski, R. 2000. Migrants and citizens: demographic change in the European state system. New York: Cornell University Press. New York University. 2002. Chapter 4: The Origins of the Modern State [online]. Available at: https://files.nyu.edu/sln202/public/chapter4.pdf [accessed 21 January 2012]. O’Neill, J. The disciplinary society: from Weber to Foucault. The British Journal of Sociology, 50 (1). Poggi, G. 1990. The State: Its Nature, Development and Prospects. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Porter, B. 1994. War and the Rise of the State. New York, NY: The Free Press. Thomson, J. 1994. Mercenaries, Pirates and Sovereigns: State-Building and Extraterritorial Violence in Early Modern Europe, 3, pp. 6-15. Tilly, C. 1975. The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Weber, M. 1948. Bureaucracy. New York: Routledge. Read More