The Concept of Modern State - Essay Example

The Concept of Modern State Introduction The modern state is probably the most notable outcome of continuous rationalisation that underlies the process of historic development. A long series of social, economic and political transformations eventually led to formation of the modern nation-state which became the most perfect type of political system up to date. Despite the extreme complexity and variations associated with functioning of the modern states, this system has several attributes the unique combination of which enables the researchers to identify the key distinctions between the nation-state systems and its predecessors. Definition The nature of the modern state as a type of political organization is too complex to be adequately reflected by a simple functional definition: existing definitions mostly revolve around the main structural or institutional characteristics of the state such as internal and external sovereignty, legal and economic system, level of centralisation, social stratification, and bureaucratisation (Nelson, 2006, p. 7-9). The most influential definition of the state was proposed by Max Weber in his famous publication Politics as a Vocation: "a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e. considered to be legitimate) violence" (Weber 1994, p. 56). According to this statement, the essence of modern state is monopolisation of the means of legitimate physical violence over a definite territory. Weber addressed this special form of legitimacy of the state’s monopoly as ‘rational-legal’ legitimacy which relies on impersonal rules that constrain the power of state elites (Weber 1994). This definition brightly illustrates one of the key distinctions between the modern state and earlier forms of political organization: the former is based on territorial jurisdiction while the latter rely on lineage and heredity (Llewellen 1983). Although the majority of modern states fit Weber’s definition there are also some states with characteristics that do not fit Weber’s description. For example, failure of the state to have a total monopoly over ‘the means of legitimate physical violence over a definite territory’ or absence of any reasons for addressing the legitimacy of such monopoly as rational-legal does not necessarily mean that the state represents another form of political organization. This state will still noticeably differ from its predecessors (feudal and absolutist states) particularly such aspects as the degree of bureaucratization and the reliance on nationalism as a principle of legitimation (Jackson & Rosberg 1982). Formation and Attributes of the Modern State The basic attributes of the modern state developed over centuries. Emergence of the modern state in its current form was preceded by a series of gradual political, economic, cultural and social developments which began in Europe around the 15th century. At that time the largest European states such as England, France and Spain ruled by powerful dynasties underwent the process of centralisation of political and economic levers of control. The centralization involved the delineation of political boundaries when the increasingly powerful dynasties gradually eliminated other sources of power that might threaten their controls. Eventually once-almighty Catholic Church as well as the lesser nobility lost much of their power, and the fragmented system of feudal states was replaced by another system characterised by full control over a definite geographical region and unitarism (Llewellen 1983). The political and religious conflicts that occurred within the course of the centralisation process culminated in the Peace of Westphalia (1648). This treaty is considered one of the important milestones in history of the contemporary system of nation-states: the Peace recognised fixed national boundaries and the sovereignty of states within their territories. Eventually, the system of centralized and increasingly bureaucratic rule known as absolutism dominated in Europe in the 17th – 18th centuries led to formation of the basic characteristics of the modern state, namely: (1) the introduction of the central taxation systems, (2) establishment of permanent diplomatic relations between the states, (3) the introduction of the policy of mercantilism and its implementation on the state level, (4) and finally the emergence of a standing army (Breuilly 1993). These features were dramatically distinct from the principal structural features of the feudal state. The expansion of absolutist empires was followed by their impressive collapse in the 20th century when the modern nation-state spread across the world as a dominant form of political organisation (Meyer 1997). In 1816, only Great Britain and France could be addressed as nation-states; less than two centuries later in 2001, there no single empire left in the world, and only a few absolutist kingdoms remained (e.g., Saudi Arabia or Brunei). The rapid diffusion of the modern nation-state occurred in six waves: The collapse of the Spanish empire. World War I and the breakup of the Ottoman and Habsburg empires. World War II, when the Middle East as well as South and Southeast Asia were decolonized. The collapse of the British and French colonial empires over the 1960s. The dissolution of the Portuguese colonial empire. The breakup of the Soviet empire during the early 1990s (Wimmer & Min 2006, pp. 870-871). Although the primary features of the nation-state can be traced back to the absolutist regime, the modern state differs greatly from its predecessors. Thus, the empire had the following institutional characteristics: bureaucratic forms of government with high degree of centralisation, the dominant status of a core region as compared with peripheries, an culturally or ethnically defined hierarchy between rulers and ruled, and claims to universal legitimacy (Howe 2002, pp.13–20). Centralised bureaucratic forms of government characterise the modern state too, but there is no differentiation between core and periphery on the institutional level while the principle of equality of citizens engrained in the nation-state was absolutely alien in the empire. Similarly, the principle of equality of all citizens was not among the founding principles of the absolutist rule. Besides, within the modern system “the nation may be imagined as multiethnic and multireligious, as in Switzerland or India, or as monoethnic and monoreligious, as in France and Japan” (Wimmer & Min 2006, p.870). Other types of political organisation – feudal stats, tribal confederacies, city states, patrimonial empires – did not have the basic principle of the modern state: centralized bureaucracy. The concept of sovereignty has never been emphasized as strongly as in the modern nation-state. Sovereignty of the state depends on its ability to effectively establish a monopoly on the use of force against the claims of other countries and in relation to the population inhabiting the state’s territory. The task of establishing such monopoly is exceptionally complex and involves centralisation not only military coercive force, but also the coercive force of administration and law. At the first glance, this task is only one of the options: sovereignty can also exist when social units competing within the same state retain shares of governmental authority. For example, a tribe or clan can function as social units of this type; also populations of some regions within the state can invest their political loyalties in the local authorities that operate independently of the central government (Tilly 1975). However, in this case the sovereignty is weaker and the probability is that a state with such ‘distributed’ sovereignty will be less effective in maintaining its viability than a state with fully centralised powers. The Future of the Nation-State The core idea expressed by those theorists who question viability of the modern nation-state is that the founding principles they rely upon have turned obsolete and irrelevant these days. The discussion revolves mostly around the economic aspect of the states’ functioning. In particular, some renowned experts believe that nation states have already lost the ability to protect their national currencies and their contribution to the real economic activity is almost non-existent. This major change marks the beginning of history for majority of the world’s population when “larger numbers of people from more points on the globe than ever before have aggressively come forward to participate in history” (Ohmae 1995, p. 1)” and the end of nation states Since the time of their emergence national states have always been among the most important participants in the world economy. Although the liberal economics which stemmed from the work of Adam Smith who advocated a minimal intervention of central government in economic matters dominated economic systems of Europe and Americas in the late 18th – 19th century, in the 1930s it was replaced by Keynesian paradigm which advocated government intervention in the economics. This period of Keynesian domination coincided with three of the six waves when the modern nation-state diffused across the world and reinforced. However, the time when nation states were highly effective in creation of wealth is over, and nation states of this epoch have turned into simple mechanisms of wealth distribution. The function of wealth creation has shifted toward and distributed among four forces, namely: investment, corporations, consumers, and information technology (Ohmae 1995). As a result, investments have ceased to be domestically driven and become so profit driven, that even the nation states increasingly invest abroad these days instead of reinforcing their domestic economic potential. Similarly, industries and corporations also do not perceive the state interests as the primary guideline in their operations and become increasingly involved in transnational activities. Modern consumers enjoy increasingly strong control over governmental decisions which influence economic system of the country. The most distinct feature of the new system is that political demands are determined by what people buy, and not their interests as a nation (Ohmae 1995). Although the nation states refuse to accept the change which greatly diminishes their role in the modern world such refusal seems futile because the transformation may be irreversible. Thus, Ohmae (1995) points at formation of economic zones which form the so-called natural business units. This process occurs throughout the world and leads to actual and noticeable improvements in the quality of life. The formations are often termed the ‘region states’ as opposed to nation-states. This type of overtake one major function previously carried out by the nation states: generate real economic activity and improve welfare of citizens. The examples of region states are San Diego and Tijuana, Singapore and parts of Malaysia and Indonesia, the Bay Area, Hong Kong and the adjacent portion of the Chinese mainland with many more to emerge in the future. Profit and economic interests are primary for these region states while the national aspects are secondary at best. Such transformation of many existing states into new forms of political organisations, coupled with the takeover of the traditional nation-state’s functions by organisations which are not modern states makes many contemporary researchers emphasise lack of certainty surrounding the future of the modern political system (Van Creveld 1999, p. vii). Conclusion The modern nation-state has at least four basic characteristics the combination of which is unique and distinct from any other type of political organisation preceding the nation-state: Monopoly on the use of force. Clearly defined borders. Impersonalisation of power structure. Legitimacy is drawn from the people, not from some abstract universal principle. These attributes represent the outcome of a long and painful process that lasted for many centuries. Although the modern nation-state has already proved its viability by becoming the absolutely dominant form of political organisation, the dynamic nature of historic development suggests that sooner or later it will be replaced by a new structure exactly in the same way it replaced the preceding state system. Inevitability of the end of nation-states is already stressed by some contemporary thinkers. For example, Michel Foucault, the great social and political theorist of the last century put in question the assumption that the state in its modern form would be relevant in the future: “We need to cut off the king's head. In political theory that has still to be done” (Foucault 2000, p.123) The gradual decentralisation of the state’s power and loss of traditional functions noticeable to an experienced analyst at the time when Foucault made this statement has become apparent three decades later. However, it is not yet absolutely clear whether the still emerging new political, economic and military system of organizations that are not states will necessarily result in the decline of the nation-state: the effects still remain to be seen. References Breuilly, J. 1993, Nationalism and the State, New York: St. Martin's Press. Foucault, Michel. 2000 [1976]. Truth and Power. In Power, edited by J. D. Fearon. New York: The New Press, p. 123 Howe, S. 2002, Empire: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, R. H., & Rosberg, C. G. 1982, ‘Why Africa's Weak States Persist: The Empirical and The Juridical in Statehood’, World Politics Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 1-24. Kössler, R. 2003, ‘The Modern Nation State and Regimes of Violence: Reflections on the Current Situation’, The International Studies Association of Ritsumeikan University: Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies, Vol.2, pp. 15-36. Llewellen, T. C. 1983, Political Anthropology: An Introduction, South Hadley: Bergin and Garvey. Meyer, J. Boli, J., Thomas, G.M. & Ramirez, F. O. 1997, “World Society and the Nation-State”, American Journal of Sociology Vol. 103, pp. 144–81. Nelson, B. R. 2006, The Making of the Modern State: A Theoretical Evolution, Palgrave Macmillan. Ohmae, K. 1995, The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies, New York: The Free Press. Tilly, C. (ed.) 1975, The Formation of National States in Western Europe, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Van Creveld, M. 1999, The Rise and Decline of the State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society, 2 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wimmer, A. & Min, B. 2006, ‘From Empire to Nation-State: Explaining Wars in the Modern World, 1816–2001’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 71, pp.867–897. Read More