Saturday, October 15, 2016

Modern States and Their Features



One of the most interesting thing happened on 11th of March 2015 which is still the headline of many NEWS channels in Pakistan and internationally is the raid of Rangers on Muttahida Qoumi Movement (MQM) headquarter nine zero and arresting of many people. Some people, especially those who belong to MQM, oppose this raid; but most of the people favor this because they claim that any region in Pakistan is a part of the state and the military has absolute authority to keep a check on anything which can harm the people of the state. We come across such events everyday where state is involved directly or indirectly in the affair of people and vice versa, but we usually think that states are naturally formed which is indeed not the truth. State building is a very modern concept which like many other things has been bestowed to the world by the west. It is important to first point out the normative features which make up the modern states and further explain the historical processes that lead to the modern state acquiring these features. The whole process of making of modern states is no doubt very slow and keeps changing over time. The basic features which form the modern states are but not limited to: defined space and territory, political apparatus or governmental institutions, legal system backed by a capacity to use force, civil society, sovereignty etc.
            “It is intriguing to note that for the greater part of human history states have not existed at all. States are historical phenomena, constructed under particular conditions and far from fixed or natural entities.” (David Held, “The Development of the Modern State” Page No 72). It has been made very clear by David Held that the modern states we see today did not always exist the way they are today. It was only during 15th-18th century that Europe started forming nations. Before going any further, it is incredibly necessary to define modern state. Although there is not any concrete and perfect definition for modern state, but I like the definition by Skinner and Giddens: “All modern states are nation-states – political apparatus, distinct from both ruler and ruled, with supreme jurisdiction over a demarcated territorial area, backed by a claim to monopoly of coercive power, and enjoying a minimum level of support or loyalty from their citizens (cf. Skinner, 1978, pp. 349-358; Giddens, 1985, pp. 17-31, 116-21). The reason this definition fits in here is because it touches all the features of a modern states which will be further discussed in detail and the historical process which made them pillars for nation making.
            One of the very basic features of modern state is the defined territory. It is not that states in the olden days did not claim territories, but they were not fixed and modern states have borders and boundaries. It can be argued that these boundaries are not very distinct and there can be many controversies in the demarcation of the boundaries. For instance, the boundaries between two very modern states Pakistan and India are very vague, especially in the Tharparkar area and in the North Western part of the country where there are not many physical boundaries. It is only modern that we are forced to use passports and visas to travel between states because we have come to accept the imaginary drawn boundaries even if they are ambiguous.  In the bringing up of the idea of territory, war waging and battles played a fundamental role in order to make fixed boundaries. “The myriad battles and wars fought out in the interstate system altered fundamentally the boundaries of both absolutist states and the emerging modern states- the whole map of Europe changed as territorial boundaries progressively became fixed borders.” (David Held, “The Development of the Modern State” Page No 87). Just like Europe, the geography of other continents has also changed a lot over time. Wars and disputes have divided and sub-divided the world map by drawing more and more boundaries. This notion of fixed boundaries and battles gave rise to the dreadful conception of domination between states as well. This was the reason that military was made one of the primary elements of modern states that was given the authority to use force and power.
“At the heart of the processes involved was the ability of the states to secure and strengthen their power bases and, thereby, to order their affairs, internally and externally. What was at issue, in short was the capacity of states to organize the means of coercion (armies, navies and other forms of military might) and to deploy them when necessary.” (David Held, “The Development of the Modern State” Page No 90, 91). In this article, David Held has taken very detailed notice of the expenditure of British Expenditure from 1695 to 1817 and he has shown that the most money the state has spent on was military. Today when we see Rangers in Pakistan raiding the head quarter of any political party, we do not have to be surprised because nation making in the history has always given a priority to military. What do we usually relate military to? We say that our army, navy and air force are the safeguards of the boundaries and we have respect for them. It is remarkable to see how nations have kept all the features very closely related and inter-dependant over the history and has passed over to the modern states today. What is different about modern state military is that it has standing armies and they also perform army drills which were not really common about the pre-modern military.  Military has also evolved over time as a support to back up the legal system. A clear example of this phenomenon is seen in Pakistan where even the court system has been handed over to the military because they can better implement sentences. The legal system also created a division of power between the states and the rulers.
            We cannot consider the role of leadership in the state formation without keeping in view the historical events which shifted the paradigm of leadership from pre-modern to modern form. In pre-modern times there were basically two forms of leaderships: Religious community leaders including Pope Etc and the Dynastic Realm with a king or emperor. They were not very sovereign and their reign was not limited either, but there came a period in history which is called “Reformation” which shifted the concept of leadership. The change started with the evolution of national consciousness and printing press in the 15th century played an important role in educating people and made it clear that people did not have to depend on Pope to know about Bible or that they were not always to bow down before the king. (Anderson Benedict, Imagined communities, Page 12-30). This idea is further explained by David Held: “It was not until western Christendom was under the challenge, especially from the conflicts generated by the rise of national state and by the Reformation, that the idea of the modern state was born, and the ground was created for the development of a new form of political identity – national identity.” (David Held, “The Development of the Modern State” Page No 81). This was how assemblies, parliaments, diets and councils emerged to legitimate autonomous faculties of leadership and rule. We see this co-ordination division of institutions within government today which all started back then when the need was felt to say goodbye to monarchy. After people got rid of just being the subjects of a kingdom, new terms such as ‘citizens’ or civil society’ were introduced in the idea of state formation.
            “The state slowly became more embroiled with the interest of civil society in part for its own sake.” (David Held, “The Development of the Modern State” Page No 103). Either it was for the sake of the state or not, the civil society makes an enormous part of the state. Civil society consists of the general public and a sense of ownership for the state was necessary to create in the hearts of the people. In history, this deed was well performed by the poets with their heart touching poetry about the nation and at times about its domination over other nations. Such poets are not very covert in the case of nation making in the subcontinent. “Sarae Jahan sae acha Hindustan hamara” by Allama Muhammad Iqbal to poems by Kabir have given the same messages of nationalism and sovereign state formation.
            One of the things which helped in nation making was the recognition of a nation as sovereign by other nations. “The development of state sovereignty was part of a process of mutual recognition whereby states granted each other rights of jurisdiction in their respective territories and communities.” (David Held, “The Development of the Modern State” Page No 85). What is sovereignty and what does it mean for a nation to be sovereign is another plate for discussion which have been argued on by many political theorists including Hobbes, John Locke, Rousseau, Mills etc. State and sovereignty are very closely linked, but the idea of sovereignty can be traced back to Roman Empire. It was only after sixteen century that sovereignty became a very vital part of the political theory and states were expected to be sovereign in order to exist. We see that every day today in Pakistan that whenever America attacks Waziristan with drones, the civil society forces the government to speak up for the sovereignty of the country and its people. A very important historical event which formally made the idea of sovereignty global was the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. “The 1648 Treaty of Westphalia and other agreements which brought the Thirty Year War to an end are conventionally taken to mark the emergence of a new European order of independent sovereign states” (Barry Hindess, ‘state’, in New Keywords, page No 337).  This Westphilian model has been very effective from 1648-1945 and still is in use according to many people. This model actually is a set of international laws which emerged in order to depict the world community consisting of separate sovereign states and further emphasizes the ways to deal with diplomatic relations and conflicts among nations. With this international step taken, modern states came out to be quite successful in getting established and sustain themselves.
            There are many other events and factors which have led to the acquiring of the features of modern states discussed about. Colonization and globalization have a very important role in making of states because state formation started in Europe and spread out to the whole world through Western expansion, colonization and now globalization. As decolonization occurs, boundaries are drawn and states are added to the map of the world. State making is an ongoing process which divides and sub-divides places geographically and create an imaginary sense of nationalism among every individual. This is the reason that everyone in Pakistan is celebrating today as we beat Ireland in the World Cup and qualify for the final. After all, the eleven players didn’t win; but Pakistan won which imaginarily includes every one of us who were born in this part of the world which has the identity of Pakistan.
Bibliography
v  David Held, “The Development of the Modern State,” in Formation of Modernity.
v  Barry Hindess, “State”, in New Keywords: A Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society.
v  Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism.


           
           

No comments:

Post a Comment

Posts that make me who I am

Come On Dad!!!

Come On dad!! Thousand times I tried to write on this topic, but every time I start thinking about it, I end up in wetting the pa...

What went popular?