State, government and the people

One of the most recurring themes in the national narrative these days is often related to the word ‘state’. I have remained a student of political science and law all through my life having interacted with some of the best brains in this discipline. What I had learnt was that the ‘state’ comprises people, land, government and sovereignty. The most quoted definition puts state as an organised body of people having definite territory and having the sanction of law. This may also not be forgotten that the state is not a static entity but has evolved through various stages. As such the state is not a never-changing sacred entity but rather transforms itself to accommodate the needs of the people.

For the anarchists, state is an aberration and encumbrance on liberty therefore they want the annihilation of the state. For Marxists, the state is an instrument of oppression for subjugating the ruled and they believe in the replacement of the state with a classless society free of exploitation. The fascists negate the individual self and merges it with the state as for them the individual only exists for the state.

There are many theorists who accord the highest consideration to security, survival and self-preservation over everything else. On the contrary, others like John Locke and Rousseau in their social contract theories even gave the people the right to revolt in case sovereignty was denied as they place the highest premium on individual liberty and the greatest happiness of the greatest number. For them the state only exists for the high purpose of developing the faculties of individuals and ensuring their freedom of choices.

The Treaty of Westphalia, 1648, is often credited with providing the foundation of the modern state system and articulating the concept of territorial sovereignty. In this recent short history of the world since the treaty we have witnessed that the world has never been the same. Under the spell of new ideologies and new geo-economic realities new states have emerged and old empires vanished. History has already witnessed the disintegration of the Roman Empire that had given a single set of laws, a common defence and an exemplary civilisation for 500 years. Religion and politics never merged into a single construct, leading to Voltaire’s truthful jest that the Holy Roman Empire was “neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire”. With the death of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor in 1558, new winds blew across Europe giving impetus to fragmentation of the medieval political and religious order: ushering in of the age of discovery, the invention of printing, innovation and voyages and the schism of the Church. Although Chinese and European ships simultaneously ventured into the seas in the 15^th century, China stopped such missions with Zheng He’s death, leaving the field open to Europe. There was no looking back as the centre of gravity shifted to Europe. Portuguese, Dutch and English ships all embarked upon adventures into East Asia including India and Spanish and English ships sailed to the Western hemisphere. A process of displacing prevalent trade monopolies and political structures was thus set in motion. For three centuries the world remained under the influence of these European powers, shaping and defining the concept of the world order and its implementation.

With no other powers to challenge them, the Europeans were the masters of destiny, enamouring to enhance their wealth, enabling them through their global competition for territorial control to change the nature of the international order. With ascendency in all spheres, the European worldview multiplied and swayed the globe in the welter of conflicting national interests eventually merging concepts of world order with the operation of the balance of power in Europe.

The invention of the typewriter, Protestant reformation and preferring science over dogma shook the very foundation of the then European institutions. The state, not the empire, dynasty, or religious confession was acknowledged as the building block of the European order with the concept of sovereignty as the main feature of the state. The Peace of Westphalia, 1648, helped in providing the right to each signatory to choose its own domestic polity and enjoy religious freedom with clauses that minority sects could practise their faith in peace and be free from the prospect of forced conversion.

Despite all its good intentions to establish multiplicity as its starting point and based on the multiplicity of societies, searching for a common social order, this international order system could only long last till mid-20^th century. The intent and purpose of the emergence of state on the basis of nationhood was to avoid war in the name of religion. However, the equilibrium was disturbed by the very contradiction inherent in the imperialism due to its expansionist tendencies to be overtaken by events of World War I and II. Once again the geography of the states was redrawn with the emergence of new states mostly on ethnic lines on the horizon of the world.

The sequence of the events of the history suggests that politics is a process and is always in a constant flux. The state is also a part of this process and as such political dynamics must be understood in the historical perspective. The tendency to equate one department or organ with a state is a serious mistake that arises due to lack of proper understanding of the terms. The institutions of the state are for the good of the people and are a product of the historical needs and processes. They remain relevant as they serve the needs of the public and so is the state. Let this lesson remain the yardstick of all debates and discussion in the public sphere.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 18^th, 2020.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.