3.1: Introduction to States

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Define, and distinguish between, key terms including state, regime, and nation.
• Recall the development of the state from its origins.
• Identify common characteristics of modern states.
• Consider the implications of political capacity in various states.

Introduction

What is government? Is government necessary? Why do governments exist?

At some point in your life, you may have asked some of these questions. At the present moment, there are almost 8 billion people on the planet and almost 200 identified countries worldwide. (There are 193 member countries in the United Nations.) Most human beings on this planet are being ruled over or governed. In addition, a myriad of basic to-do lists and activities of humans are, in small and big ways, dictated by political powers. This chapter considers important aspects of political power within countries, the important terminology used in the field of comparative politics to understand the world around us, and important problems and issues related to states and regimes.

The Social Contract and Social Order

Let’s begin with some critical questions: Why does government exist? Is government necessary?

A society without government or central leadership is one that lives in anarchy. Anarchy is not the norm. Even prior to the establishment of formal governments and formalized institutions, human beings were organizing themselves for various reasons. One of the first reasons was the pursuit of survival, which seemed more feasible when humans cooperated with one another. While they didn’t have established, written laws, early humans did begin to have informal rules and norms for how they handled themselves in society. In some cases, informal leaders also existed and helped guide how humans were supposed to act in order to survive.

Early humans often existed as small groups composed mostly of family members. For example, think of your own family. Are there certain rules your family followed while you were growing up? Who was in charge? Who told you what to do and when to do it? Consider how the existence or non-existence of rules in your family contributed to how your family worked and lived. Did rules help your family? Did you think the leaders, and parental guardians, in your family were legitimate? Did you follow their rules? In time, families banded together into tribes, which in turn, formed their own rules and norms for how their group should act, usually with the common goal of surviving. Also, in time, circumstances changed for humans. Initially, there was a hunter-gatherer approach, where humans hunted for their food and gathered fruits, berries, and other available plant life in order to survive.

About 12,000 years ago, society was able to shift its approach. Humans found a way to stay in one place for longer through the agricultural revolution. Tiling the land for crops and early irrigation methods enabled the watering of crops. With the ability to stay in one place for longer, rather than moving around constantly to hunt and gather, human groups began to aggregate in common locations.

The agricultural revolution also led to human population growth. Combined with more people living closer together, this growth led to the need for formal societal organization. Humans were forced to develop some sort of order to ensure survival. The main takeaway is that humans chose not to live in anarchy. Rather, they calculated that their status quo would be improved with a strong set of rules. In addition, both individual and societal goals could be accomplished through mutual cooperation in a rules-based society. Out of this, would come what 17th/18th Century writers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Rousseau called the social contract.

A social contract is a formal or informal agreement between the rulers and those ruled in a society. Those who are ruled submit to the laws of the rulers in exchange for certain benefits. Sometimes, the benefits are as simple as military protection. In the United States, citizens are expected to obey the laws of the land, as expressed through the Constitution. This obedience is in exchange for the protection of their “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”

Social contracts can be voluntary or involuntary, and can be observed in almost every type of political system, democratic or otherwise. Sometimes, a social contract requires a pledge of fealty, livelihoods, and productivity to the ruling class. There are two types of social contracts.

• Voluntary social contract--people agree to submit to the ruling class. Keep in mind that even though this agreement is voluntary, it does not always mean that those who are ruled are entitled to certain privileges, such as freedom of speech. In this situation, the people may simply need protection from outside threats.
• Involuntary social contract--the ruling class dominates in a given territory and demands obedience from the people. In this case, those being ruled are simply pushed into a social contract. In some instances, disagreement has led to banishment or death.

An implicit social contract can also exist. For example, most US citizens are born into their social contract. By being born into citizenship, Americans may never need to actualize, or act upon, their citizenship. They benefit from a system that protects their rights and liberties, even when they choose not to obey the law. In contrast, there are others that go through a formal process to become US citizens, referred to as Naturalization. There are many steps involved in this process, including but not limited to background checks, oral examinations, paperwork, and finally pledging allegiance to your host country in a formal ceremony. Naturalization is a good example of a voluntary and formal social contract where a citizen pledges obedience and allegiance in exchange for the benefits of being a citizen.

Social contract theory is often credited to certain philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

• Hobbes was the earliest of these thinkers, living between 1588 and 1679. While Hobbes was known for many scholastic contributions to history, politics, math and physics, he contributed greatly to political science. He acknowledged that all people act within their own self-interest, and in acting in their own self-interest, will make calculations to ensure their survival. Hobbes inherently saw human beings as selfish. For him, the state of nature was unstable and dangerous, writing that life was, “nasty, brutish and short”.
• Locke lived between 1632 to 1704, and is considered one of the primary Enlightenment thinkers of his time. In his masterpiece, Two Treatises of Government, Locke set out the principles of natural rights. In other words, all people were born with “certain, unalienable” rights that should be recognized and protected by states. In contrast to Hobbes, Locke thought positively about humankind.
  • Hobbes favored a more authoritarian government, believing that the state needed to control the masses, for its own good. Whereas, Locke believed humans were perfectly capable of living peacefully with each other, with no need for an authoritarian state. Today, we can see Locke’s influence in certain phrases in the US Constitution.
• “Men are born free, yet everywhere are in chains,” remarked Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the opening lines of his 1762 work, Du Contrat social, or The Social Contract. In this publication, Rousseau argues that society imprisons people with various “chains” and suppresses their natural born rights and liberties. To Rousseau, the only type of legitimate authority in society comes from the consent of all people. All people must agree to a government in order to protect their interests, but in this contract, there must be a “unified will” which takes into consideration the interests of the people for the common good.

An early version of social contract can also be observed in ancient Greece, where a system was established wherein elite men could participate in government and representatives could work on behalf of the people. Democracy comes from the Greek words, demo and kratos, meaning rule by the people. Broadly defined, democracy is a political system wherein government is dictated by the power of the people.

• A direct democracy is where every single citizen is able to be involved in the legal process and able to have some amount of power over the laws of society.
• A representative democracy is one where the people elect representatives to serve on their behalf to make the laws and rules of society.

Ancient Greece did not have a perfect democracy. Indeed, many members of the population were excluded from decision-making processes, like slaves (both male and female) and women. Nevertheless, in hindsight, the people of Ancient Greece submitted to the ruling class, through somewhat representative leadership, for protection from the political system. Thus, a social contract existed to some degree.

Following the fall of the Roman Empire in 489 ACE, Western Europe fell into chaos. Northern hordes came down and would attack territories, leaving most of the regions of the former Roman Empire in disarray. During this time, most people lived under constant duress with no protection of their person or property. Around 900 ACE, the system of feudalism arose, particularly in Europe, wherein peasants (sometimes called serfs) were forced to provide members of the upper class with their crops, produce, and goods as well as their services, fealty, and loyalty. The upper class, usually nobles, would provide some level of protection to the Serfs in exchange. Though not necessarily ideal, the serfs and nobles engaged in a social contract.

Overall, the story of government comes from this historical reckoning of the social contract and the drive for social order. From this, we can talk more directly about the formation of states, which is a common theme throughout political science and the comparative politics field.

Defining Terms

State is one of the most frequently used words in the study of comparative politics. At first glance, many students think of subnational governments, like states in the United States. However, a state is defined as a national-level group, organization, or body which administers its own legal and governmental policies within a designated region or territory. Outside of the comparative discipline, many people tend to use the terms state, country, government, regime, and nation interchangeably. Within comparative politics, each of these terms is distinct, and has different implications when attempting to observe the political landscapes around the world.

Since States tend to be the major political actors in the global arena, it is vital to have a firm grounding in understanding what states are, how the term state relates to other concepts and terms, and how comparativists set out to study states and their actions. Using the correct terms in the right context will empower you to be able to interpret comparativist literature and research, and perhaps add your own contributions to the field someday.

If a state is a national-level organization which administers its own legal and governmental policies within a designated region or territory, what are nations and countries and how are they different or similar?

• A state tends to have a narrower meaning than both a nation and a country, and relates more specifically to how a designated territory operates politically.
• A nation can be broadly defined as a population of people joined by common culture, history, language, or ancestry within a designated region of territory.
• A country tends to encompass aspects of both the nation and the state. A country is a nation, which may have one or more states within it, or may change state-type over time.
  • For instance, consider the country, Russia. The Rus’ state was established in 862 CE, and encompassed much of modern-day Russia as well as parts of Scandinavia. The Kievan Rus’ state followed the Rus’ state, but eventually fell apart during the Mongol invasions between 1237 and 1240. While Moscow grew to be a significant hub for business, politics, and society, the Russian region was largely stateless and operated under the system of feudalism. Eventually, Rus’ became a unified country Grand Duchy of Moscow Over time, the way Russia was ruled varied greatly, whether ruling came from a noble class, a royal bloodline, an installment of a leader, or an election of leadership. Today, Russia has a common territory, history, language, and ancestry, but has been led by different states over time.

One characteristic of a state is its ability to independently organize its own policies and goals. As defined in Chapter One, sovereignty is fundamental governmental power, where the government has the power to coerce those to do things they may not want to do. Sovereignty also involves the ability to manage the country’s affairs independently from outside powers and internal resistance. If a state does not have the ability to manage its own affairs and issues, it will not be able to maintain its power over what happens.

• Power is the ability to get others to do what you want them to do.
• Soft power means being able to get others to do what you want them to do using methods of persuasion or manipulation.
• Hard power is the ability to get others to do what you want using physical and potentially aggressive measures, such as fighting, attacking, or through war.

States must have both authority and legitimacy in order to operate effectively, or at the very least, to exist for some period of time.

• Legitimacy is the state’s ability to establish itself as a valid power over its citizens.
• Authority is having the power to get things done.

Put together, a state is legitimate in its operations if it has the authority to make decisions and carry out its policy goals.

• Traditional legitimacy occurs when states have the authority to lead based on historical precedent. For instance, there are states where there is a legitimate authority to lead, but no defined or operational constitution, or set of rules and laws.
• Charismatic legitimacy means that citizens follow the rules of a state based on the charisma and personality of the current leader. Legitimacy does not come from a written constitution accepted by the representatives or leaders of a country. When that leader dies or gets removed from office, will the state continue to stand, or will citizens no longer see the legitimacy of authority from the government in the absence of that charismatic leader?
• Rational-legal legitimacy occurs when states derive their authority through firmly established, often written and adopted, laws, rules, regulations, procedures through a constitution.
  • A constitution can be understood as a state’s described laws of the land.

Authority and legitimacy can be consolidated and accepted by the people as the operating manual and handbook for how society should run. Each of form of legitimacy, especially when taken together, can enhance a state’s ability to function. If, for instance, there is a written and adopted constitution, and it has been transparently drafted and considered by representatives of a state, individuals will know what the rights and rules are of their given society. In time, as laws and norms are followed and accepted, there also becomes a historical precedent that individuals are more likely to accept (traditional legitimacy). Finally, if there does happen to be a charismatic leader, they may be able to garner further support from the people to deepen a state’s legitimacy and potentially grow the political agenda to meet further needs of society.