Chauhan Rajinder S, Thakur, Harish K: Globalization and Human Rights, Radha Publications, New

Delhi, 2007, pp. 19-32

State Authority and Individual

Freedom
from City-States to a Globalized World Order
Mohammed Khalid

The State as a political organisation exercising its authority over

a defined geographical area has undergone a sea change in the
recent Times.1 In this age of supraterritoriality global relations
are fast transcending the territorial distances and boundaries
are unfolding on the planet to make the globe a single social
space. The sovereign power as a central attribute of the State
too has slided down in this era of globalization. As a result, the
State’s sovereign right or power to act and to make ultimate
and final decisions about the terms of existence on a whole
territorially based body politic has come under strains. The ever
increasing revolution of aspirations and expectations of the
individual vis-a-vis the State has given rise to demand of more
civil, economic and political rights of the individual.
The philosophers and political scientists have argued
about the proper nature and purposes of the State ever since
the appearance of the City-States in the ancient Greece. Plato
and Aristotle wrote of the polis2 in which the whole community’s
religious, cultural, political and economic needs could be
satisfied. A man living outside the polls was considered either a
beast or god. The end purpose of the State, to Aristotle, was a
perfect and self-sufficing life i.e., a happy and honourable life.
The state was characterized primarily by its self sufficiency and
Aristotle saw it as a means of developing morality in the human
character. This idea corresponded to the modern concept of the
Nation i.e., a population of a fixed area that shares a common
language, culture (even race), and history. The modern idealists
like Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, T.H. Green and Bernard
Bosanquet more or less agree with this view. However, the
individual freedoms and civil liberties as such were unheard of,
in the Greek City-States.
The Roman concept of state passed through three periods
of growth; the period of City-State, the period of Republic and
the period of empire. They regarded the State as res publica or
Commonwealth. Res publica was a legal system whose
jurisdiction extended to all Roman citizens, securing their rights
and determining their responsibilities. The commonwealth was
the property of a people. But a people was not any collection of
human beings brought together in any sort of way but an
assemblage of people in large numbers associated in an
agreement with respect to justice and a partnership for the
common good.3
During this period, the existence of State as an entity was
constantly under the threat as the boundaries of the State were
undetermined and the military expeditions were the order of the
day. The military requirements of creating and sustaining such
entities tended to develop authoritarian systems. Individual was
expected to make necessary sacrifice of his individual liberties
for the sake of the unity,4 The Romans regarded the State as
legal entity and the individual as a legal person. The people
were regarded the ultimate source of law and had certain rights
which were determined and protected by the State. These rights
or freedoms were derived from concrete rather than abstract
sources.
The middle ages in Europe between the end of the Roman
Empire in the 5th century till 15th century the State remained a
hazy idea where political institutions remained dormant and
sovereign authority of the State was very weak if not non-
existent. There were no individual freedoms guaranteed by the
State and liberties were restricted to one privileged group or
class. Slavery remained a necessary institution of the society.
During this time liberty related primarily to social groups
seeking to wrest certain privileges from the sovereigns against
whom they contended for power. This kind of struggle resulted
in the Magna Carta imposed in 1215 on king John of England by
a group of barons. The Magna Carta has great significance in the
progress of human liberty.
The middle ages characterized the loose confederation of
tribes who coalesced into kingdoms. There were virtually no
institutions of governance who could effectively control different
domains. Christian Church was the only Universal institution and
powers were exercised within the Church hierarchy, by the local
bishops. It was only after about 1050 AD (during the high Middle
Ages) that the Roman Catholic Church organised into an
elaborate hierarchy with the pope as its head. During the late
Middle Ages the secular state began to emerge and the struggle
for supremacy between the Church and the State ensued for the
next few centuries.
By the end of the 13th century the medieval Europe began
to fade away and soon after the majority of characteristic
institutions and ideals of feudal age began to decay. New
institutions and ways of thinking gradually emerged. This
change extending from 1300 to about 1650 (known as the
Renaissance) broadly signifies intellectual revival and interest in
secular learning. The Renaissance -also referred to a ‘rebirth of
the European mind’- swept out a number of old ideas and swept
in a multitude of the new ones. With the end of Middle Ages the
Renaissance raised problems of intellectual freedom,
challenging the established dogma of the Catholic Church and
Reformation further promoted ideas of religious freedom and
freedom of conscience.
Machiavelli represented this period and enthused a new
spirit in understanding the State. He ignored the cardinal
tenants of Christian State and did not recognize Church’s
superiority or even independence from the State.5 He advocated
for a free state and that “the voice of the people is the voice of
God.” 6
Three great revolutions helped to define the individual
liberty and ensure its preservation. The Glorious Revolution
(l688-89)7 was the culmination of years of gradual imposition of
judicial and legislative restraints upon the monarchy; the Bill of
Rights adopted by the British Parliament against the Stuart
monarchs in 1689 established representative government there;
the American War of Independence8 (1775-83) combined the
problems of achieving individual liberty with those of creating of
new state. The Declaration of Independence (July 1776)
establishing United States of America and the first ten
amendments also known as the Bill of Rights9 in the American
constitution established guarantees of civil rights.
The modern concept of State emerged in the 16th century.
Machiavelli (1469-1527) elucidated the State in his discourses,
which needs to be healthy and free, should possess people with
virtues i.e., the people with vigour, public-spirit, law-abidingness
and trustworthiness in public duties. Jean Bodin (1530-1596)
defined the State in his six livers de la republique (1576) as a
government of households, and where villages, cities, and
corporations of various kinds are united by a sovereign
authority. He recognized the right to property and individual
freedoms at the level of family.10 Bodin, described the State as a
centralizing force whereby stability might be regained. Bodin’s
theory became the forerunner of the 17th century doctrine of
the divine right of the kings (sovereigns are representatives of
God and derive their right to rule directly from God). It also
helped to create a climate for the ideas of John Locke (1632-
1704) in England and Rousseau (1712- 1778) in France, who re-
examined the origins and purposes of the State.
Machiavelli gave prime importance to the durability of
government, sweeping aside all moral considerations and
focusing instead on the strength -the vitality, courage, and
independence- of the prince. Bodin, considered as the first
theorist of modern absolutism, argued that sovereignty was the
most high and perpetual power in a commonwealth and the
entity which has the absolute right and duty of law giving.
However, for him power was not sufficient in itself to
create a sovereign and rule must comply with morality to be
durable and it should have continuity.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in his Leviathan (1651)
provided a more refined and systematic exposition of the
concept of sovereignty.11 He attributed the origin of the State to
a social contract which wielded unfettered powers. Hobbes
made a forceful enunciation or the doctrine of sovereignty and
also made a powerful statement of individualism. He does not
let us forget that State exists to serve man’s needs and that its
moral authority derives from the consent of the governed.12
The State, according to John Locke, should exist for the
good of people, should depend on their consent and should be
constitutional and limited in its authority. He advocated for
certain natural rights -life, liberty and property. Individual liberty
is the right of a person to do whatever he wants so Long as that
is not incompatible with the Law of Nature.13
According to Rousseau the state owned its authority to the
general will of the people. He suggested that the nation itself is
sovereign and the law is essentially the Will of the governed as
a whole.
The body politic, therefore, is also a moral being possessed of a Will; and this
general Will, which tends always to the preservation and welfare of the whole and
of every part, and is the source of law, constitutes for all the members of the
state, in their relations to one another and to it, the rule of what is just or
unjust.14

The French Revolution (1789-1790), also called the

Revolution of 1789, denotes the beginning of a new era of
individual-state relations. Taking liberty, equality and fraternity
as their slogan, the French people overthrew their ancient
government. Rousseau’s writings effectively contributed as the
philosophy behind this Revolution. Generated by a series of
causes like; the inability of ruling classes and clergy to come to
the grips of the state; extortionate taxation of the peasantry;
impoverishment of workers; and the intellectual ferment of the
Age of Enlightenment the Revolution produced an equally vast
set of consequences. Set on a premise that tyranny begins when
natural rights of men are violated, the Revolution destroyed
feudal system to establish representative government; it
defined liberty as a natural right and ended the theory of the
divine right of the king. It gave birth to the new theory that the
source of all state power was the people. The Revolution was,
thus a triumph of the right of man over the irresponsible and
dictatorial powers. Its permanent achievements were individual
liberty, government by the consent of the governed,
constitutional limitations to safeguard the civil liberties of
subjects and the responsibility of officials to a nationwide
electorate.15
The Declaration of the Rights of man and of the citizen
became the basic charter of human liberties. The declaration
(containing 17 Articles) emphasized “Men are born and remain
free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only
on considerations of the common good” (Art. 1), and the aim of
every political association is the preservation of the natural and
imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are Liberty, Property,
Safety and Resistance to Oppression” (Art. 2). Adopted between
August 20 and August 26, 1789 by France’s National Assembly
and attached as ‘the preamble to the new constitution of 1791,
this Declaration remains by far the most important document on
human rights and individual liberties. The declaration greatly
influenced political thought and institutions considering it “the
creed of the new age”. It was a model for most of the
declarations of political and civil rights adopted by European
states in the 19th century.16
During the 19th century Hegel (1770-1831) opined that the
sphere of individual liberty is the whole state, with freedom not
so much an individual’s rights, but a result of human reason.
State for him was the culmination of moral action, where
freedom of choice had led to the unity of the rational will, and all
parts of the society were nourished within the health of the
whole. The essence of the modem state is “the Universal be
bound up with the complete freedom of its members and with
private well-being.”17
For the English utilitarian Jermy Benthem 1748-1832, J.S.
Mill 1806-73, Henry Sidgwick 1838-1900) of this period the state
was an artificial means of producing a unity of interest and a
device to maintain stability. Benthem advocated the principal of
utilitarianism, according to which the greatest total happiness of
the community should be the sole aim of the laws of the state.
Sidgwick also agreed that the right action, the good character,
and the right laws are those which maximize happiness of
individual.18 Mill (On Liberty, 1859) found freedom in the power
of the individual to assert himself against the State or even the
society. Mill makes the individual his own sovereign. It is “being
left to oneself. “All restraint qua restraint is an evil”, he says. No
interference with the individual’s liberty of action is justified
except to prevent him from harming others.19
Nature of the State underwent a change with the rise of
the ideology of Nationalism20 by the end of the 18th century.
Before that the states usually were based on religious or
dynastic ties. Citizens owed loyalty to their Church or the ruling
family. The tendency towards nationalism was fostered by
various technological, cultural, political, and economic
advances. People extended their interests nation-wide leaving
behind the mere clan, tribe or village affiliations, based on the
premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-
state21 surpass other individual and group interests. It became
paramount for the realization of social, economic, and cultural
aspirations of a people. The nation- state based on nationalism
in Europe was glorified as a moral entity able to confer
legitimacy on itself and its actions. The state authority then
onwards belonged to the nation and no group could attribute
authority to itself nor could any individual arrogate it to himself.
The rise of nationalism coincided generally with the spread
of Industrial Revolution, which promoted national economic
development, the growth of a middle class, and popular demand
for a representative government. The Revolutions of 1848 in
Italy and Germany for unification which could eventually be
realized in 1861 in Italy and 1871 in Germany and many other
events in Europe between 1878 and 1918 were shaped largely
by the nationalist aspirations. The concept of the nation-state
along with its attributes of popular sovereignty, individual
freedoms, general welfare and democracy spread in Europe
throughout the 19th century.
As the nationalism flowered and spread to the lands of
Asia, Africa and Latin America in the 20th century many
powerful national movements emerged in Japan (after Russo-
Japanese war 1905), Turkey (under the leadership Mustafa
Kamal Ataturk in (1922-23), India (under the leadership of
Mahatma Gandhi) or in China. These movements essentially
aimed at national freedom from the Western imperial powers
that culminated in the post-1945 period when the British,
French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese empires either
voluntarily granted independence or yielded to the national
freedom movements. 22
With the individual rights, liberties and equalities gaining
currency, the concept of popular sovereignty swept Europe and
it gave rise to the establishment of democracy and
representative institutions in Europe, America and later in the
other parts of the world. The first popular rebellion against
monarchy in England (1642), the political and revolutionary
action against autocratic European states resulted in the
establishment of republican governments with an increasing
tendency towards democracy. Before the end of the 19th
century every important Western European monarchy had
adopted a constitution limiting the powers of the Crown giving a
considerable share of political power to the people.
Representative legislatures modeled on the British Parliament
were instituted. British politics possibly became the greatest
single influence on the organization of democracies in Europe
and later in many other parts of the world. The success of
democratic institutions in the United States (with federal system
and Presidential form of government) also served as a model of
democracy for many other countries.
The major feature of a democratic state is individual
freedom, which entitles its citizens to the liberty and
responsibility of shaping their own careers and conducting their
own affairs; equality before the law; universal suffrage and
education. The four basic freedoms of expression, worship, from
want and fear (formulated in Atlantic Charter of 1941) are also
adhered to by many of the modern day democracies. The
individual liberties including the freedom of religion, press,
freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of privacy,
freedom from racial and ethnic discrimination etc. have also
become important ingredients of the democratic states. By the
middle of the 20th century, every independent country in the
world, with only a few exceptions, had a government that, in
form if not in practice, embodied some of the principles of the
modem liberal democratic states.
It is in this background we have to consider how the
globalization has influenced the state authority and individual
freedoms.

Globalization, State Authority and Individual Freedoms

 Globalization encapsulates the growth of connections
between people on a planetary scale. It involves reduction of
barriers to trans-world contacts through which people are able
-physically, legally, culturally and psychologically- to engage
with each other on this globe. Technology and unprecedented
growth of electronic medium has made the globalization
possible. The telecommunication and computer net works have
facilitated instant interpersonal communication all over the
earth. Since the late 20th century the entire world as a whole is
fast becoming a single social space in its own right. Explicitly
more visible in Europe, North America and East Asia
globalization has not reached its finality but it is likely to engulf
hitherto untouched areas soon. The rise of global consumerism
(internet marketing, trade and commerce) global concerns
(global warming, ozone depletion, etc), voluntary associations
(Amnesty International, WTO, etc), outsourcing of skilled
professionals, multinational corporations, broadcasting (CNN,
BBC etc.), satellite communications have brought in a global
consciousness in almost every sphere. In the developing
countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America this process is slow
and more urban. The liberal economists attribute it to the role of
unfettered market forces in a context of technological
development and deregulation. The Marxists highlight the
dynamics of the international capitalist system as the engine of
globalization. For some sociologists globalization is a product of
modem rationalism. The technological innovations, fast means
of transportation and data processing at global scale have
become rampant. The innovations relating to (coaxial and later
fiber-optic cables, jet engines, packaging and preservation
techniques, semiconductor devices, computer software etc.
have become some of the physical tools to encourage the cross
planetary contacts.
Globalization is fast changing the contours of social
geography. It has much wider economic, political and cultural
implications.

Impact of Globalisation on State Authority

Increasing globalization23 of the world economy, the
mobility of the people and capital, and the worldwide
penetration of media has combined to circumscribe the freedom
of action of the State. The McDonald’s, Disney, Coca-cola
corporations capable of manipulating personal tastes of the
people are becoming new forms of economic and po1tical
domination. The state everywhere is losing control over the
distribution of goods and services. The military force is fast
becoming out of place or even powerless in many ways. The
control of culture and is production is becoming far more
important than the control of political and geographic borders.
The exchange of popular culture related to life style, pop music,
film, video, comics, fashion, fast foods, beverages, home
decorations, entertainment systems, exercise equipments is fast
becoming irresistible. The penetration of the World Wide Web
(www) since 1990s has transplanted the codes of ethics in many
countries (China, India, Iran etc.) and the idea of a borderless
world becoming a reality in many areas. It has been predicted 24
that the internet will gradually erode the power of the state to
control its people and advances in digital technology would help
people to follow their own interests and form trans-state
coalitions. It is further argued25 that military conflicts and
territorial disputes would be super ceded by the flow of
information, capital, technology and manpower between the
states.
Globalization has significant implications for the conduct of
governance. Territorially based laws and institutions through
local or national governments are not sufficient by themselves
to regulate contacts and networks that operate in trans-world
spaces. It is stimulating greater multilateral collaboration
between states as well as the growth of regional arrangements
like the European Union, ASEAN etc. The resultant situation of
multi-layered and diffuse governance raises important questions
about the nature of sovereignty in a globalizing world.
State as a political unit is an essential and most effective
basis of governance and it remains central in the governance of
global flows. However the trends of globalization have
stimulated a lively debate as to whether the state can retain its
freedom of action and control the domestic ebbs and flow vis-à-
vis its citizens hitherto associated with its authority.
The doctrine of state sovereignty as its sole authority in
decision making process and in maintenance of order has been
constantly debated by the political scientists. It was traditionally
argued that sovereignty need not be exercised on behalf of the
people by the national governments, but could be divided on a
functional basis between the federal and state authorities (USA).
Similarly H.J. Laski and others developed the pluralistic theory of
sovereignty where state authority could be exercised by various
political, economic and religious groups in the state.
Accordingly, sovereignty in each society should not reside in any
particular place but shift from one group to another.
The Hague conferences of 1899 and 1907 established
detailed rules for conduct of war on land and at sea. The
Covenant of League of Nations restricted the right to wage war
as a solution to international controversies. The charter of
United Nations (Art 2) imposed the duty on member states to
“settle their international disputes by peaceful means...” and it
emphasized on “the principle of sovereign equality of all its
members.” All these and many other developments restricted
the state sovereignty as unrestricted power. The states have
already accepted a considerable body of laws limiting their
sovereign rights of acting as they pleased.
The globalization has further challenged the identity as
well as the working of the State. If globalization means
emergence of borderless states then the very existence of the
state is in question. The deteriorization of State Authority and
moving of products and capital with least possible hindrance
have raised the question of control of the State over the
territory, population and the government. The state is becoming
a silent spectator as it is in no capacity to take economic
decisions such as what to produce, how to produce and for
whom to produce. Liberalization and privatization has
considerably weakened the control and functioning of the
bureaucracy considered to be the backbone of the State. The
state legislations and decision making are only following and
adjusting to the trail of globalization.
If globalization has given unprecedented freedom of
choice and action to the individual, it has seriously impinged
upon various human rights. It has resulted in loss of jobs,
cultural identity, and democratic rights and has created social,
cultural, economic and technological divide. The Human
Development Report (1999) observed that “uneven globalization
is not only bringing integration but also fragmentation -dividing
communities, nations and regions into those that are included
and those that are excluded.”
However, despite the problems created by globalization,
this Juggernaut is gradually swallowing the world. It is a fact of
life and the only ideology of the present day world order. It is for
the state and promoters and protectors of human rights and
liberties to stop, mould or change its expanse to create a
balanced and humane civil society.
References
1. State has been variedly defined like, “particular portion of mankind viewed as
an organised unit,” John W. Burgess; “the politically organised people of a
definite territory”, Bluntschli: “a numerous assemblage of human beings,
generally occupying a certain territory, amongst whom the will of the majority or
of an ascertainable class of persons is, by the strength of such a majority or
class, made to prevail against any of their number who oppose it”, Holland,
Elements of Jurisprudence, 13th ed., Oxford, 1924, p. 46.
2. Polis was a term for which there is no’exact translation but which we render
most inadequately as the City State. It was much more than we mean by a city
and a great deal more than we understand by a State. C.L. Wayper, Political
Thought, B.I. Publications, Delhi, 1989, p.6.
3. Definition of a State given by Scipio, one of the persons of the dialogue, see,
Republic, I, XXV, p. 39.
4. The principal of Unity, expressed in the form of citizenship, could not be
stretched beyond a certain point. The imaginative statesmanship of Rome was
not great enough to devise a political basis for an empire of the civilized world.
As Gettell had remarked, “Greek had developed democracy without unity; Rome
secured unity without democracy.” See, Maciver, The Modern State, p. 59.
5. See, Foster, Michael B: Masters of Political Thought, OUP, 1975, p. 268.
6. The Prince, Chapter i, ii.
7. See, Ashley, Maurice: The Glorious Revolution of 1688, (1968): and Pocock,
l.G. (ed): Three British Revolutions, 1641, 1688, 1776
(1980).
8. Bailyn, Bernard, et al: The Great Republic: A History of the American People
(2nd ed), (1981); Kelley, Robert: The Shaking of the American Past, 2 Vols. 4th
edition, (1986).
9. See, Schwartz, Bernard: The Great Rights, of Mankind: A History of the
American Bill of Rights (1977).
10. See, Sabine, George H: A History of Political Theory, Oxford, 1973.
11. Foster, Michael B: Masters of Political Thought, Vol. II, p. 100-110.
12. Wayper, op. cit., p. 64.
Globalization and Human Rights I 32
13. Ibid., p. 70.
14. Vaugham, C.E: Political Writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau, English
Translation by GDH Cole, Vol. 1, p. 253.
15. Sabine, op. cit., p. 590.
16. Soboul, Albert: A Short History of the French Revolution 1789-1799,
Translated by G Syncox (1977): Goodwin Albert: The French Revolution, 4th ed.
(1966).
17. Philosophy of Righ, Section 260, addition.
18. Scruton, Roger: A Dictionary of Political Thought, Pan Books, 1982, p.480.
19.Wayper, op. cit., p. 114.
20. The ideals of nationalism attempt to find the ingredients ofpolitical obligation
and political identity in allegiances which are in some sense less than wholly
political - matters of geographical, cultural and ethnic association. The motive is
to fmd some binding force between people that is stronger than any revocable
agreement to be governed, wider than any merely personal affection and
sufficiently public to lend itself to the foundation of political institutions and laws.
See, Scruton, op. cit., p. 316.
21. A State organizedfor the government of a nation, whose territory is
determined by national boundaries, and whose law is determined, at least in
part, by national customs and expectations, See, Ibid., p.313.
22. Many countries like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Malaysia, Ghana,
Philippines, and Indonesia etc. in Asia became independent. Nationalist
movements developed in Morroco, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Ghana, Iraq etc. during
1950 and 60s.
23. See, Steger, Manfred B: Globalization, The New Market Ideology, Rawat
Publishers, New Delhi, 2004, Chapters I, II & III; Dasgupta, Biplab: Structural
Adjustment, Global Trade and the New Political Economy of Development,
Vistaar Publications, New Delhi, 1998.
24. Kevin Kelly: Out of Control, (1994)
25. Richard Rosecrance: The Rise of the Virtual State, (1999).