“Stateness,” Nationalism, and
Democratization
Ts suis cirarren werur tothe issue ofstateness a vaiableso undertheo-
‘aed but so critical to democracy as to requize a full analysis before we proceed
Our focus is on the relationship between state, nation(s), and democracy.
‘modern democratic state is based on the
ition of the demos, which may
th the demos of the state, A number of the problems we
1m this.
‘transitions to democracy, many people tend to assume
is the nondemocratic regime and that with democracy a
ate system is established. However, in many countries the crisis of the
profound differences about what
should be members of that p
‘munity. When there are profound differences about the territorial boundaries of
the political community's state and profound differences as to who has the right
enship in that state, there is what we call a “
modern democracies can vary immensely on this vai
have no sta
‘The original and now classic work on democratic transi
thought or attention to “stateness” problems because mi
‘cused on transitions in Southern Europe and
of competing nationalisms
mn of who was
iter reationship berwee the
course, been some elles
the four volume work edited by
and Laurence Whitehead, Trastions rm Authoritarian Bue
Press 986), hich is evo
lly no dscusion af statenstproblerns or
eness, Nationalism, and Democratization ”
the competing Catalan and Basque nationalisms in Spain barely entered the theo-
retical literature because the legitimacy of Spanish stateness was managed with
tostateness into the theory of democratic transition and consolidation, We will ap-
proach our task by exploring three different questions. Why is the existence of a
sovereign te for a modern democracy? Why are state-building and
nation-building conceptually and historically different proces .
portantly, when
A SovEREIGN STATE AS A PREREQUISITE TO Democracy
Demacracy.is. 2 form.of governance of amodern state. Thus, withouta.s
1nd modern democracy is possible.? These assertions hold true both theore!
‘andl einpiriGally. Let us look at some of the basic definitions of the state to see why
this is so. Max Weber provides a classic and clearly focused discussion of the cen-
tral attributes of the state in modern societies.
‘of the modern state are as follows It possesses an adminis-
ion, to which the organized cor
the same territory;
coordinated with one an-
‘social organization than. a modern stats including presi
organizations,1B
‘Theoretical Overview
these statelike attributes exists in a tertitory,a gov-
ly elected”) could not effectively exercise
the monopoly of the legitimate use of force in the te
taxes (and thus provide any public services), and could n
system. As our discussion of the Svearenes-of a-cons
clear, without these capa
and empirically, therefore,
absence of an organization:
992-94) precludes democratic governance over the whole territory of the state,
"ot preclude areas of segmented politcal authority.
TF one accepts (as we do) Weber's injunction about an organization ne
claim binding authority successfully in a territory before
quirement that a state be “autonomous:
severe (and we believe insurmountable