You are on page 1of 11
“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

You might also like