UNIT 1 COMPARATIVE POLITICS: NATURE,

SIGNIFICANCE AND EVOLUTION

Structure
1.1 . Introduction
1.2 What is Comparative Politics and its Evolution
1.3 The Comparative Method
1.4 Contemporary Significance
1.5 Summary
1.6 Exercises

1 .I INTRODUCTION
Among the several fields or sub-disciplines into which Political Science is divided, Comparative
Politics is the only one which carries a methodological instead of a substantive label. The
content and boundaries of comparative politics are poorly defined, partly because the 'field'
is an ambiguous compound of method and subject areas. As some scholars have argued
comparative politics has a "messy centre". This is because it focuses on comparison and the
'comparative method, as a method of political inquiry. While all analysis involve some degree
of comparison without which an individual phenomenon cannot be understood, comparative
politics teaches us how to do so. It attempts to instill into this exercise scientific rigour and
technique. While conlparative government existed as a sub-discipline for a long time,
comparative politics is a relatively new field dating from the post second world war period. It
is a field that is difficult to define, has undergone many changes and reached a plateau by the
1980s beyond which it could not move. But in recent years it has again attracted a growing
interest due to the emergence of new areas such as comparative public policy.

1.2 WHAT IS COMPARATIVE POLiTlCS AND ITS EVOLUTION

Broadly the goal ofcomparative politics is to encompass the major political similarities and differences
between countries. The task is to develop some perspective on the mixture ofconstantsand variability
which characterises the world's governments and the contexts in which they operate. While the
term comparative government is quite old, the term comparative politics as mentioned above is
relatively new. The change is significant, as are a number of differences between the two, which
go much beyondthat of nomenclature. he former is described as the traditional approach while
the latter is viewed as the modern approach. In 1955 R.C. Macridisclearly differentiated thetwo
when he pointed out that the traditional approach was non comparative, descriptive, parochial,
static and monographict These characteristics require a brief discussion.

The traditional approach was non-comparativeand descriptive. In that standard textbooks described
q number of countries one after the other in detail, but attempted little comparison. It was hence
monographic in character i.e. we had excellent country studies but no attempt to understand why
particular countries had a multi-party system or why democracy worked better in one country than
another. This was because the traditional approach was rntrch narrower in scope as it was
Consequently, as its name implies, it was restricted to the study of the formal processes of '

governments and institutions. In contrast, comparative politics is wider in scope and encompasses
not merely institutions but political processes as well i.e., it covers political parties, pressure groups
and a wide range of informal institutions and processes as well. This enables better analysis of
institutions and processes within states and between states. Hence, it can be comparative in a way
that the traditionalapproach could not be. Second, comparative politics, in contrast to the traditional
approach, is multi-disciplinary in outlook, meaning that it draws not only on political science but
also on history, economics and sociology. Part of this was due to changes in the discipline of
political science as a whole, and partly due to the behavioural approach, which, as we shall see,
affected comparative politics also. Third, the traditional approach wasparochial i.e. restricted to
European governments atid therefore Eumcentric in its outlook and analysis. The post-war period
saw a broadening ofthe field as after decolonisation, the number of states increased throwing up
fresh theoretical and methodological questions. Finally the traditional approach was static;it did not
try to understand why systems change. Comparative politics in contrast, has been preoccupied
with questions of how political systems change from tradition to modernity and the problems that
rapid change can produce, and also why some systems change more slowly than others and retain
traditional features.
* P

In the 1950s a?d 60s, a number of distinguished scholars such as Harold Lasswell and Gabriel
Almond, took on the task ofcarving out and establishing the field ofcomparative politics. Their
basic task was to distinguish it from Political Theory on the one hand, and from International
Relations and Area Studies on the other. Comparative Politics was described as different from
Political Theory as it ilivolved not only theorising but also classifling, categorising and discovering
relationships among variables, hypotheses building and empirical testing. It was suggested that
circular relationshipcan be visualised between theory and comparative politics. Comparative resemh
begins by taking a fairly established theory, testing it empirically in the field in anumber of situations
and then refining the theory again in the light ofthe findings. Many theoretical tools such as party-
systems, federalism, parliamentary systems etc. were formulated in this manner.

Comparative politics I#? had, and continues to have, 'boundary'problems with international
Relations. This is because there is common ground between them, the former open studies
countries as enclosed within a world capitalist system. Many scholars sufh as A.G. Frank and
Immanuel Wallerstein have developed large-scale approaches such as Dependency and
Underdevelopment using this method. But there are major differences: comparative politics does
not deal with the relationships between countries in depth concentrating on comparisonsof political
phenomenon within countries,while the former is a centralsubject in International Relations. Area
Studies arose during the Second World War when there was need to have knowledge about the
history, culture, economy and social structure of certain strategic areas important during the war
for framing policy. This necessitated an interdisciplinaryteam consisting of social scientists, from
different disciplines, which could focus upon an area inteosi$ely ahd provide the required information.
Comparative politics also studies 'areas' intensilbly, a major difference is that while Area
Studies experts can provide a great deal of data which explains immediate events, long term
and underlying deeper trends re,quire analytical and theoretical tools which only
comparative politics canprovide. ~h&re'howevel?, remains a contested proposition between the
two sub-disciplines.

The shift which took place fiom comparative government to politics thus, can be traced to
two chunges in the inqmediate post-war period: developments intpnal to the discipline of

12
 politicul science and second, the broadening of the empiricalfleld to include the New States
i which urose out of dc-colonisution. In the late 1950s Political Science was affected by the
I1 'Behavioural Revoli~tion'which had already affected anthropology and sociology. This created a
desire for greater scientific rigour and a multi-disciplinary approach. The Behavioural Revolution
1 implied that behaviour was more important than rules, thus necessitating the systematic collection
I of large amounts ofdata about politics in various countries as well as fields. As data without theory
t would be blind, the behavioural revolution implied the explicit elaboration of concepts, models and
hypotheses. The emergence of the Third World further stimi~lateda whole new approach to the
explanation ofdifferences between politics and society in rich and poor countries-the development
and modernisation theme.

I
It led to the use oftwo frameworks in comparative politics: the systems approach and structural-
functional analysis. The notion of system was taken from the biological and physical sciences
where the human body or any machine was visualised as a system with sub-systems (organs or
parts) which had 'boundaries' but which were closely interrelated and overlapped. Human society
was therefore made up of various systems - political system, economic system etc. each ofwhich
performed specialised fi~nctions.All societies, it was argued, move from simple to complex i.e. the
roles performed by individuals within them become more specialised leading to the emergence of
distinct systems with clear-cut boundaries and functions. The more complex, the more developed
or modern the system becomes, human societies were visualised as moving towards greater
specialisation and modernity. Thepolitical~yslemwas conceptualised as a system in which policies
are to be implemented for further development. Complementary to this the structural fi~nctional
approach, borrowing from sociology,attempted to create a value-free science of politics by describing
all systems as having similar basic structures and functions- irrespective ofthe level of development
oftheir political, social and economic systems- which could be compared and analysed. All systems
attempted in their passage from simple to complex, or tradition to modernity, to reach a point of
equilibrium.

The emergence of a number ofNew States as a result of process of de-colonisation also encouraged
I
such theorising. By the use of systems analysis and the structural fi~nctionalframework, all political
systems, it was felt could be studied irrespective oftheir differing historical background, level of
economic development, culture and values. The main dilemma was whether the theoretical tools
and techniques used to study European governmentsshould be merely extended to the study ofthe
New States, or was there need for a change. Concepts such as multi-party system, federalism,
parliamentary and presidential systems were the product of comparative observation of Western
governments over a long period oftime. Would they be useful in studying non-Western governments i
and processes, or was there, as Lucian Pye claimed, a distinct 'non-Western political process' due 1
to differences of history and culture? In general the only concession made to the differences
between the east and west was to allow for some 'cultural differences' in analysis. Apart from this
the concepts of political development and modernisation fashioned by scholars such as James
Coleman, Gabriel ~lmb;7dand Lucian Pye were seen as useful for analysing and comparing the
new states. A similar development is seen on the Left as well with the fashioning of large scale
concepts such as Underdevelopment and Dependency to understand the developingcountries and
to highlight their differences with the West. Thus the emphasis was on 'grand theory' or large-
scale theorisingabout political system.

These approaches ran into trouble from the very beginning. These were criticised as Eurocentric,
reductionist and too ambitious. Comparisons on this scale proved vely difficult. l i e r e was therefore
I

I
 a return to a more normative science'that did not ignore cultural differences, which make comparisons
difficult, and middle range theorising in which comparison is pitched at a lower level. Many scholars
were disillusioned by their own efforts. Almond, writing in the International Encyclopaediaof Social
Sciences, argued that Comparative Politics was at best a 'movement and not a sub-discipline
within Political Science'. By the end ofthe 1970s,comparative politics reached a plateau; parts of
it were incorporated into political theory and parts into area studies. A more optimistic assessment
would be that while the attack on the traditional approach was successful, the new alternatives
suggested also were not free from limitations. The reorientation ofcomparative politics resulted in
an expansion ofthe sub-discipline in terms oftheoretical depth and empirical scope as attempts
were made to integrate a growing but disparate body of knowledge by means oftheory.

I 1.3 THE COMPARATIVE METHOD

Scholars are not agreed on the comparative method, its nature and scope. Some ofthem like A.N.
Eisenstadt, argue that the term does not properly designate a specific method, but rather a special
focus on cross-societal, institutional or macro- societal aspects of societies and social analysis.
Others like Arend Lijphart, hold that it is definitely a method, not just a convenient term vaguely
I
symbolising the focus of one's research interests. But it can be defined as one ofthe basic methods
-the others being the experimental, statistical and case study methods -ofestablishing general 1
propositions. On the other hand, Harold Lasswell argues that for anyone with a scientific approach
to political phenomena, the idea ofan independent comparative method seems redundant, beccdse
the scientificapproach is 'unavoidably comparative'. Gabriel Almond also equates the comparative
with the scientific method. Yet, it is essential to underline that scholars do recognise that the ,
comparative method, is a method of discovering empirical relationships among variables and
not a method of measurement.-The step of measuring variables is logically prior to the step of
',
finding relationships among them. It is the second of these steps to which the term comparative
method refers. Finally, a distinction should be made between method and technique.The comparative
method is a broad-gauge, general method, not a narrow specialised technique. It is in this vein that
scholars refer to the method ofcomparison, or some prefer the term comparativeapproach, because
it lacks the preciseness to call it a method. The comparative method may also be thought of as a
basic research strategy, in contrast with a mere tactical aid to research.

The comparative method is best understood if briefly compared with theexperimental, statistical
and case study method. The experimental method is used to understand the relationship between
two variables in a controlled situation. Since such experiments are not possible in political scikbce,
an alternative is the statistical method, which entails the conceptual (mathematical)manipulation of
empirical data in order to discover controlled relationships among variables. It handles the problem
of control by means ofpartial correlations or cross-tabulations i.e. by dividing the sample into a I
number of different groups (for example on the basis of age, income, education etc,) and looking at
the correlation between the two selected variables in each. This has come to be&cepted as a
standard procedure and is applied almost automatically in empirical research. Thus, the statistical
method is an approximation of the experimental method as it uses the same logic. Therefore
comparative method essentially resembles the statistical method except thatthe number of cases it
deals with is often too small to permit statistical methods. But it is necessary to understand that the
comparative method is not an adequate substitute for the experimental method as in the natural
sciences.

But these weaknesses can be minimised in a number ofways. The statistical method is best to use
as far as possible, except in cases where entire political systems are being compared, then the

14 I

- -
 colnparative method has to be used. The two can also be used in combination. In this comparative
analysis is the first stage in which macro-hypotheses are carefully formulated usually covering the
structural elements oftpal systems, and the statistical stage the secofld, in which through micro-
replications these are tested h a s large a sample as possible. Second, too much significance must
not be attached to ne4ative findings: for example rejecting a hypothesis on the basis ofone deviant
case especially when the sample is small. Rather, research should aim at probabilistic and not
universal generalisations. Third, it is necessary to increase the number ofcases as much as possible
(is too small a sample which is not ofmuch use). Comparative politics has advanced because ofthe
formulation of universally applicable theories or "grand theories" based on the comparison of many
countries or political phenomenon within them. For example, structural functional analysis theory
opened up a world of comparative research unknown before. Fourth, increase the number of
variables if not the number ofcases; through this more generalisationsare possible. Fifth, focus on
'comparable cases' i.e. those that have a large number of comparable characteristicsor variables
which one treats as 'constants', but dissimilar as far as those variables which one wants to relate
, to each other. 'This way we study the 'operative' variables by either the statistical or comparative
method. Here the area or regional approach is useful, for example comparing countries within
Latin America or Scandinavia or Asia. But many scholars have pointed out that this is merely a
manageability argument, which should not become an imprisonment. Another alternative is studying
regions within countries, or studying them at different points oftime as the problem of control is
much simpler as they are within the same federal structure. Here it may be mentioned that the
states within the Indian Union provide a rich laboratory for comparative research that has not yet
been undertaken. Finally, many scholars feel that focus should be on 'key' or contextual variables,
as too many variables can create problems. This not only allows manageability but also often leads
to 'middle range theorising' or partial comparison ofpolitical systems. This has been used successfUlly
, in anthropological studiesas tribal systems are simple. Political scientistscan also do this by limiting
the number of variables.
'
The case study method is used whenever only one case is being analysed. But it is closely connected
with the comparative method, and certain types ofcase studies can become an inherent part ofthe
comparative method whenever an in-depth study of avariable is needed prior to comparison with
other similar ones. The scientificstatus of the case study method is somewhat ambiguous because
science is neither generalising nor a ground for disapproving an established generalisation. But its
value lies when used as a building block for making general propositions and even theory-buildingin
political science when a number ofcase studies on similar subjects are carried out. Case studies
can be of many types for example atheoretical or interpretative, theory confirming or infirming,
each useful in specific situations. Thus the comparative and the case study method have major
drawbacks.Because ofthe inevitable limitations ofthese methods it is the challenging task ofthe
investigator in the field ofcomparative politics to apply these methods in such a way as to capitalise
on their inherent strengths and they can be useful instruments in scientific political inquiry.
Many scholars have spent much of the post-war period constantly improving the use of these
methods.
I

1.4 CONTEMPORARY SIGNIFICANCE

1

In the post-war period, comparative politics has passed through many phases. In each of these
changes have been made, and continue to be made by scholars. Comparative politics first focused
on the input side relying on political sociology, claiming that basic properties ofpolitical systems
were to be understood against background information about structure and processes in society;
thus it was claimed that political conflict dimensions were structured according to cleavage dimensions
in the social structure. This reductionist approach offset a reaction by political scientists such as
Samuel Huntington, who argued for the autonomy ofpolitics in relation to social and economic
factors. Hence, the second stage in modem comparative politics aimed at institutional analysis of
the variation of political systems and their constituent parts such as parties and party systems on
their own right. Central to this were crucial distinctions between different types of democracy,
authoritarian rule and modemising politics. The shift was from democracy to 'order' through stable
institutions. Finally the growing interest in the output side of politics within Political Science also
affected comparative politics. Why study different political systems if it was not the case that
politics matters for policies? This was also possible due to the rediscoveryof the centrality of the
state both on the right and the left ofthe spectrum. The thirdstage therefore implied a merger of
comparative politics with public policy andpolitical economy, attempting to understand what
different political systems does (policy inputs) and actually accomplish (policy outcomes).
This led to comparative public policy.

Those who emphasise the input side typically refer to the impact of social cleavages, the basic
problem being the extent to which environment determines the polity. The cleavage approach
reducing politics to cleavage dimelisions in the social structure seems as exaggerated as
institutionalism or the hypothesis that there is no relationship whatsoever between social and
economic factors and the political system. But how does one strike a balance between social
and economic determinism and political indeterminism or the new institutionalism? How in
the comparative analysis of the political system in various countries can one identify crucial
concepts, with which to sort out in careful fashion major system differences and similarities?
As the attempt to separate traditional, developing and modern politics, failed as a result of the
value-loaded nature of these concepts, the distinction between democratic and authoritarian
regimes became the fundamental one. However, even if there is unanimity as to the meaning
and applicability of the term 'democracy', there is disagreement about the properties or
indicators that identify a democratic regime. Two very different types of democratic models
have been recognised: the Westminister type democracy versus the consensus or consociational
type democracy. But how about the far larger set of non-democratic systems? Today we have
more than 160 polities known as Third World and there is as yet no agreement about the
taxonomy of Third World Politics. No doubt, much future comparative research will focus on
the set ofnon democratic regimes in orderto set out how they vary along a few basic dimensions.

A major development of contemporary significance is the emergence of comparative analysis

of public policy or political economy, which has since the mid 1970s added a new dimension
to comparative politics. To the extent that it focuses on the output or 'outcome' side of the
black box of the political system, there is continuity from the past. The difference is a shift
from grand comparative theory of 'Political Development' and problems of 'Modernisation',
to a much narrower field of cogcentration namely the State and its central role in development.
The change is fro111meta-analysis to meso-analysis, which focuses upon the linkage between
definition of problems, setting ofagendas, decision-making and implementation processes. It has
given comparative politics a more specific, problem solving and policy orientation. Comparative
politics remains multidisciplinary,but has moved awayfiom Sociology and closer to Economics.
It also signals a return to more normative concerns rather than a constant emphasis upon
scientzjk methods. It has also re-established a link between academic political science and
practitioners of public administration.

Through Public Policy a society is able to define the relationship between the production of goods
and services along the boundaries ofwhat is possible, given the constraint of resources. But simply

16
 I
the questions it asks are what is the appropriate 'public' arena ofthe State vis-a-vis the private
sphere and what kinds of policies lead to development? By comparative analysis ofwhat states do
within this public arena, it is able to theorise the appropriate sphere ofthe State. Consequently,
public policy is descriptive, analytic as well as prescriptive in its approach. Politics is now
conceptualisedas "public choice"among a number ofalternativepolicies, and its goal is to integrate
knowledge into an overarchingdisciplinecapable of analysing publiqchoice and decision-making
and thereby contributing to the democratisation of society. Political economy more specrfically,
is concerned with the ejfects of politibal choices on the production and exchange of goods
and services. It is an analysis of the consequences of political choices that political leaders
make involving the polity b scarce resources. The value of the approach lies in realising that in
developing societies, choices are really paths of development. The choice before leaders is
through public policies to merely cope with, induce, or introduce radical social and economic change.
Therefore, within political economy,.'Political Development' is re-defined as the increasing capacity
to meet and induce changing and expanding demands and generate resources to be able to do so.
While political economy provides the theory, public policy is the method by which these can be put
into action. The end results of all this has meant that the focus is on smaller comparisons or, on
what is possible. Middle range comparison today is more modest, focusing on a single region or
comparable set of regions. In conclusion, the field of comparative politics has fragmented and no
single definition ofcomparative politics exists. This has its merits; it means that it allows focus on
what is significant and useful and not necessarily what is global and all encompassing as earlier.

1.5 SUMMARY
In this unit, you have studied about the nature and evolution of Comparative Politics as a sub-
discipline within the larger discipline of Political Science. Though it is one ofthe oldest forms
in the study of Politics, it has stimulated much interest in the post Second World War period, making
it relatively a new field. While the Traditional approach was more parochial and monographic, the
modern approach is wider in scope. It was successful in its attempt to ana1yse the rapid changes
that have occurred in political institutionsand processes and their shift from tradition to modernity.
The second section of this unit focuses on the feasibility of the Comparative Method. Though
various scholars do recognise the comparative method as a logical step, they differ in their opinions
on its applicability-whetherit is scientific, statistical, experimental or merely a basic method. While
the interpretations vary on this factor, efforts are on to improve the use ofthese methods from time
to time. The last section focuses on the contemporary relevance of Comparative Politics. Though
the subject is multidisciplinary in character,the merger ofthis sub-discipline with public policy and
political economy has added a new dimension in analysingas to what different political systems do
and accomplish (inputs and outputs ofthe policy). Thus it establishes a linkage between the policy
orientation, decision making and implementation processes.

1.6 EXERCISES

1) What is Comparative Politics? Briefly analyse its evolution as a sub-discipline.

2) Analyse the strengths and weaknesses ofthe Comparative Method.

3) Evaluate the contemporary significance and contribution ofthe Comparative method.

I
 UNIT 2 COMPARATIVE APPROACHES AND METHODS:
SYSTEM, STRUCTURAL, PUBLIC POLICY

I Structure
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Genesis and Orientation SystemsApproach
2.3 David General Systems Theory
2.3.1 David Conceptual Framework
2.3.2 Influences Shaping approach
2.3.3 Applications of Systems Analysis
2.4 Some Criticisms of Methodology
2.5 Evolution of Structural - Functional Approach
..
2.5.1 Gabriel Almond's Conceptual Framework
2.5.2 Influences Shaping Almond's Approach
2.6 Criticism of Almond's Methodology and Theory
2.7 Public Policy: Some Perspectives
2.8 Summary
2.9 Exercises

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Political and social thinkers have proclaimed a certain conception of system to explain the
phenomenaofpolitics.Marx classified societies into systemson the basis modeofproduction
as feudal, bourgeoisand proletarian; Weber divided societies into systemsofauthority: traditional,
Charismatic and rational - legal. Unlike Marx, who thought that system change was dialectical,
Weber believed that it was evolutionary.

Classical writers viewed monarchies, aristocracies and democraciesas political

classified political systems into primitive, traditional,transitional and modem. Coleman spoke of
competitive, semi-competitiveand authoritarian systems and later divided them into dictatorial,
oligarchical and representational systems.

Eisenstadtsuggested a long list ofprimitive, patrimonial,feudal, bureaucratic, democratic, autocratic,

totalitarian and underdeveloped systems. Edward Shills classifies systems into political
democracies, titular democracies, modernising oligarchies, totalitarian oligarchies and traditional
oligarchies.

Classificationsof systems reveal a variety of interpretations. The emergence of many new nations,
the amassing of new data and technologicaladvances has increased the complexity subject.
Many social scientists now use system as the basic concept political analysis.
 systems, such aspolitical, economic, social, andcultural-psychological. The analyst
abstractsfrom the whole society some elementswhich are more coherent and call them a system.
Conceptually measurable amounts are called variables, constant elementsare termed parameters.
The variablesof a politicalsystem may consist of structures, functions, roles, values,norms,
goals, inputs, outputs,responseand feedback. These terms will be explained below as we analyse
the concept of political system.

2.2 GENESIS AND ORIENTATIONS OF THE SYSTEMS'

APPROACH
The genesis of the Systems approach can be traced to several, different sciences. Lilienfeld has
mentioned in thisconnectionthefieldsof biology, and operationsresearch. This approach
is also indebted to anthropology, economics and sociology. Ludwig Von Burtalanffyand others
founded the Society for General Systems Research and also BehaviouralScience.They
said that the goal of the Systems theory was the integration of"the various sciences, natural and
social". Norbert Weiner believed that his concept of cybernetic control through feedback could be
a model for legitimising governmentaloperations in a politicalsystem. Operations Research applied
theSystems approach to the use of radar installations during the Second World War. It was used to
forecast military outcomeson the basis of strategy, tactics and the design ofweapons. Later, in
times of peace, operations research becomes synonymous with systems analysis in natural and
social sciences.

Among the social sciences, economics was first to make contributions to systems theory.
Economic techniques and computer simulation were used along with input-output analysis to
analyse relation among various segments of an economic system. Input-output analysis is
generallystatic in nature. In Political Science, it is generally used in qualitative assessments of a
system.

Game theory has been used in political analysis of electoral strategies and external relations
of political systems. Political scientists have used it in the testing and the
rational choice This theory assumes that individuals tend to use actions that bring them the
best results.

Sociology also alludes to "ways of guiding human thinking in systematic fashion." We

refer to the "Planning-Programming-BudgetingSystem" used by the American government.
David Singer distinguished between two differentorientations consisting of (i) systems analysis
and (ii) general systems. In his view, systems analysis suffers from abstraction and lacks a
dynamic and historical perspective. He opted for the phrase, general systems, which should
study regularitiesin various systems. P.G. Casanova suggested a similar distinction.
t
The first type was represented by Talcott Parsons and is rooted in 19 century positivist
theories. The second type is called systems analysis, which stresses on the decision-making
and has benefited mathematical applicationsand operations research. Casanova studied
the history of changes in modem systems. His emphasis on history and policy-oriented research
enabled him to put forward a radical reinterpretation of both systems - analysis and
functionalism.

Chilcote has identified three principal trends in the literature of Systems Theory: One
trend, sometimes called Grand Theory, is non-historical in orientation. It grew the natural
sciences. It culminated in the writings of David The of was wide-ranging
and had a profound impact on both comparativeand international politics; Karl Deutsch, Morton
Kaplan, and Herbert Spiro were deeply influenced by him.

Another trend, known as structural-functionalism, tries to be holistic but towards a non-

historical and middle - range analysis. It has grown from two academic traditions. In the first
tradition, we can place the works of Malinowski, Radcliffe -Brown, and Talcott Parsons. In
the second traditions, we can refer to the works of Arthur and David Truman. Both
these traditions have converged in the contributions of Gabriel Almond, whose structural -
functional approach made great impact on comparative politics.

A third trend is a radical and Marxist critique and reinterpretation of Systems Theory. It raises
substantive issues of public policy and argues that the study of political system must investigate
them in order to make our knowledge socially relevant and meaningful. In addition, "the radical
re-interpretation recasts system in terms of state and looks to the theories of the capitalist state."

2.3 DAVID GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY

Karl Mannheim offered "systematic sociology" in his study of society. Following him, Charles
wrote about "systematic politics". This search for a systematic interpretation of society
and polity continued by David in his application of general Systems Theory to the
study of political systems. The following discussion will include, first, a statement of
conceptual framework; influences shaping approach; third, application of his
ideas; and lastly, a critique of methodology.

2.3.1 Conceptual Framework

conceptual framework evolved in three phases. The first phase is represented by
Political System published in 1953. The second and third phases are represented by A Framework
of Political Analysis and A Analysis of Political Life, both published in 1965, one after
another.

His conceptual framework was based on four assumptions:

The empirical search for knowledge requires the construction of systematic theory the
highest order of generalisation.

ii) Political scientists must view the political system as a whole rather than concentrate on
solutions for particular problems. They must combine factual knowledge and empirical
data.

Research on the political system draws from data and situational data
both by personalities and motivations of the participants and the influences emanatingfrom
the natural and social environment.

iv) Political life is generally in a condition of disequilibrium,a counter-tendencyto equilibrium,

which is never realised in practice.

rejected the concept of state by referring to confusion and variety of its

meanings.
.- He regarded power as a significant concept which shapes and carries out authoritative
politics in society. It rests on the ability to actions of A policy, therefore,
"consists of a web of decisions and actions that allocate values."

The concepts of power, authority, decision-makingand policy are important in concept

of political life as the authoritative allocations of values for a society. He identified the following
attributes of political system:

1) Unitsand boundaries

2) Inputsand outputs

3) Differentiationswithin a system and

4) lntegrationwithin a system.

Diagram of a Political System

Environment Environment

Demands The Political

System

[Inputs] Decisions and [Outputs]

Support Actions

Environment Environment

The diagram points out that for the purpose of analysis,the use of system permits the separation
of political life from the society.The units political system are 'political actions'.
in the form of demands supports feed the political system. Demands come from the
environment or arise within the system itself. Demands become issues which are dealt through
the recognised channels in the system. Supports are actions or orientations prompting or resisting
the political system.

Outputs emerge from the political system in theform of binding decisionsand policy actions.These
decisionsand actionsare fed back into the environment bysatisfyingthe demands of sdme members
system. They in turn, generate support for the system. Dissatisfaction may have negative
results in the form of new demands on the system.

In his second phase, elaborated his frameworkandargued that the political system
is "a set of interactions the totality of social through which values
authoritatively allocatedfor a society." He discussed the persistence and dynamics of

21
systems. Political systems persist in times of change. They can face pressure and stress. They

In his third phase, attempted the construction of a general theory and explained why the
systems persist in the face of frequent and constant crises. In this, he studied responses to the
stresses placed on the system, and discussed outputs as regulatorsof specific support. He thus
hoped to provide a foundation for empirical investigation.

claims that his political analysis is dynamic rather than static and his concept of system
persistence permits gradual structural changes unless they head towards a complete
disintegration of the rule-making mechanisms. System Theory cannot explain revolutionary
changes. .

2.3.2 Influences Shaping Approach

According to Mackenzie, was caught up in a movement which he did not originateand
there is no Eastonian theory as such. He was indebted to a tradition of forty years which began
with Charles Merriam, George Catlin, Harold and others. Like them, he believed that
attention to legal institutions, parties and pressure groups was outmoded and political science
should theorise about the political system as a whole.

also looked to Talcott Parsons, who had derived from Weberan action frame of reference
which could be applied to macro theory in the social science. Talcott Parsons formulated
generalisations about the social system, but accordingto David he questioned the validity of
political theory.This meantthat his influence on approach was limited. Thereareoccasional
references in work to the anthropologists Malinowski and Brown as well as to
the sociologists and alsoargued that 'structural analysis, so-called, is not
a theory but a concept intrinsic to all scientific research. Indeed, it is fundamentally devoid of
theoreticalcontent." .

The works on social psychology influenced decision - making is an element in his

s
conceptual framework for olitical analysis.
economic conceptions. Wil iam Mitchell said that
approach was also influenced by macro-
concept of allocation
"theories of distribution and the allocation'of resources in economics, and particularly neo-
classicaltheory."From economics David borrowed such notions as"scarcity,allocation,
competition, homeostaticequilibrium, interdependence,self-regulation,
seeking and feedback." systems approach wasalso derived from physical and life sciences.
Thus he joined the inter-disciplinary of seeking an understandingof the"whole"system.
Ervin concluded:

The most consistent as well as most general paradigm availabletoday to the inquiring mind is the
systems paradigm. The systems philosophical paradigm takes man asone species ofconcreteand
actual system, embedded in encompassing natural hierarchies of likewise concrete and actual
physical, biological and social systems.

has been influenced by the new sciences"and his input-output framework

is closer to the communications model of Karl Deutsch. Both believe that the political system has
feedback mechanismswhich are capable oftransmitting of a positive or negative kind
to the system. Thus a particularstate ofequilibriummay change without disturbing the political
2.3.3 Applications of Systems' Analysis

Laszlo, Levine and expressed theiranxiety about seeking solutions to the problems, faced
by the post-industrial societies. Following their goal was"to plan for and to control the
system so as to perform in a socially good way." Meleod wanted to use the systems analysis and
simulation as he thinks that simulation is a good technique for exploring the for understanding
the impacts of proposedaction and for permitting us to solve many problems facing mankind. Many
writers such as Abramson and Inglehast,Teunoand Ostrowski analysed national political systems
by measuring relevant empirical data.

Qther significant applications of systems approach are found in the works of Herbert Spiro, Karl
Deutsch and Morton Kaplan. They either follow conceptual scheme or a parallel
framework.Spiro's work directlyrelates to Comparative Politics. focus ison international
politics. Karl Deutsch is equally concerned with both fields.

Spiro defined a politicalsystem asa community that processes issues.These isues relate to problems,
needs and goals about which consensusor dissensionmay exist. Karl Deutsch viewed politics as
the "steering or manipulation of human behaviour."He evolved a system based on the study of
communicationsand control, points ofdecision, feedbackand flow paths.

2.4 SOME CRITICISMS OF METHODOLOGY

Criticisms of methodology tend to emphasize three areas Conceptual Inadequacy

(2) Operational (3) Ideological Orientations.

1. ConceptualInadequacy

Many critics have attacked work on the grounds of inadequate conceptualisation.In his
work, there is an excessive pre-occupation with persistenceand stability in the face of changes and
conflict in actual political life. There is too much attention paid to the central orienting conception of
the allocation-of values and the foundary.

Thorson argued that the persistence system is central not only to theory but to his
exposition as well. Everything brings on the system persisting. Real situations in several European,
Asian and other countries could not be explained by the notion ofpersistence. Miller, Readingand
Leslie also found fault with his notion ofequilibrium and persistenceas inapplicable to changing
realities.

William Mitchell criticised concept ofpolitics as the allocation of values, as leading to

misleading assumptions in theorising politics. It may mean that the political system has a single
ofallocationonly. Moreover,the polity does not allocateall valuesofa society,The economy
distributes income and resources.The may be obscured by too much attention to
the demands of interest groups, while in fact the demandsof government and ruling classes upon
people may be more important.
 pre-occupation with boundary was also criticised. It was pointed out that political
system cannot be isolated from economic, social and cultural-psychological systems. David
singer argued that we must cross back and forth over the boundaries between and among .
these systems and must therefore try to cope with several overlapping and elusive systems of
action at the same time. It has yet to be done successfully. Evans concluded that failed
to define the 'political' and distinguish it from the 'non-political', making his notion of the
boundary vague.

The above problems arose due to avoidance of the human element. Almond
and Parsons belonged to the "system of an action school"which ignored both individuals and
aggregations of people as active participants in politics.

2. Operational Difficulties
conceptual has not yet yielded testable hypotheses. His methodology
has made an impact on the ofpolitics "but there has been little empirical consequence
for comparative politics. 'This is because the method is difficult to operate.

The problem with his framework is that it is both mechanistic and artistic at the same time -
like a machine which is also. alive. Despite the vital origins of his thought, used the
vocabulary of cause and effect. His framework, therefore, lacks operational possibilities.

Thorson argues that he creates a general theory of politics, which is wduction ad

and it is an illusion to apply this for the study of any concrete, historically existing political system
in the real world. It will be a futile enterprise. spoke of "empty vision of politics"
in his critical summary of the theory's lack of substance, the artificial nature of system and
member.

3. Ideological Orientations
approach has certain ideological orientations. It seems to the status quo. It is
essentially a static system of analysis. There is no denying the fact that the nature of
methodology makes it relatively easy for it to creep into conservative patterns. A conservative
bias is an feature of functionalism from which the systems analysis has been adopted in
political science. The main object of the systems approach, other bahavioural paradigms,
is to validate the assumptions of the dominant ideology of a liberal capitalist society.

Eugene Miller says that was concerned with an intellectual crisis and the imminent
washing of democratic liberalism. He blamed historicism for the impoverishment of political
theory. In the name of scientific and causal theory, he presented a status general
I theory of political system. For him, value theory lost its importance as he opted for the dogma
of empiricism.

Systems analysisassumed stable conditions, cohesion and equilibrium. refused to take

cognizanceof political conflict, catastrophic change, classantagonism and resolution. He himself
admitted in "There can be little doubt that political science as an enterprise has failed to
anticipate the crises that are upon us." This applied equally to own work on
science during the previous two decades. His methodology had a conservative bias that prevented
 2.5 EVOLUTION OF STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL APPROACH
StructuralFunctional approach is a form of systemicanalysiswhich looks at political system as a
coherentwhole which influences and is in influenced by theirenvironments. A political system
is held together by the presence of legitimate force throughout the system. It has three characteristics:
comprehensiveness,independence and existence of boundaries. The interactions that take place
within a system are not between individuals but between the roles which these individuals adopt.
Lastly, the political system is an open system and is involved in communicationswith systems
, beyond its boundaries.

2.5.1 Gabriel Almond's Conceptual Framework

Gabriel Almond's conceptual framework evolved through three phases. He wrote an article in
1956 in which he said that system is an "inclusive concept which covers all of the patterned
actions relevant to the making decisions." For him, system was more important
than process because system implied totality, interactions among units within the totality and
stability in these interactions, which he described as "changing equilibrium".

Almond relied upon Max and Talcott Parsons in the political system's actions
and turned to concepts like structure and role replacingthe legal vocabulary of institution,group or
organisation. Lastly, he introduced the concept ofpoliticalculturewhich is embedded in a particular
pattern of orientations to political action. These patternsgenerallyextend beyond the boundaries of
the political system.

In 1958 and 1959, Almond and his colleagues at Princeton University focused on the politics of
developing countries.They applied their concepts of structures and functions to changes taking
place in these developing countries avoiding the examination constitutionsand formal
government institutions. Later Almond and Colemanedited and publisheda book entitled Politics
of Areas on this subject.

Almond and his collaboratorsintroduced new conceptsof comparative politics. The concept of
political system replaced the state and its legal apparatus. Structure replaced institution,
role took the place of substituted for power. Almond suggested that all
political systems have four characteristics:
I
i) All political systems have structures.

ii) The same political functions in all political systems.

All political structures are multifunctional.

iv) Allpolitical systems-are mixed in the cultural sense..

Almond then outlined his own categories inputs and outputs:

Input functions:
Political and recruitment
 Interest aggregation
Political communication
Output Functions
Rulemaking
Rule application
Rule adjudication

The outputs are functions and correspond to the traditional legislative, executive and
judicial functions. They show a bias towards American and European conceptions of government
showingtraditional orientation of comparative politics. Almond, however, argued that input functions
are crucial in characterising the political systems of developing countries.

These input functions constitute the ingredients of the system: who recognises, deliberates and
resolves problems and issues. Spiro called this a process of flow"and interpreted
it as consisting of demands and supports for action. Almond says that political socialisation takes
place through the family, school, church, trade union, party and even government agencies. It
also involves recruitment of people from different social groups into political parties, civil service
etc.

Interest articulation is the expression of political interests and demands for action. Interest
aggregation is the combining of those interests and demands which are articulated by interest
groups and political parties. Political communication helps all these political functions. Political
socialisation, recruitment, articulation and aggregation occur through communication.

Gabriel Almond says that political culture is dualistic, not monistic. Political systems may
be represented as modern and traditional, developed and underdeveloped, industrial and
agrarian. Political systems have evolved through stages of development. Structures become
more differentiated as systems reach higher stages of growth. Almond divided them into
primitive, traditional, transitional and modem systems.

Less developed systemsdisplay 'traditional' styles of diffuseness, particularism,and ascriptiveness.

The more developed systems display 'rational' styles of specificity, universalism, achievement
and affective neutrality. Yet this process of modernisation is never complete. Almond called his
theory as theory suggesting "that political systems may be compared in terms of
the probabilities in performance of specified functions by the specified

Almond's framework was further elaborated in the third phase when he, in collaboration with
Powell, published Comparative Politics - A Developmental Approach in 1966. He now put
forward the concept of conversion processes, which allow for the transformation of the demands
and supports that flow into the political system. Out system flows extraction, regulation
and distribution into society.

He argued that his conception of political system deals with interdependence which does not
mean harmony. He claimed that his theory was dynamic as it conceived of "developmental
patterns". He connected his framework of system with his concept of political development.

26
 Diagram of Almond's Political and Levels of Functions

Environment Environment

Capabilities

Regulative

(Demands) Interest THE RuleMaking (Decisions)

Extractive

Articulation

INPUTS Interest POLITICAL Rule Application OUTPUTS

, Symbolic
Aggregation

(Supports) Politucal SYSTEM Rule Adjudication (Actions)Distributive

Responsive

Communication

ADAPTATION

Environment Environment
The diagram illustrates Almond's concept of political system, which comprises
I many independent parts. Almond incorporated force levels of functions in his model.
I One level consists of conversion functions: Interest articulation, interest aggregation,
political communication, rule making, rule application and rule adjudication. These
functions relate to input demands and supports and to output decisions and actions
as internalised within the political system. Demands are formulated through interest
articulation and are transformed into alternative courses of action through interest
aggregation. Rules are drawn up through rule They are enforced through
rule application and sometimes judged by rule adjudication. Communication serves
all these functions.
A second level consists functions: regulation. extraction, distribution, and symbolic
response. These activities relate to the environment. Almond said that in democratic systems,
"outputs of regulation, extraction and distributionare more affected by inputs of demands from
I groups"and these systems therefore have "a higher responsive capability." Totalitarian systems
are less responsive to demands, regulate behaviour through coercion, and extract maximum
resources their people. Symbolic capability relates to the symbol flow from a particular
into the informational environment i.e its image in the community of nations.
Athird level offunctionsis related to maintenanceand adaptationof politicalsystem. They include
political

each level.
and recruitment. According to Almond,a theory politicalsystemcan be
based on understanding the relations among these three levels and the relations functionsat

In 1969, Almond reviewed his conceptual framework and proposed a research design
"intendedto draw us a little closer to a systematic exploitation of historical experience using
a causal scheme which combines system-functionalanalysis, aggregate quantitative analysis
and rational choice analysis at appropriate points in the explanation of developmental
episodes. "This approach retained his structural -functional formulation but combined it with
other approaches to make it empirically more fruitful.
2.5.2 Shaping Almond's Approach
The influences that shaped Almond's approach are similar to those which influenced
System analysis. His perspectives also emanated from the works of Radcliffe - Brown and
Malinowskiand the writings of Parsonsand Because concern with the whole
system, it can be called a patternof macro-structural Another influence on Almond's
thought relates to the traditionsof pluralism and liberalism exemplified by the works of Arthur
Bentley, David Trumanand Robert Dahl. Because of its concern with a pluralityof interests within
the system, it may be called apattem of micro-structural functionalism.
Although Almond restated Parsonian concept of functionalism,two aspects of Parsons' scheme
have influenced Almond's own formulation. Those are the theoriesof action and social system.
Besides, like Parsons, Almond was also interested in the topics ofpersonality and culture. Almond
used the concept of "pattern variables" proposed by Parsons. These were Affectivity vs.
(2) Self-orientationvs. collectivityorientation,(3) Universalismvs. Particularism,
(4) Achievement vs. Ascription, (5) Specificity vs. Almond used them to relate political
culture to politicalsystem.
The idea ofinteraction and equilibriumwas inherent in the middle-range theory of Almond's structural
functionalism; the association ofa pluralisticprocessand equilibriumwas proposed early in Arthur
Bentley's Process and restated in David Truman's work in the Governmental Process.
Almond assimilated pluralisttheory into an explicitlyfunctionalist This Almond's
approach to the status ofpartisanapologists,an interpretation of Western liberal political
system.

2.6 CRITICISM OF ALMOND'S METHODOLOGY AND THEORY

Almond's structural functionalism has been criticisedon threegrounds: (1) ConservativeIdeology;
(2) Conceptual Confusion; and (3) Operational Limitations.
1. ConservativeIdeology
Critics have found that structural functionalism is based on a deterministic, conservative and
restrictive ideology. Don Martindale pointed out four defects of functionalism:the conservative

.. . .
28 .
ideological bias and preference for status quo; a lack of methodological clarity; an overemphasis
on the role of closed systems in'social life, and failure to deal with social change.

C. Wright Mills criticised the conservative bias in the writings of the advocates of
which was a grand theory that neither related to facts nor reached a level of theory. Barrington
Moore, Alf and Andrew Hacker also criticised its conservative bias. considered
Almond's work as ethnocentricand considered its emphasis on stability as reflecting
Anglo-American liberal, capitalist norms. Sanford made a similar charge against Almond.
Other critics accuse functionalists of "a liberal bias" who believe that any interference with
freedom of the market-place leads to and limits on the system's natural benefits.
Charles Powell saw in Almond's methodology a reflection of "American cultural mythology".
His interest group approach was based on "classless view of a society stratified by religious and
ethnic distinctions ...the state withers away as a nonpartisan reference.. ...into a framework of
functionalist conflict resolution." He concluded that Almond's structural functionalism is
"establishmentarian,non-operational, formally inadequate ....As a vehicle for research it goes
nowhere, and as a language of discourse it leads to obfuscation......the pluralistic neutralism of
structural-functionalism.....renders it useless as a theory."
2. Conceptual Confusion
I.C. argued that "functionalism is limited by its lack of explanatory power, its satisfactoriness
explanation and the constricting effect of its assumptions, about the nature and working of
social systems." Groth's criticism of Almond's theory had three points against it: ambiguity in
terminology, difficultiesin determining political relationships, and confusion in the use of facts and
values. and Kind also criticised his obsession with empirical detail detached from
theory and obscurity of his languages.
Mackenzie thought structural functionalism as a mere which mystified truth. He said,
"Almond's terms are in one sense no better than the old terms because they offer no better
definitions." S.E. Finer said about the vocabulary of Almond's political system: "What Almond
has to say could have been said without using this system approach and it would have been said
more clearly." Finer hated the use of "modish"concepts. He thought that Almond's conception
of "political" was misconceived and that his notion of system, with its inputs and outputs was
"ot'iose and confusing".
argued that functionalism is illogical, Sherman Roy thought that it has tendency
to exaggerate the cohesiveness of systems and to obscure goals resulting in vague description
and lack of analysis.
Operational Limitations
has a methodology where ideal situations are often confused with
the observed situations of systems. Terry N . Clark complained about the structural functional
overemphasis of institutionalised political Other critics said that "structural functionalists
have not taken the enormously step of refining, and testing hypotheses."
They attributed these failings to the limitations of the writers, early stage in the evolution of the
theory and the deficiencies of functionalism itself.
According to Holt and Turner, Almond viewed the modern system as structurally
in effect to equate the modem political system with modem Anglo-American democratic
system.. definitions employ too many dimensions, and it neglects the problem of variation in
the societal functions of govemment."
They gave an example. According to Almond, there was no modem system in the Soviet Union.
Its structure lacked differentiation and autonomy. Thus it was, in Almond's view, traditional. Holt
and refuted this description by referringto the variety of interests that were expressed,
particularly during the period. Almond's categories become too rigid and specific
cases do not relate to his conceptual scheme. Other critics, however, suggest that functional
theory, if handled with care, could produce empirically testable hypotheses and prove in
research. ,

2.7 PUBLIC POLICY: SOME PERSPECTIVES

To find out how a political system can realise its goal, David would seek answers to
these questions: "What are the actual authoritative policies adopted by a society? How are
they determined and how are they put into effect?" Thus all activities involved in the formulation
and execution of social policy the policy - making process would constitute the political
system.
Policy is not just a decision of legislature or govemment because its implementationwill depend
on an administrator, who can reformulate or even destroy it. The study includes an
examination of the functioning and determinants of both the legal and the actual policy
practices. says: "If the law directs that all prices shall be subject to a specified form
of control, but black markets take root and the appropriate and the society as a whole
accept their existence the actual policy is not one of price control alone. It also includes the
acceptance of black markets."
Almond discussed public policy in terms of the capabilities of a political system. The novelty in
the capabilities approach is that it explains public policy in empirical It is incorrect to say
that democratic system follows a particular course of domestic and foreign policy. We know that
some democracies have followed social welfare and economic nationalisation policies, while
others have been committed to the policy of non-intervention in economic and social life
rigidly. The United States before the depression a policy of limited intervention, which
was changed by President Roosevelt into a "New Deal" welfare policy.
The extractive capability of a political system refers to the range of policies and system
performance in drawing material and human resources from the domestic and international
env
The regulative capability refers to the political system's for controlling the behaviour of
individuals and groups. In the United States, the political system now regulates many sectors of
economic life, it protects consumers from monopoly pricing, trade unions from suppression or
businessmen from unfair practices. .
The distributive capability refers to the policies regarding the allocation of goods, services,
honours, statuses and opportunitiesof various kinds to groups and individuals in the political
system.
Marxist theory has argued that the class structure of a society determines the structure and
process of the political system and also its policies and performance in society and in the
international Marxist theorists believed that the capitalist form of society produced
a political system dominated by the bourgeoisie, acting in its own interest and following a policy
of international aggression in order to maximise market and profits.
Ralph speaks of the state system within system. Implemented at six
different levels of the state system: (1) the government (2) the administration (3) the military
and police (4) the judicial apparatus (5) the units of sub-central government and (6)
parliamentary assemblies. The state elite, represented prime ministers, cabinet
ministers, top military men, judges of the higher courts, high civil servants, a few
parliamentary leaders, control the policy - making process in the political system.
Of course, the state system is not synonymous with the political system, which includes parties
and pressure groups, even giant corporations, other capitalist firms, Churches, the mass media,
etc. Both Ralph and Wright Mills have asserted that power elite consisting of (a)
top capitalists (b) top military leaders and (c) top political leaders control the policy-making
process and wield real decision - making power in all political systems of advanced capitalist
countries.
Analysing the relationship of the political system of advanced capitalism to the economically
dominant class, Ralph concludes, "It may well be found that the relationship is very
close indeed and the holders of state power are, for many different reasons, the agents of
private economic power - that those who wield that power are also, therefore, and without
unduly stretching the meaning of words, an authentic 'ruling class'."
While David and Gabriel regard the formulation and execution of policies as a
liberal, pluralistic process based on demandsand supports of interest groups engaged in competition,
C. Wright Mills and Ralph believe that policies in the political system of advanced
capitalist countries are dictated by the leading members of a power elite drawn three
segments: corporate capital, military generals and senior political leaders working as close
allies.

2.8 SUMMARY
Political philosophers have, since long, considered some conception of as their tool to
explain the of politics. System analysis, however, acquired a new significance
after the rise of behaviouralism in American political science, particularly the Second
World
The search for a systematic study of society was carried on by David in his application
of General Theory to politics. set forth four assumptions: this theory
the construction of' a paradigm with the.highest order of generalisation
(2) should be .viewed as a whole (3) research on political system is based
on both psychological and situational data and political be described as in
disequilibrium.

The of political system are political actions inputs in the form of demands and supports and
outputs in the form of decisions and policies. Interest groups contribute to demands and supports
and decisions policies are governmental functions.

focused his attention on System analysis ignoring legal and formal institutions. He said
political science should theorise about the political and its processes rather than
 Critics attacked for his inadequate conceptualisation, his preoccupation with stability and
persistence in the face of change and conflict, his avoidance of the human element, lack of
testable hypotheses in his research, operational within his framework, vagueness in
his notion of the system's boundary and his conservative ideological orientations. Very few
applied System analysis for their research in Comparative Politics.

Almond drew the notion of system from He regarded system as an "inclusive concept
which covers all of the patterned actions relevant to the making of political decisions. For
Almond, system was more important than process. Almond relied heavily upon Max Weber
and Talcott Parsons in his consideration of political system of action. He also introduced
, the concept of political culture.

According to Almond's theory of structural functionalism, all political systems have political
structures, which are multi-functional,and all systems perform similar functions and all of them
have a mixed political culture. Political systems are classified into (i) primitive (ii) traditional
(iii) transitional and (iv) modem on the basis of the of their political culture and the stage
of their political development.

Almond four input functions as (i) political socialisation and recruitment (ii) interest
articulation (iii) interest aggregation and (iv) political communication; and three output functions
as (i) rule making (ii) rule application and (iii) rule adjudication.

of functions was described as the capabilities of the political system: (i) regulation
(ii) extraction (iii) distribution and (iv) symbolic response. A third level of functions was described
by as maintenanceand activities of the political system. Political socialisation
and political culture helped the system in the performance of the above functions.

The critique of Almond's Structural Functionalism included the following points: his theory was
deterministic and ideological; it had a conservative ideological bias; it lacked methodological
clarity; it was unable to deal with problems of social change; it had serious operational
and it was full of jargon.

Both David and Gabriel Almond have presented a liberal pluralistic conception of public
policy, which is the outcome of competitive demands and supports, articulated by various interest
groups and decisions and actions of the government in response to them. C. Wright Mills and
Ralph believe that a power elite, consisting of top capitalists, top military generals and
top political leaders, really determines public policy in the political systems of all advanced
capitalist countries.

2.9 EXERCISES

1) Discuss the origins and orientation SystemsApproach.

2) Critically examine the main assumption of General Systems theory.

3) Critically the main tenets of Functionalism with reference to Almond's

ideals.

4) Write short notes on (a) Perspective on Public Policy (b) Inputs and Outputs.
 3 COMPARATIVE APPROACHES: POLITICAL
ECONOMY, DEPENDENCY AND WORLD
SYSTEMS
Structure
3.1 Introduction
3.2 What is Political Economy?
3.2.1 A Marxist Conception of Political Economy
3.2.2 Evolution of Political Economy
Comparative Political Economy
3.3. Issues of Political Economy
3.3.1 Imperialism and Dependency
3.3.2 Theories of State and Class
3.4 The Concept and Assumptionsof Dependency
3.5 A critical Assessment Theory
3.6 Capitalism as a World System
3.7 A Critique World Approach
3.8 Summary
3.9 Exercises

3.1 INTRODUCTION
Political processes in underdeveloped countries in their actuality have undermined the
confidence of political scientists that they could provide accurate analyses of the requirements
of these systems for or modernisation. One variable which is missing in most of
the 'functional' studies of the underdeveloped societies is the impact of colonialism and neo-
, colonialism. These writers also have a tendency to ignore or underplay the structural aspects
of the economic dimension. Only Marxist writers like Paul Andre Gunder Frank and
Charles Bettelheim have introduced the political economy approach while analysing the politics
of Asian, African or Latin American systems.

Political Economy of growth, Bettelheim's India Independent and Andre Gunder Frank's
Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America are notable examples of the application of
the Marxist political economy paradigm to social and political change in the developing
Gunnar Myrdal and John H. Kautsky have studied the impact of economic factors oh the
political processes of the developing countries from a non-Marxist, liberal point of view.

3.2 WHAT IS POLITICAL ECONOMY?

third New International Dictionary has defined political economy as a social science
which deals with the of and political process. Economists stress the

33
 . ,

economic ramifications of political economy. Mandel traced' its origin to "the development of a
society based on petty commodity production."

Mam's major work, Capital, is subtitled "A Critique of Political Economy" and emphasizes
commodities, money, surplus value, and accumulation of capital. focused on "all material
production by individualsas determined by society". He criticised Adam Smith and Proudhon
for basing their conclusions based on the freedom of the individual and free competition, which
were illusory.

However, in contemporary political science, no great tradition of political economy had developed.
Actually, radical economists and sociologists have done more to revive the current interest in
political economy and to make it more relevant to political analysis. Most of these writers have
promoted a Marxist understanding of political economy.

3.2.1 A Marxist Conception of Political Economy

Early in the embarrassed by his ignorance on economic issues, Marx shifted his attention
from jurisprudence to material interests. Marx says: "I was led by my studies to the conclusion
that legal relations as well as forms of state could neither be understood by themselves, nor
explained by the so-called general progress of the human mind, but that they rooted in the
conditions of life."

In 1845 and 1846, Mam related his conception of the state to the productive base of society
through various stages of history. He says: "this conception of history depends on our ability to
expound the real process of history, starting out the material production of life itself.. ..and
to show in its action as state, to explain all the different theoretical products...religion, philosophy,
ethics and trace their origins and growth from that basis."

According to this, the base or economic structure of society becomes the real foundation on
which people enter into essential relations over which they exercise little control. In contrast, the
legal and political superstructure is a reflection of that base. Only, political economy can restore
the connection between an analysis of the economic base and exposition of its political and
ideological super-structures.

As you might have read in earlier units that traditionally, comparative politics looked at the
government and the state but in the late 1950s American political scientists discarded the
concept of the state. Almond and others thought that the concept of the state was
limited by legal and institutional meanings. The neutral concept of 'system' diverted attention
from class society, from the relationship of different classes to the means of production and
productive forces. Today the use of system usually pertains to a nation and comparative politics
tends toward country based configurative studies. Similarly, international politics is dealt with the
systems approach or the conventional historic, behavioural, geopolitical, balance of power or
equilibrium approaches. They emphasize political aspects, overlooking economic considerations.
When international politics takes up questions of imperialism and dependency, perspectives on
political economy can be applied.

There is another problem. The developed, industrial nations and underdeveloped,

agrarian societies of the are studies in contrast and separate
divided into the metropoles and satellites the centre and the periphery. No
attempt is to integrate and synthesize study of these so-called dichotomous entities.

34
Marxist approach to political economy makes the following points:

First, it has advocated that political inquiry is holistically and historically oriented rather than
limited to segments and current affairs. It should seek synthesis in the search for an understanding
of social problems and issues.

Second, the study of politics should be combined with economics. Distinctions between politics
and economics and also between comparativeand international politics in political science lead
to a distortion of reality and confusion. The dichotomy between the centre and the periphery also
leads to theoretical difficulties. The dialectical method will help in an integrated and dynamic
analysis of politics.

We find contrasting methodologies in the study of political economy. They may be identified as
orthodox and radical methodologies, which generate sharply different questions and explanations.
A distinction between Marxist and non-Marxist criteria should be made to perceive the differences
between these approaches. Marxism in this context should be seen as a methodology rather
than an ideology.

3.2.2 Evolution of Political Economy

Ernest Mandel has provided the most recent interpretation of developmentsin political economy.
Petty production was the first stage that lasted the Middle Ages. The
transfonnation of Europe from feudalism to a profit-orientedeconomy of buyers and sellers led
to the school of political economy. They assumed regulation and control were necessary in'
order to constrain the selfish individualism. They argued that wealth was produced, not by trade
and industry, but by agriculture.

Liberals believed that private property should be protected and that the production of wealth
based on the incentive to work, and the right to property instilled in the individual.They suggested
that individual initiative must be free from mercantilist constraints. Adam Smith consolidated
these ideas into classical political economy. In his into the Nature and Causes o fthe
Wealth o fnations, he discussed the major themes of commodity, capital and values, simple and
complex labour. He was the first to formulate a labour theory of value, "which reduces the value
of commodities to the amounts of labour contained in them."

Adam Smith also identified laws market that explain the drive of individual self-interest
in a competitive milieu and how this results in goods desired by society according to the
and the price it is willing to pay. Smith envisaged competitive market equilibrium because
individualism promoted order, not chaos, in the market economy. Ricardo in the
Political Economy and was both a pupil and critic of Adam Smith. Ricardo advocated
the accumulation of capital as the basis for economic expansion. He thought that restrictions on
private be abolished and that governments should not intervene in the economy.
Ricardo also noted the conflict between the interest of landlords and capitalists.

Utopian socialists like Robert Owen, and Charles Fourier criticised the liberals
or defending the of capitalism by giving a twist to Ricardo's theory of labour.
;aid: In so far as modern socialism, no of what tendency, starts out from bourgeois
economy, it almost exclusively links itself to the Ricardian theory of value. The two
which Ricardo (I) the value is purely
I solely determined by the quantity of required for its and (2) that the
product of the entire social labour is divided among the three classes: landowners (rent),
capitalists and workers (wages), had ever since 1821 been utilized in England for
socialist conclusions."

Marx transcended the theory of the utopian socialists as well as the classical economists. He
worked out a theory of surplus value and class struggle. He set both basic laws of development
and theory of economic crises. He thus achieved a practical synthesis of micro-economic and
macroeconomic ideas. He also said that the of every society form a whole;
the parts cannot be separated from the whole so that one can explain society in terms of all
relations coexisting and supporting one another.

The of socialism led to the marginalist theory of value and neo-classical political
economy. The labour theory of value was attacked along with a bourgeois onslaught on Marxism.
The neo-classical theory was rigorous, detailed and abstract. Marxism was attacked by the
historical school in Germany and also by the Austrian and Swiss economists. The neo-classicists
emphasize equilibrium and are criticised for being unable to account for the disturbances that
affect equilibrium. Their is static, not dynamic. It does not deal with economic crises
and does not relate imperialism to capitalism.
. These problems led some economists like Schumpeter to study structural crises. After the great
depression of 1929-1933, Keynes wrote General Theory of Employment Interest and Money and
changed an apologetic view of capitalism to a pragmatic one. Instead ofjustifying capitalism in
theory, he suggested a way to preserve it in practice by mitigations, the extent of its frequent
fluctuations.

Marxist and Neo-Marxist writers like Kautsky, Hilferding, and Rosa Luxemburg and others
continued the radical tradition of political economy. Imverialism: The Last Phase of
was a good example of the application of the political economy approach to
analysis of imperialism as a world system. Paul Leo Huberman and Paul Sweezy made
a great contribution to the development of political economy since about 1960. Mandel continued
their tradition and predicted an end to what he called the bourgeois, ideological approach to
political economy.

3.2.3 Comparative Political Economy

The examination of the theory, method and concept suggests a dichotomy between bourgeois
and Marxist political economy. Attention to capitalist accumulation permits the consideration of
both political and economic issues. The study of capitalist accumulation with emphasis on
precapitalist and capitalist modes of production can integrate the inquiry that has so far led the
economists to investigate questions about the material base of society and political scientists to
study the issues of the political and ideological super-structure.

Some might say that economists should be concerned with theories of imperialism and political
scientists should deal with the theories of state and class. However, all these concerns should
be integrated by the political economist. The solution is the reconstitution of economies and
political science into economy.

Political economy fundamentally addresses the broad historical sweep of capitalism, especially
over the past hundred years. In the Das Marx gave us the foundations for such study.

6
Paul Sweezy in The of and Ernest Mandel in Marxist Economic
interpreted findings, emphasizing the economic implications. However, a synthesis
by Stanley W. Moore in Democracy focused on the political
ramifications.

Late Capitalism attempts to integrate theory and history in the tradition of

dialectically moving from abstract to concrete and vice versa, from the parts to the whole and
back again to parts, contradiction to totality and back to contradiction. Samir in
Accumulationon a World Scale combined theory with history on a holistic level. He insisted
that all modes and formations of the contemporary world reflect an accumulation on world scale.
Capitalist and non-capitalist world markets are not separate because there was one world
market in which the former socialist countries participated marginally. Moreover, capitalism is
a world system, not a mixture of national capitalisms.

Other attempts to provide a holistic overview of political economy include Parry Anderson's
from and o f the Absolute State. They studied the
political economies of European feudalism and capitalism. Wallerstein, in The Modern
World elaborated Andre Gunder Frank's theory of capitalist development and
underdevelopment and emphasized market relations.

Four thinkers - Mandel, Anderson, and Wallerstein - among others have rekindled an
interest in the history of political economy. It orients us toward old and new issues neglected
by most contemporary economists and political scientists. All four borrowed from Marxist
tradition of political economy and enriched it by their valuable contributions. Mandel explained
that the entire capitalist system is a hierarchical structure of different levels of productivity and
the outcome of the uneven and combined development of states, religions, branches of industry
and firms, unleashed by the search for super - profits.

In this system, unity coexists with lack of homogeneity, developmentwith underdevelopmentand

super profit with poverty, Given these variations, features of lower stages combine with those
of upper stages to produce a formation of contradictory character and allow a qualitative leap
in the social backward people. Brenner criticises this approach he thinks
it has neglected relations of production and class struggle. He doubts whether a national solution
will prevail over the problems of world wide accumulation.

3.3 IMPORTANT ISSUES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

In addition to the historical studies that are related to capital accumulation and theories of
development and underdevelopment, it is reasonable to inquire into a feature of international
political economy dealing with the histories of imperialism and dependency.

It will be fruitful to review the complementary concerns of comparative political economy,

nainely state and class, as well. With the theories of imperialisin and dependency, we can
distinction between bourgeois and Marxist theories of state and class.

The following discussion will critically examine the lines of thought, first, on imperialism
and dependency and, next, on state and
3.3.1 Imperialism and Dependency

Imperialism can be traced the Greek and Roman empires to its mercantile 'old' form in
the 1 and 1 centuries to its monopolistic 'new' form in the 1 and 20'" centuries. Two
views of the new imperialism were propounded. One, the radical and Marxist view suggested
that imperialism was an outcome of expanding capitalism, necessitated by the contradictionsof
the capitalist mode of production. The other, the liberal or argued that the
inequities of the capitalist system could be easily adjusted.

The theories of Kautsky, Schumpeter and Galtung contributed to a liberal view of

imperialism. argued that under consumption was the cause of imperialism and that with
an increase in domestic consumption in Britain, there would be no need to expand into foreign
markets.

Kautsky, a German Social-Democrat, felt that the class conflicts of capitalism would diminish
through peaceful methods of reform and the interests of the capitalist class, as a whole, will
clash with a minority of powerful capitalists who advocated imperialist expansion.

Schumpeter emphasised that imperialism was a precapitalist phenomenon which would disappear
in a rational and progressive era of capitalism. Galtung a structural theory of imperialism
which has broad acceptance today in non-Marxist circles.

Luxemburg, Lenin, Bukharin, and Sweezy, and may be regarded as important

representatives of the Marxist theory of imperialism. Rosa Luxemburg propounded a theory of
imperialism in terms of continuous capital accumulation and examined the penetration of capital .
in backward economies.

Lenin regarded imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. He studied the rapid concentration
of production in large industrial monopolies as well as the growing influence of large in
the monopolies. Imperialism for Lenin was almost synonymous with monopolycapitalism.
He distinguished imperialism from mercantile and free trade colonialism of the earlier
centuries,Bukharin also characterised imperialism as domination of finance capital. He said that
imperialism was an advanced stage of capitalism and should not be equated with either conquest
or political domination alone.

Paul and Paul Sweezy were influenced'by Hilferding, Luxemburg and Lenin in their
formulation of the Marxist theory of imperialism. They focused on the generation of capital
surplus and its disposal. They assessed the role of giant corporations and their managers, holding
monopoly and oligopoly as responsible for imperialism. Harry analysed the patterns of
American foreign policy, political and military presence all over the world, and dominant
position of U.S. aid and trade policies as features of an expanding U.S. "empire".

Theories of dependence have been by Marxist and non-Marxist writers. Raul

and the ECLA (The U.N. Economic Commission on Latin America) school of economists
represent the nationalist school of dependency. Osvaldo Furtado, Pablo
Casanova and Francois also belong to the non-Marxist, nationalistschool of dependency
theorists.
 Another of dependency reflects Marxist approach. Lenin wrote of dependency in
his work on imperialism. influenced and other Latin Americans to write
about dependency after the Second World War. Theotonis Dos Santos and another Brazilian Ruy
Manro Marini attempted to assimilate the concept of dependency into their Marxist theory of
capitalism and Leninist theory of imperialism. F. Henrique gave a heretical, Marxist
interpretation of dependency.

Other writings on dependency, such as Paul Sweezy's and Andre Gunder Frank's
works fall more clearly into Marxist framework. They tried to update Lenin and gave their own
independent interpretations of the phenomena of dependency. The dependency theory will be
discussed in detail in a subsequent section.

I 3.3.2 Theories of State and Class

The prevailing liberal conception sees the state as a political market-place through which the
demands and interests of competing groups and individuals are voiced and implemented. Two
views are presented in this connection. On the one hand, neutral agencies of the state mediate
conflict that emerges from party and group competition. On the other, the state agencies function
as bases of political power and competition among these agencies for funding determines their
relationship to parties and interest groups. Robert has drawn attention to these perspectives
of the pluralist state and incorporated social class trends and cleavages into his revised theory .
of or generational pluralism.

Marx never fully developed a theory of state and class. Ralph noted that "a Marxist
theory of politics has to be constructed or reconstructed from the mass of variegated and
fragmented material which forms the corpus of Marxism." For Marx, the separation of
politics from economics is an ideological distortion because politics is an integral part of
political economy. The primacy of economics constitutes an important and illuminating guideline, .
not an analytical straitjacket.

In the o fthe Private and the State, summed up early

writings on the and class and showed the significance of economic factors. In State and
Revolution, Lenin argued that the state does not reconcile class conflict but ensures the oppression
of one class by He argued that state power should be destroyed by a violent revolution.
Class antagonisms cannot be resolved through peaceful reforms. He saw the police and standing
army as "instruments of state" power. The proletariat fights the state until bourgeois democracy
is replaced by proletarian democracy. With the establishment of classless society under-
communism, the state disappears altogether.

Contemporary scholars have formed three traditions in thought regarding the relationship
of state and class. One tradition is known as instrumentalism. Marx had said in the
Manifesto that the state executive "is but a committee for managing the affairs of the whole
bourgeoisie." Lenin also made references to instruments of state power in his writings. Thus the
state is regarded as an instrument of the dominant or ruling class.

Instrumentalism focuses on the class that rules and the ties and mechanisms that link state
policies with ruling class instruments. Instrumentalism has been criticised for to
rise above pluralist concerns oh social and political groupings rather than on clusses
 A second tradition is represented by the view state which is advocated by
French Marxists. Nicos Poulanzas elaborated a political side of this structuralism. He argued
that the bourgeoisie is unable to act as a class to dominate the state. The state itself organises
and unifies the interest of that class. Althusser also advanced a structural view of the state.

Paul and Sweezy proposed an economic side to structuralism by stressing the activity of the
state in resolving economic contradictions and averting crises. Structuralism is criticised as it
cannot explain class action arising from class consciousness. The critics ague that structural
analysis tends to be static and tied to inputs and outputs rather than a dynamic expression of
class struggle.

A third tradition is rooted in the critical perspectives derived from and Marx. It is carried
on by Herbert and others belonging to the Frankfurt school. This school is seen as
defender of Hegelian re-interpretationof Marxism, very abstract and philosophical and unrelated
to concrete politics. emerged as a leader of the New Left movement in the
1960s. He exposed the mystification of the state and its ideology and inspired the American
youth and Students to rebel against the bourgeois state.

Marx and distinguished state from society in order to explain the interrelationship between
political and economic life. They defined politics in of the power of the state, the super-
structure that represents bourgeois class controlling production. Is there a Marxist paradigm of
. political economy, state and class that has any theoretical and practical relevance today?
answers this question in the

I
The Marxist paradigm was evaluated by him in these words: "Even though it shares insights
with, and has influenced, the various social sciences, it is distinctive and cohesive both as a
method and in the results it facilitates.. ....It poses the right questions about the contemporary
, world; it suggests ways of seeking out the answers; and it is therefore relevant
to the theory and practice of the twenty first century."

3.4 THE CONCEPT AND ASSUMPTIONS OF DEPENDENCY

The concept of dependency is widely used in comparative analysis of the third world political
systems in Latin America, Asia and Africa. It evolved in Latin America in the 1960s and was
later discussed in some writings about Asia and Africa as well. Both liberal and Marxist writers
have propounded their own versions of the phenomena of development andunderdevelopment
resulting in considerable theoretical confusion about the nature of dependency and its conceptual
implications. An attempt will be made here to distinguish between different usages of the
Broadly speaking, it is necessary to differentiate between a bourgeois and a
Marxist view of

Lenin was the first to refer to the concept of dependency as a part of his general theory of
imperialism. He understood capitalist imperialism as a manifestationof the struggle among the
colonial powers for the economic and political division of the world. colonial
powers were sharply distinguished from the colonial countries, formally independent yet dependent
countries also existed. These dependent countries, Lenin said, "are enmeshed net of
financial and diplomatic dependency."
 Contemporary perspectives reveal the of and dependence among
the nations of the capitalist world. can be either progressive or regressive. Dependent
nations may develop as a reflection of the expansion of dominant nations (Canada) or
underdeveloped as a consequence of their subordinate relationship (Brazil).

The Brazilian social scientist, Dos Santo, said: dependency we mean a situation in which
the economy of certain countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of
another economy to which the former is subjected. The relation of interdependence between
two or more economies and between these and world trade, assumes the form of dependence
when some countries (the dominant ones) can do this only as a of that expansion,
which can have either a positive or a negative on their immediate development."

Those who use the concept of dependency in their analysis of development and underdevelopment
also focus on the issue of foreign penetration into the internal economies of the subordinate
nations. External economic and political influence affect local development and support local
ruling classes at the expense of the masses.

I The economist Osvaldo said: "Foreign factors are seen not as external but
intrinsic to the system, with manifold and sometimes hidden or subtle political, financial,
economic, technical and cultural inside the underdeveloped country ... Thus the
concept of "dependencia" links the postwar evolution of capitalism internationally to the
discriminatory nature of the local process of development, as we .know it. Access to the
means and benefits of development is selective; rather than spreading them, process
tends to ensure a accumulation of privilege for special as well
the continued existence of a marginal class."

F. Henrique examined three tendencies in the literature on dependency. One, autonomous

national development emerged in Brazil as a response to the view that development can take
place through the export of commodities or foreign investment. The underdeveloped nations
faced three alternatives: dependency, autonomy or revolution. In order to overcome hindrances
to national development,dependency should achieve autonomy through incremental change.
, view was held by Helio Jaguaribe, a Brazilian writer.

A second tendency is based on an analysis of international capitalism in its monopolistic phase.

It is represented by the ideas of Paul Paul Sweezy and Harry who are
independent Marxist thinkers and believe that socialist revolution alone can put an end to
dependency. claimed to represent the third tendency, which examined a structural
process of dependency in terms of class relations and internal contradictions in the context of
international policies and economics.
,
Bacha classified dependency into five models. The first was conception of Centre -
peripheral dependency. The second was Lenin's conception of and dependency. The
third was Frank's capitalist development of A fourth perspective came from
Dos Santos who spoke of dependency based on dependence on multinational corporations.
The fifth conception came fi-om and internal dependency located in internal
class structure.

Brien recognised three of dependency. The lirst was ECLA structuralist analysis
 by Marini, Dos Santos and Frank. The third was Marxist structuralist synthesis advocated by
and Ianni.

Chilcote divides the conceptions of dependency into four modes: Development of

underdevelopment (Frank and Rodney) (2) New Dependency (Dos Santos) (3) Dependency
and development (Cardoso) and (4) Dependency and imperialism and Sweezy, and
Quijano).

There have been several approaches to dependency theory. The first approach discussed here
is based on national autonomousdevelopment. Since colonial times, Latin America has depended
on exports of raw materials and agricultural commodities but the depression of 1929-1933
resulted in the decline of export earnings. Since then, autonomous development became the new
slogan of the intelligentsia and the bourgeoisie. Under the capitalist state, state control and
planning can assist the growth of national industries as well as an infrastructure of roads, power
and other essentials.

This approach was anti-imperialist and emphasised the creation of an independent national
It was first formulated by the economistsassociated with the United Nations Commission
for Latin America (ECLA), under the aegis of Raul Prebisch of Argentina. Essentially ECLA
accepted the view that a new class of industrialistsand businessmen would emerge as supporters
of national interests in the face of foreign penetration into the domestic economies of the less
developed nations. ECLA has assumed a nationalist yet an anti-imperialist perspective on the
question of development in the dependent countries.

points out that underdeveloped countries suffered from internal colonialism as well.
People in dependent countries also suffer from the exploitation by their own capitalists and
landlords who act as allies of foreign capitalists. Subsistence economies accentuate poverty,
backwardnessand low productivity.

A derivation of colonialism is the theory of poles of development. This theory is concerned

especially with unequal development, which was evident between nations as well as between
regions within a single country. The theory that underdeveloped economies are
by a lack of infrastructure in transportation and communication. The imbalance
created by a dual economy can be overcome by diffusing capital and technology to
underdeveloped regions.

argued that capitalist development can occur in dependent situations. It has become a
new form of monopolistic expansion in the third world. This development benefits all classes
associated with international capital including the local landowning and capitalist class. This is
new dependency resulting from the growing power of foreign multinationals. These conditions
prompt military intervention and rule.

Several Marxist thinkers explain underdevelopment of dependent by

to dominations of the third world countries by monopoly capitalism. These writers
that corporate capital has capital the instrument of
in the dependent countries. and Sweezy examined the United States in the light of their
approach but their work helps us to understand the external impact, monopoly capitalism which
the centre exerts upon the peripheral nations of the world. Samir provided even greater
depth in an analysis of monopolies and dependency in an accumulating capitalist world of
and periphery.

I
Marini has propounded the theory of regarding capitalist development in Brazil.
He characterised Brazilian capitalism as super-exploitative,with a rapid accumulation benefiting
the owners of the means of production and an absolute poverty accruing to the masses. With
the dimunition of internal consumer market and a related decline in surplus, the Brazilian economy
reached an impasse in 1964. The military regime resorted to sub-imperialism as the only possible
escape route from the crisis. Marini analysed the of an escape from dependency and
underdevelopment in the face of its ties with international capitalism. His approach combined a
dependency perspective with a Marxist anti-imperialist framework.

Andre Gunder Frank provided another framework for dependency theory. He emphasised
commercial monopoly rather than feudalism and precapitalist as the economic means
whereby national and regional metropolises exploit and appropriate surplus from the
satellites. Thus capitalism on world scale promotes developing at the expense of
underdeveloping and dependent satellites. Frank was influenced by the ECLA structuralist
approach and reaction to the orthodox views of development. Frank's dichotomy of metropolis
and satellite followed the ECLA formula of centre and periphery. Frank, however, criticised
suggestions for autonomous national capitalist development as impractical.This led him
to an anti-capitalist and a Marxist position. Frank rejected the stage theory of Rostow and
others. He also criticised orthodox Marxist theory for placing the history of capitalism into
deterministic formulas.

Frank's Marxism was influenced by Paul work and by the efforts of Sweezy
and others to set forth original and imaginative ideas within a Marxist tradition. He took an .
exception to the notion of a dual society. He outlines the major contradictions of capitalism that
led to underdevelopment.

Dos Santos outlined three types of dependency:

1) Colonial dependency implied a monopoly of trade and a monopoly of land, mines and man-
power in the colonies.

2) Financial industrial dependency implied a domination of capital by the hegemonic centres

and investment of capital in the peripheries for raw materials and food products.

3) The new dependency, which emerged the Second World War was based on investments
by multi-national corporations in dependent countries.

The theory of new dependency attempts to show that the relationshipof dependent countries
towards the dominant countries cannot be changed without changing their domestic structure
and foreign relations. structure of the dependency leads dependent countries to
underdevelopment as the multinational corporations extract more and more surplus value from
the backward economies.

3.5 A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF DEPENDENCY THEORY

The various approaches discussed above made it clear that there is no unified theory of
dependency. A critique of those approaches is attempted below.

The centre - periphery thesis of the ECLA economies correctly traced the underdeveloplnent
to the international system and thus formulated the basic assumption of the dependency theory.
 However, it neglected a close of the policies of dominant and their
needs. It wrongly attributed to-traditional or factors and assumed
that a progressive national bourgeoisie capable of promoting" national economic
development.

and Furtado modified the strategy of Prebisch and focused on changes in the structure
of internal production so as to eliminate the mechanisms of dependency and also proposed
changes in the structure of the multinationals which reinforce the mechanisms of dependency.
Their were (1) redistribution of land to peasants (2) creation of heavy industry
(3) promotion of export industries (4) joint national-multinational enterprises. Most of these
policies remained either unimplemented or could not change the reality of dependence.

Other theorists of dependency believed that an independent capitalist development was not
feasible and that, instead, socialism must be introduced along with a planned political economy
and an intensive utilisation of natural resources. However there was no popular movement for

I
socialism.

Some also suffer from inadequate conceptualisation. The internal colonial

model of Casanova stresses national rather than external conditions. rightly focuses on monopoly
and relations of production. However the on the fonns of internal colonialism may be
misleading. The assimilation of the marginal people into a collective society by a national
capitalist class is impossible. Autonomous development in a dependency is an proposition
because international capitalism would not permit this to happen.

The Marxist, anti-imperialist approaches to dependency throw fresh light on the relations between
centre and periphery. Their concerns are the hegemonic impact of monopolies whose strategy
is oriented towards global expansion. Contradictions in the centre may be reduced by expansion
in the periphery through the exploitation of the workers and peasants. The contradictions shift
to the periphery where the corporation has become decisive in monopoly capitalism. and
Sweezy support the view that corporate capital has now replaced bank capital as the

I
of controlling industry.

Although the sub-imperialism thesis of Marini has received less attention, Frank's theory about
the development of underdevelopment has influenced many other thinkers and drew the attention
of some critics as well. It is said that descriptions of class structure in Frank's theory are
schematic. Another criticism regards dependency as an external phenomenon imposed upon the
periphery than as an integral element. A critic also points out that Frank's theory of
dependency is static and fails to show changes. Ernesto Laclau argued that Frank's theory
departs from the of Marxism. For example, he defined feudalism and capitalism as social
systems rather than as modes of production. Thus it is to trace various forms of
transition between feudalism and capitalism. Another critic said that Frank's insistence that
capitalism has prevailed throughout Latin America since the sixteenth century departed from
own understanding of capitalism.

I
This critique may be summed up as follows: "The criticism dependency theory
the lack of conceptual clarity in interpretations of orthodox and radical writers alike.
Distinctions between these types of writers are clear, however. An orthodox or bourgeois view
of dependency usually concerns itself with the building of national capitalism within
the interest of the nation on the path toward The radical or Marxist view relates
the elimination of dependency to the struggle of workers to supplant the capitalists owners of
the of production and to establish socialism,.. too is a concern for those
attempting to relate Marxist theory to dependency." Elimination of economic imperialism is
necessary of dependency.

3.6 AS WORLD SYSTEM

and Lenin and their followers conceived the capitalist system in international terms. Robert
developed this in an article entitled "The Modern Science and World System"
published in 1979 in the Theorv Society. argued that developments in
modern science and technology have brought about a highly integrated world system.

Wallerstein in his work entitled Modern examined the capitalist agriculture

the origins of the European world in the sixteenth century. In his introduction, he
discussed the in his previous political perspective. He abandoned his earlier on
the sovereign state or the national society, arguing that "neither one was a social system...One
speak of social change in social systems. social system in this scheme was the
world system." Actually. Wallerstein attempted to transcend the boundaries of disciplines
as he utilised an "unidisciplinary"approach. He thus combined all the social sciences into a
historical and holistic perspective. .

Sainir in his work entitled on World followed a similar approach,

on explicit Marxist building a radical paradigm of understanding. Samir
like Wallerstein, was also historical and holistic as he attempted to transcend national
capitalist and socialist systems to develop and present his thesis. Thus, Samir declared,
"There are not two world markets, one and the other socialist, but only one, the
capitalist world market." His theory on a scale is a theory of capitalist
formations between the centre and the periphery of a world system.

Subscribing to a theory of economic Wallerstein developed his conception

of class in the capitalist world economy. His argument be summarised in the following
words. Class is a concept that is historically linked to the capitalist world economy or the modem
world system.

This world consists of three basic elements: (1) a single market (2) a series of state
structures called nations that influence the workings of the and (3) three levels of core,
and periphery involving the appropriation of surplus labour. Class struggles grow
from the relationship among three levels.

Wallerstein says, "Those on top always to ensure the existence of three tiers in order to
preset-ve their privilege, whereas those on tlie bottom seek to reduce three to two, the better
to destroy this same privilege. This over the existence of the middle tier goes on continually,
both in political terms and in terms of basic ideological constructs."In this struggle, classes are
formed, consolidated,disintegrated, and reformulated as capitalism evolves and develops.

This changing struggle is located in the capitalist world economy. He adds, The capitalist
economy as a totality - its structure, its historical evolution, its contradictions- is the arena of
social action. The political reality of that world economy a class struggle which
however takes constantly changing forms: overt class consciousness versus ethno-national
consciousness, classes within nations versus classes across nations."

Samir also sees capitalism as world system upon which national entities may be dependent.
Class, production struggle, and transition all must be analysed in a world context. Thus, a
transition from capitalism to socialism must begin in the periphery. He says, "Under
conditions of inequality between nations, a development that is not merely development
underdevelopment will, therefore, be both national, popular-democratic and by
virtue of the world project of which it forms part.

The other issue is whether analysis should concern exchange or production. uses concept
as the mode of production to move beyond market categories while focusing on the world
system, centre and periphery. followed in the tradition of Marx who noted the crises
created by financial and trade cycles in the capitalist system, but who also focused on the
development of productive capacity in capitalism. has also argued that we cannot think
of class struggle as occurring within separate national contexts but must think of it as occurring
within the context of the world system. Given the periphery's integration with the world market,
the periphery lacks the capacity and economic means to challenge foreign monopolies.
transfers of value from the periphery to the centre, might not the world be analysed in terms
of bourgeois and proletarian nations? answer to this question is that class struggle in
the modern world system will take place not only inside nations but also across

3.7 A CRITIQUE OF WORLD SYSTEM APPROACH

Wallerstein expanded a conception of centre and periphery that originated with Prebisch.
He came close to the formulations of unequal development thesis of Samir who, however,
attempted to give importance to the productive process of capitalism as well as the market.
Wallerstein also tried to move beyond a conception of class within nations, thereby escaping
some of the problems in a class analysis of internal colonialism or in the attention to national
bourgeoisies found in the writings of both Marxists and non-Marxists related to the question of
development.

Terence Hopkins argued that Wallerstein provided a theory of global capitalist economy as a
world system, not a theory of the development of national economics. The world system has
also brought about an organised world capitalist class in contrast to the alliance among national
bourgeoisie. The multinational corporations have proved effective in this world system
along such class lines.

Wallerstein's theory has been widely criticised for its attention to market rather than production
as a basis for class relations in the contemporary capitalist world. Wallerstein cited
Marx for support of his theory and attempted to disassociate his thought from the ideas of Max
Weber. His concern with structure transcended national boundaries and to discover
the roots of the world capitalist economy. Wallerstein recast the dimensions of the dependency
theory. This influenced even liberal social scientiststo change their perspectives of development,
underdevelopment, state and class.

Ira Gerstein provided one of the few critiques of work. He argued that Samir
treatment of the class struggle and possible transition to socialism is "somewhat ambiguous.
perhaps reflecting.. commitment to the national bourgeoisies of the peripheral countries."
46
 Although correctly negated the thesis that dichotomy of and periphery
relates to a division therefore potential class struggle between bourgeois and proletarian
on the market with resulting tendency toward dualism, masking the class
struggle, and ignoring the relations of production, lead to a questionable world class analysis."

Samir answer to accusations emphasised that the world capitalist systein is

heterogeneous, composed of central dominant formations and peripheral dominated ones. Within
this framework, class conflicts cannot be considered within the narrow scope of national entities
but on a world scale. attention national bourgeoisie is suspect, because they are
the principal allies of imperialism of the nations.

The world approach asserts ( 1 ) a chain of and satellites connects all

parts of the world from the metropolitan centre in the United States and Europe to the
hinterland of all backward countries in Asia, Africa and Latin and (2) times of war
and depression may allow for development on capitalist lines in the satellites,
but the existing capitalist world system such development is destined to acquire the
character of a kind of lopsided, distorted development which will
change the life styles of the marginalised classes.

3.8 SUMMARY
Political economy deals with between economics and politics. Political
. has evolved through several phases: physiocracy, classical political economy, utopian
socialism, neoclassical economies and Keynesian economy.

We find contrasting in the study of political - neo-classical and Marxist.

Marx related conception of the state to the prevalent mode of production. According to him
character of the state with a in the mode of production. Marxism considers
politics as on an economic base.

I
Political economy deals with issues as development, underdevelopment, state
and class, examining economic and political dimensions.

I
Within the political economy approach, concept of dependency has been widely used in
comparative analysis of the third world systems, particularly in Latin America. It stressed
underdevelopment of the backward areas is product of the same historical process of
capitalist development that shaped the development of the progressive areas. Some concepts
to explain dependency were (1) Poles of Development (2) Internal Colonialism (3) Monopoly
Capitalisin (4) Sub-imperialism (5) Capitalist of underdevelopment and (6) New
Dependency.

The world approach is based on the concept of capitalism as a unified world

This modern capitalist world is organised on the basis of three basic .
characteristics: a unified world a series of state structures and nations that affect the
working of the market; and levels of core, semi-periphery and periphery. Class struggle
arises from relationship these levels.
 Liberal, neo-liberal, pluralist and functionalist writers pay little attention to either political economy
approach or the conceptions of dependency and the world system. They dismiss them as
ideological constructs which did not correspond to social and political realities.

3.9 EXERCISES
the assumption of the political economy approach in the study of
comparative politics.

I 2) Discuss the concept of dependency as an explanatory tool for the phenomenon of

underdevelopment.

3) Critically the assumptions of the world system approach and their relevance to
political analysis.
 4 THEORIES OF STATE
Structure
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Meaning of the Concept of State
4.2.1 of the concept 'State'
4.2.2 State as the Political Philosophers know it
4.2.3 What constitutes a State?
4.3 Theories regarding the Origin State
4.3.1 Social Contract Theory
4.3.2 The Theory
The Theory
4.4 Dominant Perspectives State
4.4.1 Liberal-IndividualisticPerspective
4.4.2 Libertarian Perspective
Social-Democratic Perspective
4.4.4 The Perspective
4.4.5 The Gandhian Perspective
4.5 Summary
4.6 Exercises

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The state, being the basic concept Science, has its own significance.Numerous definitions
of the state have appeared since the days of the ancient Greeks. There are, in fact, as
meanings state as there are theorists who venture to define it. That the state is an association
with population, definite and sovereignty is a meaning which
all liberalsgive to the state. That it is an instrument in the economically dominant class
which exploits the have-nots, an executive committee, as Marx had said capitalistic system,
bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat. The anarchists, the social democrat, the Gandhians
have their own different perspectives state. Thus, different meanings have been given to
state by different political philosophies. also are different theories with regard to the origin of
the state; so also are different theories with regard to its nature and functions. To understand the
concept of state in its totality is to know it from all perspectives.

4.2 MEANING OF CONCEPT OF STATE

4.2.1 Etymology of the concept 'State'

of the of the state is older than its The state as a word 'Stato'
 .
(1469-1527). The meaning of the state in the sense ofbody-politics became common in England
and France in the later part of the sixteenth century. The word staatnkunst became the German
equivalent of ragione de state during the seventeenth century and a little later the word
staatscrecht got the meaning of jus publiceem. Thus came the use of the word State.

I
The word 'State' has its origin in the Latin word 'Statue' which means 'standing' or 'position'
of a person or a body of persons. The Latin 'status', Ernest Barker tells us, gave three English
words: (i) 'estate', in the sense of a 'standing' or 'position' in regard to some form of property
(ii) 'Estate', using the word in the primary sense of a grade or rank in the system of the social
standing or position belonging to such grade or rank and 'State', stateliness vested in
one person or some body of persons ... primarily a peculiar standing, of a kind which was
political and of a degree in that md hich was superior or supreme. The word 'State' ca
to be understood, during the 16 -17 centuries and even down to the last days of the 18
century, some what identical with the terms 'sovereign', 'king'. No wonder if Louis XIV
said, 'I am the State'. And to this context, Barker adds, "Was he (Louis XIV) not in his own
view, as in that of his subjects, the person who enjoyed the 'State' and position of being the
supreme political authority, and was he not therefore 'the state'?"

The use of the word in ancient Greece or the word in ancient Rome or the
word 'commonwealth', 'Commonweal' during the medieval age in the West do not clearly and
definitely contain in themselves the idea of stateliness, sovereign political position of a
person or a body of persons. This is why these words 'res 'commonweal'
meant much more than the pressure of the rulers. These meant, in fact, the whole body of
people living on a territory, the rulers forming only one part, though prominent indeed. It was
in the writings of Machiavelli and the theorists after him that the word 'state' came
in vogue, defining not only the position of the ruler in regard to his subjects, but also th
degree of the position the ruler eventually came to obtain. During the later part of the 18
century and the larger part of the 19 century, emphasis came to be laid, owing largely due to.
the efforts of the jurists in England and France internal supremacy and external independence
of the sovereign authority. As democracy, in the form of franchise, came to be associated with
liberal-capitalist system, the concept of the State was itself liberalised to include the great body
of people residing in it. Barker pointed out, "The is now whole community; the whole
legal association; the whole of the organisation. This is democracy, or a
of democracy; we must henceforth think of the state as ourselves; and we must henceforth
give the name of 'government' to the authority before called 'state'.

4.2.2 State as the political Ptiilosophers know it

A glance at the various definitions of the State by thinkers of the past and present shows as
to how they have looked at this concept. Plato (42817 - B.C.) found the state as a system
of relationship in which everyone does one's own business and where the rulers seek to maintain
these relationships. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), Plato's disciple, defines the state as an 'association
of households and villages sharing a life of virtue, and aiming at an end which consists in perfect
and self-completeexistence'. (106-43 B.C.), a jurist of ancient Rome, speaks of the state
as 'the people' affairs ... who are united by a common agreement about law and rights and
by the desire to participate in mutual advantage'. With the beginningof the modem age, we have
Machiavelli(1469-1527) who regards the state as an end in itself existing for its own preservation
and for its own advantage. Jean (1 530-1596) defines the state as a 'lawful' government
(1588-1679) speaks of the state as a power which gives people 'their own preservation and a
more contented life thereby'. John (1632-1 704) says: 'The great and chief end, therefore,
of men's uniting into commonwealth, and putting themselves under government, is the
preservation of their property'. (1748-1832) considers the state as a means for attaining
the greatest happiness of the greatest number' and for this, he specifies four subordinate ends
of the government: abundance, subsistence, equality and security. Herbert Spencer (1 820-1903)
regards the state as a committee of management which has no intrinsic authority beyond the
ethical sanction bestowed on it by the consent of the citizens. Rousseau (1712-1778) speaks of
the State, saying: 'This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons, formerly took
the name of city and now takes that of Republic or 'body-politics'; it is called by its members
State when passive, sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself'.
Edmond Burke (1729-1 793) defines the state as 'a partnership in all science, a partnership in
all arts, a partnership in and in all perfection... a partnershipnot only between those
who are living, but those who are dead, and those who are to be born.' (1770-183 1)
considers the state "as a divine and moral entity which alone is capable of bestowing all spiritual
reality." John Stuart Mill (1806- 1873) regards the state a "positive instrument which helps the
individual achieve progress and enjoy liberty." Thomas Hill Green 836-1882) defines the state
as 'a body of persons, recognized by each other as having rights, and possessing certain
institutions for the maintenance of those rights.' Karl (1 818-1883) and Frederick
(1 820-1895) regard the state as the political organisation of the class dominant in economy
whose purpose is to safeguard the existing order. The elitistsemphasise the rule of the few over
many as the only fact of history whereas the pluralists regard the state as a political association
responsible for the establishment of social order in the society. The fascists idealise the state
and believe that through it any glory can be achieved. The syndicalists and the anarchists doubt
the very worth of the state and the latter aspire a free order without political enslavement and
economic exploitation. Evolutionary socialism seeks to introduce socialism through the state,
regarding the state as an agency for bringing about reforms.

4.2.3 What constitutes a State?

The state has included, from the beginning, a reference to a land and a people. Reference of
these, to the terms such as 'country', 'nation', 'society', 'any association', are also very common.
The state, one must be sure, is neither a 'country' nor a 'nation' nor even a 'society'. The
territorial state is a country in the same sense as is the independent country, a state. When we
speak of the country we enter into the domains of soil, seasons, climate, boundaries, in short
geography. So we find the word 'country' in a typically geographical sense. The word 'state'
and the country is essentially a political concept. Every state is a country, but unless a country
is not independent, it is not a state. A people living on a territory with a high degree of unity
among the people or may not be If that body of people is sovereign, it is a state
and if it is under the control of any people, it is not. Unity in the state is sought on grounds of
emotional feelings and their oneness while in the state unity is sought through laws. A nation
is an external and eternal unity; a state is an external union. There may be more than one state
in a nation. Sabine says, .. nation refers to a unity of culture; a feeling of loyalty for a
common land, common language and literature, identity of history and common heroes
and common religion... State, on the other hand, refers to a unity of legal and political
authority. The state is not a society, not even the form of society as Maclver says: it is,
according to him, an association which regulates the outstanding external relationship of men in
society. The state Barker points out, is a political association, possesses the legal right of using
force. So considered, the state would imply: (a) that it is a politico-legal body responsible for the
enforcement and maintenance of law and order (b) that it is supreme over all associations
within and is independent of any control from outside and (c) that it alone has the monopoly of
exercising coercive force.

The state is found in its elaborate system. It is found in those institutions which create laws and
which enforce them, legislative, executive and judicial institutions: the government. It is
found in the bureaucratic institutions which are attached to every executive ministry. It is found
in the institutions which are called into operations when its will is threatened, in military and
police. The state is what the sum-total institutions is. Ralph writes: "These
are the institutions: the government, the administration, the military and the police, the
judicial branch, sub-central government and parliamentary assemblies - which make up
the state. In these institutions lies the state power; through these institutions comes the law
of the state and from them spring the legal right of using the physical force.

That is what the state is today. It is a system rightly called as the political system by the post-
war Americans, David Almond and Powell, and Dahl. It is a system which has in it
formal and informal political institutions; small and large industrial houses; cultural and religious
organisations etc. It is a system of interactions through which, as had said, 'authoritative
allocation of values' is made.

From the hour of its birth, the state has acted as a means, some and frightening others,
remaining always in the hands of those who control it. writes: 'That there is a bias in state
operations will be denied by no one who scrutinizes the historical evidence. The Greek city-state
was biased against the slave. The Roman Empire was biased against the slave and the poor.
States in the medieval world were biased in favour of the owners of landed property. Since the
Revolution, the state has been biased in favour of the instruments of production as
against those who have nothing but their labour power to sell.' To complete argument,
one may add that the socialist state is biased in favour of the workers. The justification of the
state, one should remember, lies in its capacity as an attendant. If the state operates in the
interests of its masters, it is a sufficient testimony that the servant is faithful.

4.3 THEORIES REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE

Numerous theories with regard to the origin of the state are offered. These include the divine
origin theory, the force theory, the theories, the social contract theory, the
theory, and the theory. Notable these and ones which are
being discussed are the social contract theory, the theory and the
theory relating to the origin of the

4.3.1 The Social Theory

A clear-cut and elaborate expression of the social contract theory of the origin f the state is
t
associated with Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, both from England of the 17 century and
th
Rousseau, from France of the 18 century. The theory holds that the state is the result of man's
deliberate intentions expressed through a in a pre-civil and pre-
political period, called the state of nature. The theory, therefore, assumes that there existed a
time when there was no and that people lived in the state of nature, meaning thereby a
 situation when people lived without law, without authority and without government. Hobbes,
Locke and Rousseau classified the human society living in two eras: the era of the state of
nature, and the era of political They all say that the contract for having the state
was concluded by the people in the state of nature. It was after the conclusion of the contract
that people left the state of nature and entered into political society. Contract, therefore, is'the
dividing line. What the three philosophers, the contractualists,convey to us is that in the state
of nature, men lived without authority and that in that state of nature, they felt the need of the
state, state's necessity and, therefore, the contract among them and state's appearance after the
contract. It is after the appearance of the state that the distinction between the ruler and the
ruled could be made; and the emphasis on state authority or powers of the state came to be
laid. There is no agreement among the contractualistson various issues. For example, what was
the state of nature, how was the condition of man, why the contract was made, what was the
of contract, what type of state appeared after the contract - are questions on which the
contractualists differed drastically. On what they were to agree is that there was a kind of law
in the state of nature, called the natural law; men did possess natural rights. But with regard
to the outcome of the contract, Hobbes propounded an omnipotent state, absolute
sovereignty; Locke advocated a limited state, political sovereignty; Rousseau
talked about a democratic state based on his theory of general will, popular sovereignly,

The social contract theory has been condemned by critics on grounds of bad history, bad law
and bad philosophy. It was a bad history in so far as there is no proof of the conclusion of
contract ever been made. It was a bad law in so far as the contract once was irrevocable
- permitted entrance and prohibited exit. A one-way traffic sort of contract and therefore,
legally invalid. It was a bad philosophy in so far as political can never be the result
of any one moment as the contractualists make us believe so.

importance of the social contract theory however, cannot be overlooked, at least on two
grounds: (1) it served as the basis for modern democracy by declaring the state as the product
of people's consent (2) it condemned the divine origin theory as obsolete and provided an
alternative theory of the origin of the state.

4.3.2 The Theory

The theory of the origin of the state, also the liberal theory of the origin
of the state, is more or less a correct explanation as to how the state originated. According to
it, the state is a historical growth or the result of gradual evolution. is a continuous development,
always in the process of evolution. Burgers rightly puts the point:"It (the state) is the gradual
realization ... of the universal principles of the human It is futile to seek to
discover just one cause which will explain the origin of all states. The state must have
come into existence owing to a variety of causes, some operating in one place and some
. in other places. Whatever it is, the State is not the deliberate creation of any more
language is a conscious invention. Political conscious must have taken a very long
time to develop and the primitive state must have grown with the of this
consciousness. Garner also argued: "The state is neither the handiwork of God, nor the result
of superior physical force, nor the creation of the compact, or a mere expansion of the families.
It is the of a gradual process of social development out of grossly imperfect beginnings.'
'Like every other social institution', says, 'the state arose from many sources and under
various and it emerged almost
 The factors responsible for the gradual formation of the state include: (i) social instinct, the
instinct which compels man to live in the society, without which he is either a beast or a god,
and the one through which man is able to develop his faculties (ii) kinship or blood relationship.
Maclver said: 'Kinship creates society, and society, in turn, creates state'. It was the most
important bond of union. But it alone was not the factor which led to the formation of the state.
People had developed a common consciousness,common interest and common purpose,
relationship, must have, with great difficulty, given place to social relationship (iii) Religion is said
to be another important factor in the creation of social consciousness. says that kinship
and religion were simply two aspects of the same thing. Common worship was even more
essential than kinship in accustoming early man to and discipline and in developing a
keen sense of social solidarity and cohesion. (iv) Force might not have been the sole factor in I
the making of a state, but it cannot be denied that it must have contributed its worth in making
and expanding the state as one factor. Force translates weakness into subjugation; subjugation
into unity, and unity into strength (v) Economic activities too played an important role in the
formation of the state as another factor. These led to the rules and procedures relating to
production, exchange, distribution and consumption together with the property rights as enacted
through laws at a subsequent stage of development. (vi) Another potent factor in the development
of the state is political consciousness. As a term, political consciousness means many things put
together. Love for the land where people reside; desire to protect the land; need for order and
protection; social relationship; promoting political relationship; feeling that the territory be expanded;
wars and conquests; powers and struggles for power, the triumph of the political idea of power;
and loyalty towards the system. All these grow and evolve with time: the political organisation,
the state's roots gaining strength and the beginnings,shaping and reshaping into the complex and
creating sort of the state.

argument can be put as a conclusion: the state is 'a gradual and natural
It is neither the gift of divine power nor the deliberate work of man. Its I

beginnings are lost in that shadow of past in social institutions

arising, and its development has followed the general laws of growth. '

4.3.3 The Theory I

The best exposition of the of the origin of the state is given by Frederick
in his book Origin of the Family, Private Property and says: 'The State
is, therefore, by no means a power forced in society from without, just as little is it the reality
I
of 'the ethical idea', 'the image and reality' of reason', as maintains. Rather, it is a
product of society at a certain stage of social development: it is the admission that this society
I
has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that is into irreconcilable
antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, might not continue themselves and I
society in sterile struggle, a power seemingly standing above society became necessary for the
purpose of moderating the conflict, if keeping it within the bounds of 'older' and this power,
arisen out of society, but placing itself above it and increasingly alienating itself from it, is the
state.'

tells us that the state is not a natural organisation. It has, he says, not existed from all
eternity and there have been societies that did without it. The state became a necessity at a
certain stage of social development that was a consequence of the cleavage of society into two
contending classes. Accordingly, the state is the product of antagonistic classes and it is of the
I

54
 ,
economically dominant class, for its welfare and against the interests of those means
of production. The thesis is that with the emergenceand growth private ownership
of the means of production, antagonistic classes arose, and the state emerged for the possessing
,
class and against the non-possessing class. Engels, therefore, concludes: 'The state is, as a
rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class which, through the
medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class and thus acquires new
means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class. Thus the state of antiquity was
above all, the state of the slave-owners for the purposes of holding down the slaves, as the
feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasants, serfs and lordsmen,
and the modem representative state is the instrument of exploitation of wage labour by capital'.

The major aspects of the theory of the origin of the state can be, briefly, summed up
as under:

1) The state appears because the antagonistic classes appear; these classes appear because
the private ownership of means of production appears.

2) The state is the class society and came at a definite stage of social development.

3) The state, as a class institution, is of the economically dominant class, of the slave-owners,
or of the feudal lords and at present is of the capitalists.

4) The state means public power, the legal right to use force.

5) The state power works through its apparatus: bureaucracy, police, courts, jails and the
like.

6) For the public power work effectively and the state obtains the right to tax
people, raise loans, and possess property.

The theory of the origin of the state suffers from over simplification. That the state
should have arisen as a result of class society and class antagonism and that these classes arose
because of the private bwnership. The means of production are not as much an explanation of
the origin of the state as is an effort to project the state as a class institution and, therefore,
a partisan one, exploiting the non-possessing class. That the state has been an oppressive
institution, always so, is too much to believe.

4.4 DOMINANT PERSPECTIVES OF THE STATE

4.4.1 Liberal-Individualistic Perspective

The liberal-individualistic perspective of state is what can be clearly seen in the writings of
political philosopherssuch as Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and down to those
of the beginning of the twentieth century West. According to them, the general features of the
state would include the following:

I) The individual is the focal point of all activities. Being rational, he has to be the end for
which all associations, including the exist. Everything exists for the individual.

I
I 2) Individual, being the judge of what is in his
liberties: nothing is more
sacred.
his
should have all the rights and
his rights are inalienable; his liberties,

3) The state is a means to the end of the individual. Its powers are in proportion to its
functions. As a means of individual's ends, it is limited, and limited in its functions and
'
powers. It possesses powers granted to it by the individuals. The liberal individualistic state
may be evil; it is a necessary evil; it exists to the extent individuals want. Its powers
are not absolute and can never be absolute in the face of individual's autonomy. Through
the passage of time and introduction of democracy, the liberals have expanded functions
(the welfare state) and, therefore, the powers, but they have not voted for a Hobbesian
Leviathan.

4) The state, in the liberal-individualistic perspective, is moved from its negative character to
positive and from its positive institution to the welfare one, it is a reform-oriented institution.
The liberals are not traditionalists to the point of conservatives, but they are also not radical
to find the state afresh. They do realise the need of reforms to be made effective as and
when required, they, in this sense, favour changes, incremental changes as suit the changing
times.
I

5) The liberal-individualists were liberals They were liberals against the traditionalists
and conservatives. Accordingly they welcomed the democratic principles as and when they
made their entries. It is, in this sense that they advocated a state based on the consent of
the people. There may not be much truth in the Lockean Social Contract theory, but his
insistence on the contract being concluded by the society and the state (arising out of the
society) clearly indicates that Locke, and him all the liberals, thought of the state as
the product of man's consent. Therefore, the liberal-democratic state is a consent state.

6) The liberal-individualistic perspective of state, in economic terms, being limited in its powers,
was a state of the capitalistspromoting trade and commerce, advocating free trade, removing
tariff walls and encouraging competition. Liberalism is, as once said, the political
philosophy of the capitalists.

The liberal' individualistic perspective of the state overestimates the individual and
conversely underestimates the potentials of the state. its zeal to protect and promote
individual in his rights, liberties and autonomy, it seeks to build a capitalistic system where
the state is reduced to the position of an instrument serving the exploitative tendencies.

4.4.2 Contemporary Libertarian Perspective

The contemporary libertarian perspective of the state belongs to the period since the
second world war and ranges from classical to pluralism to neo-pluralism on the one hand,
and the new right liberalism to new-left liberalism on the other - all, in the broader framework
of liberalism. The state's contemporary libertarian perspective can be summed up, briefly, as
under.

56
features: J
.
The Classical pluralist perspective (Truman, Dahl) of the state-has the following

The state is a place of group conflict and, therefore, is highly responsive to group pressures

Groups, with varying resources, exist in their relations of continual conflicts.

Power is an observable and dispersed phenomenon.

Groups are the bases of government, especially the potential groups and

v) Society is not only distinct from state, but also largely non-potential.

The reformed pluralist perspective (Richardson and Jordan) of the state has the
major features:

The state is fragmentedand is responsive to groups but the access to the state (or government?
is

All the groups are not equal; only groups participate in policy-making.

iii) Power is both observable and dispersed and

iv) Society and state get integrated into each other through potential groups.

The Pluralist elitist perspective Lowi) of the state has the following
features:

The state is fragmented with highly resource potential groups, having a degree of access
to the state. Hence, claiming a corresponding degree of state autonomy.

The potential elite group have easy access to the governmental positions, but different
groups dominate in different areas.

Power is both observable as well as a tendency towards the concentration

iv) The civil society is distinct from the state but has a limited influence in it.

The neo-pluralist perspective (Lindblom) of the state has the following major features:

The state is biased towards the business interests in economic policy

ii) The business interests have a crucial role in policy-making, reducing, thus, the importance
of group behaviour.

iv) There is no control over power which is concentrated in primary issues and

v) The society is distinct from state but has a limited influence in it.
 The new right libertarian (Hayek, Nozick and Rawls) has the following major features:

Political life, like the economic life, is ought to be a matter of individual freedom and
initiative.

iii There is a market society with a minimal state.

...
The political programmeof the new right libertarianism,according to David Held, includes:
(i) the extension of the market to more and more areas of life (ii) the creation of a state
excessive involvement in economy; (iii) the curtailment of the power of certain groups and I
(iv) the erection of a strong government to enforce law and order.

The New left libertarian perspective (Pateman, Macpherson and Poulantzas) of the state
has the following major features:
I
All the key institutions of society, including the state, should be built on direct participation
of the citizens.

ii) The leaders of the political parties be made accountable to their respective members.
iii) The open system be maintained to ensure the possibility of making experiments
in the system itself.

iv) poor be taken care of; open information system to be ensured.

The communitarian (Sandal, Walzar, Taylor) perspective of the state the following major .
. features:

i) The community is the source of all values. The of the community depends on
the values it cherishes.

Citizens, as members of the community, can obtain the higher levels of citizenship only in
the state.

I iii) Politics is an on-going affair, a sort of business as usual, never ending, and is and around
US.

iv) Politics is both a source of conflict and a mode of activity.

4.4.3 Social-Democratic Perspective

social-democratic perspective of state stands opposite to the Marxian-socialist perspective

in ways. Its various shades include evolutionary Socialism, Fabianism, Guild Socialism,
Parliamentary Socialism and a type of socialism as has been propounded by Harold

We may summarise the general features, at least ones, of the evolutionary-socialist

perspective, briefly as under:

1) Complete abandonment of the idea of revolutionary methods-as a means of power, and

complete acceptance of parliamentary means.

58
2) The transformations of the socialist parties who speak only for the interests of the working
class to people's parties which seek to establish general welfare.

3) The recognition that the definition of socialism as a social and economic ideal is inseparable
from the idea of democracy; socialism has to be attained through democratic means and
democratic polity has to bring about through state legislation.

4) Respect for human freedom and human personality.

as a social democrat, has his own perspective state whose major features can be
stated as under:

The state, as any association, is like other associations and as such has no special
power to control them. It can, at best, coordinate their work, but it has no right to interface
in their internal functioning.

2) As a coordinator, the state gives leadership to other associations. Its role does not go against
any other association. Like any other association, the state can also serve the people and
can an agency for seeking the welfare of the people.

the constituted state.

4) conception of democratic socialism is where there is harmonisation of social

control of economic processes with the liberty of the individual.

5) his type of socialism, the state exists to fulfill the promise of socialism through a structure
democratically established.

6) state is an instrument that exists for the individual. He is of the view that the state,
however, important it may be, tends to exist for the protection of peoples' rights and for the
promotion of a conducive atmosphere where the people can unfold their inner capacities to
reach their possible heights.

4.4.4 Perspective

The perspective of the state has the following major features:

2) The state is not independent of society. Those who make it, as really did, they create
the myth of the state and make the state an illusion.
3) The state is a means for the fulfillment of the ends those who control the society. The
slave-owning state serves the masters; the feudal state serves the feudal lords; the capitalist
state serves the capitalists, and in the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletarian state
. .
serves the workers.

4) The state, being the product of class society and therefore, of the economically dominant
class, is a partisan and a class institution. Being a partisan institution, it serves as an
instrument of exploitation, exploits the economically weaker classes.

5) The state, being an engine of class-rule, would, in the transitional period of socialism,
establish socialism and'would abolish the roots of class antagonism, private property
system as a means of production.

6) The dictatorship of proletariat is abolition of the opposing antagonistic classes; it is not the
abolition of the state. The era of socialism is the era of the proletarian state which would
be a bourgeois state, but without the bourgeoisie. The proletarian state is a means for
establishing socialism and a means, which would end up in its own abolition, the withering
away of the state.

7) Regarding the state as a 'parasite feeding upon and clogging the free movement of society,
the state's destiny, as Marx says, is its own abolition: "The first step is the overthrow of
the existing state, the bourgeois State, by revolution of the proletarian class. next task,
is the establishment of a transitional state, the proletarian dictatorship. This new state,
however, is to be abolished not by the revolution, by force, but through its own withering
away.

4.4.5 The Gandhian Perspective

The Gandhian (after the name of M.K. Gandhi: 1869-1948, the Father of Nation) perspective
of state provides a unique blend of what it is and what it should be. Gandhiji the
state as he found it in the West and favoured a polity popularly called Ramrajya, the state he
had wanted it to be.

Like all anarchists, Gandhiji nurtured distrust for all types of power, including the political power.
Power, Gandhiji held, is by its very nature coercive and compulsive: it imposes, obstructs and
spies; its existence means the absence of free will, of inner self and all that is eternal in the
individual. In Gandhiji's own words: 'The state represents violence in and organised
form. The individual has a soul but the state is a soulless machine; it can never wean from
violence to which it owes its very existence.

But Gandhiji was not at all an anarchist. He was anarchist to the extent that he declared the
state as an embodiment of force. He is, in a way, very close to the classical individualists or
the New Right libertarians of our times. He advocated not a monolithic state, but a state with
minimum functions, minimal state. He is of the opinion that until the society becomes
self-regulative and self-evolving and until the individual becomes perfect, the state would, so
long, be necessary, He fully subscribes to what Theorem had advocated: that government is the
best which governs the least.

To some extent, Gandhiji was nearer Marx in so far as he propounded a type of society which
instrument of oppression and exploitation; all all evils in private property;
like all Marxists, he condemned the partisan state. But, at the time, Gandhiji visualised in
his Ramrajya a society without coercion and without force.

By conviction, Gandhiji was a spiritualistand to that extent, there is much what is non-materialist
in Gandhiji. According to him, real swarajya is not merely the attainment
but much more than that. According to him, swarajya begins from the individual; is the
rule of the it is a matter of and The real power lies
the individual; more the power advances up, more does it become 'decentralised. In
Ramrajya, the whole system, individual to the central polity, works itself, without
any imposition and without any compulsion. His Ramrajya is a state without coercion, and to
that extent stateless; it is a state without the use of violence, and to that extent, free and
emancipative.

4.5 SUMMARY

The concept of state is the very essence of Political Science. No wonder if some scholars
regarded the State and Political Science as synonyms. As an institution, it is as old as we can
go into the history. If the state, in ancient Greek, was less than the and in ancient times,
than the mere government,'it went into oblivion in Middle Ages and took a back seat then.
With modem age, as in the West, it attained a re-birth and kept evolving to its natural heights.
Vincent rightly observes: "Statehood not only represents a set of institution but also a body of
attitudes, practices and codes of behaviours, in short, civility which we associate correctly with
civilization".

The theories regard to the origin of the state speak both about the origin and nature of the
state with varying degrees. And in the process, highlight the views the political philosophers held.
The evolutionary theory and the class-origin theory give an insight of the liberal and the
views. Likewise the dominant perspectives of the state throw light as to how the concepts
the state have developed and how it is seen by the scholars.

4.6 EXERCISES
1) 'The social contract theory of the origin of the state is a bad history, a bad law and a bad
philosophy'. Comment.

2) Explain and discuss the theory of the origin state.

3) Explain and discuss the Theory of the Origin of the State.

4) What are the perspectives of the State? Explain any one such perspective.

5) Describe the Gandhian perspective of the modern State.

 5 STATE IN DEVELOPING SOCIETIES: ASIAN,
AFRICAN AND LATIN AMERICAN EXPERIENCES
Structure

State in Contemporary Political

5.2.1 The Liberal Perception
5.2.2 The Marxist Perception
5.5.3 Towards an Understanding of the Historical Specificity of the Developing Societies
Theorising State in the Developing Societies: Underpinnings
Theorising Peripheral State: A Neo-Marxist Perspective
Class to State in the Post-colonial Societies
The Developing State in Era of Globalisation, Privatisation Localisation

Exercises

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The state been and to be one of the concerns of political theory. However,
as shown in the last unit, despite the of detail on the state. the nature of the state has
proved to be to grasp. very and centrality of the state makes it
elusive. It is so the political theorists make an effort to the actually
states.

No doubt, then, state been a subject of theorisation in the political theory and
comparative politics in the recent decades. continued interest in political about the
nature of State is manifest in the of sophisticated theorisation that be
explained by importance of the state in all aspects of contemporary society be it
capitalist. socialist or developing. The state, without exception emerges as the foremost actor in
political, cultural, social economic spheres of societies. As a consequence, it is nearly
to understand and analyse any it is feminism, the family, religion,
ecology. rights. political processes, culture or development without the state. This is truer
in case of the societies as the state here continues to play a pivotal role in securing
development, social and justice, group and individual rights despite the processes
of globalisation, and privatisation that insist on withdrawal of state from the
civil society.

5.2 STATE IN THE CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL THEORY

It was in the aftermath of the Second World War that the state returned with a in
the political theory. In the earlier part of the century it was study constitutions, legal
institutions and political and not the state that received foremost concern of the political
theory. It was more so with the Marxist than liberal as under the influence

62
of American Political Science Association the emphasis on liberalism was on the
to evolve political science as an exact, objective and free science. In the liberal
functionalists' bid to approximate study of politics to the natural sciences the state as a contentious
with normative concern was discarded and in its place the 'scientific and value free'
concept of political system was privileged revolution.

However as the euphoria of tlie victory of in Second World War evaporated and
the leadership of the USA in social sciences came scathing attack and as the
the nationalist project of nation building in the third world set in, there
emerged a need to tlie social and political phenomena from the vantage point of the
state. experience of authoritarianism in the Communist societies as well as in
post-colonial societies also underlined need to an adequate explanation of the way
states as codified of power, articulated and exercised political power. 'Thus in the
decades of 1960's and 1970's state emerged as a concept i n both liberal and
Marxist political theory. In last two decades, the has shifted to the study of state in
its relation to civil society.

5.2.1 The Liberal Perception

1960 the have explain growing centrality of the state to
society the coercive and
In pluralist of state the state come to be viewed increasingly by
liberals as a political association distinct the government that encompasses all public
bodies and exercises authority on the basis of the assumption that it represents the
interests of tlie society, rising above the liberal thinkers argue
that the state is a neutral arbiter competing groups and individuals in the society; it acts
as an or referee, capable of protecting each citizen encroachment of the fellow
citizens. The pluralists have viewed the state as a neutral entity, acting in interests of all and
representing what can be called good or interest. The central of
the is wide variety of social
or an of the state
is and provide social stability.

'The as Charles and J K Galbraith have, however, argued that the

advanced states are complex and less responsive to popular pressures
than what classical pluralists While still holding state as the custodian of
common good or interest that it is impossible to portray all organisations as
equally powerful since in a capitalist society business enjoys advantages which other groups
clearly cannot rival. Pertinently do not view business as an 'elite
group', capable of dictating to in all areas. still less a ruling class', they doconcede
that a liberal democracy is a deformed in which business exerts
especially over economic agenda.

New right ideas theories have become increasingly in the last three decades.
Despite drawing their tlieoretical like pluralists, from the classical liberalism, as
initially expounded by Hobbes and Locke, the or libertarians express strong antipathy
towards government intervention in and social life. emanating from belief that the
state is a parasitic threatens both individual liberty and economic security. For
them the state is no an impartial referee but has a self- serving monster, a nanny
 leviathan state, interfering in every aspect of life. New rights theorists have made an attempt
o identify the forces that have led to the growth of state intervention and which, in their view,
be countered.

effect liberals the governance. Such an institutional understanding

state, however, does not allow us to explain the dissimilarity among the states in
accumulation, and exercise of political power.

5.2.2 The Marxist Perception

'he return of the state to political theory has been a marked feature of Marxist political theory.
Most rigorous and sophisticated debates concerning the nature of the state took place in the
decades of and before the decline of as a philosophical position in the
of collapse of communism and rise of neo-liberalism as the 'mainstream' political
theory. Most of these debates have revolved round the interpretations of the views of Marx and
The presence of wide range of the Marxist theories can be related to the discontinuities
arid disjunction in their works on state resulting in the lack of coherence among the different
Marxist interpretations. Neither Marx nor presented a comprehensive, systematic and
complete theory of state. As a result the Marxists have been forced to theorise state through
Marx and fragmented and unsystematic series of philosophical reflections, contemporary
history, and and incidental remarks. These have been capable of
theoretical interpretation and development.

The lack of a grand theory of state in the writings of Marx and also resulted in the
emergence of different approaches in the Marxist theory regarding the of the state.
Though they are often combined with varying degrees of consistency and mutual qualification,
they are based on different assumptions, principles of exploitation and political implications.

Thus we have a theoretical position which argues that state should be analysed as Lenin
analysed it based upon political and economic analysis. There are others who
the autonomous character of state to be found in the historical works of Marx and

The theory of state as an of class domination is crucially linked with the

Marxist explanation of the materialist conception of history. In German Ideology Marx and
saw the state as the epiphenomenon simple surface reflection of the system of
property relations and resulting economic class struggles. Marx and argued that the state
develops within the social division of labour and is the form in which the ruling class asserts its
interest. The state remains the reflection of the economic base and also reflects the
needs of economy as well as the balance of economic class forces. Marx presented similar
ideas work The Poverty while discussing the tenets of political economy.
He argued the relations of production are the real foundation on which rises a legal and
political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social

Tlie above trend of thought on the nature of the state and the correlation between economic
substructure and political formations finds its most explicit expression in the famous formulation
of Marx and that 'political power, properly so called
is merely the organising power of one class for oppressing another'. Further, 'the executive of
the state is but a committee for managing the common affair of the whole of the
whole bourgeoisie.' This of the state leads to its conceptualisation
as being in origin and nature, in purpose and function, a class organ, an organisation for
oppression of one class Besides the Marxism under the patronage of the
erstwhile Soviet the contemporary western Marxists like William Domhoff and Fred
Block, among concurred with a position.

Significantly Marx in his historical works concerned the concrete structure of the political
conditions in France, Germany, Austria and Russia had put forward a conception of state that
had life of its own, separated from civil society, with a bureaucracy that did not act in society's
interest, but in the private interests of the state itself. Such a situation arose either when there
was a balance of class forces France and Germany or there was
an absence of a class Maternich State in Austria and Czarist State in Russia.

The contemporary Marxists like Nicos Poulantzas, Hal Draper have held
that the relative autonomy of state, even if it is of high order, does not reduce its class character.
The relative autonomy of state makes it possible for the state to play its class role in an
appropriately flexible manner. If it really were the simple ruling class it would
be fatally inhibited in the performance of its role. State elite needs a measure of freedom in
deciding how best to serve the existing social order.

Very briefly, the fundamentals of the formulation of the state can be succinctly in
the words of Miliband, 'while the state does act, in Marxist terms, on behalf of the ruling class
it does not for the most part act at its behest. The state is indeed a class state, the state of the
class, but it indeed have that degree of autonomy and independence, if it is to
act as a class state.' It follows that the notion of state merely as an does reveal the
property of the state, its relative autonomy from the ruling propertied class and
from civil society at large.

5.3 TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORICAL

SPECIFICITY OF THE DEVELOPING STATE
It follows that despite the intense debate on the nature of state as a theoretical object and the
skepticism about concept of state as muted by the Marxist theorists, there is an almost
complete acceptance of centrality of state to any social analysis in political theory. The
problem arises when theorists try to the actually existing states.

In theoretical on state, not all have addressed to the historical

states: kind of the capitalist state in the Nineteenth century Europe, for instance
by Marx and was different from advanced capitalist state in the late twentieth
century about whose contemporary been engaged with. Similarly the
developing state is historically from the state in the advanced
capitalist and post-communist societies. Moreover. there are differences among states
these broad categories.

The advanced capitalist states, have different histories, traditions, and institutions.
However share two characteristics: first. are all highly industrialised countries;
and second, largest of their activity under private ownership
and control. These two characteristics make distinctive from underdeveloped states of
Asia and Latin America. There are significant between the developed
 states and the developing countries. The factors like colonialism,the experience of the
anti-colonial nationalist movements, context in which these developing
societies have emerged. has led a over the nature of the developing state.

It follows that the categories used for the analysis state in the advanced capitalist societies
be transposed to the societies. All the academic endeavours to such nature
have been criticised as being mechanical, deterministic and reductionist in their nature.

The neo-Marxists, inslance, openly put a question mark over the of traditional
in and a Bourgeois/ capitalist to explicate the
social realities third world societies. They contended that Marxism needed to be
adapted to the very different circumstances the notion of under-development.
follows that while applying the Marxist analytical tools in theorising the nature of the developing
state, the use of Marxist concepts should be treated with caution.

The liberals also in a similar vein have increasingly over the need to study the
cultural specificity of 'new' states in a concrete manner at the level rather than
an attempt to generalise nature of state and politics as was the case with the
theory of arid development in the 1950's and 60's.

5.4 STATE IN THE DEVELOPING STATE:

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS
I

the Asian, African and Latin independent, there was

tremendous confidence in capacity of state in bringing about much needed social,
and political transformation. This can be explained on the following grounds:

First, this of an Interventionist State was in line with the colonial statist tradition. The
of the anti-colonial movements were to state take over of the state. For that
purpose, nationalist attempted to bridge the space between civil society and the
state, to ground state in the internal structures of the society civil society. The
aspirations for state power on the part of the nationalist leadership legitimacy and
to state.

Second, since the civil society was under- developed as a result of the colonial intervention so
post-colonial state centrality to social

Third, it was widely agreed that post-colonial state was to reverse the colonial legacy by
playing an interventionist role in bringing about social engineering, ethnic economic
as well as nation building.

Fourth, debate post-colonial state was also subordinated to the Western liberal
on and development. Three notions of revolved around this
debate: (a) that it was imperative of the time, and that the of the state was
that of (b) development was seen as a value free social process and an end [that
it give birth to its own patterns of social oppression was recognised].
strong belief that developing societies suffering traditional features would be unable to
reforms essential for because of being incapable of regulating themselves.

the dominant belief among the liberals was that the developing state with an independent
of rationality and its ability to stand outside and above society could initiate and pursue
programmes of development for the benefit whole society with the help modernising

above view of the developing state and its modernising elite was put to test in the sixties
itself. It was widely felt that the development model- put forward primarily by the Princeton
School theorists, Powell, Verba, Coleman, Pye, Eisenstadt Binder among others to be
followed by liberal institutionalists like Huntington, Weiner was
Euro-centric was very an ideological cover to conceal the neo-colonial mechanism of
exploitation. The critique the periphery has perceived the notion of modernising state as
being undemocratic as it had to impart preferential treatment to the modern sector against the
traditional one. The neo-Marxists, activists as well as the feminists forcefully argued
the people, whose livelihood depended on traditional sector or whose and society,
were ones not to be supported by the 'developmental state'. The claim that this was in national
interest was deemed as questionable as there was considerable evidence that those who
run the state apparatus- the elite in modernisation terms- derived a great deal of personal gains
from that involvement, often in ways that could not be seen as to the general national interest.

The delegitimation of the state as an agent of social transformation or economic reforms or

political change led to a paradigm shift in theorisation about the developing states of Asia,
Africa and Latin America. Now the was on the state as theoretical subject in its own
right.

5.5 THE PERIPHERAL A NEO-MARXIST

PERSPECTIVE
the subsequent theory that emerged to analyse the state in the developing
societies, external were given more and sometimes complete importance.
process, as discussed above, the history of their relationship to colonialism and imperialism
was stressed to explain the peripheral state's complementary and subsidiary attachment to world
capitalism.

and Ruy Marini among the first to

propound dependency theory theorisingabout the political economy of state in Latin America.
Subsequently Shivji, Colin Leys, Joel Samoff, Mehmood Mamdani,
Freyhold and others theorised in the context of the post-colonial African State while taking
case studies. These neo-Marxists theorists' contribution lies in underlining the
specificity of political was in the liberal political development

the class nature of the state based on the thesis presented by who
wrote that 'that state is first and an instrument of bourgeoisie or labour' these
world theorists have viewed the Asian, African and Latin
states as for the of the dependent role of these peripheral economies
in division of labour and the process of capitalist accumulation. The Dependency
theorists have argued that capitalism is an international system characterised exchange
between technically advanced and backward states through a world market. The
technological and military superiority of Metropolitan states resulted in the domination,
exploitation and distortion underdevelopment] of the satellite states and regions of
the world economy. Through the process of unequal exchange, economic surplus is extracted
the periphery. The unequal exchange is manifest in the form of repatriation of super profits,
deteriorating terms of trade, monopoly rents for of the metropole technologies, as
well as trade and traffic policies that deny the periphery control over their own or the global
market.

The states experienced denial of the economic surplus necessary for autonomous
development, and by extension, an autonomous national bourgeoisie, as the economic surplus
was appropriated by and invested in the advanced capitalist states. Obviously, then, the
decolonisation brought little change to the economy of the post-colonial states. The indirect
political dominance of metropolitan bourgeoisie has continued.

Thus the peripheral states of Asia, Africa and Latin America, according to the dependency
theorists, were simply new forms, political freedom for the indigenous classes merely a new
cloak, the basic mechanisms of reproduction continued to sustain imperialist
hegemony. In the words of AG Frank, 'the third world state mediates between its national
and and international capital, and as a dependent state, it does so substantially
to the benefit of international capital and at the absolute sacrifice of local labour. The exigencies
of the process of capital accumulation and the international division of labour, world wide and
in the under-developed countries themselves, thus becoming the principle determinants of the
role of the fonn state in the Frank, Crisis in the Third World,
London, 196

Is the dependent state a weak state or a strong state? The dependency argue
that the local bourgeoisie in the peripheral state is weak but the dependent state is
relatively strong. As the variable in the dependent societies is the relation of the state
to the imperialist bourgeoisie so the third world state may be strong in relation to the local
bourgeoisie but remains largely as an instrument or in many cases as creation of the imperialist
bourgeoisie of the metropolis.

The dependency theorists in Latin America explained the non-democratic authoritarian

nature of third world by using two different models. The first is state capitalist model. In this
model the impact of the state apparatus social classes in periods of both populism and
authoritarianism receives more attention than role of the state in the industrialisation process.
In the dependent economic context, the existence of a weak bourgeoisie creates even more
necessary conditions than in the capitalist's context for states expansion into production. State
capitalist analysts hold that role state is characteristic of particular stage accumulation
process. A process that has been i n crisis, because of the relation of dependent economies to
the metropole centres. Thus the peripheral state is not only involved in the distribution and
production but also interacting with the Metropolis State and their bourgeoisie.

It is with the above purpose that the dependent state seeks to create a state a new
class whose interests are connected with power over resources rather than direct ownership.
 This state bourgeoisie serves the state itself rather than as bureaucratic representativeof class
interest in civil society.

The second model dealing with the authoritarian dependent state has its roots in the class
struggle views of Falleto and While adopting historical structural approach,
these later dependency theorists have situated states in Latin America in the context of class
struggle -conditioned by crises and developments in the world system. They describe the nature
of the authoritarian state as being one of guarantor and organiser of the domination
exercised through the upper faction of a highly and transnationalised bourgeoisie.
This class has carried out the task of depoliticisation of the civil society by economically
excluding the people. The economic exclusion of the people has been achieved by shifting the
governmental spending in the social sector to a nature of infrastructure that eventually
. has promoted foreign investment and profited state bureaucracy the military build-up, the
state's capital investment etc.].

Furthermore, capital accumulation benefits the large national and foreign units of private capital
and state corporations. This bureaucratic-authoritarian dependent state strictly controls the labour
unions and mass organisations. Due to the stress on depoliticisation, political access to the state
through the political parties is impossible. Whatever access is left is limited to individual
contacts between persons outside and inside the bureaucracy.

Thus the bureaucratic authoritarian state is separated from civil society and the state's legitimacy
depends on economic growth and increasing consumption-a legitimacy of technocratic
efficiency- while the working peasant classes are kept acquiescent through the coercive
apparatus.

We can the differing theoretical contentions of the dependency theorists by making the
following observations: The dependent state cpmpared the nature of advanced state
emerges as quite distinct in nature due to the role of foreign capital in it; The dependent
states show distinct towards The of the world system
historically kept local bourgeoisie weak; the local bourgeoisie cannot establish
hegemony, cannot power [and guarantee access to its economy for the
foreign of the state; The strength of foreign capital and
states and unwillingness to allow popular anti-imperialist control of democratic
states and helps the local bourgeoisie to back the military in establishing
authoritarian regimes that are much beholden to the real power of foreign and to local

of the dependent state, according to the dependency theorists, is essentially a function

of external capital and its need to extract surplus from the peripheral societies. As Guillermo
that Latin states have passed through three phases: an oligarchic
state dominated by the elite that was based on the sectors; a populist period during which
the bourgeoisie relied on import domestic demand, and a tactical alliance
with urban masses; and a bureaucratic-authoritarian stage, in which substitution was
dropped and and civilian technocrats collaborated with the capital, and
representativesfor various associations among the ruling groups joined in a kind of authoritarian
elite corporatism.
The major contentionsof dependency theory have been subjected to the following criticisms in
the recent years. First, the dependency theorists have failed to note that independence constituted
a significant change in power relations between the ex-colonies and the metropolitan capitalists.
Second, the rise of indigenous bourgeoisie within the third world countries has been another
factor that has been ignored by the dependency theorists. Third, even if one agrees with the idea
that the metropolitan capital retains economic dominance, one must concede some sort of
leverage to the indigenous classes. Within structural limits placed by the over domineering
presence of the metropolitan capital, the indigenous capitalist classes do have 'free choice' of
policy albeit in a limited manner. Fourth, the dependency theorists have failed to situate the third
world states in the context of indigenous class struggles. The third world states have been
erroneously dubbed as being mere agents for transfer of surplus, which is not the case. Fifth,
the classical dependency theorists took little account of the differences in the policies and actual
paths of development followed by the different peripheral states. The view that the ubiquitous
peripheral capitalist relations of production blocked virtually all development in the third world
also needed to be qualified in the context of the East Asian development experiences. Marxist
Scholars like Bill Warren and Sanjay in fact went to the extent to argue that, with colonialism
at an end, and with several developing countries in a stronger position, international capitalism
was no longer parasitic but rather progressive as Marx once had argued in the context of the
Asiatic states.

It has been correctly pointed out that the developing state was singularly neither an ent
of neo-colonial domination nor a tool capitalist classes as the dependency theorists
make us believe. 'Though it was impacted by them, it had become a power structure in itself
performing neither the functions of capitalist accumulation as the classical theory of Marxism
posed, nor was it purely functional for metropolitan capital except in transparent societies where
the notion of gatekeepers was applicable to the classes. Alignment with metropolitan
capital was one of the facts of the state, as was response to the indigenous capitalist classes
where they had developed. However the state itself had emerged as an explicit power structure.'
Chandhoke, Limits of Comparative political Analysis, Economic and political Weekly,
Moreover, by putting an overemphasis on the unequal exchange relationship
between the core and peripheral countries the dependency theorists erroneously equated social
classes with geographical entities and the third world problem of inequality and deprivation, thus
making the prospect of any useful class analysis of the peripheral states extremely unlikely. It
was more so as the macro- perspectiveof the dependency theorists made it to distinguish
nuances at the concrete level.

5.6 RELATING CLASS TO STATE IN THE

SOCIETIES
As the dependency theory as a paradigm of explanation suffered a decline in the seventies, there
emerged adequate opportunity for those who favoured examining the relationship between
class and the state in the developing societies of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Alavi,
writing in the concrete context of South Asia did the pioneer work in this regard. Alavi grounded
his state theory on the historical of the post-colonial societies. He attributed this as
emanating the structural changes brought about by the colonial domination as well as
distant history, culture and tradition of these societies. His theorisation of the nature of post-
colonial state under peripheral capitalism was complimented by the African neo-Marxists like
lssa Shivji, John Saul and Colin Leys.

70
The is us well
as the The as
the coercive being in [us
compared countries]
this to the historical process of colonial capitalist
development taking place state. equipped with the powerful military
bureaucratic apparatus. of and practices regulated and
controlled the indigenous social classes.

Alavi traces a historical between nature colonial and post-colonial state

in regard as due to of a properly developed capitalist class bureaucratic
military oligarchy too a post-colonial states.

It follows that post-colonial state is the of a single class. It is relatively

autonomous of of state apparatus as well as because it
as well as act on proprietary classes- the
bourgeoisie, the indigenous and landed classes having competing interests. Thus
the post-colonial state is of preserving a social order which the ruling
classes' interests

A second also can Alavi explains centrality of the

state post-colonial societies. time the state assumed

it to economic role.

to Alavi these has been yet factor defines the crucial significance
of state in post-colonial societies. 'They to special ideological function of the
state to create territorial unity, a sense of nationhood. Saul, particular, argues
that state's function providing ideological cement for the advanced capitalist system has
evolved along with However, in post-colonial societies, given
the artificial nature of territorial a position had to be created
once the powerful force of direct colonial fiat was gone.

The three factors, taken according to Alavi and other state theorists .
illuminate the centrality of stale to post-colonial social formations. In such a situation of
high relative bureaucracy as important component in its own right in
the of state

Naturally, then, focus of a of analyses been on the special role of the

bureaucracy in post-colonial This part of the debate is and
two accounts. First. bureaucracy or oligarchy is often regarded as a special category or
a special in the later case it is not clear whether the a class
by virtue of their class origin, or because they belong to the bureaucracy. Second, the distinction
between the state apparatus state power not always clear. State power in such formulations
 .

is considered to belong to the bureaucratic class. The arises can bureaucracy be

considered as a class? ,

In the above context we can refer to the views of Nicos Poulantzas who argues that the
bureaucracy does not constitute a social class, it a social category that can be defined
as social ensemble, whose main feature is based on its specific relationship to the political
structures other than economic ones. However, concedes that in the societies where
the relations of production have not acquired the capitalist form, the state bourgeois is able to
establish a specific place for itself. But even in this case, it does not constitute a class by virtue
of being bureaucracy, but by virtue of being an effective class.

In analysis it is not quite clear whether he regards the military-bureaucratic oligarchy as

I a category concerning the state apparatus [governing] or state power [ruling]. As discussed
above lie does refer to historically specific role of the military and the bureaucracy, who
constitute the state apparatus in post-colonial societies. The oligarchy, however, he observes,
to rule through politicians so long as it could retain its own relative autonomy and
power.

Writing in the context of East Africa, Saul argued that the indigenous classes were in a state
of and as unlike the Asian societies, did not have fixed class interest. was
due to the repressive policies of the colonial state. Thus Saul argues that there is little possibility
of state bureaucracy subservient to the interests of the indigenous classes. fact, in the post-
colonial societies like Africa, the state bureaucracy becomes decisive in the formulation of state
policies in the face of the apparent inability of indigenous bourgeoisie to emerge as a dominant
ruling class, which allows the state bureaucracy to enjoy the status of governing class.

The central role given to the state bureaucracy in the post-colonial societies also
endorsed by the neo-Marxists namely and Lanzendorfer, Joel Peter Evans and
Szentes. Ziemann and Lanzendorfer have argued that having its entrenched interest the state
bureaucracy [read administrative bureaucracy] gets involved as a social entity in constant battles
over the distribution of state income. The absence of developed political institutions present a
situation in which the state bureaucracy with its vacillating class interest acts in an
position along with transnational capital and interest groups trying to f i l l up the political gap. The
state bureaucracy, as Evans argues, acquires the power to determine as well as regulate not only
the general orientation economy but also the distributive mechanism of state's surplus. Its
vacillating class interest enables it to enter into either an alliance with trans-national capital or
with local with popular base.

As for the of the state bourgeoisie, Szetes argues that the state elite comprises of
civil servants, managers, administrators, bureaucrats, certain intellectuals, armed forces
etc.

The variation of the notion that the bureaucracy constitutes a distinct separate class is to be
found in the writings of Shivji, and Mamdani. Writing in the context of post-colonial
Africa they argued that where the indigenous bourgeoisie was unusually weak and the state
relatively strong, it was strong state bureaucracy that appropriated and accumulated the
economic surplus. This bureaucracy had its class origin in the petty bourgeoisie and acted in its

i
72
I
interests. On other hand, this bureaucratic bourgeoisie also appropriated state organs and
resources.

It follows that we can discern a general theory of the post-colonial state. While three classes,
namely metropolitan bourgeoisie, the indigenous bourgeoisie and the landed peasantry may be
regarded as economically dominant and therefore exercising directly or indirectly political
dominance or control., state personnel/ bureaucratic bourgeoisie1 petty bourgeoisie may be
judged to be the ruling or governing element being most active in the political process and indeed
holding the rein of government.

Here it needs to be emphasised that in the writings of the neo-Marxist theorists the economically
dominant classesare generally perceived as a class whose reproductive needs ultimately determine
the overall structure of social formation. Political dominance is however to be judged
in terms of the output of the state and also in the determination of specific policy within limits
set by the general reproductive needs of the economically dominant classes.

In the earlier sections we discussed the theory of the state. To reiterate Marx and
Engels, it is argued that in the normal situation state acts as an instrument economically
and therefore politically dominant social class. However, they also argued that in certain historical
state does enjoy relative autonomy. First, being where the generation of the social
classes has been weak as a result of the unique development of a particular mode of production.
This has been or less the case with the pre-colonial Asiatic State and the colonial state.
The second, being where the state acquires relative autonomy by playing off one class against

The above brings to the post-colonial social formations where, as discussed above, it has been
argued by the post-colonial state theorists that the above mentioned three classes have
different structural basis and competing class interests. It is in this context of a complex class
structure where no particular class is hegemonic that the state and its personnel have extensive
space for manoeuvering within the inherited state apparatus. However, the role of the state elite
is only relatively autonomous because it is not determined outside the matrix class society
but within it, with a distinct purpose to preserve the social order based on the institution of
private property.

colonial state theorists, despite its theoretical sophistication with its ability to
underline the significance of historical understanding, failed like the dependency theorists to take
to consideration the distinctive colonial experiences of the diffe ent countries of Asia, Africa
and Latin America. As Neera Chandhoke puts it; 'Different countries had witnessed different
kinds of anti-colonial struggles, based on specific experiences of colonialism, their own
histories of and traditions of protest, distinctive political ideologies, intellectual contributions
and stemming out of all of them, differing vision of future. And after independence, various
countries embarked on different paths of building institutions, creating legitimizing ideologies,
patterns of political mobilization, and nation state projects'. [Neera Chand hoke, Limits of
Comparative Political Analysis, Economic and Political Weekly, January 27, 1996,

Naturally then in the last two decades any attempt to articulate a general theory of state in the
developing societies based on global frames of analysis has been discouraged. The universal and
 abstract categories of comparative political analysis as attempted by the
development and the dependency and then the postcolonial state theorists have been increasingly
replaced by the study of the local, the specific and the particular evidenced in the political and
cultural practices. Thus what is being attempted is to introduce a more nuanced and
rigorous historical understanding of the particular societies before analysing the nature of state.

I 5.7 SUMMARY

The liberal and political development assumed that the developing societies
were on way towards an ideal of development visible in the advanced capitalist
democracies of the West. They proceeded to analyse the stages through which this
happened with the help of the western aid at the personal/ psychological, technological/ financial
and the institutional levels America. Narrowly conceived in an economistic fashion
development theorists portrayed the state as an impersonal vehicle of social, economic, cultural
and political change. This process needed the guidance by modernising elite. Development
theorists devalued the social forces that opposed notions in their pursuit of
order as prerequisite of statist model of development. Ironically, however state per se was
precluded from any discussion about the political system.

The neo-Marxist dependency theorists, the other hand, assumed that imperialism prevented
the emergence of an ideal-type European or self-centered model of development. Presenting an
economistic and deterministic analysis they attributed the peripheral nature of dependency to the
historical constraints of colonialism as well as the of unequal world capitalist systems
in the post-colonial era. The development of the advanced capitalist states and the metropolitan
zones of the developing states took place at price of the underdevelopment of the third
world. followed that the space for policy making was severely circumscribed by unequal
relations of dependency and the national sovereignty was undermined. The only way the
underdeveloped states could emancipate from the enduring structures of dependency was to
break away from the global structures of power. Until then the dependent state in the third world
had to remain as an instrument of the metropolitan capital and its domestic underlings. The
authoritarian forms of political regime became most likely in the face of marginalised and poor
majority.

With extremely rapid development taking place in a number of outward- oriented East Asian
states who followed the capitalist model, the central thesis of the classical dependency
the capitalist expansion in the third world generated and made 'real'
development impossible- came increasingly under question mark.

What resulted was the rise of much more sophisticated Marxist theorisation that shifted from
general-level economic modelsand external factors to detailed analyses of internal class relations.
These theorists argued that the state in the third world society exhibited an unusually high degree
of autonomy. The class structure meant there was no single dominant ruling class
and the state to carry out the task of mediation. At the same time politicians and the
bureaucracy could the overdeveloped state institutionsand organisations left behind as a part
of the colonial legacy.

74
5.8 EXERCISES
Explain the significance of state theory in the contemporary political theory?

2) Analyse the notion.of state.

3) Analyse tenets of the pluralist liberal theory of the state.

4) . "The states in the developing societies are structurally unique in nature." comment.

Explain the theoretical tenets of the state theories in both the liberal and Marxist traditions.

6) What do you understand by neo-Marxism?

I
,

UNIT 6 SOCIETY AND THE STATE

Structure
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Meaning and Nature of Civil Society
6.3 Democracy and Civil Society
6.4 Characteristic Civil Society
6.5 Civil Society and the State
6.5.1 State- Civil Society Relationship: An Evolutionary
6.6 Major Contributors
Contractarians
6.6.2 Classical Political Economists
6.6.3 The Civil Society and the State
6.6.4 on Civil Society
6.6.5 Gramsci on Civil Society
6.7 Contemporary Relevance of Civil Society Discourse
6.8 Summary
6.9 Exercises

6.1 INTRODUCTION .

Democracy in its liberal pluralist form presupposes a model of society. The question, however,
is which type of civil society is most appropriate to a modem democratic political system? For .
the conceptualisationof civil society, one has to go back to the long tradition of Western political
thinking centred on State - relationship. Understanding the nature of state itself begs an
understandingof its social basis. The democratic form which rests on the ideals of participation,
accountabilityand rights- bearing citizens is anchored in a notion of civil society as the foundation
stone of democratic practice. What, then, is the meaning of civil society and how does one
define its nature and function vis-a-vis the state? How did the idea of civil society originate in
political thinking and how has it evolved in the course of evolution of political practice and the
operations of actual state systems in different conditions. Since the idea of democracy, in the
sense of participative politics, accountable government and rights-respecting state, has been
expanding overtime and gaining acceptance as axiomatic in contemporary political discourse, it
is civil society in all its nuances that has attracted considerable theoretical and practical attention.
The discussions in this unit are, therefore. intended to go back to the basics of state theory and
the historical evolution of democratic political theory maturing through a subtle interactive
relationship between state and civil society. Seen from this perspective, it seeks to clarify the
basic building blocks of political theory. We will come to realise, at the end of this unit, that
"there can be no of the state without a theory of civil society." Let us now try to
understand what is meant by civil society.

76
6.2 AND OF SOCIETY
Civil society is not easy to as it has been an evolving concept in history. As a starting
point, we say that civil society is a form of societal self - organisation that allows for
with the state and at the same time enables the flourishing of individuation. As
defined by Cohen and Arato (1 997):

"We understand 'civil society' as a sphere of social interaction between economy and state
above all of the intimate sphere (especially the family), the sphere of associations
(especially voluntary associations), social movements and fonns of public communication. Modem
civil society is created through forms of self-constitution and self-mobilisation. It
institutionalised and generalised through especially subjective rights, that stabilise
differentiation".

To put it simply, civil society is a domain parallel to but separate from the state. It is a realm
where citizens associate according to their own interests and wishes. It is "the realm of
social life that is voluntary, self-generating, largely self-supporting, and bound by a legal order
or set of shared values." Outside of their households, the members of society form a large
variety of intermediary organisations for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting their
interests.

There is no unanimity on the question types of social organisations should fall within
the scope of civil society. Yet, conventionally organisations that are considered to be parts of
civil society include churches, neighbourhood associations, private charities, grass-root groups
and local clubs - all those social organisations that are open, voluntary, self-generating,
autonomous from the State, and yet bound by a legal order. Civil society does include independent
mass media and the broader field of autonomous cultural and intellectual activity. The Universities,
theatres, film societies, publishing houses and the social think tanks are important components
of civil society. In fine, it is an intermediary phenomenon standing between the private
and the State.

Civil to be the broader concept of. in

as it involves behaving and acting collectively in a public sphere, to express their interests,
ideas and to achieve collective goals and make demands on the Thus
all of social life is not subsumed in civil society.

Parochial society represented by individual and family life and inward-looking group activity such
as religious worship, spirituality etc. does not fall within civil society. Similarly,economic society
in the form of profit making enterprise of individual business is outside the scope of civil
society.

Also, civil society needs to be distinguished from political society represented, in a democracy,
by political parties and-campaign groups and that primarily aspire for winning
control of the state.

6.3 DEMOCRACY AND SOCIETY

Democracy society are twins': they integrally each other. A healthy liberal
democracy needs the support of a public "that is organised for democracy, socialised to its norms
and values, and committed not just to its myriad narrow interests but to larger, common civic
end". To quote Larry Diamond,"such a civil public is only possible with a vibrant 'civil society'."
(1999).

One has to trace back in this context to Alexis de Tocqueville whose classic writings on
American politics laid the foundation of democracy-civil society nexus thesis. Tocqueville thought,
America's democracy was sustained by the richness and diversity of its voluntary associations.
In his view, associations assisted in the development of democratid values such as
trust, tolerance and compromise. New generations of prominent among
whom is Robert Putnam, have, since the revived the concept of civil society as the
of democracy. Putnam's work on the political development of the Italian regions-the
prosperous North vis-a-vis the impoverished South - sought to explain superior institutional
performance in the former in terms of flourishing 'social capital' which stands for "features of
social organisation such as trust, norms and networks". The propensity of individuals to join
private, voluntary associations, according to Putnam, contributes to the effectiveness of democracy
because of its 'internal' and 'external' consequences. Internally, associations "install habits of
cooperation, solidarity, and public spiritedness". Externally, a dense network of secondary
associations "contributes to effective social collaboration". The Putnam thesis is simply this:
where there is no social capital, could not flourish (1993).

For the most comprehensive theoretical assessment of the virtues of civil society in the context
of democratic transition and consolidation, one has to refer to Larry Diamond's recent work on
Democracy (1999). Civil society, in Diamond view, serves the "development,
deepening consolidation As Diamond explains the process, civil society
provides the basis for the limitation of state power, supplements the role of parties in stimulating
political participation, increases the political and skill of democratic citizens, educates
the masses in democracy, structures multiple channels, beyond the political party, for articulating
, aggregating, and representing interests, empowers the powerless to advance their interests,
generates a wide range of cross - cutting interests, mitigates thereby the polarities of political
conflict, recruits and trains new political leaders, develops techniques for conflict mediation and
resolution, gives citizens respect for the state and positive engagement with it, and facilitatesthe
spread of ideas essential for economic reform .

Diamond has. however, laid down certain conditions that be fulfilled for civil society to
perform the democracy functions. a stable democracy has a good prospect if civil
society does not contain interest groups or groups with anti-
democratic goals and methods". Second, another of a strong civil society is what
Diamond has called the "level of As he argues, "where
interests are organised in a structured, stable manner, bargaining and the growth of cooperative
networks are facilitated". Third, the other important requirement is the "internally democratic
character"of organisations as defined by "decision-making, leadership selection, accountability
and transparency".

6.4 CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF SOCIETY

Following Diamond's presentation, five distinct features of civil society can be identified as
under:

i) Civil society is concerned with public rather than private ends.

78
ii) Civil society and state are related to each other in such a way that it does not seek to win
control over state. To reform the structure of power rather than to take power themselves
as organisations is the goal of civil society.

iii) Civil society encompasses pluralism and diversity. Any organisation that seeks to monopolise
power occupy the political space as a disallowing all competitors, violates
the pluralistic and market oriented nature of civil society.

Civil society does not seek to represent the complete set of interests of a person or a
community. This characteristic follows from what has been stated above. Profusion of
different organisations and individuals having multiple organisational ties are clear of
healthy civil society functioning.

v) Civil society, as Diamond points out, should be distinguished the more clearly democracy
enhancing phenomenon of civic community. Putnam's model of civil community along with
the idea of social capital is both a broader and narrower concept than civil society: "broader,
in it encompasses all manner of associations; narrower in that it includes only associations
structured horisontally around ties that are more or less mutual, cooperative, symmetrical,
and trusting". Putnam, like Tocqueville, has sensitised us to the importance of associational
life in general; but civil society is a much more refined concept that distinguishes it from
the much wider and more general arena of associational life. It needs to be emphasised,
in this context, that "the key to constructing a civic community is not whether an organisation
has an explicitly civic (public) or political purpose."

6.5 SOCIETY AND THE STATE

Two antithetical trends in political theory have tended to obfuscate the relationship between state
and civil society. One recurring trend has been to place the state at the centre of things. This
state - centric view, since the days of classical political theorising, has accorded unusual
preeminence to state as a special kind of institutional arrangement that makes possible the
realisation of good life and development of capacities of individuals in society. The second trend,
by contrast, seeks to relegate the state in the background and bring in the reign of unregulated
market for the promotion of individual enterprise, unfettered competition and preeminence of
private property. The neo-liberal project of 'rolling back the state' and allowing market supremacy
has meant privileging the civil society the opposite of state-centric view.

State as regulator of society seeks to fix the boundaries of political practice. Civil society,
in turn, stands out as the sphere inhabited by the rights-bearing and juridically defined individuals
called citizens. Political holding the state accountable for its action and open
publicity of politics are the hallmarks of civi society. To quote Chandhoke, the essential staff
of politics is dialogues and contestations with the state. Hence, "civil society the site
for the production of a critical rational discourse which possesses the potential to interrogate the
state." Simply put, "the site at which society enters into a relationship with the state can
be dejined as civil society." Characterised by open and publicity, freedom of
expressions and the right to form associations, civil society occupies a pride of place in democratic
theory. The nature of'the state, whether democratic or can be only
by referring to the politics of Again, civil society's influencing function (as
distinguished function) depends on its democratic character. Democratic theory has
acknowledged the pre-eminenceof civil as an essential precondition for the existence
of democracy. Following admirable it can now be summed
up that the nature of the state can be understood by referring to the politics of civil society. The
two are bound up by a bond of reciprocity:"there can be no theory of the state without a theory
of civil society, and, correspondingly,there can be no theory of civil society without a theory of
the state."

6.5.1 State-civil society An Evolutionary perspective

The history of political thought is in reality the history of state-civil society relationship, as
explicated by eminent political philosophers. Before we take up the contributions of seminal
thinkers, a brief overview of the progress of thought is presented here for general understanding.
The term 'civil society can be traced to ancient Greek political thought and to the works of
Cicero and other Romans. But, in classical usage civil society was equated with state. In
its form, civil society emerged in the Scottish and continental Enlightenment of the
Century. Fmm Thomas Paine to a number of political theorists conceptualised civil
society as a domain parallel to but separate from the state. In their view, this is a realm where
citizens associate according to their own interests and wishes. This new thinking was the
reflection of new economic realities characterised by the rise of private property, market
competition and the bourgeoisie. There was also a growing popular demand for liberty as
manifested in the American and French revolutions.

For a time, the idea of civil society suffered an eclipse in the mid-nineteenth century, as social
and political consequences of the industrial revolution attracted most attention. After the Second
World War, the idea of civil society was revived by Antonio who depicted civil society
as a special nucleus of independent political activity, a sphere of struggle against tyranny.
Communist states in the erstwhile Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe overextended control over
nearly all spheres of social life. The collapse of the communist states led to the questioning of
the spheres of state control. the Czech, Hungarian and Polish activists raised the slogan
of civil society that they thought the state tended to engulf; hence, the demand was to encourage
the flourishing of the institutionsof civil society church) outside the legal institution of the
state.

The the Soviet system and the Bloc released unprecedented movements for
and towards democracy throughout the globe. Civil society conceived in terms of 'associative
initiatives of non-state emerged as a desirable social space both in the
communist ruling situations and in the developed West where "capitalist had steadily
become unacceptable. Public fatigue with conventional party systems encouraged interest in civil
society, and the new social movements feminist, ecological movements) opened up
opportunitiesfor civil society initiatives independent of the state.

6.6 MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS

We can now identify the major contributors whose thoughts have enriched civil society
conceptualisation and clarified state-civil society relational issues.

80
 6.6.1 Contractarians
To the Greeks, political society was natural to man; hence the idea of a private non-state sphere
where the individual could have an independent existence was alien to Greek political culture.
Roman law provided for private property acquisition by the individual. Thus, individual's separate
existence outside the political community was recognized in Roman law.

In its modern form, the beginning of civil society concept can be traced to the period between
seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. Hobbes and Locke -the two major exponents of social
contract theory - can be regarded as pioneers in the matter of formulation of the civil society
concept. For instance, Locke wrote about the 'political or civil society' in opposition to the 'state
of nature'. Both Hobbes and Locke set the civil society as a conceptual opposite of the state
of nature. Civil society is an artificial creation, whereas state of nature is the pre-civil society
natural existential situation of man. The contract-based civil and political society created conditions
of civility. By contrast, the uncontrolled state of nature was not conducive to orderly life and
security of life and property. Civility is the creation of a specially formed political authority. The
constitutional state in conception was brought into being by rights-bearingindividuals.
These rights put a limit on the power of the sovereign. Hobbes had also set limits on the state
as the latter had to respect the individual's right to self-preservation. Neera Chandhoke is
however, right in pointing out that the are not strictly speaking the theorists of civil
society: '"the major themes that came to characterise later liberal formulations on civil society
are in an embryonic form in these theories."

6.6.2 Classical Political Economists

The eighteenth century classical political economists were influenced by the Enlightenment
philosophy which replaced god by reason, and the priest and the representative philosophersby
the scientist. Civil society, according to them, was not an artificial creation, but a product of
evolution. Society progresses according to its and principles. Adam traced the
evolution of civil society from crude forms of human interaction to a higher stage of growth
by division of labour, higher moral and cultural accomplishment, and the subjection
of government to the rule of law. The progressive societal evolution led to the emergence of
commercial society and growth of public spiritualness. Here the material conditions and the
economy, in particular, received primacy in determining the nature of society. Men were depicted
as rational agents capable of cultivating interdependence among themselves through a complex
division of labour. The self-regulatingproperties of civil society led to the under- valuation of the
value of politics and the state.

The concept of self-regulating economy and society found eloquent expression in the writings
of Adam Smith. State interference, in his view, was an impediment to the creativity of economic
actors in society. The state's role was to protect life, liberty and property of the citizen from
internal chaos and external aggression. Defining the conditions of good life, or representing
collective will was none of state's business.

, The classical political economists gave primacy to individualism, property and the market,
at the basic level they placed the individual at the centre of things. Thus, the liberal
agenda was set by the classical political economists, and what emerged was '"the concept of'
civil society as a historically evolved area of individual rights and freedoms, where individuals
in competition with each other pursued their respective private concerns." (Chandhoke, 1995)

The concept of a limited state was well established by the early liberal theorists. Later J.S. Mill
and Tocqueville, in particular, felt concerned about the state's political power to threaten human
freedom. Tocqueville, for instance, saw the danger of social institutions being throttled by
political institutions. While there was appreciation need for the state to maintain law and
order, at the same time there was the realisation that the state should never have unlimited
power. Tocqueville, as earlier mentioned, found in the plural social associations the capacity to
check state power. Based on the principle of choice, the associations reconciled the interest
of individualswith the need for collective action. It is through civil associations that civil democratic
virtues germinate and give shape to the civil society. Gke Tocqueville, Mill held the view that
participation of the private citizens in public creates public sprit. "Where this school of
public spirit does not exist, scarcely any sense is entertained that private persons, in no eminent
social situation, owe any duties society, except to obey the laws and submit to government."

The Liberal thought had a lasting effect on the question of state - society relationship.
Contemporary ideas on civil society owe a lot to this kind of liberal conceptualisation that
counter- posed civil society as setting limits on state power. .

6.6.3 The Civil Society and the State

As we have discussed earlier, the classical political economists were the first to separate civil
society from the state. But, it is to that we owe the first sophisticated analysis of
civil society distinction. Civil society and modernity had been twins in vision. The
individual finds in the civil society his subjective freedom, his legitimate pursuit of self-interest
so necessary for the realisation of his potentialities. The modern society replaced the ascriptive
privileges of the earlier age by the discourse of rights-bearing individual. To follow Neera
Chandhoke's lucid analysis,

followed in the footsteps of the classical economists, but his analysis differed
from the earlier theorists in three vital ways.

One:

Civil society was rescued by from its excessive with the economy. No
doubt civil society consists of a set of social practices that are constituted by the logic of
capitalist economy; yet, they have an existence of their own distinct from the economy.
Located between the family and the state, civil society, according to is historically
"an important moment in the transition from the family as a mode of social organisation to
the state as the supreme and the final form of such organisation". Family represents a
natural and unreflectiveunity characterised by love and concern. Civil society is the sphere
of self-seeking individuals; at the same time, the principle of universality, which the state
embodies, can be found in an embryonic form in the civil society. Thus, in
conceptualisation,civil society is not negatively viewed as an area of freedom and rights to
be alone by the state. Instead civil society is "The active moment where the dialectic
between particularity and universality is resolved."
 As against the Adam Smithian optimism that individualistic, self-interested behaviour would
be the basis of progressive society, was sceptical about such behaviour. Civil society
is that social sphere where individual private interest meets everyone else's".
He thought that would lead to self-centredness and destroy ethical life.
Modem society, in view, has lost its capacity to realise ethical life, and modernity
has ushered in an alienated world where the division of labour creates an
exchange-oriented means of social interaction. As Chandhoke puts it, philosophical
project has been to "provide a home to this rootless individual, disinherited from the traditional
support structures of community life".

Three:

At the base of idea of freedom is the notion of actualisation of the self in a rational
social order. Individualsdo not attain freedom automatically and voluntarily; they have to be
educated and socialised."The right of individuals to be subjectively destined to freedom is
fulfilled when they belong to an actual ethical order. The implication, thus, is that civil society
needs to be organised. Particularity, it is the hallmark of modernity; this has to be mediated
by universality. As Chandhoke explains: "Civil society is the space where locates his
historical project of reconciling the particular and the universal in an ethical community".

Through the mediation of a range of intermediary institutions, sought to assure the

presence of associational spirit. "These intermediaries are the lesser form of the State and civil
society is one of the stages in state formation."The Hegelian state symbolises the realisation
of the peak of ethicality, unblemished by any sign of particularity. The social institutions at the
intermediate stage would particularity and institutionalise universality. "This privileging of
universality leads, in the Hegelian philosophy, to the vertical organisation of civil society culminating
in the state as the ultimate expression of

6.6.4 Marx on civil society

Marx had much in common with the Hegelian conceptualisation of civil society as civility and
egoistic individuality born out of modernity. But, deification of the state was rejected by
Marx. While admitting that the essence of the state lies in the formulation of universalistic
principles transcending the particularistic interests of individuals in civil society, Marx set
aside the Hegelian idea of subordinating the civil society to the state. The civil sphere,
according to Marx, is characterised by selfishness, egoism and avarice. It has not been transformed
by the bourgeois revolution. The state cannot be different from what happens in the civil sphere,
as it is the product of the same historical process that brings into being the civil society. The
unlimited bourgeois power leads to oppression and exploitation that mark the civil sphere.
this background, the state as a class-tainted institution cannot have neutrality and
universalistic principles. The state, in view, does not transcend civil society by reconciling
the contradiction in the civil sphere, rather it merely suspends them. I

As Chandhoke explains the Marxist position, civil society is the stage "where the dialectic
between the social and the political, between domination and resistance, between oppression and
emancipation is played out." Marx thus defetishises civil society which and the liberals
had extolled as the home of freedom and rights. By contrast, Marx exposes the real nature of

I 83
civil society where "the powerlessness of the individual in production relations is rendered
opaque by the empty political rhetoric of equality and freedom." Civil society has to look for its
redemption not outside (in the state) but inside or within itself through deep-rooted democratic
transformation which has necessarily to be revolutionary in character. Civil society in
version cannot be rescued by imposed system of mediations.

6.6.5 Gramsci on civil society

Antonio Gramsci, the ltalian communist leader and social scientist, is credited with the modern
renewal of the left radical critique of civil society. Gramsci was a follower of Marx; yet, he
enunciated his own concept of civil society derived more from his reading of The state,
according to Gramsci, can be understood only by referring to the nature of civil society.
makes a distinction between political society and civil society. The former is the site where the
coercive apparatus of the state (police, prison, armed forces) is concentrated; while the latter
is "the location where the state operates to enforce invisible, intangible and subtle forms of
power, through educational, cultural and religious systems and other institutions. The political
society disciplines the body through its penal codes and prisons, but civil society disciplines the
mind and the psyche through these institutions".

The State in Gramsci's view stands for all those activities with which a ruling class maintains
its dominance. It reproduces itself in the daily living practices that go on in the civil society, and
thus in a subtle way constructs both individual and collective consciousness. Hegemony, a key
concept in Gramscian formulation, has been conceptualised as the production of consent through
the use of and mythologies, institutions and practices. Hegemony is an organising
principle that provides unity to the plural and conflict-ridden civil sphere. To quote Neera
Chandhoke,"Hegemony as the moral and intellectual leadership of the dominant classes provides
the ethical moment of political life, since it provides a social base of consent for the state.... civil
society is the ethical moment where a fragmented society is held together by the moral vision
and foresight of the leading class".

Gramsci avoids economic and political reductionism (of classical Marxism) by differentiating the
associational and cultural dimensions of civil society from the economy and the State. The
and cultural institutions of civil society in the developed capitalist countries are
conceived by Gramsci as "trenches" of the established system that add to the stability of
bourgeois administration. This version of civil society, therefore, must be destroyed and replaced
by alternative forms of association clubs, new proletarian party), intellectual and
cultural life and values that would help create a proletarian counter hegemony replacing the
existing bourgeois forms.

Harmonic can thus be the property of the subaltern classes also through altered in the
civil sphere. In Gramsci's vision, civil society must be metamorphosed through a wide
social, political and cultural revolution. As Chandhoke explains, civil society acquires in Gramsci's
theory, "an active and dynamic dimension; it is the site at which the fundamental classes
articulate class positions along with other social groups expressing their particular interests.
Whereas civil society is the site where the legitimacy state is forged, it is also the terrain
of contestation. It is precisely here that the subaltern classes can challenge the power of the
state".

84
After studying the formulation of and Gramsci, it should be clear that these radical
political philosophers conceptualised civil society in a novel way; they provided an alternative to
the liberal version of civil society. Each one of them had his distinctiveness in terms of conceptual
vocabulary, state - society relational vision, and model, yet collectively they
posed forceful challenge to liberal political theory. To conclude with Neera Chandhoke, "They
refused to accept the liberal representation that civil society is the sphere of rights, individualism,
property and the market. These are but the surface aspects of the sphere. Probing beneath the
surface, civil society-appears as the essence of modern inhumanity. If it has to achieve its
potential, and discharge its historic mission, it has to be organised and transformed".

6.7 CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF SOCIETY

In recent times, civil society has reemerged in political theory with new vigour and insights.
Sudipta Kaviraj and Sunil Khilnani, in their new book on Civil Society identify three strands in
the contemporary discussion on the subject: ,

One: The erstwhile communist systems in the former USSR and Eastern Europe overextended
the legal jurisdiction and effective control of state institutions, such as the bureaucracy, over
nearly all spheres of social life. After the collapse of those kinds of states, there was a need
it was argued, for encouraging the flourishing of institutions of 'civil society' outside the legal
jurisdiction of the state".

least two trends of leftist political thought have also been keen to revive the idea
of civil society. The disillusionment with the idea of socialism and the Soviet experiment has
led to a certain radicalisation of the idea of democracy by re-invoking civil society discourse.
Also, the retreat welfare state through the years of new-conservative reaction during
the Thatcher-Reagan regimes led to the invocation of the British pluralist tradition. The call
was to revive the "associative initiatives of non-state organisations in civil society "to counter
the phenomenon of capitalist atomisation".

Three: Current thinking in the West about new social movements (feminism
etc.) has also finks with the civil society discourse. To Kaviraj and Khilnani, "There
is a strong affinity between the associational argument and the idea that the new social
movements, which are quite distinct from classical working class movements in interest
and form, are the carriers of radical democratic aspirations"

In the 'Third World' countries, civil society is currently being invoked by international donor .
agencies like the World Bank to bring in non-state sectors and Community organisations)
in the field of development administration. Also, in countries like civil society is being
invoked to widen and deepen democracy out of a sense of despair about the role and capacity
of conventional party politics to push through social change.

6.8 SUMMARY
From the unit that you have just read, you would have understood the meaning and
civil society, and its significancefor democratic theory. State-society relationship is the core of
political theory. This should also be clear from what you have read in this lesson. Civil society
discourse has a long history. This lesson has given you a clear idea about how the idea of civil
society has evolved since the days of contract theory. You must have understood from a reading
of this unit, the contribution of most important philosophers, particularly and .
Also, it should be clear to you as to why the idea of civil society has in recent times, been
revived.

6.9 EXERCISES
Discuss the meaning and nature of Civil Society.

2) Discuss the importance of Civil Society in the democratic theory.

. .

3) Critically examine the relationship between civil society and the state.

4) Writeshort notes on:

a) views on civil society

 UNIT 7 GLOBALISATION STATE
Structure
7.1 Introduction
7.2 What is
7.3 Approachesto Globalisation
7.4 Impact on State Sovereignty
7.4.1 Challenges from the New World Economy
Challenges from new International Organisations
7.4.3 Challenges from International Law

7.5.1 Decision-Making
7.5.2 Resurgence

7.1 INTRODUCTION'

Globalisation is a concept for which no standard definition can be given. This is because it stands
for a tremendous diversity of issues and problems and has been interpreted from a variety of
theoretical and political positions. Yet scholars are agreed that it is a process that is supplanting
the primacy of the state by transnational corporations and eroding local cultures and
traditionsthrough a global culture and strengthening the dominance of a world capitalist economic
system. Hence, its importance lies in the change it has introduced in our traditional understanding
of the State. The questions central to our study are, associated with the demise,
, the state power? Does contemporary globalisation impose
new limits to politics within nation-states?

7.2 WHAT IS GLOBALISATION?

Globalisation can be described as the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide

interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social and political life. The sociologist
Giddens defines it as a "decoupling of space and time, emphasising this with instantaneous
communication, knowledge and culture, which can be shared around the world simultaneously".
There is considerabledifference of opinion among scholars about its impact, yet there does exist

due to war, trade etc. internal politics has been affected by events and developments
and interdependence of states has been stressed This is reflected in the writings of Groitus
and Kant who argued that states existed within a 'society of states' and 'international law' and
focussed upon cooperation and co-existence of states. what we are
is a qualitatively new phenomenon: vast networks of global interaction and financial
flows over which individual states have very-limited control, tremendous growth in communication,

87
 emergence of international organisations and regimes, transgovernmental action, global military
order and a re-ordering of the very idea of distance due to the internet.

Globalisation is the end product of a historical of capitalist expansion that originated in

Europe and has covered the world. While there is no agreed starting point, certain historical
epochs over which it has developed can be identified. The first great expansion of European
capitalism took place in the century following the first circumnavigation of the earth in 1519
and 1521. But the first major expansion of world trade and investment took place in the late
century following the Industrial Revolution in Europe, which made these countries producers of
manufactured goods. It was also the golden period of colonialism when the Great Powers of
the West were able to divide the world between them and exploit its resources. This was
brought to a halt with the First World War and the bout of anti-free trade protectionism due to
the Great Depression of the 1930s. The end of the Second World War brought another great
expansion of capitalism with the rise of Multi-national companies which internationalised
production and trade. In the economic field, the new Bretton Woods system helped in the rise
of international financial markets. In political terms, decolonisation created a New World Order
with the emergence of a number of new states. third and more contemporary phase of the
triumph of global forces dates from the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet
Union, which ended the Cold War between the forces of capitalism and socialism, leaving the
former triumphant. With this globalisation has become a reality for people living in all parts of
the world.

I 7.3 APPROACHES TO
Scholars are divided about the nature of this new process called globalisation and consequently
its impact. Three approaches to understanding the ongoing process of globalisation can be
identified in the current literature. One approach consisting of scholars, such as K. Ohmae,
called the see it as a central and irreversible process, and define globalisation
as a new epoch of history in which traditional nation-states have become 'unnatural, even
impossible business units in a global economy'. In this view, which privileges economic power
or that of the market, the borderless economy reduces national governments to little more than
transmission belts for global capital, or simple intermediate institutions sandwiched between
increasingly powerful local, regional and global mechanisms of governance. In this view
international markets and multi-national corporations, have become strong and impersonal forces
driving the world. Consequently the power of states is correspondingly declining. Now
is diffused, it is the local and the international that are important, not states, which have lost their
earlier authority and legitimacy and have little control over what is happening within their
borders. believe that economic globalisation is creating new forms of social and political
organisations - international civil society and supra-state government - which will eventually
replace the traditional nation-state as the primary political and economic unit of world society.
Thus, the old north-south divide, or the core-periphery based international relations, is disappearing
and a more complex architecture of economic, political and social power is emerging. In this
situation, states that do not or move with the times, it is held, will be behind. Older
welfare state policies or social democratic models of governance are now of no use. A new
international elite or 'knowledge' class is developing world-wide which is equipped to benefit
from the changes that globalisation has introduced, while others are These changes
.
are accompanied by a worldwide.consumerist ideology, which displaces traditional cultures and
ways of life and imposes a new global common identity within a global civilisation defined by
universal standards set by the discipline of markets. So the believe that globalisation
represents 'a fundamental reconfiguration of human action'.

Sharply opposed is the approach consisting of scholars best described as the skeptics who argue
that globalisation as described by the hyperglobalists is a 'myth'. They point out that the
century witnessed a greater increase of trade, labour flows and economic interdependence with
much higher levels of integration of states into the international system under the laissez-faire
state, and propagation of theories of comparative advantage by Adam Smith and others. Hence,
all we are experiencing today is heightened levels of internationalisation of these processes.
Further, in contrast to the hyperglobalists, privileging political rather than economic power, they
feel that the latter are being in underestimating the politicalpower of states; it is not the
market that rules, but the state that regulates all economic activity. The forces of globalisation
are themselves dependent upon the regulatory power of national governments to make states
globalise, and privatise. Thus, politics and not economics alone are important in
the relations among states in an increasingly interdependentworld. The sceptics also
point out that increased economic activity has led to "regionalisation" of the world economy
the emergence of three main financial blocs: Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific. This
means that the world economy is actually less integrated or global than earlier, as it stands on
more pillars. This school also argues that there is no evidence of a new, less state-centric
world. Rather, states are playing a more central role in the regulation and active promotion of
cross-border economic activity; they are shaping the global system. In fact, some feel that
globalisation is a by-product of the multi-lateral economic order created by the United States in
the post Second World War period; others feel that it is a new phase of western imperialism
in which there has been intensification of world trade and investment by the western states
have emerged as the agents of monopoly capital. Finally, the sceptics point out that there has
been no re-structuring of the world economy, most trade and investment still favours the North
and marginalisesthe South, as a result of which inequalities between the two areas are increasing,
and the old international division is becoming stronger. In fact, they feel that it is these rising
inequalities, which are leading to fundamentalism, ethnic resurgence and aggressive nationalism
rather than a world civilisation and internationalism.Instead of cultural homogenisation what we
are witnessing is re-emergence of local identities. is no global governance, only western
dominance, which hides behind a convenient slogan of globalisation.

A third, and more balanced view, comes from the who believe that
is 'transforming' the world and see it as a driving force behind the rapid social,
political and economic changes that are reshaping modern societies and a world order. In
a system there is no longer a clear distinction between international and domestic, external and
internal affairs. In this account, globalisation is conceived as a powerful transformative force,
which is responsible for a 'massive shake-out' of societies, economies, institutions of governance
and world order. However, the direction of this shakeout uncertain since globalisation
is an essentially contingent historical process replete with contradictions. Rather than putting
forward a fixed ideal type, transformationalists emphasise globalisation as a long-term historical
process that is inscribed with contradictions, and significantly shaped by factors.
Yet, they do believe that contemporary patternsof global economic, political, military, technological
and cultural flows are historically unprecedented. They argue that virtually all countries in the
world, if not parts of their territory and all of their society are now functionally part
of that larger (global) system in one or more respects. This does not the arrival of a global
society; rather globalisation is associated with new patterns of stratification in which some
states, societies and communities are becoming increasingly enmeshed in the world order, while
others are becoming increasingly marginalised.

Thus, at the core of the globalisation debate is a belief that it is reconstituting or

engineering the power, functions and authority of national governments.While not disputing
that states still retain the ultimate legal claim to effective supremacy over what occurs within
their territories, this is juxtaposed to varying degrees with the expandingjurisdiction of institutions
of international governance. Important examples include the European Union and the World
Trade Organisation, where sovereign power is now divided between international,national and
local authorities. Globalisation, therefore, is associated with a transformation or, an
unbundling of the relationship between sovereignty, territoriality and state power. Thus,
a new sovereignty regime is displacing traditional conceptions of statehood as an absolute
indivisible, territorially exclusive and zero-sum form of public power. Consequently,
sovereignty, state power and territoriality today stand in a more complex relationship to each
other, than they did in the epoch in which the modern nation state was being formed.

A different and critical viewpoint is put forward by the about the origins and nature
of globalisation, and its impact particularly on the developing world. Describing it as a new form
of Imperialism, they see it as an extension of the neo-liberal conservative policies practiced by
the advanced western countries to put their own economies in order as well as overcome global
depression following the oil crisis of the 1970s and 80s. While these policies helped the advanced
countries, it did not help the developing states on whom there is tremendous pressure today to
liberalise and privatise internally, and externally to open their economies to the forces of
globalisation. For the developing world, globalisation is of the Debt Crisis of the
which led to Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs). Many of them, with the drying up of
aid in this period, borrowed heavily from commercial Multi-National Banks, which were
flush with petro-dollars. Inability to repay debts by some countries such as for example, Mexico
in 1982, led to 'conditionalities' by the IMF which was able to introduce changes such
as rolling back of the state, removal of trade barriers and emphasis on export-led growth,
regional price controls etc., which introduced a complete change in direction within the
of Mexico. In the political field the conditionalitieson the developing states have taken the shape
of insistence on maintenance of Democracy, Good Governance and Human Rights.

These developments have led to introduction of competitive market forces and dismantling of
welfarism within the developing states, leading to greater class and regional inequalities within
them, leaving large sections of the population such as the smaller agricultural labour and
smaller industrialists vulnerable to the impact of globalisation. In India, this is visible in the
suicides by cotton farmers in regions such as Andhra Pradesh and Thus, globalisation
in the form of has led to a decline of third world states and their inability to manage
in a world of open economies. These states are not in a position to compete and take
advantage of the new opportunities that globalisation has introduced, which have gone largely
to the advanced Western states, and even within them, to already better-off sections of the
population. There was some growth initially in some states in Latin America as a result of the
SAPs, but they have contributed to widening of social inequalities and poverty, a good example
being the impact on Argentina. The impact on Africa was clearly indicated by the World Bank
itself in its 1989 report on the continent. In fact, during the 1990s the World Bank and the IMF

90
have themselves called for 'safety nets' or policies to the poor in these countries and for
adjustment with a 'human face'. This has led to increasing unrest and violence against the
government in many developing countries, and even in some developed countries, against increasing
inequalities and decreasing levels of employment. A.G. Frank has recently pointed out that the
impact of globalisation and the has proved Dependency theory correct, but paradoxically,
the theory is hardly used today in studies on globalisation. Thus, globalisation is a force that does
not affect all states in the same manner; even within states it can affect different sections of
the population differentially depending on their ability to face competitive markets.

7.4 IMPACT ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY

Most scholars agree that the age of the nation-state is not over, rather it ha suffered a decline
th
by the end of the 20 century after the glorious heights it reached in the 19 century. The state
still remains the most significant actor in the international arena and retains a degree of autonomy.
But this position is uneven; some states have declined while others have risen, classic empires
declined but new empires risen. What this implies is not the end of the state but a
transformation in its power and authority. This is best understood by examining certain
'international' or 'external' disjunctures or challenges upon the sovereignty of the nation-state
pointed out by David Held.

7.4.1 Challenge from the new world economy

Two major changes in economic international processes, which have impacted on state sovereignty,
have been internationalisation of production and financial transactions organised by Multinational
Corporations (MNCs). MNCs in their production and financial transactions plan their activities
with the world and not national economies in mind. Even when they have a national base, their
interests are global, their activities in their home country being less important. Financial
organisations such as MN Banks, which are global in scale and new information technology,
have made this possible, and stocks and shares are now 'mobile' and move across frontiers
easily. So the financial economy is not under the control of the state any longer. Technological
advances in communication and transport are eroding the boundaries between national markets,
which in the past were the bastion of independent national policies. Markets and societies are
becoming sensitive to each other even though national identities are separate and monetary and
fiscal policies are dominated by movements international markets. For example, the major
market crash of 1987 affected a very large number of countries.

As a result internal policymaking, investment, employment and revenue within a state is often
affected by the activities of MNCs and changes in the world economy. Keynesian-based
welfare policies, import or tariff barriers by governments (state interventionism) which were
used by governments to protect home industry in an era of 'embedded liberalism' are now much
harder to implement. This is because state economies are no longer 'managed' by state
governments but are subject to external forces, such as recession, inflation and trade agreements,
due to the interconnectedness of the world economy. However, it must be underlined that some
states can manage better in this situation, and are able to 'restore boundaries' and take advantage
also of the regionalisation of the world economy, for example the USA or the European Union,
 individual states, but there is a disjuncture between the idea of a sovereign state
determining its own and modem economies, which are intersected by international economic
forces.

7.4.2 Challenge from new international organisations

Between the state and the system there have arisen a large number of international
. organisations and regimes - new associations - which now manage whole
areas of transnational activity (trade, oceans, space) and collective policy problems. In 1909
there were 37 inter-governmental organisations and 176 by 1984 the number
has risen to 280 and 4,615 respectively. Consequently, we witnessing new forms of
making involving a number of states, and a whole array of international pressure groups.
A number of international agencies such as the International Postal Union or
Unions are largely non-political organisatdons. But there are a large number of international
organisations such as the World Bank, IMF, UNESCO, UN, which are highly politicised and
controversial and over the years their power to in the internal affairs of states has
increased. A tension therefore definitely exists between the notion of a sovereign nation-state
in control of its internal affairs and the existence of international bodies capable of interfering
in the management of its polity and economy. The European Union is an example of a
state body that can law, punish, regulate, direct and implement policy and has common
currency. European states have willingly surrendered their sovereignty to this body in order to
further their economic progress and face competition from the USA and Japan. This means that
sovereignty is no longer indivisible, illimitable, exclusive, perpetual, and embodied in a single
state.

7.4.3 Challenge from International law

Changes in international law have introduced new forms of regulations, rights and duties which
act as constraints on states. These are not backed by any coercive power but despite that are
important enough for states to obey them. Traditionally a rule that upheld state sovereignty was
the immunity of individuals and state agencies from being tried in a court in any other country.
However, in recent years these rules are being questioned in international courts. A tension now
exists between states and international law which is yet to be resolved, particularly within the
European Union. Moreover, the establishment of the European Convention for the Protection of
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1950 was an important step. Unlike many other
Charters on Human Rights, it takes a step towards "collective enforcement"of certain rights.
An important innovation is that individuals can initiate proceedings against their own governments.
European countries in the European Union have accepted that their citizens can directly petition
the European Commission on Human Rights that can take cases to the Committee of Ministers
of the Council of Europe and then the European Court of Human Rights. Thus, no state can
any longer treat its citizen, as it thinks fit. A gap has also emerged between membership of a
state, which traditionally gives individuals certain rights, and duties and the creation in international
law of new forms of rights and liberties as laid down by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg.
The Tribunal has laid down that when international law, which protects basic humanitarian
values, is in conflict with state laws, it is the duty of every individual to follow the former.
Moreover, the scope and direction of international law has changed. Traditionally it was meant
mankind. In recent years international law is longer defined as the law between states but
as a cosmopolitan agency above states, but accepted by all. Yet it is important to remember
despite globalisation it is not accepted by all states and individuals, for example, Islamic
fundamentalist movements do not accept it.

Finally there is a disjuncture between the idea of the state as an autonomous strategic military
actor, and the development of the global system of states characterised by the existence of the
great powers and power blocs which sometimes operates to undercut a state's authority and
integrity. The existence of NATO and the Warsaw pact can constrain the decision-making
powers of many states specially their military and foreign policy. There has also emerged the
'internationalisation of security' due to joint use of armed forces by states, which has created
a command structure above the states over which they individually have little control.

7.5 IMPACT OF GLOBALISATION ON INTERNAL

FUNCTIONING OF STATES

7.5.1 Democratic Decision Making

Questions are also being raised about the impact of globalisation on the internal functioning of
nation-states. A central question raised by liberal political theory, closely related to popular
sovereignty, is about the impact of globalisation on democratic decision-making. Traditionally
liberal theory assumed that there is a symmetrical and congruent relationship between the rulers
and the ruled. The former made decisions for the latter based upon notions of majority rule and
accountability,and the latter accorded them legitimacy. Nation-states were seen as self-contained
units and changes in other states or the international system, except in case of war or an ,
invasion, were not taken into consideration. The emergence of neo-liberalism has led to the
retreat of the state creating more space for civil society and competitive markets, which are not
limited to or enclosed within nation states. Moreover, active intervention by agencies such as the ,
World Bank and the IMF leading to Structural Adjustment Programmes and Development
Projects, and trade sanctions, aid, military imports etc., to a much greater extent than before has
grave implications for democratic decision-making. Consequently, states no longer control their
own decisions and actions as in the past. What this implies is a change in the traditional notion
of 'consent', which is an important core of democratic theory. earlier notions of a social
contract and electoral democracy based on the use of the ballot box which leads to participatory
democracy based upon a community of free and equal persons is no longer valid. The question,
that arises is, which is the relevant community - local, regional, national or international?
Who makes the law is a valid question as territorial boundaries are no longer sacrosanct. So
globalisation has the possibility of re-opening the assumptions underlying liberal democracy.
With globalisation, the theoretical underpinnings of' liberal democratic theory need a

7.5.2 Ethnic Resurgence

A second issue is the coexistence of globalisation and assertions based on ethnic identities, of
language, tribe or religion, which is today questioning the concept of a homogenous nation-state
based upon a common national sentiment, whether constructed out of long struggles against
feudalism and the Church in the West, or colonial rule the developing world. Earlier scholars
examining ethnic identities and their relationship with the nation-state believed that ethnic ties
were primordial, that is, given from the beginning and fixed, and with modemisation and increasing
allocation of roles on the basis of universalistic criteria, they were expected to disappear.
states would be able to solve the problem of ethnic minorities over a period of time; and
assimilation was not merely social theory, but also a policy goal to be assiduously followed by
states. However, since the early there have been ethnic movements not only in the
developing world, but also even in the economically advanced countries, such as Canada.
Scholars like Anderson have pointed out that identities could be 'invented' or 'imagined'. This
meant they were no longer rooted in blood relationship, language or culture, but could be
constructed by social or political action. This meant that the relationship between the concepts
of ethnicity and nationalism, between ethnic groups and the nation, has undergone a change.
Three kinds of assertions seem to be taking place within states. First, those based on the belief
that cultural identity and economic prosperity can be maintained achieved by breaking
away from the existing state, a good example being the former USSR. Second, those asserting
that nationalist aspiration cannot be achieved without full independent statehood, for example,
Yugoslavia. Third, a more widespread phenomenon, in which the state does not adequately look
after the interests of a distinct ethnic group which has remained backward and marginalised, for
example, the dalits in India. Today, therefore, while globalisation is the first major force posing
a fundamental challenge to the state, the resurgence of ethnic identities is the second, and they
often exert contrary pulls. Global promotes a global culture, while ethnic identities promote
the local, the parochial and stress upon the 'other'. The nation-state thus experiences a two-
fold pressure from without and within. The principle of nationalism, which created the
state in the nineteenth century, is no longer able to hold states together. External influences
can also impinge upon the of identities.

7.6 SUMMARY

Most scholars would agree with David Held who attempts a balanced view about the impact
of globalisation on state sovereignty. He argues that states have lost their sovereignty leading
to a New World Democratic order, nor can the traditional theory of sovereignty put forward by
John Austin be abandoned. Rather he feels that a theory of the changing place the
democratic state within the international order needs to be formulated. What we are moving
towards is a system of overlapping authority and multiple loyalties, with conflicting interpretations
of rights and duties and authority structures, in which no state is supreme. In this sovereignty
is no longer one and indivisible. This is similar to Christendom as it existed in the medieval period
with no ruler supreme or above the others - a neo-medieval international order. This would
require new international organisations to secure law and order. Such a new 'secular medievalism'
could be fraught with problems on which democratic states have traditionally such
as notions of representation and accountability. The institutions of democracy may undergo
change due to these pressures. Citizens would no longer have control over their states as in the
past. A good example is the new states of Eastern Europe which have tried to keep control over
their own affairs but international events beyond their control have had an influence. Thus an
ideal system for the future would be the continuation of sovereign states, but co-existing with
new plural authority systems. What is required is democracy within and between states
democracy within a network of intersecting international forces and relations. This is the meaning
outcomes so that each affects the other and impinges and imposes upon the other. All this is
visualised as existing within an international civil order and civil society.

7.7 EXERCISES
1) What is globalisation? Analyse the different approaches to globalisation.

2) Analyse the impact of globalisation on state sovereignty.

 8 REGIONAL INTEGRATION AND STATE

8.1 Introduction
8.2 Definition
8.3 Different Approaches of lntegration
8.4 Impact of Regional lntegration on the State
8.4.1 Effect on the Nature and Functions of the State
8.4.2 Effect on the Sovereignty and Regional Obligations
8.5 Models of Regional Integration
8.5.1 Integration of Western Europe
8.5.2 Integration of Middle East and Arab States
8.5.3 Integration of African States
8.5.4 Integration of American States
8.5.5 Integration of Australia, New and United States
8.5.6 Integration of Asian Continent
8.5.7 lntegration of Asia-Pacific Countries
8.6 Regionalism and Strengtheningof States
8.7 Summary
8.8 Exercises

The post-Second World War developments relating to the integration of the community of
states have been conspicuous and extensive. As the members of the international community
have grown, so have their inter-relations and the institutions they established to conduct their
mutual cooperation. Presently, more and more states and their peoples have come to acknowledge
their mutual interdependenceand the need for forging regional cooperation for securing their
shared needs and objectives. Consequently, there has developed a distinct trend towards regionall
international integration. This trend towards regional integration has been unique and important.
It is unique in the sense that on the one hand there has been a big rise in the number of
sovereign nation states in the world politics and on the other hand sovereign states have been
willing to institutionalise their mutual relations and compromise their several rights in the interest
of collective action for development. The result has been the rise of new states and the
development of a large number of both global institutions as well as regional functional

, The former are engaged in securing global cooperation for peace, prosperity and development
and the latter are trying to increase regional cooperation for development among their members.
It is important to understand the impact of this process on state as this trend has resulted into
several changes in the nature, functions and role of states.
8.2 DEFINITION
Regional integration means the development of piecemeal non-political cooperative
organisations which are established most effectively at the regional level and in the economic,
technical, scientific, social and cultural spheres. These sectors are functional sectors in which
states can develop mutually cooperative institutional relations without jeopardising their national
sovereignties. Mutual advantage as the basis of such regional functional organisations serves as
a useful way of securing the desired goals of development in these sectors. The
realisation towards such thinking has led to the emergence of a definite trend towards regional
integration. In the modern period of history, with the conceptualisation and practical
establishment of sovereign states that comprise the family of nations, the trend towards
integration, cooperation and regularisation of international relations has taken on new
forms and greater urgency.

Regional integration can also be described as inter-state integration. It is an instrumentality of

the modern multi-state system. In its most elementary form, the term denotes both the act of
cooperation among the states for .enhancing common purpose, institutions and the methods they
employ to achieve this objective. In other words, regional integration means the process towards
an end product of integration of nation-states. It is the process by which a group of nation
states come forward to establish institutionalised cooperation among themselves. The organised
institutions or mechanisms that these nation-states establish for conducting their relations also
form a part of regional integration. Such institutional mechanisms afford a vehicle for arriving
at collaborative determination of policies and actions. Each integrated institution amalgamates
the individual members into a whole, their inter-relationsand influencestheir international
behaviour. By acknowledging and respecting the appropriate place of each unit of the whole
system, the integrated institution not only maintains stability but also secures cooperation for
development.

8.3 DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO INTEGRATION

There are three different schemes of thought regarding the preferred methods and approaches
to regional integration.

a) The Federalist View: The Federalist school of thought conceives of integration in legal
and institutional terms. It views integration as an end product rather than a process. It
stands for a political union among sovereign states. The supporters of World Federation
belong to this school of thought.

b) The communication Model of Regional Integration: Communication theorists like

Karl W. Deutsch, conceptualise integration as the process of flow of international transnational
transactionswhich eventually can and will lead to the of "security communities"
or "an integrated socio-politicalsystem."

c) The Neo-Functionalists view of Regional Integration: The third school of thought is

represented by the neo-functionalists. They view integration as both a process and an
outcome. They prefer to emphasise cooperative decision-making process as the hall-mark
Each of these three views represents a particular aspect of the concept of regional integration.
Regional integration involves the of integration, the institutions which handle the cooperative
relations, and the cooperative decision-making that lies at the back of all such institutionsand
their functions. It can be defined as the process of peaceful and voluntary unification of
sovereign nation states into institutionsor associations or agencies - regional, continental
and global.

8.4 IMPACT OF REGIONAL INTEGRATION ON STATE

At this stage it is important to analyse the impact of the growing influence of regional integration
on the working and the nature and functions of the state. How far it has eroded the element
of sovereignty of the state? Is it intact or has compromised certain features of these important
ingredients of state to meet its regional obligations? Let us have a look at these important
questions.

8.4.1 Effect on the nature and functions of the state

Before going into the question of effect of regional integration on the nature and functions of
the state, it is important to understand how a region is Palmer and
define 'region' as "invariably an area embracing the territories of three or more states. These
states are bound together by ties of common interests as well as of geography. They are not
necessarily contiguousor even in the same continent." A region, in international relations, is not
essentially a geographic area or unit. A region may be conceptualised in terms of area, or
group or economic groupings or transnational unit. The concept of organising
states of an area or states with similar needs or with common perceptions regarding an issue
or problem or goal, with a view to secure measures for securing the desired
objectives can be described as the concept of regionalism, and an organisation that is organised
under the concept of regionalism is called 'Regional Organisation'. A regional system based on
regional integration is a consequence of a long term agreement between two or more states
providing for common political, military or economic action in specific circumstances, provided
the commitment extends to a defined area and specific states. Such system is carried forward
by organisations of permanent nature of grouping in a given geographical area of several
countries, which by reason of their proximity, community of interests or cultural, linguistic,
historical or spiritual make themselves jointly responsible for the peaceful settlement
of any dispute which may arise between them and for the maintenance of peace and security
in their region as well as for the safeguarding of their interest and the development of their
economic and cultural relations. Thus we can say that in a regional arrangement i) geographic
factor is not an absolutely essential condition; ii) it may involve the idea of promoting cooperation
and collaboration among a group of states which consider themselves bound by geographic,
cultural, economic, and political interests; and iii) such arrangement may be of military or
economic or political nature with a limited purpose or multipurpose.

In such a scenario where states themselves are partners in concluding or forging a regional
arrangement, the question as to what impact does it have on the nature and functions of the state
can be answered only in a positive manner such an arrangement does not ,at all jeopardise
their national sovereignty. In the modern period of history, with conceptualisation and practical
cooperation and regularisation of international relations has taken on new forms of greater
and has not, in any way, affected the original nature and functions state. Since
it is a process of peaceful and voluntary unification of sovereign nation-states, it has helped the
nation-statesto safeguard their own identities as well as to secure the benefits of integration and
cooperation without in any way affecting the nature and functions of the state.

8.4.2 Effect on Sovereignty and Regional Obligations

It is commonplace today to hear politicians say that they do not control many of the factors
which determine the fate of a nation-state. It is international forces, it is often said, which limit
the choices facing a state or make it impossible for a particular national policy to be pursued.
Leaving aside for a moment the accuracy of such claims, it is useful to keep in mind a distinction
introduced earlier between de jure and de facto sovereigntyor we can say between sovereignty
and autonomy. This distinction is sometimes made in order to separate the problems facing a
state due to loss of aspects of legal sovereignty from problems which stem from a loss of
political and economic autonomy. We shall examine below as to how far the regional integration
and obligationsarising out of such has eroded the sovereignty as in legal
sense or the loss of autonomy.

With the development of the global system of states, characterised by the existence of
hegemonic powers and blocs, the origin of number of regional organisations have
sometimes operated to undercut the state's authority and integrity. The dominance of the
USA and the erstwhile USSR as world powers, and the operation of alliances like the North
Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact, clearly constrained decision making
for many nations. A state's capacity to initiate particular foreign policies, pursue certain strategic
concerns, choose between alternative military technologiesand control certain weapon systems
located on its own territory may be restricted by its place in the international system of power
relations. To illustrate this point take the example of NATO. NATO's concern with collective
security has drawn a fine line between, on the one hand, maintainingan of sovereign
states(which in principle, an individual member state not to act if it judges this appropriate)
and, on the other, developing an international which de facto, if not de jure, operates
according to its own logic and decision-makingprocedures. The sovereignty of a national state
is and decisively qualified once it is committed to a regional organisation.

But even without such a commitment, state autonomy as well as sovereignty can be limited and
checked, for the routine conduct of regional affairs involves the integration of
national policies into the larger regional policy framework. Hence regional obligations
automaticallycurtail the autonomy of the state. Such systems, based on regional integration, lead
to the establishmentof but none the less supragovernmental personnel networks
or coalitions which are to monitor by national mechanisms of accountability and control.
Besides, the members of regionalorganisationsare, at times, rivals competingfor scarce resources,
arms contracts, international prestige and other means of national enhancement.

The insistence on the part of the sovereign states to adhere to its own decisions keeping into
consideration its national interests and the demands of the regional bodies of which such sovereign
states are members sometimes raises serious questions about the sovereignty of such a country.
of the European Community are no longer the sole centre of power within their own territorial
boundaries. On the other hand, it,is important to bear in mind that the Community's powers are
limited when considered in relation to those of typical European state; for the community does
not possess, for instance, coercive powers of its own - an army, a police force and other
institutions of direct law enforcement. The Community's powers were gained by the willing
surrender' of the aspects of sovereignty by member states - a 'surrender' which on the one
hand, with the dominance of the USA in the firstthree decades following the Second World War
and, on the other, with the rise of Japanese economic challenge. has put it in this way:
the nation-state today survives even though some of its powers have to be pooled with others,
and even though many apparently sovereign decisions are seriously constrained, or made ineffective
by, the decisions of others as well as by economic trends uncontrolled by anyone. The European
Community helps the state survive, by providing modicum of predictability and a variety of
rewards. It has strengthened the nation-state's capacity to act at home and abroad."

In short, the idea of de jure sovereignty remains compelling, especially with regard to the state's
capacity to wield coercive power. However, the operation of states in an ever more complex
international system, which limits their autonomy and infringes their sovereignty, undermines the
clarity of those traditions of sovereignty- stemming from Hobbes, on the one side, and Rousseau,
on the other - which interpret sovereignty as an illimitable and indivisible form of political power.
Instead, if sovereignty, as a concept, is to retain its analytical and normative force - as the
rightful capacity to take final decisions and make and enact the law within a given community
- it has to be conceived as divided among a number of agencies and limited by the very nature
of this plurality and the rules and procedures which protect it. Such an idea is implicit in the
conception of political community, and is central to the traditions of political analysis
which do not locate and reduce sovereignty to either state or society. However, it requires
further extension to the new international circumstances in which the state is located today, a
task which the modern political theory has barely begun.

8.5 MODELS OF REGIONAL INTEGRATION

Different continents of the world have experimented with the concept of Regional Integration
and hence we have a number of models on regional integration starting mainly with the most
successful model of regional integration of Europe known as European Union to
almost one in each important region of the world. Given below are some of the most successful
and prominent examples of regional integration of states in different parts of the world.

8.5.1 Integration of Western Europe: The European Union

The concept of integration has been very and fruitfully tried in Western Europe.
Through organised, and systematic cooperation and coordination of their economic
and industrial policies and decisions, the states of Western Europe have been not only
in making good the heavy losses they suffered between 1914-45, but also have been successful
in developing their economies in a big way. The West European integration, particularly the
economic integration of Western European states offers a worth emulating model for the rest
of the world.

100
i) Nature and Institutions of Western European Integration

integration of Western Europe has been a three dimensional phenomenon-political, military

and economic. However, it is the economic integration which has really materialised and helped
the western European states to act as one community. Let us examine briefly the political and
military integration and follow it up with a detailed discussion of the economic integration of
Western Europe.

ii) Political lntegration of Western Europe

The power vacuum that resulted in Europe as a result of the heavy power losses suffered by
all the states of the continent, made it imperative for the leaders European States to think
in terms of political integration of Europe as an effective remedy against the attempts that the
and the had initiated for extending their respective spheres of influence in the
former nerve centre of international relations. The success of the Soviet Union in converting the
Eastern European states to socialist systems playing second fiddle to the made the
Western European states more conscious of the need to secure their identities through voluntary
and equally shared political integration.

The view - "Europe must federate or perish" became a very popular theme with the Western
European Nations. There emerged a number of movements committed to secure European
unity. With a view to coordinate their activities, an International Committee for European
was set up. In 1948, a conference of this committee was held at Hague and a call was given
to the Brussels Powers - Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg for undertaking
the task of securing European unity and establishing an European Assembly. The follow-up
action led to the establishment of the Council of

'The Council of Europe (1949)

prolonged discussions among the statesmen of Powers, it was agreed to

establish a Council of Europe as an intergovernmental organisation designed for coordinating the
policies of member states. In March 1949, a conference of representatives of ten nations
(Brussels Powers Denmark, Ireland Italy, Norway and Sweden) was held for drafting the
Statute of the Council of Europe. On May, 1949, these ten nations signed the statute and
founded the Council of Europe. Later on in 1950 Turkey and Greece, in 1 Iceland and West
Germany, in 1956 Austria, and in 1961 Cyprus became the members of this Council and made
it a comprehensive representative body of the Western European states.

The purposes and objectives of the Council made it abundantly clear that matters relating to
defence did not fall within the scope of the Council and its main purpose was to achieve a
greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and
principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.
This aim should be pursued through the organs of the Council by discussing the question of
common concern and by agreements and common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific,
legal and administrative matters and in the maintenance and further realisation of human rights
and fundamental freedoms. Although the working of the of Europe failed to produce the
desired results in the direction of the main objective- the political of Western Europe.
iv) lntegration of Western Europe
With a view to lessen their dependence upon the for their needs, the
West European states decided to have several formal security arrangementsor organisations.
Important among them were the Treaty, 1947, The Treaty, 1948, The North
Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) 1949, the European Defence 1952, the
Western European 1955. All bodies were engaged in promotingthe concept
of the defence of Western Europe.

v) Economic Integrationof Western Europe

The most spectacular and post-war development has been the economic integration
of Western Europe. Through several well economic institutions, the Western European
states have been very successful in coordinating their economic development needs and
programmes. The following institutions have largely helped the Western European nations to
stage a rapid economic recovery and development:

The Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) was basically engaged in
promoting between the countries concerned to consider measures and create the
machinery necessary for the European Economic Cooperation, especially in matters of trade,
international payments and movementsof labour. The Organisation for Economic
and Development (OECD) was assigned three main functions: (i) to achieve the highest
sustainableeconomic growth and employmentand a rising standard of living in member countries
(ii) to contribute to sound economic expansion in non-member countries in the process of
economic development as in member nations and (iii) to work for the expansion of world trade.
The Benelux has been a very useful instrument of the economic integration of the Benelux
countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg). It has played an important role in promoting
economic development and political and cultural collaboration among the three countries.The
European Communities mainly comprised of three communities namely (i) The European
Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (ii) the European Economic Community o r the
European Common Market (EEC o r ECM) and (iii) European Atomic Energy
Until these Communities had their independent organisational
structure but afterwards these were merged in the European Commission or the European
Union. As mentioned above, the European Union has emerged over the years as a developed
economic community with an integrated economic base. It is now having a single currency,
EURO, and a single Banking Union. It is also trying to supplement the existing economic
integration with a viable political integration of the European Community. European Union till
date is the best example of regional integration.

8.5.2 lntegration of Middle East and Arab countries: The Arab League
The Arab League can be described as the comprehensive non-western regional integration.
It was formed in March 1945 when Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and
Yemen signed the pact for its creation. Later on, Algeria, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Sudan and
Tunisia also joined it.

The primary objectives of the Arab League as stated in the Pact of the League of Arab States
are: "The strengtheningof relations between the member the coordination of their policies
in order to achieve cooperation among them and to safeguard their independence and sovereignty".
 The Pact specifically to cooperation among the states in the economic and
affairs, communications, cultural affairs, nationality and related matters, social affairs
and health problems.

The Arab League, since its inception, has been playing an important role in shaping and guiding
the political,social,economic and cultural relations among the members as well as between them
and other states of the world. It has secured the conclusion of several important economic, trade
and cultural cooperation agreements among the member states. It has been playing an important
role in securing the unity of the Arabs. It showed its unity at the time of U.S. attack of Libya
in 1986. However, till today, it has not been successful in achieving fully its professed objective
of unifying the Arab world. Nonetheless the fact remains that it is an acknowledged case of
regional integration.

8.5.3 lntegration of African States: Organisation of African Unity (OAU)

The Organisation of African Unity is by far the most important and most comprehensive
example of regional integration in Africa. Its Charter was approved at the Ababa conference
of the Heads of States and Foreign Ministers of thirty African states in May , 1963. Originally
its membership was 32 but today the strength stands increased to nearly double.

, The OAU Charter states that the purposes of the organisation are inter "to promote the
unity and solidarity of the African States "and "to defend their sovereignty, their territorial
integrity and independence." In order to achieve this purpose, the Charter calls upon the member
states to coordinate and harmonise their policies. Eradication of all forms of colonialism from
Africa and the promotion of international cooperation with due regard for the U. N. Charter and
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are the other objectives of this Organisation.

OAU is indeed an African organisation designed to promote the interests of its members. Since
a majority of the African states are its members, it can be called a continental regional integration.
Though its objectives have received full support from the African states, the organisation has
failed to act as a strong, united and efficient regional arrangement. In practice it has remained
a loose association of sovereign states. It has been working in a limited way and stands
weakened by continued the members. But at the same time it must be
accepted that OAU has done well to make the African states conscious need for African
unity and solidarity against colonialism and for mutual development. It has also been successful
in making the African states behave as a unit in the United Nations with regard to several key
international issues and problems.

8.5.4 Integration of American States: Organisation of American States

The Organisation of American States deserves special attention for three basic reasons. First,
it is the oldest and one of the largest examples of regional integration in existence. Second, its
structure is confederal and not supranational. Third, the system has been developing and changing
in accordance with the change in time. The origin of OAS can be traced back to 1889 when
the first Pan-American Conference was held. Since then, through gradual changes the OAS has
developed, particularly since 1948, into a comprehensive of regional integration. Today,
it is one of the most active and influential regional arrangements and its area of operation is
confined to the American continent.

The OAS seeks to promote cooperation and collaboration among the member states as well as
to work for the collective security of peace and stability in the region. It has the responsibility
of securing a peaceful settlement of the inter-American dispute peacefully. It alsd seeks to
the regional security system on the basis of the principle: "An attack by
any state against an American state shall be considered as an attack against all American
states and therefore, shall be met by all the states of OAS."

The OAS has been an effective instrument in the implementation of regional integration of the
American states. It has helped the member-states to sort out and settle peacefully their mutual
disputes. It has been an instrument of economic development and security for the members. The
U.S.A. plays a dominant role in its working.

8.5.5 lntegration of the Australia, New and United States:

Australia-New Zealand-United States Pact (ANZUS) 1951

This is another case of regional integration in which Australia and New joined hands
with the United States of America in 1951, primarily for the purpose of coordinating their efforts
for collective defence and for the preservation of peace in the Pacific area. Under Article 4
of the Treaty, it was stated that "Each party recognises that an armed attack in the Pacific area
on any one of the parties would be dangerous for its own peace and safety, and declares that
it would set to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. An
armed attack on any one state shall be deemed as an attack upon all the states and hence shall
be met by a collective force." It was mainly a defence arrangement through which the
wanted to the communist danger in the Pacific while Australia and New felt that
it would check the possibility of attack from resurgent and rearmed Japan.

8.5.6 lntegration of Asian Continent: The Association of South East

Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Association of South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)

The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)

The Vietnamese crises, the U.S. imperialistic role in Vietnam, the political crises in Kampuchea,
Indonesia, Laos and Burma, and the realisation of the need for development through mutual
efforts encouraged the Asian Nations to establish a regional economic association.
In 1967, the ASEAN was created by Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.
In 1984 Brunei, in 1995 Vietnam and in July 1997 Laos and Myanmar joined it and in 1999
Kampuchea also joined ASEAN. India, Japan and China are dialogue partners of the ASEAN.
wants to join this regional functional organisation as a full member.

The ASEAN is a non-military and non security economic and cultural association of the South
East Asian States and is a perfect example of regional integration engaged in pursuing economic
objectives of a region in a concerted and integrated manner. Its main objectives are: (i) to
accelerate growth, cultural development and social progress in the region (ii) to
promote regional peace and stability to promote active collaboration and assistance
on matters of common interests in variousfields (iv) to promote mutual cooperation and assistance
in providing training and research facilities to their people (v) to promote South East Asian
studies (vi) to collaborate in the development of agriculture, trade and industries and (vii) to
maintain close and beneficial cooperation with the existing international and regional organisations
with similar aims and purposes.

On August, 2002, the ASEAN completed thirty five years of its existence as a regional
association for promoting socio-economic cooperation for the development of its members. It is
trying to emerge as a strong and integrated regional association for promoting socio-economic
cooperation for development of its members. It is trying to emerge as a strong and integrated
regional association. It has enabled its members to attain an economic growth rate of around
7 to 8 per cent. It is now trying.to strengthen the infrastructure for undertaking a concerted
programme for development in the South East Asia and Indo-China regions. It is trying hard to
take and maintain a lead in this era of increasing competition and globalisation. It is now working
hard towards the creation of ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) by the end of year 2003. In
fact ASEAN has proved to be an important example of regional integration and is currently
developing as an important active and useful agency of regional cooperation for development
among the member countries.

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)

While ASEAN prospered in the South Eastern region of the Asian continent, another regional
forum emerged in South Asia almost on the pattern of ASEAN and this regional association of
South Asian countries is known as SAARC. The seven countries of South Asia namely India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives joined hands to form a regional
forum modelled on the lines of ASEAN to serve as an agency or institution for promoting
economic and cultural cooperation among the members.

Its aims are : (i) the development of social, economic, cultural and technical cooperation among
the member countries (ii) it declared that the guiding principles of will be to respect
the principles of sovereign equality, independence, integrity and noninterference in each others
affairs (iii) it was also stated that decisions at all levels shall be taken on the basis of consensus
and that bilateral and contentious issues shall be excluded from the deliberations (iv) it was
further accepted that the regional cooperation shall be complementary and supplementary to the
bilateral and multilateral cooperation among the member states.

Regarding the organisational set up, the Charter stated that the heads of the states or governments
shall meet annually and a Council of Ministers consisting of foreign ministers of the member
states shall be constituted to formulate policies, to review the progress of the cooperation, to
. establish additional mechanisms and to decide on matters of general interest. This Council of
Ministers shall be assisted by the Committee of the Foreign Secretaries of the member states.
It also laid down the setting up of Technical Committee, comprising of the representatives of
member states for implementing, coordinating and monitoring of programmes and Action Committee
for the implementation of projects involving more than two states. It was also affirmed that a
Secretariat for the Association shall be established at an appropriate time which is presently
functioning in Kathmandu in Nepal.
8.5.7 Integration of Asia-Pacific Countries: Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC)
Another prominent example of regional integration can be seen in the APEC Forum of 21
nations of Asia and Pacific regions popularly known as countries of the Pacific Rim. Some of
the most powerful economies united to form this entity known as APEC. It was formed in 1989
at the initiative of the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Bob Hawke. Its original members were
12 countries-the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, New Malaysia,Thailand,
Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia and Brunei. China, Taiwan and Hong Kong joined it in 1991.
Mexico and Papua New Guinea joined it in 1993 and Chile in Russia, Peru and
Vietnam also became the members of this forum in 1998.

APEC is primarily engaged in promoting free trade and investment. It supports the
market for information technology and commits for an action plan for dismantling economic
barriers. The APEC members endorsed the declaration of a framework of principles for economic
cooperation and development in APEC. It also decided to work together with private-sector
representatives and financial institutions and develop a framework for
involving the private sector in infrastructure provision. further decided to work closely with
business sector to facilitate the movement of business people, enhance investment flows and
strengthen investment protection and involve the private sector in infrastructure planning.

APEC, as such, is not only the manifestation of regional integration but also an effective group
to promote and emphasise global integration.

8.6 AND STRENGTHENING OF STATES

From the above description of some regional groupings it becomes clear that the regional
organisations are similar neither in their objectives nor in organisational structures. The point for
emphasis is that the cornerstone of regional integration is that established states are capable of
and implementing agreements with other countries. In the words of "It is no
coincidence that the most elaborate examples of regionalism have occurred in regions where the
legitimacy of both nations and regimes is not widely called into question". The European Union
is a good example: strong states have come together, pooling some sovereignty, to create a
.regional body with unique powers. In contrast, the countries of South Asia, not sure of their
strength vis-a-vis each other and also facing internal tensions have not succeeded much with
SAARC experiment. Thrust is on pooling of sovereignty that need not be stretched too much
as loss of sovereignty.

One specific problem, according to Rod Hague and Martin which regional developments
pose for national governments is managing the domestic political implications of creating the new
zone. The political set-up costs can be considerable. Establishing a free trade area many offer
economic gains to a member'country as a whole but losers within each state will still complain
and the general gains from increased trade are less visible than the damage caused to specific
jobs, corporationsand industries. Of course, one way to solve this problem is by creating a sense
of identity with the larger region. For instance, the European Union has made strenuous efforts
to develop a European identity, paralleling the efforts of early nation-builders to create loyalties
to new states. Yet so far regions lack the emotional pulling power of established nations. Thus
 lnspite of suck problems the trend towards regionalisation is on the increase. States do not find
in this loss of sovereignty;rather, this is seen as strengtheningthe states through mutual cooperation
and support.

8.7 SUMMARY
There is no denying the fact that the virtues of regional integration are manifold. Through
participation in regional integration organisations, the nation-states can secure increased economic
growth rates. The rapid economic growth registered by the Western European states offers a
matchless example. integration helps nation-states in invigorating in international
relations besides being helpful in resolving conflicts among themselves. Socio-economic and
cultural integration can always lead to a gradual political integration which, in turn, can in
lead to the emergence of a World Federation. Besides, in this age of ever increasing
interdependence, integration can help the states to achieve their desired objectives and
goals without losing their identities or compromising their prestige. Regional integration, quite
successful as it is in different parts of the world, can certainly lead to peace, prosperity,
development and stability in international relations thereby reducing chances of war among
different

The integration of Western Europe bears out the fact that regional integration can lead to all-
round development and prosperity. It must be accepted as a healthy trend. It offers a meeting
ground for the supportersof both nationalism and internationalism. It can secure the benefits of
progress through mutual cooperation, collaboration and accommodation in international relations.
However, several negative and hindering trends like Cold War, security alliances,militarism and
several vital international problems like the issue the increasing gap between the rich
and the poor nations, the failure to achieve disarmament and arms control, continued love for
narrowly conceived goals of nationalism etc., are bound to hinder the strengthening of the trend .
towards regional integration. Nevertheless,the process of regional economic integration helps in
enhancing and building international relations without loss of sovereignty of states if that
is not in narrower sense.

. 8.8 EXERCISES

1) Critically examine different models across the world in developing regional integration.

2) Discuss the impact of regional integration on the sovereignty of a nation-state.

3) Analyse the main benefits of regional integration for states individually and collectively.
 UNIT 9 INTERNATIONAL AND STATE

I
Structure
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Historical background
9.3 Classification of International
9.3.1 Classification based on Functions
9.3.2 Classification based on Field of Operation
9.3.3 Classification based on Government and State Treaties
9.4 National State-System and its Interaction with International Organisation
9.4.1 lssue of Sovereignty
9.4.2 of Sovereign Equality
9.5 International Organisations: Their Impact on States
9.6 Summary
9.7 Exercises

9.1 INTRODUCTION
International Organisation is a process of organising the growing complexity of relations.
International organisations are the institutions which represent the phase of that process. They
are the expressions of, and contributorsto, the process of international organisation, as well as,
the significant factors in contemporary world affairs. Today the world contains numerous
international

However, the state still continues to be the prime political unit through which the aspirations of
the people of a particular territory are realised. But there is a growing desire to understand the
people of other countries and cooperate with them. The technological developments have been
an important factor in bringing the people together. As a result, no state, however powerful, can
act in isolation. The relations of the people and the governments all over the world are likely
to be affected even by the actions of the smallest and weakest of the states. Hence, the
statesmen have devised institutions through which effective international cooperation can be
ensured. These institutions are being evolved through a long and continuous process, which is
still on.

Thus, international organisation is the process by which states establish and develop formal,
continuing institutional structures for the conduct of certain aspects of their relationship with
each other. It represents a reaction to the extreme decentralisation of the traditional system of
international relations and the constantly increasing complexityof the interdependenceof states.
To the extent it organises the unorganised world, it be regarded as manifestation of the
'organising process' on the international level; to the extent it institutionalises itself in an attempt
to adapt its mechanism to the requirement of interdependence,it may be regarded as manifestation
of 'developing institutional structure' as an important factor in world affairs. The relationship of
these organisations with states and the impact they have on states powers and natures is
determined by various factors.

108
9.2 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
A sound understandingof the historical background makes us that international organisation
is a distinct phenomenon of world politics; it is a recent growth, but it has become an established
trend.

are four prerequisites for of international organisation:

1) The world must be divided into a number of states as independent political units

2) A substantial measure of contact must exist between these states

3) The states must develop an awareness of the problems which arise out of their coexistence
and

4) On this basis they must recognise the need for creation of institutional devices and systematic
methods for regulating their relations with each other.

It was in the nineteenth century that these four prerequisites were satisfied in measure
and in proper combination to bring about the birth of modern international organisation. The
realisation that war is a menace to the welfare and happiness of humanity represent the mood
of anxiety and dissatisfaction as well as the awareness of the inadequacies of the established
principles and methods of international affairs.

The multi state system up to the nineteenth century was characterised by the doctrinal principle
of sovereignty that denotes authority without responsibility. States served as judges in their own
causes. They enjoyed a legal right to the arbitrary use of force. It was this sort of multi state
system which was recognised as inadequate under the conditions of international life as they
developed in nineteenth century. Therefore it was considered necessary and possible to
modify the free-wheeling responsibility of sovereign states. No doubt, the world of nineteenth
century continued the glorification-ofthe principle of separate and independent sovereignties and
the characteristics of the decentralised system of international relations, but, at the same time,
it reacted to the awareness of new necessities by undertaking to achieve working restraints and
functional innovations through the initiative, consent and collaborationof sovereign states.
it fell on the shoulders of statesmen of the time to devise arrangement whereby the sovereign
units of the old system could pursue their interest and manage their affairs in the altered
circumstances of the age of communication and industrialism.

The first of the three major streams of development, whose rise may be traced to the Nineteenth
century, is the system of multilateral and high level political conferences. The Congress of
in initiated a series of conferences. However four major conferences between
1815 and 1822 revealed the fact that Europe was not ready for institutionalised management.
Nevertheless, the techniques of diplomacy had been changed from bilateral to multilateral. The
leaders of the major states constituted themselves as Concert of Europe which met sporadically
some thirty times in the course of the century to deal with pressing political issues. Diplomacy
However the contribution of conference system to the development of international organisation
should not be exaggerated. It produce permanently functioning institutions for handling
the problems of high politics and security. Conferences were sporadic rather than periodic.
Collaboration was improvised, not regularised and it rested upon the basis of the authority which
the great powers arrogated to themselves than upon clearly established legal foundation. The
conference system did not inaugurate a rule of law or produce an impartial agency politically
superior to national states and capable of upholding the moral standards of a larger community.
Sitting around the conference table did not transform selfish nationalist and arrogant power
politicians into collegiumsof world-minded, justice-oriented statesmen of humanity.

Nevertheless the political conference system contributed more to awareness of the problems of
international collaboration than to their solution, and more to opening up the possibilities of
multilateral diplomacy than to realising them. It produced the prototype of a major organ of
modern international organisation-the executive council of the great powers.

Through these agencies, the treaty-traditionallyan agreement negotiated by the representatives

of two or few states was transformed into multilateral convention-containing the quasi-
parliamentary nature of the proceedings.

This phase of the development of international organisation, which included various matters, led
to the emergence of wholly new groups-professional specialists,technical experts, international
civil servants, private group interests, humanitarian organisations, government and ministers
outside the foreign office, etc. These were participants in the business of international affairs,
which had hitherto been virtually a monopoly of diplomats,foreign ministers, and other statesmen
accustomed to wearing the mantle of sovereignty.

9.3 CLASSIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL

The complexity of the modem has led to the creation of a large number of
international agencies and institutions. It is very difficult to follow any particular criteria in the
classificationof international The various principles which have been followed in
the classification of international organisations are as follows:

9.3.1 Classification based on Functions

The first classification is based on the function of the international organisation.On this basis
the organisations are classified as political, administrative and judicial. The political organisations
are primarily concerned with the preservation of international peace and security. The examples
of this are and ILO. The political organisations have comprehensive competence. The
administrative organisations have very limited aims and objectives.The trusteeship council is
primarily an administrative organisation. The third category consists ofjudicial organisation like
the Permanent Court of Justice and the International Court of Justice. This classification of
international organisationshas been branded as unscientific and is mainly based on convenience
for purposes of presentation and description. In fact it is very difficult to draw a clear cut
distinction between different organisationson the basis of their functions. However, the system
9.3.2 Classification based on Field of Operation
In the second instance the organisations can be classified on the basis of their field of operation,
as global and regional. A global organisation usually possesses universal membership and has
greater competence the regional organisations.A global organisation like the may have
within it regional bodies such as the regional commissions of the Economic and Social
Council - the Economic Commission for Asia, the Far East, Europe, Latin America. Africa
etc.' The regional cover a narrow region and have very limited powers.
In the fonnation of the regional the geographical consideration need not necessarily
guide their formation. Usually the regional organisations are formed by states with common
political objectives rather than states with common geographical areas. The examples of regional
organisations are NATO, WARSAW TREATY etc.

9.3.3 Classification 'Based on Government and State Treaties

The third criteria followed in the classification of the international organisations based on treaty
between states or a treaty between governments. Whereas the organisations based on treaty
between states embrace the totality of the state's institutions like legislature, executive and
judicial organ. The organisation based on inter-governmental treaty is concerned only with the
administrative wing alone. The examples of inter-state organisations are the Food and Agriculture
WHO etc. The examples of international organisations created by inter-governmental
treaties include the International Monetary Fund etc. Usually the inter-governmental treaties
create institutions which are non-permanent character like United Nations Rehabilitation
Administration. Sometimes international organisations are created through inter-governmental
treaties to overcome the constitutional difficulties.

9.3.4 Classification Based on Membership and Activity

Professor Norman Hill has suggested another classification of international organisation on the
basis of membership and activity. From the point of membership the international
art: (a) bilateral (b) regional and (c) universal. The examples of bilateral organizations are
international joint commission for US and Canada, Anglo-Egyptian condominium for Sudan.
Examples of regional are O.A.S., and the universal organisationsare the League
and the U.N.O. From the point of view of activities, the International organisations are either
general or functional. and are the examples of general organisations and the
International Cotton Advisory Committee,Rubber Study Group, Central Commission for Navigation
of the Rhine 1804, International Telegraphic Union, General Postal Union, etc., are the examples
of functional organisation. The other functional organisations are UNESCO,
WHO, IFC, IMC, UPO, WMO etc.
Thus we find that no single principle can be followed regarding the classification of international
organisations. They fall under different categories depending on the nature of their functions,
areas of operation and the manner of their creation.

9.4 INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL

SYSTEM
The international as its historical background reveals, is neither self-contained nor
system. And because of its intermediary position between the two systems, it adapts to
developments which occur at both the levels.

Normally the government of a nation-state monopolises the force of the community and sternly
prevents any violence the conflicting groups of its society. But international society
clearly lacks such order; indeed it has long recognised extended violence or war as a legitimate
end of the state for welfare and security. International organisation was to begin in
the shadow of this acknowledgement, keep itself within the short perimeter of peaceful co-
operation, and avoid any direct challenge to the traditional war powers of nations. The Hague
peace conferences tried to the "practices of international war"; the League of Nations
sought to regulate "international war itself'; the United Nations was designed to "eliminate all
aggressive wars." Although the success of each of these three endeavours to block the arbitrary
practice of violence by nations against each other may be sincerely questioned,the objective of
international organisation in this respect remains clear.

Another of intemational compared to the nation-state according to

comes from their incapacity to reach the individual. An international organisation has no claim
upon the citizens of a nation-state; it cannot levy taxes upon individuals or seize, try or punish
them for violation of international law. On the other hand, it is only fair to say that these
conditions do not keep the government of a state from effectively discharging its international
obligations.For example, although states have opposed an increased of contributions
for them by an international organisation, they have dutifully taxed their citizens for the
extra expense .

sum, the potency of international organisation, in the context of national-state system, depends
first upon the extent it traps the arbitrary, war-making power of sovereign states; second, on its
ability to impress national with international obligationswhich will control individuals
under their jurisdiction.

However, the modern intemational organisation differs from the past in three major respects. Its
foundation is still the treaty or inter-state contract, but now its emphasis has changed. First, the
stress is on agreement" rather than a bilateral accord; second, treaties under
modem international organisation attempt to harmonise"continuity" and "serf-perfection"of the
basic documents with "modification"of the terms; third, and most characteristically, modem
international organisation is"institutionalised" by periodic councils and permanent secretariat.

In general international organisation is the product of those developments which occur at the
level of national-state system, and as such its essential characteristics may be discerned as
follows: They are composed of states and represent national government. All members are
sovereign equal. They do not exercise legislative or executive powers binding on the member
states. Their functions are, primarily, to engineer inter-governmental collaboration. These
characteristics have been divided under the following four headings: the government basis of
participation which inherently contains the problems of sovereigntyand membership; the equality,
a corollaryof sovereignty, which generates the problems of national power, regionalism and bloc
voting and unanimity vs. majority (including veto); and the non-mandatory power; and the
function as the residual powers of the international organisation.

112
 9.4.1 lssue of Sovereignty

It is a strange that the sovereignty of states is considered as a symbol of forces which

prevent the level of co-operation from increasing, but, at the same time, its recognition
is seen as part of that process which made it possible to establish international organisations.
In their origin, international institutions owe much to the recognition even in an uncertain way
of sovereignty.

Paul Taylor suggests, International organisation may be said to exist at frontiers of sovereignty
and international order. They represent at present a balance or tension between the requirements
of national flexibility and independence and international authority. But strangely enough their
beginning had to wait upon the acceptance of the view that the states were indeed separate,
autonomous entities, and that the government should be regarded as sovereign. Having been built
upon the sovereignty of governments, international organisations are in one sense devoted to its
destruction; they are opposed to the essence of those principles on which they are based.

In the early period, despite the existence of political entities which could be called states, there
was but a weak recognition of the idea of states as separate sovereign entities. Peace schemes
I
laid no stress upon the integrity of national governments structures. And international law too
failed to distinguish clearly between the law of the peoples and a system of law which was the ,
I special concern of governments.

of Europe for the of the international problems

Yet, having been established on the basis of ordered systems of separate states and the recognition
of the of governments, international organisations are dedicated to the deflection of
that search for national autonomy which is one of the consequencesof sovereignty. A new quest
for unity is contained within quest for international cooperation. And the concept of the
sovereignty of states as a way of reinforcing the power and independence of princes is now
one of the ordeals facing those who set out upon those quest.

What elements confer or justify sovereignty in the State? The way in which we answer this
question makes a great difference to our understanding of the effects of international cooperation
upon the status of governments. And the way that statesmen justify sovereignty and understand
it affects the role in which they are prepared to allow international organisation.

9.4.2 of Sovereign Equality

Equality, a corollary of sovereignty, requires, in principle, that each member as a sovereign state
is entitled to the same rights of participation in the work of the organisation and the same
benefits to be derived from it, regardless of size, population, wealth or power. In principle
equality of members also demands the sharing of same obligations.

Thus, in the United Nations, every member state casts one vote and every state is eligible .
 speech. Curtailment a delegate's remarks might be interpreted as discrimination
against his government. Chairmen and secretatties of committees are usually chosen so
every state may feel it has received a fair share of the positions of honour and responsibility.
Position of responsibility is customarily rotated from session to session to afford the widest
possible distribution among the member states. In the Security Council of the United Nations,
the chairmanship rotates every month according to an alphabetical order, so that each state
occupies it at least once a year. It must be noted that respect for national equality is the keynote
and major stumbling bloc of the international consultation process.

The principle of equality is not applied universally, however. Five big powers have permanent
seats on the Security Council and unlike the other states, can veto action on matters of substance
before the Council. The members do not contribute equally to the support of the United Nations;
the budget is apportioned among them on an agreed scale, reflecting capacity to pay. In the
International Monetary Fund and the International Bank, voting is weighted according to the
shares of stock held by each country. Differences in power and wealth among nations are also
acknowledged in the informal influence exerted by states on the conduct of organisation's
business.

In short, despite some token of respect for equality, the difference, that exits between equality
in principle and actual capacity to equality, has created so many problems, such as national
power, regionalism and bloc voting, the unanimity vs. majority rule in the decision making, the
veto etc. These problems have created a sort of crisis, particularly, where and security
issues are at stake.

9.5 INTERNATIONAL : IMPACT ON

STATES

A fundamental characteristic of an international organisation that emerges in the context of

multi-state system is its lack of legislative and executive power. The United Nations did have
a general responsibility to maintain peace and security, promote economic betterment or protect
human rights by any or all means. But this view can hardly be sustained considering the
interestedness of most of those who have advocated it. They use it when it suits their particular
interest and oppose the rationalisation with equal vigour when it cuts against them. Furthermore
international agencies are often directly prohibited interfering in matters which are considered
with the 'domestic jurisdiction' of a state. But these 'hands-off provisions' have sometimes been
loosened by interpretation to permit an international organisation to override objections to its
competence by affected states.

Even within their recognised jurisdiction, international agencies rarely have the authority or
means of compelling states to accept. They can recommend but cannot dictate to governments.
They study, discuss, plan and propose action, but do not legislate. The United Nations General
may approve unanimously a programme for technical assistance to under-developed
areas or for rendering relief and medical aid to children, but these efforts can be effective only
to the extent that each government individually agrees to support them. The ILO may propose
a convention limiting the work in dangerous industries, but it can have no effect unless
it is ratified and enforced by national governments. International organisation does not have the
power to tas, individuals or governments to meet its budget, though in the United Nations and

114
certain other bodies, failure to pay approved assessments may deprive a state of its vote in the
organisation.Generally, however, the international agency must rely either on the self-interest of
the states or the influence of public opinion to secure the execution of its recommendations.

Among the specialised agencies-the UPU has, in effect, made decisions binding on national
governments, for no country has been willing to incur the consequences of exclusion from the
Union for failure to carry out the prescribed regulations, however much it might dislike them.
Similarly the IMF and the World Bank also have a powerful sanction in the threat of denying
the benefits of the organisations to a state that will not carry out action demanded by them.

The result is that the nature of International Organisation is exclusively collaborative.It is aptly
expressed by the Charter of United Nations as harmonising the actions of states in the
attainment of the common ends. Consultations and conferences are consequently,the dominant
activity of international agencies. Modem international agencies are perpetual process of preparing
for holding or reporting the result of world 'town meeting'. Depending as it does on voluntary
cooperation to accomplish its end, it must continuously seek through discussion and debate the
reconciliation of differing national points of view and the widest possible area of final agreement
among states.

9.5.1 The Different Views

In view of the above the impact of international oragnisations on nation states is a matter of
controversy. One perspective is that International Organisations have become important political
factors, exerting significant influence over their member governments. After all, setting up an
International Organisation creates a body with its own employees and agendas. In due course
they develop their own interests and perspectives. As Rod Hague and Martin Harrop suggest,
even though most lack an enforcement mechanism, most states do comply with
their decisions. Backsliding is unusual. The mechanismsof international governance-conferences,
discussions, treaties and statements are characteristics of modern politics and an appropriate
response to a world which lacks a global government to address global problems.

A more critical view is that International Organisations are mere decoration designed to correct
the continued pursuit of national self interest. The agreement is that Organisations
do not govern states; rather, dominant states govern through The 1991 Gulf war as also
some suggest 2003 Iraq War was won by American Forces protecting their country's oil supply.
The United Nations label, secured by the USA, was a convenient brand under which it could
continue to pursue its national self interest. More generally, the developed world put in place the
entire post war international system, including its trading regime, to benefit its own economic
interests. Thus, as Hague and Harrop point out as a rule, strong states only comply with
International Organisations decisions because they just commit themselves to what they are
already doing.

While realists are surely correct to suggest that strong states retain of their traditional
-autonomy, it is also the case that International Organisations have several advantages for all I

states. They provide information and advice. They are useful for endorsing unpopular policies,
providing national governments with both a conscience and a scapegoat, for unpopular decisions.
In addition, membership of universal organisations, especially the UN confirms to all and sundry

115
 (including domestic opponents) that rulers acquired statehood and sovereignty.
Joining the UN reduces vulnerability to external threats since the U N Charter expresses the
, principle of non-interference in domestic affairs. Further International Organisations can lead
states to appreciate the extent of their common interests and reduce suspicions between them
through achieving concrete results beneficial to all. In particular, International Organisations are
necessary for addressing complex issues which cannot be solved by single states using traditional
military means. .

Whatever the differences in views about relationship between states and International
Organisations, the fact remains that International Organisations do affect states to some degree.
As Hague and Harrop point out that at the very least, belonging to several International
Organisations complicates the task of governance. States must arrange to pay their subscriptions,
attend meetings, their national interests, consult with interest groups back home, initiate
some proposals, respond to others and implement agreements. These activities dilute the distinction
between domestic and foreign policy. The biggest domestic loser international integration
is probably the legislature, which may only learn of an internationalagreement the government
has signed up.

The real that states face is that of intervention. When the international community
forcibly interferes in states' domestic affairs, national sovereignty is clearly violated, just as the
dissolution of the Cold War encouraged the emergence of international community to authorise
several such interventions usually on humanitarian grounds. Examples include Iraq, Rwanda,
Somalia and Kosovo. Whatever the success or future of these operations, they must cause us
to question the continuingvitality of national sovereignty. This has raised an important question.
Here the autonomy of a state now becomes conditional on its good behaviour as judged by an
emerging International Community. The entire history of the state system is based on non-
intervention, a tradition that was reinforced during the Cold War. But first th se of
and later the rise of international terrorism particularly the events of 11
2001 have opened up new possibilities.The sovereignty autonomy and role of state in global
context tlius have revised new questions, answers to are yet not clear.

9.6 SUMMARY
The state today is functioning in a new environment of global context, international politics and
changed interpretations of sovereignty autonomy etc.; the earlier position in the context of
national-state system is that the jurisdiction of international organizations is restricted.
They are authorised to act only within the well-defined limits and when they are disposed to go
beyond in an effort to be effective, they are sharply hauled back by states that wish to
exercisean independent initiative. International organisations must depend on national governments
to implement their decisions. They can rarely carry through a programme under their own
administration.

It did not, however, mean that international organisations depend solely on national-state
system and do not, in turn, affect it. record of their achievements in peaceful
settlement of international disputes, in economicand social cooperation, in protection of human
rights, and in other tasks for which they are responsible, of course, have been the final test of
!
effectiveness.

116 I
There is some evidence of growing respect for the and programme of international
organisation both among government? and peoples. The expanding role of the United Nations
General Assembly is significant in this regard. Serious political and economic
international relations have been placed before it and top political and diplomatic leaders have
participated in its deliberations.Though action on issues has been inconclusive, the fact
remains that governments have attached much importance to presentation of their policies
before the and have indicated considerable concern about its ultimate verdict. The
tangible results of international functional activities have also added substantially to the prestige
of international organisations. People have been able to see it in terms of concrete benefits -
food, medicine, rehabilitation, seeds for new crops, safety measures in civil aviation
and this has bred confidence that international organisation can act as well as talk. Such respect
and confidence is both a sign and condition of effectiveness. There also emerged the
process of direct intervention in the domestic affairs of states by international or in
some cases by individual states with tacit or implied of international All these
have raised new questions with regard to the issues of sovereignty and place of state
in the international community.

9.6 EXERCISES

1) Evaluate the historical perspective of international organisation.

2) Briefly analyse the classification of the international organisation.

Critically relationship between the International Organisation and the National

3)
State-system.

4) Organisations have on powers and

117
I
 10
CORPORATIONS AND STATE
Structure
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Towards a Definition of Corporation
10.3 Globalisation and the Changing Nature of MNCs.
10.4 State and MNCs
10.4.1 Key Features of the State
10.5 increasing Clout and the Erosion of Sovereignty
10.5.1 Financial Flows and the Loss of Sovereignty
10.5.2 Triangulation of Trade and the Loss of Sovereignty

I 10.5.3 Regulatory Arbitrage and the Loss of Sovereignty

I 10.5.4 Extraterritoriality and Sovereignty

10.6 Perceptions of the MNC-Enthusiasts
10.7 Perceptions of the MNC-Skeptics
10.8 Summary
10.9 Exercises

10.1 INTRODUCTION

Recent years have witnessed fierce debates between the protagonists and the critics over the
changing role of the state in the face of prolific rise of multinational corporations (MNC) in a
fast globalising world. While the protagonists have been rather quick in proclaiming the 'end of
the state', the critics sound reluctant over such a possibility. Instead, they believe that the case
for the obsolescence, let alone the demise, of the nation-state has been overstated. However,
both share one common understanding about the status of multinational or transnational
they have become extremely important transnational political actors to be
ignored in any meaningful study of comparative politics. Shaping much of the outcomes in the
world today, transnational corporations, as the very name suggests, have spread across the globe
at unprecedented rate and pace. The size and wealth of Multinational Corporations are too large
to be ignored by the students of comparative politics. Although most analysts agree about the
vast scope and volume of these corporations, they disagree strongly about their utility for the
international system in general and for specific types of nation-states in particular. For the
purpose of this unit, we shall refer to the supporters of multinational corporations as
enthusiasts, and to their detractors as MNC-skeptics. However, before getting down to analysing
the relative strengths and weaknesses of the multinational corporations and their impact on the
nation-state, we must begin by providing brief definitions two important - multinational
corporation and state.
10.2 TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF
TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS
Controversy over a precise definition of Multinational Corporation (MNC) appears to be far
from over. Even though the two terms, multinational and transnational, are often used
interchangeablyin the literatureof comparative politics, different scholars attribute distinct meanings
to them. Widely perceived as and 'stateless' entities by various globalists, a
multinational corporation can be conveniently defined as a firm based in a single home
country that invests in one or more other'states known as host countries. However, even
this relatively simple and less controversial definition raises a central issue regarding the implications
of foreign direct investment. For example, as Barbara Jenkins puts it, "Whose interests does the
represent: those of the home country, the host country, or the firm itself? This ambiguity
has resulted in a debate over the appropriate labelling MNC. Is it in fact a
entity with stakes and interests in many countries, or is it more accurately a transnational
corporation that serves the interests of the home country with little regard for the host economies
involved?"There are others who argue that the real is the corporation, which
is in fact only one part of a larger entity more correctly called a multinational enterprise.

No matter, whichever way one chooses to follow the debate, the controversy refuses to die
down while the MNCs continue to grow both in of size and profit. A look at the
comparative statistics of the growth of MNCs since the 1960s reveals an exponential rise in the
number of such corporations. Variously designated as 'multinational', 'transnational'
or 'global' corporations, the number of such companies have grown from 3,500 in 1960 to 60,000
in 1999. Some of these parent companies like Shell, Bank, Coca Cola, Ford,
or Nestle have more than 500,000 foreign Similarly, the aggregate stock of foreign
direct investment (FDI) worldwide has increased in tandem from $ 6 6 billion in 1960 to over
$4,000 billion in 1999, as compared with only $14 billion in 1914. The geographical size has also
widened with the result that even 'those industrialised countries which never had empires, such
as Sweden and Canada, and also some of the larger developing countries have seen some of
their companies expand transnationally. Among the 100 with the highest levels of assets
outside their home country, 50 are from Western Europe, 27 from the USA, 17 from Japan, 3
from Canada and one each from Australia, Venezuela, and South Korea'.

10.3 CHANGING NATURE OF MNCS

The nature of corporations has undergone a drastic change with the unfolding of
the process of globalisation around the world. This is evident from the changes that are fast
occurring at the level of production activities taking place within the MNCs. As against the older
times when there was a clear demarcation between production activities taking place at the
headquarters and secondary activities occurring in the subsidiary branches, now the companies
have become truly global, with the headquarters merely being a convenient site for strategic
decision-making. Gone are the days when a such as IBM could be regarded as an
American company with several foreign affiliates. Given the widespread expansion of sales
owing to revolutionary developments in the field of global communication, production activities
have today become truly global, and longer need to be located at the headquarters. .
Several new developments like the diversification of activities, adoption of global
, strategies with an emphasis on creating a uniform brand
II top management personnel from across the globe indicate beyond doubt full globalisation of

10.4
It is against such a backdrop of unprecedented rise in the significance of MNCs that
the political implications of on state are

STATE AND MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS

analysed. I

I I
In this context the balance between MNCs and Governments according to Rod Hague and
Martin raises in modem form, the age old question of the relationship between economic
and political power. In its form, the logic governing the relationship is simple; capital is
mobile, labour less so and states not at all. Companies can move their factories between
countries, but states, by are fixed in spare. As a result, countries must compete to
provide an attractive home for foreign direct investment. Providing an environment which at
least are as business friendly as that provided by competitor states is clearly a major challenge
for governmentsproviding potential for competitivederegulation and tax competition. MNCs
obviously look for low costs and taxes, the ability to take out of the country, weak or
pliable labour unions and predictable regulations, a work force with relevant skills, a stable
political and business environment and efficient transport and communication. The Governments
are forced to compromise on various issues to accommodate the needs and demands of MNCs,
compromising their sovereignty.

One of the most widely used definitions of the concept of 'state' is advanced in terms of being
'the sole unit of political rule' with its own population, territory, and an autonomous
or sovereign government. Of all the features, it is the accompanying notion of sovereignty that
has really consolidated the dominance of state by authorising it to act as an independent and
autonomous entity both within and outside their territorial jurisdictions. It is also this very same
feature of sovereignty of which has come in for severe attack from the advocates of
multinational corporations who not only argue that the sovereignty of the state is fast eroding,
, but also that it is fast becoming redundant and obsolete in the face of the rise in the significance
of MNCs as transnational political actors. Similarly, the future of nation-stateas a viable political
unit has further come in for attack from a number of other external sources. Growth of
supranational bodies like the United Nations and the European Union, the advance of economic
and cultural globalisation, and the need to find international solutions to the environment crisis
I
are fast rendering the institution of the nation-state meaningless. Moreover, with increasing
globalisation of economic life, the character of the markets has undergone radical
transformation. In the changed international context, markets have become world markets,
transnational corporationscontrol most businesses,and capital is moved around the globe
in the flick of an eyelid. All this has resulted, the argument goes, in the of the power
of nation-statesin regulating and controlling their economic destinies. Before examining the issue
of erosion of the sovereignty of the state, let us have a quick look at some of the key features
of the state.

10.4.1 KEY FEATURES OF THE STATE

Andrew Heywood's of five key features of the state can be very useful for our
purpose here and are thus being reproduced below:
 The state is sovereign. absolute and unrestricted power in that it stands above
all other associationsand groups in society. Hobbes conveyed this idea by portraying
the state as a 'leviathan', a gigantic monster, usually represented as a sea creature.

State institutions are recognisably 'public', in contrast to the 'private' institutions of civil
society. Public bodies are responsible for making and enforcing collective decisions, while
private bodies, such as families, private businesses and unions, exist to satisfy individual
interests.

The state is an exercise in legitimation. The decisions of the state are usually (although
not necessarily) accepted as binding on the members of society because, it is claimed, they
are made in the public interest or for common good; the state supposedly reflects the
permanent interests of society. I

The state is an instrument of domination. State authority is backed up by coercion; the

state must have the capacity to ensure that its laws are obeyed and that transgressors are
punished. A monopoly of violence' (Max Weber) is therefore the practical
expression of state sovereignty.

The state is a territorial association. The jurisdiction of the state is geographically defined
and it encompasses all those who live within the state's borders, whether they are citizens
or non-citizens. On the international stage, the state is therefore regarded (at least in theory)
as an autonomous entity.

Having seen some of the important features of the state, we are now perhaps better equipped
to analyse the issue of loss of sovereignty or autonomy of the state and relative strengths and
weaknesses of the arguments of the two broad categories of soholars that we have above
identified as and

10.5 MNCS' INCREASING CLOUT AND THE EROSION OF

SOVEREIGNTY
Peter Willetts in his recent study of a whole range of transnational actors, including multinational
corporations, identifies some of the important grounds on which states appear to be fast losing
their abilities to maintain their sovereign authorities. These grounds are being outlined below with
a view to enabling you to appreciate the nature and extent of increasing clout in
determining their own future by bypassing the all-powerful states in the process.

10.5.1 Financial flows and loss of sovereignty

Analysing the political impact of excessive transnationalisation of major companieson the states,
Willetts argues that "it is no longer possible to regard each country as having its own economy".
This has had its most severe impact on the abilities of the states to exercise effective control
over two of the most fundamental attributes of sovereignty control over the currency and
control over foreign trade. By illustrating the case of increasing intra-firm trade and frequent
recourse to fixing of transfer prices that the take, Willetts shows how the states are fast
losing their sovereignty in respect to control of financial flows. trade basically refers
 to a process in which international trade takes place between one branch of a TNC and an
of the same company in a different country. In the case of bauxite all the trade is
firm and hence there is no such thing as a world market for bauxite. Transferprice is the price
that is set by a TNC for intra-firm trade of goods or services. What happens under this is that
for the purpose of accounting a price is set for exports, but it is not necessary to relate it to
any market price. Hence, changes in the transfer price do not necessarily have any effect on
the sales or the global pre-tax of the company. As Willetts observes, "As the logic of
intra-firm trade is quite different from inter-country trade, governments cannot have clear
expectations of the effects of their financial and fiscal policies on this has clearly
resulted in the erosion of the sovereignty of the states in respect to control over financial flows.

10.5.2 Triangulation of Trade and Loss of Sovereignty

Increasing recourse to the means of 'triangulation' by companies has become a standard

technique to evade the control of states over trade. The process of triangulation refers to a
situation in which trade between two countries is routed indirectly via a third country. By
illustrating the case of Falklands war between Britain and Argentina, Willetts shows how even
in the face of economic sanctions imposed by the European on Argentina companies
could still indulge in triangulation, sending their exports via Brazil or Western Europe. It was also
possible for transnational companies to alternatively shift orders to a branch in a third country.
All this clearly shows that while it could still be possible for states to prevent direct import or
exports of goods, it well nigh impossible to prevent indirect trade from one country
to another. Willetts argues that the power of triangulation currently vested in TNCs can, perhaps,
only be effectively countered by a Security Council resolution, but even in such a situation
over the relevant trade would then lie with the Securitv Council and not with the

I
individual governments'.

10.5.3 Regulatory Arbitrage and Loss of Sovereignty

The diminishing control of governments in respect to regulating the commercial activities of

companies within their countries due to frequent recourse to what has come to be called
'regulatory arbitrage' by MNCs constitutes another ground on which sovereignty is being
compromised. The two terms 'arbitrage' and 'regulatory arbitrage' have specific meanings in
the context of control being exercised by MNCs over different governments. While Arbitrage
to the simple process of buying a product in one market and selling it in a different market,
in order to make a profit from the difference between the prices in the two markets, regulatory
arbitrage is used in the world of banking. Regulatory arbitrage refers to the process of moving
funds or business activity from one country to another, in order to increase profits by escaping
the constraints imposed by government regulations. By analogy, Willetts argues, 'the term can
be applied to any transfer of economic activity by any company in response to government
policy'. Even institutional mechanisms have been evolved at the international level to
regulate the commercial activities of transnational companies and banks, the mandate of such
international like the Basle Committee and European Community does not extend to all
countries. As Willetts observes, "whatever control is achieved does not represent the successful
exercise of sovereignty over companies: it is the partial of sovereignty to
body".

122
 10.5.4 Extraterritoriality and Sovereignty
Illustrating a hypothetical situation, demonstrates how the problem of
is inherent in the structure of all which leads to clashes of sovereignty between
different By using the example of a hypothetical company that has its headquarters
in the United States and a subsidiary company that it owns in United Kingdom, Willetts seeks
to show how three lines of authority exist at the same time. As long as the United States
controls the main company and the United Kingdom the subsidiary company, there would be no
conflict between the two, as they would be exercising their sovereign authority within their own
internal affairs. They would also be willing, under the normal circumstances, to concede certain
powers to the in respect to controlling its own policies on purchasing, production, and
sales. However, when the US government's decisions cover the global operations of the TNC,
there is bound to be a clash of sovereignty. This would inevitably put the subsidiary company
in a quandary, not knowing who to obey, the or the orders of the US government
issued via its headquarters? Such hypotheticalsituations have indeed assumed real forms in the
past, as in the case of the conflict over Siberian gas pipeline. Also, the United States has
I infuriated Canada by periodically ordering Canadian subsidiaries of US companies to avoid
selling goods to U.S. "enemies" such as Cuba and China through its Trading with the Enemy
Act.

10.6 PERCEPTIONS OF THE MNC-ENTHUSIASTS

view multinational corporations as huge economic combines that have the
requisite capacity, know-how, and wisdom to treat the world as a single economic unit and to
combine the factors of production like labour, land, capital, and management for maximum
production.They exhibit tremendous confidence in the ability of MNCs to produce
more and products prices, thereby satisfying the progressively rising global
demand for these products. The reason for this exuberance among the MNC-enthusiastslies in
their unflinching belief in the ability of MNCs to locate their plants, draw their resources, and
select their management staffs from countries that can provide each factor of production at
terms.

The MNC-enthusiasts look at multinational corporations as powerful agents of world modemisation,

especially among the less-developed countries. According to them, the MNCs create new jobs,
introduce advanced technologies, and train local citizens in the arts and sciences of modern
management in the less-developed countries of the world. One of the most important by-
products, therefore, of multinational corporate activity is the internationalisation of the production
and distribution processes. Owing their professional loyalties to 'rational economic-planning
structures' rather than to 'chauvinistic' or 'jingoistic' nation-states, the managers and employees
of multinational corporations become better citizens of the world, oppose 'anachronistic nationalism'
and war, and prepare the way for the development of world peace through world law and
government.

Indeed, the most powerful argument of the MNC-enthusiasts is that multinational corporations,
by spreading and intermingling their facilities and products globally, will eventually render the
practice of international war obsolete. The Atlantic community, which was witness to two bloody
and destructive world wars, has undergone complete as a of prolific growth
of multinational corporate activities and because of the success of regional integration process
in the region. The MNC-enthusiasts argue that given the growing interdependency and mutual
stakes between the Atlantic countries today, it would be well nigh impossible to predict a war
between say States and Canada, or between France and Germany.
,
I

The views of the MNC-enthusiasts can finally be summed up by noting that they are all very
optimistic about the global corporate activities ushering in a 'new golden age of peace and
plenty'. The only thing that is needed in their views, however, is better international regulation
of multinational corporate activities which is not possible without the standardisation of different
national legal systems. Adoptions of such mechanisms, the MNC-enthusiasts contend, will not
only make effective transfer of capital, management, technology, and economic products highly
convenient, but will also genuinely transform the world into a homogenous legal community, a
"world village" or a "global shopping centre."

10.7 PERCEPTIONS OF THE MNC-SKEPTICS

In sharp contrast to the perceptions of the MNC-enthusiasts, the MNC-skeptics identify a whole
range of problems with the global corporate activities of multinational companies. It is not only
the poorer Third World countries which are apprehensive of MNCs, but concerns about serious
implications of the functioning of various MNCs are also constantly raised in the developed part
of the world. Several well-organised labour unions in the Western countries are of the view that
MNCs are fast moving their plants to areas of "cheap labour" resulting in serious unemployment
problems in United States, Britain and other developed countries of the world.

and Muller provide a very succinct account of the arguments of the MNC-skeptics. They
view the multinational corporationsas "the most powerful human organisation yet devised for
colonising the future." Directly attacking the MNC-enthusiasts who the global
corporate activities of the multinational corporations are ushering in a 'new golden age of peace
and plenty', and Muller argue that problems of mass starvation, mass unemployment, and
gross inequality do not even on the agenda of such corporations. Their main contention
is that MNCs are like 'absentee landlords', who are concerned primarily with their own profits
and are not at all sensitive to the fundamental human needs. By undertaking massive and
seductive advertising campaigns, these corporations are not only distorting the tastes and styles
of Third World inhabitants, but also fast transforming luxuries into necessities. Neglect of socially
vital issues such as nutrition, clean air, and public health by such corporations, the MNC-skeptics
argue, have become rampant. One is here reminded of the recent controversy that rocked the
Indian Parliament and the media over the mixing of pesticides in Coca-Cola.

are particularly concerned about the political fallout of growing MNCs activities
on the poorer Third World countries. In the absence of any regulatory mechanism, the future
of these countries would not only remain bleak, but problems like greater inequality, greater
unemployment, and extraction of natural resources will only worsen in the times to come.
However, according to and Muller, such a fate is not only reserved for the poorer
countries, but even rich countries will be affected in the long run. With the increasing migration
of factory and even company headquarters away from the United States and other developed
countries, the problem of and the attendant maldistribution of incomes will only
accentuate further in the industrial West. Finally, the main argument of the MNC-skeptics is that
multinational corporations are poorer countries and "progressively weakening and
destabilising" countries while becoming huge profit making bodies themselves. They conclude,
on a rather pessimistic note, governments in the Third World as well as in the industrialised
West will be'unable to stop this process of the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few
multinational corporations while everyone else impoverished.

10.8 SUMMARY
What comes out quite clearly from the above discussion is that multinational corporations have
not only become very important transnational political actors, but also that they have become so
rich and so powerful that they can influence much of the outcomes in the world today. However,
the complex interdependence between host countries, home countries,and firms that is created
by the MNCs' global networks will continue to generate controversy in the future. It is also a
fact that few countries are in a position to refuse international investment, they will
7
continue to question the MNCs impact on the national interest. No matter, how powerful the
MNCs have become today, the nation-states simply cannot be written off, if for no other reason
than the factor of sheer territoriality. Nation-statescontinue to exercise military and political
control over clearly demarcated territories and their inhabitants. Multinational corporations can
neither threaten the prerogatives of the states nor match the political clout that they wield, for
they are universally accepted as "the sole legitimate unit of political rule". The principle of
nation-state as a viable political is likely to gain in strength in the times to come.
For example, the creation of 18 new states in the later part of the twentieth century, if anything, ,
is a pointer towards this trend. The continuing strength of the state lies in its inherent power of
maintaining both cultural cohesion and political unity, thus allowing those who share a common
cultural or ethnic identity to exercise the right to independence and self-government. The
protagonists of state are all one in holding the view that no other social group can ever claim
to constitute an alternative political community. Implicit in such contention is the argument that
supranational bodies such as the European Union or multinational corporationswill never
be able to replace the state, and command the same kind of popular allegiance as that of the
state.

10.9 EXERCISES
I) What do you mean by multinational corporations? Discuss the changing nature of MNCs
in the age of globalisation?
2) Outline the key features of the state and explain the changing nature of state in the wake
of growing significance of MNCs?
3) How do transnational corporations affect the sovereignty of governments?
4) Outline the key arguments of MNC-enthusiastsand MNC-skeptics.
5) Critically examine the impact of multinational corporationson the developing nations of the
world.
6) feel MNCs are a vital new road to growth, whereas others feel they
perpetuate under-development. Explain.
UNIT 11 NATIONALISM: APPROACHES

Structure
11 Introduction
11.2 What is Nationalism
11.3 Distinction Between Nationalism and Related Terms
11.4 Rise of Nationalism and Features of National Identity
11.5 Approachesto the Study of Nationalism
1.5.1 Liberal Approach and Humanitarian Approach ,

1.5.2 Expansionist Approach

. 11.5.3 Marxist Approach
1 Integral-Fascist Approach
11.5.5 Anti-colonial Approach
11.6 'Nations Without State' and 'States Without Nation'
11.7 Globalisation and the Future of Nationalism
11.8 Summary
11.9 Exercises

11.1 INTRODUCTION

Nationalism has been called the religion of and centuries. As a way of thinking about
the world, it emphasises the importance of nations explaining historical developments and
analysing contemporary politics and also claims that 'national character' is a pervasive factor
differentiating human beings. Nationalism assumes that all human beings should have one and
only one nationality which should be their primary factor of identity and loyalty. This means that
people should see themselves as members of a nationality and be prepared to make any
sacrifices required to defend and advance the interest of a nation. As a doctrine of universal
applicability, nationalism claims that all people should give their highest loyalty to their own
nation. claims to represent the will people to be able to decide upon their own
destiny, their will to be respected as a to develop their culture and personality. During
the last two hundred years, nationalism has combined with the ideologies of liberalism,
and communism and emerged as a winner. Everywhere in the world, nationalism
comes first and other ideologies occup a second position. The national movements in the
colonial count ies in the first half of 20 century and the disintegration of Soviet Union in the
t
fag end of 20 century revealed the powerful force of nationalism. Today, we live in an age
where instead of peaceful nations feel constant threat of being annihilated.
Nationalism provides a useful tool for the preservation of their culture. This is all the more
important when, in the context of globalisation, there is an attempt at homogenisation of all the
communities.
11.2 WHAT IS NATIONALISM

Nationalism is a compound of many factors some of which have their roots in human nature
and many of which have a long history. Yet it is a modern phenomenon. To discover it is a
difficult undertaking and to define it in succinct phrases is even more difficult. In one sense it
is the extension of a group to which one belongs. this sense, it is a form of collective egoism.
In negative sense it is a manifestation of that fear of the 'stranger' with its roots deep in human
nature. In modern sense it of that love of the familiar land and people which is often
regarded as the core of patriotism. According to Hayes, nationalism has been used in many
different ways and it is commonly used 'to denote a condition of mind among members of a
nationality, perhaps already possessed of a national state, a condition of mind in which loyalty
to the ideal or to the fact of one's national state is superior to all other loyalties and of which
pride in one's nationality and belief in its intrinsic excellence and its 'mission' are 'integral parts'.
Similarly, Hans Kohn defines nationalism as a state of mind.. .. Striving to correspond to a
political fact.' On the other hand Gellner writes, 'Nationalism is primarily a political principle
which holds that the political unit and the national unit should be congruent...nationalist sentiment
is a feeling of anger aroused by the violation of the principle, or the feeling of satisfaction
aroused by its Giddens points to the psychological character of nationalism 'the
affiliation individual to a set of symbols and beliefs, emphasising commonality among the
members of a particular community'.

In short, nationalism has aspects: the political character of nationalism as an

ideology defending the notion that the state and the nation should be congruent and
its capacity to be a provider of identity for individuals conscious of forming a group
based upon a common past and culture, attachment to a concrete The power of
nationalism emanates from its ability to engender sentimentsof to a particularcommunity.
Symbols and rituals play a major role in the cultivation of a sense of solidarity among the people.

Thus in order to understand the concept of nationalism, we must keep in mind that

Nationalism is a sentiment that has to do with attachment to a homeland, a common

language, ideals, values and traditions, a particular group with symbols as
flag, songs which define it as 'different' from others. The attachment creates an identity
and the appeal to that identity has a past and the power to mobilise the people.

How a sentiment of attachment to a homeland and a common culture can be transformed

into the political demand for the creation of a state; how is it possible to make this transition?
A theory of nationalism has to deal with questions such as: how does nationalism use and
legitimise the use of violence in its quest for the creation of a state?

An important feature of nationalism is its to bring together people from different

social and cultural levels. Nationalism is not merely an invention of the ruling classes to
maintain the unconditional loyalty of the masses but also making believe that they
much in common that is more important than what separates them. This is one basic
factors in trying to understand the persistence of
 11.3 DISTINCTION BETWEEN NATIONALISM AND RELATED

I TERMS
In order to examine the political character of nationalism, a basic conceptual distinction has to
7
be made between nation, state, nation-state and nationalism. The term 'state is a legal institution
and usually refers to 'a human community that claims the monopoly of the use of
physical force within a given territory'. On the other hand, 'nation' is a human group conscious
of forming a community, sharing a common culture, attached to clearly demarcated territory,
having a common past and a common project for the future and claiming the right to rule itself.
A nation includes dimensions: psychological (consciousness of forming group),
cultural, territorial,political and historical. By the term 'nation-state', is meant the 'formation
of a kind of state which has the monopoly of legitimate use of force and which seeks to unite

I
its people by means of homogenisation creating a common culture, symbols, values, traditions
and myth of origin' . Nationalism is a sentiment of belonging to a community whose members
with a set of and ways of and have the will to decide upon
their common political destiny.

11.4 OF AND FEATURES OF

NATIONAL IDENTITY

The rise of nationalism was preceded by a rise in the national consciousnessand differentiation
of nationalities which took place between and centuries. Hayes contributes seven
factorsto the rise of national consciousness: linguistic and literary, political, commercial, economic,
ecclesiastical, religious, and cultural. Nations and nationalism are modem phenomena and nations
can be defined only in terms of the age of nationalism. According to Gellner, nationalism is the
result of some specific aspects of modernisation. It is the phenomenon connected with the
emergence of industrial society. Giddens relates nations and nationalism to the emergence of
modem state and locates it in the late century. Historically, kinship represented the first sign
of formation of larger groups attached to a concrete territory. Through the creation of markets,
the intensification of trade, the fightingof wars, the slow but progressive amplificationof state's
scope, there emerged the formation of a community conscious of itself which differed
others. It is at this stage that one can talk of emergence of nations. Thus the principal factors
responsible for the rise of nationalism can be enumerated as follows:

the individualistic climate of opinion that characterised renaissance and reformation

collapse of universal authority of the church

the desire of rising commercial classes for uniform trade regulations, abolition of feudal
obstacles to trade and for creating conditions under which trade could be carried-on
and profitably

iv) the desire for peace, order and security in an age marked by bloodshed, violence and
intolerance

v) personal ambitions of monarchs who allied themselves with rising commercial class in
 vi) the doctrine of territorial sovereignty, which offered the national kinds the most convenient
theoretical weapon with which to combat the claims of rival feudal or religious
The idea of one unified legal system affording order, consistency and certainty in governing
of all social relations within a given national area made a very strong appeal.
..
According to three factors ,can be ascribed to the rise of nationalism: Economic,
Military and Cultural. After the renaissance and reformation, the embodiment of universal laws
by the state regarding administration and taxation helped in the establishment of national markets,
provided unified markets for the expansion of national industry and in the conquest of foreign
markets. he creation of national unified economy helped in the development of a welfare state
in the 20 century. Secondly, in the military competition among the states, the states based upon
common nationality proved better because of the resources of national economy. Also they could
rely on the allegiance of unified national army. Thirdly, the nation-state was able to satisfy the
cultural - religious, ethnic, linguistic - demands of the people. Thus national consciousness
helped in consolidating the position of states and meeting the internal as well as external
challenges.

characteristics of National

the political aspect of nationalism as a modem phenomenon rising with the

state, the big question is what creates a national identity. In other words, along with certain
rational developments, there are less rational but not less important areas concerned with
creating a feeling and emotion. According to Guibernau, broadly speaking, there are three
factors which helped in the creation of a national identity: ij development of printing and creation
of vernacular languages ii) relationship between national identity and culture, and iii) common
symbols and rituals. Let us examine these factors in detail.

The development of vernacular languages after the invention of printing press in played
a decisive role in creating a sense of belonging to a community. National consciousness is
derived shared values, traditions and memories within a particular culture which is thought
and spoken in a particular language. Though vernacular is not an indispensable basis for the
creation of national consciousness, yet it does facilitates that creation. Where nation and state
were coextensive, education and the generalisation of literacy not only reinforced the possibility
of communication among the people but also helped in the development of a strong sense of
community. The development of English, French and German languages and education based
upon school system led to the creation of a strong national consciousness. When the state
manages to impose a culture'and language, it is 'nationalism which engenders nations.' If the
state is successful,it manages to develop, apart political, a combination of several relationships
such as economic, territorial, religious, linguistic and cultural. It is this state which creates a
nation.

Secondly, the key question with regard to national identity is - who am I? Identity is an
interpretation of the self that establishes what' and where a person is both socially and
psychologically. Identity exists in societies which define and them. In the current era,
the nation represents one of these communities. National identity is its product. The defining
criteria of identity are: continuity over time and differentiation. While continuity lies in the

I
historical roots, differentiation stems from the consciousness of forming a community with a

129
shared culture, attached to concrete territory which distinguish between members and 'strangers'.
This identity fulfils three functions: it helps in making choices such as right to decide about
their common political identity ii) it makes the relationship possible with others because nation
is a common pool in which individualswith a common culture live and work together, and
national identity gives strength and resilience to individuals to with an entity which
transcends them. Now this identity is created through the development of common culture
values, beliefs, customs, conventions, habits and practices that are transmitted to the new
members who receive the culture of a particular community. The process of identification with
the elements of a specific culture implies a strong emotional investment. From the point of view
of nationalism, a common culture favours the creation of solidarity bond among the members
of a given community and allows them to imagine the community they belong to as separate and
distinct from others.

Thirdly, in the creation of national identity, a powerful role is also played by symbolsand rituals.
Nation is a community which has similarities within itself and differences from others. The
consciousness of forming a community is created through the use of symbols and repetition of
rituals that give strength to the individual members of the community By favouring occasions
in which they feel united and by displaying symbols that represent its unity, a nation establishes
the distinction from others. For example, a soldier who for his flag dies so because he identifies
flag with his country. Also symbols like flag have the power to evoke particular memories or
feelings. This helps in the ability of nationalism to bind together people from different cultural
levels and social backgrounds. Symbols mask the difference and highlight commonality, creating
a sense of group. And last but not the least, individuals who share the same culture and feel
attached to a concrete land have the experience of a common past and a project for the future,
need to create occasions in that unites them is emphasised. In these moments, the
'individual forgets about himself and the sentiment of belonging to a group occupies the prime
position. Through rituals, individuals are able to feel an emotion of unusual intensity that springs
from their identification with the entity - the nation - which is above them and of which they
are a part.

Thus the force of nationalism springs not only from the rational thought alone but also from
irrational power of emotions that stems fiom the feeling of belonging to a particular group. This
double face of nationalism results from the way in which these emotions are either transformed
into a peaceful and democratic movement seeking the recognition and development of one's
nation above others and eradicate the differences.

11.5 APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF NATIONALISM

During the last 300 years, nationalism has gone through different phases. Rising as a cultural
and humanitarian concept, it has been used and misused by different ideologies Liberalism,
Imperialism,Marxism, Fascism etc. It was a potent weapon in the hands of ex-colonial countries
in their struggle for national Nationalism has been approached fiom a wide variety
of perspectives ranging from liberal-rational to fascist-irrational. The main approaches are as
follows:
Liberal Approach to Nationalism
I) Humanitarian
Expansionist
 Marxist approach to Nationalism

Integral - Fascist Approach to Nationalism

Anti-imperialist approach to Nationalism

Let us study these approaches in detail.

11.5.1 Liberal Humanitarian Approach to Nationalism

It was the earliest kind of formal nationalism and is found in the writings of Bolinbroke,
Rousseau, Herder, Fichte, etc. According to Herder, mankind is divided by nature and
by reason into separate nationalities and it is through cultivation of the particular genius of the
nationality that both the individual and humanity as a whole make progress towards perfection.
Each national organism has its own peculiar individuality, a gift of nature and it is the duty of
the individuals who are a part of this organism to cultivate that particular genius. Nationalities
are distinguished from one another by historical traditions, by the possession of their own
language, literature, system of education, customs and in a well developed nationality by the
possession of 'national soul'. Herder emphasised the cultural part of nationalism, his exposition
of what basically must distinguish one nationality from another include factors such as geography,
climate, historical traditions, language, literature, education and manners. Similarly,
concept of 'people' meant a people who share a common language and historical tradition,
would have the means and inclination to assert the principle of popular sovereignty and to ensure
the operation of political democracy. It is the national institutions which form the genius, the
character, the taste, of a people which make one and not another, which inspire the
ardent love of the country founded on habits impossible to trace back to their sources.

But what is important to note here is that this sort of nationalism did not preach superiority of
one nation over the other and this nationalism was apolitical. 'The human race', Herder wrote,
'is one whole, we work and suffer, sow and harvest each for all'. The happiness of one nation
cannot be forced upon another; each must seek and find its own happiness in its own way.
Above all nations stand the ideal of humanity as a goal and guiding principle, a potentiality to
be developed and cultivated. He opposed imperialism and war of conquest for the purpose of
nationality. It is irrational despotism that seeks to bring peoples of different nationalities under
one rule. As a liberal and a nationalist, Herder welcomed the French Revolution and saw in it
the fruition of enlightenment.

Similarly, Fichte also believed that the individual best serves mankind through service to the
nation and cultivation of the particular genius of the nation. Like Herder, he also believed that
wherever a separate language is found, a separate nation exists. 'The first, original and truly
natural boundaries of states are beyond doubt their internal boundaries. Those who speak the
same language are joined to each other by a multitude of invisible bonds by nature itself, long
before any human art beings, they understand each other and have the power to continue to
make themselves understood more and more clearly.' After the Napoleonic conquest of
his views on nationalism were couched in highly chauvinistic language, the language national
patriots of all countries have used when they have sought to engender resistance to foreign rule.
It was out of such appeal to unity that the German national state finally emerged. In Fichte,
State, he argued on behalf of economic nationalism. Unless a nation becomes economically self-
sufficient, it could not survive as a political entity: International free trade, Fichte believed, led
to imperialism and war rather than promoting unity nations, it sowed the seeds of discord
and rivalry. Let each state strive for economic and one of the basic causes of
war will be removed.

Another representative of liberal humanitarian nationalism was Mazzini. He not only

stirred the passions of the Italian people on behalf of national unity and independence from
foreign rule but stimulated similar nationalistic movements throughout Europe. Like Herder and
Fichte, Mazzini declared that every people have its special mission and that mission constitutes
its nationality. This special is only a particular fulfillment of the general mission of
humanity. As he wrote, 'Humanity is the association of nationalities, the alliance of peoples in
order to work out their missions in peace and love; the organisation of free and equal peoples
that shall advance without hindrance and impediment... towards the progressive development of
one line ofthought of God, the line inscribed by him upon the cradle, the past life, the national
idiom, and the physiognomy of each. The Pact of Humanity cannot be signed by individuals, but
only by free and equal people, possessing a name, a banner and the consciousness of a distinct
individual existence'. Mazzini believed that the nation-state was the medium and agency through
which history manifests itself in its progressive development towards greater human freedom.
Through association in nations, individuals are able to fulfill their destiny in a way that would be
impossible for them as isolated individuals. Over and above individuals, comprising them in their
totality is Humanity and humanity manifests itself most clearly in nationalities. But instead of
rights, Mazzini emphasised on duties. A man has an obligation to himself, to his family, to his
community and whatever rights he may be said to have are an outgrowth and reflection of these
obligations. The highest obligation of a man has to serve Humanity for only by truly serving
humanity can he truly serve himself and his country. Only by forming national states can
nationalities serve humanity. But over and above loyalty to the nation Mazzini placed loyalty to
Humanity. Although Mazzini favoured wars of liberation that would result in the
of unity and independence for nationalities, he looked forward, after the restoration of the map
7
of Europe to its 'natural national boundaries, to a world dedicated to universal and perpetual
peace and unity.

In short, this approach laid stress on the humanitarian and cultural aspect of nationalism, the
natural right of man to belong to a nationalityand was opposed to the domination nation
over the other.

11.5.2 Expansionist Approach

Contrary to the vision of thinkers like Mazzini that the war of liberation would result in the
achievement of unity and independencefor the nationalities, the victories in the liberal wars
brought about the very evils which they were supposed to destroy. Rather they the
forerunnersand pioneers of wars more destructive and extensive than before. National unification
and democracy intensified international antagonisms and the broad mass of peoples active
participants in them. After the industrial revolution had spread to a number of European
countries and the American continent. The unified nations now had the cohesion and emotional
impetus necessary for policies of conquest - whethercolonial or otherwise. International disputes
now became controversies between nations where the interests of the peoples themselves
determining part. The triumph of nationalism and democracy strengthened the sovereignty of the
state and a stepping stone for national expansion beyond its frontiers. This led to a in the
theoretical justification of nationalism liberal, humanitarian to 'scientific' and biological one.
Nationalism was discovered by some writers to have a biological basis and imperialism was
discovered to be but a working out of the evolutionary principle of the struggle for existence and
the survival of the fittest. With this change, a scientific justification could be given to imperialist
expansion. Since it involved strife between nations, it could be compared to competition between
species for survival. For some writers, it was 'natural' and to some, it was essential to human
progress for strong nations to struggle for aggrandizement, and for the superior 'races' to
prevail. Given this biological urge on the part of the healthy 'races' and the presence of
'backward races', the logic of nationalism changing into imperialism became inescapable.
could be regarded as entirely consistent with the theory of subjugation and annexation
of weaker nationalities and backward peoples by states claiming statehood on the basis of
nationality. This approach to nationalism found expression in the writings
of Ludwig Gump lowicz, J.R. J.A. Cramb. Burgess, Treitschke etc. Let us study
their views in detail.

According to Gump lowize, the 'most natural tendency of state is incessant increase of power
and territory'. National expansion is an expression of the very being of a state, it is the inevitable
tendency that rulers and people are powerless to resist'. So necessary and so strong is this
tendency to foreign conquest that no state can escape it; whatever their size, they will attempt
to expand in territory and power and they will cease to do so only when they cease to exist.
Similarly, the great defender of British imperialism, J.R. urged his fellow countrymen to
become conscious of their destiny to undertake their imperial responsibilities with deliberation.
He used the word 'destiny' to describe the British imperialistic 'mission' much in the same way
that the phrase 'manifest destiny' was used in the United States during the 19th century to
justify the Westward expansion and by some to cover even more ambitiousterritorial aspirations.
Another English historian, J.A. Cramb offered an extreme form of British imperialism. For him,
the British were a race endowed with the genius for empire and such a race is compelled to
dare, to suffer all, to sacrifice all for the fulfillment of its appointed task. 'The civil, the feudal
or the oligarchic state passes into the national, the national into the imperial, by slow or
gradations, but irresistibly, as by a fixed law of nature'. In United States, Burgess talked about
the 'mission of the Teutonic nations of conducting the political civilisation of the world'. The
backward peoples of the world must be taught by conquest and the rulership of the Teutonic
nations how to live. It was declared that the combination of small states into larger political
aggregates must continue until the entire semi-civilised barbarian and of the
world are brought under the protection of the larger civilised nations.

Imperialism and war as an expression of nationalism found forceful expression in the writings
of Treitschke. He believed that state rather than being a means to an end was a self-sufficient
end in itself. The state must seek its own goal within itself and no individual has the right to
regard the state as a servant of his own aims but is bound by moral duty and physical necessity
to subordinate himself to it. He regarded war as 'the form of litigation by which states must
make their claims valid' and it is a drastic though beneficial 'remedy for the ailing nation'. War
is a test whereby the weak and cowardly are recognised and 'perish justly'. Small states have
a duty to grow larger for such growth' is a sign of the moral stamina of a people'. It is essential
to the of the state and to the belief in its own future that it should seek to grow in size.
 If Germany was to achieve the status of first rate power among the nations of the
Western world, she must acquire overseas territory.

Thus nationalism which was formerly justified as a means of and extendingthe cultural
bond among homogeneous group, became an end in itself and a means of imperialistexpansion.
It became a potent weapon in the hands of industrialised countries of Europe and America to
conquer the under-developed lands of Asia, and Latin America.

11.5.3 Marxist Approach

The idea of nationalism and the nation-state had a different connotation in Marxism. Marx
declared that the societies were divided not on nationalities but on class basis. The purpose of
the state is the protection of vested interests of the dominant class and as such the state does
not represent the nationality but the class interest. Writing about his own times, Marx emphasised
that although the capitalist-liberal state talks of national interest, industrialisation has created a
working class which has a universal interest irrespective of nationality, as a of which the
concept of nationality is almost dead in industrialised countries. Extreme nationalism is an
ideological means which helps in'the class domination. It is a fiction created by the bourgeois
class and is being used by it just as it used religion, ethics, democracy, science, art or
literature. He said that the working class has no nation; it has universal class interest. The
salvation of the working class laid in the development of productive forces on a world scale
which was not possible in the narrow sphere of nation state. Hence, theoretically, Marx and
gave the idea of abolition of nationalities which, according to them, was the creation of
middle class ideology.

In view, nationalism is an expression of bourgeois interests. As he wrote, 'the bourgeois

conveniently assumed that the nation consists only of capitalists. The country was, therefore,
theirs'. He argued that the bourgeois as a class had a common interest and 'this community of
interest which is directed against the proletariat inside the country and is directed against the
bourgeois of other nations outside the country. This, the bourgeois calls his nationality.'

In German Ideology, Marx refers to the proletariat as a class unlike any other. A class which
no longer counts as a class in the society, is not as a class, and is in itself the
expression dissolution all classes' and nationalities within the present society'. In the
modem capitalist society, the more proletariat spends his life working,the more he is impoverished.
Marx denounced this situation and thought that the proletariat all over the world would be able
to unite and fight. In The Communist Manifesto, he writes, 'the working men have no
country...national differences and antagonism between people are daily more and more
vanishing...The nationality of the worker is neither French, English nor German, it is labour, free
slavery. His government is neither French, English nor German, it is factory air, the land belongs
to him is neither German, English nor French but lies a few feet below the ground'. Similarly,
echoed Marx that the working class should think in terms. 'National one
sidedness and narrow-mindedness becomes more and more impossible'.

Writing about their organisation the Communist International, declared 'the International
recognises no country; it desires to unite, not dissolve'. It is opposed to the nationality
because it tends to separate people from people and used by tyrants to create prejudices and
But 1848 seemed to herald a major modification of and Engels's original stand on nationalism
in that they supported the national cause of the historic or great nations such as Hungary and
Poland and Germany all of which sought to establish large stable national states. Also Marx felt
that the liberation of the oppressed nations will help in overpoweringthe national division and
help in the consolidation of the working class of both nations. The national liberation movement
will also help in weakening the political, economic, military and ideological power of the ruling
class and will inculcate a revolutionary ideology in the working class of the oppressed nation.
introduced the concept of 'non-historic nations'. According to him, there were certain
great historic nations in Europe like Italy, Poland, Hungary, Germany and the idea of unity was
justified but there were certain minor nations with no historical importance and legacy like
Romania, Czechs and Slovaks. The failure of democratic revolution in Europe was largely due
to the counter-revolutionaryrole of nations. Before 1917, the radical in Europe largely
endorsed the views of Marx and and opposed the national separation in the name of
proletarian internationalism. But some of the specific questions on the Marxist view of nationalism
have been solved by history. In 1890, when Germany attacked France, Marx appealed to the
working class of Germany that they should not.support Bismarck but rather revolt against him.
However, the working class supported Bismarck. Such appeals were repeated in the First and
Second World Wars but the working class did not agree to not to enter the war and neither did
the war stop.

The national question and the question of nationalitiescame to the forefront the Russian
Revolution because in Russia there were a number of nationalities. Lenin understood clearly the
dialectical relationship between internationalism and the right of self-determination of nationalities.
He felt that only the right to secede will make possible the voluntary union and cooperation and
the long term between the nations. Similarly,only the recognition by the workers' movement
in the oppressed nations about the right of the oppressed nations to self-determination help
eliminate the hostility and suspicion of the oppressed and unite the proletariat of both nations in
the international struggle against the bourgeoisie. Lenin also grasped the relationshipbetween
national democratic struggles and the socialist revolution and showed that the popular masses
of the oppressed nations were the allies of the conscious proletariat. On the other hand,
solution to the problem of nationalities was realistic but away from the Marxist tradition. He
gave autonomy to different nationalities within the Soviet state. Each nationality could set up a
state legislature and develop its language and culture. They were given equal status at the
central level. But gradually, all the nationalities were absorbed by CPSU. The important point,
however, is that along with class, the nationalitieswere recognised. policy of 'Socialism .
in one county' intended to make Russia spearhead of the world revolution and more and more
of it became associated with the extension of Russian national interest. During the Second World
War, the national sentiment was given a free hand. The heroes of Czarist Russia became the
heroes of the communist of the others in the national interest: A natural result of the
war was the awakening of national consciousness in all the communist countries. Hence the
communist party of a nation had to oppose the coinmunist party of the other in the national
interest and in the context of the idea of international proletarian revolution, became dead. The
among the communist parties of Greece, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia,the differences between
the former Soviet Union and China are clear examples. In Asia, modem nationalism and Marxist
socialism came to the forefront almost simultaneously. More recently, the disintegration of Soviet
Union and Yugoslavia has proved that the ethnic, religious and other identities are more dominant
than the 'class loyalties'. The bloodshed in Croatia, armed clashes between Russia and local
nationalists in Georgia and Moldavia proved beyond point that the national question is very
It is possible to find some similaritiesbetween nationalismand Marxism that have contributed
to the union of these two forms of ideology in different countriesespecially Marx. According
to Smith, both nationalism and Marxism are 'salvation movements'. Both describe the present
situation as oppressive and want to change it. While Marxism wants a change through revolution,
nationalism wants to restore the lost identityof the individual. Whereas for Marxism, the enemy
is the bourgeoisclass,for nationalism, it can be an alien tyrant or a colonial rule. Both find their
proper arena of struggle in the modern nation-state. Both rely on mass movements to
their goal. During the anti-colonial struggles, there was a fusion of Marxism and nationalism in
many countries. But whereas nationalism gives preference to culture, Marxism traces back
every phenomenon to economic roots. Whereas Marxism locates its enemy in capitalism
irrespective of his nationality,for the nationaliststhe enemies are those who the purity
of the nation. And finally, while Marx accepted the past in order to transcend it, nationalism
seeks inspiration the past in order to link it with the present and restore the original features
of the national character.

11.5.4 Integral (Fascist) Approach

In the 19th century, nationalism contributed to the liberation and emancipation movements. At
that time it was a progressive doctrine inseparably connected with the democratic universalistic
values inherited the French Revolution. However, in the century,this liberal nationalism
was replaced by what is known as integral nationalism. This form of nationalism appeared in
the writings of Maurice Barres, Charles Maurras, Aurthur de Gonineau, H.S. Chamberlain etc.
the version of integral nationalism found practical embodiment which was imitated
and extended on a most ruthless fashion by Hitler and Nazi Germany. It was Maurass who first
used this term and defined integral nationalism as 'the exclusive pursuit o f national policies, the
absolute maintenance of national integrity and the steady increase in national power'. As a
doctrine, this form of nationalism stressed that the individual for the state, serves the state
and glorifies the state. It gave an organic concept of state, rejected political democracy and
favoured aggressive internationalism as a positive good. conceived nation as an end and
exalted militarism and imperialism. It demanded absolute loyalty to the nation and exalted
national interest above those of individual and even humanity.

One of the earlier advocates of 'integral nationalism' was Maurice Barres who believed that
French could be promoted by encouraging regionalism, the French language
by purging it of foreign words and encouraging the veneration of French military heroes like
Napoleon. According to him, a man thinks those thoughts, which he must think as the member
of a particular race or nationality. Blood and soil the twin foundations of nationalism and the
determining elements of life, both individual and social. These ideas were extended by another
Frenchman Charles Maurass. He defined a true nationalist as one who 'places his country
above everything; he therefore conceives, treats and resolves all pending questions in their
relation to the national interest. Like Barres, he also argued for the veneration of the dead as
'the most active living' and declared that it is from the dead that the livings derive the
only initiative they can know. Not only did he cultivate the cult of 'blood' but encouraged the
'cult of the sacred soil'. But as Hayes writes, throughout the writings of Charles Maurras, his
integral nationalism appeared as a breeder of hatred. He tirelessly preached hatred of 'alien'
influence within France such as Jewish, Protestant, liberal, communist; he ceaselessly directs
tirades against foreigners: German, Englishmen, American, and Russians etc. He favoured a
In the version of Mussolini and Italian Fascism, integral nationalism found concrete expression.
Through the writings of Renedetoo Giovanni Gentile, Globerti nationalism was
gradually divorced from liberalism and transformed into a cult of 'sacred Egoism'

Fascism was an 'anti' movement - anti-liberal, anti-parliamentary, anti-Semitism, anti-communist,

partially anti-capitalist, anti-bourgeoism, anti-clericalism. All these positions combined with
exacerbating nationalist sentiments led to pan-nationalist ideas which challenged the existing
states and accounted for much of the aggressive expansionist foreign policy of the fascist
regimes. According to Mussolini, the foundation of Fascism was the conception of state, its
character, its duty and its aim. Apart from the guardian of the people, the state was seen in
absolute terms, as custodian and transmitter of the spirit of the people. It is the state which
educates its citizens in civic virtue, gives them consciousnessof their mission and moulds them
into unity. It leads men primitive tribal life to that highest expression of human power which
is Empire. For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say, the expansion of the nation is an
essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite is a sign of decadence. War was exalted as
a good end and the purpose of war was total annihilation of the defeated nation than rehabilitation.
Thus in Fascism, nationalism became completely degenerate and nihilistic.

Closely associated with integral was the doctrine of racial superiority. It believed that
the key to the understanding of history lies in the differences in quality and aptitude among the
human races, that mankind consists of separate races distinguished by special physical, emotional
and spiritual characteristics. For example, dividing the mankind into three principal races - the
white, yellow and black - Gobineau ascribed marked superiority of the White or the Aryan race
which is by nature 'a race of rulers'. As a doctrine, racism was the denial of political, civil and
social rights and hatred of the 'different'. Though liberal nationalism drew a distinction between
'us' and but in its fascist form, nationalism took to its extreme form where the existence
of the 'other' was perceived as someone inferior as well as potential of factual enemy. In this
view, even the existence of the other was seen as a threat to one's life. The 'other' must
therefore be destroyed in order to protect one's own distinct existence. Friends and foes are in
the form of collectivities. The conflict between them must itself inevitably be a total one in which
the foe must be annihilated. It is a matter of fixing boundaries but rather an attempt to
eradicate all those that are different, whatever their ideas or attitudes. This was the case when
racism was incorporated into the nationalistic discourse. For example, Nazism defended the
creation of Greater Germany. The extermination of those portrayed as the cause of German
problems was justified by their racial inferiority. The other's existence was perceived as
posing a threat to Aryan excellence. Contamination had to be avoided at any price.

In short, both Fascism and Nazism used nationalism as myth. The important consideration was
not whether an idea is true or not but whether it can be made to appear true to the mass of
people. Mussolini created the myth of the nation - 'our myth is the Nation, our myth is the
greatness of the Nation and to this myth, to this grandeur, that we wish to translate into a
complete reality, we subordinateall the rest'. German National socialism resorted to the myth
. of race. 'Today a new faith is awakening: the of blood, the belief that it is by the blood
that the divine mission of man is to be defended; the belief, based on the clearest knowledge,
that Nordic blood represents that mystery which has overcome and replaced the
sacraments'. This was a form of nationalism nourished not on love but on hate; it inculcated fear
 nationalism. It was a 'nationalism that theoretically could tolerate no nationalism but that of one

I
nation'.

11.5.5 Anti Colonial Approach

In the 20th century, the period between the two world wars, the Russian revolution and the rise
of Fascism were important landmarks in the spread of nationalist ideas Europe to the
European lands of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Collectively, they set in motion the process
of national liberation movements, as a result of which many countries got independence
the imperialist powers of Europe. Such revolutionary changes played a vital role in developing
a-new form of nationalism. New nations like china, Pakistan, Egypt, Vietnam grew on the
world scene which gave a new meaning to the concept of nationalism. The circumstances which
gave birth to these nations were quite different from those of the West. These were the
countries which were subjugated by imperialist countries like England, France, Spain, Holland
etc. and their economies had been exploited. Imperialist countriesconsidered them their private
property whom they sold and pilfered. They destroyed their independence and preserved puppet
governments which were too weak to do any harm to imperialism.

A new form of nationalism and a new meaning of concept was born in countries like India,
China and Arab lands. Though the new concept of nationalism which became the basis of new
states derived much of its ideology and political theory from the West, yet it adopted the theory
to its own historical experiences, its particular circumstances and to its own revolt against
imperialism. The basis new was that it began with an instinctive and xenophobic
hatred for imperialism, a hatred of its representatives, its nationals and anyone affiliated with
them. It was a simple hatred against those who had occupied their lands by force, exploited their
riches by force, crushed their governments, enslaved their people and who did not hesitate to
destroy plunder and steal. This hatred was expressed violently in killings, destruction and
such as Boxer Rebellion as well as in peaceful, non violent forms in under
Gandhi. These states were conscious of imperialism, aimed at its destruction and destruction of
those accompanying evils such as conquests, oppression, enslavement, stifling of liberty,exploitation
of riches and sowing of racial, regional, communal and class distinctions. At the same time,
nationalism was also a creative force which aimed at building a nation based upon the principles
of liberty, independence, economic justice and national unity. It viewed national unity as a
creative force which could stimulate the people to contribute their share in the national
reconstruction. unity meant two things: i) unity of geographical parts and unity in the
diversity of religion, class, caste, communal elements. These states pledged to work for the
welfare of all classes, castes and groups because all of them participated and contributed their
lot in the struggle for freedom. From international point of view, these nation states opposed
military basis, undue alien interference into the affairs of other states, apartheid and believed in
non-alignment and international cooperation.

A peculiar feature of anti-colonial nationalism was that in most cases a nation preceded the
emergence of the state. Here a difference can be made between the initial form of nationalism
as a movement directed against the colonial rulers and engaged in the struggle for independence,
and nationalism's subsequent transformation into a political discourse employed by new leaders
in their attempt to construct a nation capable of sustaining the legitimacy of the state they
inherited from the colonial era. After gaining independence, these colonial states established new

138 .
 drew their borders, built up their capital cities and established a central administration and .
institutions to suit their economic needs. As a result, each colony was a collection of
peoples. Old states of these were brought together within the same boundaries.
All these states were a mosaic of different ethnic communities and tribes. Thus the artificial and
imposed character of the states in such territories accounted for most of the troubles after
obtaining independence. The major problem faced by these states has been their fragility. The
newly created nation states initiated a struggle to replace the pre-national ties with a feeling of
national identity and loyalty. But in many cases, the euphoria accompanying the celebration of
freedom soon turned sour. The reasons for this stem from the incapacity of the new states to
eliminate economic backwardness and the of creating a coherent civil society out of
a population as heterogeneous in itself as in relation to the state. Many of them, unable to sustain
the claims of the people, turned towards USA or USSR. But this meant becoming dependent.

Also independence liberated ethnic nationalism within the emergent state nationalisms and in
some cases - like India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Nigeria etc - threatened anti-colonialism
and nationalism whose objective was the conservation of the state and the replacement of the
colonial rulers. While Muslims called for a separate nation state challenging the integrity of the
Indian state, caste, class, ethnic origin, religion, language formed separate layers of identity that
added to the complexity of creating a single nation out of inherited arbitrarily designed state.
After independence, enormous problems were faced to preserve the nationality. The socio-
political environment elevated some leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Sukamo, and Nasser to the .
category of prophet liberators. Yet, the vast gap between the Western educated elites and the
bulk of a illiterate population increased after independence. Most of them did not change
the structure of the state and retained privileges. fragility of their governments
led to an increasing hostility as well as movements seeking independence of ethnic minorities
within established states. Independence brought civil war in Sudan, Zaire, Chad, Nigeria, Kenya,
Ghana, Ceylon and a rift between Eastern and Western wings of Pakistan.

The major task confronted by the nationalist intellectuals has been to create a nation to legitimise
the state. But given the heterogeneouscharacterof their societies, conflict is unavoidable which
stems from two sources : the difference arising among the ethnic groups included in the most
arbitrarily created states inherited from the colonial rulers and ii) the wide gap between a
affluent elite and a large number of people living in conditions of poverty. In the first case,
nationalism is employed as a weapon to ignite old antagonism and disputes, and in the case of
second, it could be used to promote alternative image of the nation or channeled blame on the
west for all the troubles.

11.6 'NATIONS WITHOUT STATE' AND 'STATES WITHOUT

NATION'

As a political principle, nationalism holds that the nation and the state should be When
the nation and the state are co-extensive, the label is rarely used. It is assumed that all parties
and groups are nationalists because the nation they represent is already transformed into a state.
Here nationalism serves as a unifying factor. However, there are many nations in the world
which are without a state and there are and have been states without a nation. For a proper
understanding of nationalism, it is also important to understand how the nationalist discourse is
articulated in these states.

Nationalism in 'nations without a state' present substantially different political scenarios depending
the specific character nation-states such nations are included. At least
four situationscan be distinguished:

A nation state may acknowledgethe 'cultural differences' of its minorities, without allowing
more than the cultivation and promotion of their own culture and maintenanceof some deep
rooted elements of traditions. For example, Scotland and Wales although equal
partners with England within Britain, are forced to go down to London to solve their
domestic problems.

A certain degree of autonomy within the state is another option such as given to Catalonia
and the Basque country the Autonomous Community System created in Spain
France's dictatorship.

A nation can be integrated within a federation which permits high degree of self-determination
for nations without a state. For example Quebec in the Canadian political system has
benefited from wide political powers to decide about their social, economic and political life
without actually becoming independent.

There are certain nations which completely lack recognition from the state which contains
them. In such cases, the state itself in formulating policies aiming at eliminating the
differences within its territory. Violence in the form of military control of national minorities
is one option. Palestinians living in Israel, Tibetans in China etc are clear examples of this
situation.

On the other hand, the term 'states without a nation' or 'state-nation' is to a situation
in which a state is arbitrarily designed ignoring the cultural and linguistic identities groups
falling within its boundaries. A state-nation involves the creation of a state apparatus which
controls the legitimate use of the means of violence within its territory, holds internal external
sovereignty and receives international recognition of its status. The notion of the states without .
nation is applied in the case of ex-colonial countries of Asia and Africa where in most cases
there is no sense in which a nation preceded the emergence of the state. Here a difference can ,

be made between the initial form of nationalism as a movement directed against the colonial rule
and engaged in the struggle for independence,and nationalism's subsequent transformation into
a political discourse employed by new leaders to construct a nation capable of sustaining the
legitimacy of the state inherited from the colonial masters. As has been discussed above, a major
problem after independence has been that of 'nation building' transformation of the
. .
national ethnic, tribal loyalties into a feeling of national identity. Here the dichotomy between
tradition and modernity led to a series of gaps developing between diverse groups integrated into
the state. The economic backwardness and the heterogeneous nature of these states accounted
for their failure to integrate the diverse ethnic groups and tribes into a national Hence
the state exists but it is yet to reach the stage of a unified nation-state.
11.7 AND FUTURE OF
An important question that remains answered is what is the relation between nationalism
and the present wave of globalisation I) whether globalisation is a threat to nationalism or
ii) whether globalisation is producing a new national identity or iii) has it started a backlash in
the form of strengthening the common traditional cultures.

There is a global culture prevalent today which has five distinct dimensions. They are
i) ethnoscapes which means constant flow of people such as immigrants, guest workers, exiles,
refugees etc. across the world ii) technoscapes which means flow of machinery produced by
multinationals finance which is rapid flow of in the marketsand stock exchanges
across the world. iv) ideoscapes which means flow of images associated with state and political
ideologies such as democracy, freedom, welfare, rights, etc. and which is flow
of information through newspapers, images and magazines, television, films etc. The intensity
and rapidity of this global culture is trying to transform the world into a singular place where
process of cultural integration and disintegration take place. The crucial question is whether we
are moving towards a common culture or whether globalisation will strengthen a particular
culture. According to although as a consequence of globalisation cultures tend to
overlap and mingle, we are witnessing a process by which only very few cultures can be
elevated to the category of 'global culture' while most cultures find themselves enmeshed in a
global struggle for their self-determination. Theoretically, global identity has two weaknesses:
i) there is no continuity overtime there is no common past to evoke as a sense of solidarity
and ii) there is no differentiation from others (as in the case of national culture). Global culture
has to create a sense of of all peoples which is not possible because of the lack of
a 'global' language. The great success of stems from the capacity to appeal to a
socially and politically diversified population and them. The concept of global identity
is far removed from acquiring such capacity and stand as a alternative to the passionately
felt national identities. On the other hand, the present revival of ethnicity responds to the need
for identity but an identity of a local character. At the heart of modern societies lies a rapid
multiplication of contacts and a constant flow of information, both of which destroy the
homogeneity of individual cultures. Globalisation is pervasive and nobody can escape its
consequences. According to Lemucci, highly differentiated relations typical of complex societies
are unable to provide forms of membershipand identification to meet individuals's need for
realisation, communicative interaction and recognition. In this context, nationalism appears as a
reaction to two intrinsic constituents of modernity that are linked to globalisation: radical doubt
and fragmentation. In conditions of modernity and cross current of different cultures, we have
reached a stage where nothing can be taken for granted. Thus in a world of doubt and
fragmentation, tradition acquires new importance. Nationalism relies heavily upon tradition in so
far as it has common memories as one of its central features. Nationalism entails cultural
resistance and challenges modern societies by vindicating 'identity politics' the claim for
cultural difference based upon ethnicity. This is particularly relevant for the nations without a
state. Identity politics involves a progressive element in so far as it stands for the different, the

In view of the above, we can conclude that the future of nationalism is bright. of
globalisation and the quest for global culture, the proliferation of struggles for self-
determination in several parts of the world indicate that even the democratic nature of
states and granting sufficient autgnomy to the minorities within a nation-state has not solved the
problem and the use of force still remains the feature in the definition of nationalism. The
role of nationalism as a mass movement has played a crucial role in the conscription of large
armies and the waging of war. Currently, nationalism appeals to a wide ranging sectors of
population and stands as a dynamic agent that relies on violence as well as promotes peaceful
mass mobilisation. The call for independence in the Baltic republics and the disintegration of the
former Soviet Union stand as examples of the force of nationalism.

In the context of globalisation, the reluctance to give away sovereignty and loss of control over
domestic matters will increase the presence of nationalism in the nation-states' political discourse.
Here a growth of contradictory forces can be seen: On the one hand, to participate in international
forums and institutions and the search for the establishment of common policies with other
of the world community, and on the other, to protect the interests of the nation-state.
For example, the European Union has not reduced the preservation of the integrity and identity
of the nation-state. The European Union is likely to develop a new kind of nationalism. This will
not erase local identity but such nationalism will be invoked whenever common action is needed
ih the economic, social or political areas to fight a common enemy or defend the property of
the Union. This could be the super -nationalism. But the critical issues here will be how
to frame a specifically identity and which group will be considered as 'outsiders'

Contemporary uses tradition in the service of modernity. According to Touraine, the

nation is a 'non-modern actor that creates modernity'. Doubts and fragmentation are eminent
in modernity because are unexpected. The absence of a single sanctioned method
of knowledge reflected a certain kind of fragmentation that differs from the one present in our
time. The return to tradition emphasises the value of continuity in a context where constant
change and adoption to new social, political and technological environments determine the day-
to-day life of the individuals. The concept of nation is rooted in pre-modern times and the
perception of culture and language as products of the evolvement of a community over a period
of time will retain their strong power to attract the individuals. Tradition will continue to be
involved as a principle only in so far as it is constantly actualised. The new
elements brought about by modernity will be incorporated into and mixed with the traditional
forms of life.

Globalisation unleashes a pressing demand for identity among those individuals who regard the
totality of inherited ideas, beliefs, values and knowledge that constitute the shared basis of their
lives as threatened by the expansion of alien cultures endowed with greater resources. In many
cases, nationalism emerges as a response to progressive homogenisation and represents a
struggle to defend identity politics. Though the process of globalisation is intensifying, there is
no global identity which would suit to fulfill the needs of an otherwise diverse population. Thus
nationalism will survive the wave of globalisation.

11.8 SUMMARY
The above discussion on nationalism can be up as follows:

Nationalism is a sentiment that has to do with attachment to a homeland, a common

language, ideals, values and traditions, identification of a group with symbols such as flags,
songs etc which make it 'different' from others. The attachment creates an identity and the
appeal to that identity a past and the power to mobilise the people.

142
 A theory of nationalism has to deal with questions such as: how does nationalism legitimise
the use of violence in the quest for the creation of a state, what is the role of national
ideology, what is the role of leaders in the national movements and how far can they
contribute to the propagation of symbols and ideals,

One of the most distinctive features of nationalism is the capacity to bring together people
from different social and cultural levels. It is the invention of the ruling classes to maintain
the unconditional loyalty of the masses and make them believe that they have much in
common than what'separates them. This is one of the basic factors to consider in trying
to understand the persistence of nationalism.

Nationalism is a phenomenon which emerged the American and French revolutions.

The early liberal writers emphasised upon the humanitarian aspect of nationalism and laid
stress upon the socio-cultural aspects of nationalism such as common language, literature,
religion, traditions, habits, symbols etc. As industrial revolution matured, humanitarian
nationalism turned into imperial-expansionist nationalism. Marxism approached nationalism
from the point of view of historical materialism and branded it as an ideology of bourgeois
th
capitalism. During 20 century, Fascism associated nationalism with racial superiority and
annihilation of non-Aryan races. In the hands of ex-colonial countries of Asia and Africa,
nationalism became a potent weapon in their struggle for national liberation. While the
beneficial side of nationalism is laudable, it had a noxious character in the form of Fascism.

11.9 EXERCISES

1) Define the concept of Nationalism and distinguish nationalism from state, nation and
state.

2) Explain the different approaches to the study of Nationalism.

3) Critically examine the nation and state in the contemporary political scenario.

4) Evaluate nationalism in the context of contemporary wave of globalisation.

143
 UNIT 12 FORMS OF NATIONALISM

Structure
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Nations and Nationalism
12.2.1 Ancient and Modem Concept of Nationalism
12.2.2 Characteristics of Nation
12.3 Nationalism: Forms
12.3.1 European Nationalism
12.3.2 Non-European Nationalism
12.3.3 Nationalism as Difference
12.4 Nationalisms: Civic and Ethnic
12.5 Summary
12.6 Exercises

12.1 INTRODUCTION
Nationalism has arguably been the most powerful of historical forces that has shaped the self-
definition of individuals. It has also been a complex phenomenon uniformity in terms of
historical experiences or universality of conceptualisation. However, there are different forms of
nationalism, the differences accruing from the specific historical conditions and the special social
structure of any given country. In this unit, we shall look at the forms of nationalism as they
have emerged in specific historical contexts; identifjl the socio-economic and political forces
within which specific forms have emerged; and the broad framework of relationships within
which nationalisms can be understood and explained. ,

12.2 NATIONS AND NATIONALISM

You have already seen in the last unit that Nationalism, generally understood, refers to the self-
definition and self-consciousness of 'a people' as a unified entity. It concerns itself with the
manner in which people see themselves or identify as one as an ethnic community) and
the precise purposes towards which this is directed self-determination). An
expression of or interconnections among people, as well as recognition by others of
this solidarity, is integral to nationalism. There are different ways in which this solidarity is
conceived and articulated. While scholars of nationalism have differed on their delineation of
what binds people together as a social solidarity, their ethnic roots or their desire for self-
determination, by and large, they agree that nationalism involves (a) some level of integration
among members of a nation an idea of the whole (nation) or the collective identity (c) a
degree of understandingof the nature of membership in the whole and its relationship with other
similar wholes (or nations).

In other words, nationalism involves the self-definition by a people that they constitute a nation,
. the consciousnessthat there is something about them as a that makes them different

144
other nations, and that there is a larger imperative from which the as
derives. While social solidarity, collective identityand a sense of individual self and its relationship
with the whole are essential conditions for a people to call itself a nation and be recognised as
such, the manner in which is brought about and a collective identity articulated,
is of primary importance for understanding nationalism. The way social solidarity, collective
identity and questions of political legitimacy are interrelated, play a crucial role both in the
production of nationalist self-understandingsand the recognition of nationalist claims by others.
It is here that Benedict Anderson's description of nations as 'imagined communities' becomes
conceptual tool for understanding nationalism and its forms. Anderson proposes that
all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact and perhaps even these
are imagined (Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: on the Origin and
Spread of Nationalism, Verso, London, 1983,1991). Communities, including nations, may then
be distinguished or compared, not on the basis of their being false or genuine, or being natural,
real or imagined, but by the style or manner in which they are imagined. There may be
different ways of distinguishing communities, such as their scale, extent of administrative
organisation, degree of internal equality, and so forth. But the distinctive form of imagining
collective identity and social solidarity that is associated with nationalism is our primary concern
in this unit.

Nationalisms have differed in their content and form, depending on historically contingent situations
and contexts. Anthony D. Smith defines nationalism as 'an ideological movement, for the
attainment and maintenance of self-government and independence on behalf of a group, some
of whose members conceive it to constitute an actual or potential nation like others'. Smith's
definition aims to capture the core content of nationalism, which he sums up in the phrase 'ideal
of independence'. The logical corollaries of such attempts to attain and maintain
independence are:

I) Securing fraternity and equality among co-nationals or citizens by integrating them into a
homogenous unit.

2) Unification in a single nation-state of extra-territorial co-national.

3) Stressing cultural individuality through accentuation of 'national' differentiate.

4) The drive for economic autarchy and self-sustaining growth.

5) Attempts to expand the nation-state to maintain international power and status.

6) Renewing the cultural and social of the nation through sweeping institutional changes,
to maintain international parity.

While the writings of modern nationalists may reveal a wide variety of concerns, in concrete
instances, nationalist movements select their goals from these corollaries, depending on the
circumstances. Thus the ideal of fraternity, the desire for popular sovereignty, the
need for communal regeneration and the notion of finding one's identity through
purification, the search for 'roots', the need to belong, a new sense of human dignity realisable
only in a national state, the ideals of participation and of building the 'new man', the idea that
every nation should have a state for its and every individual attach himself to
the nation-state for self-realisation, the return to the communal Golden Age, the

145
with nature and 'natural man' etc., appear as recurrent and persisting themes. In these set of
ideas and aspirations, Smith identifies three key notions, form the sine qua of modern
nationalism. These are the ideas of (collective) and pluralism, which
together form the modern 'ideal of independence'. The doctrine of autonomy of the individual
is associated with Kant. In its collective form, it'owes, however, to Rousseau and Fichte.
Because of its communal individuality, the group should be free from external interference and
divisiveness to frame its own rules and set up its own institutions, in accordance with
its needs and 'character'. The group is self-determining, because its individuality gives it laws
that are peculiar to it. Only the assembly of all the citizens community acting in concert
can make laws for the community; no section, no individual, and no outsider can legislate.

12.2.1 Ancient and Modern Concept of Nationalism

Before we look at the specific historical forms of nationalisms, it is important to note that despite
variations in the manner in which nationalisms have thought of the 'autonomous collective' or
the nation, the modem understandingof nation is remarkably different from its earlier usages.
In ancient Rome the Latin word meaning 'a group of outsiders', referred to the communities
of foreigners who lived in Rome as aliens and did not have the privilege of Roman citizenship.
Moreover, the term nation had a derogatory connotation, in so far as being a 'national' placed
one below Roman in terms of status. The term nation understood as 'a community of foreigners'
was applied to communities of students in medieval universities. These students rarely belonged
to the place where the university was situated and with their professors, they were identified
with certain intellectual positions. This led to a modified understanding of 'nation' not only and
primarily as a 'community of foreigners', but also, rather, as a 'community of opinion'. The
concept 'nation' no longer connoted a situation of disadvantage, but its application was still very
limited. It was also temporary as a student lost his identity as a nation immediately upon
completion of studies, and discontinuing his association with the University.

The dominant meaning of the word 'nation' as a 'community of opinion' was in yet
another situation: the medieval ecclesiastical councils. These councils represented the various
positions in regard to the organisation of the Christiana and were composed of
representativesof both secular and ecclesiasticalChristian potentates. Referred to as 'nations',
the meaning of the term was modified again and came to mean 'representatives of (cultural and
political) authority' or cultural and political elite. 'National identity' became honorific, but it again
remained temporary and limited to a small group of exceptional individuals. It was in this new
honorific sense, however, that the concept was applied, in the early 16th century, to the people
of England, to be transformed yet again, to be understood as a synonym of the 'people', and
acquiring its modern political meaning as a 'sovereign people' (Liah Greenfeld, 'Etymology,
Definitions, Types' in Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Academic Press, 2001, Pp.251-265.)

This modem meaning of nation as connoting a sovereign people or a community of equals

nation-hood a desirable status. Moreover, the concept also assumed an unprecedented universality.
The concept 'nation' became the overarching identity embracing every member of the 'English
people', each one of whom had a national identity. It must be noted that with the new meaning
and widened scope of nation, a dramatic change occurred in the meaning of 'people' itself.
it came to be associated with the nation, the term people, was generally used to refer
of the two concepts - 'nation' which meant 'elite -and 'people' which meant 'plebs' implied
3

a reconceptualisation of both the concepts. The 'people' as 'nation' acquired immense prestige
and far from being the depoliticised rabble masses, were redefined as an object of loyalty and
the basis ofpolitical solidarity. With the new association, when one talked English, French,
German, or Russian people, one referred to all the constituent members, the free and equal
members constituting the citizenry. This was accompanied by a major transformation in the
social order. Defined as a nation, the community, inclusive classes, had to be imagined as
sovereign, and as a community of equals. was this aspiration for a transformed social solidarity
as the basis for a new form of political camaraderie, which informed nationalism. In its modern
meaning as 'a sovereign people', the word nation came to have yet another connotation, when
applied to other populations and countries which, also lay claims to political, territorial
ethnic qualities to distinguish them as nations. As a result of this association, 'nation' changed
its meaning once again, and came to signify 'a unique' sovereign people'. The new meaning
of the nation, associated as it was with the 'uniqueness' of a sovereign people, came to assume
a particularistic nature. In other words, the structural conditions viz., industrialisation, social
mobility, bourgeois revolution, movements for democratisation, which were associated with the
notion of 'nation as a sovereign people', were relegated by the idea of nation as a sovereign
people, who were also distinguished by particular ethnic characteristics. The new meaning of
the nation, it has been felt by some scholars of nationalism, has transformed profoundly the
nature of nationalism. It may be pointed out that both the connotations of 'nation' exist today,
and reflect two radically different forms of nationalism, with different of national identity
and consciousness,and two radically different types of national collectivities.A discussion of the
two forms will be undertaken in section 12.3 Nationalisms: Civic and Ethnic

12.2.2 Characteristics of Nation

While the manner in which social solidarity and cohesion was thought of differed, and as
mentioned earlier, depended on historically contingent socio-political forces, the following
characteristics of a nation may be seen as constituting a 'pattern of preponderance':

Boundaries of territory or both.

2) the notion that the nation is an integral unit.

3) Sovereignty or at least the aspiration to sovereignty, and thus formal equality with other
nations, usually as an autonomous and putative self-sufficient state.

4) An 'ascending' notion of legitimacy - the idea that government is just only when
supported by popular will or at last when it serves the interests of 'the people' or 'the
nation'.

5) Popular participation in collective affairs - a population mobilised on the basis of national

membership (whether for war or civic activities).

6) Direct membership, in which each individual is understood to be immediately a part of the

nation and in that respect categorically equivalent to other members.

7) Culture, including some combination of language, shared beliefs and values, habitual practices.
8) depth - a notion of the nation as such existing through time, including past and
future generations, and having a history.

9) Common descent or racial characteristics.

10) Special historical or even racial characteristics.

The above characteristics, while the characteristics of a nation, are also features of the
rhetoric of nation or the claims that are commonly made in describing nations. Moreover,
sovereignty, integrity, and social solidarity also inform the aspiration and to constitute
a nation. Notwithstanding the 'pattern of preponderance' identified above, historically
have differed in the manner in which this solidarity was envisaged, and the way in which it was
sought to be achieved. In the following sections we shall examine some of these forms of
nationalism.

12.3 NATIONALISMS: HISTORICAL FORMS

12.3.1 European Nationalism: The Cases of England, France and

Germany

Nationalism has taken diverse forms historically. In all cases, however, there seemed to have
existed a group or groups of people, thrown up by processes of socio-economic change, who
felt constrained by their traditional identity and the definition of social order expressed in it. In
the case for example, the growth of capitalism, industrialisation and urbanisation, led
to the emergence of a middle class, which found itself at odds with the elite. At the
same time, the kind of social relations and economic transactions that capitalism envisaged were
at variance with the traditional hierarchies and idea of reciprocity that informed the traditional
of state and society. The structures of state that subsequently evolved saw a greater
distancing between the spheres of politics, and the social and economic spheres, the latter
characterised by notions of liberty and freedom. The bonds that held such a society together
were a mutual recognition liberty and a sense of allegiance to the state. Thus the
English idea of the nation was individualistic, and throve on notions of individual sovereignty and
allegiance to the state. Ideas freedom and change were, however, not confined to England.

Enlightenment thought, which animated social thought and practice in Europe, triggered movements
for political freedom against the Monarchy in France. The revolutionary struggle for liberty,
equality and fraternity, transformed the basis of the socio-political structure. Ideas of equality
and participation in collective life became the mainstay of the new social solidarity.
nation was marked by a horizontal camaraderie and characterised by what has beeh called a
'daily plebiscite' emphasising its participatory, republican nature. The prominent social forces
that rose in the struggle against dynastic rule were the lesser landowners or gentry, an emergent
national middle and even lower middle class and professional intellectuals as spokesmen. As
distinct from the English individualisticand civic nationalism, French Nationalism along with
exemplified another form of nationalism that emerged in Western Europe namely,
Collectivist Nationalism. The French and German are, however, different in so far as
basis for solidarity. In of the Napoleonic Wars, the Germans built the foundations of
a modern government on the vestiges of medieval rule, cemented by in their past culture.
The table below shows the forms of historical nationalisms:

Historical Types of Nationalism

Individualistic Collectivistic

Civic Ethnic civic Ethnic

I None
case England France Russia

Paradigmatic England, USA France Germany

case

Source: Liah Greenfeld, 'Etymology, Definitions, Types', Encyclopedia Nationalism, Volume

I, Academic Press, 2001, p.261.

In the following paragraphs we shall examine the three model cases of Nationalism in Western

The contours of Nationalism started taking shape in England in the early sixteenth century in
the context of the decimation of the feudal order in the late fifteenth century. Fifteenth century
English society was feudal, and informed by ideas that assumed that inequality was natural,
divinely ordained, and therefore, permanent and unchangeable. The justification of inequality and
hierarchy was sought in the divine plan or the cosmic order. An individual's status in the social
hierarchy was part of the divine order of things, fulfilling its appointed purpose in a larger
providential scheme. There were three major feudal orders or 'estates', viz., the nobility, the
clergy and the toilers, each with a defined and separate role, with restrictions on inter-order
mobility. A massive restructuring of this order was brought about by the War of the Roses that
ended in 1485 and saw the accession of the Tudor dynasty to the English throne. The war
resulted in the decimation of the traditional, feudal aristocracy and created a vacuum at the top
of the social hierarchy, necessitatingsome degree of upward social mobility. The new aristocracy
that replaced the old clergy and nobility were officials, primarily University-trained laymen
who belonged to the gentry and the lower strata. The emergence of aristocracy
transformed the basis of English society. No longer was status dependent on birth. Merit and
ability became significant criteria. Moreover, the growth of capitalism, gave a new respectability
to economic activity for profit rather than for mere subsistence. A new class of merchants
contributed towards redefining social stratification and occupational The new
aristocracy justified this new framework of upward mobility with the help of a new social
that distanced itself from the feudal imagination of divine order and
schema of things. The new consciousness was nationalism, which reflected the changed order
of society wherein every of the 'nation' or the 'people' enjoyed the dignity of the elite,
invested with the right of
I
or the nation collectively was in turn defined as sovereign. It is important to recognise that the
sovereignty of the nation in England was derived from the presumed sovereignties of each
member in the imagined national collectivity and that the nation was defined as a composite
entity which existed only insofar as its members kept the social compact, and had neither .
interests nor will, separate from the interests and wills of these members. English nationalism,
according to Liah Greenfeld, therefore, was essentially individualistic, and also civic in the
sense that national identity was identical with citizenship or voluntary membership in the
community.

France

Much before nationalism emerged in France, there existed a distinct French identity around the
specificity of French Christianity as distinguishedfrom and superior to the Roman, claimed by
the French kings. From the twelfth century onwards, the king was seen as the 'true'
of God on earth, and there was no distinction between religious and political spheres of activity.
In the early modem period, however, a secularisation of French identity occurred, primarily due
to the religious wars in the sixteenth century, which contributed to the French identity assuming
a political form. The idea of the state as the area, over which the king had authority, transformed
French identity from being a good Christian to membership in the community of the king's
subjects. The community of subjects was structured by a chain of relationships, constituted by
a hierarchy of officials, which bound the king's sphere of authority. Over time, the hierarchy of
came to wield authority and evince loyalty in their own sphere of authority. This
emergence of a parallel system of loyalty served to give an identity to the state as a network
of structures distinct from the king and replaced the latter as the object of loyalty in the minds
of the subjects. It must also be pointed out that the primary movers and beneficiaries of this
distancing between the king and the state and the consequent change in the focus of the
subject's loyalty were members of the French aristocracy. Unlike England, where the nobility
enjoyed a degree of autonomy from the king within the feudal set up, the absolutist nature of
the monarchy in France, meant that the aristocracy was dependent on royal power for their
status and wealth. The aristocracy remained opposed to royal absolutism and struggled against
it continually. No longer wishing to see the king and state as one, it insisted on interpreting the
state as the of France - the French people and territory - as a nation. This
interpretation of the French people as nation, was influenced by the English notion of nation, and
into France by French intellectualswhose association with the aristocracy contributed
to the redefinition of the identity of the nobility in France.

I
When the concept 'nation' was first imported into France, it was seen as synonymous with the
nobility and it continued to be identified as such uptil the French Revolution (1789). Even after
1789, the 'nation' referred to people, represented by the elite who through their assumption of
the role of representation affirmed their political power. Unlike England, French nationalism was
collectivistic, authoritarian and based on an inequality between the masses and the representatives
who assumed the role of representing them. At the same time, unlike English nationalism, French
nationalism was civic, membership in the French nation was not dependent on ties of race,
ethnicity etc. It defined itself in terms of an openness of membership based ultimately on
participationas citizens. It is here that some scholars of nationalism see a contradiction between
individual which a civic criterion of implies and the authoritarianism, which
Germany

Unlike English or French German nationalism owed its creation to the dissatisfaction
of middle class intellectuals, rather than the aristocracy. It must be pointed out that the middle
class intellectuals or the 'educated bourgeoisie' enjoyed a higher status despite the fact that most

The primary reason perhaps was the aspirations and promises that the Enlightenment movement
brought in its wake among intellectuals, which led to disillusionment and dissatisfaction as the
increase in the numbers of intellectuals was accompanied by unemploymentand poverty among
them. The fall in status triggered a reaction against Enlightenment, by the 'educated bourgeoisie'.
This intellectual response termed as Romanticism, consisted of diverse strands, characterised
generally by expressions of discontent with the changes that followed the two revolutions,
French and Industrial, and sought to replace the notion of the rational self with the creative self.
Rejecting the notion of a well-ordered rational society embodying progress, Romantic critiques
opened up the possibility of diverse understandings and expressions of relationship of the self
with nature. The Romantics did not formulate a philosophy for a German political system for
a long time until the Napoleonic invasion evinced the articulation of a German fraternity. Thus
unlike the French experience where the rulers were targeted, the Romantics presented the
cause of the rulers as the 'German cause'. Since the representatives of German Enlightenment
were discredited owing to the antagonism against the French, the German national consciousness
was determined by Romantic philosophy. The latter advocated overcoming the self and recognised
communities as the only true selves or individuals. The only true communities were those that
were held together by ties of languages, which in turn were determined by ties of blood or
'race'. Based on these principles, the idea of the nation was conceived as a natural community,
created by race and language. The German nation was thus envisaged, quite like the French
nation, as a collective entity. Unlike the French case, however, it was primarily an ethnic
community, its membership determined by natural ties, which were innate and could not be
acquired. (For details on English, French and German Nationalisms see Liah 'Western
Europe', Encyclopaediaof Nationalism, Volume I , Academic Press, London, pp.883-898)

12.3.2 Nationalisms

So far we havk seen that nationalism requires social solidarity, collective identity and a sense
of the autonomous self and its relationship with the sovereign collective. All these aspects were
evident in the three European experiences in Nationalism we have discussed above. Scholars
of Nationalism like Benedict Anderson have, however, emphasised the notion of nation as a
discursive formation, referring to a way of thinking about social solidarity and collective
identity.

In has come to be seen as one of the most popular conception of the nation to have
emerged in the past years, Benedict Anderson characterises the nation as political
and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign'. By 'imagined' Anderson
means the fact that 'the of even the smallest nation will never know most of their
fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of
their communion'. This imagining is limited because the process is spatially limited to the
its telos is the nation-state. Finally, says Anderson, 'it is imagined as a community because
regardlessof the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always
conceived as a deep horizontal relationship'.

An important argument by Anderson, with which we are primarily concerned in this section, is
the assertion that once emergent, nationalism assumed a modular form, where it was
available for future mobilisations. Anderson identifies three models that were available for
emulation, viz., (i) Creole nationalism of the Americas where imagined communities were
created by 'pilgrim Creole functionariesand provincial Creole whoseeconomic interests
were pitted against the metropole (ii) Linguistic nationalism of Europe with a strong populist
bent, and based on a national-state(iii) nationalism, or imposition of cultural
homogeneity from the top. The broader point in Anderson's schema is that the three 'modular'
forms were available to the colonial intelligentsia to emulate. While these forms
(print-languages, the idea of the nation) helped shape and define anti-colonial consciousness, it
was the bilingual intelligentsia produced by colonial education that interpreted the modular
experiences for the masses, and also became instrumental in bringing about the demise of
colonial rule.

Colonial rule, it may be noted was a significant historical experience for almost all of the
Americas (in the and centuries) and of Asia and Africa in the and the
centuries. Nationalism in colonial societies tended to be anti-colonial and emerged, according to
Anderson, from the and solidarities of an earlier group of colonial elites. As in the
European experiencesdiscussed above, nationalismstoo, emerged within the specific
context of the balance of social forces and frameworks of political rule. Examining the emergence
of nationalism in Latin America, Anderson points out that the Hispanic (colonial) rule in Latin
America was carried out through an administrative framework that produced a peculiar career
pattern. Spanish America was divided into a variety of administrative units. The top officials in
the administrative framework came from Spain and returned to higher positions in Spain after
serving in the colony. While these officials on the highest rungs of the colonial bureaucracy were
'outsiders' and experienced an upward or vertical mobility in their careers, a large body of
Creole officers who served under them, was subjected to a different career trajectory. The
Creole officers were Spaniards by descent, language and to an extent, culture. They were,
however, locally born, and it was this difference in birth that restricted the career opportunities
available to them. Their career graphs were laterally circumscribed, in the sense that while they
could within the colony birth, they could not, unlike the 'true' Spaniards, move
from one Spanish colony to the other (say Mexico, Chile etc.), or 'return' to Spain. This
distinction between the career patterns of the Spanish and Creole officers generated a sense
of among the Creole elite. At the same time it also encouraged a sense of 'solidarity'
among them and 'identification' with the 'homeland' that is, the (colonised) place of their birth.
The fact that the Creole moved from one place to another in the colony, gave them
knowledge about the land. As educated elite, they were able to transmit their sense of
identificationand solidarity through the print media, providing a cultural basis for national identity
and unification.Anderson feels that all these factors lay behind some of the earliest nationalist
movements in the colonies. The struggles for national liberation were led more often than not
by the privileged elite, people who spoke the same language and shared the same religion
as whose rule they challenged. Jn Anderson's view, it was not in the imperial
but in the that people first came to conceptualise themselves as bearers of distinctive
nationalities. Once its development began, however, the notion of nation entered a cosmopolitan
discourse, ultimately informing European thought and radical politics of the and centuries,
and anti-colonial throughout the world. (For details see Benedict Anderson,
Communities, 1983, and Craig Calhoun, Open University Press, Buckingham,
1997, Chapter 6: Imperialism, Colonialism and the World-System

12.3.3 Nationalism as. Difference

Andersons's demonstration of the origin and spread of nationalism was innovative for showing
that nations were not entirely determined by structural coriditions or sociological factors like
race, religion or language. They were also not, as Gellner would have us believe mere fabrications.
Nations were 'imagined' into existence and this imagination was assisted by several factors, the
predominant one being that of Several scholars have, however, found Anderson's
metaphor of 'modularity' or 'modular forms' of nationalism, misleading and problematic. Craig
Calhoun, for example, rejects Anderson's that there are 'modular forms' that could
be transplanted into new cultural settings without 'basic' or alterations.Similarly,
Chatterjee rejects the argument that the experience of nationalism in Western
Europe, in the Americas, and in Russia had supplied to all subsequent nationalisms a set of
modular forms, from which nationalist elites in Asia and Africa had chosen the ones they liked.
fact, Chatterjee uses Anderson's conception of nation as an community to reject
the argument of modular forms of nationalisms. If nationalisms in the rest of the world have to
chose 'their' imagined communities from certain modular forms already available to them,
'what' asks Chatterjee, 'do they have to imagine'? Claiming that formulation prescribes
the colonisation of anti-colonial resistance and imaginationsof nationalism, Chatterjee posits that
anti-colonial nationalisms were not based on an identity with the 'modular forms of the national
society propagated by the West'. most powerful as well as creative of
nationalist imagination in Asia and Africa were in fact based on a with the modular
forms. his earlier work Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse,
Chatterjee had read the appearance of in the late colonial world, as part and parcel
of imperial domination and colonial oppression, and a 'derivative discourse', therefore. It blocked
the way for authentic self-generated, autonomous development among communities, which
remained dominated by self-seeking, ultimately collaborationist 'nationalist' politicians, intellectuals,
bureaucratsand capitalists.

12.4 NATIONALISMS: AND ETHNIC

The above discussion makes it clear that despite having some core characteristics, there is in
fact no uniform 'nationalism', nor are there a set of determinate conditions or structures which
would produce one kind of nationalism as distinct from the other. Historically, we have seen,
nationalisms in different forms and have unfolded in different ways. There is,
however, a tendency among social scientists to categorise nationalisms into two broad and
dichotomous categories. The two categories are conceptualised in different sources in oppositional
terms, as 'political vs. cultural', 'Western vs. Eastern' and more recently 'civic vs. ethnic'
nationalisms, reflecting a general divide among scholarson the question of origin and nature of
nationalism. This categorisation is often accompanied with attributions of 'good' nationalism
(patriotism) and 'bad' nationalism (chauvinism) to civic and ethnic nationalisms,
 and discrete, ignoring thereby the commonalitiesthat may exist, and the broader framework of
socio-economic structures of which the two are a part.

The three pairs of dichotomous categories, 'political vs. cultural', vs. Eastern', and
'civic vs. ethnic', focus attention on the same dividing line, but with slightly different emphasis.
While agreeing that all nationalisms cultural andpolitical, the dichotomy political vs. cultural
stresses the relative salience and historical priority of principles of political organisation vs.
preoccupation with language, literature, history, and folklore in various nationalisms. In the
Westem-Eastem dichotomy, the categories 'East' and 'West' are generally cultural, rather than
geographical markers. A 'western' nation is implicitly defined as 'civic', and the 'eastern' nation
as The categories 'civic' and 'ethnic' closely contribute to the 'political' and 'cultural'
types, with a greater emphasis, in the case of 'civic' on the concept and institutionof citizenship,
and an implicit understanding in the of 'ethnic', that perhaps reflects a deeper emphasis on
'natural' or 'biological' forces such as race, 'blood and soil', which form the ultimate reality
underneath nationhood and national identity.
I

I The dividing line reflects the view held popularly and also by some social scientists (notably
Hans Kohn) that nations are the most complete manifestation of the oldest identity of mankind.
This view holds that nations have a long and continuous history reaching well into the
modem period. Almost all nationalists trace the origins of their national identityfar back into the
pre-modem period. Other scholars of nationalism like Ernest and Anthony Smith while
not agreeing that nations are manifestations of natural ties do not deny that 'earlier' ethnic ties
and memories of 'pre-modern ethnic identities and communities' do influence nationalisms.
Jurgen Habermas, writing on the issue of the future of the nation-state, in the context of the
processes leading to a unified Germany, the European Union, the global economy, the nationality
conflicts in Eastern Europe etc., points out that the meaning of the 'nation' has changed from
designatinga pre-political unity of a community with a shared historical destiny, to somethingthat
was supposed to play a constitutive role in defining the political identity of the citizen within a
democratic polity. Thus the manner in which national identity determined citizenship has in fact
been reversed. The nation, in the context of these developments would rather be conceived as
a nation of citizens, which derives its identity not from some common ethnic and cultural
properties, but rather from the practice of citizens, who actively exercised their rights in equal
interest of all. This formulation is reminiscent of Ernest Renan's dictum, 'the existence of a
nation... is a daily plebiscite' using which, Renan was able to counter 1871, the German
Empire's claim to the Alsace by referring to the inhabitants French nationality. Renan could
conceive of the 'nation' as a nation of citizens which derived its identity not from some common
ethnic and cultural properties, but rather civic practices of citizens who actively exercised
their civil rights.

12.5 SUMMARY
The above discussion has shown that there is no 'general', 'uniform' or 'modular' nationalism
that can be applied universally. Historically, different types of nationalism have occurred with
different conceptionsof national collectivitiesand constructions of nationhood. The common
denominator of all these different movements, ideas, policies and projects is the nationalist
discourse. In other words, what unites nationalism is the discourse and rhetoric of nationhood,
which has at its core ideas of self-consciousness and self-determination. Self-consciousness and
self-determination are woven around the notion of 'people' as a unified entity. The idea of the
nation has emerged historically as a category denoting an identity or one-ness and this sense of
one-ness, identity and unity, to a large extent, was contingent on notions of equality which
informed the modem meaning of the nation. The aspiration for nationhood with its emphasis on
sovereignty and equality has been the basis of all nationalisms. The manner in which the
solidarity or the community of equals was thought of, or came into being has been In
all cases, however, nationalism sought to bring forth the idea of the nation as a promise of
liberation existing structures of domination and inequality. Thus English nationalism emerged
in response to the changes which industrialisationand urbanisation brought in, a kind
of social relations and economic transactions which were fettered by and were at odds with the
traditional structures of hierarchy. While the English nation was envisaged as solidarity held
together by mutual respect for individual liberty and a sense of allegiance for the state, the
French revolution threw up the idea of the nation which throve on equality and participation in
collective life. If the basis for solidarity in the French case was the idea of civil participation,
the German case was distinguished by its emphasis on a cultural identity determined by language
and blood ties. The idea of cultural specificity as the basis of a distinctive national identity was
also to be seen in anti-colonial nationalisms, which emphasised their uniqueness as the basis of
sovereignty. Scholars of nationalism often fall into the trap of categorising nationalisms as 'civic
and ethnic', or 'western and eastern', or 'political and cultural', where civic nationalisms are
associated with western forms and associated with positive attributes. While concepts of 'civic'
and 'ethnic' are useful, they do not capture all the significant differences (differences that are
translated into differences in political and social institutionsand patterns) between
historical nationalisms.Moreover, when taken as dichotomous, oppositional and exclusive, they
fail as both descriptive and explanatory categories.

12.6 EXERCISES .

1) At the core of nationalism are ideas of social solidarity and popularsovereignty. Show how
these core ideas manifest themselves in different forms English and French nationalisms. ,
2) Explain how the idea of the 'people' gets constituted in different ways in French and
German nationalisms.

3) What is the relevance of Anderson's notion of nationalism forms? How far do

you think the notion of formscan be sustained by actual experiencesof nationalisms?

4) What according to you are the virtues and limits of categorisation of nationalisms as
civic and ethnic?
UNIT 13 COLONIALISM AND ANTI-COLONIAL
STRUGGLES
Structure
13.1
13.2 Origin and Growth of Colonialism
13.2.1 The Economics of Colonialism
Patterns of Colonialism
Debate on Imperialism
13.2.4 Social Impact of Colonialism
Role of the Middle Class
13.3 Case Studies in Colonialism
13.3.1 Colonialism in America
3.2 Colonial Imperialism in South and Southeast Asia
13.3.3 Anti-colonial Struggles in South and East Asia
Japan and the USA
13.3.5 Colonialism in the Asiatic Empires
13.3.6 Colonialism in Africa
13.4 Patterns of Anti-Colonial Struggle
13.4.1 India as a Model
13.4.2 The Sacred Versus the Secular
13.5 Summary
13.6 Exercises

13.1 INTRODUCTION
Modem historians call the period from the late nineteenth century to the middle of the twentieth
century 'the age of modern imperialism.' The term 'imperialism' was coined by Benjamin
Disraeli in 1872 in the context of the British general election of 1874. Among the critics of
imperialism the most famous names are those of J. A. a British liberal,and V.I.
the Russian Marxist leader of the Bolshevik revolution.

More accurately, the age should be called 'the age of colonial empires.' In the second half of
the nineteenth century Karl and Frederick used the 'colonialism.'
was the first to pick up the term 'imperialism' for criticism from the economic angle and was
followed by a host of political economists and historians in a vigorous debate that has not yet
ended.

Imperialism, in the pure sense, is a political concept signifying power of one country above
others. In the pure sense 'colonialism' is a demographic concept signifyingthe presence of a
population in a foreign country. Of course, when a population lives in a country other than its
own original country on terms of the local population they are usually called 'aliens' or
'immigrants' or 'minorities.' is only when a foreign population dominates the local population
in terms of number or power or both they are usually called 'colonisers.' Of course, that entails
a relation of power and, in social sciences, power over others is considered political power. But
that may not be imperial power unless there is a 'centre' abroad from which that power is
derived. On the other hand, imperial rule needs the presence of personnel of the imperial
even iftemporarily, in the subject country. Both colonialism and imperialism,however,
have strong economic contents.

13.2 THE AND GROWTH OF MODERN COLONIALISM

13.2.1 The Economics of Colonialism

Both colonisation and empire building are ancient practices. Ancient Greece and Rome had both
colonies and empires though empires meant a bigger than colonies. Such colonisation
was backed by the 'home county' that, in turn, derived revenues from the colonies. In the
and the sixteenth centuries began a vigorous colonisation drive of the European powers
in search of land and natural resources like gold. The continents of America and Africa fell
victim to it. Later Asia and Australia came under the spell of the drive. 'In the last half of the
Seventeenth Century,' we are told by the British historian G.M. Trevelyan, 'England's statesmen
and merchants put a high value on her American colonies.' He writes:

'The overseas possessions were valued as fulfilling a twofold purpose. First as supplying
an appropriate outlet for the energetic, the dissident, the oppressed, the debtors, the
criminals, and the failures of old England - a sphere where the energies of men who were
too good or too bad not to be troublesome at home,,might be turned loose to the general
advantage; as yet there no pressing question of a purely economic excess of population
in England. Secondly, the colonies were valued as markets where raw materials could be
bought, and manufactured articles sold, to the advantage of industry and
commerce

the late eighteenth century, however, the thirteen British colonies in North America seceded
from the empire and, though soon they called themselves 'states', they remained colonies all the
same. having annihilated or pushed into 'reservations' their original inhabitants. In the Portuguese
and the Spanish colonies of Latin America the process was more or less the same but there
was some mixture. The growth of what Eric Hobsbawm called 'Creole nationalism' backed by
the United Kingdom and the United States led to their secession from the respective empires
in the first quarter of the nineteenth century.

By the mid-nineteenth century, the United Kingdom emerged as the biggest colonial empire of
the world. The British Crown took over the administrationof India in 1858 the English East
India Company. Soon it granted local autonomy to her white colonies while her financial grip
over their economies remained more or less intact. Netherlands and France had colonial
possessions in South-East Asia and Africa. Even the new state of Belgium acquired a colony
in Africa's Congo. Immense rivalry for colonial possessions in Africa broke out in the last
quarter of the nineteenth century when Germany joined the race. The result, finally, was World
War 1.
13.2.2 Patterns of Cotonisation
In 1865 Marx noted three kinds colonies

1) The Plantation Colonies as in the West

2) The Well-Populated Countries like Mexico and India.

3) The 'Colonies Proper' like Australia.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century added to the list the colonies 'subsidiary to
the stock markets' as in Africa.

Though several British historians have vouched that the flag followed trade, to Marx the early
trade of Europe in general and Britain in particular was a part of the process of primitive
accumulation of industrial capital. The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation,
enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of conquest
and looting of the East the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting
of black-skins, signified the rosy dawn of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are the
chief moments of primitive accumulation.

The different moments of primitive accumulation distributed themselves, more or less in

chronological order, p over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France and England. In England
at the end of the 17 century, they arrived at a systematical combination, embracing the
colonies, the national debt, the modem mode of taxation, and the protectionist system. These
methods depended in part on brute force, the colonial system. But they all employed the
power of the State, the concentrated and organised force of society, to hasten, hot-house
fashion, the process of transformation of feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode, and
to shorten the transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one.
It is itself an economic power. Brute force backed by the and economic manoeuvres
against the subordinated countries are the salient features of capitalist colonialism in
view. Quoting from the British Parliamentary proceedings, Marx showed that England did not
actually pay for her imports from India because England paid for it by 'good government'- .He
wrote:

alone has to pay 5 million in tribute for "good government," interest and dividend on
British capital etc., not counting the sum sent home annually by officials as savings their
salaries, or by English merchantsas part of their profit to be invested in England. Every British
colony continually has to make large remittances for the same reason. Most of the banks in
Australia, the West and Canada, have been founded with English capital; and the dividends
-
are payable in England. In the same way, England owns many foreign securities European,
and South American - on which it draws interest. In addition to this it has
interest in foreign railways, canals, mines, etc., with corresponding dividends. Remittance on all
these items is made almost exclusively in products over and above the amount of English
exports. On the other hand what is sent from England to owners of English securities abroad
and for consumption by Englishmen abroad is insignificant in comparison".

By the middle of the nineteenth century colonialism became integrated with what Marx called
'the expanded mode of capitalist production,' through lending and investment abroad. Banks and
stock exchanges were the chief instruments of this strategy. These were the points highlighted
13.2.3 Debate on Imperialism
Colonial imperialism always had two kinds ofjustification. One was that it was 'the white man's
burden' - acivilising mission to the benefit of the backward countries. Another was that it was
unintended - merely forced by circumstances that hindered free trade of the West. In 1961
Robinson and Gallagher brought out the thesis that Britain generally did business with the
European world through collaborators. It was only when such collaborators were not found, or
turned into adversaries that she would annex their 'territories. Further, Britain's African
annexations were primarily to safeguard trade routes to India. Gallagher's Indian student, Anil
Seal, went ahead of this thesis to declare that the annexation of India by Britain had been
primarily for safeguarding her trade route to the East

Serious debate on colonial imperialism had started at the beginning twentieth century with
J. imperialism of benefiting a handful ofcapitalists in England and not
the traders or the common men. In 191 7 held economic imperialism to be the highest state
of that had divided the entire world among the Western hegemons and caused World
War 1. He identified the of monopoly, the union of industrial capital and finance capital,
and export of capital to colonies as the chief features of this stage of capitalism.

In 1919, however, the liberal economist, J.A. Schumpeter, offered a 'sociological theory'
of imperialism denying any necessary connection between capitalism and imperialism. He saw
imperialism as flowing from atavistic, feudalistic mentalities and certain pre-capitalistic social
structures.

Lenin's critics have challenged Lenin mainly on the third point about - namely export
of capital to the colonies. They offer statistics to show bulk of the British foreign
investments were in self-governing (white colonies) and the independent Latin
American countries but not to It was only after World War that, Britain started investing
in Africa for 'development'. In a way, this criticism of Lenin strengthens argument about
colonies being the source of primitive accumulation. But cannot be faulted for ignoring the
aspect of exploitation of raw materials as a major purpose of colonisation. Rather, he gave a
dynamic dimension to this aspect by stressing that it was a continuous need of developed
capitalism. According to him, the more capitalism developed, the strongly the shortage of
raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and hunt for sources of raw materials
throughout the whole world, the more desperate the struggle for acquisition of colonies.

Exploitation of raw materials and marketing of finished products have been found to be the chief
features of colonial by even the non-Marxist historians. The early political economists
of India like Dadabhai Naoroji, M.G. and R.C. Dutt highlighted this aspect of direct
exploitation of the subject people by the colonial powers causing poverty to the subject people
in India.

It should, on the other hand, be noted that Britain's white colonies,after the American Revolution,
were given of autonomy that the North American colonies had never enjoyed.
Further, a few years after the Revolution, Britain mended her fence with the United
States of America. The Monroe Doctrine of 1812 excluded all other European powers from
competition with Britain and the USA over Latin American soil. Latin America grew into a
virtual colony.
I Social of Colonialism
The major impact of colonialism was unquestionably economic. But it had its social bearing too.
R. Robinson, virtually the founder of 'the Cambridge School' of colonial history, validly insisted
on the role of 'collaborators' in the operation of early trade and colonialism. The operation
naturally affected the social linkages among the subject people and even their demography. In
some colonies the native people were virtually annihilated or cornered. In some places racial
mixing took place and in some - the heavily populated ones - the cultural orientations of the
people were affected. Some of the subject people took to what they found to be a course toward
modernisation and some others responded in a conservative way. In most of the cases, however,
the responses were mixed, partly modernistic in certain spheres and partly conservative in
certain others.

The important point is that the collaborators changed from time to time, an old group becoming
frustrated grew critical and even hostile to the rulers, while new groups are recruited. This
collaboration or opposition to the colonial rule, however, did not flow from modernism or
conservatism as such although the conservatives occasionally protested against some of the
modernist moves of the colonial regimes. early attempts of the West to establish their power
over the Afro-Asian countries were all resisted by the colonial people, the outstanding example
being what the British called 'the Indian mutiny'. The colonial Governments and their historians
saw such 'revolts' as conservative opposition to their progressive, welfare activities. Some
anthropologists have called them 'primary resistance movements'.

13.3 CASE STUDIES IN COLONIALISM

A brief picture of colonialism and anti-colonial struggles over the non-.European continents will
illustrate the points made above.

Colonialism in America

Colonialism began in the American continents with the arrival of Spain and Portugal close on
the heels of Columbus. By the intervention of the Pope to whom both Spain and Portugal paid
their obeisance because of their Catholic faith the world was divided for colonisation with the
hemisphere west from Brazil onward falling to Portugal and the hemisphereeast of Brazil falling
to Spain. Spain occupied Mexico and much of its northern territory now belonging to the USA.
The two countries were followed by the British and the French colonialists. The British colonialists
eventually emerged more successful than the others by considerably displacing the French and
the Spanish or capturing their territories. The thirteen 'New England' colonies, however,
seceded from the empire in 1776. On the other hand Canada emerged as the loyalist colony
north of the USA and was rewarded with substantial autonomy in 1867. To satisfy the unhappy
subjects of French origin Canada was also granted a federal system of government. The French
colonial rule was confined to a few Caribbean islands to raise rich plantations there.

In the early nineteenth century, with the indirect support of Britain and the USA, the Latin
American countries declared independence. In 1812 President Munro of the USA declared that
no European power would be allowed to come back to the continent. Political influence of the
USA and economic influence of Britain reduced the Latin American states into dependencies
of Britain and the USA with unstable political systems frequently headed by dictators. Their
 plantations and mines, particularly oil, came under Anglo-US control through virtual monopoly
over their export trade. It was only World War that revolts against this kind of political
economy took place in Cuba, Chile, Argentina certain other countries. Except in Cuba,
however, none of these revolutions sustained.

13.3.2 Colonial Imperialism in South South-East Asia

By the beginning of the nineteenth century South Asia, including India and Ceylon (Sri Lanka
of today) was under British control. Yet in India this authority was technically exercised by the
English East India Company as tenants of the Mughal ruler. In 1857 that ruler was
overthrown and in 1858 Victoria, Queen of England, took over the territory and government of
British India. About a third the sub-continent, however, was allowed to remain nominally
independent under the native Princes. In 1877 Queen Victoria was proclaimed the Empress of
India and the princely brought under the 'paramountcy' of the British Crown.

Coastal Ceylon (Sri Lanka) was occupied the Dutch in 1796, the inlands in 1815. Between
these years Ceylon was administered as a part of the Madras In 18 15 it was turned
into a Crown Colony. While India was regarded as the Jewel of the Crown by the British,
because of India's vast and various economic resources, Ceylon was developed essentially as
a plantation colony.

I
By 1886 Burma (Myanmar) was annexed to huge benefit of the empire in terms of her forest,
oil and agriculture. Britain tried to annex Afghanistan but was thwarted by Tsarist Russia. A
large part of her territory was, however, annexed to British India in 1902.

Further east the British, the French and the Dutch competed for territories and came to divide
South- East Asia as follows: Malaysia, including Singapore and Hongkong for the British,
Indonesia for the Dutch and Indo-China including Cambodia (Kampuchia of today), Laos and ,
Vietnam for the French. Except for China within Vietnam, the French allowed limited political
autonomy to the dynastic rulers but exercised full economic control over Indo-China. I

13.3.3 Anti-Colonial Struggles in South-East Asia

After a revolt in 1848 Ceylon made peace with the empire. In 193 1 it was granted universal
adult franchise that the British never granted the Indians. Ceylon's progress to independence
was constitutionalist led by its educated elite influenced partly by the Indian National Congress
and partly by the ideology of international socialism.

Burma was treated as a backyard of British India of which it remained a part till 31 March 1937.
It was denied the 'Reforms' of 1919 that had created a diarchy in the other provinces of British
India. Its middle class, based mostly in the fertile Irawaddy Valley, moved for the kind of reforms
at par with those provinces. It was granted some amount of local autonomy after being separated
/
, from British India in 1937.

British did not establish a Crown Colony in what they as 'the Malay Peninsula' as
power was a 'protectorate system' through treaties with the

161
local rulers recognising the 'sovereignty' but taking over their administration. Although most of
its Chinese and Indian settlers had strong links with the Kuomintang, the Communist Party of
China and the Indian National the local Malays became politically active only after
World War following Japanese withdrawal, when the British proposed to set up a Malay
Union.

The French governed most of Indo-China (Cambodia, Laos, and as protectorates.

In 1945 the anti-Japanese resistance forces, led by the Communist Party of Indo-China, declared
the formation of Vietnam as a republic giving start to one of the most notorious civil wars in
history involving the Western powers, particularly the USA.

13.3.4 Japan and the USA

The story of colonialism in south and East Asia will not be complete without reference to the
rise of the Japanese empire at the beginning of the twentieth century. Japan first clashed with
Britain in 1902 and with Tsarist Russia in 1904. She occupied Korea in 1905 and annexed it in
1911. It fought World War I on the Allied side with imperialist ambition over China and the
Pacific region. In 1931 it actually invaded Manchuria. During World War she joined the axis
powers and invaded South-East Asia advancing as far as the eastern borderland of British India.
This helped the growth of nationalist movements in South-East Asia and loosened the control
of the European powers over the region. Even the USA occupied the Philippines in 1898 and
held it till 1946.

13.3.5 Colonialism in the Asiatic Empires

The rest of the Asian continent was, almost wholly, within three empires: China, Tsarist Russia
and Turkey. Here a distinction should be made between colonies and the outlying parts of an
empire. The former are geographically disjoined from the mainland, the latter are not. The
Chinese and the Russian empires and, to a lesser extent, the Turkish Empire were geographically
compact. All of them were, however, subject to territorial aspirations of the European colonial
powers.

From the Opium War of 1840, which the British fought in order to obtain the right of trade'
in Opium in China to the beginning of World War 1 China was forced to sign as many as 17
'unequal treaties' with the Western powers and Japan turning that country into a virtual dependency
of those powers.

Russia was somehow able to resist the Anglo-French designs on her territory and even wrested
an area of influence in Iran from Britain in 1907 though Britain retained a virtual monopoly over
the huge recently discovered oil resources in there. After World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution
transformed this empire into a multi-national federation (which collapsed in 1990).

After World War I, however, the Turkish Empire was shattered and its West Asian possessions
were mandated by the League of Nations to Britain and France. Of these territories Saudi
Arabia was granted independence in 1932. After World War 11 the rest of the Arab countries
were turned into Trust territories and placed under the controls of Britain and France. By the
1950s they were declared independent.
I 13.3.6 Colonialism Africa
Next to Latin America, Africa was the worst sufferer. North of Sahara Egypt was the most
advanced part of the continent. It could not be conquered by any European power though Britain
and, to a lesser extent, France acquired considerable influence and control on that country.
During World War I, in 1914, Britain declared a protectorate over Egypt provoking mass
resentment and demonstrations.The protectoratewas renounced by Britain in 1922 but continued
British pressure on that country led to the signing of an unequal Anglo-Egyptian Treaty in 1936
enabling Britain to occupy the Suez Canal and some other territories. Egypt's neighbours, Sudan
and Ethiopia, were under still greater influence of the colonial powers. Tunisia, Algeria, a part
of Morocco and a huge contiguous territory in central and western Africa fell to the French but
a greater part of the continent went to Britain. Spain, Italy, Belgium and Germany were the other
owners of Africa.
The 'trade' that attracted the West to Africa was initially in slaves. Subsequently, ivory took the
'explorers' deep into the continent. Some missionariesjoined them, got killed by the local people
and facilitated the arrival of the military might of the West in the continent. By the middle of
the nineteenth century, European powers were aware of the diamond, gold and other precious
minerals in Africa. They engaged themselves in hectic diplomatic activities to divide Africa and,
about the end of the nineteenth century, started sharing the territories among themselves. It was
this 'scramble for Africa' that highlighted the character of capitalist imperialism.
I .
13.4 PATTERNS OF ANTI COLONIAL MOVEMENTS
It was the sense of being deprived and exploited that disillusioned the subject peoples. After the
establishmentof the colonial rule the modernist elite took the lead in opposing the colonial rule.
They sought to unite the people on one platform and demanded of the rulers the right to be heard
and be equally treated. Their tone was initially moderate, but later extremist wings grew up out
of frustration. For three decades beginning from the end of the nineteenth century, for instance,
revolutionary nationalist movement (that the British called 'terrorist') was powerful in India.
During and after World War violent strategies were widely followed in the anti-colonial
movements in Asia and Africa.

There remained collaborators of the ruling regimes across the conservative and the modernist
camps as there were both the segments of the native societies. Needless to
mention that the collaborators were the beneficiaries and the opponents were the disillusioned
people at a given time. Nevertheless anti- colonial movements kept in growing, though not
necessarily in similar ways.

13.4.1 India as the Model

The Indian National Congress that sought to unite the Indians on a loyal but critical platform
drew into its fold the elite from sections of the Indian society and even some compassionate
European subjects of the British Its leadership was essentially upper middle class professional,
but it included and was backed by several landlords and adversary of the Raj. At the end of
the nineteenth century emerged an extremist wing a section of which resorting to revolutionary
violence. AfterWorld War I Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi turned the Indian Congress
I Indian National Congress
to this organisation. A very special
the characteristic of this struggle.
steadily so much so that the British had to hand over power
combination mass politics and 'constitutionalism' was

The Indian National Congress was the first organisation of its kind in the entire colonial world.
In several ways it in the other colonies, particularly in South-East Asia. After
World War I, this nationalist trend developed linkages with the socialist world and its ideology
to different degrees. During World War even Japanese imperialism, in its conflict with the
Western powers, came to the aid of the nationalist movements in South-East and South Asia.

In most of Africa, sometime the failure of 'primary resistance,' anti-colonial - movements

began, under the leadership of the modernist elite, after World War I but it became strong
World War

13.4.2 The Sacred Versus the Secular

In the 1880s a religion-based, prdphetic, anti-colonial struggle broke out in Sudan -the Mahdist
(deliverer). In certain other parts of the Muslim world a revival of the puritanic Wahabi
movement took place. The combined effect of these movements was the rise of a
Its anti-West tenor combined with the Muslim resentment on the humiliation of the
Sultan of Turkey, the of the Islamic world, to produce the Khilafat agitation that had
a great impact in India and Afghanistan.

In the Muslim world, however, pan-Islamism had an adversary in In several

Arab countries there was resentment against the Turkish Empire. During World War I this
resentment was encouraged and made use of by the British who found Turkey in the opposite
camp led by Germany. The result was the creation of a number of 'mandated territories' for
, the Arabs under the Anglo-French aegis after World War I. The discovery of oil in West Asia
contributed a great deal towards this arrangement.

It was before World War I, in 1907-08, that a secular nationalist movement grew in Turkey by
the name Young Turk..But the movement was chauvinistic - concerned with the revival
of the imperial glory of Turkey -and fell out with the Arab movements.

In the period between the two world wars, on the other hand, secular nationalist movements
grew within the Turkish Empire. In Turkey itself Kamal Ataturk overthrew the Turkish monarchy.
In Egypt the Wafd Party won elections but was kept out of office by the combined effort of
the Egyptian ruler and his British aides.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century organised black African workers on strike in
several mining centres. Students and, interestingly, Christian church leaders took lead in
a pan-African movement. The first Pan-African Congress met in London in 1919. But Pan-
Africanism remained more an idea than a realisable goal. The National Congress of British West
Africa was founded in 1920. Other organisations like the Central Kikiyu Association in Kenya I
and African National Congress in South Africa followed suit. As the borders of the African
colonies had been arbitrarily drawn and tribal affinities were strong among the local people,
efforts were also made to develop a consciousness. However, it was only after
World War in which African soldiers had taken a great part that such movements became

164
 I

strong and militant. The imperialist powers unleashed racist repression throughout Africa but had
to give in.
,

13.5 SUMMARY
Though primarily colonialism has a geographical and a political connotation, both the systems
were grounded in strong economic motives. Modern colonialism started in the fifteenth century
and came to its climax in the late nineteenth century when imperialism virtually became a creed
of the developed capitalist countries of the West. Its essential purpose was to acquire the natural
resources of the subject countries and to develop them as captive markets for their finished
products. The resulting conflicts produced two world wars.

The subject countries first offered primary resistance to the conquerors. Such resistance was
conservative and, often, imbued with religious emotions but they did not succeed. The
imperial powers often ruled with the assistance of collaborators. But the scope for such
collaboration was limited and the disillusionedelite of the colonies ultimately united to oppose the
ruling powers. Anti-colonial struggles became powerful in Asia World War I and in Africa
after World War By the the process of de-colonisation of the world was completed.

13.6 EXERCISES

I Discuss view of colonialism.

2) Discuss Lenin's of imperialism and its critiques.

3) Analyse the colonial formations in South and South-East Asia and the anti-colonial struggles
in this region.
,

4) Analyse colonialism and anti-colonial struggles in Africa.

5) Discuss the role of religion in anti-colonial struggles.

UNIT 14 NATIONALITY AND SELF-DETERMINATION
Structure
14.1
142 Meanings
, 14.2.1 Nationality Nation
14.2.2 The Example
14.2.3 The British Colonies
14.2.4 The Dutch, French, Portuguese and French Colonies
14.2.5 The Origins of the Nationality Question
14.3 The Historical Roots
14.3.1 People, Nationality and Nation
The Content of Nationality
14.4 The Debate on Self-Determination
14.4.1 The Content of Self-Determination
14.4.2 The Case
14.4.3 Self-Determination versus Secession
14.4.4 Globalisation and the National Question
14.5 Summary
14.6 Exercises

14.1 INTRODUCTION
In the early second half of the nineteenth century, John Stuart Mill argued that Where the
sentiment of nationality exists in any force there is a primafacie case for uniting all the
members of the nationality under the same governmentand a government to themselves apart'
(Representative Government, 1861, pp. thus setting out the agenda for the right to
self-determination of nations. On the other hand, he argued, 'Free institutions are next to
impossible in a country made up of different nationalities'. Mill's case was that such nationalities
should be separated and constituted into separate states in order that they enjoy the full benefit
of representative self-government.

For at least a hundred years since the continental revolution of 1848 the European political scene
was dominated by the nationality question that caused two World Wars. Even in the era of
globalisation today the nationality question is alive.

14.2 MEANINGS
14.2.1 Nationality ,and Nation
The term 'nationality', however, is extremely to define. Doubtless, it comes from the .
word 'nation'. As an abstract noun it means 'nationhood' - the fact of being a nation, for
 example, the nationality of the Poles or the Slavs, or being members of a nation, for example,
my Indian nationality or Tony British nationality (as declared in a Passport). As a
concrete noun it means a small nation or a potential nation, for example; the Scottish nationality
in the United Kingdom. J.S. Mill has spoken Welshman or the Scottish Highlander
choosing to remain members of 'the British nation.' During the period between the two World
Wars the question was asked about the recognition of the Polish nationality. For the Scots
today the question is if they are a nation or a part of the greater identity of the English. Both,
however, evoke a similar political To what extent were the Poles entitled to
political freedom? Or, for that matter, to what extent are the Scots or the northern Irish people
of the United Kingdom entitled to it today?

Political freedom, in turn, is conceived in two ways complete independence with sovereign
status and (2) self-determination, that is, large to control the internal affairs
of the people within the framework of a national state or an empire. It should be noted, however,
that when the second arrangement exists, the top Government gives the arrangement the name
of 'self-government' but the concerned people call it 'self-determination.' The difference between
the two concepts lies in the fact that, self-government is supposed to be a gift of the Central1
Imperial Government while is supposed to have been by the
local people through Further, in self-government, the Central or the Imperial
Government retains the ultimate, if nominal, control over the local government while in self-
determination the local people retain the option to claim a sovereign, independent status.

. In both the cases, however, there is a tendency of the subordinate government to move towards
complete independence.

14.2.2 The lrish Example

The example of Ireland is a case in point. This Catholic-majority region was always unhappy
with its being a part of the United Kingdom dominated by the Protestant-dominated England.
By the end of the nineteenth century migration turned Northern Ireland into a
majority region. In 1922 the United Kingdom granted Southern Ireland self-government and the
name of the Free State. Eamon de Republican Party denounced the arrangement,
won the Irish election in 1936, renamed the country as the Eire, remained neutral during World
War in which United Kingdom was a party and, in 1948, proclaimed the Republic
of Ireland.

14.2.3 The British Colonies

United Kingdom granted her white colonies substantial self-government and, in 1929, called
them 'Dominions'. Britain also came to loosely call her empire the British Commonwealth. In
1917 the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms proposed a certain of devolution of power to
the British lndian provinces in the form of diarchy that was rejected by the major political parties
in British India. In 1929 they demanded 'dominion status' which the Simon refused
to grant. It proposed devolution of more power to Provinces and some power to the Centre
to be administered by the Indian subjects. Hence, the Civil Disobedience Movement of the'
1930s. Indian Independence Act, 1947 granted British India, its partition, the'status
of 'Independent Dominion.' The Constituent of lndia proclaimed lndia as a sovereign
democratic republic but chose to remain a member of the Commonwealth-of Nations, the
renamed British Commonwealth.

14.2.4 The Dutch, French, Portuguese and Belgian Colonies

The Dutch were the first colonialists of Europe. In course of her competition with the other
European colonial powers, however, they lost much of their overseas territories and later became
virtually confined to Indonesia. After World War she lost control over those islands too, though
after a powerful freedom movement there.

Under the Fourth Republican Constitution France called her empire the French Union with very
little autonomy to her 'associate states.' In 1954 Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos withdrew from
the Union resulting in the Indo-China wars. Algeria's demand for freedom led to violent repression
that ended only in the 1960s. Meanwhile, in 1958, the French Union was renamed as the French
Community. But the experiment failed and most of the French possessions became free by the
1960s.

Confronted with a freedom movement in the Congo in 1958-59, Belgium promised her election
and extensive freedom. But serious riots forced her to grant Belgian Congo total freedom in
January 1960. Portugal, on the other hand, itself under a dictatorship. She never tried to ,
grant her colonies self-government and regarded them as her provinces. In 1961, Goa was
liberated by India by force. After the end of dictatorship in Portugal her other colonies were
granted freedom.

Thus, the concept of nationality does not fit well with that of 'self-government.' It fits well with
of 'self-determination.'

14.2.5 Origins of the Nationality Question

The origins of the 'nationality' question lie in the basic arbitrariness State system. Political
power is, by nature, territorial. The borders of a State lie at the frontiers of the power of a
Government. Such power is always relative to historical circumstances and the power of the
neighbouring State. It almost never conforms to the ethno-cultural boundaries of a people. All
modern States usually contain substantial minority groups many of whom are concentrated
geographically. Whenever one or more minority groups grow unhappy with the ruling order they
are likely to demand the right to self-determination, that is, right to be themselves' to be able
to govern their own destiny. Needless to say that this is a political demand rooted in socio-
economic as well as geographical factors. Thus, if a region is far or detached from a heartland
there is likely to be a demand for separation. If there is a great economic disparity between the
regions or the lack of cultural among the regions such demands may grow
powerful. Among the disgruntled people initially this appears in the form of a fellow feeling that
later develops into a solidarity. sense of solidarity is the basis of nationality. Such a feeling
is essentially democratic as it seeks an alternative basis of equality with the hitherto dominant
power.

14.3 THE HISTORICAL ROOTS

14.3.1 People, Nationality and Nation
At this stage a clarification is necessary between the terms 'nation,' 'nationality' and 'people.'
Though these terms have been used interchangeably in popular discourse they grew in different
historical contexts. In the place, the term 'people' is specific than the term 'population.'
'Population' has a generic meaning - an assortment of individuals in a territory. When, in 1789,
the Third Estate of the French legislature declared that 'sovereignty in France belongs to the
French nation' and called itself the National Assembly, it used the term 'nation' in that sense.
It meant the population of France. 'People' has a more identifiable character - a certain
objective commonness, not clearly defined except perhaps in terms of territorial loyalty. It was
in this sense that the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations
Organisation took name of 'the people'.

Historically, 'nations' in the modern sense emerged the demise of the divine rights theory
of monarchy that saw States as properties of the dynasties backed by the church. The Protestant
revolution destroyed the supremacy Pope in the political affairs of Europe and started the
decay of what Delisle Burns called 'the medieval unity.' The guiding feeling behind such change
of attitude was anti-imperialist as well as anti-feudal. But it a vacuum in the political
configuration of Europe. Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, for instance, created 300 German
states most of which were Protestant and autonomous of the Pope's control. But they were
hardly more than feudal estates.

And yet the whole of the German population were not united. France in the west and Poland
on east contained substantial German population. In 1772, the year of the first Polish
partition, a romantic Polish-German intellectual, tried to discover German
(peopleness) in language. A century later Germany was united as a result of the
Prussian War of 1870. That it eventually led to the worst kind of national chauvinism is a
different matter.

Since the whole German population was never united, there remained groups of the German
population scattered in the countries giving Hitler the pretext for launching invasion
on the German neighbourhood. The biggest German-speaking unit, Austria, remained out of the
unified Germany because of, among other reasons, religious difference and, in fact, later grew
into an empire. It was Napoleon Bonaparte who had put an end to 'the Holy Roman Empire'
and even created a small independent state of Poland. But Francis the last 'Holy Roman
Emperor' turned himself into the emperor of the Catholic Austria in 1804 and, in 1815, partitioned
Poland for the fourth time. It was within the fold of the Austrian empire that the issue of self-
determination of nations acquired poignancy.

During the continental revolutions of 1848 small nationalities within the Austrian empire first
raised their heads. In 1867 Austria was forced to recognise Hungary's political claims by
reorganising itself as the Austro-Hungarian Empire. However, the Slav nationalities of Eastern
Europe remained restless. During World War Austria was among the Central Powers, with
Germany. When the United States joined the War on the Allied side, its President, Woodrow
Wilson laid out a Fourteen-Point Programme that among other things, promised the right to self-
determination to the nationalities of central Europe, particularly of Austria.

14.3.2 The Content of Nationality

We have noted that, in the a romantic view of 'peopleness' emerged in Germany. It
sought to unite the German people on the basis of language. This trend gathered momentum in
nineteenth century and was acknowledged by J.S. Mill who stressed 'sympathy' as the bond
of nationality. This feeling of nationality, according to Mill. have been generated by 'various
causes' among which he listed (1) the effect of identity of race and descent, (2) common
language, (3) community of religion, (4) geographical limits and (6) 'strongest of all' identity of
political antecedents by which he meant the possession of a national history, and consequent
communityof recollections, collective and humiliation, pleasureand regret, connected with
the same incidents in the past,

By a broad sweep, however, Mill qualified all these factors. 'None of these circumstances,
however, are either indispensable or necessarily sufficient by themselves.' Subsequent political
thinkers and historians in vain have tried to discover a definite basis of nationality or nationhood.
Purely race-based States are impossible to find even in Africa, though Hitler's Germany tried
to build it. Such racial States never existed in the history of civilisation. Though Joseph
famous definition of a nation stressed language and common historical experience, along with
territory, as the main factors of nationhood to the exclusion of religion and though, according to
Hobsbawm, modem nationalism emerged on the ruins of religion, there still are certain States
in the world that are identified with religion: Ireland in Europe and Israel in West Asia besides
a large number of Islamic Republics in Asia including Pakistan. Yet Muslim States in West Asia
failed to unite on basis of religion and Pakistan was split in 1971 on the basis of language.
As far as common history is concerned, E. Renan, a French political thinker, argued that getting
the history wrong is a part process of building a national sentiment too. One interesting
trend among the Third World countries of today is the effort to rewrite history with a view to
consolidating their 'national' unity.

Renan, therefore, concluded that 'a nation is a spiritual whole' surviving on the basis of
a common sentiment. Consequently, attention was shifted from the past to the present and the
future. The concept of 'nation building' popularised by Jawaharlal Nehru comes in handy from
this perspective. It insists on national unity with a view to progress and development. Karl
an American political scientist, argued that the existence of a nation is a 'daily I
meaning that a common intention to live together is the essence of nationality. I

And there lies the rub. Objective circumstances in which a was born
change. Social and economic disparities may grow between sections of the people concerned,
particularly among its elite. Political ambitions among the elite may grow
incongruous with the outlook and interests of the so-called 'national' elite. Differences of regions
and sections are invented. Where such differences already exist in a latent form, they are
magnified. The most cited ground is 'inequality' real or imagined.
While the governing 'national' elite would depict them as imagined, the dissident elite would
always depict them as real. If the governing elite use coercion or state power, there are
rebellions. If such rebellions succeed, new 'national states' come into being, destroying the old
order. Thus 'national self-determination' has become an extremely contentious issue in politics.

14.4 THE DEBATE ON SELF-DETERMINATION

14.4.1 The Content of Self-Determination I

Wilson's promise of the right to self-determination to nationalitieshad three kinds of critics. One
was the straightforward conservative who did not like the breakdown of the territorial system

170
of the old empires. The second group comprised the radical who thought that Wilson's programme
was too limited in scope and confined to only the Austro-Hungarian Empire and did not touch
the traditional empires like the British and the French. It took a blind eye to the entire colonial
world. The third group of critics was the pragmatic one. They thought that the modern states
are too much heterogeneous to allow a neat streamliningof borders along the ethnic lines.

The first two critiques are, of course, partisan. It is the third critique that requires academic
consideration. Lord the British Foreign Secretary and former Governor-General of India
who had partitioned Bengal in 1905, is credited with the comment that right to national self-
determination is a two-edged sword, meaning that it unites as well as divides people.
partition is made of a state territory, dissatisfied will exist and
contiguous states will continuously indulge in irredentism threatening peace.

There is another consideration. Although language is the favourite criterion of nationhood in the
West today, other factors, particularly religion, still sway political opinions. The Irish problem, for
instance, is predominantly religious. The ethnic crisis in Yugoslavia in the 1990s was based on
religious differences too. The Chechen demand for independence Russia is also based on
religion. The picture becomes more complicated when religious groups are found divided on

14.4.2 The Indian Case

It is a well-known fact that the whole of India was never politically united before the British
advent. Even the British were not able to administer the whole of India uniformly, About
thirds of the sub-continent under direct rule and one-third under 562 native states of
different sizes and strengths.

Even British was not administered uniformly. British power started spreading from the
coasts of Bengal, Bombay and Madras. The territory was first organised under 'Presidencies'
- blocs of territories containing peoples of different languages and religions, besides a number
of primitive tribes. New territories, including Burma and Aden, were added to these possessions,
some of them being constituted as separate provinces. 1905 Lord Curzon divided the Bengal
presidency on the basis of religion giving birth to a powerful anti-partition agitation. It was at
this time that the leaders of the Indian national movement adopted language as the basis of
provincialisation of India against religion favoured by the Government. The British left India, in
1947, after partitioning the country on the basis of religion. Pakistan was created as a
majority state. But Pakistan was split in 1971 on the basis of language. Though, in the
there was a separatist demand in the then Madras (now Tamilnadu) state the movement was
contained. Language never posed a threat to the integrity of the Indian state but it has caused
several 'state reorganisations'.

But language has not been the only factor in state reorganisation in India. Assertion of
ethnic identities has caused creation of a number of states and central India. The
creation of Uttaranchal as a state was based purely on regional disparity.

Religious and tribal groups in the border regions of the north-east and the north-west have
occasionally demanded secession from India. Indian opinion in general never approved of the
'two nations' theory of V.D. Savarkar and M.A. Jinnah on the basis of religion. It considers the
1947 partition of British India as an imperialist conspiracy.

The Indian nation is territorial though certain scholars have called it a multi-cultural,
nationality state.

14.4.3 Self-Determination and Secession

Right to self-determinationdoes not mean only national self-determination. It has a much broader
connotation to cover all kinds of subject people. The American Revolution of 1776, for instance,
was an assertion of the right to self-determination; it did not speak of 'national self determination.'
The North American rebels did not yet consider themselves a nation. But 'self-determination',
generically, does mean a certain desire for secession from a larger entity. Even when
psychologically individuals speak of self-determinationthey mean to assert their own entity as
different those of others. When a collectivityof people asserts their right to self-determination
they do the same thing. The secessionists may or may not constitute one single nation. When
the Austrian empire collapsed, Several nationalities, some of them ill defined, emerged. The
process was repeated the disintegration of the socialist states of the USSR and Yugoslavia.
When, however, a distinct sense of nationality gets consolidated among a section of the people
populating a State or an Empire, as Mill stressed, there is a distinct case for
determination.

In any case, right to self-determination a challenge to the larger body to which it belongs.
The nationalist content of this demand gives it an added strength. Consequently, it is opposed
by the 'advocates of order'. By the same token nationalism is disfavoured by the same people.
In the days of globalisation the issue has acquired pungency. The advocates of globalisation
consider national to be essentially retrograde. The advocates of national
sovereignty consider the global order as essentially unequal. They consider right
as the major shield against a global exploitation.

A leaf from history will be of great educative value. Before the Bolshevik Revolution, V.I. Lenin
promised the right to self-determination to the oppressed nationalities of the Tsarist empire of
Russia. After the revolution, however, Lenin opposed it. He reformulated the right to self-
determination as a right to equal status of every nationality within the larger political unit, the
Soviet federation. However,the Soviet State policy could never fully the minority nationalities
and the federation broke down in 1990.

14.4.4 Globalisation and the National Question

According to the Marxists the national question arose with the rise of capitalism in Europe.
himself thought that capitalism would eventually obliterate the national boundaries by its sheer
economic strength. However, Lenin found in nationalism the power to fight imperialism and
welcomed the collaboration of the Marxists with 'the national bourgeoisie' in the colonies. There
was, as a result, an extent of collaboration between the nationalist movements in Asia and
Africa and the international communist movement.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, the USA has an unprecedented hegemony
in world affairs and has propounded a new international economic order that envisaged the end
of economic nationalism. Economic nationalism is a strategy adopted by all developing countries
 th
since the 19 century. On the question of global environment the USA adamantly follows
its own economic agenda rejects the of any environmental norm on its freedom.
Yet it insists upon other of the world to conform to economic globalisation. The
developing countries like India feel by the all-encompassing demands of globalisation
on their economies including agriculture, mainstay of their economy. The conflict of interest
has given birth to strong reactions among the developing countries that regard the
programme of globalisation as a design of the economic superpowers.

fear of the developing countries about bondage had given

birth to the programme of self-reliance after attaining independence, whose greatest champion
was Jawaharlal Nehru. In a way the of swadeshi reflects the same
sentiment.

14.5 SUMMARY
Nationality and are inter-connected notions. In the nineteenth century they
were focused in Europe. After World War I the focus shifted to Asia and Africa. Because of
their historically anti-imperialist character, the Marxists supported them. The fall of the Soviet
Union has led to the programme of globalisation that undermines the nationalist economies and
sentiments.

14.6 EXERCISES

I) Discuss the of the factors behind its growth.

2) Analyse concept of self-determination in its historical setting.

3) Evaluate the debate on the question of national self-determination.

4) What do the of globalisation have to do with national

 15 STATE AND CONSTITUTIONALISM
Structure ,

15.1 Introduction
15.2 State Building
15.2.1 The Instrumental Requirements
15.2.2 States in History
15.2.3 The Value of the Almond-Powell Schema
15.3 Constitutionalism
15.3.1 Origins
15.3.2 Meaning of Constitutionalism
15.4 Models of Constitutions
15.4.1 The British Model of Constitutionalism
I 15.4.2 'The US Model

15.4.3 The Continental Systems

15.4.4 The Evolutionary Mode of Constitution Making
15.4.5 The Revolutionary Mode of Constitution Making
15.5 Constitutionalismand State Building
15.5.1 Constitution as a Framework
I
15.5.2 The State and the Civil Society
15.5.3 Rule of Law
15.5.4 Army and Bureaucracy
15.6 Constitution of Rights
15.6.1 The Origins
15.6.2 Nature of Rights
15.7 Summary
15.8 Exercises

15.1 INTRODUCTION
The concepts of 'the nation' and 'the state' grew as parallels in history. 'Nation' indicated a
collectivity of persons who have a certain bond with each other (See Unit 14). 'State' indicated
a structured authority to rule over a people in a certain territory. The two are not necessarily
co-extensive. In 1646, for instance, the Treaty of Westphalia recognised 300 German states.
Today we find only two German-speaking states: Germany and Austria. One of the main
reasons of the division of Austria and Germany is religious. Austria is Germany
Protestant.

Primarily, the state is a territorial concept, but nation is a human phenomenon. Ever since
the formation of the United NationsOrganisation, the composite word 'nation-state' has entered
the political vocabulary of the world. The United Nations' Charter virtually identified the state
with the The national affairs are, however, more complex than the affairs of the state
even though they are interlinked. The role of psychology is more important in the affairs of the
nation than in the affairs of the state. Political science can deal with 'state building' better than
'nation building' even though, in the Third World countries the term 'nation building' is more
popular. 'Nation building' involves not only government, which is the primary focus of
state building, but also economic development and psychological integration of a population.
As Gabriel A. Almond Bingham Powell, Jr. put it:

"While it is an oversimplification to put it in this way, we might view the problem of state building
and its successful confrontation by a political system as essentially a structural problem. That
is to say, what is involved is primarily a matter of the structural differentiation of new roles,
structures and subsystems which penetrate the countryside. building, on the other hand,
emphasises the cultural aspects of political development. It refers to the process whereby people
transfer their commitment and loyalty the smaller tribes, villages, or petty principalities to
a larger central political system. While these two processes of state and nation building are
related, it is important to view them separately. There are many cases in which centralised and
penetrative bureaucracies have been created, while a homogeneous pattern of loyalty and
commitment to the central political institutions has never emerged".

Almond and Powell discussed the concept of state building in the context of the theory of
political development the three other components of which are nation building, participation
and distribution (of welfare). He spelt out the major questions of state building as 'what kind
of bureaucracy one has to create, what kind of rule-making and adjudicative structures, and
what kinds of loads these structures may be made to bear. The shortcoming of this theoretical
schema consisted in its of a continuity between 'a pre-existing, less differentiated
political system' to a 'differentiated,' modern, political system. It does not take into account the
states or 'political systems,' as the 'systems theorists' call them, which come into existence
through revolutionary transformations. Or, perhaps, they consciously keep their eyes closed to
revolutions and choose to start off from a post-revolutionary situation. They still ignore the fact
that a revolution, as well as the pre-revolutionary experiences, may make their own
contribution to the process of state building as is the case with several post-colonised countries

15.2 STATE BUILDING

15.2.1 The Instrumental Requirements

But the task of state building is not a simple one either. 'State building occurs', say Almond and
Powell, 'when the political elite create new structures and organisations designed to "penetrate"
the society in order to regulate behaviour in it and draw a larger volume of resources from it.
State building is commonly associated with significant increases in the regulative and extractive
capabilities of the political system' .It involves the determination of the structure of authority, the
territorial extent of its spread, the extent of popular conformity with the authority and the means
of securing such authority. A crucial test of the authority is the legitimacy that the people accord
it and the feeling of satisfaction among the people with the rule. Government's primary
interest is in securing the obedience of the people to law and order, the interest of the people
lies in the preservation of their rights and promotion of their interest.

15.2.2 States in History

Ancient Greece and Rome began as states. Though the more ancient states of Egypt and
Mesopotamia have been described as empires it is doubtful if their authority was as extensive
as that of the modern empires. However, both Greece and Rome grew into empires and
dissolved in course of time. Almond and Powell comment that 'there are examples, particularly
among the great empires such as Imperial Rome, in which the elite never sought to create a
common national culture of loyalty and commitment, but were content to develop a centralised
and penetrative bureaucracy, while at the same time permitting culturally distinct component
units to survive and retain some autonomy' .

The above comment of Almond and Powell smacks of a cultural totalitarianism that is characteristic
of the US polity where knowledge of the English language is the primary condition of citizenship.
It ignores the empirical reality that any large political unit is bound to allow considerable local
and cultural autonomy in order to obtain an overall territorial loyalty of the people to the state.
After the dissolution of the Roman Empire a number of feudal states grew up in Europe even
though some of them called themselves 'empires.' They were ruled by dynasties wielding
absolute power over their subjects with claim to divine right to rule. The Reformation in late
fifteenth century undermined this divine right theory and the Renaissance brought in a new self-
confidence among people. Thus the concept of a 'national state,' as opposed to that of a
'dynastic state' was bom. The monarch became the symbol of the nation's unity.

15.2.3 The value of the Almond-Powell Schema

The analytical value of the Almond-Powell schema is, however, considerable. According to
these authors the primitive political systemshandled their problems largely in and intermittent
ways, by means of ad or minimal structural differentiation and specialisation. The traditional
political systems were characterised by specialised regulative and extractive structures and by
a symbolic capability intended to create loyalty among its members and identity with the larger
political system. But the problems of participation in the political system and of distribution of
its products were still handled diffusely and intermittently. In the modem stable democracies all
these functions are sufficiently distinct.

Yet they have worked in different ways in different countries. Thus, in Britain in the Tudor
period, state building proper, in the sense of penetration of the state in the civil life and integration
between the two, was achieved. But the process of nation building in the sense of growth of
cultural homogenisation and subsystem autonomy went on till the nineteenth and the twentieth
centuries. It was in the nineteenth and then twentieth centuries that the problem of participation
and distribution of welfare was addressed. This prolonged step-by-step process helped Britain
to follow a rather smooth path of transition.

In Germany these four processes were almost simultaneous and spread over a short period.
While in Tudor Britain the feudal lords lost their estates they were accommodated with power
and influence in the Parliament and the bureaucracy. On the other hand, in Germany, feudalism
was absorbed in the state's bureaucratic and military structure. France lay somewhere in
between these two models. There the feudal absorbed in the royal court and
divested of power as well as their communal roots. A newer aristocracy based on office
controlled state power and closed high offices to the middle class creating a crisis of state
authority, identity, loyalty and participation.The French peasantry was alienated by the burden
'
of taxation, military services and feudal privileges. Hence the instability in revolutionaryFrance.

The contrast posed between the smooth British model on the one hand and ,

model of instability posed by the above analysis on the other rests on the assumption that Britain
had time and the genius to hand the process of political development while the others had
neither. This is a-historical analysis, too abstract to give a clear picture of the French and
German political experience. How does post-Nazi Germany or the Fifth Repubfican France
conduct their politics? Did they start the state-building process anew? How did the United States
of America, for that matter, cope with the problem of state building after

15.3 CONSTITUTIONALISM

15.3.1 Origins

The beginning of the Enlightenment in the seventeenth century that stressed the value of the
individual freedom and set in the process of curtailment of the authority of the monarch. The
political ideology of this trend was reflected in the Social contract Theory that denied the.
monarch any divine right to rule. Instead, the monarch's power was said to have been voluntarily
surrendered by the people on certain conditions. In other words, the ruler's power was not
unconditional. Even though John Hobbes was reputed to be an absolutist, he laid stress on the
sovereign's obligation to protect the life of the people. went by adding 'property'
to this obligation stressing further that 'property' included liberty. More basic, however, was
Locke's assertion of the autonomy of the civil society that had been created by a social contract
prior to the contract between the civil society and the ruler establishing the state. Locke's
sovereign was, therefore, a sovereign with a limited authority. Therefore, he endorsed the
monarchy that had been created by the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

This is the basis of the concept of 'constitutionalism'. It was subsequently developed by the
French political philosopher, Montesquieu, who, expanding the British model of government
established in 1689, gave the scheme of a separation of power that, in turn, influenced the
framing of the world's first written Constitution: the Constitution of the United States of America
and was followed, to different extents, by many other democracies with written Constitutions.

15.3.2 Meaning of Constitutionalism

The literal meaning of 'constitution' is the way a body is constituted and structured. In Political
Science this would mean the way a state and its authority is constituted. When Aristotle wrote
his Politics studying about 150 city states in the Hellenic world, and classified constitutions,
he was using this literal meaning of 'constitution'. Later, a value was added to it. A Constitution
is believed to have the quality of stability and respectability to the extent that the people expect
it to be followed by the members and organs of the Government. This practice of the Government
 following the Constitution is called 'constitutionalism'. This means that the Government cannot
be run by any person's whims.

Constitutionalism, however, is not republicanism, as the name 'constitutional monarchy' would

indicate. Even now in Europe there are dynastic monarchs who have given up their absolute
authority to elected the other hand, republicanism, that means the system headed
by an elected President, does not necessarily indicate constitutional rule. Military leaders in
several countries have proclaimed themselves Presidents and even obtained popular 'support'
by devious means including referenda. They have tampered with the constitutions of their
countries and, thrown them out of the window.

There is also a difference between constitutionalism and democracy at the theoretical level, best
illustrated by the social contract theory of the philosopher of the French Revolution, Rousseau.
Rousseau advocated direct democracy, denied any special status to Government and any limit
to the popular will that he regarded as sovereign. Direct democracy, however, is just impossible
in the mass States of today. A principle of representative government has, therefore, been
universally accepted. Because the representatives have handed over power to rule in future a
Constitution becomes necessary to lay down the limits of their power - 'the rules of the game,'
as they may be called. It is assumed that the makers of a constitution start with a slate
and have no axe to grind. They are unbiased. The Subsequent politicianshave to follow the rules.
That is why most Constitutions of the world make the Constitutions 'rigid,' that is to say, not
alterable by legislative procedure. Where such written-and rigid Constitutions do not
exist certain conventionsand customs are, by national consensus, considered inviolable. The
classic example of the first type is the US Constitution, that of the'second type is the British
Constitution.

15.4 MODELS OF CONSTITUTIONS

15.4.1 British Model of Constitutionalism

An extension of the contradiction between populism and constitutionalism is the rival claims to
legitimacy by an elected legislature and a non-politicaljudiciary. In Britain, the Constitution being
unwritten, sovereignty of the in Parliament is the prevailing principle of government. That
means that the Crown is a part of the Parliament but not a member of any House. The Crown
can address the Houses. No court can review or invalidate an Act of Parliament even though
the British courts interpret Parliamentary enactments quite liberally. There is no concept of strict
separation of power in the British constitutional system.

In the British Constitutional system there is a bicameral legislature the upper chamber -the
House of Lords - is made up of hereditary and nominated Peers and the lower chamber - of
elected representatives of the people. The executive power is vested, nominally, in the monarch
but actually in the Council of Ministers that contains members of both the Houses but is
responsible to the House of Commons. This responsibility- meaning the liability of the Council,
of Ministers to be removed from office if it loses confidence of the House of Commons - is
an insurance against the of the executive. On the other hand, the power of the Council
of Ministers to obtain dissolution of House Commons and seek a fresh election is an
. insurance against the tyranny of the House. An election means a reference to the voters who
are the political sovereign.
 A possible conflict between the the judiciary is sought to be resolved by the
arrangement that the highest court of the country is the House of Lords and the House of Lords
is generally aloof from the humdrum s f the country's politics. This, however, is not strict
separation of power. The power of judicial review that is exercised by the United States of
America's Federal Supreme Court does not belong to the judicial committee of the British House
of Lords. The House of Lords as a whole has the power to delay the passage of a law at the
most.

15.4.2 The US Model

The basic difference between the constitutional systems of Britain and the USA is that, the US
Constitution being written, the constitutional law there has been placed above the ordinary laws,
while in Britain there is no written Constitution and all laws made by the Parliament are of equal
strength. While interpreting the laws in the USA, the Supreme Court places the Constitutional
Law above the ordinary law and overrules any legislation that, in its opinion, conflicts with the
Constitution. This is the basis ofjudicial review. This has given rise to allegations ofjudicial
indifference to public policy, especially in the 1930s. Lately, however, the US judiciary has been
found to be quite sensitive to public policy.

'The nominal and the real executive in the USA is the President, elected indirectly by the people.
The legislative power in the USA is vested in the elected, bi-cameral, Congress. There is no
, responsibility of the executive to the legislature. But the system works on the basis of control
-the concept of 'checks and balances,' as it is called. President has a team of Secretaries
work for him at the head of each administrative department. His choices are of course subject
to ratification of the second chamber of the US Congress-the Senate or the Council of States.
, All laws are enacted by the Congress, but the assent of the President is necessary. The
Congress is also the sole controller of the funds of the Government. The President cannot
address the Congress but he, or his Secretaries, may meet the Congressional committees.
Legislations and Finance Bills are by the Congressional Committees.

The US Constitution is not only written but also An Amendment of the Constitution
requires to be proposed by two-thirds of both the Houses or by a convention called on application
of two-thirds of the State legislatures and ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures or
State conventions. A does not need the President's assent. The
original US Constitution, however, is skeletal. Over more than two hundred years since its
inception, only 26 Amendments have taken place. Growth of conventions and numerous judicial
decisions have led to its elaboration.

A salient feature of the US Constitution that marks it apart from the British Constitutional
system is its federal character. Britain - the United - is a unitary state,
governed as one unit. Sovereignty, or the governing power, in the United Kingdom is exclusively
vested in the in Parliament. In the United States of America sovereignty is divided
between the Union and the States. The powers the Union are limited by the Constitution. The
residual powers belong to the States. Being the guardian of the Constitution the Federal Supreme
Court is also the guardian of the federal relations. The have their awn courts. Over the
In the Br tish Dominion of Canada a combinationof the model of parliamentary
with a federal territorial structure emerged in 1867. Its key was provincial autonomy.
This model, in a republican form, was adopted by in 1950 a t the same time borrowing
elements from the Constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

15.4.3 The Continental Systems

In continental Europe three other main of government emerged from the mid-19th century
onward. A collegial executive came into existence in the tiny republic of Switzerland where the
Ministers are elected by means of proportional representation by the legislature but are not
responsible to it. They hold the entire period of life of the legislature. There are
even elements of direct democracy in the forms of initiative, referendum and recall.

Switzerland is also a federation of a special kind. It calls itself a 'confederation' - a designation

that was owned by the USA between 1777 and 1789 when the Federal Constitution came into
existence. The Swiss people consider themselves a multi-religious, multi-lingual nation. Three
major languages - German; French and Italian - and two major religious sects - Catholic and
Protestant - divide the Swiss people into 22 cantons and six half-cantonswhich themselves are
culturally homogeneous. The Swiss cantons enjoy more autonomy than the states of the USA.
Switzerland is the first experiment in multi-cultural nationhood to a greater extent than Canada.
It may be noted that when the first workers' and peasants' state-the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics was set up, it adopted the Swiss model and called itself a 'multi-national state'.

After World War Germany developed what is called 'the Chancellor system' of Government
where the Chancellor - the equivalent of a Prime Minister, is appointed by the Federal President
with the approval of the Bundestag, the first chamber of the federal legislature. If the Bundestag
does not agree to the President's recommendation, it has to elect a Chancellor. The Bundestag
also cannot move a vote of no confidence against the Chancellor before electing an alternative
Chancellor.

Since the new kind of Constitutions have developed in which the head of the state is
above the Government and is a kind of ultimate guardian of the Constitution. This type first
developed in France when Charles de Gaulle set up the Fifth Republic. It was later taken up
by Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Some military dictators elsewhere have attempted to set up such
Constitutional structures.

15.4.4 The Evolutionary Mode of Constitution Making

The distinction between an unwritten and flexible constitution on the one hand and a written and
rigid constitution on the other can be traced to the history of the countries possessing them. The
British Constitution is the product of an almost unbroken course of development. Only
once in the British history was monarchy violently overthrown - in the civil war of 1648. The
leader of the revolution, Oliver Cromwell, assumed the role of the Lord Protector and issued
an 'Instrument of Government' in 1649 that worked as a temporary Constitution for a few
years. After Oliver Cromweli's death, Richard Cromwell, became the Lord Protector and the
British people realised that they had got only a hereditary dictatorship. They overthrew it and
restored monarchy. But the new Charles had no intention to respect the legislature.
not abolish monarchy. The new monarch, William of Orange, was happy enough to issue the
Declaration of Rights of 1689 that is the basis of constitutional monarchy in Britain. In the
succeeding years two major developments occurred. One was the establishment of the political
leadership of the Council of Ministers and its Cabinet committee and the other was the gradual
expansion of franchise. In 1928 universal adult franchise was established in Britain.

The growth and completion of the cabinet leadership in Britain, paradoxically, grew in a negative
form -that of ministerial responsibility. Technically it means that the Council of Ministers is
collectively responsible to the legislature to which the monarch has surrendered all powers of
govemment. This has an extremely practical significance because all powers of the Government
are exercised by the monarch on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Hence the 'The
King can do no wrong.' The Council of Ministers, in turn, claims to command the confidence
of the legislature. Indeed the legislature can get the Council of Ministers removed by passing
a vote of censure against it. But, so long as the Council of Ministers is in office, it is the leader
and the spokesman of the legislature. No monarch can reject its advice.

The fact that the monarch always abides by the advice of the Council of Ministers and that the
Council of Ministers is responsible to the legislature are the two legs that the constitutional
government in Britain stands on. But these facts do not automatically make Britain a democracy.
Britain's democracy ultimately rests on the people's right to vote. It is this need of democracy
that has made the House of Lords, a hereditary and nominated House of the British Parliament,
virtually powerless.

The point to note here is that British constitutionalism developed and matured into democracy
in course of about seven hundred years from 1215 to 1929. This was a continuous process
- except for the temporary break between 1648 1659. Britain, therefore, never had the
occasion to frame a complete and formal constitution. Therefore, the British constitution is said
to be 'unwritten.' But there are several elements in the British Constitution. Several Acts
of Parliament and judicial decisions have constitutional character. Although they may be amended
or reviewed by Parliamentary Acts, are nevertheless held sacrosanct. The British genius,
of rests in the growth of constitutional conventions. The cabinet system is almost entirely
based on conventions.

15.4.5 The Revolutionary Mode of Constitution Making

Constitutional government in other liberal democracies has the revolutionary course.

Usually after a liberal, anti-authoritarian revolution, people's desire to 'start with a clean slate,'
redesign their political structure by one stroke and sit together in an assembly or a convention
to achieve this objective.

The world's first such gathering was the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787 that
framed the Constitution of the United States of America. 52 representatives of the 13 North
American states that had become 1776 and set up a confederation in 1777 had originally
met to revise the terms of the Confederation. Ultimately, however, they framed the seven
Articles that came to be known as the Federal Constitution of the United States of America.
It was enforced all the 13 States ratified it. It went through 26 subsequent amendments
and was enriched by conventionsand judicial decisions.
 The second such gathering was the French 'States General' of 1789 that first met at the royal
summons in three 'estates' -the clergy, the feudal nobility and the commonality. The three
estates having been unable to meet together, the Third Estate, with the participation of a major
section of the clergy, constituted itself as the National Assembly and declared that in France
sovereignty rested in the nation. The Declaration of Rights of Man, on 12 August 1789 proclaimed
that 'all men being born equal should have equal rights' It went ahead to draft a constitution
enshrining the principle of constitutional monarchy and yet incorporating the US pattern of
separation of powers. The National Assembly laid down that the Constitution could not be
changed for ten years. The King, Louis VI accepted the Constitution but would not abide by
it. A war with Austria complicated the situation and the leadership of the
Assembly was replaced by the Convention that abolished monarchy. France was thrown into
chaos giving rise to the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Unlike the American Revolution that was purely political,the French Revolution was not only
but also socio-economic. It, however, lacked the leadership that could replace the
ancient regime that it had overthrown. The revolution, therefore, failed.

But a Constitution had been framed. Both the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention and the
French National Assembly had done it by going beyond the terms of reference on which they
had been set up. Both of them were revolutionary. This did not happen in the
Parliament of 1848 Prussia, that had been summoned by the monarch and that had framed a .
constitution for a constitutional monarchy. The monarch refused to accept the Constitution and
the Frankfurt Assembly simply defeat.

15.5 CONSTITUTIONALISM AND STATE BUILDING

15.5.1 Constitution as a Framework

Historically, therefore, the Constitution of a country has defined the contours of state building.
Structurally, it is the framework within which the state and the entire political system operate
by determining the limits of power of the sovereign and the rights of the people. Setting up a
Constitution - not in the descriptive but in the normative one - simultaneously achieves
I
two fundamental objectives: (1) It separates the state and the civil (2) It frees state
authority from the whims of a ruler.

15.5.2 State and the Civil Society

When the state controls the affairs of the civil society the system is totalitarian. In the
primitive societies there is no differentiation political control and social authority. In the
traditional societies too the dynastic ruler, often in league with the clerical and the
feudal subordinates, controls social affairs. Karl observed that it was not before the
eighteenth century that the civil society in Europe became really autonomous. That was the
period of developing capitalism and political liberalism. On the other hand crisis of capitalism in
the period between the two World Wars gave rise to totalitarian communism and fascism in
Europe.
.
I
The other kind of problem concerning the relationship between the state and the civil society
is one of autonomy of the state the civil society. In societies driven by communal and ethnic
extremism sometimes the state becomes subservient to sectional interests. Neutrality of the state
power is an essential condition of its stability. Throughout the middle ages, Europe saw religious
leaders vying with the secular ones for political hegemony. After the Reformation, European
states became involved in bloody religious conflicts. It was in order to detach the state authority
fiom such sectional conflicts that the doctrine of secularism was evolved. The very First
Amendmentto the United States Constitution, in 1791, laid down that the Congress would not
muddle with religiousaffairs.

Religion, however, is not the only divisive force in a society. Race and language are the two
other main causes of discord. The USA has experienced sharp racial conflicts. A number of
constitutional amendments since 1868 have tried to reduce his evil and ordinary legislative and
executive measures have been taken. In India religion and language have caused great strife.
The Constitution of India has adopted secularism as a guidingforce. Part of the Constitution
proclaimed Hindi and English as the official languages of the Union. States are free to adopt
their own official languages for internal use. Members of Parliament are free to speak in any
of the Indian languages mentioned in the Eighth Schedule. Religious and linguistic minoritiesare
free to set up their own educational institutions. Freedom of religion is granted to all citizens.

15.5.3 Rule of Law

The concept of Rule of Law was first developed in the United Kingdom to fight arbitrary
executive power. It encompassed a body of customsand traditions, constituting what are
called 'the common law,' legislationsand judicial decisions. Constitutionalism is actually a sub-
set of the Rule of Law. Its special feature is treating the constitutional law as the highest law
of the land.

Pursuit of the rule of law requires an independent judiciary the members of which are expected
to be persons of legal knowledge and integrity. By way of applying law the judges interpret it
and even expand its scope in the form of 'judge-made laws.' Judicial review, that is, the power
to invalidate an ordinary law on the ground of its conflict with the Constitution, is an offshoot
of the judiciary's power to and apply law. To guarantee the rights of citizens fiom
arbitrary executive action the judiciary applies various 'writs' like habeas corpus and mandamus,

15.5.4 Army and Bureaucracy

A non-political army and a non-partisan bureaucracy are among the highest requirements of
constitutionalism. Members of the armed forces and the bureaucracy are placed under the
nominal authority of the chief executive of the country. They are recruited through public
examination systems of different kinds. They are expected to obey orders of the
within the confines of law. army looks after the defence of the country, the police
forces look the law and order and the bureaucracy administers the policies of the state.
The bureaucracy is the chief link between the state and the people and the chief agent of the
state's development activities.The bureaucracy and the army accountable to the political
executive that, in a democracy, represents the people.
 15.6 CONSTITUTION OF RIGHTS

I 15.6.1 The Origins

The original meaning of the word 'right' is appropriate /correct. The current meaning of right
as entitlement is derived from its association with nature. It is to note that the father
of the theory of constitutional government, John Locke, was also the father of the theory of
natural right. He meant by it the natural of people to certain conditions of
existence. He mentioned the right to life and the right to property, defining property in a wide
sense including liberty.

This posed a contradiction between the power of the Government and the rights of the people.
Rights of the people were assumed to be safe so long as the power of the Government was
limited. This theoretical position marked a radical discontinuity with all the previous notions of
government. The ancient Greeks spoke of justice. It was the responsibility of the Government
to do justice to its people. 'justice' was, therefore, the central concern of Greek political
theory. In the days of the dynastic monarchies this perception persisted but whatever was issued
from the Government, was treated as a royal favour. Locke changed the view altogether.

lndeed every idea has its roots. As early the British aristocracy forced the
King to sign a document, that later came to be known as the conceding their
demands that there would be no detention of subjects without trial and no collection of taxes
without the consent of a Parliament. The King did not respect his commitment. In 1628 the
Parliament submitted to the Crown a Petition of Rights that was not immediately granted. The
Civil War of 1648 resulted in Charles I losing his head. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was
bloodless. But it resulted in the Declaration of Rights in 1689. Locke built his theory on this
revolution.

But the Declaration of Rights itself was not a victory of the concept of natural rights. It issued
from the Crown. While issuing the Declaration, however, the Crown set for itself certain limits
to its powers. Thus the idea of a limited or 'constitutional' monarchy was born.

It was the American declaration of Independence that asserted the theory of natural rights first.
It spoke of 'a people's' entitlement to the right to 'separate and equal status' by the 'Laws of
Nature and Nature's God'. The declaration said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments is instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent governed. That whenever any form of government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
government, laying on such principlesand organising its powers in such
to them shall seem most likely effect their safety and happiness".
The declarationof rights was an assertion of a natural collective right - that of a ruled people
against what they consider to be an oppressive ruler. The original Constitution of the USA
in 1787 and enforced in 1789 did not contain any bill of rights. But there was widespread
apprehension about the powerful federal Government that was set up by the Constitution. The
leaders of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention that had the Constitution, therefore,
assured the people of their rights being incorporated in the Constitution shortly after
it came into force. In 1791 the first ten amendments to the US Constitution those
rights.

15.6.2 Nature of Rights

The rights that were guaranteed by the first ten amendmentswere 'natural rights' in the sense
that they were drafted in a negative way. They bound the state to respect those rights. But they
were individual,and not collective, rights. Subsequently, in the judgement in the versus
Madison case of 1803, when the US Federal Supreme Court assumed the power of judicial
review, it took upon itself the role of the guardian of the fundamental rights of the US people.

There is, thus, a fundamental assumption of contradiction between the rights of and the
power of the state in the liberal democratic theory. It was first removed in the Constitution of
the 1936, Constitution of the of Soviet SocialistRepublics in which the rights were
formulated in a positive language implying that it was the obligation of the state to provide for
those rights. Constitutional guarantee of the fundamental rights of the citizens, therefore, is a
necessity.

Liberal democratic Constitutions in the West have put a premium on political rights because
these are concerned with the power of the state. The prevailing economic philosophy of liberal
democracy has been -meaning that, left to themselves the people can take care
of their own interests. The state should confine itself to the maintenance of law and order
without discriminating thecitizens. The 1936 Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
put a premium on economic rights, particularly, the right to guaranteed employment on the belief
that, without a decent condition of livelihood, political rights are meaningless. The system,
however, collapsed in 1990.

During the framing of India's Constitution, the Constituent Assembly of India debated the
possibility and desirability of ensuring certain positive fundamental rights. It was, however,
considered not feasible within the liberal democratic framework. Following the Irish model,
therefore, certain Directive Principles of State Policy were laid down with a view to ameliorating
the socio-economic conditions of the Indian citizens.

The shortcoming for a system of positive rights is its essentially voluntaristic There
is no way the state can be sued for failure to implement them. No judicial guarantee can be
given for any positive right for the defaulting state may simply plead inability. There can be only
political judgement of a state's performance. On the other hand, when a negative right is
violated, the state is seen to have transgressed its limit. The court will simply refuse to give
effect to a law or an order of the state that it considers ultra vires and people would be free
to violate such a law or order.

15.7 SUMMARY
In this unit, you have studied that the concepts of 'nation' and 'state' had witnessed a parallel
growth in history, but the two are not necessarily co-extensive. While the state is a territorial
concept, the concept of nation has a human dimension. The state is often identified with the
concept of 'nation'; at the same time the two concepts are interlinked. Nation-building involves
both economicdevelopment and psychological integration of the population. In the state- building,
the determination of the authority, territorial extent of the spread conformity with the authority
are crucial requirements. In this context, constitutionalism is important. The constitutional models
of various countries define the parameters of the state- building. Civil society, Rule of Law,
A m y and Bureaucracy act as accountable institutions in the state- building. Rights are also an
inseparable part of state building, as this ensures justice to the people of the nation, and
guarantees their rights. Rather, the preservation of rights and promotion of interests
of the population constitutes the core of state-building.

15.8 EXERCISES

How do you distinguish between the concepts of 'state building' and 'nation building'? What
are their respective components? I

Discuss the meaning of 'constitutionalism.' Is there any contradiction between the concepts
of 'constitutional government' and 'democracy?'

Discuss the constitutional models of the major Western democracies.

Discuss the evolutionary'and the revolutionary modes of the growth of constitutionalism.

What are the structural implications of their differences?

What is the relevance of constitutionalism to state buildingtoday? I

SUGGESTED READINGS
Ahmed, N. and Norton, P., (eds) Parliamentsin Asia, London: Frank 1999.
Alexis de Democracyin New York: GardenCity,
and Bingham Powell, PoliticsToday: A 7 edn, New
York: Harper Collins, 20
Anderson, Benedict., Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism, London: Verso, 1991.
Andrews, William G., Constitutionsand Constitutionalism,Delhi: Affiliated East-West Press
Private Ltd, 1971.
Apter David E., Introductionto Political Analysis, New Delhi: Hall of India, 1970.
(ed.) Mappingthe Nation, London: Verso, 1996.
Ball, T. and Dagger, R., Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, New York.:
ins, 1995.
T.S., International Institutions,New Delhi: Bookhive, 1987.
J.-F., The State in the Politics of the Belly, Harlow and New
1993
Magnus. and Development theory in transition: The dependency
and beyond, London: Zed Books,1984.
M. and van de N., Democratic Experiments in Regime in
Comparative Perspective, Cambridgeand New York: Cambridge University Press,1997.
J., Nationalism State, edn, New York: St. 1993.
P., Century Dictatorships: The Ideological One -PartyStates,
Macmillan, 1995.
and Gagnon, A., Comparative Federalism and Federation: Competing
and Directions, Hempstead: Harvester 1993.

Craig., Nationalism, Open University Press,1997.

Chandhoke, Neera., State and New Delhi: Sage
Chaube, of India: First Edition,
New Delhi: People's Publishing House,1973.
N, Politics and Society in Contemporary 3 edn, Boulder, Colorado:
I
Lynne Rienner,1999.
.
 Ronald H., TheoriesofComparative Politics, Boulder, Colorado: Press, 1981.

C. Group Politics, 5 edn, Washington,D.C.:

Quarterly Papers, 1 995.

Jean L., and Andrew Arato. Civil Society and Political Theory, Press,
Mass.,1997.

Dahl, R., Modern edn, Cliffs, Hall, 1991.

Dalton, R. and M., Politics Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced

Industrial Democracies, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Diamond, Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

University Press, 1999.

Duchacek, I., in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political

Science, V. Bogdanor, Oxford and Cambridge, Mass: 1991, pp.142-4.

Dunnleavy, Patrick and Brendan Theories of the State, London: Macmillan

Education, 1987.

David., The Political System, New York: Alfred A. ,1981.

R., Political Leadershipin Liberal Democracies, Macmillan, 1995.

Finer, S., Government, Penguin, 1974.

Frank McDonald,and Stephen Dearden., (eds.), Economic Integration, Oxford: Oxford

University Press,1992.

I E., Nations and Nationalism,Oxford: Blackwell, 1983.

I Gibson, J. and Hanson, P., (eds)

Economyof Postcommunist
Below: Local Power and the Political
Aldershot and Brookfield, Vt.: Edward 1996.

Gills, B., and Rocamora, J. and Wilson, R., (eds) Low IntensityDemocracy:Political Power in
the New World Boulder,Colorado and London: Pluto, 1993.

Gough, Katherine (eds) and RevolutioninSouthAsia, New York:

Monthly Review Press, 1973.

I
Liah., 'Encyclopedia of Nationalism Volume 1, London: Academic Press, 2001.
pp.883-898.

Montserrat., Nationalisms - The Nation State and Nationalism in the

London: PolityPress, 1996.
 Harris, and James A Genuine Global Governance: Critical
Reactions, in "Our Global Neighbourhood", Westport, 1999.

Hechter, M., ContainingNationalism,Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press,

David Held., "Democracy, the Nation-state and the Global System" in his "Political Theory
Today", London: Polity Press, 1991.
David Held, Global Transformations Politics, Economics and Culture, London: Polity

I press, 1999.

Held, D., Democracy and the Global Order, Cambridge: Polity, 1995.

I Held, D., Models of Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Hettne, Globalism and the New Regionalism, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999. .

I Andrew., Political Ideologies, edn, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998.

i Andrew., Politics, London: Macmillan, 1997.

Hobsbawm E.J., NationsandNationalismsince1780, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,

I Howard J.
Press, 1985.
(ed.) NewDirectionsin ComparativePolitics, Boulder,Colorado:

Hutchinson,John. and Anthony DSmith., Nationalism,Oxford Readers: Oxford UniversityPress,

1994.

and Khilnani., CivilSociety, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Ohmae, K., The World, London: Collins, 1995.

Parekh, B., Gandhi Political Philosophy: A Critical Houndmills: Macmillan,

1989.
Putnam, Robert., Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press,1993.
Roy C. Macridis, (ed), Comparative Politics, NotesandReadings, 1986.

Sarangi, Prakash., Liberal Theories of the State: Contemporary Perspective, New Delhi:

S., Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalisation, New York: Columbia

University Press. 1996.

Smith, A.D., Theories London: Duckworth, 1971.

London: and
Tornquist, Olle., Politics and Development: A critical introduction, New Delhi: sage
publications,1 999.
The Modern New York:Academic Press,]974,1979.
Two Vols.
Walters, R. and Blake, D., The Politics of Global Economic Relations, 4 Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Hall, 1992.
Peter.,'Transnational actorsand internationalorganizations in global politics' in Baylis,
, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to
., Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, 2001.