What Are States? Compare And Cotrast Different Theories Of The State Essay, Research Paper

The main purpose of the state is to shape and control almost every human activity. Where the state does not shape or control it regulates, supervises, authorizes or proscribes . According to Heywood, a state consists of five key categories. Firstly, a state must be sovereign, in which it is able to exercise absolute power over its own affairs in standing above all other associations including the government and groups in society. Secondly, it must consist of public institutions, which must serve the public interest of the population, not just the private interests of a few individuals. Thirdly, citizens of a state must accept the state?s authority in a process known as legitimation. Fourthly, the state is an instrument of domination as it must have sufficient ?muscle? to over-ride any other opposing groups as well as able to uphold laws. Lastly, a state must have territoriality; thus it must be recognised by other states as having defined geographical borders . Many political scientists are at odds with one another about what states are and thus may reject Heywood?s definitions. In this essay three confronting views will be discussed. These include Heywood?s view that was just briefly summarized. Secondly, The Pluralist view, which argues that the state is like a neutral arbitrator that tries to keep the peace between different groups. Lastly, the Marxist view that argues that the state is an instrument of the capitalist classes will be discussed. These views will be compared and contrasted.

In theory, states are sovereign. That is they exercise supreme authority within their own territory. According to Heywood, a sovereign state can exercise total power on its citizens. For example, a state may enter into treaties, declare war, or adopt any other course of action without another country’s or a rival domestic group?s consent. It is clear that throughout the world there currently are many states where their government does not have absolute power on its own affairs . When a civil war breaks out in a certain state, the government certainly loses its sovereignty throughout the country. It is interesting to ask oneself whether that ?state? ceases to be a state. If the answer is yes, then there are a considerable less number of states then we had previously imagined. A few examples where a state does not have absolute power over its territory include Russia, where the civil war in Chechnya undermines Russia?s sovereignty, the current conflict between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the on-going conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. There are without any doubt many more examples of states in a situation where they do not have absolute power over its territory. Another key point Heywood makes is that the state is a public institution. He argues that, ?states are social organizations because people see the government in the public interest.? When a state acts in a public interest it ultimately acts for the good of society as a whole, therefore opposed to the good of a few individuals (private interest) . The state is also an exercise in legitimation. That is to say that people accept the state?s decisions because they know (sometimes not) that the decisions made by the state are for the common good of society. On the other hand, there are many examples of states that do not act on the common good of the people. For example, Saddam Hussein has used much of Iraq?s wealth to enrich himself and his family. Another example is how during the apartheid era in South Africa, the white minority government only acted on the self-interest of the white people in South Africa thus ignoring the black majority. Another important question is if a state does not use its power for the public interest and good of the people, is it still considered a state?

A state is also an instrument of domination. According to the German political analyst, Max Weber, a state must have a ?monopoly of legitimate violence over that certain territory .? In other words, a state must be able to control opposing groups with a physical force that is acceptable by the majority of people. This is surely not the case in the state of Colombia where in many cases the unconventional guerrilla army of the drug lords is more powerful than the state?s army. In saying so, if the state of Colombia does not have domination is it still considered a state? Surely one of the easiest categories to understand is territoriality. According to Heywood, territoriality is simply recognition of territorial borders by members of that state?s citizens as well as other states throughout the world. In parts of the world the legitimacy of those borders if often questioned. For example, in Palestine, Cyprus, Sudan and to a lesser extent Taiwan which China recognises as being part of the Republic of China. Is it safe to say therefore that only countries that have unquestionable borders are considered states? Out of all the topics Heywood has mentioned, all of them seem to be questionable. Therefore it is clear that his definitions are not to be taken literally. Maybe Heywood is trying to answer the question, ?what are states ought to be like,? so that they are in fact, ?true states?. Continuing with this investigation we turn to different theories.

Pluralists view the state as a neutral arbitrator between the competing forces in society. Western society, for one thing, is not made up of homogeneous citizens. Rather, there are a number of interest groups, coming together voluntarily or organizationally in order to assert their social identify and political demands. These interest groups may be structured around economic ?domains? such as social class, religion, leisure or environment, to name a few. If society comprises a whole series of interest groups more or less in competition with one another for economic resources and access to power, then it is the state?s role to balance these pressure groups in order to secure political and social stability . Thus, the state must act in a neutral fashion to ensure equality between the rival demands and then achieving as fair a result as possible after thorough consideration from all sides. Pluralists such as Hobbes argue that people are essentially greedy and that if it was not for the state, rival groups would be fighting with each other for large portions of what there is including money, truth, land and power. Many argue that it is impossible to keep state decisions from being strictly neutral. Critics of pluralism maintain that rich business interests would always exercise disproportionate influence and win better access . For example, the owner of Formula1 racing gave a generous donation of two million pounds to the Labour Party in 1998, consequently when a bill that would eliminate tobacco advertising from formula1 was being drafted. The tactic worked successfully and the bill was dropped. This shows how a government may not act in an impartial manner, rather in a, ?you scratch my back, I scratch yours? fashion. If the government were to act in an impartial way it act on behalf of society, which would (large majority) not want tobacco advertising in formula1.

Unlike Pluralism, Marxism views the state as an instrument of the ruling class. The state is not the neutral arbitrator between warring factions; on the contrary, Marxists believe the state is the instrument of the capitalist (bourgeoisie) class. As Marx put it in his book, The Communist Manifesto, ?The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie .? Marxists believe that the ruling class owns all the means of production (businesses, factories, land) and exploits the poor lower class (proletariat). This capitalist production therefore generates class divisions within society. Even though a ?mixed economy? (combination of both state and privately owned businesses) has grown in most Western democracies, Marxists still view this change as by the criterion of profitability rather than social need . Marx also argued that the state may not just be a product of the ruling class, rather could enjoy a ?relative autonomy?. Thus, a state may articulate the interests of any class, which has a large support of the population. Marx?s attitude towards the state was not entirely negative. He argued that the state could be used constructively during the transition from capitalism to communism as was seen in the Russian Revolution in 1917 . With the destruction of the ruling class, a new classless society would emerge. All in all, Marxists would strongly disagree with Heywood as well as Pluralist theories. First of all, Marxists strongly doubt that the state acts objectively in the public interest. Also, they believe the state does not act as a legitimating agent; rather it legitimises ideology and makes the public feel as if the state is acting in the public interest while the state acts in the interest of the capitalist class. In other words, the state is the instrument used by a small rich section of society to dominate and make a larger poorer section of society swallow the capitalist ideology.

Like most controversial topics in politics, the definition of a state does not have one right answer; in fact, it is difficult to say if it has any right answers. We certainly cannot accept small parts of each theory because they happen to be, for the most part, contradictory. For example, accepting Pluralism and Marxism would leave one accepting the state as being neutral and an oppressor at the same time. It has come to my attention that the only way to give a clear definition of what a state is, has to be to ask myself the question, ?What are states for?? Heywood argues that the state is a ?form of social organisation in which a certain kind of very valuable freedom is established. It is only in the state that we are constituted as citizens and to be constituted as a citizen, it is to be constituted as free. ? Therefore, in light of these facts, it is my opinion that a state can only be considered a state if it is a ?provider of freedom?. In another words, a state does not have to have a full democracy; it merely ought to guarantee its citizens some basic freedoms and rights.

BibliographyRobert C. Martin, President World Book., World Book Millennium 2000 Encyclopedia. (New York 2000. Information gathered on Oct 15th, 2001 ?State?).

Heywood, A, ed., Politics. (London: Palgrave. 1997).

Jordan, B, The State. (New York: Basil Blackwell. 1985).

Hall, S., Held, D., Mclennan, G., The Idea of the Modern Stat. (Bristol: St. Edmundundsbury Press).

Information from lecture by Professor Frost on the 1st of November, 2001., ?Thinking About Politics?.