A state is portrayed by a sea monster, a Leviathan standing
tall over everything else in a particular geographic area. In simple terms a
state is an answer to the state of nature whereby people wish for a neutral arbitrator
in order to form a society. A state is basically a collection of institutions.
A state is an entity in itself. In the modern world these entities strive for
the accomplishment of their own interests. A government is not an entity and is
a temporary guide for the state. A state might be an entity but the government
is the brain which is accountable to the state institutions.
The definitions themselves when analyzed can create
problems. For the state mechanism to operate the need for a distinction between
a state and government is high. The problem here is that a brain controls the
body and the institutions that are supposed to hold a government accountable, fall
prey to the Leviathan itself. The point is at full display in developing
countries and is also visible in developed countries too. A government in most
cases is a self-serving entity that strives to attain power of the state. A
state that was supposed to be a neutral identity then takes on the shape of the
government in power and all state institutions can also be tapped in by them.
This leaves us with a problem. The distinction between a
government and a state might exist. But the current definitions leave us with a
line that can be crossed with ease. The powers that we endow upon a state
however require a more rigorous analysis and a clear distinction between the
forces of the state and the forces of the government need to be identified. A
sea monster with absolute power under a particular direction can wreak havoc.
2 comments:
The Leviathan analogy of the state is very apt in my opinion. States working towards their own agendas and taking the citizens for granted has become quite a routine. The monstrosity is fairly visible in our current system of Pakistan. Each political party has something to take from the country, rather than giving back. For instance, the PMLN government is investing hugely in infrastructure as it will yield them profits as businessmen.
Distinguishing between the two concepts of "state" and "government" are important when discussing the effects of policy decisions made within a polity. Hence I like how you untangled this issue Kamil.
Haya, don't you think that by investing in infrastructure, PMLN is working in the best interests for both themselves and the state? After all, if there is more business, the state will get more revenue, which it can then - in theory - spend more for the public good.
This comment, however, should not be construed as support for PMLN, although I do think their attempts at building up infrastructure in Pakistan is praiseworthy. Instead, it is an attempt to get you to think about the complicated intersection of interests that exist between individuals running a government and what are the best interests for a state.
Post a Comment