"I am the State" - Louis XIV of France
From a purely theoretical point of view, State is an all encompassing, all powerful and benevolent entity representing the interests of the individuals residing within its territorial frontiers. In other words the State is an omnipotent 'big brother' (Not in the Orwellian sense) that always has your back. Whether a state actually fulfills this stringent criteria is another debate altogether. What is important here is that it should.
In an effort to fulfill the criteria mentioned above the State has at its disposal: government, legislature, judiciary, bureaucracy, military and police, all of are collectively known as the State apparati. The most significant of the state apparati is the government, which coordinates the activities of other State apparati to achieve the desirable ends.
What is important here is that while State may be represented by individuals working in State institutions, individuals are not embodiment of the State. On the other hand individuals can embody certain state institutions. This difference is crucial because while governments can be overthrown or changed, State is always there. The State may disintegrate into smaller ones or be absorbed into a larger state but it is always there. It has been the case for the past 500 years and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
5 comments:
Good points and I agree that the states will continue to exist well into the future. But, as you've noted, governments will rise and fall, so I think it is better to focus on building effective state institutions, rather than worry about who happens to be the king at any particular moment in time.
I disagree with Sir on not focusing on temporal governmnets and just strengthening the state, as governments are the appratus through which wellfare of public can be delivered in best possible means. If we just focus on the roots without taking care of the branches and the residents then how a state's tree is deemed to consolidate itself.
I agree with you Fatima.
To clarify, I think we spend too much time focusing on the chess match that is electoral politics and not enough time focused on building effective state institutions. Although governments do affect state institutions, these institutions outlast governments and are more ignored in political reform discourse.
So there arises a confusion in my mind regarding state's institutions.
Where does the budget come for these institutions? If government involves in allocating budget then isn't it influences the state system. If it has an influence then how can we assume to focus on institutions without focusing on governments.
The budget for many of these institutions will come from the central government, while the funding for other institutions will come from regional and local governments or other sources. So while the government will impact institutions through budgetary allocation and such, certain institutions operate beyond the purview of the government's power of the purse.
Think of the military for example. It is the largest institution in the Pakistani state. Yet the government has little influence over it. Looking at its funding mechanism, the government does provide funds, but it also has internal (army industries) and external (think US funding) sources of revenue. Hence this institution - which arguably has more power than the government - has a huge impact on both domestic and foreign affairs. I think focusing on reforming and improving this institution would help improve the state.
Post a Comment