A state can be broadly defined as an entity
that exercises power within fixed boundaries. It is different from a government;
the latter being a means of operating power within a state.
But to what extent should a state be
allowed to interfere in economic, social and individual matters; if at all?
Different interpretations of the word state
leads to distinct ideas of the extent of its authority and role it is liable to
undertake. However, a unanimous concept of the word is essential for the
development of political knowledge and ideas. It may be looked upon as a
region, an assembly of organisations, a means of force, or simply a
philosophical idea (which Aristotle referred to as a polity). Although different
forms of states undertake different responsibilities, there function differs
considerably based on the context within which a state is defined, the relation
between the state and its subjects, and its aims.
3 comments:
'if at all?'
The extent of State's role may be debatable but a State has to have a role. If it doesn't the whole point of State ceases to exist and human civilization disintegrates into anarchy!
I'm not sure if there is as much contestation over the term "state" itself as there is over the issue of how much influence and power a state should wield. This, of course, varies widely from the minimalist night watchman state to the maximalist totalitarian state.
I agree with Ahmad Awais that there is, no doubt, a certain role of the state because otherwise what is the purpose of existence of such an entity? So ‘if at all’ is not a question. Intervention by the state is in fact deemed necessary to protect the welfare of the people and because of the anti-social effects of capitalism. However, to what extent should the state be allowed to intervene is surely a perplexing matter. Even history does not seem to provide a definite answer to this dilemma. So the real question is how can we determine what extent of intervention by the state is optimal?
Post a Comment