Session 4: State's Legitimacy towards Use of
Power
Max Weber in his essay
Politics as a Vocation claims that state is any “human community that
successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within
a given territory.”
Power is a very strong
concept, many kingdoms have risen and fallen by its right and wrong use
respectively. The legitimacy to use
power monopolizes the state’s use of power, not only in the interest of its
country in international community but also against its own people without
being questioned about it. Many people see this monopoly of power as against
their basic rights as it gives the state right to take away a person’s freedom and
life if he/she is considered a threat to sovereignty of the state in any way
but what they do not understand is that state power is very important to keep
the law and order stabilized in the country and to suppress any internal
factors rising which hinders the country’s development. It is also very
important to protect a country’s interests in the international community. A
state which is unable to hold this power and use it when needed is considered a
‘failed state.’
3 comments:
Although the state should be allowed to exercise a reasonable degree of power within its boundaries, i believe that it is not wise to suggest that the state have unchecked and unlimited power.This is because unlimited power at the disposal of the state may lead to state actors misusing this power to impeach on the rights and freedoms of its citizens even if they do not pose a "threat"to the states' sovereignty.How would you then ensure that this does not happen?
What we need to realize is that a state itself is a non-existent entity which takes the shape of the government in power. The state being a non-living entity cannot be biased. A clear system hence that separates the government and the mechanism of the state, that are supposed to keep the government in check needs to be established.
I agree that the current scenario of granting unlimited powers to the state is questionable, but it stems due to the fact that the lines between a state and government are blurry. A new outlook towards distinguishing these two factors could solve the problem of power being granted to the state.
To dovetail on Rija's point, the state should have constraints on its power. The best way is through some type of social contract, one that is either embedded implicitly in the laws of the nation or explicitly in the constitution.
And to follow up on Kamil's point, the blurred lines between state and government really make constraining the power of the state/government difficult. As the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Post a Comment