Written By Ben Burka/Alan Paul
British political scientist David Held while discussing the development of the modern state gives a definition for the concept. The state is a historical phenomenon constructed by human society in different contexts or epochs. It is an apparatus that performs political actions and is different from other organizations existing in society. It can also be viewed as a collection of institutions that deliver and cater multiple functions to the people.
David Held is a prominent political scientist who has made significant contributions to the study of the development of the modern state. He is known for his work on globalization, global governance, and theories of democratic practice.
Held argues that the modern state has undergone significant changes over time, evolving from an absolute monarchy to a more democratic and accountable system. He emphasizes the development of institutions, such as the rule of law, legislative bodies, and administrative bureaucracies, as key factors in the transformation of the state.
According to Held, the modern state has also become increasingly interconnected and interdependent due to globalization. This has led to the emergence of new challenges and opportunities for state power, as states must now navigate complex global networks, regional integration, and transnational issues.
Held’s work also focuses on the importance of democratic governance in the modern state. He argues that democratic practices, such as free and fair elections, civil liberties, and political participation, are essential for ensuring the legitimacy and effectiveness of the state. He promotes the idea of global democracy, where democratic principles are extended beyond national borders to address global challenges collectively.
Overall, David Held’s analysis of the development of the modern state highlights the interplay between political institutions, globalization, and democratic practices. His work has contributed to understanding the complex dynamics and transformation of state power in the contemporary world.
Emergence of Modern States over time/Different forms of Nation States
States evolved during the civilizational advents and developed into stronger institutions throughout the course of time. The form of state in ancient, medieval, and modern periods varied from each other based on their structures.
In the ancient period, the superior form of states were empires. The Roman Empire is an example of such a state in world history. Since the fall of Rome, it is not just the number of states which has altered dramatically, but the forms and types of states as well. There are five main clusters of state systems that can be distinguished:
1. Traditional tribute-taking empires
2. Systems of divided authority, characterized by feudal relations, city-states, and urban alliances, With the Church (Papacy) playing a leading role;
3. The polity of estates
4. Absolutist stats
5. Modern nation-states, with constitutional, liberal democratic, or single-party politics locked progressively into a system of nation-states.
Characteristics of Empire
1. Large in geographical size
2. Accumulation and concentrations of coercive means
3. War-making ability mandatory for sustaining
4. Economic needs of the empire were met through tribute paid to it
5. Empires were ruled not governed as the focus of the emperor and administration was on war and protection of the state.
6. The administrative role of the emperor was limited as functions were mostly performed by dominant leaders or feudatories.
Characteristics of Feudal Form of State
1. Political power was more local and focused on people.
2. Evolved from the breakup of empires.
3. The supreme ruler/king cannot make individual decisions. They must consult landlords who maintain autonomous armies.
4. This form of state conflicted with the Church as it lost its significant hold that was exercised during empires. Still, the theocratic dominations were maintained and inducted into feudalism.
Polity of Estates
1. In feudalism, the “feudal estate” refers to the landholding class, which was composed of lords and nobles who owned large tracts of land. The politics of feudal estates revolved around the relationships and interactions between the different estates:
• Monarchy: At the top of the feudal hierarchy was the monarch, who owned all the land in the kingdom in theory but granted portions of it to the nobles (vassals) in exchange for loyalty, military service, and other obligations. The monarch held the highest authority and was responsible for maintaining order and security in the kingdom.
• Nobility: The nobles, or lords, were granted land by the monarch and were expected to provide military service and loyalty in return. They were the ruling class within their territories and had significant political power and privileges.
• Clergy: The clergy, including bishops and abbots, also held significant land and power. They played a vital role in both religious and political matters, often exercising significant influence over the population.
• Peasantry: The majority of the population consisted of peasants who worked the land owned by the feudal lords. Peasants were bound to the land and subject to the authority of the local lord. They were obligated to provide labor, military service, and various taxes or dues.
2. The politics of feudal estates were characterized by a web of reciprocal relationships and obligations. Feudal society was organized around personal ties of loyalty and vassalage rather than a centralized government. The lords protected their vassals, and in return, the vassals provided military support and other services.
3. Rulers had to deal with estates and estates had to deal with rulers. Out of this emerged a variety of estates-based assemblies, parliaments, diets, and councils which sought to legitimate and enjoy autonomous faculties of rule. The ‘polity of estates’ was characterized by a ‘power dualism’: power was split between rulers and estates.
4. This ‘power dualism’ did not endure; it was challenged by the estates seeking greater power and by monarchs hoping to subvert the assemblies in order to centralize power in their own hands. As the grip of feudal traditions and customs was loosened, the nature and limits of political authority, law, rights, and obedience emerged as a preoccupation of political thought.
Absolute States
1. Absolutism can be defined as the absorption of smaller political units into larger and stronger political units. structures; a strengthened ability to rule over a unified territorial area; a tightened system of law and order enforced throughout the territory; the application of a ‘more unitary, continuous, calculable, and effective’ rule by a single, sovereign head; and the development of a relatively small number of states engaged in an ‘open-ended, competitive, and risk-laden power struggle.
2. These states emerged towards the decline of feudal states.
3. In comparison with feudal states the power struggle between various sections was reduced and there was a strong integration of power and authority.
4. The rise of absolute states can be attributed to the change in technology, methods of production, and economy.
5. There were two kinds of absolute states; the monarchies like France, Prussia, Austria, Spain, Sweden, and Russia, among other places, and constitutional republic monarchies in England and Holland.
The features like ministries within monarchies and changing economics paved the way for modern states. Absolute courts and legal systems emerged in absolutist states. Slowly the autonomy of power into the hands of one was distributed to many via different institutions. There was increased involvement of states in the promotion and regulation of diversity of activities. Six ensuing developments were of great significance in the history of the state’s system:
• Growing coincidence of territorial boundaries with a uniform system of rule;
• Creation of new mechanisms of law-making and enforcement;
• Centralization of administrative power;
• Alteration and extension of fiscal management;
• Formalization of relations among states through-the-development of diplomacy and diplomatic institutions;
• Introduction of a standing army
The rise of modern states preceded Europe’s 30-year war and the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This treaty can be described as the prime model of international law where the sovereignty of each state was endorsed. The development of state sovereignty was part of a process of mutual recognition whereby states granted each other rights of jurisdiction in their respective territories and communities.
The Treaty of Westphalia marked the end of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe and laid the foundation for the modern state-centric system of international relations.
Key features of the Westphalian model include:
• State Sovereignty: The Peace of Westphalia recognized the principle of state sovereignty, which means that each state is considered supreme within its own territory and has the exclusive right to govern its internal affairs without interference from other states.
• Territorial Integrity: The treaties established the concept of territorial integrity, which emphasizes the inviolability of state borders and prohibits the acquisition of territory through force or aggression.
• Non-Interference: The Westphalian model promoted the idea of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states. States were expected to respect each other’s sovereignty and refrain from intervening in the internal affairs of other nations.
• Diplomacy and Treaties: The Peace of Westphalia emphasized diplomacy as the primary means of resolving disputes between states. It established the practice of negotiating treaties and agreements to regulate relations between nations.
• Balance of Power: The Westphalian system contributed to the development of the balance of power concept, where states sought to prevent any single state from becoming too dominant by forming alliances and counterbalancing power.
• Secularization: The treaties also contributed to the secularization of politics by recognizing the autonomy of rulers in religious matters within their territories. This helped to reduce religious conflicts that had been a significant factor in the Thirty Years’ War.
Modern States
1. The proximate sources of the modern state were absolutism and the interstate system it initiated.
2. With the emergence of territory and secular sovereignty the distance between the ones who are governed and the ones who govern was reduced. (Coincide this with the social contract theories) The new order developed based on capital and the market economy. It forced all the collectivities to rethink their relationship with the state and to re-examine their political resources.
3. With the development of capitalism, fixed boundaries, and proximity between state and subjects a new phenomenon called nationalism began to fledge. Thus modern states of the initial eras were known as nation-states.
4. Modern states can be described as a blend of absolutist characteristics like secularization, boundaries with newly emerged social contracts, the political economy of capitalism, and nationalism.
Specialties of Modern States are:
• Territoriality: While all states have made claims to territories, it is only with the modern states system that exact borders have been fixed.
• Control of the means of violence: The claim to hold a monopoly once and the means of coercion (sustained by a standing army and the police) became possible only through the ‘pacification’ of peoples., — the breaking down of rival centers of power and authority- in the nation-state. This element of the modern state was not fully present until the nineteenth century.
• Impersonal structure of power: The idea of an impersonal and sovereign political order – i.e., a legally circumscribed structure of power with supreme jurisdiction over a territory – could not predominate while political rights, obligations, and duties were conceived as closely tied to property rights, religion, and the claims of traditionally privileged groups such as the nobility. This matter was still in contention in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
• Legitimacy: It was only when claims to ‘divine right’ or ‘state right’ were challenged and eroded that it became possible. for human beings as ‘individuals’ and as ‘peoples’ to be active citizens of a new order- not merely dutiful subjects of a monarch or emperor. The loyalty of citizens became something that had to be won by modern states: invariably this involved a claim by the state to be legitimate because it reflected and/ or represented the needs and interests of its citizens.
Democratic Governance and Rule of Law
Proper Administration system and Jurisdiction further strengthened the idea of Modern States.
Forms of Modern States
1. Constitutionalism or the constitutional state refers to implicit and/or explicit limits on political or state decision-making, limits which can be either procedural or substantive; that is, specifying how decisions and changes can be made (proceduralism), or blocking certain kinds of changes altogether (substantive). Constitutionalism defines the proper forms and limits of state action, and its elaboration over time as a set of doctrines and practices helped inaugurate one of the central tenets of European liberalism: that the state exists to safeguard the rights and liberties of citizens who are ultimately the best judges of their own interests; and, accordingly, that the state must be restricted in scope and constrained in practice in order to ensure the maximum possible freedom of every citizen.
2. The liberal state became defined in large part by the attempt to create a private sphere independent of the state, and by a concern to reshape the state itself, i.e., by freeing civil society – personal, family, and business life – from unnecessary political interference, and simultaneously delimiting the state’s authority. The building blocks of the liberal state became constitutionalism, private property, the competitive market economy, and the distinctively patriarchal family. But while liberalism celebrated the rights of individuals to ‘life, liberty, and property John Locke), it should be noted from the outset that it was generally the male property-owning individual who was the focus of so much attention; and the new freedoms were first and foremost for the men of the new middle classes or the bourgeoisie. The Western world was liberal first, and only later, after extensive conflicts, liberal democratic; that is, only later was a universal franchise won which in principle allowed all mature adults the chance to express their judgment about the performance of those who govern them
3. The third variant of the modern state is liberal or representative democracy itself, a system of rule embracing elected ‘officers’ who undertake to ‘represent’ the interests or views of citizens within the framework of the ‘rule of law’. Representative democracy means that decisions affecting a community are not taken by its members but by a sub-group of representatives whom ‘the people’ have elected for this purpose. In the arena of national politics, representative democracy takes the form of elections to congresses, parliaments, or similar national bodies, and is now associated with the system of government in countries as far afield as the United States, Britain, Germany, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.
4. Finally, there is the form of the modern state known as the one-party or single-party polity. Until recently, the Soviet Union, many East European societies, and some Third World countries have been governed. The principle underlying one-party politics is that a single party can be the legitimate expression of the overall will of the community. Voters can affirm the party’s choice of candidate or occasionally choose from among different party candidates (although some may doubt whether this constitutes an opportunity for the exercise of choice at all).
