Powers that be.
Essay Question: Some observers have said that the state has become increasingly irrelevant in the face of transnational corporations and international governing bodies such as the World Trade Organization and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Others have argued the centrality of the state.
Based on our readings to this point, do you believe that the state is still a relevant actor in determining the course of development within that state’s border? What examples from our readings support your view that the state either is relevant or otherwise?
Introduction:
Whether it has emerged by chance or vision, the establishment of institutions which hold power and influence over the masses has long been a strategy for leading societies to greater social and economic prosperity. These institutions have come about in the form of monarchies and later on governments which possess relative control over the natural resources and organization of the population’s activities and livelihood. The very prevalence in our world of this social construct’s existence and its purpose in maintaining a relatively stable society could be an argument for its necessity. As Hobbes states “Since each person sought power over others, a highly destructive process ensued in which extreme social and economic uncertainty were the norm: the ‘life of man’ under these conditions could only be solitary, poor, nasty brutish and short…to avoid such fate, rational individuals would recognize the need for a state to impose order on the people”However, the world’s political and economic dynamics have become more complex today and it has become increasingly difficult to determine where the real powers influencing the direction of a society’s development lies. As the reality of globalization has made its presence more conspicuous in the world, geographical borders have become increasingly blurry as far as the influences from the various powers that determine a society’s development are concerned. In our times, a government’s power is subject to various competing influences, such as those of transnational corporations, the lingering role of religious institutions, international governing bodies, governments of neighboring nations, and other local political or military organizations within the nation’s borders. A state’s relevance as an actor in ultimately deciding the course of development within its borders is contingent upon its relative strength and its ability to suppress the multitude of competing powers with which it coexists.
Competing Powers from within the State’s Borders
Religious Institutions:
Even within the countries which possess a stable and influential government there are other powers that influence the populace in a significant yet sometimes subtle manner. As a government’s strength weakens these powers’ presence makes itself more manifest within the society. Religious institutions are one of these types of powers. This is what makes them a force to be reckoned with and governments will usually collaborate with them mainly out of necessity. A good example that demonstrates the power of religious institutions is evident in the case of the current situation in Iraq. After the fall of Saddam Hussein and hence the dismantling of the Iraqi government, two influential radical Islamic groups emerged to fill in the political void. Sunni and Shiites were already significant powers that made their presence felt in the political arena. However, in the absence of a secular government, they perceived the opportunity to take control over the entire country. The American occupation, which is a power in its own right, has attempted to bolster a democratic government in Iraq, thus making themselves an obstacle in the way of these religious forces. The resulting magnitude of the conflict taking place in Iraq and the obstinate resistance of these religious sects is testimony to the extent of power that religious institutions may hold within a state’s borders. Moreover, the support from neighboring countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia based on religious affinity demonstrates religious institutions’ power to influence the political dynamics in a country, even from outside of its borders.
Non-Government Political and Military Powers inside the State:
Some organizations or institutions emerge and grow in power within the nation when it is in a state of anarchy. This state of anarchy typically begins with a crisis of some sort; one which leads to social unrest and eventually political upheaval. All events, whether natural or human, that bring about conditions of social disruption and disorder are likely to become breeding grounds for criminal organizations, rebel groups, as well as radical and fundamentalist groups. The people’s trust in the legitimate government, especially in these times, and its ability to sustain peace and order is crucial to its maintenance of power within the state. Once this trust is broken or significantly shaken, the masses tend to turn to other powers which may sometimes rely on violence and tyranny to maintain a corrupted kind of order. The government’s relevance is therefore tightly connected with its success in preventing or effectively obviating the type of factors which weaken its political strength, and in suppressing illegitimate and unruly powers from within, and occasionally from outside, its borders. Many real world examples illustrate this type of situation where the government loses its power due to the dire environmental and social conditions that prevail within its state borders. For instance, in Sierra Leone a 27 year old army captain, Valentine Strasser, has taken control of most of the rural interior of the country, making the government powerless within this territory. This critical political disturbance was made possible by, among other things, the state of environmental degradation of the rural area which robbed the locals of their livelihood and the disaffection it engendered within the various village leaders of the region. In this case the government became irrelevant following its inability to mend the socio-economic conditions which drove a number of its citizens to join the rebel army. Strasser’s access to military grade weapons as well as the significantly sized rebel army under control also played a role in the rebel leader’s ability to secure for himself and his cronies a sort of illegitimate rule over the region, and hence his establishment of a criminal military government.
Competing Powers from outside the State’s Borders
Foreign States
Governments understand the scope of influence that they may wield with aggressive trade, military might and propaganda. This influence is often used deliberately to shape foreign countries into states that can eventually provide economic, political and military benefits from the hegemonic nation. This manner of acquiring power within another states borders acts as some form of imperialism or modern colonialism where the hijacking of power is more subtle and often covert. The United States of America is a prime example of a nation which resorts to such forms of power acquisition, although many other nations such as China use their influence in this manner as well. A government’s democratic control within its state’s borders is dependent on both its legitimacy in the eyes of the people but also on the masses’ sense of nationalism. Diplomatic tactics such as propaganda which aims to gain some kind of loyalty from foreign states’ civilians serve to facilitate the acting nation’s efforts to spread their influence beyond their borders. Though the power gained from such actions isn’t always remarkable it certainly can be a game changer in the political dynamics between the propagandist nation and the receiving one. In Addition, the use of intelligence agencies, transparent or otherwise military occupations and the exercise of economic leverage (which we shall elucidate further in the following section), all serve to weaken part of foreign states’ governments for exploitative purposes.
International Institutions
Though many of the international institutions contain the word “international”, “world” or some synonym of those words in their title, in actuality they are mostly dominated by a few individual nations. When the individualistic interests of these nations are in conflict with the all-inclusive goals of the organization, often these nations’ ambitions are the ones that prevail. International institutions can sometimes be used as an extension of an economically powerful nation’s political arm to effectively push its own pet ideologies upon other less powerful nations. This trend is exemplified by the core nations’ use of the World Bank and the IMF to impose neo-liberal and capitalist economic solutions to nations seeking international aid. Countries that resist these ideologies or worse resort to opposing ideologies such as communism are either alienated from all aid or sanctioned economically. The kind leverage that nations which contribute substantial financial support to international organizations enjoy provides them with a means of hijacking some of the decision power of developing countries as far as determining the course of development within their own borders is concerned.
Transnational Corporations
Facilitated by the spread of capitalism and globalization, transnational corporations are playing an increasingly important role in the course of development of a country. Oftentimes the state will welcome these corporations presence in their country as a strategy to increase employment and further their economic growth. However, transnational institutions will sometimes play a negative role in the development of a country and foster a trend of corruption from within the state’s government. Transnational companies that intend to use inhumane and environmentally damaging methods of production, for instance, find that corrupted governments create a favorable environment for their endeavors. Additionally, mass advertizing could be viewed as some commercial sort of propaganda, as the population is lured into the consumption of international products at the expense of their own local goods. A developing state will lose its power to make effective policies that benefit its people, when its government officials are consistently being tempted to accept bribes from transnational companies. Especially the ones seeking profit with the fewest government restrictions to the manner in which they are legally allowed to acquire it.
Conclusion:
The quick answer to the question of whether “the state is still a relevant actor in determining the course of development within its border?” is “It depends…” However, current trends lend credibility to the notion that the state is becoming increasingly irrelevant due to internal and external influences. The state is constantly struggling for its survival as the ultimate ruling power and its failure is always a potentiality looming ahead, especially for the ineffective and the disaster-prone state. Any event within the state which is liable to cause a state of anarchy, and therefore state failure, needs to be promptly obviated for the state to remain relevant within its borders. The main focus should be keeping the nation socially stable, whether it is by satisfying the citizens’ needs in order to stay elected in a democratic regime or by preventing the population from reaching its threshold of dissatisfaction in a dictator regime. Once the population is lacking its basic needs such as food, water, and a descent livelihood, state failure becomes immanent and the competing powers from within and outside the state begin to seep at the states power and compromise its relevance. Other factors that determine state failure and hence its relevance in directing the course of development are its control of the physical territory within the state borders, its monopoly on the legitimate use of force its ability to maintain the functioning of public services, and to represent the nation as a full member of the international community.
Based on our readings to this point, do you believe that the state is still a relevant actor in determining the course of development within that state’s border? What examples from our readings support your view that the state either is relevant or otherwise?
Introduction:
Whether it has emerged by chance or vision, the establishment of institutions which hold power and influence over the masses has long been a strategy for leading societies to greater social and economic prosperity. These institutions have come about in the form of monarchies and later on governments which possess relative control over the natural resources and organization of the population’s activities and livelihood. The very prevalence in our world of this social construct’s existence and its purpose in maintaining a relatively stable society could be an argument for its necessity. As Hobbes states “Since each person sought power over others, a highly destructive process ensued in which extreme social and economic uncertainty were the norm: the ‘life of man’ under these conditions could only be solitary, poor, nasty brutish and short…to avoid such fate, rational individuals would recognize the need for a state to impose order on the people”However, the world’s political and economic dynamics have become more complex today and it has become increasingly difficult to determine where the real powers influencing the direction of a society’s development lies. As the reality of globalization has made its presence more conspicuous in the world, geographical borders have become increasingly blurry as far as the influences from the various powers that determine a society’s development are concerned. In our times, a government’s power is subject to various competing influences, such as those of transnational corporations, the lingering role of religious institutions, international governing bodies, governments of neighboring nations, and other local political or military organizations within the nation’s borders. A state’s relevance as an actor in ultimately deciding the course of development within its borders is contingent upon its relative strength and its ability to suppress the multitude of competing powers with which it coexists.
Competing Powers from within the State’s Borders
Religious Institutions:
Even within the countries which possess a stable and influential government there are other powers that influence the populace in a significant yet sometimes subtle manner. As a government’s strength weakens these powers’ presence makes itself more manifest within the society. Religious institutions are one of these types of powers. This is what makes them a force to be reckoned with and governments will usually collaborate with them mainly out of necessity. A good example that demonstrates the power of religious institutions is evident in the case of the current situation in Iraq. After the fall of Saddam Hussein and hence the dismantling of the Iraqi government, two influential radical Islamic groups emerged to fill in the political void. Sunni and Shiites were already significant powers that made their presence felt in the political arena. However, in the absence of a secular government, they perceived the opportunity to take control over the entire country. The American occupation, which is a power in its own right, has attempted to bolster a democratic government in Iraq, thus making themselves an obstacle in the way of these religious forces. The resulting magnitude of the conflict taking place in Iraq and the obstinate resistance of these religious sects is testimony to the extent of power that religious institutions may hold within a state’s borders. Moreover, the support from neighboring countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia based on religious affinity demonstrates religious institutions’ power to influence the political dynamics in a country, even from outside of its borders.
Non-Government Political and Military Powers inside the State:
Some organizations or institutions emerge and grow in power within the nation when it is in a state of anarchy. This state of anarchy typically begins with a crisis of some sort; one which leads to social unrest and eventually political upheaval. All events, whether natural or human, that bring about conditions of social disruption and disorder are likely to become breeding grounds for criminal organizations, rebel groups, as well as radical and fundamentalist groups. The people’s trust in the legitimate government, especially in these times, and its ability to sustain peace and order is crucial to its maintenance of power within the state. Once this trust is broken or significantly shaken, the masses tend to turn to other powers which may sometimes rely on violence and tyranny to maintain a corrupted kind of order. The government’s relevance is therefore tightly connected with its success in preventing or effectively obviating the type of factors which weaken its political strength, and in suppressing illegitimate and unruly powers from within, and occasionally from outside, its borders. Many real world examples illustrate this type of situation where the government loses its power due to the dire environmental and social conditions that prevail within its state borders. For instance, in Sierra Leone a 27 year old army captain, Valentine Strasser, has taken control of most of the rural interior of the country, making the government powerless within this territory. This critical political disturbance was made possible by, among other things, the state of environmental degradation of the rural area which robbed the locals of their livelihood and the disaffection it engendered within the various village leaders of the region. In this case the government became irrelevant following its inability to mend the socio-economic conditions which drove a number of its citizens to join the rebel army. Strasser’s access to military grade weapons as well as the significantly sized rebel army under control also played a role in the rebel leader’s ability to secure for himself and his cronies a sort of illegitimate rule over the region, and hence his establishment of a criminal military government.
Competing Powers from outside the State’s Borders
Foreign States
Governments understand the scope of influence that they may wield with aggressive trade, military might and propaganda. This influence is often used deliberately to shape foreign countries into states that can eventually provide economic, political and military benefits from the hegemonic nation. This manner of acquiring power within another states borders acts as some form of imperialism or modern colonialism where the hijacking of power is more subtle and often covert. The United States of America is a prime example of a nation which resorts to such forms of power acquisition, although many other nations such as China use their influence in this manner as well. A government’s democratic control within its state’s borders is dependent on both its legitimacy in the eyes of the people but also on the masses’ sense of nationalism. Diplomatic tactics such as propaganda which aims to gain some kind of loyalty from foreign states’ civilians serve to facilitate the acting nation’s efforts to spread their influence beyond their borders. Though the power gained from such actions isn’t always remarkable it certainly can be a game changer in the political dynamics between the propagandist nation and the receiving one. In Addition, the use of intelligence agencies, transparent or otherwise military occupations and the exercise of economic leverage (which we shall elucidate further in the following section), all serve to weaken part of foreign states’ governments for exploitative purposes.
International Institutions
Though many of the international institutions contain the word “international”, “world” or some synonym of those words in their title, in actuality they are mostly dominated by a few individual nations. When the individualistic interests of these nations are in conflict with the all-inclusive goals of the organization, often these nations’ ambitions are the ones that prevail. International institutions can sometimes be used as an extension of an economically powerful nation’s political arm to effectively push its own pet ideologies upon other less powerful nations. This trend is exemplified by the core nations’ use of the World Bank and the IMF to impose neo-liberal and capitalist economic solutions to nations seeking international aid. Countries that resist these ideologies or worse resort to opposing ideologies such as communism are either alienated from all aid or sanctioned economically. The kind leverage that nations which contribute substantial financial support to international organizations enjoy provides them with a means of hijacking some of the decision power of developing countries as far as determining the course of development within their own borders is concerned.
Transnational Corporations
Facilitated by the spread of capitalism and globalization, transnational corporations are playing an increasingly important role in the course of development of a country. Oftentimes the state will welcome these corporations presence in their country as a strategy to increase employment and further their economic growth. However, transnational institutions will sometimes play a negative role in the development of a country and foster a trend of corruption from within the state’s government. Transnational companies that intend to use inhumane and environmentally damaging methods of production, for instance, find that corrupted governments create a favorable environment for their endeavors. Additionally, mass advertizing could be viewed as some commercial sort of propaganda, as the population is lured into the consumption of international products at the expense of their own local goods. A developing state will lose its power to make effective policies that benefit its people, when its government officials are consistently being tempted to accept bribes from transnational companies. Especially the ones seeking profit with the fewest government restrictions to the manner in which they are legally allowed to acquire it.
Conclusion:
The quick answer to the question of whether “the state is still a relevant actor in determining the course of development within its border?” is “It depends…” However, current trends lend credibility to the notion that the state is becoming increasingly irrelevant due to internal and external influences. The state is constantly struggling for its survival as the ultimate ruling power and its failure is always a potentiality looming ahead, especially for the ineffective and the disaster-prone state. Any event within the state which is liable to cause a state of anarchy, and therefore state failure, needs to be promptly obviated for the state to remain relevant within its borders. The main focus should be keeping the nation socially stable, whether it is by satisfying the citizens’ needs in order to stay elected in a democratic regime or by preventing the population from reaching its threshold of dissatisfaction in a dictator regime. Once the population is lacking its basic needs such as food, water, and a descent livelihood, state failure becomes immanent and the competing powers from within and outside the state begin to seep at the states power and compromise its relevance. Other factors that determine state failure and hence its relevance in directing the course of development are its control of the physical territory within the state borders, its monopoly on the legitimate use of force its ability to maintain the functioning of public services, and to represent the nation as a full member of the international community.
posted by Albouri Ndiaye | 18:54
|
2 comments
