D.

The STATE
Aims and Learning Outcomes
1. Identify the ELEMENTS OF STATE;
2. Discuss the different elements of States; and

The State
• Definitions of the state
• State institutions
• Development of the modern state
• Organization of the state
State is the main object of most discussions of comparative politics. This chapter
addresses the concept, definitions and development of the state. As Gianfranco Poggi notes,
‘The comparative analysis of the arrangements under which political activity is carried out
refers chiefly to a multiplicity of independent but separate, to a greater or lesser extent
autonomous, units – let us call them polities. Polities differ among themselves in numerous,
relevant respects, and entertain with one another relations – friendly or antagonistic – which
reflect those differences.

Definitions
State is a dominant principle of political organization in the modern world (the number
of states grew from 59 to 193 over the past 60 years (see Table 1); however, there is no single
definition of this concept. According to Bob Jessop it is not clear how we should define ‘state’–
by its legal form, coercive capacities, institutional composition or sovereign place in the
international system. Is state a subject, a social relation or a construct that helps to orient
political action?
The German sociologist Max Webber (1978:56) tried to distinguish characteristics of the
state, according to him: ‘The primary formal characteristics of the modern state are as follows:
it possesses an administrative and legal order subject to change by legislation, to which the
organized activities of the administrative staff, which are also controlled by regulations, are
oriented.
This system of order claims authority, not only over the member of the state, the
citizens, most of whom have obtained membership by birth, but also to a very large extent over
all action talking place in the area of its jurisdiction. It is thus a compulsory organization with a
territorial basis. Furthermore, today, the use of force is regarded as legitimate only so far as it is
permitted by the state or prescribed by it.’ Michael J. Sodaro (2008:124) defines state as a
‘totality of country’s governmental institutions and officials, together with the laws and
procedures that structure their activities.’ Sodaro agrees that ‘the most important feature of
the state that distinguishes it from other entities – such as social groups or private firms – is
that the state monopolizes legal authority. In other words, only the state possesses the legal
authority to make, and coercively enforce, laws that are binding on the population. This legal
authority makes the state’s decisions ‘authoritative’’.
Hague and Harrop (2004:8) note that even though ‘state’, ‘country’ and ‘territory’ are
related concepts, they are not the same. According to them, ‘The state is a political community
formed by territorial population which is subject to one government. A country usually
refers to a state’s territory and population, rather than its government. In international law, a
state’s territory extends to its airspace, continental shelf and territorial waters.’

Introduction to Comparative Politics

According to Thomas Hobbes, ‘the state’s main purpose would be to leave humanity
free to pursue science, art, exploration, and other aspects of civilization without the pressures
of continual fear, and danger of violent death.’ In other words the main purpose of the state is
to guarantee security and order. John Locke saw humans as born free and having the natural
rights to life, liberty and property, so the main purpose of the state is to protect the possessions
of its citizens as well as their individual rights and freedoms.
According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, ‘the chief purpose of the state is to enable the
sovereign people to express and carry out their general will. In practical terms, he believed that
this goal could be accomplished by a small elite making day-to-day decisions, as long as the
citizens exercised their supervisory authority by meeting periodically in popular assemblies.’
To Adam Smith, ‘state’s chief purpose should be to promote private enterprise and
allow the forces of market economy to work without excessive government interference’. In
Smith’s view, ‘the state should limit itself to providing a legal system designed to enable
commerce to flow smoothly and to undertaking large projects that are too unprofitable for
private entrepreneurs to take on themselves, such as building bridges and canals and funding
public education and cultural activities’. Even though there is no common understanding of
what a state really is, according to Gianfranco Poggi, there are five main elements typical to any
state – monopoly of legitimate violence, territoriality, sovereignty, plurality and relation with
the population.

Monopoly of legitimate violence. Poggi (2011) notes that ‘states are in the first place polities
where a single centre of rules has established its executive entitlement to control and employ
the ultimate medium of political activity – organized violence – over a definite territory.
Individuals and bodies operating within that territory may occasionally exercise
violence, but if they do so without mandate or permission from the centre of rule, the latter
considers that exercise illegitimate and seeks to suppress it’. States which cannot control and
2021 suppress illegitimate violence in their own territory are considered ‘failed states’.
According to Sodaro (2008:124), such states lose their monopoly of coercive power and
are seriously challenged by domestic groups which routinely ignore the laws. Basically ‘a failed
state is a state that has little or no ability to govern its entire territory.’
Territoriality. One of the most significant elements of the state has to be its territory. If polity is
to qualify as a state it must not only be able to manage internal conflicts, but also to defend its
territory from external threats. ‘<…> relation between state and territory is an intimate one.
The territory is not simply a locale of the state’s activities (violent or other), or it’s however
cherished possession. Rather, it represents the physical aspect of the state’s own Identity, the
very ground of its existence and of its historical continuity.’ (Poggi 2011)
Sovereignty. Sovereignty is one of the key elements of a state. Michael J. Sodaro (2008:126)
defines it as ‘exclusive legal authority of a government over its population and territory,
independent of external authorities’.
In other words a sovereign state rejects the rights of any external actor to impose its
rules or interfere in states domestic policies. As Gianfranco Poggi (2011:68) puts it a sovereign
state ‘recognizes no power superior to itself. It engages in political activity on nobody’s
mandate but its own, commits resources of its own, and operates under its own steam, at its
own risk. It is the sole judge of its own interests and bears the sole responsibility for pursuing
those interests, beginning with its own security’ However, that doesn’t mean that the state is
above the law. Newton and van Deth (2010:21) note that ‘most states constrain their sovereign
power by subjecting them to the rules of a constitution’. There are two types of sovereignty –
internal and external (see Box 1. 1). Sovereignty was developed in Europe and as Hague and
Harrop (2004:8) note, ‘beyond Europe <…> the notion of sovereignty remained weaker. In
federal ‘United States’, for instance, political authority is shared between the central and state
governments, all
Box 1. 1. Types of Sovereignty
Internal sovereignty refers to law-making power within territory
External Sovereignty describes international recognition of sovereign’s jurisdiction over its
territory operating under the constitution made by ‘we, the people’ and enforced by the
Supreme Court. In these circumstances, the idea of sovereignty is diluted and so too is the
concept of the state itself.’
Plurality. In the words of Poggi (2011:69), ‘the modern political environment consists in a
plurality of territoriality discrete, self-empowering, self-activating, self-securing states. Each of
these presupposes the existence of all others, and each is in principle their equal, since it shares
with them (and acknowledges in them) its own characteristics.’
Relation with the population. Population is an integral part of every state. According to Poggi
(2011:69), ‘the relationship between the state and its population is not a purely factual one; the
population is not perceived as a mere demographic entity but as a people. As such it entertains
a more significant, more intimate, one might say constitutive, relation with state itself.’ If we
take a more expansive concept of the state, Gianfranco Poggi suggests adding the role of law.
Law may be understood as a set of rules, commands and prohibitions, which help to prevent
antisocial behaviour and distribute material resources between social groups and individuals.
But ‘in the West, however, law has been put to a third use in establishing polities,
decidingissues of policy, instituting public agencies and offices, activating and controlling their
operations.’ (Poggi 2011:70). In other words the state is bound to the laws it created.
It is important to make a distinction between state and society. According to Gianfranco Poggi
(2011:71), ‘the state, in principal, is an ensemble of institutional arrangements and practices
which address all and only the political aspects of the management of a territoriality bounded
society’. The state represents itself through political activities such as legislation, jurisdiction,
military action, etc. Society, on the other hand, is not necessarily linked to political activities.
‘Individuals undertake those activities in their private capacities, pursuing values and interests
of their own, and establishing among themselves relations which are not the concern of public
policy’ (Poggi 2011:71).
State institutions
Institutions are an inseparable element of state. According to Michael J. Sodaro, ‘political
outcomes – such as governmental decisions that determine ‘who gets what’– are often
decisively affected by a country’s institutional framework, and not simply by the direct impact
of influential social groups or nongovernmental organizations. different outcomes may result
depending on how a country organizes its executive branch, its legislature, its judiciary, and
other institutions, and how these organs function in practice’. According to Bob Jessop,
(2006:112) there is ‘a core set of institutions with increasingly vague boundaries. From the
political executive, legislature, judiciary, army, police, and public administration, the list may
extend to education, trade unions, mass media, religion and even family. Such lists typically fail
to specify what lends these institutions the quality of statehood’. However, Michael J. Sodaro
distinguishes the five most important governmental institutions – the executive, the legislature,
the judiciary, the bureaucracy and the military.
The Executive. The executive is a primary branch of political system. Generally the head of
executives – may it be prime minister or president, is on the very top in the governmental
hierarchy and is the one who shapes a state’s policies and is responsible for its outcome. It is
important to stress the difference between head of state and head of government. The head of
state ‘is a ceremonial position that carries little or no real decision-making power’ (Sodaro
2008:129). Basically it is a symbolic, prestigious but politically neutral post, which represents a
nation’s unity and is above political battles. The head of government ‘is usually the country’s
chief political officer and is responsible for presenting and conducting its principal policies. He
or she normally supervises the entire executive branch of the state, including its senior
ministers (who together comprise the cabinet) and their respective ministries, as well as a host
of executive-level agencies designed to propose and execute government policies.’ (Sodaro
2008:129) This distinction between head of government and head of state according to Hague
and Harrop (2004:7) shows that state is not the same as government –‘state defines the
political community of which government is only the executive branch.’
Box 1. 2. Difference between the head of state and the head of government
Head of the state a ceremonial position that carries little or no real decision making power
Head of the government country’s chief political officer responsible for presenting and
conducting principal policies. Source: Sodaro 2008:129
The Legislature is a very important state institution whose main function is to make laws and
represent citizens in the lawmaking process. The legislature may also monitor and investigate
executive branch activities. In parliamentary systems (such as Britain, Germany or Italy) the
legislature elects the head of the government, therefore, he or she is accountable to the
parliament. In presidential systems (such as the US) the powers of the executive and legislature
branches are more or less even. According to Michael J. Sodaro (2008:130), ‘even
authoritarianregimes often have legislative bodies that play a certain role in the political
system, though their real law making powers may be negligible or nonexistent.’
The Judiciary. The significance of judiciary according to Michael J. Sodaro (2008:131) varies
from place to place. All states have some form of legal structure, and the role of judiciary is
rarely limited to such routine tasks as adjudicating civil and criminal cases. Inevitably the system
of justice is intimately bound up with state’s political essence. Justice is not always blind; it is
often keenly political. The political importance of the judiciary was especially evident when the
US Supreme Court decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. When the dispute
arose over whether George W. Bush or Al Gore should be awarded Florida’s Electoral College
votes, The Court sided with Bush by a 5–4 vote.
The judiciary around the world may differ in a variety of ways – in some countries it is relatively
independent and may even impose some restrictions on political leaders, in other countries
(especially authoritarian) it may be a highly politicized, judiciary system and can be based on
secular or religious law (such as shariah law in Iran). Some countries have constitutional courts
which interpret the high-The State est law of the state. Some of these courts have the power of
judicial review which is ‘the right to invalidate laws made by the legislature and executivebodies
as unconstitutional.’ (Sodaro 2008:131)
The Bureaucracy is a necessary part of every government. ‘Without a well-developed network
of state organs charged with advising political decision-makers about different policy options
and implementing policies once they have been decided upon, governments could not govern.
The modern state invariably includes a vast array of ministries, departments, agencies, bureaus,
and other officiously titled institutions whose purview may range from the domestic economy
to education, health, the environment, international trade, foreign relations, and so on. The
growth of bureaucracy has been a long-term political phenomenon in most countries, as have
more recent efforts in some countries (including the United States) to trim their size to less
costly proportions.’ (Sodaro 2008:131).
The Military. According to Michael J. Sodaro (2008:132),‘military establishments can have a
formidable impact of their own on the organization of institutional authority’. State can be
ruled directly by the military, or military officials may try to influence civil government
indirectly. This is especially evident in the states which are in the transitional period to
democracy (it was the case in the transition of Spain, Portugal or Greece). A coup d’état is ‘a
forceful takeover of state power by the military’. Studies show that the main causes of a coup
d’état are economic stagnation, breakdown in law and order, poor governmental performance,
etc. Poggi also adds citizenship as an important institution. According to Hague and Harrop
(2004:11), ‘citizenship refers to the rights and obligations following from membership of a
state; it represents a political and legal status which can, in principle, be shared by people with
different national identities.’
Development of the modern state
The modern state and all its features is a result of a long historical evolution (you can see
aspects of the growth of modern state in table 1. 2.). Gianfranco Poggi distinguishes three
broad phases in the development of the state.
Consolidation of rule. It is estimated that ‘consolidation of rule’ took place between the 12th
and 17th centuries. During this period the number of political centres decreased and the
remaining ones expanded their territories. ‘The political map of the continent (Europe)
becomes simpler, for each centre now practices rule, in an increasingly uniform manner, over
bigger territories. These, furthermore, tend to become geographically more continuous and
historically more stable…’ (Poggi 2011:76). The process of consolidation of rule could happen in
a peaceful way, through royal marriages for instance, but in most cases consolidation was the
outcome of military conflicts. Military activity itself requires and produces rules on its own, the
very core of an emerging body of law seeking, more or less successfully, to regulate aspects of
the relations between states. Another significant part of such law makes conflict over territory
less likely by laying down clear principles of succession into vacant seats of power, which
generally make the exclusive entitlement to rule dependent on legitimate descent. (Poggi
2011:77).
Developments in cartography also allowed states to determine their geographical borders more
precisely, so each political centre could rule in clearly delimited borders.
Rationalization of rule is the second phase in state development and it basically determines in
which ways the power of the state will be exercised. Rationalization can be characterized in
three aspects – centralization, hierarchy and functions.
Centralization is basically the building of bureaucracies. The process of consolidation of rule
forced rulers to co-operate with various subordinate but privileged power holders such as
aristocratic families. These power holders maintained to some degree autonomous control over
certain resources or man power. So in order to use those resources the ruler had to make
arrangements with these groups or families. This considerably limited the rulers’ freedom of
action. In the long run, ‘instead of relying on their former co-operators, they choose to avail
themselves of agents and agencies, that is individuals and bodies which the rulers themselves
select, empower, activate, control, fund, discipline, and reward.’ (Poggi 2011:78). For this
reason, some institutions had to be built –such as the police to maintain domestic order, the
military to ensure external security, or taxes to finance state affairs (Newton, van Deth
2010:25).
‘Ensembles of individuals who carry out political and administrative activities – the bureaucratic
units- must be hierarchically structured. At the bottom of the structure, even lowly office-
holders are empowered to give orders (issue verdicts, collect taxes, conscript military recruits,
deny or give permissions) to those lying below the structure itself. Those holders themselves
however, are supposed to do so in compliance with directives communicated with their
superiors. Law plays a significant role in structuring these arrangements of rule. First, law itself
is a hierarchically structured set of authoritative commands. Second, law can be taught and
learned, and the knowledge of it (at various levels) can determine, to a greater or lesser extent,
the content of the agents’ political and administrative operation.’(Poggi 2011:79)
The third element of the rationalization of rule is function. A centralized system is internally
differentiated, that means every office is responsible for a specific field, and has to deal with
the corresponding problems. In order to solve those problems every office has to have required
resources (be a certain type of knowledge or some sort of material resources). Traditional
power holders had usually engaged in collaborating with rulers’ material ant other resources
from their own patrimony; their collaboration was self-financed and unavoidably self-
interested. Now agencies operate by spending public funds allocated to them on the basis of
express, periodic decisions (budgets) and are held accountable for how those funds are spent.
Office holders are typically salaried, manage resources that do not belong to them but their
offices, and as they comply with their duties are not expected to seek personal gain, except
through career advancement.(Poggi 2011:79)
In the long run the masses acquired the right to participate in governmental decision-making.
‘Political parties were founded to link citizens with elites in assemblies and parliaments. Less
visible – but certainly not less significant – was the institutionalization of opposition parties:
gradually these political systems accepted the idea that peaceful opposition to the government
was legitimate, and even the idea of peaceful change of groups or parties in government’.
(Newton, van Deth 2010:26) Legitimacy of political power was achieved through mass elections.
The expansion of rule. For a long time the main concerns of the state were recognition and the
ability to pursue its own interests on the international scene and maintaining law and order
within its own territory. However, in the second half of the 19thcentury states became more
and more active in a diverse range of social interests.
According to Gianfranco Poggi (2011:79), Essentially, the state no longer simply ordains through
legislation the autonomous undertakings of individuals and groups or sanctions their private
arrangements through its judicial system. Increasingly, it intervenes in private concerns by
modifying those arrangements or by collecting greater resources and then redistributing them
more to some parties than others. Also it seeks to manage social activities according to its own
judgments and preferences, for it consider the outcome of those activities as a legitimate public
concern, which should reflect a broader and higher interest.
Organization of the state
States can be classified by their organizational structure. National government is one of the
most important elements of the state; however, local governments can also play a significant
role. The importance of sub-national governmental bodies varies from state to state, but
basically three main models can be distinguished. In unitary states‘ decision-making authority
and disposition over revenues tend to be concentrated in the central institutions’. Examples of
such states are France and Japan. Federations‘ seek to combine a relatively strong central
government with real authority for various administrative units below the national level’. Even
though sub-national units in federations are dependent on national governments for some part
of their budget, they can collect local taxes, elect local officials and to a certain degree pass
their own laws. Examples of federal states are the USA, Germany or the Russian Federation.
Confederation ‘is an even looser arrangement characterized by a weak central government and
a group of constituent sub-national elements that enjoy significant local autonomy or even
independence as sovereign states’. In confederal states the national government performs only
the basic tasks such as national defence or national currency. For the national government to
take action, the consent of the sub-national government is needed. Examples of confederations
are Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates. We can also classify states into nation-states and
multinational states. Nation-states contain only the people belonging to its nation. Even though
there are not many pure nation-states nowadays (Iceland could be one example), this term is
still significant. In France or Germany state is still based on a strong national identity despite
numerous minorities in these countries –‘in essence, these countries remain nation-states,
even if they lack the ethnic homogeneity of Iceland’ (Hague &Harrop 2004:11). Multinational
states contain people belonging to more than one nation, for example Great Britain or Belgium.
These examples show that multinational states can achieve political stability; however, some
multinational states – like Bosnia experienced vicious conflicts between inner national groups.
State is one of the main concepts in comparative politics. Even in the age of globalization, when
some scientists are talking about the withering away’ of the state, this concept is one of the
most important building blocks of comparative politics. As Newton and van Deth (2010:13)
note, we cannot ‘understand the politics of the European Union, a form of political organization
that is above and beyond individual states, unless we understand what states are and what
they do’. So the concept of the state is still essential for understanding the political organization
of the modern world.
Questions
1. What are the key elements of the state?
2. Why is bureaucracy essential to the modern state?
3. Explain the term sovereignty. What is the difference between
internal and external sovereignty?
4. What is citizenship?
5. What is a failed state?
6. What is the difference between the head of government and
the head of state?
7. What is the role of law in the modern state?
8. What is meant by ‘expansion of rule’?