ADVERTISEMENTS:
In view of its importance in the life of a man, we may study the state from the point of view of: 1. Its sphere of activities 2. Its relation to the broad society of which it is a part 3. Its relation to the international community.
Sphere of State Action:
Various questions relating to the end or purpose of the state have been asked in different epochs almost in all countries.
Why does the state exist?
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Is it an end in itself or is it only a means?
Can we not do without the state?
These questions have been asked and debated in different ages by different people with particular premises at the back of their mind. Naturally, answers to these questions often varied. There were, for instance, the anarchists who advocated the abolition of the state.
The Greeks, on the other hand, regarded the state as the highest fulfillment of human life and as an end in itself. This view has been revived by philosophers who belong to the Idealistic School.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The names of Fichte, Hegel and Dr. Bosanquet are associated with this conception of the state. Some writers proceed to the other extreme and think somewhat lightly of the state, and value rather the liberty of the individual. They look upon the state merely as a means or mechanism for securing this. One of the most popular of these lines of thinking is the individualistic view.
The general consensus of opinion today is that if we consider the question of end to the exclusion of means or of means to the exclusion of the end, we shall misunderstand the nature of both terms. As a matter of fact, the state is both an end and a means. If we look at the state purely from the point of view of an individual, it is only a means, a mechanism through which the highest individual development is obtained.
If, however, the state is considered to be an institution, distinct and apart from the citizens who compose it, it is an end in itself. In this capacity, the state represents the collective good of the community. Related to the question of the purpose of the state is the question of the proper sphere of state action.
These questions did not concern the Greeks, because they identified the good of the individual with the good of the state. According to them, the state embraced everything which was concerned with the life and the highest development of the individual.
In the seventeenth century there was, however, a new movement in favour of limited state action. Gradually, this movement became powerful and the ideas underlying the movement formed the philosophical background of the laissez faire theory of the nineteenth century. The guiding principle of this philosophy is maximum possible individual freedom and minimum possible state action.
The legitimate functions of the state, according to this school, are to protect the individual against external and internal enemies as well as to enforce contracts that are lawfully made. The phrase “Man versus the State” sums up the attitude of mind of those who advocated this doctrine in earlier times.
Since group is considered essential for the growth of individual personality in modern times, the present-day advocates of this doctrine emphasize group autonomy. Their idea is best represented by the phrase “Group versus the State”.
As a reaction to the evils and deficiencies of the system of free enterprise, there grew up a school of thought known popularly as socialism. There are different strands of socialistic thinking. Some advocate state ownership of the means of production; some advocate equal distribution; and some equitable distribution.
The advocates of socialism also differ in terms of the methods suggested by them for the achievement of socialism. Some believe in the violent overthrow of the capitalist class and establishment of a socialistic society. Some others, on the other hand, believe that socialism can be achieved through evolutionary processes without recourse to violence.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The truth, however, lies in a balance between the two lines of thinking. The individualists are right when they emphasise that too much of interference by the state would kill individual spontaneity and initiative. But they are wrong in considering an individual an independent entity apart from society.
The socialists are right in emphasizing the social nature of man. But they are wrong in overlooking the reality of individual personality.
Delisle Bums, therefore, rightly observes:
“If we could imagine an ideal at once individualistic and socialistic, such would be the effective ideal for most thinking men”.
It is, therefore, more helpful to think concretely in terms of this broad question: What, in general, are the tasks of government?
According to Professor W. W. Rostow, governments must exercise power in three major directions:
(i) To protect the territorial integrity of society;
(ii) To provide for the general welfare; and
(iii) To preserve the constitutional order, that is, “to maintain public order, orderly change, and legitimate succession by some enforceable balance between public constraint and individual freedom of action and expression of opinion”.
The heart of politics and of political debate emphasises Professor Rostow, lies in these fundamental questions, from ancient times down to the contemporary world, from simple tribes to elaborate industrial societies, from advanced democracies to totalitarian dictatorships.
Every society strikes a balance between these tasks in terms of “that society’s history and cultural heritage, the state of education of its citizens, and the nature of the problems it confronts as a domestic community and the world scene”.
The State as a Unique Association:
The relation between the state and other associations has been a subject-matter of controversy between two schools of writers, viz., the monistic writers who advocate absolute powers for the state and the pluralistic writers who look upon the state as merely an association among many haying limited competence and restricted authority.
According to the monists, the state is the supreme social institution and all other associations owe their origin to its initiative, acquiescence, and support. They exist because the state allows them to exist. The monists recognise other forms of association as essential to the existence of men, but they regard the position of the state in relation to the other associations as unique.
These associations, according to these writers, function in a certain way and on certain terms laid down by the state.
The pluralists do not accept this position. They recognise the special role of the state as a regulator of social life. But they see no reason as to why the regulator is to be identified with that which is regulated.
They charge the monists “with the error of regarding all non-political associations created by the state as dependent for their continued existence upon the will of the state and as exercising only powers conceded by the state”.
They further hold that “other associations arise naturally and spontaneously and in their peculiar spheres act independently of state control”. These other associations are as necessary for the growth of individual personality as the state itself.
We have various social needs which cannot be met by the state alone. Because of their select membership, those other associations are better adapted than the state for serving these needs.
Laski has, therefore, argued that the state “does not exhaust the associative impulses of men”. In his opinion the society “should be regarded as-essentially federal in its nature”. The other associations are red in the sense that the state is real. Hence, the state must compete with churches, trade unions, etc. for winning the loyalty of men and women.
“No association,” says Laski,” can legislate for the whole of myself”. The pluralists, therefore, conclude that “the state cannot in any important sense be said to be sovereign in its relation to these independently originating and functioning associations”. The other associations are as native to the soil of society as the state itself.
The pluralistic doctrine is, thus, a welcome reaction against the glorification of the state. It rightly emphasises the moral limitations upon the unfettered authority of the state. We should recognise limitations of the state to sponsor the more intimate or more personal interests, those which admit a variety of spontaneous and variant expressions.
But one should not carry the idea of group autonomy too far. There are certain functions which the state alone can perform.
If the state fails to discharge its responsibilities in the three areas of social life, as emphasised by Professor Rostow, no individual citizen can attain full growth and stature. From this point of view, the state may be viewed as a “community agency,” charged with the responsibility of coordinating and adjusting the claims and activities of various associations. This distinctive function gives the state its unique character.
The State and International Community:
The interests of humanity likewise demand the limitation of sovereignty. The concept of an absolute and sovereign state implies the right of a state to deal with other states in any way it likes. This right involves the right of a nation to wage war in order to settle differences and conflicts of interest.
In the context of the modern world, however, this right can no longer be conceded. In the first place, the scientific advances and technological developments have annihilated distances and increased “the range and degree of the interdependence of nations”.
We have long left behind the days when nations could afford to remain in isolation, if they had chosen to do so. On the contrary, we live virtually in “one world” in which an economic depression in one country may affect the economic well-being of the rest of the world.
Even a change in fashion, say, in dress in one country becomes popular in other parts of the world in an unbelievably short period of time.
It follows from these economic and social realities that we have to develop a global outlook and plan for the whole of humanity, and not for a part of it. There is much that we can achieve through co-operative efforts; there is comparatively little that we can gain through division and conflict in this progressively shrinking world.
Secondly, unlimited exercise of sovereign power by a state has become, in the context of modern weapons of mass destruction, a matter of the greatest menace to the security of the world. War can no longer serve to settle disputes. It can no longer be regarded as a rational alternative.
“It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by the wind and water and soil and seed to the far comers of the globe and to generations yet unborn”.
A nuclear disaster may engulf the great and the small, the rich and the poor, the committed and the uncommitted, the victors and the vanquished alike. In terms of military realities of today, no nation can, therefore, be truly secure.
” In a spiraling arms race, a nations security may well be shrinking even as its arms increase”. The interests of a nation-state have, therefore, to be subordinated to the interests of humanity.
In the words of Laski:
“Our problem is not to reconcile the interest of humanity with the interest of England; our problem is so to act that the policy of England naturally implies the well-being of humanity”.
In other words, we should recognise the existence of an international community of nations of which every nation-state is a part. It is a reality which we shall overlook only at our peril.