state, nation and nation-state

Politics and Governance: State, Nation and Nation-State (Arguelles, 2014) 1

State, Nation, and Nation-State

Cleve Kevin Robert V. Arguelles, MA*MA Philippine Studies, University of the Philippines


Defining “State”James Garner, a political scientist, opined that a

state is a community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent of external control and possessing an organized government to which the great body of its inhabitants render habitual evidence.


Defining “Nation”The term “nation” tends to be used with little

precision, and is often used interchangeably with term such as state, country, ethnic group and race.

The difficulty of defining the term “nation” springs from the fact that all nations comprise a mixture of objective and subjective features, a blend of cultural and political characteristics.

In objective terms, nations are cultural entities: groups of people who speak the same language, have the same religion, are bound by a shared past, and so on.


Defining “Nation”Nevertheless, it is impossible to define a nation using

objective factors alone. All nations encompass a measure of cultural, ethnic and racial diversity.

Nations can only be defined subjectively by their members because it is a psycho-political construct.

What sets a nation apart from any other group or collectivity is that its members regard themselves as a nation.

A nation, in this sense, perceives itself to be a distinctive political community. This is what distinguishes a nation from an ethnic group.


State VS NationA state is a political concept, a legal fiction. It has perpetual

existence as long as it four elements- people, territory, government and sovereignty- are intact.

A nation, on the other hand, is an ethnic concept, a sociological characteristic, such as common racial origin, common language, and common religion, common historical experience, a common cultural and social tradition or common beliefs and creed.

It is possible for many nations to exist in one State especially in the case of multi-racial states like the US or Singapore.

It is also possible that a nation can be composed of many States like in the case of Arab nation.


Sovereignty VS Independence

Sovereignty and independence can be used interchangeably for a State cannot be sovereign if it is not independent.

However, sovereignty exclusively means the power to enforce its will to the inhabitants of the State, while independence may have different conceptions like freedom of external control, autonomy or liberty.

When a country is free from external domination or control from a foreign power, then it possesses independence. But when a country’s legitimate government is able to assert its authority and enforce its will on its people, then it is sovereign.


State VS GovernmentGovernment refers only to the agency through which

the State expresses it will.

A State cannot exist without a government, but it is possible to have a government without a State as in the case of the Philippines under Spain wherein there existed a government, yet the Philippines then at that time is only a colony as the country will only have its statehood after the granting of the American independence and sovereignty on 4 July, 1946.

Although a government may change from system to system or leaders to leaders, the State remains the same.


Origin of the StateDivine Right Theory

The development of kingship among the ancient Hebrews who were also military leaders brought about the outlines of a formal State although the activities of a “State” during this biblical period were performed in a different manner from the sophisticated performance of the activities were more or less the same.

Oldest among the theories, it stated that the authority to govern the people was regarded by God upon rules who were regarded as of divine descent. (Case of Japan: first Emperor Jimmu Tenno as descendant of Sun goddess Ameterasu)


Origin of the StateSocial Contract Theory

Popular during the 17th and 18th centuries, this explained that the State was formed by means of a social contract of men who lived in a state of nature.

State of Nature (SON) meant was that men lived together without any superbody to establish peace and order and settle conflicts. The social contract gave the people the impetus for an empowered State.

The major premise is that the people who formed the State give a mandate to a person to rule upon them on the grounds that the said chosen leaders will dutifully serve the people and the State.


Origin of the StateForce Theory

The State came into existence out of conquest, force of coercion.

Before the existence of the State, there were always leaders strong enough to assert their leadership and power through force, conquest or violence. They subjected the people and compelled them to obey in their Law.

Otherwise called the “might makes right” doctrine, it was believed by some political philosophers of the ancient and middle ages as what made up the State.


Origin of the StateNatural/Aristotelian Theory

It holds that the State was natural institutions and not an abstract of artificial being.

Also called the organic theory, its refers to the perspectives of the ancient Greeks that the State is “man writ large.”

The postulation held in this theory is that the State is like an organism, it is born, and it grows, develops and matures.


Origin of the StatePatriarchal Theory

Maintains that the States arose through process of evolution.

At the beginning, the State evolved from the smallest unit of society- the family. Gradually, the family headed by a parent enlarged into a clan (a group of closely related families headed by a chieftain) and later on, the clan expand into a tribe, the tribe into a nation, and nation into State.


Origin of the State Instinctive Theory

The State was created because of the natural inclination of men towards political association.

Such view demonstrated that the reason is the one attribute that distinguishes not only to develop man’s rational being but also to enhance his political involvement, and for the State to maximize citizen’s participation in politics.

Economic Theory The State was organized to satisfy man’s economic needs. The State will provide them their material needs that will

satisfy their demands. The necessity arose from the fact that the economic needs of the people can only be provided for by an organized institution like the government which is essentially a part of the State.


Elements of the State People

Refers to the large numbers of inhabitants living within the State. Without these inhabitants there can be no leaders to rule and no subject to be ruled.

Territory Includes not only the land over which the State exercises control,

but also the rivers and lakes therein, certain area of the sea which borders on its coasts and the air space between them.

The territory is very, inasmuch as, it provides the spatial orientation of the State. It must also be properly demarcated so as not to cause confusion that may lead to disputes with other States.

Smallest State (Vatican, 0.43 sq. kms.); Biggest (Canada, 3,852,000 sq. miles.)


Elements of the StateGovernment

Refers to the agency through which the will of the State is formulated, expressed and carried out.

Sometimes used to refer to the person or group of person who exercise for the time being management of the State. This group of persons is usually referred to as “administration.”

The ordinary citizens of a country are a part of the State but they are not part of the government.


Elements of the StateSovereignty

This is the power of the State to command and enforce obedience its will from people. It means power over the people of an area unrestrained by laws originating outside the area or independence completely devoid of direct external control.

Types of sovereignty:Internal- the power of the State to rule within its

territory and enforce obedience among its inhabitants as in the case of implementation of laws.

External- refers to the freedom of the State to carry out its activities without the control of other States. This entails recognition of the international community of the independence of the State.


Elements of the StateKinds of sovereignty:

Legal- the authority which has the power to issue final commands. This is the supreme law-making power.

Political- the power behind the legal sovereign, or the sum of the influences that operate upon it. This is legally unknown, unorganized and incapable of expressing the will of the State in the form of legal command. But it is this will that must ultimately prevail in command.In a narrower sense, the electorate constitutes

the political sovereign, and in a broader sense, the whole mass of population.


Elements of the State Internal- the power of the State to control its domestic

affairs. It empowers the State to make and alter its system of government, and to regulate its private affairs, as well as the rights and relations of its citizens, without any dictation, interference, or control on the part of any person or body or State outside the particular political community.

External- the power of the State to direct its relations with other States. With this, the State is not subject to control, dictation, or government of any other power. It implies the right and power to receive recognition as an independent power from other powers, and to make treaties with them on equal terms, make war or peace with them, send diplomatic agents to them, acquire territory by conquest or occupation, and otherwise to manifest the freedom and autonomy (Suarez, 2005).


Rival Theories of the StateThe pluralist state

The pluralist theory of the state has a very clear liberal lineage. It stems from the belief that the state acts as an “umpire” or “referee” in society.

This view has also dominated mainstream political analysis, accounting for a tendency, at least within Anglo-American thought, to discount the state and state organizations and focus instead on “government.”

Indeed, it is not uncommon in this tradition for “the state” to be dismissed as an abstraction, with institutions such as the courts, the civil service and the military being seen as independent actors in their own right, rather than as elements of a broader state machine.



Nevertheless, this approach is possible only because it is based on underlying, and often unacknowledged, assumptions about state neutrality.

The state can be ignored only because it is seen as an impartial arbiter or referee that can be bent to the will of the government of the day.

The neutrality of the state reflects the fact that the state acts in the interests of all citizens, and therefore represents the common good or public interest.



As a theory of society, pluralism asserts that, within liberal democracies, power is widely and evenly dispersed.

As a theory of the state, pluralism holds that the state is neutral insofar as it is susceptible to the influence of various groups and interests and all social classes.

The state is not biased in favor of any particular interest or group, and it does not have an interest of its own that is separate from those of society.



Modern pluralists, however, have often adopted a more critical view of the state, termed the neo-pluralist theory of the state.

They have come to accept that modern industrialized states are both more complex and less responsive to popular pressures than classical pluralism suggested.

They have acknowledged, for instance, that business enjoys a “privileged position” in relation to government that other groups clearly cannot rival.

Moreover, neo-pluralists have accepted that the state can and does forge its own sectional interests.



In this way, a state elite, composed of senior civil servants, judges, police chiefs, military leaders and so on, may been seen to pursue either the bureaucratic interests of their sector of the state or the interests of client groups.

Indeed, if the state is regarded as a political actor on its own right, it can be viewed as a powerful interest group in society.


Rival Theories of the StateThe capitalist state

Marxists have typically argued that the state cannot be understood separately from the economic structure of society.

The state is nothing but an instrument of class oppression: the state emerges out of, and in a sense reflects, the class system.

Nevertheless, a rich debate has taken place within Marxist theory in recent years that has moved the Marxist theory of the state as a long way from this classic formulation.



Marx did not develop a systematic or coherent theory of the state.

In a general sense, he believed that the state is part of a “superstructure” that is determined or conditioned by the economic “based,” which can be seen as the real foundation of social life.

In The Communist Manifesto (1848), he said that “the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.”



From this perspective, the state is clearly dependent upon society and entirely dependent upon its economically dominant class, which in capitalism is the bourgeoisie.

Lenin thus described that the state “is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.”



Antonio Gramsci emphasized the degree to which the domination of the ruling class is achieved by ideological manipulation rather than just open coercion.

In this view, bourgeois domination is maintained largely through “hegemony”: that is, intellectual leadership and cultural control, with the state playing an important role in the process.


Rival Theories of the StateThe leviathan state

The image of the state as a “leviathan” (in effect, a self-serving monster intent on expansion and aggrandizement) is one associated in modern politics with the New Right. Such a view is rooted in early or classical liberalism and, in particular, a commitment to a radical form of individualism.

The New Right, or at least its neoliberal wing, is distinguished by a strong antipathy towards state intervention in economic and social life, born out of the belief that the state is a parasitic growth that threatens both individual liberty and economic security.


Rival Theories of the StateThe leviathan state

In this view, the state, instead of being, as pluralists suggest, an impartial umpire or arbiter, is an overbearing “nanny,” desperate to interfere or meddle in every aspect of human existence.

The central feature of this view is that the state pursues interests that are separate from those of society, and that those interests demand an unrelenting growth in the role or responsibilities of the state itself.

While Marxists argue that the state reflects broader class and other social interests, the New Right portrays the state as an independent or autonomous entity that pursues its own interests.


Rival Theories of the StateThe patriarchal state

Modern thinking about the patriarchal state must, finally, take account of the implications of feminist theory. However, this is not to say that there is a systematic feminist theory of the state.

Moreover, feminists have usually not regarded the nature of state power as a central political issue, preferring instead to concentrate on the deeper structure of male power centered upon institutions such as the family and the economic system.

Some feminists may question conventional definitions of the state, arguing, that the idea that the state exercises a monopoly of legitimate violence is compromised by the routine use of violence in family and domestic life.



Liberal feminists, who believe that sexual or gender equality can be brought about through incremental reform, have tended to accept an essentially pluralist view of the state.

They recognize that, if women are denied legal and political equality, and especially the right to vote, the state is biased in favor of men. However, their faith in the state’s basic neutrality is reflected in the belief that any such bias can, and will, be overcome by a process of reform.



In this sense, liberal feminists believe that all groups have potentially equal access to state power, and that this can be used impartially to promote justice and the common good.

However, a more critical and negative view of the state has been developed by radical feminists, who argue that state power reflects a deeper structure of oppression in the form of patriarchy.

Radical feminists deny that the state is an autonomous entity bent upon the pursuit of its own interests. Instead, the state is understood, and its biases are explained, by reference to a “deep structure” of power in society at large.



Whereas Marxist place the state in an economic context, radical feminists place it in a context of gender inequality, and insist that it is essentially an institution of male power.

The instrumentalist argument views the state as little more than an “agent” or “tool” used by men to defend their own interests and uphold the structure of patriarchy.

The structuralist arguments tend to emphasize the degree to which state institutions are embedded in a wider patriarchal system. It paid particular attention to the emergence of the welfare state, seeing it as the expression of a new kind of patriarchal power.


Nation-State/Modern-StateThe Modern-State system was developed at

Peace of Westphalia of 1648. Prior to this, the European medieval organization of political authority was based on a vaguely hierarchical religious order.

Westphalia instituted the legal concept of sovereignty, that didn’t exist in classical and medieval times, which essentially meant that rules, or the legitimate sovereigns, had no internal equals within a defined territory and no external superiors as the ultimate authority within the territory’s sovereign borders.


Nation-State/Modern-StateWestphalia encouraged the rise of the

independent nation-state, the institutionalization of diplomacy and armies.

This particular European system was exported to the Americas, Africa, and Asia through colonialism.

The contemporary international system was finally established through decolonization during the Cold War.


Inherent Powers of the State

Police Power The power of the State to enact and enforce laws and

to regulate property and liberty in the promotion of the general welfare of the people. It is the power to regulate the behavior or conduct of its citizen in the interest of the common good within the limits of the States laws.

The power vested in the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. The power is plenary and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public health, safety, morals, and welfare.



Power of the Eminent Domain It enables the States to take property for public use

upon payment of just compensation. This is the power of the sovereign State to take, or to

authorize the taking of, private property for a public use without the owner’s consent, conditioned upon payment of just compensation. It is used interchangeably with expropriation.

It is acknowledged as an inherent political right, founded on a common necessity and interest of appropriating the property of individual members of the community to the great necessities of the whole community.

38


Requisites for valid exercise The exercise of the power of eminent domain is constrained

by two Constitutional provisions: (1) that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation under Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 9; and (2) that no person shall deprived of his/her life, liberty, or property without due process of law under Article III, Section 1.

Public Use It can be identified with public purpose, public interest, and

public convenience. However, there is no precise meaning of public use.

Its generally accepted meaning is public advantage, convenience, or benefit, and that anything which tends to enlarge the resources, increase the industrial energies, and promoted the productive power of any considerable member of the inhabitants of a section of the State, or which leads to the growth of towns and the creation of new resources for the employment of capital and labor, which contributes to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community.Politics and Governance: State, Nation and Nation-State

(Arguelles, 2014)



Just Compensation It is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its

owner by the expropriator, and the gauge for computation is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss.

In order for the payment to be just, it must be real, substantial, full and ample; made within a reasonable time from the taking of the property.

Power of Taxation It is the power of the State to impose and collect revenues

for the operation of the government. Taxation is the act of levying the tax, i.e., the process or

means by which the Sovereign, through its law-making body, raises income to defray the necessary expenses of the government.

It is merely a way of apportioning the cost of the government among those who in some measures are privileged to enjoy its benefits and, therefore must bear its burdens.


Case Analysis 1


Case Analysis 1A billboard of a liquor company containing the

slogan “Nakatikim ka na ba ng Kinse Años” was removed by the Metro Manila Development Authority invoking police power of the state.

Question: Is the order to remove the billboard and its consequent action valid?


Case Analysis 1 Answer: No. Not being a political subdivision but merely an

executive authority it has no police power. Police power in Metro Manila is exercised by cities and municipalities. MMDA vs Bel-Air Village Association, G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000.

“Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. The power is plenary and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare.”


Case Analysis 2


Case Analysis 2The Department of Health (DOH), after the

passage of RA 7719 or the National Blood Service Act of 1994, shut down all commercial blood banks invoking police power in the interest of public health.

Question: Is the law ordering the closure of commercial blood banks valid?


Case Analysis 2Answer: Yes. It is a valid exercise of police power to

protect public health. It is one of the inherent powers of the state. Beltran VS Secretary of Health, G.R. No. 133460, November 25, 2005.

“The Court finds that the National Blood Services Act is a valid exercise of the State’s police power. Therefore, the Legislature, under the circumstances, adopted a course of action that is both necessary and reasonable for the common good. Police power is the State authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare.”


Case Analysis 3A terrorist group called the Abu Sayaff is based

in the State of the Philippines. The government of the Philippines does not support the terrorist group, but being a poor country, is powerless to stop it.

The Abu Sayaff launched an attack on Malaysia, firing two missiles that killed thousands of people. It then warned that more attacks were forthcoming.

Through diplomatic channels, Malaysia demanded that the Philippines stop the Abu Sayaff; otherwise, it will do whatever is necessary to defend itself.


Case Analysis 3Receiving reliable intelligence of another

imminent attack by the Abu Sayyaf, and it appearing that the Philippines was incapable of preventing the assault, Malaysia sent a crack commando team to the Philippines.

The team stayed only for a few hours in the Philippines, succeeded in killing the leaders and most of the members of the Abu Sayaff, then immediately returned to Malaysia.


Case Analysis 3As a consequence of the foregoing incident,

Philippines charges Malaysia with violation of UN Charter, specifically Article 2.4, that prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”

Malaysia counters that its commando team neither took any territory nor interfered in the political processes of the Philippines.

Question: Which contention is valid?


Case Analysis 4Israel VS Palestine


References De Leon, Hector (2008). Textbook on the Philippine Constitution.

Quezon City: Rex Printing Company, Inc.

Cailulung, Froilan and Tomagos, Andrea Lynne (2012). Essentials of Politics and Government with the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Mandaluyong City: Books Atbp. Publishing Corporation.

Heywood, Andrew (2002). Politics, 2nd edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lenin, Vladimir (1932). State and Revolution. New York: International Publishing.

Texts were lifted and used for this lecture-presentation on Politics and Governance. All images were sourced from Google Images.


State, Nation, and Nation-State

Cleve Kevin Robert V. Arguelles, MA*MA Philippine Studies, University of the Philippines

state, nation and nation-state

Education

mama philippine

statecleve

wholesome

abu sayaff

case analysis

social life

valid exercise

deeper structure