Today human beings cannot live without the Nation-State / government, Has the concept and institution of Nation State as a polity become a burden of liability to humam civilization?
There are two propositions in this post:
(a) The current architecture of polity based on the nebulous concepts of the State, its sovereign power and the unrestricted access to such power by Governments does not seem to be delivering the protection the people continues to seek from all risks and uncertainties to life and quality of living.
(b) Maybe the time for abandoning this polity architecture and the concepts on which it is founded on. But some thing new, more effective is yet to evolve: a Stateless civilization is still not in the imagination of man to work on its practical design, leaving the citizens to suffer irrespective of the level of GDP, the index of quality of life and the risks of sustainability.
Most human beings want someone else to protect them from all uncertainties and risks of life and living. At the dawn of mankind with little knowledge of Nature and using Nature to advantage, Man created the concept of God to get help from HIM. Man worshipped God to get an insurance against shortage of food, loss f dependable shelter, disease ad accidental injuries as well as oppression by other human beings and wild life. But nothing could be done if God was not pleased enough wit all prayers and worship to grant such full protection cover. So, man invented within the mankind three demigod groups to emerge as persons with more than ordinary power: (a) the brave, bold, muscle power leaders called kings, (b) the piety-powered leaders apparently with some sort of direct communication with God to enhance the effectiveness of prayer and worships of God, and (c) the strong intellect-powered leaders of science and technology. We call them these three groups as political leaders, the pontiff leaders and the pundit scientist/ technologist leaders.
While political leaders and pontiff leaders need and seek followers among all sections of the society to achieve their goals, the pundits do not need and seek but happens to attract new pundits. The pundit scientists and technologists by their action may help improve the quality of human life irrespective of whether or not they are accepted as leaders of human beings, the political leaders and pontiff leaders promise to help enrich the quality of life of their followers. Pundits prescribes rules that one is at liberty to not to follow at his own risk. The political leaders and pontiff leaders set up rules that are binding on followers if they wish to remain as followers. One can bribe out of punishment for violations of political and pontiff leader-laid rules, but one cannot avoid the consequences of violating scientist/ technologist prescribed rules.
Not many scientist/technologist pundits have ever become simultaneously political leaders. No political leader has become at the same time a scientist/technologist pundit or a pontiff leader. Some pontiff leaders have become pundits at the same time and some pundits have become pontiff leaders after giving up the goals of a pundit. But pontiff leaders have several times tried to become political leaders as well. Most Pundits have accepted, if not become followers, the political and pontiff leaders. Even if the political leader or pontiff leader refused to recognize a pundit, the pundit remained a pundit among the pundit class and recognized as one such by most human beings even after their death.
Since the beginning of civilization, the political and pontiff leaders ruled over the people. But for quite a while, the political leaders and the pontiff leaders cooperated and mutually agreed to divide the spheres of their jurisdiction over the control over the people. Often though, these two groups had come into conflict over exercising influence and control on the people’s minds and lives. Even now this phenomenon continues. In Iraq, for example, the political leadership is taken over by the pontiff leaders. In countries like China, North Korea and Cuba, pontiffs of the opposite variety, piety-powered believers of non-existence of God provide the political leadership. Political parties rule in many democratic countries like USA, India, Japan, UK, France, Germany, Australia and Italy. In some countries like Libya and Indonesia, political parties do exist but the ruling political leadership is a dictator or a military Junta.
Over the years, political leadership has usurped all-pervading powers to an abstract illusive concept of the “State” and reduced the scope of individual freedom and liberty to virtually nothing. Individual citizens have very little scope to seek redress from State/ Government’s denial of even the little freedom / liberty they are entitled to under law or constitution through judiciary because individual resources to fight the State in the courts is generally very little. The ruling political party enjoys all that power is partly shared with elected representatives of the other political parties where democracies function. This power includes the power to oppress the citizens, murder them at will and forcibly appropriate the properties and assets of citizens, though in some countries the judiciary continues to exercise a degree of power to stop such atrocities and oppression of individual citizens by the State.
Let us have a look at the performance of the State as an institution so far in various spheres of the lives of the people. First, have nation states remained nation states. Answer is mostly yes but there are many and continuing failures. Consider, the former USSR. Within fifty years, it has disintegrated into different Nations. Consider the Islamic State of Pakistan of former Indian Muslim Nation: it split into two nations of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Iraq is still held together as one nation but the Shyias and Sunnis have not really merged into a single Nation. Sri Lanka after years of fight with the Tamil Tigers has extinguished them to become a single nation. In India, Muslims in a small part of the land in the North India still continues to demand that they are a different nation. For years, small populations in different parts of the Northeast India have gone on with armed struggle to become free nations different from the Indian Nation. In Africa, new nations have emerged. There are many Arab nations and some of them do not recognize the people of Israel as a nation. In the UK, it is not clear which is the Nation – the so-called blacks and browns or the whites. The German have reunited but the Koreans are split nations. The citizenry basis of the definition of State seems to be very instable, weak and fragile.
Second, how has the concept of State performed in the area of providing stability of law and order situation? The incidence of crimes, violence, rape, smuggling, corruption, fraud has not declined in any significant manner to make the citizens of the various States feel that they are better off than they were 200 years ago.
Third, how far has the State as an institution helped progress of education, science and technology? Yes, we have seen tremendous progress in all these areas in the last hundred years. But how far has this been due to the State? The States have deployed lots of resources in these areas and provided lot of encouragement and coordination. The spread of the impact of science, technology and education has been spectacular all over the World. But the discoveries, the innovations and the research and development efforts in the frontiers of science and technology continue to be concentrated in a few countries. Most of the States buy or borrow technology: some States are too small in size or too poor in quality of people to be an equal partner in the advancement of science and technology. People in States with large and poor populations look at the TVs in wonder as to how some parts of the World are so affluent in the way they derive the benefits of technology in their lives. By becoming a citizen of a sovereign State, very few individuals, households or corporations have access to the best of modern education, technology or science.
Fourth, how far has the State as an institution provided economic growth, quality of life, economic stabilization and economic equality? Reconstruction & Development Economics have made great strides with the World Bank, International Finance Corporation (Washington) and helped strengthen State-led initiatives for economic reconstruction and development in Japan, Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa over the last six / seven decades. Russian economy and China made tremendous economic progress under State-led mechanisms. So, did Singapore, Korea, Thailand and Philippines. But State-led planned economic development failed miserably in India and Pakistan. Development finance institutions lost their prime status over the last two decades. Development economics has shifted emphasis on utilizing market mechanism for economic growth rather than merely on State planning and control. And, yet large parts of the World are afflicted by huge populations living below the poverty line, low productivity and stagnation in economic activity. The institution of State has not proved a panacea for faster and broad-based economic growth every where and for all times. Even the advanced economy States (governments) seem to be fumbling to maintain consistent economic growth as economic globalization progressed fast in the last three decades.
The institution of State has also not been able to show exemplary success in economic stabilization except for brief periods: recessions, stagflation, hyper-inflation, depressions have recurred time and again. Even attempts of State-led fiscal policy and monetary policies have shown mixed performance in ensuring stabilization: where the States succeeded in stabilization, they also created economic problems of high debt burden and external account imbalances. In the globalizing environment, the States have performed very poorly in terms stabilization. State is no longer a panacea.
Yes, the States have through the use of tax and subsidies effected considerable redistribution of income. But, inequalities of income and wealth continue to be a major problem facing most of the States. Even the communist States have not succeeded in achieving economic growth and egalitarian societies simultaneously.
Interestingly, the failure of the States to deliver the promises on a consistent basis all over the World has happened despite considerable international cooperation and dialogue among the States at the United Nations and other forum. Discontent with State performance persists almost everywhere. There is no stop to terrorism, corruption, warfare, drug trafficking, piracy and violation of human rights. Wherever the State operates, it has shown considerable wastage, low productivity, and high inefficiency, high costs, leakages of funds and corruption, delay in response. The State has failed to produce the magic solutions it has promised.
And, yet there is a vested interest in retaining the institution of the State as the best solution to mankind. The major beneficiaries of the institution of the State are political leaders (and to some extent the bureaucracy which serves them). The business of political leadership has become immensely profitable attracting many to enter politics to gain the right to use the sovereign power of the State. The business of politics has now become the dominant market share in the aggregate expenditure of many economies. The sovereign power to tax and borrow without limit is the key to sustaining the growth of the business of political leadership in modern economies. Government expenditure as a proportion of annual aggregate expenditure by all economic agents (households, corporations and governments) has increased from probably less than 10% hundred years ago to average of 40%-50% now.
Now, most learned people will disagree with the view here. First, they will cite so many successes. But they will forget the numerous incidences of failure. This proves the point that the concept of State is not a panacea for the citizens of the States or the World at large. Second, they will point out that the failures are on account of factors not within the control of the States. That is exactly the point - the concept of State does not help mankind to control social, economic and technological behavior of all the people: the institution of the State has no magic wand and unequal to the tasks of protecting mankind.
The wise and learned would say that the institution of the State is the second best magic wand available and the best is not in sight. That is exactly the point of view here. But once it is accepted: two courses of action are possible: one, how best can the concept of State be modified and altered to improve its performance and two, search for an alternative concept. No one it seems is interested in either course of action. This is unfortunate but natural. Concepts are not discarded till they threaten the very existence of human civilization.
