Unit-4

Nation-State
Dr. Tanvi Kulkarni

Introduction
The modern nation-state has evolved as a political unit of human organisation over the last five to six
centuries. The fundamental idea behind the formation of the nation-state comes from the fact that
human beings are social creatures and have preferred to live in organised communities. In its earliest
form, the nation-state emerged from the state as a simple organisation. Over centuries, the simple state
evolved into more complex forms of organisation. The world today is composed of states and nation-
states.
The state is regarded as the most significant political actor in the world. Covering a myriad of
functions in our life, from the maintenance of law and order, and conduct of foreign relations to the
provision of political goods including basic amenities (like water, electricity, fuel) and security, the
state manifests itself in numerable ways. The attribute that makes the state a preeminent and
predominant entity is sovereignty – the absence of a legitimate higher authority in the domestic and
external affairs of the state. State and sovereignty are mutually-constitutive concepts and the nature
and origin of the concept of sovereignty is closely associated with the nature, origin and the evolution
of the modern nation-state.
Many different models of political structures and units existed before the emergence of the
modern nation-state. For instance, the empires, kingdoms, city-states and territorial states. These
systems, which were sine qua non to human civilizations in historical times, were gradually
subordinated with the birth of the modern sovereign state system. This chapter discusses the concepts
of state and nation-state, and looks at the evolution of modern nation-states in varying forms, from the
historical Western European context to the post-colonial context. The final section examines some of
the challenges and debates concerned with the modern nation-state in contemporary times.

What is the State?

The concept of ‘state’ is central to political science and there are many scholars have defined state in
different ways.
Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, defined the state as a community or association of
persons, which aim at certain good. It is a union of families and villages having for its end a perfect
and self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honourable life. The state is however not any
ordinary community or association, but it is the highest of all communities (supreme). The state that
Aristotle was talking about is the rudimentary city-state (polis) that existed in Greece, like Athens. As
states evolved, their definitions also changed.
The Swiss jurist, Bluntschli defined the state as the ‘politically organized people of a definite
territory.’ The US president Woodrow Wilson modified this definition to say that state ‘is a people
organized for law within a definite territory.’
According to the American political scientist, Dr JW Garner, the state is “a community of
persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent, or

37
nearly so, of external control, and possessing an organized government to which the great body of
inhabitants render habitual obedience.”
For Professor Harold Laski, state is “a territorial society divided into governments and subjects,
whether individuals or associations of individuals, whose relationships are determined by the exercise
of this supreme coercive power.” Andrew Heywood defines the state as a ‘political association that
establishes sovereign jurisdiction within defined territorial borders.’
These definitions show that there are two perspectives of the state. Narrowly defined, the state is
seen to be different from the public or civil society; however it encompasses institutions that are
responsible toward public life and funded through public taxes (such as the institutions of
government, the courts, the military, nationalized industries or social security system). In this view,
the state’s main concern is domestic order with regards to the actors that live within its territory. From
this perspective, the state has fiscal monopoly (from taxing citizens) and demands obedience from the
people. The state therefore becomes an instrument of coercion and domination. Broadly defined, the
state concept is characterized by four features or elements:
1. A defined territory
2. A permanent population
3. An effective government, and
4. Sovereignty
The above broad definition of the state was first found in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the
Rights and Duties of the State (Article 1).Here, the emphasis is on the ability of the state to protect its
territory and population from external attacks. Brenner brings the narrow and broad views together to
define ‘statehood’ as the capacity to simultaneously protect against external attack and maintain
domestic order.

Elements of the State

As stated above, the state has four core elements: Population, Territory, Government and Sovereignty.
Population
At its most fundamental level, the State is a human institution. It can be sustained only through
people. Therefore, we cannot imagine a state with people. There is no fixed size of population that
makes a state. Some states like Austria and Switzerland have a very small population whereas states
like India, China and the Brazil have a very large population. Territories like Antarctica cannot be
called as a state because it is not populated. The quality of the population is also important. To be
strong, a state needs a healthy, intelligent and organised population. A state may be composed of
homogenous or heterogenous populations in terms of attributes like religion, ethnicity, race and
language, but can become citizens by virtue of inhabiting the territory of the state.
Territory
Just like population, a state cannot exist without a defined territory. Territory determines the
jurisdiction of the state’s authority. A population without territory cannot be called as a State. For
instance, The Jews were scattered in different parts of the world and they became a State with the
creation of Israel in 1948, which had a defined territory. The territory of one state is separated from
that of another by borders. A state may have a contiguous or non-contiguous territory. For instance,

38
the US has non-contiguous territory, that includes the Hawaii island and Alaska. Some states have
very small territories, like San Marino or Lesotho, whereas others like Russia, China and Canada have
very large territories. The territory of a state can sometimes pose advantages or disadvantages in terms
of security, and resources.
Government
The government is the agency which makes, enforces and protects the rules of conduct and
organisation for the everyday running of the state. The government protects the population, territory
and interests of the state through institutions and security mechanisms. The government determines
policies, implements laws, regulates day-to-day affairs, promotes welfare and also ensures obedience
from its population toward the state. It is therefore the implementing body of the state. In the absence
of government, a state would be directionless and lacking cohesion and collective action. It is through
the government, that the state expresses its will. There are various forms of government that run the
state, like democracy, autocracy, monarchy or theocracy, to name a few.
Distinction between State and Government State Government
State Government
State is composed of four elements Government is one element (agency) of the
State
State cannot exist without territory A government can exist without territory
State enjoys ultimate power (sovereignty) Government powers are limited and delegated
State is long-lasting Government is temporary
State is an abstract idea Government is a real body
Citizens do not have rights against their state Citizens can have rights against their
government

Sovereignty
Sovereignty is the element or feature that distinguishes the state from all other forms of political units.
States are autonomous and independent actors because they exercise sovereign jurisdiction over a
defined territory and population. In other words, sovereignty makes a state. Sovereignty is the
supreme power by which the state commands and exerts political obedience from its people.
According to Jean Bodin (1530–96) who first theorised about the concept, sovereignty is ‘the absolute
and perpetual power of a common wealth’ that guarantees the state political and social stability.
Sovereignty indicates the absence of a higher authority in either domestic or external affairs of the
state. Therefore, there are two levels at which the state exercises sovereignty – internal sovereignty
and external sovereignty. Internal sovereignty is the state’s monopoly of authority inside its territorial
boundaries. The state enjoys ultimate control over its people, institutions and affairs. External
sovereignty implies the absence of any external control or legitimate higher authority on the decisions
and policies of the state. It determines the state’s relationship to other states and international actors.
External sovereignty means that the state is independent and its will is not affected by the will of any
other external entity.

39
What is the Nation-State?
The terms state, nation and nation-state are often confused as meaning the same thing; they are
sometimes used interchangeably. However, the three concepts are separable and analytical different in
political science. The state is defined in terms of a set of institutions and relationships of governance
closely connected to, but analytically distinct from society. The nations consists of people, who have a
shared history, language or identity. Such national communities might find themselves contained
within states or divided between them. R. N. Gilchrist observes that nation-state is the state looked at
from a certain point of view, viz. that of the unity of the people organised in one state. A nation-state
is basically a national community which has obtained or been granted self-determination over their
own affairs.
Nation, Nationality and Nationalism
The word ‘nation’ is derived from the Latin word ‘natus’, meaning ‘to be born.’ The English ‘nation’
therefore comes from its Latin counterpart ‘natio’ meaning birth or blood relationship. By implication,
a nation in its most crude meaning is based on common origin. According to Barker, “a nation is a
body of persons inhabiting a definite territory and thus united together by the primary fact of living
together on a command land.” Ramsay Muir says that, “a nation is a body of people who feel
themselves to be nationally linked together by certain affinities and cannot tolerate subjection to
others.”
However, nations are complex phenomena that are shaped by a collection of cultural, political
and psychological factors. According to Heywood (2004), “culturally, a nation is a group of people
bound together by a common language, religion, history and traditions. Politically, a nation is a group
of people who regard themselves as a ‘natural’ political community, usually expressed through the
desire to establish or maintain sovereignty”. And “psychologically, a nation is a group of people who
are distinguished by a shared loyalty or affection, in the form of patriotism, although people who lack
national pride may still nevertheless recognize that they ‘belong’ to the nation” (Heywood 2004). In
reality, all nations comprise a mixture cultural and political characteristics. It is difficult to delineate
definite elements of a nation. However, broadly they include objective and subjective factors like
common history, common geography or territory, common race, common religion, common language,
common values, customs and traditions, shared economic interests and political aspirations.
Nationality and nationalism are concepts associated with nations. Nationality is a group of
people, sharing historical or cultural backgrounds, or racial characteristics, who desire to live together
as a community. It is the shared psychological sentiment which is generated in a group of people who
belong to a common race, common history, common geography or territory, common language,
common religion, shared customs and traditions, common economic interests, and common hopes and
political aspirations. People of a nationality may share some or many of these attributes but they must
have a sense of unity. They must feel that they have something in common which differentiates them
from other people. Nationality is a cultural term. Nation is basically a political term and cultural only
incidentally. A nation is a people organised and united. The goal of a nationality is to established a
nation. For instance, the Jewish nationality created the Jewish nation.
Nationalism is a politico-psychological concept. It has been a powerful political force in modern
times leading to the birth of several nation-states in Asia and Africa. In simple words, nationalism
means a feeling of oneness with the cultural heritage, customs, traditions, institutions and all other

40
aspects of one's nation. It is the political consciousness of belonging to a group and a force that holds
a people together in a defined territory, against external aggression.Classical nationalism, that
emerged in nineteenth-century Europe, has been strongly associated with liberal ideas and values. To
be a nationalist meant to be a liberal, and vice versa. Modern nationalism is characterised by
movement of a nationality aiming at achieving independence and to form a state organization of its
choice. Its commits to the principle of national self- determination and its goal is therefore the
construction of a nation-state. In more contemporary times, nationalism has become a complex and
deeply contested political phenomenon. It is often conflated with the term 'patriotism,' which is
literally, love of one’s country; a psychological attachment of loyalty to one’s nation or country.
Defining the Nation-State
A nation-state is an autonomous political community in which the political and cultural identity of
people coincide, or in other words where citizenship and nationality overlap. The Italian political
activist, Giuseppe Mazzini, who advocated for the unification of Italy in the 19th century, proposed
“every nation a state, only one state for the entire nation”. Most modern states are nation-states, in
that, thanks to classical nationalism, the nation has come to be accepted as the basic unit of political
rule. Indeed, one of the most significant impact of nationalism has been to establish the nation as the
key unit for political authority, resulting in the nation-state becoming accepted as the most basic and
even legitimate form of political organization. However, the ideal nation- state (where the state and
nation overlap exactly) is not a reality, as all states are, to some degree, culturally and ethnically
heterogeneous. Even then, the global system is imagined as a community of nation-states. The term
‘nation-state’ is often erroneously used interchangeably with the ‘state’ in public as well as sometimes
academic discourses.
Many modern nation-states are not mono-national units, that is ‘one nation, one state.’ They are
characterized by cultural heterogeneity (multi-ethnic, multi-racial or multi-religious entities), in
varying degrees. In other words, they are composed of multiple nationalities, for instance, USA,
Canada, Switzerland and India. Therefore, modern nation-states are often confronted with problems of
minorities. In the US, this problem has been addressed over a period of two hundred years, through
the emergence of a distinct "American" identity whereby racial, linguistic and religious differences
have become secondary.The Swiss nation has endured despite the use of three major languages
(French, German and Italian), in addition to many local dialects. In Canada, however, there is a strong
Québécois nationalism, which is based mainly on language differences between the French-speaking
Quebec region and the predominantly English-speaking parts of Canada. In Northern Ireland,
divisions between Catholics and Protestants that has given rise to rival nationalisms. India is a good
example of a nation-state with multi-nationalities. India has been able to maintain national integration
on the basis of civic nationalism (that is, nationalism shaped by common political values and
aspirations as enshrined in the Indian Constitution).

Evolution of the Nation-State

The earliest ‘States’ in their centralized and elaborated form were born in Western Europe in the 15th
and 16th centuries. The Peace of Westphalia (1648) is understood to be the founding moment of the
modern notion of statehood; it established states as sovereign entities, and therefore as the principal
actors on the world stage. International politics was therefore designed as a ‘state system.’ The state
system gradually expanded from Europe to North America in the 17th and 18th centuries, and in the
19th century, it spread to South America and East Asia. It was in the 20th century that the state system

41
became truly global given the process of decolonization in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific
and the formation of nation-states in these regions.
The transition from the medieval systems like empires to the modern state system was neither
spontaneous nor peaceful. Several historical transformations crucially impacted the formation of the
modern nation-state.
1. Emergence of the Territorial State
For large parts of the time, medieval Europe was governed by empires. People were governed by two
sets of authorities, namely the Church (religious) and empires (political). In contrast to the modern
state, which has supreme sovereignty over its territory, medieval authorities had to negotiate and fight
over their claims as to how a particular territory should be run. There was overlapping authority
between religious and political powers, that led to complex organization of territory. There was social
and political hierarchy in the society – at the top stood God, and under God, the Pope and the
Emperor. The Church owned property and was thus a major economic and political player in its own
right, but it also functioned to provide the Emperor with religious legitimacy: if God was at the top of
the hierarchy of identities, and the Pope right under Him, it was crucial for political authorities to get
the Pope’s blessing. The transformation from the medieval to the modern system was significant in
that it re-organised both, the key principle of governance (from overlapping authority to territorial
sovereignty) and the way in which political identity was understood. Political authorities gained
ground compared to the religious ones. It meant that the state became more secular and that this
secularity was played out in interstate relations as well as domestically.
2. Renaissance and Reformation
The birth of the territorial secular state was closely linked to the religious wars that haunted Europe in
the wake of the Reformation. The epistemological basis of modern state lies in the intellectual
traditions of Renaissance and Reformation movements in Western Europe which advocated the idea
of modernity based on individualism, autonomy and separation of political and religious sphere
(former as public and the latter as private). Medieval Europe was characterized by conflicts and
instability caused by a tussle for power, wealth and authority between political authority i.e. kings,
and religious authority i.e. Church. The Protestant reformist movement against the corrupt practices of
Catholic church, too made a dent in the Christian commonwealth and weakened the political power of
religious authority. Backed by patron political powers, the religious conflict culminated into thirty
years’ war from 1618 to 1648 which was concluded with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This treaty
marks a historical watershed juncture in the history of evolution of modern states by establishing a
separation of political and religious spheres and by according higher and more elaborate powers to
secular political authority over the religious one in the matters of state politics.
3. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648)
The Treaty of Westphalia, also called as the Peace of Westphalia brought an end to thirty years’ war
between Spain, Dutch and Germany in 1648. The treaty played an important role in designating
essential features of a modern state: Defined territorial boundaries, population, in terms of ‘citizens’
and ‘others’, sovereignty and governance, that claimed monopoly over legitimate exercise of force
and being the highest decision-making entity within its territorial jurisdiction, and recognition of the
state as a sovereign over its claimed territory. Skinner (1978) captures this understanding of modern
state adequately as, “political apparatuses, distinct from both ruler and ruled, with supreme

42
jurisdiction over a demarcated territorial area, backed by a claim to monopoly of coercive power, and
enjoying a level of support or loyalty from their citizens”. However note that, “Westphalia was the
beginning of a long historical process that, through twists and turns, moved towards the sovereign
territorial state; it was not a complete break from one day to the next” (Osiander, 2001).
4. Social Contract Tradition and the notion of Sovereignty
The French Philosopher Jean Bodin emphasied the necessity and merit of a single authority (that
derives its power from God) which possesses unified and uncontested legislative powers, responsible
for war and peace, currency, administration, judicial appointments and so on, in contrast to what
Christendom and feudalism of medieval times had in place. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in
his classic text ‘Leviathan’ expanded the concept of an absolute sovereign authority borne out of a
hypothetical social contract which authorizes the sovereign to rule on behalf of individuals by
providing a system of peace, security and stability, otherwise precarious because of an anarchic
society comprising of rational self-preserving individuals seeking to maximise their survival potential
through self-ordained measures. Sovereign was entrusted with absolute powers like waging wars,
raising taxes etc. and only legitimate recourse to rebellion against it by individuals as group was
deemed plausible when their life was threatened. English philosopher John Locke’s conception of a
hypothetical social contract, on the other hand, evoked an element of ‘natural rights’ to limit the
legislative power of the sovereign by declaring protection of natural rights of life, liberty and property
as fundamental to the continuation of this social contract. Locke also argued that people have a right
to overthrow the government if it rules arbitrarily and ineffectively while endangering individual’s
natural rights. People could choose new legislators once this happens. This idea of tacit contract
informed by consent and reciprocal obligations and duties laid the foundation of modern democratic
states. These ideals are well-reflected in the American Declaration of Independence (1776), the
French Revolution and the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen’.
By placing sovereign authority in people, and declaring certain rights as inalienable, the era of
modern democratic states was ushered into international politics. However, the degree of
centralization of authority considered vital for governance differed in different states. For example, in
the US, the federal authority was limited by rights of the constituent units, unlike France, which
adopted a more centralized form of governance. These states concretized the understanding of modern
state as conceived during Treaty of Westphalia, encompassing territory (border), population,
sovereignty and governance systems (also recognition).
5. Birth of Nationalism
The French and American revolutions in the 18th century were a major shift in that “the beheading of
the monarch, either concretely or symbolically, and the introduction of popular sovereignty,
accelerated the disintegration of hierarchies between different categories of people” within the state
(Anderson, 1991). “Nationalism as a modern ideology put emphasis not just on equality within the
state, but also on commonality, such that citizens would see themselves as bound by a deeper sense of
identity, community and belonging. The nation became in Benedict Anderson’s words an ‘imagined
community’, ‘a deep, horizontal comradeship’” whose members shared a common social, cultural and
political identity (Anderson, 1991: 7). “Nationalism was connected to popular sovereignty and
eventually democracy, and therefore to the idea that the legitimacy of the sovereign state was based
not on divine or monarchical inherent rights, but on the government’s ability to rule according to the
values, interests and identity of the people” (Anderson, 1991).

43
 The shift to a concern with societal cohesion also implied a change in how territory was
considered. As nationalist movements worked to install a common identity amongst the members of
‘their’ nations, territories could no longer be shifted around with no concerns for the status of the
people and nations who lived there. This made territorial acquisitions less attractive as a hostile
population would resist the ‘occupier’, but it also provided justifications for the political centre to
nationalise, coercively if necessary, those on its territory.
The growth of nationalism, however, has not been a uniform process and was shaped by
contextual factors. For western Europe, decline in authority of church and end of religious crusades
paved way for state nationalism premised on common racial, religious or linguistic identity of its
masses. In case of America, it was primarily a collective consciousness of people resisting
exploitation by a wealthy elite foreign government. The French and American revolutions affirmed
the concepts of liberty and equality which became the cornerstone of modern nationalism. The
theories of self-determination and nationalities resulted into break down of empires in Eastern Europe
giving rise to specific nationalities premised on common identities. In Asian and African states, it has
been primarily the experience of exploitative foreign government which led to the development of
colonial nationalism. While colonial nationalism gained consciousness in response to the colonial rule
of an, it also adopted some of the means and institutions of western European states under the
influence of modernity discourse.
The concept of state became institutionalized and internalized also through various symbolic and
necessary functions performed by the state. Demarcation of boundary, including maritime boundary
through precise map-making and protection from external aggressions and control over border
movements involved management of external relations by the state. Internally, the discourse of
modern nation-state was strengthened by symbolic practices like respecting national flag and singing
the national anthem.
Type of state Dominant Economic Territorial Administrative
system traits sustenance mode understanding institutionalization

War-making capabilities, Exaction of tributes along trade routes, shifting territorial

boundaries according to invasions and rebellions, Rudimentary governance structures
Empires
and institutions, limited administrative authority over distant parts of empire
maintained by coercion than administration.

Over-lapping jurisdiction of competing authorities, disintegrative tendencies among

various feudal factions comprising states, tussle between Catholic church and feudal
Feudal States
kings over supremacy of decision-making power, Agriculture and sub-contracting of
(between 8th
land, Feudal economy, vassals offered loyalty and homage to lords and kings in return
and 14th
for privileges, urban centres primarily on accumulated capitals. Territorial states existed
Century)
but sub-contracting of land within the state over varying hierarchies involving kings,
nobles, clergy, peasants etc.

Estates Polity Cause of public prerogatives, collective or estates-based assemblies, parliaments, diets
e.g. Northern and town councils as ruling bodies as contrast to individual rule. Trade and
Italy and manufacture. Mostly, cities and town based. Impersonal ruling structures, power
Flanders dualism between rulers and estates over rights of representation.

44
Absolutist
States Monarch versus Barons over rightful authority, consolidation of states into absolute
monarchies (divine right of king to rule) and constitutional monarchies (rule of law
(between
codified), Authority of the church reduced. Unified, single, sovereign rule of monarch
14th-16th
over a given territory. Permanent and professional standing army and bureaucracy
Century)
began to emerge, Centralized, indivisible rule, tendency of homogenization within the
e.g. France, state. Money rent, trade, commerce, mercantilism. Consolidated territory corresponding
Spain and to a unified system of administration.
England

Westphalian system of states emergence of international law though in a minimalist

sense, industrialization, market economy coupled with agriculture, Capitalism. States
with fixed boundaries preferably culturally homogenous population within the fixed
Modern
territorial limits to be governed through a uniform administrative system.
States
Representation of citizens, Impersonal bureaucratic rule, modern modes of law making,
execution and adjudication, new means of surveillance and categorization of citizens
were devised.

Based on David Held’s (1993) “The Development of the Modern State”, in Stuart Hall and Bram
Gieben (eds), Formations of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Theories and Types of State

The nature of state remains contested despite several scholarly attempts at its conceptual and
functional analysis. Though understood in terms of its essential characteristics, one must remember
that state ultimately is an abstract idea representing a network of agents and institutions and the inter-
related processes and values rooted in shared social understanding and conventions. A
conceptualisation of role and essential functions of state, therefore, has varied in different theoretical
paradigms. David Held (1993) has postulated following four variants of modern states:
Type of State Important Features

Restrictions on state actions in rule formulation and execution in the form of

Constitutional
standardized rules and codes in order to curtail state despotism, optimism in
State
individual capabilities to strive for common good.

Derived from classical liberal theory, individual’s private life to be independent of

Liberal state regulation, constitutionalism, advance of capitalist system of market
economy and institution of private property.

Liberal Power to elect and remove members to public offices, channelling of public
Representative grievances through them and public accountability of the officers. Essentially a
State democratic state.

Prevalent in Soviet Union, China and some eastern states, single party rules the
Single Party State
polity; candidates are drawn through public elections.

Based on David Held’s (1993) “The Development of the Modern State”, in Stuart Hall and Bram
Gieben (eds), Formations of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.

45
 Within the broader umbrella of liberal theories of state, the social reformist or social democratic
state originated in 19th century. This state undertook a positive obligation on itself to intervene in
society and undertake measures to deal with structural problems like poverty and inequality. Such
‘welfare state’, especially in the 20thcentury, premised conceptually on ‘positive liberalism’, followed
a ‘cradle to grave’ approach. The State’s role proliferated to include providing and regulating
common access to public resources and amenities like public education, healthcare, provisions for
women and elderly etc. These Social democratic states in Western Europe expanded for a while, both
in numbers and in mandate, but started contracting in 1970s with a huge rise in oil prices which was
exerting additional pressure on already strained state systems in terms of its economic affordability
and viability due to increasing welfare mandate.
The ‘New Right perspective’ or neo-liberal theory of state which gained momentum in
1970s (U.S. administration under the president ship of Ronald Reagan and Britain under
Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher), argued for minimalist intervention on the
part of the state so as to allow maximum possible liberty to the individual to pursue his/her
own self- interest. Inspired by Frederick Von Hayek and Milton Friedman, it stressed on
individual initiative, liberty and responsibility as the drivers of growth and development. It
re- emphasized the values of laissez faire state popular in early liberalism, though in practice
led to more bureaucratization of state in these countries. Both these perspectives—social
democratic and New Right recognize individual as the vantage point or rational of the state
but propose different ways to facilitate it.
The Marxist understanding of state is open to interpretation as Marx himself did not provide a
theory of state. In a general sense, however, the Marxist analysis through its ‘materialistic conception
of history’ not only challenges the liberal view of state as a neutral arbiter but also considers it as a
part of the problem itself.
In its view, a state, through its coercive power maintains and defends class domination and
exploitation (Heywood 2004). It does not exist independently of the underlying economic base and
therefore acts as a tool of exploitation in the hands of capitalists by defending and legitimizing their
concerns through the legal mechanisms like upholding contract, institution of private property etc.
Marxist understanding challenges the liberal notion of state as common good, capable of acting in
collective interest impartially, and stressed on coercive power of the states. The image of democracy
and liberal politics then only undermine rise of class consciousness and revolutionary potential of the
proletariat class. Modern Marxists like Gramsci, however, explained the apparent legitimacy and
popularity of the ‘bourgeoisie state’, not just by its use of coercion but also by it eliciting ‘consent’ by
evoking ideational hegemony.
Post-Colonial State
The state in Western Europe was premised on modern institutions like rule of law, property rights,
impersonal bureaucracy etc. and therefore enjoyed legitimacy, unlike the colonial states where the
rulers were detested by the native population. These colonial powers exported the colonial rule to their
colonies in Asia, Africa and the Pacific, where they attempted to superimpose their own conceptions
of the nation-state without. The existing traditional, religious and political milieu of these colonial
states often offered resistance to such imposition, thereby undermining the support need for such
structural transformation. Having been drained of their resources during by their colonisers, in the
post-independence period, these erstwhile colonies struggled to catch up with the European states in

46
terms of material and economic capabilities. However, in some new states like India, the maintenance
of the colonial bureaucracy and security institutions like the police and armed forces, helped organise
capital and resources for national development and keep private individuals away from gaining too
much control of state power.
The Western European model of ‘state-system’ became a legacy for state-making in Asia
and Africa despite the differences in their geopolitical and cultural settings. The state model
was also coveted because it gave sovereignty and a legitimate basis for participation in the
international system. And so, the post-colonial state attempted to replicate the modern nation-
state of Europe through various domestic contestations and confrontations. Sudipta Kaviraj
argues that this resulted in contextual variations in the state prototypes that emerged in post-
colonial societies. Whereas the European state was ‘ developed’ in terms of state legitimacy,
governance and, political and economic institutions, the post-colonial state was under-
developed, where the state power of state contested by the societal classes. Government
institutions became fragmented and remained under-developed. According to Mohammed
Ayoob, what took Western European 200 years to achieve modern statehood, the post-
colonial state has attempted to achieve in about 50 years. This attempt to emulate a long
historical evolutionary process in a short period of time resulted in the post-colonial states
facing crises of legitimacy and governance. Many post-colonial states like Myanmar,
Bangladesh, Ghana witnessed military coups that ousted the civilian government. In such
states like Somalia, Sudan and Colombia non-state militias, criminal gangs and local
strongmen exercised violent and coercive power over the population. The socio-economic
discontinuities and ruptures that had been introduced by colonialism, resulted in economic,
political, social, cultural, ethnic and racial conflicts in the post-colonial state and problems of
internal security. Many states in Asia and particularly in Africa are characterised as ‘weak’ or
‘failed’. The nexus between the ruling elite and international capital, facilitated by the neo-
liberal reforms undertaken in several of these countries since late 1970s also caused further
impoverishment by causing huge economic inequality in these states.
Security State
The previous sections enumerated and reflected on modern variants of Westphalian state and
accounted for their variations depending on the contextual historical and socio- economic
premises of states in different parts of the world. This section will look at the evolving
understanding of ‘Security State’, as one of the forms that liberal democratic and welfare
states are turning into. The security state of today is distinct from the authoritarian states
under the Nazi and Fascist rule in Europe in the 20th century. Those were ultra-nationalist
projects that tried to assimilate civil society into the state as a corporate body commanding
absolute authority through repressive and coercive police force, militarism and national-racial
ideology (Hallsworth and Lea 2011). The neo-liberal economic reforms and the advent of
global capitalism has made state ‘retreat’ in several quarters and has resulted into states
abdicating some of their welfare responsibilities. This has opened up the space for private
enterprises to turn these ‘responsibilities’ into ‘services’ available to those who can afford
them. There is increasing privatization of education and healthcare – originally conceived as

47
public goods in the state system. This withdrawal of state from key sectors, however, is not
necessarily a decline of the state system. Rather, in certain quarters, it is even accompanied
by a surge in the coercive powers of the state, for example, in the UK and the US.
The new security state, is distinct in that it entails a change in philosophy and perspective
towards crime control, security functions of the state and centrality of ‘state of exception’ (Agamben
2005) as normal state. Halls worth and Lea characterise the rise of security state in three areas:
‘transition from welfare to workfare and risk management; new measures to combat terrorism and
organized crime; and the blurring of warfare and crime control’. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the
US and the rise of trans-national terrorism, the new security state has increasingly capitalized on the
logic of securitization and has incorporated higher levels of surveillance, censorship and control in the
name of law and order maintenance. There is a blurring of the line between ‘internal’ and ‘external’
security and threats. This culture makes the citizenry conscious of their activities, speeches and
actions and induces them to practice self- censorship so as to avoid wrongful incrimination by the
state, even when such acts do not constitute a ‘crime’ in normal sense of the word. The new security
state, for instance, looksat certain sections of the population (illegal migrants, poor unemployed
people, refugees, prostitutes, beggars etc.) as ‘risky’ and that must be ever-watched for an ‘inherent
disposition towards crime.’ This is evident in the social and urban planning techniques to create ‘safe
spaces’ (Hughes 2007) like increasing surveillance and exclusionary spaces (deployment of CCTV
cameras in residential and commercial neighbourhoods, creation of ‘gated societies’, restriction on
access to places like public parks etc). ‘Crime’ is segregated from its socio-economic basis (thereby,
putting the idea of welfare policies, rehabilitation and family support structures as useful remedies on
back foot) and presented in a sanitized form that can be handled only by more coercive actions and
techniques. Burgeoning links between trans-national offenders like drug cartels, terrorists and
smugglers with local communities have contributed to a perceived bias against surplus populations.
The new security state addresses this through increasing use of pre-emptive criminalization measures
and extra-ordinary laws like sedition in the name maintenance of public order.
Globalisation has not only changed the ‘external contexts within which states operate’ but also
‘the very nature of states’ (Guehenno 2010). The impact of globalisation, is rather multi-faceted. On
the one hand, it has not only facilitated an inward-looking nature of crime control by states through
more coercive and disciplining practices but it has also incentivized an internationalization of crime
management efforts. For example, setting up of international tribunals to handle instances of crime
against humanity, genocide, ethnic cleansing perpetrated by non-state informal militias and criminal
gangs, conventions to curb the rise of international terrorism, collective security and collective
defence arrangements etc. Globalisation, has further intensified the competition among states, not
only in terms of military technology and capability but also in dimensions like development and
environmental protection. However, while the jury is still out on the actual transformative potential of
globalisation in altering the nature of modern state or in giving rise to new forms of state systems,
there is consensus that states are not the only significant players in global affairs. Although the State
is still very relevant in the modern world system, its interaction with global forces and technology is
often shaped by a multitude of factors giving rise to contextual variations in states’ strength, potential
and interests in regulating them.
Conclusion
States are the most significant form of political organisation and association in the global society of
human beings. It is a historical entity which has evolved through the ages since the fifteenth and

48
sixteenth centuries. The state has four core elements: a defined territory, a permanent population, an
effective government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Sovereignty, both
internal and external, is the most important underlying element of the state. The nation, on the other
hand,
The state and nation are separate concepts. Nations are group of people bound together by a
common language, religion, history, geography, values, traditions and aspirations. When the nation
overlaps with the state, forming a bond between citizenship and nationality, it becomes a nation-state.
From the early 19th century onwards, the birth of nation-states transformed the state-system,
reconfiguring political power in the world and giving states domestic cohesion and sense of identity in
a way they previously did not have.
The nation-state has however been challenged by forces within and outside the state.
Globalization has been understood to be the biggest challenge to state sovereignty. According to some
scholars, these forces have transformed the nature of the state, giving rise to the greater competition
between the state and the ‘market’ state and given rise to the ‘post-modern’ state and ‘post-
sovereignty governance’. However despite growing claims about the decline of the state, there is
growing evidence of the return of state power. This has occurred as a response to new security threats,
the increasing use of the state as an agent of economic modernization and through an emphasis on
state-building as a means of promoting social and economic development.

References and Bibliography

Agamben, G. (2005) State of Exception. University of Chicago Press: Chicago
Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism,
Verso Publication: London.
Buzan, B. and Hansen, L. (2009), The Evolution of International Security Studies, Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
Clark, I. (2000), “The Security State” in Held, D. and McGrew, A. (eds.) The Global Transformations
Reader, Polity Press: Cambridge, pp. 177-188.
Geoff, E. and Suny, R. G. (1996) Becoming National: A Reader, Oxford University Press: New York.
Guehenno, J. M. (2010), “The Impact of Globalization on Security”, Survival, 40 (4), pp.5-19.
Hague, R. and Harrop, M. (2004), Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction (6th
edition), Palgrave MacMillan: New York
Hague, R. et al (2017), Political Science: A Comparative Introduction (8th edition), Palgrave
MacMillan: New York.
Hall, J.A. (1989), States in History, Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
Hallsworth, S. and Lea, J. (2011), “Reconstructing Leviathan: Emerging Contours of the Security
State”, Theoretical Criminology, 15 (2), pp.141-157.
Held, D. (1992), “Democracy: From City-states to a Cosmopolitan Order?” Political Studies, XL,
Special Issue, 10-39.
Held, D. (1993) “The Development of the Modern State”, in S. Hall and B. Gieben (eds), Formations
of Modernity, Polity Press: Cambridge.

49