Of the many concepts in the social sciences that are used rather interchangeably and at times synonymously, even by experts, that of ‘nation’ and ‘nation state’ appears prominent. Thus, in international relations discourse, it may not be out of place for one to hear of references to the American nation, the Nigerian nation or the German nation for instance. In the same vein references could also be made to the American nation-state, the Nigerian nation-state or the German nation –state, etc.
Such interchangeable usages tend to suggest that both concepts mean the same thing. This could be misleading. For a proper understanding of the concept of nation-state which is the basic unit of international relations, it will be worthwhile to attain a precise appreciation of what we exactly mean by the ‘nation’. Though not amenable to a concise definition due to the different senses in which the word has been used in modern times on the basis of different theories and interpretations, 1 but in its relationship with the nation-state, one of the most satisfactory definitions of the concept of nation remains that offered by Ernest Barker some six decades ago. According to him:
A nation is a body of men inhabiting a definite
territory….(and possessing ) a common stock
of thoughts and feelings acquired and transmitted
during the course of a common history …2
Continuing, Ernest Barker further submits that the common stock of thoughts and feelings include, though more in the past than in the present, a common religious belief, a common language, and also what he refers to as “a common will”. The common will, according to him, propels the nation to form a separate state for the expression and realization of that will. There are, however, other commentators who are of the opinion that a nation is not formed merely by “speaking the same tongue, or belonging to the same cultural groups, but having accomplished great things in common in the past and retaining the wishes to do same in the future.3
While not discountenancing the latter intervention, we are persuaded that Ernest Barker appears to have captured the major ingredients of the concept of nation, at least with regard to its relationship with both the nation –state and international relations. But the concept of “common will” as employed by Barker tends to suggest that a nation is permanently and inexorably led to a secessionist predilections, since it is only by so doing that it can form a state, and so give vent to the so-called common will. But this may not be entirely borne out by the facts of contemporary international life; the US remains a classic example of subsuming of different cultural groups’ “common wills” under what can be referred to as a general will.
The concept of common will also introduces us to the fact that a nation is always found within a nation-state, even though a nation may transform into a nation-state through various processes ranging from secession to implosion of empires or other hegemonic political entities such as the communist system. Besides, a multi-national state will also be vulnerable to disintegration given the concept of common will. In other words, the “common will” may well be considered a euphemism for ethnic nationalism or other forms of micro-nationalistic revisionism and / or irredentism.
In apparent support of Ernest Barker’s concept of “common will” as an essential attribute of the nation. Hans Morgenthau suggests that “the nation needs a state,” as “one nation- one state,” according to him, remains the political postulate of nationalism,4 while the nation-state is its ideal. It is probably in furtherance of this that recent commentators have continued to maintain that the idea that every nation should have its own state, accompanied by the corollary that one ethnic or cultural group should not collectively rule over another, has remained one of the most powerful political forces of the past two hundred years.5 in the same vein, John Casper Bluntshli, a Swiss international lawyer, writing in the 1870s insists that “the world should be split into as many states as humanity is divided into nations, each nation, a state, and each state, a national being”6
We have tried to present these various views not as an advocacy but just to be able to attain a proper appreciation of the differences between a nation and the nation-state. It is thus obvious that a nation in this context, and within the realm of international relations, refers to an ethnic or cultural group. It is different from the nation-state in the critical sense that until it attains the ultimate objective of the so-called common will, that is transformation into a nation-state, it cannot participate in international relations. In other words, only the nation-state or the state can participate in international relations as a political unit. What then is the state or the nation-state? It must be pointed out immediately that the state and nation-state mean exactly the same thing and so they can, and are most often, used interchangeably without any adverse effect whatsoever. In a strict technical sense however, the state is preferred to nation-state in usage.
The State
The state refers to a distinct set of political institutions whose specific concern is said to be with the organization of domination in the pursuit of common interest within a delineated territory. It has thus been defined as a “body of people occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one government”.7 The essential components of a state according to this definition are people, land (territory) and government. Of these three components, only one appears missing in the case of the nation- government. Government, therefore, constitutes a major and essential institutional difference between the modern state systems, and the nation or ethnic or cultural group. As the established and recog
nized “form of political administration” of a state, government is different from other administering or ruling agencies in the national, as such agencies may not be recognized outside the territory they hold forth. Consequent upon this non- recognition, such agencies can neither authoritatively allocate values or resources within their territories nor engage in any form of political interaction with other states as representatives of their people. Since it is the government of a state that can perform this important function, then only the state can participate in international relations as a political unit.
This is so because the state is a legal entity imbued with the legal concept of sovereignty, while the nation is a socio-cultural term restricted to the homogenous culture groups within a state, or at times, extending beyond the borders of any one state. The state can thus be conceived as the most central concept in the study of political science, and by extension, international relations. It has also been conceived in terms of its role as a “coercion-wielding priority in decision – making and claim paramountcy in the application of naked force to social problems within territorial boundaries”8 Niccolo Machiavelli is often credited with the first use of the concept of state in reference to a “territorial sovereign government”. This was in his classic, the prince, completed in 1513, and published in 1532. It was not until the time of Jean Bodin (1579-96), that his legal instrumentality of sovereignty was developed as a distinguishing characteristic of the state. We shall return to this later.
Another influential conception of the state is that provided by Weber in his, politics as a vocation. Under it, Weber isolates three attributes of the state which he considers very important – “its territoriality, its monopoly of the means of physical violence and its legitimacy”. 9 These attributes would appear synonymous with those already highlighted by Barker, except the second attribute- monopoly of the means of physical violence; as the third attribute – legitimacy corresponds with Barker’s established government. Looked at critically, the ‘so- called monopoly of the means of physical violence or coercive machinery of the stat is actually an attribute of a state in pursuant to its possession of the legal concept of sovereignty, a concept we have promised to return to later.
Three main theories exist within the social science tradition in trying to understand the state. These include the pluralist, the Marxist and the statistic. The pluralist tradition sees the state as largely “an area for contending interest”. In this scenario, state policy becomes the outcome of the current bargaining between the various contending interests. The framework maintains that all groups in principle retain the right and opportunity to pressure the state such that state policy in the end becomes the result of pressure applied by the various groups and interest.
The Marxist theory of the state presents an instrumentalist view. It follows from Karl Marx’s famous statement to the effect that the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. This instrumentalist view of the state arguers that the ruling class uses the state as its instrument of dominance in society by virtue of the interpersonal ties between, and the social composition of state officials and the economics elites. In other words, the capitalist state serves the interest of the capitalist class only, as apposed to communist state which is theoretically given to serve the interest of the working classes, and therefore the mass of the people.
The statistic view concludes that the state pursue goals which cannot be derived from interest group bargaining or from the class structure of capitalist societies. States are thus seen as distinctive structures operating in an environment of real autonomy. Each of these theories has its strengths and weaknesses and thus attracted varying degrees of criticisms. But space constraints would not allow us to go into them presently. Five other views on the origin of a state. There are various theories regarding the emergence of a state. These include: the social contract theory, the divine right theory, the force theory, the patriarchal theory, the matriarchal theory and the evolutionary theory. The social contract theory contends that the state is the result of agreement entered into by people who originally had no governmental organization. This implies that before the existence of the state, people lived in a state of nature in which they were subject to the rules and regulations prescribed by nature. In a state of nature, which is devoid of government, the life of man is said to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Therefore, to ensure peace and order, the state is constituted (formed) or established. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Rousseau and other contributed to the development of social contract theory. But there is no historical records to support the theory.
In line with that, the theory of divine origin or divine right of kings sees the state as establishment based on the ordinance of God. It goes on to point that its rulers are accountable to the people. The Reverend Fathers, Priests, Pastors, Bishops etc are God’s representative’s agents here in the word. Those who belief in God must accept their teachings about God and government as well. The major set back of the theory is that it involves propositions that are to be accepted as matters of faith rather them of reason. Further more, the force theory implies that the state is the result of the subjugation of the weaker by the stronger. A state comes into existence when a leader of a group established permanent control over a definite territory and declares him a ruler over it. But it has been argued that force is not the only factor that accounts for the formation of the state. Good examples of this theory are US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan though did not intend to rule them but directed them against their will. Again is Iraq invasion of Kuwait etc. the factors that led to this theory may be kingship position, political and religious consciousness, for the patriarchal theory, the state is regarded as an extension of the family where the head of the state is the father, and the people , his children this means that the ruled (common people ) are the children of the ruling class (those who direct the activities of what goes in and out) in the country. All the same, the matriarchal theory argues that the primitive group had no common male head. Kingship was traced throu
gh the woman. Queen Elizabeth II of England is a good example of this theory. Finally is the evolutionary theory also called historical theory is the generally accepted of all the theories. It sees the state coming into being as the result of natural evolution. The beginning of government may not be traced to a particular. Or cause, but the belief is that some factors such as kingship, religion war and political consciousness brought about government.
The state therefore, is considered as a means to the enrichment of individual personality. According to Aristotle, the state originated for the sake of life, it continues to exist for the sake of good life. The end of the state is ethical. State is therefore greater than any individual citizen or group of individuals. On that note, no particular section of a country has monopoly of violence or control the other. For instance, Nigeria otherwise referred to as united state of Nigeria made up of the Yorubas, Hausas and the Ibos, no nation or section above has the power to disorganize Nigeria or control the other by means of violence Jeremy Benthaam and John Stuart mill, among others, see the state from the point of utilitarianism. They opined that the number of persons affected by the action of government must be considered, and the law contemplated must bring the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The basic idea of utilitarianism is that their results which must be primitive of improved living conditions of the people. In this regards, the state must provide the means of existence for the citizens. People must be afforded the opportunity to participate in the political process of their country. In summary, the individual is the end, whereas the state is the means.
Be the first to comment