In my last article we discussed the current state of American political discourse and its unsettling lack of historical perspective. More often than not, the most contentious political disputes center on the role of the state in society. Yet, it is impossible to discuss the role of the state without a fundamental understanding of what it was designed to do. To that end, a basic question must be asked: does the authority of the state ultimately rest on general consensus or coercion? This article will briefly discuss the origin of the state and its implications for public policy.
The modern concept of the state is based on an institution developed in Renaissance Italy known as the stato [1]. Unlike medieval monarchs, who owed their thrones to the Catholic Church and tradition, Italian rulers during this time period acquired their positions through brute force and cunning. Success depended on a government’s ability to placate or suppress conquered populations and expand its rule at the expense of rivals. In such a volatile atmosphere, legitimacy was determined by longevity; statos capable of balancing or neutralizing challenges to their authority (by whatever means necessary) could allow time, stability, and fear to tie subject populations to their regime.
In this sense, the practice of statecraft has more in common with gangsterism than government. Inhabitants of territory brought under the control of a state were intended to serve the interests of those in power, not the other way around. While the rule of law, the administration of justice, and military protection were byproducts of centralized authority, they were merely institutions of expediency. For on the one hand, killing every internal opponent to a regime is impractical; setting a few harsh examples is usually enough to discourage open defiance. On the other hand, providing social stability instills a sense of loyalty and obligation, thus freeing the hand of the ruling faction to concentrate their efforts on external expansion. Substitute words like taxes with protection money or turf with borders, and you may find it quite difficult to distinguish between the activities of Al Capone and Cesare Borgia.
This depiction of the state is not meant to discredit the institution or label it in terms of good and evil. On the contrary, the state has been a highly effective mechanism for political organization over the past four centuries. The point of this discussion is to ensure that, when we are discussing public policy, it is understood that the state is ultimately a coercive institution. It is a political instrument originally designed to enable 16th century thugs to seize and maintain power illegally.
The extent to which such an institution can rest upon the consent of the governed, depends on the social and economic homogeneity of competing factions within its borders. This is not to suggest that states must be racially or culturally "pure" as some have argued in the past. Rather, the more a government is perceived to benefit one or more social groups to the expense of others, the more coercive and illegitimate its authority becomes; exposing the institution's more mafioso roots [2]. As a consequence, taming a state's more violent nature requires a political relationship where "rulers and ruled [can] see, know, and understand each other" [3].
The modern concept of the state is based on an institution developed in Renaissance Italy known as the stato [1]. Unlike medieval monarchs, who owed their thrones to the Catholic Church and tradition, Italian rulers during this time period acquired their positions through brute force and cunning. Success depended on a government’s ability to placate or suppress conquered populations and expand its rule at the expense of rivals. In such a volatile atmosphere, legitimacy was determined by longevity; statos capable of balancing or neutralizing challenges to their authority (by whatever means necessary) could allow time, stability, and fear to tie subject populations to their regime.
In this sense, the practice of statecraft has more in common with gangsterism than government. Inhabitants of territory brought under the control of a state were intended to serve the interests of those in power, not the other way around. While the rule of law, the administration of justice, and military protection were byproducts of centralized authority, they were merely institutions of expediency. For on the one hand, killing every internal opponent to a regime is impractical; setting a few harsh examples is usually enough to discourage open defiance. On the other hand, providing social stability instills a sense of loyalty and obligation, thus freeing the hand of the ruling faction to concentrate their efforts on external expansion. Substitute words like taxes with protection money or turf with borders, and you may find it quite difficult to distinguish between the activities of Al Capone and Cesare Borgia.
This depiction of the state is not meant to discredit the institution or label it in terms of good and evil. On the contrary, the state has been a highly effective mechanism for political organization over the past four centuries. The point of this discussion is to ensure that, when we are discussing public policy, it is understood that the state is ultimately a coercive institution. It is a political instrument originally designed to enable 16th century thugs to seize and maintain power illegally.
The extent to which such an institution can rest upon the consent of the governed, depends on the social and economic homogeneity of competing factions within its borders. This is not to suggest that states must be racially or culturally "pure" as some have argued in the past. Rather, the more a government is perceived to benefit one or more social groups to the expense of others, the more coercive and illegitimate its authority becomes; exposing the institution's more mafioso roots [2]. As a consequence, taming a state's more violent nature requires a political relationship where "rulers and ruled [can] see, know, and understand each other" [3].
No comments:
Post a Comment