Nation-State

The study of the modern nation-state is one that fascinates political scientists, historians, and sociologists. Among the questions most often asked are, first, what are the characteristics of a nation-state that make it a distinct political entity within the international community? Second, how is the concept that was introduced in the mid-17th century manifest today in the post-industrial era? Finally, what will become of the modern state in the future? This paper investigates the nation-state within the framework of these three questions.

Keywords Autonomy; Nation-state; Nationalism; Regime; Super-national

Politics & Government > The Nation-State

Overview

In 1648, the Thirty Years War came to an end with the Treaty of Westphalia. Europe had been devastated by the war, which was waged between rival factions of Catholics and Protestants. The precepts of that accord took to task the divergences that fostered this three-decade war, citing the apparent whims of those who ruled over the respective combatants as the primary reason for the horrors seen during the conflict. The agreement stipulated that citizens of each nation must follow primarily the laws and governmental rules of their respective homelands. In essence, the Treaty transferred ultimate power to legal and constitutional institutions within states, rather than their leaders. The Treaty serves as the historical foundation of the modern nation-state ("Is the nation-state obsolete?," 2006).

The study of the modern nation-state is one that has intrigued political scientists, historians and sociologists since Europe's last religious war ended at Westphalia. Among the questions most often asked are:

• First, what are the characteristics of a nation-state that make it a distinct political entity within the international community?
• Second, how is the concept that was introduced in the mid-17th century manifest today in the post-industrial era?
• Finally, what will become of the modern state in the near future?

This paper takes an in-depth look at the concept of a nation-state within the framework of these three questions. In doing so, the reader gleans a better understanding of the nation-state in both theoretical and practical terms.

Government for the People

In the late 17th century, the British political philosopher, John Locke, offered a direct counterpoint to the prevailing view that supported the divine right of the monarchy. Locke's latter notion held that kings were given their respective authorities by God, and that the governments that these monarchs establish are therefore also divine.

Locke, however, asserted that men were by nature free, and as such, must create laws and political institutions that have but one purpose: To protect the liberty of men. Such institutions might be multifarious, representing individual groups (such as ethnic or social groups) and either having to work with or compete against other such institutions. When those various "nations" find confluence within a certain geographic area, they may centralize a government within certain geographic boundaries. It is at this point that a nation becomes a "nation-state."

There is some debate, however, as to whether the rise of the nation-state would signal an end of imperialism and monarchist rule, or if the latter used the new nation-state to solidify its power. After all, many of Europe's strongest powers may have centralized power during their histories, but have been unable to completely unify the nationalistic attitudes of many of their constituents — in the United Kingdom, Scotland still stresses its autonomy, as do the Basques in Spain and the Languedoc in France. In fact, many scholars believe that many empires thrived in history due to the establishment of the nation-state (Rothbard, 1993).

Nationalism, therefore, becomes a central element in the development of a nation-state. In unifying diverse regions (and, in essence, smaller "nations") into one jelled nation-state, leaders have sought to create harmony among oft-multifarious political, social, racial, ethnic and religious groups by emphasizing the collective interest in promoting the nation-state as a whole. As shown above, there have been instances in which nation-states have fallen short in coalescing such diversity. Then again, there have been examples in the early history of nation-states in which such nationalistic endeavors have proven successful. The most prominent of these case studies is the foundation of the United States.

The Birth of the United States

The quest for independence from the British monarchy in and of itself jelled the myriad of individual interests and groups located not just within the collective 13 colonies but within each respective colony as well. After all, the vast majority of colonists either arrived or descended from those who arrived for the purpose of religious and social freedoms. Repelling the increasingly repressive British crown was therefore a cause worth pursuing, regardless of the ideals of those alongside whom they would be fighting. Once the war was over, however, the true challenge became manifest: Creating a nation-state that would govern effectively for the long-term in the vacuum created by the removal of British rule.

One of the most central issues at hand in the creation of the United States was how these "states" would be "united." Some preferred that the new country would be a collective of independent states, closely linked to one another but at the same time autonomous. Others pushed for a strong, centralized government to administer from one capitol. Federalists prevailed, but not without appreciating the need for compromise. Such consensus-building helped establish a balanced central government with limited authority (Zummo, 2007).

This concession appeared in the development of the Constitution and, more specifically, in the determination of individual rights and protections as outlined in that document. The establishment of the Bill of Rights was seen by some as unnecessary, as the principal source of the repression of basic rights, British rule, was no longer an issue — for those who remained to build America, protection of the citizens' rights was understood. However, those who, along with generations of ancestors, were scarred by persecution and repression, deemed language that safeguarded against specific manifestations of government authority as paramount to the formation of the United States. In a compromise move, the Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution, enabling the establishment of the federal government and ensuring ratification (Liu, 2007).

The wrangling over specific provisions of the Constitution in the earliest years of the United States echoes an important point made earlier about the establishment of nation-states. Nationalistic fervor may entice disparate nations and groups to unite, but how the aggregate holds fast is an altogether different challenge. Compromise remains a critical component in this arena, as nationalistic rhetoric and political posturing must ultimately give way to the establishment of a middle ground in order to coalesce the diverse subcomponents which will ultimately comprise the structure of the nation-state.

The Nation-State in the Modern World

With the end of the Second World War came the slow but steady dismantlement of the concept of the "great empire." In the Middle East and Central Asia, the Ottoman Empire, overstretched and taxed heavily by its participation in WWII, collapsed into itself. In south Asia and Africa, the satellites of the colonial powers (most notably Great Britain) began to fall apart one-by-one.

In the post-war era, however, not all hegemonies and colonial empires fell away to history. The post-war rise of the Soviet Union is the most glaring example of this change in the post-war world order. Many nations of the war-torn Central and Eastern European region were absorbed into the USSR, some by force, others by default (nations that had little government with which to function who allowed Soviet influence to draw it inside the growing nation-state).

Keeping such an enormous, incredibly diverse group of subjects within the USSR did occasionally require military intervention (as was deemed necessary in the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan), but by and large the primary "unifier" of such satellites was two-fold.

• First, Soviet subjects were led to embrace the rhetoric surrounding Lenin-style (and Stalinist-style) Communism, which promised equity and order under the Russian flag.
• Second, they were urged to stand in defiance against the only other major power in the world — American-style capitalism.

In 1991, however, the underpinnings of the USSR began to give way as the very same Soviet-style Communist system began to fail and citizens saw the economic successes of the capitalist ideal not only in the US but across Europe and in East Asia as well. Beginning with Lithuania in 1990, republics from the Baltic, Central and Eastern European and central Asian regions declared their independence from the faltering Soviet Union and looked to create linkages with the West (ENOTHE, 2008).

The breakup of the USSR created an explosion of new nation-states. Nine appeared in Europe, including the newly reformed Russia. Six more emerged south of Russia, including Kazakhstan, which at four times the size of the state of Texas is the world's largest landlocked country. Behind what Winston Churchill dubbed "the Iron Curtain" (Central and Eastern European countries that were not part of the Soviet empire but were heavily influenced by proximity to the USSR), nations ousted their Communist institutions and reemerged in the international community as largely free market democracies.

The former Soviet Union's territories are not the only nations to become nation-states since 1991. In fact, an amazing 33 new nation-states have been created in the last 17 years. In addition to the 15 former Soviet satellites, the former Yugoslavia broke into seven new countries during that time (including the newest nation-state, Kosovo, which declared independence from Serbia in early 2008). Several Pacific island nations formally separated from the United States and Indonesia during that time, and two sub-Saharan African countries also emerged from within existing states (Rosenberg, 2008). The overwhelming majority of the nation-states in existence today are at least nominally democratic in nature, and many so-called "non-democratic" regimes are showing signs of allowing limited political participation and/or free market activities.

Of course, a simple declaration of independence does not guarantee the long-term health of a nation-state. In fact, many newly formed nation-states were hastily established, embracing open democracy and free market institution-building. In many former Soviet states, for example, public support for such changes was considerable immediately following independence but has since sloughed. A major contributor to this drop in public support is one with which the United States became familiar in the waning 18th century. As constitutions were drafted and government institutions built, the people became somewhat cynical about the role of government in the new political order of these fledgling nation-states.

One study of the emerging nations of Central and Eastern Europe almost parallels completely the early American ideological conflict between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, in that many citizens, weary from the previous regime's application of governance, look to sharply limit the authority of the political establishment as it relates to the rights of the citizenry. A balanced constitutional system that places the law above the political leaders who administer it, the study argues, leads to long-term stability and balance within a nation-state by restoring the public trust and reversing political cynicism (Desai & Olofsgard, 2006).

As illustrated above, throughout pre-industrial and post-industrial history, the establishment of a nation-state requires not simply a will to become sovereign. In the examples provided from the foundation of the United States through the present day, the successful nation-state has necessitated the unification of the citizenry under a common set of laws and institutions. As nation-states emerged from the strong hand of monarchies, empires and otherwise repressive regimes, the people of these new countries understandably manifested an ingrained concern about granting too much authority to their governments. With balanced controls of that authority and protection of individual rights, nation-states have endured through the centuries into the present. This paper next looks at the future of the nation-state.

Stability & the Future of the Nation-State

Thomas Paine once said of the American Revolution, "These are the times that try men's souls" (Bartlett, 1919). As shown in the previous example of the former Soviet states, one of the greatest tests of a nation-state is how the central government handles the unification of the citizens behind it. If doubts persist about the service or performance of the government, the fragility of a newly established nation-state is threatened.

The disintegration of Yugoslavia poses an interesting example of what may become of the modern nation-state. Yugoslavia was, after all, not conjoined by popular demand of its residents but rather as the result of the international community redrawing European geography after World War I. The diverse mix of ethnic groups and other social organizations were in many cases so divergent and competitive that they simply would not jell in that nation-state's 20th century existence. A lack of political representation, socio-economic equality and protection under the law fostered protests and ultimately one of the most violent and regionally destabilizing civil wars in modern European history.

Conflict and crisis does not always signal the death knell of the nation-state, however. It is the length, frequency and persistence of the crisis (or crises) that helps determine whether a nation-state will succeed or fail in the long-term. How the government, which in a failing state must handle multiple destabilizing elements and crises, addresses those issues is a powerful determinant of the direction in which the nation-state will travel (Rotberg, 2002).

In truth, several nation-states remain danger of collapse in the twenty-first century. Most are war-torn nations, heavily influenced by outside interference and infiltration, and face challenges of extreme poverty and social inequity. Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic are will considered to be failed or nearly-failed states.

What challenges and crises that arise in the future could be key determinants of the success or failure of these "at risk" nation-states. This paper has discussed how political disenfranchisement, repression, economic instability or political corruption can lead to the downfall of a given nation-state. Future contributors to public angst and therefore uprising against one or more political systems are increasing shortages of water and other natural resources, extraterritorial terrorism and religious uprising.

Is political crisis the only element that can signal the downfall of the nation-state? Many experts argue that conflict and crisis are two such contributors, but that a much larger, less violent and more positive factor may also signal the end of the traditional nation-state, even in the case of those countries on the opposite pole from at-risk systems. The increased international flow of information, commerce and energy, for example, often circumvents the political process in place within rigid nation-states.

Some scholars suggest that this increasing development of a global, "super-national" community is part of an ongoing process of political evolution. Whether individual nation-states relax their respective rigid political, economic and geographic restraints (which have historically typified such systems), these scholars conclude, will be a major element in the longevity of the nation-state (Laszlo, 2007).

Other analysts believe that the nation-state may not be able to adapt within the structures that define them. Many countries may modify their legal system or even their constitutions to allow for changes in social, economic or political trends. However, if this evolution transcends the constructs of even a constitutional framework, the nation-state may be at risk of extinction in the new world order (Berger, 2007). Where this "evolutionary" process leads remains a mystery — without understanding it, the fate of the concept of the nation-state is equally nebulous.

Conclusion

Oscar Wilde once commented on the mystery of human nature, saying that the only component of it that anyone knows is that it changes. "The systems that fail are those that rely on the permanency of human nature, and not on its growth and development," he said, adding his thoughts on the downfall of the Louis XIV in the French Revolution: "The error of Louis XIV was that he thought human nature would always be the same. The result of his error was the French Revolution. It was an admirable result" ("Oscar Wilde quotes," 2006).

As Wilde correctly asserted, humans are by their nature in an apparently never-ending state of evolution. In sociological, religious, technological, economic and political terms, human history has always been a work in progress. In the latter of these arenas, the nomadic anarchy of prehistory gave way to the precursors to political institution-building of ancient Greece and Rome. Monarchies and international empires grew from these smaller states, only to give way to the birth of the nation-state at Westphalia. Since then, history has leaned on the nation-state as the primary political entity in the international order.

In the 20th century, a spike in the number of new and restructured nation-states proved demonstrative of this fact. For many of these new states, governmental institutions and, more importantly, constitutional precepts, provided the people with an equitable foundation that supports a diverse polity. For others, the "honeymoon" of sovereignty has or is about to end as the political realities of life under existing regimes become evident.

As this paper has demonstrated, there have indeed been tests and challenges to the survivability of nation-states from the pre-industrial to the post-industrial era. How these countries adjusted their legal and/or constitutional infrastructures to address strife, inequality and violence has proven the difference between a healthy and an at-risk nation-state.

In the future, there is much debate among political, sociological and historical scholars as to the destiny of the nation-state. Indeed, the world continues to change, moving away from the confines of geographic boundaries, intra-national economic systems and political regulations and moving toward a super-national order. As has always been the case in any other state of evolution, nation-states must adjust accordingly or else find themselves on the brink of extinction.

Terms & Concepts

Autonomy: Political independence from overarching governmental authority.

Nation-state: Political entity that features a centralized government and singular set of laws that operate within certain geographical boundaries.

Nationalism: Sense of national identity under one central ideal or set of ideals.

Regime: The governing authority of a political system or nation-state.

Super-national: Existing or operating without restrictions enforced by one or more nation-states.

Bibliography

Bartlett, J. (1919). The Thomas Paine collection. Famous Quotations, (10th ed.). Retrieved July 9, 2008, from Bartleby.com. http://www.bartleby.com/100/291.2.html

Berger, M.T. (2007). States of nature and the nature of states. Third World Quarterly, 28, 1203-1214. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26288157&site=ehost-live

Desai, R.M. & Olofsgard, A. (2006). Constitutionalism and credibility in reforming economies. Economics of Transition, 14, 479-504. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=21362194&site=ehost-live

Edwards, T., Marginson, P., & Ferner, A. (2013). Multinational Companies In Cross-National Context: Integration, Differentiation, and the Interactions Between MNCS and Nation States. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 66, 547-587. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88923782&site=ehost-live

ENOTHE. (2008, July). Tuning an enlarged Europe. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://www.enothe.hva.nl/projects/tuning/index.html

The failed states index 2008. (2008, July/August). Foreign Policy, , 64-68. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32622989&site=ehost-live

Is the nation-state obsolete? (2006, June 5). Brussels Journal. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1101

Kumar, K. (2010). Nation-states as empires, empires as nation-states: two principles, one practice?. Theory & Society, 39, 119-143. doi:10.1007/s11186-009-9102-8 Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=48026372&site=ehost-live

Laszlo, E. (2007). Evolution of the global corporation. World Futures, 63, 563-567. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27528865&site=ehost-live

Laxer, E. (2013). Integration Discourses and the Generational Trajectories of Civic Engagement in Multi-Nation States: A Comparison of the Canadian Provinces of Quebec and Ontario.Journal Of Ethnic & Migration Studies, 39, 1577-1599. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2013.815432 Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90593788&site=ehost-live

Liu, E. (2007). Building the Bill of Rights. Humanities, 28, 36-37. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27789154&site=ehost-live

Oscar Wilde quotes. (2006). Retrieved July 10, 2008, from Thinkexist.com. http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the%5fonly%5fthing%5fthat%5fone ‗really‗knows‗about‗human/324091.html

Pula, B. (2013). BINDING INSTITUTIONS: PEASANTS AND NATION-STATE RULE IN THE ALBANIAN HIGHLANDS, 1919-1939. Political Power & Social Theory, 2537-70. doi:10.1108/S0198-8719(2013)0000025008 Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90143496&site=ehost-live

Rosenberg, M. (2008, February 18). New countries of the world. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from About.com. http://geography.about.com/cs/countries/a/newcountries.htm

Rotberg, R. (2002). The new nature of nation-state failure. The Washington Quarterly, 25, 85-96. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from MIT Press Journals. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/01636600260046253.

Rothbard, M.N. (1993). Nations by consent. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/11%5f1/11%5f1%5f1.pdf

Zummo, P. (2007). Fear and the founding. Conference Papers — New England Political Science Association, 1.

Suggested Reading

Beilharz, P. (2008). A social theory of the nation state. Thesis Eleven, , 133-134. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31955030&site=ehost-live

Brinkman, R. L. & Brinkman, J.E. (2008). Globalization and the nation-state. Journal of Economic Issues, 42, 425-433. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=32534695&site=ehost-live

Edwards, T. (2008). What makes a country a country? Multilingual, 19, 24-25. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=32203473&site=ehost-live

Hiden, J. & Smith, D.J. (2006). Looking beyond the nation state. Journal of Contemporary History, 41, 387-399. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21730652&site=ehost-live

Ikenberry, G.J. (2008). Nations, states and violence. Foreign Affairs, 87. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31701311&site=ehost-live

Tanaka, S. (2013). Nationalization, Modernization and Symbolic Media -- Towards a Comparative Historical Sociology of the Nation-State. Historical Social Research, 38, 252-267. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88102080&site=ehost-live