Critic the concept of nation state and examine its relevance in contemporary international political economy. By Rumbidzai Musonza Introduction The idea of a nation state defines a modern independent state with a written constitution. It is defined by a territory and it marks its identity. Nation state is a response to globalisation and it results from various factors which include regulatory institutions, international trade organizations and agreements. This essay will build up on historical ideas drawing on the nationalism theory and using a realist view on the conceptualization of nation states. More the essay will also argue on the role in which nation states promotes economic globalisation through the relationship between the markets …show more content…
A state is characterized by two principles and these are a political economy and a specific mode of production but however other scholars can argue against the definition. Scholars like Held (2006) argues that a state is characterized by a relationship between the people and their sovereignty hence one can connect this relationship by placing a state in a capacity to maintain peace of its people, freedom, life and well-being of the citizens. Pick (2011), posits that a nation state is a state which abides primarily to an identity and this identity is called nation or nationality. This brings to mind that states can only have one nation and also nations can only have one states because nationality develops from a state. There are various characteristics that characterizes a state and one of them is a common language for easier communication even though many nations can speak the same like taking for instance Britain and Ireland speak the same language which is …show more content…
This political system should have an executive, legislature and a judiciary system on which its operations may be good or bad depending on how it is accepted nationwide (Hont, 1994). However one can argue that such characteristics in a nation state can also be seen in personal states expect in those states where there is civil war and political subjection. One should note that, nation states are sovereign and legitimate. To support this view of legitimacy, Pick (2011) argues that a nation state should be sovereign and also legitimatised because by nature the sense of belonging of an individual lies in nationality. As noted before, if there is one state for each nation there is no political subjection of nations hence sovereignty is noticed. This brings to mind that, a nation state cannot be under legal authority of another nation state or any other body. A nation’s government has to therefore be respected and accepted by citizens as a sign of loyalty and making the government an authority to the
In order for a proper government one state should have the trust in another. A functional society is one trust is
One is the central government for the political authority that governs an entire nation. The other is the state government which is for the people who live in that specific state. These two governments consequently gave double security for the rights of the people. “The different governments will each control each other, at the same time, control itself.”
The central government has enough power to help some of the country’s major needs and the state government has enough power to help the state’s needs because the state’s needs may be more specific. From this, you may conclude that dividing powers between the central and state governments prevents
In the United States, the government of all 50 states is structed in accordance with its individual constitution. Each state constitution must be grounded in republic principles, “Article IV, section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution” tasks by the federal government with assuring that each states government is so organized. All states are shaped after the federal government and are made up of three branches; Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. All governments are also shaped by the presidential systems where the governor is both head of the government and head of the state. There aren’t two states in America that are the same, and each state is its own self sovereign entity and is made appropriate based on the people who live
The national and state government both have power which the people can appoint to represent them. It imposes laws to keep corruption and illegal behavior from those that can hurt citizens. Under the constitution we have checks and balances. It distributes power onto the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative so no one is more powerful than the other. Our government has created laws to keep peace and order within its borders.
These intentions disclose the structure of government it aims to articulate and subsequently protect over time. In doing so, it lists only governmental powers that are necessary to maintain its enduring political system, which reflects the state’s identity and indirectly promotes civic virtue. Powers regarding various policy areas are not included as they are instead determined by the people via the legislature. As an extension to this, in order to preserve its fundamental ramifications, the constitution must be drafted in a manner that makes it difficult to amend. By retaining a rigid amendment process, it protects the people from the passions of small factions that threaten to sabotage its original meaning.
The ratification of the Constitution of 1787 was no easy process. In fact, it was a long and painstaking process that consisted of debates and conventions, which lasted a total of 8 months. The reason that it took so long to ratify was because 11 out of the 13 states had to agree on the entire document. There were many views on how the constitution would benefit the states, if at all. For the most part, it divided the states onto two sides.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (Jefferson, 1776/2014, para. 2). Authority should not reside over individuals, but with them. A heart cannot run a body alone. Likewise, a government does not operate a nation by itself. Individuals help maintain the justice of authority.
The Warwick debate provides approaches to the study of nationalism. It laid the foundation for the development of two approaches to the study of nationalism. The first approach is Smith’s primordial approach and the other is Gillnets modernist approach. Smith’s argument begins with the definition of nationalism and the difference between a state and a nation.
To govern oneself as one wished is an attribute of independence. A sovereign state may not be disturbed by another state unless it has given the right to intervene. When a state attaches legal consequences to conduct in another state, it exercises control over that conduct, and when such control affects essential interests in the foreign state, it may constitute an interference with the sovereign rights of that foreign
Gellner (1997) also describes the relationship between the nation and the state. The interchangeable use of nation and state deepens the contradictions that arise in the common person’s understanding of nationalism. Therefore both Anderson and Gellner take a Marxist stance that nationalism is a species of bourgeois ideology. They see nationalism as an instrument through which the ruling class controls the people and counters the threat of social revolution by emphasizing national loyalty is stronger than class solidarity.
(Young 2014:19). In addition, this framework implies that sociocultural complexity is the striking feature of the state – or, at least, characterises social groups that are in the process of becoming one. In his paper, Possehl goes against this view by
Why do many neorealists liken states in the international system to firms in a capitalist market? How valid is that analogy? Neorealism has emerged as a contemporary theory that attempts to explain the interaction of states on an international level. Oftentimes neorealists compare states in the international system and firms in a capitalist market. There are a number of factors that can be described as similarities or differences between the two and for the sake of brevity, only a few will be discussed below.
In order to compare and contrast varying types of government within two or more countries, one must have a clear definition of Government and know the purposes it serves. Therefore, I did some research and I have established that Government is a group that exercises dominant power over a nation, state, society or other body of people. Governments are commonly responsible for constructing and implementing laws, handling money, and defending the general population from external threats, and may have other obligations or privileges. All over the world, there are many different types of government within countries. Each kind has its advantages as well as disadvantages regarding the general well-being of its peoples and economy.
Conclusion: Page 6 6. Bibliography: Page 6 Introduction: This an age old argument on whether the people should be ruled by one single all powerful leader who isn’t challenged or a leader who is democratically elected into power. In this academic piece I will be looking at the benefits and pitfalls of each form of government as well as give a few examples of each and decide if they were successful.