Introduction
The term political development can broadly be defined as the advancement of institutions, attitudes, and values found in the political hierarchy of any given society. Political development refers to a process of liberation that emphasises on fundamental development of social interaction within a society. Political development addresses the major concepts of political relations and strives to define a course that ensures improvement.
Nation
The nation is the structure upon which joined political societies define themselves and construct other political structures. A nation can also be described as a perception of social and political unity (nationalism). Nationalism is probably the most important issue related to the state, which is the foundation through which most things concerning political development are interpreted.
The views of the nation as an integral part of political development came back towards the end of the 20th century after being eroded by post-war world emphasis on institutions, the state, liberalisation and ethnicity (Alesina & Spolaore 2005, p. 129).
In most instances, “nation” has been thought to refer to “state” or “country”. It is synonymously used to include institutional and spatial qualities. However, the broad use of the term “nation” renders the thought of political identity to be ambiguous, especially in relation to the state. The state refers to a given physical area, which is inhabited by citizens and has its own institutions that lay claim to sovereign power. In contrast, the nation is a group that may or may not adhere to the principles of a state.
However, the nation has its own political identity and governs its external relations based on its internal unity. The nation does not conform to the state, and any interchangeable use of the term presumes a political unity in which what is defined is the special quality. Claims of a nation are claims of identity status to a given group. The claims might be aspirational, and may have power or unsustainable claims due to diversity of culture, institutions or logistical reason (Kingsbury 2007, p.92).
Traditionally, nations mostly reflect ethnic unity through language rather than a certain geographical area or demarcation. However, some nations exist without conforming to religious or ethnic categories of identification. They are united by other values such as a rule of law, forms of government, and social prosperity. This may be termed as civic nationalism, which has also been manifested in nations that originated from single ethnic groupings (Anderson 2006, p.152).
Nations are also formed through national ideology. Ideology refers to the claim of a nation to a certain political ideal and the proactive assertion of that identity as a given political entity. This ideology became most prominent in the nineteenth century. The first nationalist states were witnessed in the late eighteenth century and were denoted by the membership to the organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD).
The joining together of this nation assisted economic development. The idea of nationalism shows the need for a nation and to show support for making or strengthening a common position or identity, independence, and self-determination. Creation of such national identities is done through sharing a common language, cultural norms and ideology, sets of myths, or history. National identity can be classified into various categories based on ethnicity, shared values and plural nationalism (Füredi 1998, p.54).
Ethnicity has been a major prerequisite to the establishment of successful states. Coming from a single culture is usually the initial start of nation building. However, basing national unity on culture without inclusion of civic values is a prospect of the glorious past. Therefore, it impacts negatively on national development. The second category is related to shared values or civil values. This is also referred to as civic nationalism or civic nationality.
This ideology conforms to a more inclusive, participatory and liberal political society normally referred to as liberal democratic society. Here, national identity and citizenship are defined by a commitment to the core civic values and not ethnic backgrounds. During the time of the Roman Empire, citizenship was awarded by birth, service to the nation, residence and being a male inhabitant. Although various renaissance states allowed citizenship, the ideology flourished during the French and American revolutions (Smith 1996, p.83).
Social culturists define a nation as a cultural group that may or may not be joined by same decent but have developed civic unity. This definition is widely accepted as it complies with the modern notion of how a nation should function. In this regard, the ideology of a nation includes more than just ethno-cultural values. It also encompasses civic values that emulate the Roman Empire (Lipset & Lakin 2004, p.79).
The third ideal is plural nationalism, which bypasses the singularity of ethnicity. It is argued that ethnicity is not the only criteria of identification of national unity, and historical bonds enhance claims to a constitutional nationalism. In this case, ethnic origins are less important compared to citizens from various backgrounds sharing an understanding on broad and basic issues.
The first is usually a common language, which provides a platform on which other issues can be negotiated. The second would be the commitment to individuals’ welfare such that the political society finds them concerned with issues affecting their constituent citizens. Note should be taken that multicultural nationalisms rarely succeed.
They predominantly exist within immigrant communities such as Canada and Australia. Multicultural nationalism also exists in America, France and the United Kingdom but to a lesser degree of national identity and success (Strayer 1970, p.102).
As a political unit, the state is viewed as primarily belonging to a certain ethno-cultural society. Its obligations include protecting and promulgating the values that define national identity. It has been argued that nationalisms are constructed and do not just appear. They are said to be as a result of conscious and systematic construction of a common understanding about shared core values (Kingsbury 2007, p.68).
State
The state is the foundation of any political organization. It is the integral part of any ideology about political development. It is defined as the special geographical territory with a single political power. It claims adherence of its citizens to its laws within the sovereignty of its boundaries.
However, the state, as understood in the west, does not necessarily comply with these guidelines. According to the international relations theory, the foundational building block to modern understanding is the state. According to scholars of the theoretical thought, the state is the decision maker on claims from its constituents and the primary determinant in global relations. In a competing definition from the idealist school of thought, the constituents of the state are allowed to appeal beyond the boundaries of the state.
The realist school criticises this position as not being pragmatic. Realism is said to disregards rule making and intervention by various global bodies, impact of international norms, and the need for global interaction and cooperation. On the other hand, idealism disregards the incapacity of global interventions. This shows that the world is very diverse and dynamic always on the path of constant change and does not conform to any of these positions (Hansen 2000, p.129).
Despite the criticism of the state since it was manifested during the inter-war period, it is still the basic site of political activities, a decision maker in internal and external issues, a definer of citizenship, and the perfect source of ideals of political development. It can be tempting to view the state as not being the primary site of political activity but as the agent of more if not all part of this activity.
There exists a strong anti-state view that defines ideas of political development, majorly through notions of internationalization and civic cosmopolitanism. From an anarchist perspective, the state can be viewed as a way to the subject class power and a technique of levelling economic segregation by inter-state actors (Strayer 1970, p.212).
In modern contexts, the state refers to a demarcated area in which an authority practises political and judicial authority and claims unanimous use of legitimate force. The state is not viewed by the territory it occupies, but by the area under the sovereignty of the state.
The state defines the size, and this is what is usually illustrated on the map as the geographical boundary of the state. In the modern context, the marking of borders indicates the state’s maximum authority up to the boundaries of its boarders. However, in pre-colonial societies, the borders, extent and capacity of jurisdiction within its borders is more or less ambiguous.
The state is viewed differently from the nation, which as earlier denoted, refers to certain groups that view themselves as a joined political community. Within a given territory, the state can be defined by availability and activity of its agencies, which define the operational capacity of the state.
The development of state agencies in the medieval era formed the foundations of the contemporary state. However, while these are modern state institutions, the area and functions of the state at the beginning of the 21st century was opposed to competing ideological schools of thought from organizations such as the international monetary fund and world trade organization (Kingsbury 2007, p.32).
A state is also made by its internal integrations, which mostly applies to contemporary states rather than pre-contemporary states in which concepts of integration were not clear. Another characteristic of the state is the extent to which it is founded and the extent to which it can function independently of external institutions.
This idea refers to the extent at which the state can carry out its processes and policies within its given jurisdiction. The issue of how a state is perceived, and the correlation between the state and territorial boundaries triggers the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty is used to refer to the ability of a state and its institutions to perform their functions independently within its territorial boundaries (Higgott 1982, p.109).
The understanding of the relationship between the state and government is vital to its functions. Notably, states exist independent of government. This means that the state can continue to exist even after the collapse of government. However, in the pre-contemporary states the distinction between the state and the government was not very clear.
The ability of the government created, sustained or grew the state. Whereas some states were able to progress under various generations of leaders, in other cases, the collapse of government or rule of a leader meant that the state succumbed to rulers of other states and became weak due to lack of unity (Kingsbury 2007, p.73).
A state within the modern political society can be defined as having several characteristics that define it. States have peculiar characteristics. They are enduring in that they can survive political changes in leadership and government. Most of the institutions of the state can transcend political change. These institutions are usually different from most non-state institutions to enable a state to function with ease and efficiency.
Within the territorial boundaries of the state, its agents and agencies exercise maximum authority and jurisdiction. The state also exercises monopoly in the use of legitimate force within its boundaries. This is consented to and respected by the citizenry. Compliance of the citizenry is in the allegiance to the state and disregarding all other alliances that they may hold. In return, the state provides protection and promotes the general interests of its citizens (Almond 1970, p.211).
The structure and organisation of the functions of the state is paramount to the avenues of the institution and institution in its self. There are two perspectives to this with the first being the form of the state and theoretical orientation. The second is whether the state perceives itself as pushing and existing to achieve the needs of the citizens or whether the state is pursuing its own agenda.
Controversially, the state is thought to have an organizational framework that might be either pivotally focused or functioning within a federal framework to cover a certain demarcated area, upon which the state exercises authority. The framework of federal structures best applies to geographic or ethnic disparate states. This is same for states that join as a composition of already existing states with existing independent politics (Harber 1997, p.37).
There has been a lot of debate about the function of the state vis-à-vis the balance of authority and citizens. An understanding of this debate is that the state and its agencies are the ideal revelation of the community’s capacity for freedom. In addition, freedom is only got through the membership of its citizenry. There are various ways of enumerating contemporary state capacity in regard to developing nations where the state capacity is not effective.
This is where the general compliance of the society to the government objectives varies with the ability of the state to enforce compliance. Here, legitimacy denotes the general acceptance of the society to the state’s convectional capability and provision of institutional concepts to the government. In an ideal context, the state is said to exist as a show of will of its citizens.
Therefore, all citizens should willingly submit to the state’s dictates. In turn, this shows a unity of thought among the citizen about a general idea of a perceived political community. This is usually defined by an organisation whereby the society is bound by one ideology as in the case of nationalism (Ma 2007, p.92).
After the Second World War, there was general acceptance of the element of separating the powers of the state from those of the government. In general, this has been due to the role played by the various institutions, mostly armies, but also by political movements and individuals in the moulding of the states.
It is also evident in post-colonial states to rejuvenate pre-colonial institutions that characterised the state as being bound together by the political movement, military, and the political leadership. At one time, most of the developing nation states were once colonised. In this case, most of these states were not defined by geographic or national unity as in the modernised western states. Nevertheless, they are defined by means and the prerequisites of the former colonial powers (Holt 1992, p.210).
Empires can be defined as extensions of power from a pivotal authority. Pivotal authority can be understood as including the state as a nation. However, if the state uses force to bind other societies and cultural groups, it is referred to as an empire. In the ancient times, empires were seen as the relevant form of governance.
However, in the modern society, empires are unanimously regarded as illegitimate and often viewed as imperialism. There have been various forms of empires over the past centuries, but one thing they share in common is the central authority. They have also been associated with strong allegiance from the citizens and payment of levies to the central authority (Hood 2004, p.182).
Federalism began as a measure to resolve opposing claims over territorial authority. In general, there is no link between federalism and democracy. However, federalism ideology has been used in certain cases to promote and enhance democratic participation. This is done by empowering the local society to take part in development issues within their own localities (Kingsbury 2007, p.12).
Conclusion
As much as the state and nation remain distinct from each other they are interrelated and must co-exist in harmony. Political development widens the space for free expression and involvement of the society in other development activities. At times, the terms “state” and “nation” are used interchangeably to refer to a nation or state. However, they are different in that states can transcend the collapse of leadership or governments while nation may not survive without governments.
Reference List
Alesina, A & Spolaore, E 2005, The size of nations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.].
Almond, G A 1970, Political development: essays in heuristic theory, Little Brown. Boston.
Anderson, B 2006, Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, Verso, London.
FüRedi, F 1998, Colonial wars and the politics of Third World nationalism, Tauris, London.
Hansen, M H 2000, A comparative study of thirty city-state cultures: an investigation conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre, Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Copenhagen.
Harber, C 1997, Education, democracy and political development in Africa, Sussex Acad. Press, Brighton.
Higgott, R A 1982, Political development theory: the contemporary debate, Croom Helm, London.
Holt, M F 1992, Political parties and American political development: from the age of Jackson to the age of Lincoln, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.
Hood, S J 2004, Political development and democratic theory, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk.
Kingsbury, D 2007, Political development, Routledge, London.
Lipset, S M & Lakin, J M 2004, The democratic century, Norman Press, Oklahoma
Ma, N 2007, Political development in Hong Kong: state, political society, and civil society, Hong Kong University Press, Aberdeen.
Smith, A D 1996 Nations and nationalism in a global era, Politiy Press, Cambridge.
Strayer, JR 1970, On the medieval origins of the modern state, Princeton U.P, Princeton, N.J.