Introduction
Looking at the modern state from historical perspective, it would be possible to suggest that China should have become unified and stable country while numerous European duchies and independent cities would suffer from fragmentation. Of the possible explanations for the unity of China and fragmentation of European states is rooted in the coercion-based explanation of the modern state. Nevertheless, the history reveals that there was limited political coercion in China while people living in European states were oppressed by the ruling elites and powerful groups of people. Coercion-based explanations of the modern state are strong as long as they are used to explain the European fragmentation but at the same time coercion hypothesis is weak in explaining the unity of China state.
European States – Coercion of Enemies and Society
Wong argues that the formation of the European states was accompanied with several challenges. “For nobles, clerics, and urban elites, the principal challenge during the next several centuries would become the preservation and, when possible, expansion of their powers” through coercion and oppression of enemies as well as citizens (Wong, p. 83). The political relations were formed through the complex network of intermarriages. As a result, one royal house could have control over geographically isolated territories. Furthermore, the organized presence of the three groups (burghers, clergy, and nobles) challenged the aspirations of rulers to gain control over territories and resources. From one side, European states aimed to develop their resources to compete with other states. With the use of coercion, European states formed a system of control over land and resources.
Furthermore, European rulers were challenged by the noble layers of society. Rulers succeeded mainly in distinguishing themselves from nobles as if separating royal families from the rest. The social separation backed up with the selective distribution of power and authority among royal family members was used to justify the coercion and continuous wars among the states for territories and resources. Rulers created different strategies to assert their superiority over the rest of the society. Successful coercion was done through the warfare with enemies. As a result, rulers depended on lawyers and clerics to staff their bureaucracies. Due to extensive fragmentation, most states were not able to engage in the battles or gain control over wanted territories. Nevertheless, the rulers of small states were skillful enough to create capacity for organized violence and. The armies became more organized while the coercion more targeted.
However, it was enough for the European rulers to have organized armies to succeed because these armies had to be funded while the sources of revenues were limited. “European states aimed to develop their own resource bases in order to complete with other territorial states; this process forced them to seek revisions in their relationships to urban, aristocratic, and ecclesiastical elites” (Wong, p. 85). Thus, the rulers realized that the use of coercion has not been effective in all situations. As a result, instead of coercion, European rulers adapted bargaining politics to negotiate with the nobles and other social groups which could contribute to the funding of the army and bureaucratic institutions.
Coercion-based explanation of the modern state is weak because European rulers made three commitments to the society with the hope to achieve more effective rule over territories. Firstly, rulers committed themselves to provide legal systems that affirmed the rights of the individuals. Secondly, religion assigned to the Christian faithful the duty of charity including education. Thirdly, the rulers recognized the political principle of representation that defined the manner in which elites were able to negotiate with the rulers. Even though European rulers were willing to negotiate with the elites on political issues only because they need additional source of finances and support, it cannot be denied that coercion has not always been used to gain control over the lands and people. Rulers were willing to negotiate and compromise.
China State – Tributes instead of Coercion
Similar to the European States, the formation of the modern China state was not easy. Coercion has been used to keep the order in society as well as to protect the borders from foreign enemies. Unlike European states, China’s society has not been fragmented. The primary challenge was the creation of the new state through the reproduction and transformation of an agrarian community settled on the large territory. Thus, the order in China depended on the effective social control of the masses. Coercion has been one of the tools to keep people under rule of one person.
Wong suggests that China was military weak and, therefore, coercion hypothesis is ineffective in explaining the formation of China state. Despite of the military weakness, China succeeded in “creating a framework for its international relations that placed other countries in a tributary status, a ritual position confirmed by the presentation of tribute, the presentation of gifts by the Chinese to the emissaries, and various agreements on a set schedule of visits every several years” (Wong, p. 89). In other words, China did not use coercion to maintain order in the country as well as peace with the neighbors because Chinese state has been much weaker than enemies in terms of military might. However, China’s rulers drafted an effective foreign policy based on presents and regular visits.
The principal source of revenue for China’s rulers was taxes. Government taxation rates were set by high-rank officials. Nevertheless, the taxation system was fair and based on the income of each social group. The taxes were very low because the government believed that light taxation would allow people to prosper while rich people were crucial to the maintenance of the powerful state. When rulers tried to raise the taxes, they had to deal with resistance and even rebellions. From coercion-based hypothesis, the China state would force its people to pay high taxes while Wong shows that coercion has not been used by the government.
Coercion-based hypothesis is not relevant for the explanation of the China modern state formation because starting with the 11th century, China did not face any aggression from the social groups. The major efforts were devoted to strengthening the state power. “Chinese cities had less incentive to demarcate clear boundaries limiting state author and power” (Wong, p. 92). In addition, the shared values between the state and elites fostered mutual understanding through negotiations rather than coercion and oppression. Thus, tensions have never been the focus that social elites made upon the Chinese government with the aim to limit or control the state activities.
Conclusion
The issue of coercion was more applied to the formation of European states because authority was predicted by certain social groups who defined the acceptable and unacceptable political authority. Moreover, the European rulers had to take into account the opinion of the elites in key decision making activities. Therefore, mutual coercion, both from elites toward the authority and from authority toward the elites, was an integral element of state formation. In China, on the contrary, there was no sharp distinction between the state and society; thus, tensions were not common and coercion strategy has not been applied. Society and the state were working together to promote the domestic order. However, Wong notes that persuasion, surveillance, and welfare were among the used strategies to gain the support. Undoubtedly, there is a big difference between social persuasion and coercion. While European rulers imposed their will on elites and society, the China state achieved balance between central and local power.