Chauhan Rajinder S, Thakur, Harish K: Globalization and Human Rights, Radha Publications, New
Delhi, 2007, pp. 19-32
State Authority and Individual
Freedom from City-States to a Globalized World Order Mohammed Khalid
The State as a political organisation exercising its authority over
a defined geographical area has undergone a sea change in the recent Times.1 In this age of supraterritoriality global relations are fast transcending the territorial distances and boundaries are unfolding on the planet to make the globe a single social space. The sovereign power as a central attribute of the State too has slided down in this era of globalization. As a result, the State’s sovereign right or power to act and to make ultimate and final decisions about the terms of existence on a whole territorially based body politic has come under strains. The ever increasing revolution of aspirations and expectations of the individual vis-a-vis the State has given rise to demand of more civil, economic and political rights of the individual. The philosophers and political scientists have argued about the proper nature and purposes of the State ever since the appearance of the City-States in the ancient Greece. Plato and Aristotle wrote of the polis2 in which the whole community’s religious, cultural, political and economic needs could be satisfied. A man living outside the polls was considered either a beast or god. The end purpose of the State, to Aristotle, was a perfect and self-sufficing life i.e., a happy and honourable life. The state was characterized primarily by its self sufficiency and Aristotle saw it as a means of developing morality in the human character. This idea corresponded to the modern concept of the Nation i.e., a population of a fixed area that shares a common language, culture (even race), and history. The modern idealists like Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, T.H. Green and Bernard Bosanquet more or less agree with this view. However, the individual freedoms and civil liberties as such were unheard of, in the Greek City-States. The Roman concept of state passed through three periods of growth; the period of City-State, the period of Republic and the period of empire. They regarded the State as res publica or Commonwealth. Res publica was a legal system whose jurisdiction extended to all Roman citizens, securing their rights and determining their responsibilities. The commonwealth was the property of a people. But a people was not any collection of human beings brought together in any sort of way but an assemblage of people in large numbers associated in an agreement with respect to justice and a partnership for the common good.3 During this period, the existence of State as an entity was constantly under the threat as the boundaries of the State were undetermined and the military expeditions were the order of the day. The military requirements of creating and sustaining such entities tended to develop authoritarian systems. Individual was expected to make necessary sacrifice of his individual liberties for the sake of the unity,4 The Romans regarded the State as legal entity and the individual as a legal person. The people were regarded the ultimate source of law and had certain rights which were determined and protected by the State. These rights or freedoms were derived from concrete rather than abstract sources. The middle ages in Europe between the end of the Roman Empire in the 5th century till 15th century the State remained a hazy idea where political institutions remained dormant and sovereign authority of the State was very weak if not non- existent. There were no individual freedoms guaranteed by the State and liberties were restricted to one privileged group or class. Slavery remained a necessary institution of the society. During this time liberty related primarily to social groups seeking to wrest certain privileges from the sovereigns against whom they contended for power. This kind of struggle resulted in the Magna Carta imposed in 1215 on king John of England by a group of barons. The Magna Carta has great significance in the progress of human liberty. The middle ages characterized the loose confederation of tribes who coalesced into kingdoms. There were virtually no institutions of governance who could effectively control different domains. Christian Church was the only Universal institution and powers were exercised within the Church hierarchy, by the local bishops. It was only after about 1050 AD (during the high Middle Ages) that the Roman Catholic Church organised into an elaborate hierarchy with the pope as its head. During the late Middle Ages the secular state began to emerge and the struggle for supremacy between the Church and the State ensued for the next few centuries. By the end of the 13th century the medieval Europe began to fade away and soon after the majority of characteristic institutions and ideals of feudal age began to decay. New institutions and ways of thinking gradually emerged. This change extending from 1300 to about 1650 (known as the Renaissance) broadly signifies intellectual revival and interest in secular learning. The Renaissance -also referred to a ‘rebirth of the European mind’- swept out a number of old ideas and swept in a multitude of the new ones. With the end of Middle Ages the Renaissance raised problems of intellectual freedom, challenging the established dogma of the Catholic Church and Reformation further promoted ideas of religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Machiavelli represented this period and enthused a new spirit in understanding the State. He ignored the cardinal tenants of Christian State and did not recognize Church’s superiority or even independence from the State.5 He advocated for a free state and that “the voice of the people is the voice of God.” 6 Three great revolutions helped to define the individual liberty and ensure its preservation. The Glorious Revolution (l688-89)7 was the culmination of years of gradual imposition of judicial and legislative restraints upon the monarchy; the Bill of Rights adopted by the British Parliament against the Stuart monarchs in 1689 established representative government there; the American War of Independence8 (1775-83) combined the problems of achieving individual liberty with those of creating of new state. The Declaration of Independence (July 1776) establishing United States of America and the first ten amendments also known as the Bill of Rights9 in the American constitution established guarantees of civil rights. The modern concept of State emerged in the 16th century. Machiavelli (1469-1527) elucidated the State in his discourses, which needs to be healthy and free, should possess people with virtues i.e., the people with vigour, public-spirit, law-abidingness and trustworthiness in public duties. Jean Bodin (1530-1596) defined the State in his six livers de la republique (1576) as a government of households, and where villages, cities, and corporations of various kinds are united by a sovereign authority. He recognized the right to property and individual freedoms at the level of family.10 Bodin, described the State as a centralizing force whereby stability might be regained. Bodin’s theory became the forerunner of the 17th century doctrine of the divine right of the kings (sovereigns are representatives of God and derive their right to rule directly from God). It also helped to create a climate for the ideas of John Locke (1632- 1704) in England and Rousseau (1712- 1778) in France, who re- examined the origins and purposes of the State. Machiavelli gave prime importance to the durability of government, sweeping aside all moral considerations and focusing instead on the strength -the vitality, courage, and independence- of the prince. Bodin, considered as the first theorist of modern absolutism, argued that sovereignty was the most high and perpetual power in a commonwealth and the entity which has the absolute right and duty of law giving. However, for him power was not sufficient in itself to create a sovereign and rule must comply with morality to be durable and it should have continuity. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in his Leviathan (1651) provided a more refined and systematic exposition of the concept of sovereignty.11 He attributed the origin of the State to a social contract which wielded unfettered powers. Hobbes made a forceful enunciation or the doctrine of sovereignty and also made a powerful statement of individualism. He does not let us forget that State exists to serve man’s needs and that its moral authority derives from the consent of the governed.12 The State, according to John Locke, should exist for the good of people, should depend on their consent and should be constitutional and limited in its authority. He advocated for certain natural rights -life, liberty and property. Individual liberty is the right of a person to do whatever he wants so Long as that is not incompatible with the Law of Nature.13 According to Rousseau the state owned its authority to the general will of the people. He suggested that the nation itself is sovereign and the law is essentially the Will of the governed as a whole. The body politic, therefore, is also a moral being possessed of a Will; and this general Will, which tends always to the preservation and welfare of the whole and of every part, and is the source of law, constitutes for all the members of the state, in their relations to one another and to it, the rule of what is just or unjust.14
The French Revolution (1789-1790), also called the
Revolution of 1789, denotes the beginning of a new era of individual-state relations. Taking liberty, equality and fraternity as their slogan, the French people overthrew their ancient government. Rousseau’s writings effectively contributed as the philosophy behind this Revolution. Generated by a series of causes like; the inability of ruling classes and clergy to come to the grips of the state; extortionate taxation of the peasantry; impoverishment of workers; and the intellectual ferment of the Age of Enlightenment the Revolution produced an equally vast set of consequences. Set on a premise that tyranny begins when natural rights of men are violated, the Revolution destroyed feudal system to establish representative government; it defined liberty as a natural right and ended the theory of the divine right of the king. It gave birth to the new theory that the source of all state power was the people. The Revolution was, thus a triumph of the right of man over the irresponsible and dictatorial powers. Its permanent achievements were individual liberty, government by the consent of the governed, constitutional limitations to safeguard the civil liberties of subjects and the responsibility of officials to a nationwide electorate.15 The Declaration of the Rights of man and of the citizen became the basic charter of human liberties. The declaration (containing 17 Articles) emphasized “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on considerations of the common good” (Art. 1), and the aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are Liberty, Property, Safety and Resistance to Oppression” (Art. 2). Adopted between August 20 and August 26, 1789 by France’s National Assembly and attached as ‘the preamble to the new constitution of 1791, this Declaration remains by far the most important document on human rights and individual liberties. The declaration greatly influenced political thought and institutions considering it “the creed of the new age”. It was a model for most of the declarations of political and civil rights adopted by European states in the 19th century.16 During the 19th century Hegel (1770-1831) opined that the sphere of individual liberty is the whole state, with freedom not so much an individual’s rights, but a result of human reason. State for him was the culmination of moral action, where freedom of choice had led to the unity of the rational will, and all parts of the society were nourished within the health of the whole. The essence of the modem state is “the Universal be bound up with the complete freedom of its members and with private well-being.”17 For the English utilitarian Jermy Benthem 1748-1832, J.S. Mill 1806-73, Henry Sidgwick 1838-1900) of this period the state was an artificial means of producing a unity of interest and a device to maintain stability. Benthem advocated the principal of utilitarianism, according to which the greatest total happiness of the community should be the sole aim of the laws of the state. Sidgwick also agreed that the right action, the good character, and the right laws are those which maximize happiness of individual.18 Mill (On Liberty, 1859) found freedom in the power of the individual to assert himself against the State or even the society. Mill makes the individual his own sovereign. It is “being left to oneself. “All restraint qua restraint is an evil”, he says. No interference with the individual’s liberty of action is justified except to prevent him from harming others.19 Nature of the State underwent a change with the rise of the ideology of Nationalism20 by the end of the 18th century. Before that the states usually were based on religious or dynastic ties. Citizens owed loyalty to their Church or the ruling family. The tendency towards nationalism was fostered by various technological, cultural, political, and economic advances. People extended their interests nation-wide leaving behind the mere clan, tribe or village affiliations, based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation- state21 surpass other individual and group interests. It became paramount for the realization of social, economic, and cultural aspirations of a people. The nation- state based on nationalism in Europe was glorified as a moral entity able to confer legitimacy on itself and its actions. The state authority then onwards belonged to the nation and no group could attribute authority to itself nor could any individual arrogate it to himself. The rise of nationalism coincided generally with the spread of Industrial Revolution, which promoted national economic development, the growth of a middle class, and popular demand for a representative government. The Revolutions of 1848 in Italy and Germany for unification which could eventually be realized in 1861 in Italy and 1871 in Germany and many other events in Europe between 1878 and 1918 were shaped largely by the nationalist aspirations. The concept of the nation-state along with its attributes of popular sovereignty, individual freedoms, general welfare and democracy spread in Europe throughout the 19th century. As the nationalism flowered and spread to the lands of Asia, Africa and Latin America in the 20th century many powerful national movements emerged in Japan (after Russo- Japanese war 1905), Turkey (under the leadership Mustafa Kamal Ataturk in (1922-23), India (under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi) or in China. These movements essentially aimed at national freedom from the Western imperial powers that culminated in the post-1945 period when the British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese empires either voluntarily granted independence or yielded to the national freedom movements. 22 With the individual rights, liberties and equalities gaining currency, the concept of popular sovereignty swept Europe and it gave rise to the establishment of democracy and representative institutions in Europe, America and later in the other parts of the world. The first popular rebellion against monarchy in England (1642), the political and revolutionary action against autocratic European states resulted in the establishment of republican governments with an increasing tendency towards democracy. Before the end of the 19th century every important Western European monarchy had adopted a constitution limiting the powers of the Crown giving a considerable share of political power to the people. Representative legislatures modeled on the British Parliament were instituted. British politics possibly became the greatest single influence on the organization of democracies in Europe and later in many other parts of the world. The success of democratic institutions in the United States (with federal system and Presidential form of government) also served as a model of democracy for many other countries. The major feature of a democratic state is individual freedom, which entitles its citizens to the liberty and responsibility of shaping their own careers and conducting their own affairs; equality before the law; universal suffrage and education. The four basic freedoms of expression, worship, from want and fear (formulated in Atlantic Charter of 1941) are also adhered to by many of the modern day democracies. The individual liberties including the freedom of religion, press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of privacy, freedom from racial and ethnic discrimination etc. have also become important ingredients of the democratic states. By the middle of the 20th century, every independent country in the world, with only a few exceptions, had a government that, in form if not in practice, embodied some of the principles of the modem liberal democratic states. It is in this background we have to consider how the globalization has influenced the state authority and individual freedoms.
Globalization, State Authority and Individual Freedoms
Globalization encapsulates the growth of connections between people on a planetary scale. It involves reduction of barriers to trans-world contacts through which people are able -physically, legally, culturally and psychologically- to engage with each other on this globe. Technology and unprecedented growth of electronic medium has made the globalization possible. The telecommunication and computer net works have facilitated instant interpersonal communication all over the earth. Since the late 20th century the entire world as a whole is fast becoming a single social space in its own right. Explicitly more visible in Europe, North America and East Asia globalization has not reached its finality but it is likely to engulf hitherto untouched areas soon. The rise of global consumerism (internet marketing, trade and commerce) global concerns (global warming, ozone depletion, etc), voluntary associations (Amnesty International, WTO, etc), outsourcing of skilled professionals, multinational corporations, broadcasting (CNN, BBC etc.), satellite communications have brought in a global consciousness in almost every sphere. In the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America this process is slow and more urban. The liberal economists attribute it to the role of unfettered market forces in a context of technological development and deregulation. The Marxists highlight the dynamics of the international capitalist system as the engine of globalization. For some sociologists globalization is a product of modem rationalism. The technological innovations, fast means of transportation and data processing at global scale have become rampant. The innovations relating to (coaxial and later fiber-optic cables, jet engines, packaging and preservation techniques, semiconductor devices, computer software etc. have become some of the physical tools to encourage the cross planetary contacts. Globalization is fast changing the contours of social geography. It has much wider economic, political and cultural implications.
Impact of Globalisation on State Authority
Increasing globalization23 of the world economy, the mobility of the people and capital, and the worldwide penetration of media has combined to circumscribe the freedom of action of the State. The McDonald’s, Disney, Coca-cola corporations capable of manipulating personal tastes of the people are becoming new forms of economic and po1tical domination. The state everywhere is losing control over the distribution of goods and services. The military force is fast becoming out of place or even powerless in many ways. The control of culture and is production is becoming far more important than the control of political and geographic borders. The exchange of popular culture related to life style, pop music, film, video, comics, fashion, fast foods, beverages, home decorations, entertainment systems, exercise equipments is fast becoming irresistible. The penetration of the World Wide Web (www) since 1990s has transplanted the codes of ethics in many countries (China, India, Iran etc.) and the idea of a borderless world becoming a reality in many areas. It has been predicted 24 that the internet will gradually erode the power of the state to control its people and advances in digital technology would help people to follow their own interests and form trans-state coalitions. It is further argued25 that military conflicts and territorial disputes would be super ceded by the flow of information, capital, technology and manpower between the states. Globalization has significant implications for the conduct of governance. Territorially based laws and institutions through local or national governments are not sufficient by themselves to regulate contacts and networks that operate in trans-world spaces. It is stimulating greater multilateral collaboration between states as well as the growth of regional arrangements like the European Union, ASEAN etc. The resultant situation of multi-layered and diffuse governance raises important questions about the nature of sovereignty in a globalizing world. State as a political unit is an essential and most effective basis of governance and it remains central in the governance of global flows. However the trends of globalization have stimulated a lively debate as to whether the state can retain its freedom of action and control the domestic ebbs and flow vis-à- vis its citizens hitherto associated with its authority. The doctrine of state sovereignty as its sole authority in decision making process and in maintenance of order has been constantly debated by the political scientists. It was traditionally argued that sovereignty need not be exercised on behalf of the people by the national governments, but could be divided on a functional basis between the federal and state authorities (USA). Similarly H.J. Laski and others developed the pluralistic theory of sovereignty where state authority could be exercised by various political, economic and religious groups in the state. Accordingly, sovereignty in each society should not reside in any particular place but shift from one group to another. The Hague conferences of 1899 and 1907 established detailed rules for conduct of war on land and at sea. The Covenant of League of Nations restricted the right to wage war as a solution to international controversies. The charter of United Nations (Art 2) imposed the duty on member states to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means...” and it emphasized on “the principle of sovereign equality of all its members.” All these and many other developments restricted the state sovereignty as unrestricted power. The states have already accepted a considerable body of laws limiting their sovereign rights of acting as they pleased. The globalization has further challenged the identity as well as the working of the State. If globalization means emergence of borderless states then the very existence of the state is in question. The deteriorization of State Authority and moving of products and capital with least possible hindrance have raised the question of control of the State over the territory, population and the government. The state is becoming a silent spectator as it is in no capacity to take economic decisions such as what to produce, how to produce and for whom to produce. Liberalization and privatization has considerably weakened the control and functioning of the bureaucracy considered to be the backbone of the State. The state legislations and decision making are only following and adjusting to the trail of globalization. If globalization has given unprecedented freedom of choice and action to the individual, it has seriously impinged upon various human rights. It has resulted in loss of jobs, cultural identity, and democratic rights and has created social, cultural, economic and technological divide. The Human Development Report (1999) observed that “uneven globalization is not only bringing integration but also fragmentation -dividing communities, nations and regions into those that are included and those that are excluded.” However, despite the problems created by globalization, this Juggernaut is gradually swallowing the world. It is a fact of life and the only ideology of the present day world order. It is for the state and promoters and protectors of human rights and liberties to stop, mould or change its expanse to create a balanced and humane civil society. References 1. State has been variedly defined like, “particular portion of mankind viewed as an organised unit,” John W. Burgess; “the politically organised people of a definite territory”, Bluntschli: “a numerous assemblage of human beings, generally occupying a certain territory, amongst whom the will of the majority or of an ascertainable class of persons is, by the strength of such a majority or class, made to prevail against any of their number who oppose it”, Holland, Elements of Jurisprudence, 13th ed., Oxford, 1924, p. 46. 2. Polis was a term for which there is no’exact translation but which we render most inadequately as the City State. It was much more than we mean by a city and a great deal more than we understand by a State. C.L. Wayper, Political Thought, B.I. Publications, Delhi, 1989, p.6. 3. Definition of a State given by Scipio, one of the persons of the dialogue, see, Republic, I, XXV, p. 39. 4. The principal of Unity, expressed in the form of citizenship, could not be stretched beyond a certain point. The imaginative statesmanship of Rome was not great enough to devise a political basis for an empire of the civilized world. As Gettell had remarked, “Greek had developed democracy without unity; Rome secured unity without democracy.” See, Maciver, The Modern State, p. 59. 5. See, Foster, Michael B: Masters of Political Thought, OUP, 1975, p. 268. 6. The Prince, Chapter i, ii. 7. See, Ashley, Maurice: The Glorious Revolution of 1688, (1968): and Pocock, l.G. (ed): Three British Revolutions, 1641, 1688, 1776 (1980). 8. Bailyn, Bernard, et al: The Great Republic: A History of the American People (2nd ed), (1981); Kelley, Robert: The Shaking of the American Past, 2 Vols. 4th edition, (1986). 9. See, Schwartz, Bernard: The Great Rights, of Mankind: A History of the American Bill of Rights (1977). 10. See, Sabine, George H: A History of Political Theory, Oxford, 1973. 11. Foster, Michael B: Masters of Political Thought, Vol. II, p. 100-110. 12. Wayper, op. cit., p. 64. Globalization and Human Rights I 32 13. Ibid., p. 70. 14. Vaugham, C.E: Political Writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau, English Translation by GDH Cole, Vol. 1, p. 253. 15. Sabine, op. cit., p. 590. 16. Soboul, Albert: A Short History of the French Revolution 1789-1799, Translated by G Syncox (1977): Goodwin Albert: The French Revolution, 4th ed. (1966). 17. Philosophy of Righ, Section 260, addition. 18. Scruton, Roger: A Dictionary of Political Thought, Pan Books, 1982, p.480. 19.Wayper, op. cit., p. 114. 20. The ideals of nationalism attempt to find the ingredients ofpolitical obligation and political identity in allegiances which are in some sense less than wholly political - matters of geographical, cultural and ethnic association. The motive is to fmd some binding force between people that is stronger than any revocable agreement to be governed, wider than any merely personal affection and sufficiently public to lend itself to the foundation of political institutions and laws. See, Scruton, op. cit., p. 316. 21. A State organizedfor the government of a nation, whose territory is determined by national boundaries, and whose law is determined, at least in part, by national customs and expectations, See, Ibid., p.313. 22. Many countries like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Malaysia, Ghana, Philippines, and Indonesia etc. in Asia became independent. Nationalist movements developed in Morroco, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Ghana, Iraq etc. during 1950 and 60s. 23. See, Steger, Manfred B: Globalization, The New Market Ideology, Rawat Publishers, New Delhi, 2004, Chapters I, II & III; Dasgupta, Biplab: Structural Adjustment, Global Trade and the New Political Economy of Development, Vistaar Publications, New Delhi, 1998. 24. Kevin Kelly: Out of Control, (1994) 25. Richard Rosecrance: The Rise of the Virtual State, (1999).