Last week we dealt with the origin of a concept as complex as "nation" that since the 5th century AD has been constantly a part of our European culture. The reality and significance of the term "nation" has changed over history. But it is still a fiction that people believe and that enable "nationals" to cooperate together. The question is how to articulate practically this cooperation of a large number of people believing they are part of the same "nation".
Historically groups have been united in tribes, then -after the Agricultural Revolution- in cities and empires. Jericho was the first city founded 11.000 years ago.
An Sargon created the oldest Empire the Akkadian, 4.300 years ago. A great idea that was used by the Romans for 500 years (27 B.C to 476) if we just consider the Western Part of the Roman Empire and 1500 years if we take into account the Byzantine Empire, as it only disappeared in 1453.
And in another part of the World by the Chinese between the Reign of Emperor Qin (221-210 BC) to the Reign of Emperor Puyi (1908-1912). 2.133 years.
Today the most common organization for humans to cooperate is the State. A pure Western invention. Another "fiction", like the nation. A very abstract fiction that only Abraham Bosse has represented in a very expressive iconic way in the front page of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan first edition of 1651.
Th thing that despite that it is an abstract fiction, it is a very popular fiction as this form of organizing a political community has been adopted by almost everyone.
Today there are concretely 193 member states of the United Nations Organization, to which must be added others that do not enjoy full recognition. South Korea and North Korea do not recognize each other. The People's Republic of China remains unrecognized by 19 countries that, nevertheless, recognize the ROC (Republic of China) of Taiwan. The State of Israel is not recognized by 32 countries, and the Republic of Palestine is only recognized by 136. Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus, which is, nevertheless, a member of the European Union, but it does recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is not recognized by any other state. Pakistan does not recognize the Republic of Armenia. The Republic of Abkhazia has, so far, only been recognized by 6 countries. The Republic of Kosovo has only been recognized by 104 of the 193 UN countries. Other territories are struggling to become members of the UN, such as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, South Ossetia, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, aka Transnistria. The most unique case is that of Somaliland, which remains unrecognized by any state despite having declared itself an independent state and functioning as one.
The latest addition to the Officially UN's recognized States happened in 2011, when the state of South Sudan broke away from the Republic of Sudan after years of a bloody civil war.
Only the ISIS wants to get back to the Islamic original Religious community known as the Caliphate. But with not a lot of success, as Syria and Iraq are still full states and their respective governments are not willing to give up at all on this.
States, then, seem to remain inevitable, although one has to wonder why. Are they imposed on us, or do we really crave them?
Why do we humans like so much the State as a way of organizing our cooperation? Well, the fact that states have multiplied all over the planet is due to the fact that they are, undeniably, highly operative instruments for social organisation. The state is such an effective apparatus of power that, centuries after they were created, they not only continue to exist, but have thrived and spread all over the world. Basically, this is because it is a form of organisation that makes it possible to pool large amounts of human and material resources to jointly achieve specific objectives. Human beings organised into states are simply more powerful.
Of course the State organization did not appear overnight. This European invention required centuries of development, going through different steps: the Greek polis, the Roman empire, the Medieval European Kingdoms, the Absolute Monarchies, and the contemporary Nation-States that appeared since the last third of the 18th century in the United States of America or in France.
Today we will look into the origins of the organization that we call today "State" in the European tradition. Starting with how the Germanic "kings", became "monarchs", and how the feudal concept of "suzerainty" turned into the one of "sovereignty". How the principle of personality of the Law, according to which in the Germanic kingdoms every "nation" had its own "national law," was replaced by the principle of one single law for the whole kingdom (Territoriality of the Law). The example of Philip II of France, who started his reigns as "king of Francs" and ended it as "King of France" is self-explanatory.
Thank to this medieval "monarchs", the European Kingdoms expanded and got organized not only politically but from an administrative and legal perspective. This monarchs became really powerful when in the 16th and 17th centuries they became Absolutist kings that could create their own laws through "legislation", besides being the supreme judicial authorities of the kingdom. Their absolute power, justified by the lawyers formed in Medieval Universities that studied Roman Imperial law and considered the kings as "emperors" in their own realms, and by political thinkers as Nicholas Machiavel (1469-1527) and Jean Bodin (1530-1596), consolidated the idea of the State and Sovereignty.
In fact the term "State" was used for the first time to refer to our political and administrative organization by Machiavel in his capital work The Prince (1532). This is the sense he gives to the expression in the following texts extracted from Chapter 18th:
- "And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to fidelity,[4] friendship, humanity, and religion [...]"
- "Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result [...]".
- "For that reason, let a prince have the credit of conquering and holding his state, the means will always be considered honest, and he will be praised by everybody; because the vulgar are always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it; and in the world there are only the vulgar, for the few find a place there only when the many have no ground to rest on [...]".
Lets get started in understanding where our "States" come from along European Constitutional History.
HOW TO STUDY TEACHING GUIDE 2
First read the text included in your Materials (pages 18 to 25). And then proceed to answer the Concrete questions, Concepts and General Questions. Do not hesitate to ask in class if anything is confusing or you do not understand it.
Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 26-27) the crucial dates, the ones you have to remember, are the following: 1188, 1215, 1223, 1302, 1348, 1390, 1513, 1547, 1576, 1624, 1651 and 1661.
TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Be prepared to comment the following quote of Henry Kissinger (1923) : “If I had to choose between justice and disorder, on the one hand, and injustice and order, on the other, I would always choose the latter.” based on a quote from Goethe ("I prefer to commit an injustice than tolerate disorder").
Though as Michel Houellebeq precise, these words "[...] were said during the French Revolution in front of the city of Mainz, which had been recovered by the Prussians. He said it only minutes after personally intervening to prevent the lynching of a French soldier who had been evacuated by the troops of the Duke of Weimar. In the context, the "injustice" consists of sparing an enemy soldier who may be a great criminal. The "disorder" is that of the unleashed, bloodthisrty rabble, ready to tear a man to shreds. Thus, in his mouth the phrase really means the opposite, exactly the opposite of what you say he meant. Indeed, since Barrès he has allways been misinterpreted." (Extracted from Michel Houellebeq and Bernard Henry Levy (2011) Public Ennemies London: Atlantic Books).
Please consider the following aspects:
1. The contrats between the Greek Classical Polis and the Roman Empire. Why Rome became a big power and not the Athenian democracy?
2. How traditional kings, issued from a concrete family (dinasty) became "monarchs" (From the Greek "monos" one and "arcos" power).
3. The difference between the concepts "Suzerainty" (within the frame of a feudal society) and "Sovereignty" (framed in the late medieval period, and in the Absolutist era by Jean Bodin).
4. What means that the Medieval monarchies turn "territorial"? What are the consequences of this territorialisation?
5. Bear in mind the "Technical advantages" of Absolutism (pages 22-24) over a theocentric and feudal society where the kings shared their power with the "Assemblies of Estates".
6. Please consider that the growth and development of the idea of "State" relies on the expansion and growth of European Monarchies demanding a significant bolstering of royal power.
7. Consider also why after World War I, the European liberal "laissez faire" regimes gave way to totalitarian models of state like in the Soviet Union, the Fascist Italy or the Nazi Germany. Think of the conditions that enabled the bolstering of State power and the dissolution of democracy and the Rule of law.
8. Do you think that the actual Pandemic situation justifies a bolstering of the Government powers, restricting individual liberties and fundamental rights, as for instance proclaiming the "state of alarm" for 6 months, in clear violation of the 1978's Spanish constitution which clearly requires its renewal every two weeks.
The symbols of the French State
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario