A modern state is the crystallization of its society. Therefore, it acts to represent its society both to the outer world (countries and individuals) and back to that society itself and to the individuals who constitute it. As a result, from the perspective of the outside world, the state is the target/recipient of blame and praise for actions coming from the society as well as state actions themselves. Similarly, it is the target/recipient of blame and praise for actions coming from the outside world.
In the US especially, our political culture has minimized the state by limiting its reach (e.g., carving out protected spheres for church, the press, and individuals); but the decline of the church (long-term) and the disintermediation of the media (more recently) has brought the world and US society closer (a trend exacerbated by the many facets of globalization); thus increasing tensions and blame of the state, especially as constituted in the US as the federal government and the executive branch in particular. This has contributed to ungovernability and MAGA-like rejection of the state, when, in fact, the issue is not the ability of the state to cope with the world (however problematic that might be) but as an expression of incomprehension of the world and frustration with the limited power of individuals to control it.
This is compounded by a standard mythology which sees the US as the distinctive champion of limited government. In fact, since the progressive era of the late 19/early 20C, we have moved a long way from the idyllic view of a minimal state which leaves the bold explorer to carve his way through the wilderness and hold himself as a free man providing for his family. Likely as not, that man established himself on a government grant of land. Railroads were certainly built with government subsidies. Regulatory structures—zoning, antitrust, income tax, consumer protection—all date from this era. General management of the national economy dates from the Great Depression (95 years ago). Recent protests against “big government” (“Keep your hands off my Medicare”) show the distance from popular perception to reality.
This is an example of what the historian Tony Judt called the “discursive battle;” i.e., the need to point out that our language/mythology/epistemology is out of touch with the real world.
The expansion of state responsibility has taken place over centuries; usually in grudging response to the increased complexity of society, the growth of populations which has made bureaucracies the necessary means of coping with basic organizational functionality, and the increased knowledge (science/rationality) of the way in which nature and markets work. From that perspective, it’s hard to see an alternative to a larger state. At the same time, the increased expectations/responsibilities of the state has enabled individuals to pretend that they have no social responsibility. When paired with alienation engendered by capitalism, we have yet to come up with a psychologically sound means of coping with a much larger, more complex world than we were used to on the East African savannah 100,000 years ago.
Looking across the world it’s clear that the state model isn’t working so well. Some activities (e.g. trade, climate, global finance) can only be dealt with at a global level. Localist/nationalist opposition is our 21C version of the battles between states and cities/provinces/principalities in the 19C. The disparities between local “sovereignty” and global effects means we all suffer.
Many states don’t work because there is no coherent community which the state can represent. A couple of years ago (040822), I wrote about failed states in a variety of places around the world and suggested that one remedy might be to create an updated version of the “trusteeship” model which the UN began in 1947 crossed with the model used by the UN in a few cases to administer territories that were in need of short-term stabilization. The world has changed considerably since then and some major changes are needed, but we need a model of governance and “nation building” beyond what is currently bringing misery and fear to so many people in these areas.
The people of the affected territory would in effect be required to surrender their “sovereignty” for a period in order to gain some stability in their lives and undergo a process leading to the restoration of independence and the potential of improved living conditions. Such a move would radically upset many of the accepted myths of the modern global political system, including a sense of continuous forward political and social progress and self-determination.
Here are some candidates for the first round of this process: Haiti, Sudan, Palestine, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, northwestern Myanmar, Kurdistan, Iraq, and many minute island countries in the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, and Pacific.
The UN trusteeship program was designed to oversee certain territories which had been imperial holdings of the defeated Axis powers, mostly in Africa, with a range of islands in the Western Pacific which Japan had ruled. The UN model itself was adapted from the “mandate” system under the League of Nations which oversaw similar populations/territories of Germany and the Ottoman Empire after their loss in WWI. The African countries became independent in the 1960s and 1970s as part of the broader global decolonization process which drastically reduced the formal footprint of European empires.
Now, I’m no big fan of the way the UN operates generally. Indeed, its structural dysfunction cries out for a wholly-rewritten charter, along the lines of what I have argued for the US and its outdated Constitution. However, it remains the only expression of global political coherence we have and its sanction would be an important factor in securing both external and internal support for an interim regime.
More important is a direct voice in the governing structure for the peoples affected. Supervised elections could choose 40% of the interim council, a ratio gradually to be increased over the transitional term. The balance of the council would comprise designated representatives of the UN (20%) and of the supporting countries (40%). The operating administration, comprised of local civil servants and assigned consultants, would be backed by a UN-organized domestic military, including troops from other countries.
So, is it “back to the drawing board” for this fundamental building block of the modern political world? At least it’s time to move beyond the critiques to actually thrashing around new concepts and frameworks.
RSS Feed