Social cohesion
Fredosor.com
Is social cohesion a family affair, a tribal affair
or an ethnic affair?
Can social cohesion also be achieved
in a nation state?
Cohesion in the nation state: The minimalistic and the maximalistic state
For more than 70 years, after the Russian revolution in 1917 and up to the destruction of the Berlin Wall in 1989, we have in several nation states experienced social experiments aiming at taking care of human material needs in society – through direct government intervention and ownership in all sectors of the economy. In recent years we have seen a development towards disintegration of some nation states as a consequence of civil wars or a lack of proper public management, with Afghanistan and Somalia as very visible examples.
Regarding the space between these two extremes, one may wonder:
What is at a minimum needed for the functioning of a democratic nation state? What does it take to build lasting social cohesion in a nation state?
The minimalistic state.
The existence of a state is based on territorial borders, whereas a nation can exist without territorial borders, since the notion of nation rests on cultural or ethnic concepts. A state, being a political construction, has a given territory as its point of departure. Maintenance of territorial borders requires an authority with sufficient economic and organizational strength to mobilize a military force that is capable of defending the state’s borders. A situation of permanent enmity with neighbor states being not viable in the long run, the state needs a diplomacy to maintain a minimum of peace with its neighbors. Both the military force and the diplomatic operators cost money to operate. Taxation of the citizens will therefore be necessary, since this state at the outset has no other sources of revenue. A treasury service will therefore have to be put in place.
If this state wishes to call itself a democracy, the citizens must have a right to vote for those people they wish to see as leaders of the state. They also require the right to present themselves, both legally and in public, as candidates for the positions of political leadership that are available. That involves freedom to express a political program in public, and the freedom to form a political organization. When there is more than one political program, you get disagreement and conflict. You also have all sorts of other disagreements and conflicts in a democratic state. This state needs rules of the game and institutions that have the authority to rule when disagreement occurs. Laws and courts have to be in place for this purpose. If disagreement takes a violent form, police is needed – with sufficient strength to enforce the laws and the decisions of the courts.
The distribution of power between the fundamental institutions in a democratic state was formulated in 1748 by the French philosopher Montesquieu. He argued for the separation of powers between the legislative (law-making) authority, the executive (government) authority, and the judicial (courts) authority. This separation of powers is today accepted as necessary for a democratic state to function properly. It is also assumed that these authorities have complete integrity, in the sense that they take their decisions freely – without pressure exerted on them by financial or other means.
When all the above is in place, included the taxes necessary to fund these activities, the democratic state can start to function as it is meant to do. This would appear to be the lowest level of ambition a state can have, if it is to call itself democratic. Only a very small minority of the world’s roughly 190 states fulfill these conditions. Many have established the institutions, but without giving them the roles they are supposed to have. Corruption and other forms of misuse of power on the part of the rulers have prevented that.
How does one go on to develop the state’s role from this minimalistic starting point?
At the time Montesquieu formulated the principle of the separation of powers, the period of the Enlightenment was under way. The declaration of human rights was formulated in 1789, at the time of the French Revolution. This contained many of the same basic ideas as the Declaration of Independence that was put in writing by Thomas Jefferson and adopted in 1776 by the United States Congress. Freedom and equality were the main pillars of these declarations. From this time, the political tension between freedom and equality has been a driving force in the nation states’ further development, in particular in those states where democracy has been practiced. Let us, before moving on, look a little closer at the notions of freedom and equality.
A basic trend aiming at increased equality has produced a movement towards the welfare state, which in some countries outside Europe is seen as a problem and in others is seen as a desired aim. In rankings made by The Global Competitiveness Report, the Nordic countries are all among the top countries in terms of global economic competitiveness. In rankings made by the United Nations the same countries are also among the highest ranked in terms of quality of life for its citizens (UN Human Development Report). This seems to imply that the standard accusation that the welfare state creates inefficiency is an unfounded accusation. Recent studies confirm the assumption that the existence of a welfare state gives people a greater sense of security – and that this greater sense of security makes it easier for people to leave low productivity jobs and search for more high yielding jobs. In countries with weaker social safety nets, people cling to their jobs and fight harder for the survival of obsolete jobs – thereby slowing the innovation process.
The development of this so-called Nordic model is to my mind the most interesting political process along the axis between the minimalistic and the maximalistic state. What are the basic elements in this model? What happens when you move along the axis between the two extremes?
Basic elements in the welfare state (Nordic model).
The ambition of the welfare state is to achieve secure living conditions, more equal distribution of living conditions, and social participation. This is to be obtained through:
Movements between the minimalistic and the maximalisitc state.
In all western democracies the relative role of the public sector has increased substantially for the last sixty years, measured by the share of public sector budgets in the total economy. This is so as regards numbers of people employed in the public sector, number of people receiving public grants in one form or another, and number of private sector employees dependent on public procurements or grants. A further inroad into this discussion is given here.
Regarding the space between these two extremes, one may wonder:
What is at a minimum needed for the functioning of a democratic nation state? What does it take to build lasting social cohesion in a nation state?
The minimalistic state.
The existence of a state is based on territorial borders, whereas a nation can exist without territorial borders, since the notion of nation rests on cultural or ethnic concepts. A state, being a political construction, has a given territory as its point of departure. Maintenance of territorial borders requires an authority with sufficient economic and organizational strength to mobilize a military force that is capable of defending the state’s borders. A situation of permanent enmity with neighbor states being not viable in the long run, the state needs a diplomacy to maintain a minimum of peace with its neighbors. Both the military force and the diplomatic operators cost money to operate. Taxation of the citizens will therefore be necessary, since this state at the outset has no other sources of revenue. A treasury service will therefore have to be put in place.
If this state wishes to call itself a democracy, the citizens must have a right to vote for those people they wish to see as leaders of the state. They also require the right to present themselves, both legally and in public, as candidates for the positions of political leadership that are available. That involves freedom to express a political program in public, and the freedom to form a political organization. When there is more than one political program, you get disagreement and conflict. You also have all sorts of other disagreements and conflicts in a democratic state. This state needs rules of the game and institutions that have the authority to rule when disagreement occurs. Laws and courts have to be in place for this purpose. If disagreement takes a violent form, police is needed – with sufficient strength to enforce the laws and the decisions of the courts.
The distribution of power between the fundamental institutions in a democratic state was formulated in 1748 by the French philosopher Montesquieu. He argued for the separation of powers between the legislative (law-making) authority, the executive (government) authority, and the judicial (courts) authority. This separation of powers is today accepted as necessary for a democratic state to function properly. It is also assumed that these authorities have complete integrity, in the sense that they take their decisions freely – without pressure exerted on them by financial or other means.
When all the above is in place, included the taxes necessary to fund these activities, the democratic state can start to function as it is meant to do. This would appear to be the lowest level of ambition a state can have, if it is to call itself democratic. Only a very small minority of the world’s roughly 190 states fulfill these conditions. Many have established the institutions, but without giving them the roles they are supposed to have. Corruption and other forms of misuse of power on the part of the rulers have prevented that.
How does one go on to develop the state’s role from this minimalistic starting point?
At the time Montesquieu formulated the principle of the separation of powers, the period of the Enlightenment was under way. The declaration of human rights was formulated in 1789, at the time of the French Revolution. This contained many of the same basic ideas as the Declaration of Independence that was put in writing by Thomas Jefferson and adopted in 1776 by the United States Congress. Freedom and equality were the main pillars of these declarations. From this time, the political tension between freedom and equality has been a driving force in the nation states’ further development, in particular in those states where democracy has been practiced. Let us, before moving on, look a little closer at the notions of freedom and equality.
A basic trend aiming at increased equality has produced a movement towards the welfare state, which in some countries outside Europe is seen as a problem and in others is seen as a desired aim. In rankings made by The Global Competitiveness Report, the Nordic countries are all among the top countries in terms of global economic competitiveness. In rankings made by the United Nations the same countries are also among the highest ranked in terms of quality of life for its citizens (UN Human Development Report). This seems to imply that the standard accusation that the welfare state creates inefficiency is an unfounded accusation. Recent studies confirm the assumption that the existence of a welfare state gives people a greater sense of security – and that this greater sense of security makes it easier for people to leave low productivity jobs and search for more high yielding jobs. In countries with weaker social safety nets, people cling to their jobs and fight harder for the survival of obsolete jobs – thereby slowing the innovation process.
The development of this so-called Nordic model is to my mind the most interesting political process along the axis between the minimalistic and the maximalistic state. What are the basic elements in this model? What happens when you move along the axis between the two extremes?
Basic elements in the welfare state (Nordic model).
The ambition of the welfare state is to achieve secure living conditions, more equal distribution of living conditions, and social participation. This is to be obtained through:
- Paid employment
- Income transfers to persons who do not get sufficient income through employment
- Public services at prices that are adapted to a desired social profile
- A legal framework that is conducive to social and material equality
Movements between the minimalistic and the maximalisitc state.
In all western democracies the relative role of the public sector has increased substantially for the last sixty years, measured by the share of public sector budgets in the total economy. This is so as regards numbers of people employed in the public sector, number of people receiving public grants in one form or another, and number of private sector employees dependent on public procurements or grants. A further inroad into this discussion is given here.