Of the many concepts in the social sciences that are
used rather interchangeably and at times synonymously, even by experts, that of
‘nation’ and ‘nation state’ appears prominent. Thus, in international relations
discourse, it may not be out of place for one to hear of references to the
American nation, the Nigerian nation or the German nation for instance. In the
same vein references could also be made to the American nation-state, the
Nigerian nation-state or the German nation –state, etc.
Such interchangeable usages tend to
suggest that both concepts mean the same thing.
This could be misleading. For a proper understanding of the concept of
nation-state which is the basic unit of international relations, it will be worthwhile
to attain a precise appreciation of what we exactly mean by the ‘nation’. Though not amenable to a
concise definition due to the different senses in which the word has been used
in modern times on the basis of different theories and interpretations, 1
but in its relationship with the nation-state, one of the most satisfactory
definitions of the concept of nation remains that offered by Ernest Barker some
six decades ago. According to him:
A nation is a body of men inhabiting a definite
territory….(and possessing ) a common stock
of thoughts and feelings acquired and transmitted
during the course of a common history …2
Continuing, Ernest Barker further submits that the
common stock of thoughts and feelings include, though more in the past than in
the present, a common religious belief, a common language, and also what he
refers to as “a common will”. The common will,
according to him, propels the nation to form a separate state for the
expression and realization of that will. There
are, however, other commentators who are of the
opinion that a nation
is not formed merely by “speaking
the same tongue, or belonging to the
same cultural groups, but having
accomplished great things in common
in the past and retaining the wishes to do same in the future.3
While not
discountenancing the latter intervention, we are persuaded that Ernest Barker appears
to have captured the major
ingredients of the concept of
nation, at least with regard
to its relationship with both the nation –state and international relations. But the concept of “common will” as employed by
Barker tends to suggest that a nation is permanently
and inexorably led to a secessionist predilections, since it is only by so doing that it
can form a state, and so give
vent to the so-called common will.
But this may not be entirely borne out by the facts of contemporary
international life; the US remains a classic example of subsuming of different
cultural groups’ “common wills” under
what can be referred to as a general will.
The concept of common will also
introduces us to the fact that a nation
is always found within a nation-state, even though
a nation may transform
into a nation-state through
various processes ranging
from secession to implosion of empires
or other hegemonic political entities
such as the communist
system. Besides, a multi-national state
will also be vulnerable to disintegration given the concept of common will. In
other words, the “common will” may well be considered a euphemism for ethnic
nationalism or other forms of micro-nationalistic revisionism and / or
irredentism.
In apparent support of Ernest
Barker’s concept of “common will” as an essential attribute of the nation. Hans Morgenthau suggests that “the nation
needs a state,” as “one nation- one state,” according to him, remains the
political postulate of nationalism,4 while the nation-state is
its ideal. It is probably in furtherance
of this that recent commentators have continued to maintain that the idea that
every nation should have its own state, accompanied by the corollary that one
ethnic or cultural group should not collectively rule over another, has
remained one of the most powerful political
forces of the past two hundred years.5 in the same vein,
John Casper Bluntshli, a Swiss
international lawyer, writing in the
1870s insists that “the world
should be split into as many states
as humanity is divided into nations, each nation, a
state, and each state, a national being”6
We have tried to present these
various views not as an advocacy but just to be able to attain a proper
appreciation of the differences between a nation and the nation-state. It is
thus obvious that a nation in this context, and within the realm of international
relations, refers to an ethnic or cultural group. It is different from the nation-state in the critical sense
that until it attains
the ultimate objective of the
so-called common will, that is
transformation into a nation-state, it cannot participate in
international relations. In other words,
only the nation-state or the state can participate in international relations
as a political unit. What then is the state or the nation-state? It must be pointed out immediately that the
state and nation-state mean exactly the same thing and so they can, and are
most often, used interchangeably
without any adverse effect whatsoever. In a strict technical sense
however, the state is preferred to nation-state in usage.
The State
The state refers to a distinct set
of political institutions whose specific concern is said to be with the
organization of domination in the pursuit of common interest within a
delineated territory. It has thus been defined as a “body of people occupying a definite territory and
politically organized under one government”.7 The essential
components of a state according to this definition are people, land (territory)
and government. Of these three components, only one appears missing in the case
of the nation- government. Government,
therefore, constitutes a major and essential institutional difference between
the modern state systems, and the nation or ethnic or cultural group. As the
established and recognized “form of political administration” of a state,
government is different from other administering or ruling
agencies in the national, as such
agencies may not be recognized
outside the territory they hold
forth. Consequent upon this non- recognition, such
agencies can neither authoritatively allocate
values or resources within their territories nor engage in any form of political interaction with
other states as representatives of their people. Since it is the government of a
state that can perform this important function, then only the state can participate
in international relations as a political unit.
This is so
because the state is a legal entity imbued with the legal concept of
sovereignty, while the nation is a
socio-cultural term restricted to
the homogenous culture groups
within a state, or at times, extending
beyond the borders of any one state. The
state can thus be conceived as the most central concept in the study of
political science, and by extension, international relations. It has also been conceived in terms of its
role as a “coercion-wielding priority in decision – making and claim
paramountcy in the application of naked force to social problems within
territorial boundaries”8 Niccolo Machiavelli is often credited with
the first use of the concept of state in reference to a “territorial sovereign
government”. This was in his classic, the prince, completed in 1513, and
published in 1532. It was not until the time of Jean Bodin (1579-96), that his
legal instrumentality of sovereignty was developed as a distinguishing characteristic
of the state. We shall return to this later.
Another influential conception of the state is that
provided by Weber in his, politics as a vocation. Under it, Weber isolates
three attributes of the state which he
considers very important - “its territoriality, its monopoly of the means of physical violence and its
legitimacy”. 9 These attributes would appear synonymous with those
already highlighted by Barker, except the second attribute- monopoly of the
means of physical violence; as the third attribute – legitimacy corresponds
with Barker’s established government. Looked at critically, the ‘so- called
monopoly of the means of physical
violence or coercive machinery of
the stat is actually an attribute of a
state in pursuant to its possession of the
legal concept of sovereignty, a concept
we have promised to return to later.
Three main theories exist within the
social science tradition in trying to understand the state. These include the
pluralist, the Marxist and the statistic. The pluralist tradition sees the state as largely “an area
for contending interest”. In this scenario, state policy becomes the outcome of
the current bargaining between the
various contending interests. The
framework maintains that all groups in principle retain the right and
opportunity to pressure the state such that state policy in the end becomes the
result of pressure applied by the various groups and interest.
The Marxist theory of the state presents an
instrumentalist view. It follows from
Karl Marx’s famous statement to the effect that the executive of the modern
state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole
bourgeoisie. This instrumentalist
view of the state arguers that
the ruling class uses the state
as its instrument of dominance in
society by virtue of the interpersonal
ties between, and the social
composition of state officials and
the economics elites. In other words, the capitalist state
serves the interest
of the capitalist class only, as
apposed to communist state which
is theoretically given to serve the
interest of the working classes, and
therefore the mass of the people.
The
statistic view concludes that the state pursue goals which cannot be derived
from interest group bargaining or from the class structure of capitalist
societies. States are thus seen as distinctive structures operating in an
environment of real autonomy. Each of these theories has its strengths and
weaknesses and thus attracted varying degrees of criticisms. But space constraints
would not allow us to go into them presently.
Five other views on the origin of a state. There are various theories
regarding the emergence of a state.
These include: the social contract theory, the divine right theory, the
force theory, the patriarchal theory, the matriarchal theory and the
evolutionary theory. The social contract theory contends that the state is the
result of agreement entered into by people who originally had no governmental
organization. This implies that before the existence of the state, people lived
in a state of nature in which they were subject to the rules and regulations
prescribed by nature. In a state of nature, which is devoid of government, the
life of man is said to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Therefore,
to ensure peace and order, the state is constituted (formed) or established.
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Rousseau and other contributed to the development of
social contract theory. But there is no
historical records to support the theory.
In line with that, the theory of
divine origin or divine right of kings sees the state as establishment based on
the ordinance of God. It goes on to
point that its rulers are accountable to the people. The Reverend Fathers, Priests, Pastors,
Bishops etc are God’s representative’s agents here in the word. Those who belief in God must accept their
teachings about God and government as well. The major set back of the theory is
that it involves propositions that are to be accepted as matters of faith
rather them of reason. Further more, the force theory implies that the state is
the result of the subjugation of the weaker by the stronger. A state comes into
existence when a leader of a group established permanent control over a
definite territory and declares him a ruler over it. But it has been argued that force is not the
only factor that accounts for the formation of the state. Good examples of this
theory are US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan though did not intend to rule
them but directed them against their will. Again is Iraq invasion of Kuwait
etc. the factors that led to this theory may be kingship position, political
and religious consciousness, for the patriarchal theory, the state is
regarded as an extension of the family
where the head of the state is the
father, and the people , his children
this means that the ruled (common people ) are the children of the ruling class (those who
direct the activities of what goes in
and out) in the country. All the same,
the matriarchal theory argues that the primitive group had no common male head.
Kingship was traced through the woman. Queen Elizabeth II of England is a good
example of this theory. Finally is the
evolutionary theory also called historical theory is the generally accepted of
all the theories. It sees the state coming into being as the result of natural
evolution. The beginning of government may not be traced to a particular. Or cause, but the belief is that some factors
such as kingship, religion war and political consciousness brought about
government.