Migdals' Analysis of Weak and Strong States
Migdals’ Analysis of Weak and Strong States
More Essay Examples on Politics Rubric
Various studies has been conducted to determine the factors that affect the political governance of a state. Some states consider the contribution’s of the people in the development of their states: particularly in the field of economy; good governance; and in the promotion social changes - Migdals' Analysis of Weak and Strong States introduction. The participation of the people to the activities of the state will promote and strengthen the once nation, because without the people acknowledging the perspective of the government everything will be in chaos and it this will also avoid anarchy.
The main source of a strong nation are based from its own economic, political, military, society and environment. A good government should know how to approach the weaknesses of its agency into the implementation of its governing rules in order to maintain the structural backbone of the its government. A good governing state should know how to provide vital installation to protect the welfare, health and safety of its constituents. Moreover, as James Rosenau notes:
these new security issues are also “distinguished from conventional issues by the fact that they span national boundaries and thus cannot be addressed, much less resolved, through actions undertaken only at the national or local level”. (14)
This security clause shall be at all times be upheld to promote the standard of living among the people living in a particular area for them to feel their importance into the socio economic development. More specifically the people living in the remote areas, because they play a vital role into the development of once government and nation building separate from the contribution’s of the private sector. The idea of security clause to be applied in the state must be the idea of the state; is must be the institutional expression of the state and the based on the physical foundation of the state.
To know the critical weakness of state, you must know how to identify it in the first place and you must know how did it happened? And the very crucial part is on how to give a theoretical solution on the problems. This indicator is not easily quantified but Thomas Ohlson and Mimmi Söderberg point out four major conditions which characterize a weak state:
“1) lack of societal cohesion and consensus on what organizing principles should determine the contest for state power and how that power should be executed; 2) low capacity and/or low political will of state institutions to provide all citizens with minimum levels of security and well-being; 3) high vulnerability to external economic and political forces; and 4) low degree of popular legitimacy accorded to the holders of state power by portions of the citizenry.” Like in the case of Tajikistan practically all of these are brought to the fore, for instance: major political conflict over what ideology will be used to organize the state; low state capability to provide basic public goods to the citizens; an unhealthy vulnerability to outside interference, and; as a result of the previous weaknesses a deficit of legitimacy. (86).
It is important to know the importance of having a good political leader to rule a nation,and these indicator’s should not be neglected nor marginalized. Having a parliamentary of democratic form of government is not an assurance to have a stable nation, but rather one must know the effective way leading the people in a more convenient manner. A state must avoid bureaucracy in their government in order to avoid the clogging in implementation of a state development.
Interaction between the state and the society is so difficult to put into practice now a days, considering the advent of different ideology that leads into the so called survival. And this dilemma
will lead a state to weaken as a whole, because they will create their own system which is in contradictory into what a state wants to achieve. A state should know how to control the different organization in the society in order to maintain a harmonious relationship between the state and the people. In controlling the organization the state must be mindful to know its limitations and should also respect the right of the people to form unions, organization and community they wanted to be affiliated. This is a where the problems lies in a state where it has no capabilities to live into this kind of scenario. This happens only into a weak state who’s could not establish a centralized system units, and if this thing happens the weaker race will be dominated by the strongmen.
Theory rests upon a model of state-society interaction. A society not as a monolithic entity but as a melange of social organizations such as families, clubs, companies or clans. The state is but one organization among this multitude of communities. These associations structure the interaction of their members as well as between members and non-members. Some of then are threaten with sanctions to make members adhere to their particular sets of rules. In the end, the individual, considering sanctions, has to decide whether to submit to the authority of a social organization. Since each person is generally a member of many social organizations , they are confronted with a large number of rules.
The state, by its very nature, lays claim to the authority to regulate all social relations within its borders, thus pitting it against all social organizations that would resist this undertaking. The dominant authority determines who will make the rules pertaining to certain segments of the population. This may lead to a shift in the available strategies of survival for the affected individuals.
Mohammed Ayoob, pointed out some major problems that could weaken a and pointed out that:
“Where the state is strong, national security can be viewed primarily in terms of protecting the components of the state from outside threat and interference.”And further explained that failing to socio-politically consolidate the state, on the other hand, results in a security climate where threats often come in the form of internal and non-state actors targeting the government rather than from other states.”(4)
Having a stable economic growth will help a state to accomplish its own objective in a short span of time, and to avoid economic revolution or socialism. This is one of the main factor in some third world country that rotten their existing form of government that lead into a bloody solution of their heated demands to their government. Once this thing happen even how strong a state it could be, it will affect everything that it has started. Even if state control of the local economy by a native elite can keep more of the profit generated locally for investment in the home country, however, the people’s fallacy is the assumption that this will enhance the position of the working class, rather than advancing the power of the local boss class. In short, the conflict between capitalist and the working sector is a tug of war over the division of the total booty, that is, over the relative shares controlled by the bosses. The distinction between these concepts is essential for maintaining the security definition at a restrictive level and not including all problems as a threat to national security in which it should be given an immediate respond by the government to avoid the dangerous tendency of having a disorganize system of governance.
Another factor that determines how stable a state is or how weak a state is, is number of crimes that is being committed in a day, week,month, or in a year. Simple it may appear, but this is a upsetting concern that must be suppress and a lenient application of the laws of a state should be given a high regard. It is the duty of a state to look forward into the safety of their constituents who could not protects themselves against lawless violence to their person. A strong state should have a protective laws promulgated to cloth those rights that is already protected by the state and not to be violated even by the state itself.
In the contemporary world, the state is the sole accepted model of political order. However, this dictum represents a normative demand rather then empirical reality. This demand stipulates that the state, as a central political organization within a given territory, should be the agency to set and enforce binding rules among its citizens. State can not exist without the people to serve on, a government that will accomplish its vision, and a territory where it could perform its mission. A state is sovereign nation that is free from any outside interference of any state, be it on its political or economic activities.
In its extreme form, the stateness problem becomes all too visible in the form of the failed
state which is unable to rule its territory and its people in any meaningful way. But this occurs only in a minority of countries. Such highly publicized cases notwithstanding, all of which create enormous amounts of human suffering, there are many more instances where the state only has limited authority over many social institutions. On the whole, these states are unable to govern their rural areas, border regions and hinterlands to any substantial degree.
A weak state, then, is a state that is unable to insert itself into the strategies of survival of its
citizens. Social control is power or, more precisely infrastructural power. Increased capabilities of state include and rest upon increased state social control. State capabilities include the capacities to penetrate society, regulate social relationships, extract resources, and appropriate or use resources in
determined ways. Strong states are those with high capabilities to complete these tasks, while weak states are on the low end of a spectrum of capabilities. Contemporary weak states are characterized by high capabilities in penetration and extraction while being markedly weaker when it comes to regulation and appropriation. This is a duality inherent in many post-colonial states who are present in all sectors of society but generally powerless to effect social changes.
Ayoob, Mohammed. The Third World Security Predicament: State Making, Regional Conflict, and the International System. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 1995: 4. Rosenau, James. Drugs and Security in the Caribbean: Sovereignty Under Siege, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. 1997. 5.
Working Papers, 86, Dept. of East European Studies