Is it Time to Redefine "The State"?

Given we are ‘back’ in a place where the ruling elite are wielding 'State’ apparatus against the people, maybe it's about time we started asking: what do we want “The State” to be?

I offer no absolute answers in this essay. I am merely using this essay to pose the question and encourage discourse around the issue.

It seems, at least to me, that what “The State” is hasn’t really been determined since its modern-day inception a few hundred years ago. Even then, it seems it was designed, at least in large part, as a tool for the ruling elite to control the masses. As far as I can see, it has not been properly reconsidered since that time nor in light of modern democratic societies. Given we are ‘back’ in a place where the ruling elite are wielding 'State’ apparatus against the people, maybe it’s about time we started asking: what do we want “The State” to be responsible for?

---

There have been a number of definitions of ‘State’. In its broadest terms, a state is the central authority charged with organising and protecting a sovereign population. Such a definition does not speak to its nature or its purpose.

A much-cited political definition of ‘The State’ is from the 19th Century philosopher, Max Weber:

"Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”

While it seems like a rather pessimistic view (understandable, perhaps, when one considers the state of Europe at the end of the 19th century), he has a point. Ultimately, the only authority capable of enacting violence is that of ‘The State’. Whether it is to police its own citizens and uphold its own laws, or whether it is in foreign policy, the permission to act violently is ‘The State’s’ alone (excluding certain rights of citizens to act in self-defence or the defence of property).

Nonetheless, it remains too narrow a definition to have any meaning going forward. Here, we are not seeking an absolute definition of state (the purpose is not to be correct in a philosophical or political science sense), but a useful definition of what we wish (demand) our state to be, provide, and uphold.

As decisively argued by Graeber & Wengrow in their exceptional new book “The Dawn of Everything”, what constitutes a ‘State’ and how that ‘State’ materialises is highly variable. There are dozens of examples littered throughout history over the last 10,000 years or more of organised States that arrange their collective efforts in different ways.

The origin of all of these ‘States’ is invariably the ‘organising collective efforts’ part. That is, there is no question of ‘State’ - it cannot exist - without the existence of a cooperative collective of some sort.

To be absolutely clear, ‘The State’ has not yielded a ‘cooperative collective’, it was born from it.

It is from this point I wish to take the discussion forward. When considering what we wish ‘The State’ to do now, we must take into account that ‘The State’ only exists due to the collective power of the people. At its core, ‘The State’ is an attempt to organise the collective wealth of the people in order to provide…..

It is this last bit that we must as a civilisation define for ourselves (as far as I can tell, it is not something we have ever consciously defined).

Again, for me, to answer this I return to the origin of human success. Many millennia ago, our ancestors decided to work together. When they did our survival chances improved dramatically. Indeed, so dramatic was this improved chance of surviving that we came to dominate the world (whether this is a good or bad thing remains to be seen). As such, any organised ‘State’ must honour this, the very reason we have any civilisation at all.

The basic agreement went further: by working together we are each granted an improved chance of survival and success. The question we ask now is whether or not our ‘State’ is currently operating in a manner that is increasing our chance of survival and success.

For most democracies, it remains true that our chance of survival is likely greater inside it than it would be outside it. This is not to say that such ‘States’ are operating successfully. Indeed, given the levels of poverty, avoidable deaths, misery, and ecological chaos, it would be fair to judge many ‘States’ as being abject failures. Certainly, we can say that such ‘States’ are not what our ancestors signed up to.

Ultimately the definition of a successful state would mirror that of a successful civilisation. Indeed, over time, as civilisation becomes more and more successful (success in terms of its original meaning) then the need for the state should naturally diminish. If we are an intelligent species (we are) and we create an intelligent civilisation (we are not quite there yet), then it will be a default of the civilisation itself (absent of ‘The State’) to uphold the basic tenets of civilisation and the original agreement at its origin. The role of ‘The State’ would lessen.

We are yet to achieve an intelligent civilisation, and until we do, ‘The State’ must remain prominent and laser-focused on fulfilling the very core of the agreement it is based.

First, the state must work tirelessly to eradicate poverty. Being part of society must bring with it a guarantee that you will never go without the basics for life - food, clean water, shelter, and basic healthcare. It is entirely unreasonable to think we can have a stable society with low crime rates, high attainment, and sustainable systems if the entire population remains uncertain of whether or not they will end up homeless and hungry.

It may sound socialist. I don’t think it is. I think it is common sense. Once ‘The State’ is using our collective wealth to provide the security of a reasonable chance of survival, then and only then, is it reasonable to discuss either changing the role of ‘The State’ or shrinking it down.

Certainly, while poverty remains so prevalent and the most basic role of ‘The State’ is not being fulfilled there is no capacity for ‘The State’ to invest time and resources into boosting the wealth of already wealthy individuals. This, I can say, should not be a role for ‘The State’. The only role ‘The State’ should have in private business is to regulate it to ensure the people are safe from exploitation and harm, and to ensure that such businesses pay their correct dues (to the goal of eradicating poverty, or whatever else the people decide). Quite simply, ‘The State’s’ role here is to remind private businesses that they are permitted to operate within our collective space based on the premise that they too are contributing to the shared, civil agreement.

Again, not socialist. Merely pragmatic.

There remain questions about health, education, criminal justice, and whether we wish our shared resources to be used for transport or environmental innovations. While these issues are vaguely engaged during election periods, it may be of use to frame the question specifically and seek clarity on what those vying for power define as the role of ‘The State’. It may also be helpful, in preparation for the inevitable implosion of the oligarch regime, if we each define for ourselves what we wish ‘The State’ to do with our shared, collective wealth.

Photo by Diego PH on Unsplash

The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity, David Graeber & David Wengrow. https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/314162/the-dawn-of-everything-by-wengrow-david-graeber-and-david/9780141991061

Voinea CF, Neumann M, Troitzsch KG. The State and the Citizen: Overview of a complex relationship from a paradigmatic perspective. Qual Quant. 2023;57(Suppl 1):1-17. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35996548/

From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, By Max Weber https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y_pqZS5q72UC&dq=%22is+a+human+community+that+(successfully)+claims+the+monopoly+of+the+legitimate+use+of+physical+force+within+a+given+territory.%22&pg=PA78&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22is%20a%20human%20community%20that%20(successfully)%20claims%20the%20monopoly%20of%20the%20legitimate%20use%20of%20physical%20force%20within%20a%20given%20territory.%22&f=false