STATES AND REGIMES
What is government? Is government necessary? Why do governments exist?
At some point in your life, you may have asked some of these questions. Many times,
the fact that people live under a government or in a country that has rules and societal
norms, can be difficult to grasp. To this end, this chapter considers important aspects
of political power within countries, the important terminology we use in the field of
comparative politics to understand the world around us, and important problems and
issues related to states and regimes.
The Social Contract and Social Order
A society without government or central leadership is one that lives in anarchy.
Anarchy is defined as a lack of societal structure and order where there is no
established hierarchy of power. Many scholars and political scientists have
considered, at great length, the phenomenon and applicability of anarchy, though
anarchy has not been a norm within the communities of humans living over the past
15,000 years. Even prior to the establishment of formal governments and formalized
institutions, human beings were organizing themselves for various reasons. One of
the first things that compelled human beings to organize themselves was the pursuit
of survival. Over the course of human history, humans began to understand that
survival seemed more feasible when they cooperated with one another. While they
didn’t have established, written laws, early humans did begin to have informal rules
and norms for how they handled themselves in society.
Early humans often existed as small groups composed mostly of family
members. For example, think of your own family. Are there certain rules your family
followed while you were growing up? Who was in charge? Who told you what to do
and when to do it? Consider this and consider how the existence or non-existence of
rules in your family contributed to how your family worked and lived. Did rules help
your family? Did you think the leaders, parental guardians, in your family were
legitimate? Did you follow their rules? In time, families banded together into tribes,
which in turn, formed their own rules and norms for how their group should act, usually
with the common goal of surviving. Also, in time, circumstances changed for humans,
particularly in terms of how they were able to survive. Initially, there was a hunter-
gatherer approach, where humans hunted for their food and gathered fruits, berries,
and other available plant life in order to survive.
About twelve thousand years ago, society was able to shift its approach.
Humans found a way to stay in one place for longer through the agricultural revolution.
Humans were now able to till the land for crops and begin early irrigation methods to
enable the watering of their crops. With the ability to stay in one place for longer, rather
than moving around constantly to hunt and gather, human groups began to aggregate
in common locations. The agricultural revolution also led to human population growth.
This population growth, combined with more people living closer together, also led to
the need for formal societal organization. Humans, now living closer to each other,
were forced to develop some sort of order to ensure survival. In looking back on this
period of human history, the main takeaway is that humans chose not to live in anarchy
instead of a living in a chaotic world without rules. Humans calculated that their status
quo would be improved with a strong set of rules. In addition, both individual and
societal goals could be accomplished through mutual cooperation in a rules-based
society. Out of this would come what Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau
called the social contract.
A social contract is defined as either a formal or informal agreement between
the rulers and those ruled in a society. Those who are ruled submit to the laws of the
rulers in exchange for certain benefits. Sometimes, the benefits are as simple as
military protection. In the United States, citizens are expected to obey the laws of the
land, as expressed through the Constitution. This is in exchange for protection of their
“life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” Social contracts can be voluntary or involuntary
and can be observed in almost every type of political system, democratic or otherwise.
Sometimes, a social contract involves those who are ruled to pledge fealty, as well as
their livelihoods and productivity, to the ruling class.
There are two types of social contracts. The first is a voluntary social contract.
This is where the people agree to submit to the ruling class. Keep in mind that even
though this agreement is voluntary, it does not always mean that those who are ruled
are entitled to certain privileges, such as freedom of speech. In this situation, the
people may simply need protection from outside threats. An involuntary social contract
is when the ruling class dominates in a given territory and demands obedience from
the people. In this case, those being ruled are simply pushed into a social contract. In
some instances, disagreement has led to banishment or death.
There are also implicit social contracts as well. For example, most US citizens
are born into their social contract. This is why some Americans often take their social
contract for granted. By being born into citizenship, Americans may never need to
actualize, or act upon, their citizenship. They 80 benefit from a system that protects
their rights and liberties, even when they choose not to obey the law. In contrast, there
are other US citizens that are not born into this social contract, and instead go through
a formal process to become US citizens. This process is referred to as naturalization.
Naturalization is the process by which noncitizens formally become citizens of the
country they reside in. Naturalization is a long process that requires multiple steps,
including but not limited to background checks, oral examinations, paperwork, and
finally pledging allegiance to your host country in a formal ceremony. The process of
naturalization is a good example of a voluntary and formal social contract where a
citizen pledges obedience and allegiance in exchange for the benefits of being a
citizen.
Social contract theory is often credited to certain philosophers such as Thomas
Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes was the earliest of these
thinkers, living between 1588 and 1679, the time in which the modern European state
is often said to have been founded with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 (more on this
below). While Hobbes was known for many scholastic contributions to history, politics,
math, and physics, he contributed greatly to political science, most notably the concept
of a social contract. Hobbes acknowledged that all people act within their own self-
interest, and in acting in their own self-interest, will make calculations to ensure their
survival. Hobbes inherently saw human beings as selfish. For him, the state of nature
was unstable and dangerous. Hobbes wrote that life was, “nasty, brutish and short”.
Locke lived between 1632 to 1704 in the UK and is considered one of the
primary Enlightenment thinkers of his time. Locke contributed to social contract theory
in his masterpiece, Two Treatises of Government. Locke set out the principles of
natural rights, where he believed that all people were born with “certain, unalienable”
rights. These rights should be recognized by states. Governments are expected to
protect these natural rights through their political institutions and structures. In contrast
to Hobbes, Locke thought positively about humankind. But like Hobbes, he believed
in the power of the state, which did a better job of protecting its citizens. Again, Hobbes
favored a more authoritarian government, believing that the state needed to control
the masses, for their own good. Whereas, Locke believed humans were perfectly
capable of living peacefully with each other, with no need for an authoritarian state.
Even though Locke’s work did not gain widespread attention during his lifetime, it
heavily influenced the US founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and
Thomas Jefferson borrowed heavily from Locke, with certain phrases in the US
Constitution taken directly from Locke’s writings. “Men are born free, yet everywhere
are in chains,” remarked Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the opening lines of his 1762
work, Du Contrat social, or The Social Contract. In this publication, Rousseau
continues the discourse on social contract theory and argues that society does not
lend itself to equal and equitable treatment of those within society. Instead, society
imprisons people with various “chains” and suppresses their natural born rights and
liberties. To Rousseau, the only type of authority is only legitimate in society if it comes
from the consent of all people. All people must agree to a government in order to
protect their interests, but in this contract, there must be a “unified will” which takes
into consideration the interests of the people for the common good.
Taking this logic of the social contract back to the historical context, an early
version of social contract can also be observed in ancient Greece, which is also
credited with the first democratic state (although this will be problematized in Chapter
5: Theories of State Emergence). In Ancient Greece, a system was established
wherein elite men could participate in government and representatives could work on
behalf of the people. Democracy comes from the Greek words, demo and kratos,
meaning rule by the people. Broadly defined, democracy is a political system wherein
government is dictated by the power of the people. A direct democracy is where every
single citizen is able to be involved in the legal process and able to have some amount
of power over the laws of society. A representative democracy is one where the people
elect representatives to serve on their behalf to make the laws and rules of society.
Ancient Greece did not have a perfect democracy as many members of the population
were excluded from decisionmaking processes, like slaves (both male and female)
and women were excluded from political processes. Nevertheless, the social contract
here, in hindsight, was that the people of Ancient Greece submitted to the ruling class,
through somewhat representative leadership, for protection from the political system.
Following the fall of the Roman Empire in 489 ACE, Western Europe fell into
chaos. No longer were the citizens of these areas protected by the former social
contract. Northern hordes came down and would attack territories, leaving most of the
regions of the former Roman Empire in disarray. The circumstances were not ideal
and most people during this time lived under constant duress with no protection of
their person or property. Around 900 ACE, the system of feudalism arose. Feudalism
was a system or social order that arose out of the middle ages, particularly in Europe,
wherein peasants (sometimes called Serfs) were forced to provide members of the
upper class with their crops, produce, goods as well as their services, fealty and
loyalty. The upper class, usually Nobles, would provide some level of protection to the
Serfs in exchange for their products and services. Consider feudalism in light of the
social contract. Though not necessarily ideal, the Serfs were able to exchange their
goods, services, and fealty in exchange for some level of protection of their lives and
property.
Overall, the story of government comes from this historical reckoning of the
social contract and the drive for social order. From this, we can talk more directly about
the formation of states, which is a common theme throughout political science field.
Defining Terms
One of the most frequently used words in the study of comparative politics is
the word state. At first glance, many students will see or hear the word state and think
of, perhaps, subnational governments, like states in the United States like Montana,
Wisconsin, New York, and so forth. This is not the way the word is interpreted within
the field of comparative politics. Instead, a state is defined as a national-level group,
organization or body which administers its own legal and governmental policies within
a designated region or territory. Outside of the comparative discipline, many people
tend to use the terms state, country, government, regime, and nation interchangeably.
Within comparative politics, each of these terms is distinct, and have different
implications when attempting to observe the political landscapes around the world.
Since states tend to be the major political actors in the global arena, it is vital to have
a firm grounding in understanding what states are, how the term state relates to other
concepts and terms within comparative politics field, and how comparativists set out
to study states and their actions. Using the correct terms in the right context will
empower you to be able to interpret comparativist literature and research, and perhaps
add your own contributions to the field someday.
If a state is a national-level organization which administers its own legal and
governmental policies within a designated region or territory, what are nations and
countries and how are they different or similar? State tends to have a narrower
meaning than both a nation and a country and relates more specifically to how a
designated territory operates politically. A nation can be broadly defined as a
population of people joined by common culture, history, language, ancestry within a
designated region of territory. A country is similar but tends to encompass aspects of
both the nation and the state. A country is a nation, which may have one or more states
within it, or may change state-type over time. For instance, consider the country,
Russia. Russian history tends to be credited with its onset in the 9th century with the
Rus’ people. The Rus’ state was established in 862 ACE, and encompassed much of
modern day Russia as well as parts of Scandinavia. The Kievan Rus’ state followed
the Rus’ state, but eventually fell apart during the Mongol invasions between 1237 and
1240. While Moscow grew to be a significant hub for business, politics, and society,
the Russian region at this time was largely stateless and operated under the system
of feudalism.
As mentioned above, feudalism was a system or social order that arose out of
the middle ages, particularly in Europe, wherein peasants (sometimes called Serfs)
were forced to provide members of the upper class with their crops, produce, goods
as well as their services, fealty and loyalty. The upper class, usually Nobles, would
provide some level of protection to the Serfs in exchange for their products and
services. Eventually, Rus’ became a unified country Grand Duchy of Moscow, and
became a major force within the region. Over time, the way Russia was ruled varied
greatly, whether ruling came from a noble class, a royal bloodline, installment of a
leader, or election of leadership. Let’s say a country, being a nation with shared values
and heritage, is the hardware needed for a state within the world, then the regime is
the software which tells the country or nation how to operate. The hardware, in this
case, tends to last longer and be bound by similar history and values whereas a
country or nation’s regime type can vary based on shifting values and challenges of
the time period. Therefore, Russia has a common territory, history, language, ancestry,
but has been led by different states over time.
One of the important characteristics of a state is its ability to independently
organize its own policies and goals. As defined in more detail in Chapter 5: Theories
of State Emergence, this is sovereignty—fundamental governmental power, where the
government has the power to coerce those to do things they may not want to do.
Sovereignty also involves the ability to manage the country’s affairs independently
from outside powers and internal resistance. If a state does not have the ability to
manage its own affairs and issues, it will not be able to maintain its power over what
happens. Power, broadly defined, is the ability to get others to do what you want them
to do. Soft power means being able to get others to do what you want them to do using
the methods of persuasion or manipulation. Hard power, in contrast, is the ability to
get others to do what you want using physical and potentially aggressive measures,
for instance, like fighting, attacking or through war. Both types of power hold critical
places in the world of politics. It is critical to be able to convince others of a course of
action from the perspective of a state, sometimes this ability to convince will come
from simple persuasion or discussion of the merits of a certain course of action. Other
times, there may be heavy resistance to an idea or plan, and some have chosen to
use physical violence to get their policy goals achieved. Physical power is important
in cases where a state must still defend itself from outside powers. If a state is unable
to defend itself physically, even the most benevolent policy goals and objectives would
be rendered meaningless because the state could cease to exist if attacked. For
example, negotiating through an international organization like the United Nations is
soft power, while displaying military might is hard power.
States must have both authority and legitimacy in order to operate effectively,
or at the very least, to exist for some period of time. Legitimacy can be defined as the
state’s ability to establish itself as a valid power over its citizens. Authority is another
important piece of a state’s existence. Authority is defined as having the power to get
things done. If we put these two terms together, a state is legitimate in its operations
if it has the authority to make decisions and carry out its policy goals if it is seen as
valid by the citizens. Traditional legitimacy occurs when states have the authority to
lead based on historical precedent. For instance, there are states in the political
system where there is a legitimate authority to lead, but no defined or operationalized
constitution, or set of rules and laws. A second type of legitimacy is called charismatic
legitimacy, and it means that citizens follow the rules of a state based on the charisma
and personality of the current leader. Legitimacy, in this scenario, also does not come
from a written constitution accepted by the representatives or leaders of a country.
This type of legitimacy can be flimsy as it is contingent on the charisma of a particular
leader. When that leader dies or gets removed from office, will the state continue to
stand, or will citizens no longer see legitimacy of authority from the government in the
absence of that charismatic leader? For example, although it is very difficult to get
access to reliable information about North Korea, it is often speculated that due to Kim
Jong Un’s charismatic leadership, in which his personality has become nearly
synonymous with the state of North Korea, many speculate how the state will continue
to exist as it does today in his absence.
The last type of legitimacy is called rational-legal legitimacy, and it occurs when
states derive their authority through firmly established, often written and adopted, laws,
rules, regulations, procedures through a constitution. A constitution can be understood
as a state’s described laws of the land. Authority and legitimacy can be consolidated
and, if accepted by the people, it becomes the operating manual and handbook for
how society should run. Each of these forms of legitimacy, especially when taken
together, can enhance a state’s ability to function. If, for instance, there is a written and
adopted constitution, and it has been transparently drafted and considered by
representatives of a state, individuals will know what the rights and rules are of their
given society. In time, as laws and norms are followed and accepted, there also
becomes a historical precedent that individuals are more likely to accept (traditional
legitimacy). Finally, if there does happen to be a charismatic leader, they may be able
to garner further support from the people to deepen a state’s legitimacy and potentially
grow the political agenda to meet further needs of society.
