The Role of the State in Contemporary Governance

Since the days of Plato, Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, the concept of governance is one that has often led to opposing views regarding the roles and functions of authoritative bodies to their subjects. Governance simply refers to the exertion of control and authority over given subjects (Benz, 2007, p. 3). A state government, on the other hand, is a body of governance. In most regions in the modern world, a state is often chosen or elected by the subjects. Since it reigns supreme over the subjects, the state has duties and responsibilities/roles that it ought to fulfill. A duty is obligatory commitment to accomplishing a given task while a role is moral in nature. Over the years, scholars have pointed out the role of the state in governing its subject has changed due to various factors such as globalization (Duman and Usenmez, 2016, p. 576). With globalization, enhanced communication and technology, and changing demographics, states have had to pick up several other roles as governing bodies (Scholte, 2008, p. 307). It is, therefore, imperative to understand the role of the state in contemporary governance.

Thus, following an examination of the role of the state in contemporary governance, this discussion will proceed to address the security, legislative, economic, and social roles of the state in todays governance. Throughout the discussion, a reference will be made to democratic states around Europe as well as stateless or fragile states such as Somalia and Afghanistan. Moreover, the discussion will also look at the various theoretical perspectives regarding the role of the state.

To better understand the role of the state in the contemporary world, there is a need to look into the theoretical models that describe the role of the state. The classical economic liberalism favors less intervention from a state to allow for more freedom and efficiency; hence, state involvement, especially in economic matters is refuted by scholars supporting this particular theory (Tatulescu, 2013, p. 75). The neoliberalism approach, on the other, is the complete opposition of the classical economic liberalism (Tatulescu, 2013, p. 76). It advocates for state intervention in all matter to ensure parity in the economic and social welfare of a nation. The democratic socialist doctrine notes that public property should be extended, some means of production should be nationalized and government control should be extended in the economy, even through planning (Tatulescu, 2013, p. 76). In other worlds, it assigns a state more control and favors collectivism to individualism. Finally, the Marxist theory gives the state total control over all resources and productions which it is to distribute to the economy according to its laid frameworks (Tatulescu, 2013, p. 77).

One aspect that immediately comes to mind when discussing the role of the state is how it takes responsibility in proving security to its subjects. Provision of security is not only a duty of the state but also a fundamental role associated with it (Vidovic, 2014, p. 272). In fact, to any human being, the need for safety comes only second to the need for basic needs as Abraham Maslow famously suggested. One only has to look at a stateless nation-state such as Somalia to witness how provision of security is an important role carried out by the state. However, Beswick and Jackson (2013, p.7) note that the term security agenda has changed over time from the traditional to the modern setting. On a wider perspective, the traditional security agenda focused more or formal security services such as police, military and intelligence (Bertola, 2011, p. 36). However, the new security agenda goes on to also include non-military security aspects such as political, economic, environmental and social well-being (Egdell and Dutton, 2017). In other words, while the traditional agenda was based on national security at large, the modern agenda goes deeper to include the security of the individual (Elfversson, 2015, p. 795). Nevertheless, this paper seeks to look at the security, in terms of the physical threats from external attacks and how the state comes into play in providing that sort of protection.

Another crucial aspect that emerges when discussing security is matter is to consider how external threats are changing. Beswick and Jackson (2013, p.9) explain that while before the cold war threats mainly came from countries with some level of military superiority as seen during the world wars the new millennium, fragile countries such as Afghanistan are posing more threats. Fragile countries are simply those with higher levels of poverty. As quoted by a 2006 Whitehouse report, poverty does not make poor terrorists into terrorist and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders (Beswick & Jackson, 2013, p.9). Thus, the tide has shifted whereby the state not only has to consider external threats posed by powerful countries but more than ever, it has to take into consideration the threats from player in weak states. Therefore, how does the state assume its role of providing security in the modern world? Traditionally, the approach would entail emphasizing on the development of institutions and security organizations necessary for ensuring that the state maintains control of its territory through an institutional framework and a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (Beswick & Jackson, 2013, p.9). However, in the contemporary world, governance of security matters does not simply entail developing security frameworks that are focused towards the physical destruction of security threats (Elfversson, 2015, p. 796). Moreover, the states role is no longer founded on acting as the sole institution when it comes to provision of security matters.

The state has grown to partner with other external and internal state and non-state actors to provide security for its citizens as well as neutralize the threats posed to the nation. One only has to take a look at the recent attacks in Manchester, U.K to notice the need for partnering with other actors. For instance, local community groups such as religious organizations are important in identifying internal threats since they are the ones of the ground. Additionally, in dealing with external threats, especially from weak states, the role of the state has changed from pure military engagement to dialogue and provision of frameworks for development to eradicate poverty. Hence, the state can no longer act alone both internally and externally. It has to partner with international aid agencies and organizations such as the U.N, as well as other countries to eliminate security threats. With regards to partnering with aid agencies, Beswick and Jackson (2013, p.10) explains that fragile states may require well-coordinated interventions that enhance development and contribute to a secure global society in the long-term.

To further comprehend the states role, this sections looks at its legal responsibility. In most cases, legislative bills are passed by the parliament. In the United Kingdom, for instance, a bill must go under the member of parliaments approval in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords (Pelizzo and Stapenhurst, 2013, p. 17). However, these two bodies are just but law-making institutions. When it comes to the implementation of laws, it is the state that flexes its muscles to ensure that all its subjects abide by the law. In the traditional setting, the state had the sole power of creating laws, passing judgments and administering punishments to offenders (Rasch and Tsebelis, 2013, p. 35). In medieval times in the U.K, for instance, kings and queens had a major influence in everything to do with legislature such that they could influence judges decisions. However, a different route has been taken in the contemporary world (Rasch and Tsebelis, 2013, p. 27). The states role is not to make laws as seen in the above explanations nor it is to administer punishment like it used to in the past (Rasch and Tsebelis, 2013, p. 28). The role of the state is simply to oversee the adherence to the law by all parties within its territorial boundaries.

Having explained that the role of the state is to ensure adherence to enacted laws, it is important to discuss how it managed to fulfill this particular responsibility through governance. Being a huge geographical area with numerous people, the state, as a single body cannot oversee everything by itself (Pelizzo and Stapenhurst, 2013, p. 18). Instead, it requires other responsible actors to play a part in helping it achieve its mission which in this case, it to ensure that the laws of the land are upheld (Pelizzo and Stapenhurst, 2013, p. 18). Thus, the state performs its legislative role by developing its own framework that constitutes various departments of the police taskforce that work with the local authorities. These authorities have a primary objective of not only providing security as mentioned in the previous section but also to arrest those who do not uphold the law (Pelizzo and Stapenhurst, 2013, p. 17). Other bodies that ensure adherence to the law include intelligence bodies, such as the MI6 in the United Kingdom. The point, in this section, is that as the world becomes more contemporary, the state finds itself in a situation where it cannot handle everything on its own (Pelizzo and Stapenhurst, 2013, p. 19). It needs to partner both state and non-state actors such as activist groups to bring justice and ensure that the law is implemented. In the long-run, therefore, the state has a responsibility of developing viable legal framework that helps to fulfill its role in any given nation.

Another line of thought regarding the role of the state relates to the governments responsibility in the economy. When discussing the role of the state in the economy, one needs to look at the various factors that influence the performance of the economy, for instance, the markets, security, political stability and so forth. Security has already been discussed; hence, this section will delve into the role of the state in the market economy. One would ask him/herself why the government has to intervene when a free market has often been touted to be excellent. After all, Pirili and Pirili (2015, p. 253) explain that in a self-regulating market system the production and distribution of goods and services - the economic sphere - are coordinated by the mechanism of the market itself through the competitive price system that emerges from the voluntary transactions between buyers and sellers. However, despite all its advantages, a market free from any form of government intervention may be harmful not only to the economy but also to the social well-being of the subjects living in a particular state (Babaeva, 2016, p. 11). Indeed, those advocating for a self-regulating market make two crucial assumptions as to why the state should not interfere with the market economy. First, the note that since people are moving into a democratic era, the state ought to grant freedom in all aspects of the society, including the market itself (Pirili and Pirili, 2015, p. 254). Another reason is that a self-regulating market enhances prosperity and improves the well-being of the people (Pirili and Pirili, 2015, p. 254). In fact, the role of the state should only be limited to watching or overseeing the activities of the market without any kind of interference (Pirili and Pirili, 2015, p. 254).

Building on from the above sentiments, it is worth noting that the role of the state in the contemporary world is not just to sit and watch as the market economic activities take place. However, a...