Skip to main content

State government: not necessary for democracy

Got your attention?


This statement may seem counter-intuitive, but it may very well be true. Democracy can mean a whole lot of things, but it does not necessarily require or imply state government. A state can be thought of as a political entity, typically with perceived sovereignty over some geographic territory, a single unified government, and a monopoly on the legal deployment of an army or other enforcement agency. If we understand democracy as structures and processes for people to make decisions about their communities, then are any of the above items necessary?

You might think the answer is yes - that at the least we need some kind of unified government. But what if we define government more holistically as systems and structures that govern some kind of organized community? Is this possible without the additional features of a state: geographic sovereignty, a single unitary government, and a monopoly on organized force?

I would suggest that yes, it might be possible. Consider federal systems, which separate powers and jurisdiction between multiple orders of government. Or the countless civic agencies that administer different functions of government under completely different structures - from government departments, to crown agencies, to public/private partnerships. Not to mention civic associations, nonprofit groups, cooperatives, NGOs, and charitable organizations. These organizations typically have mandates that are related to services, programs or activities in the communities where they operate. They are governed by volunteer boards of directors, and are autonomous entities. Taken together, these multiple entities collectively govern our communities, through a network of systems and structures (rather than reporting to a central authority).

Historically, city-states, operating independently but with a common culture and shared identity, existed in regions throughout the globe. Italy, Greece, Southeast Asia, all experienced autonomous city-states that cooperated on a regional basis. Many of these continued after the advent of the nation-state. Here in British Columbia, Canada, the Coast Salish peoples co-existed in distinct nations for thousands of years without ceding decision-making power to any central authority.

In all of these cases, religious zeal and/or colonial imperialism saw formerly independent political jurisdictions annexed, conquered, or destroyed. In fact, the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, largely credited for the creation of the nation-state, was an effort to quell religious disputes through an agreement to empower distinct geo-political 'nations' with sovereignty over matters of religion.

This historical context raises a central feature of the modern nation-state; a feature that might make the case for a central governmental authority. It might be argued that all these varied groups and autonomous entities require a centralized authority, with ultimate jurisdiction over a clearly defined geographic territory. An authority which provides a commonly agreed upon legal framework to maintain peace, order, and cooperation, and a monopoly on the legal use of force.

However, many nations set up a judicial system that is independent from the central political authority. Furthermore, our common understanding of principles such as human rights, political equality, and the rule of law is vastly improved from 1648. Are we at the point when it might be possible to have a network of organizations, agencies, and autonomous political entities adhere to commonly held laws, and the authority of an independent judiciary, without a central political authority? Is a central state government, with geographic sovereignty, necessary for community cooperation and democracy in the modern era?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who gets to decide when it comes to Community Amenity Contributions?

This week we're approaching candidates in the upcoming Vancouver municipal election to get their feedback on the city's approach to Community Amenity Contributions (CACs). The Evoke team undertook a case study and research project in this area, and believes these could be better approached. Candidate responses will be posted on this site, meanwhile, here's some background on our perspective. 
The City of Vancouver has a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) policy, officially established in 2004 with their Financing Growth strategy, where all new development and rezoning applications contribute, financially or in-kind, to community amenities. The CACs are extracted from new development and spent upon Council approval in a number of valuable areas such as: affordable housing, child care, amenities, green spaces, community infrastructure and other public goods.
Our research focuses on a key dimension related to CACs; although they are derived from value created within a neighb…

Collaborative Governance in Action

Government: one participant amongst many

In a previous post we highlighted the need to go beyond voting for robust democratic participation. But if that's the case then the question becomes - how? Where do we create places for collaboration, discussion, and dialogue surrounding key issues facing our communities?

One possibility is to set up opportunities for collaborative governance. Now remember, governance is distinct from government; governance refers to decision-making practices and structures, and alsothe broader systems in which decisions about our communities are made. A government is a specific entity endowed with decision-making authority over something.

Collaborative governance simply refers to decision-making where multiple different organizations are involved. In these forums, governments are one of the participants amongst many, as opposed to being the sole arbiter over final decisions. Decision-making takes place between both state and non-state entities, and authori…

Does an efficient public service destroy community accountability?

New Public Management is an approach to running public service organizations (government services), and civil service generally, focused on service delivery that is efficient, business-like, and that incorporates market based principles. It includes management techniques and practices drawn from the private sector, allowing public servants to contract out services through competitive contracting, and focused on the professionalized delivery of public services.

The problem is...this approach may result in a loss to democratic accountability.

In a previous post we outlined two key dimensions to accountability; 1) understanding and monitoring decisions that are made, and 2) access to trustworthy information. Public administration, and the notion of public service, was traditionally focused on accountability to constituents via centralized control, and reporting to, defined government ministries and departments. This model is far from perfect; centralized bureaucracies are problematic in …