Chapter Three

The State-Elements, Nature and Functions

3.1. Elements of the state

The classic definition of the state in international law is found in the Montevideo Convention on
the Rights and Duties of the State (1933). According to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention,
the state has four features: a defined territory, permanent population, an effective government
and sovereignty. Let us now discuss details of the above-mentioned attributes as follows:

3.1.1. Population:

Since state is a human association, the first essential element that constitutes it is the people. The
state should have a permanent population is naturally required. How much people constitute
state? No exact number can be given to such a question. The fact is that the states of the world
vary in terms of demographic strength. There are states with a population of greater than 1
billion like that of China and India, and with a constituency of few thousand people like Vatican
and San Marino.

Another question that comes up at this stage is whether the population of a state should be
homogenous. Homogeneity is determined by any factor like commonness of religion, or blood,
or language or culture and the like. It is good that population of a state is homogeneous, because
it makes the task of national integration easy. But it is not must, because most characteristics of
the states have a population marked by diversity in respect of race, religion, language, culture,
etc. All problems of nation building are solved and people of a state, irrespective of their
differences, become a nation. It signifies the situation of ‘unity in diversity’. In short, it is to be
noted that without population there can be no state, ‘it goes without saying that an uninhabited
portion of the earth, take in itself, cannot form a state.

As above mention generally population have their own features such as homogeneity,
heterogeneity, Socio-economic diversity:

 Homogeneity: is one feature distinguishing nations and it denotes peoples’ similarity or

sameness in cultural-psychological identity i.e. they speak the same language, follow similar way

1
 of life, share one and adjacent territory and similar psychological make-up Germany, Iceland in
Europe, Somalia and Swaziland in Africa, Korea and Japan in Asia are few examples of
relatively homogeneous states in the world today.
 Heterogeneity: refers to variation in cultural identity among the populations of states in
language, culture and traditions. Examples of heterogeneous states include, among others,
Ethiopia (with about 85 ethnic groups), Nigeria (with some 250 ethnic groups) and India
(with about 800 languages).
 Socio-economic diversity: is another feature of populations in a given state with developed
nations having a majority of urban, industrial and literate populations while fast developing
states are transforming from majority peasant and rural, uneducated and labour based
population to that of urban and literate one.

3.1.2. Territory

There can be no state without a territory of its own. The territory of a state includes land, water,
and airspace; it has maritime jurisdiction extending up to a distance of three miles, though some
states contend for a distance of up to 20 miles. The territorial authority of a state also extends to
ships on high seas under its flag as well as its embassies and legations/diplomat’s residence in
foreign lands.

As seen in the case of the factor of population, so here it should be emphasized that the size of a
state’s territory cannot be fixed. There are as large states as China and Russia and as small states
of Fiji and Mauritius in respect of their territorial make-up. It also possible that states may be in
the form of islands as Indonesia, Philippines, and Japan. It is, however, certain that the boundary
lines of a state must be well marked out. This can be done either by the geographical make up in
the form of division by the seas, rivers, mountains, thick forests, deserts, etc., or it may be done
by creating artificial divisions in the form of digging trenches or fixing pointed wire fencing.

3.1.3. Government

Government is said to be the soul of the state. It implements the will of the community. It
protects the people against conditions of insecurity. If state is regarded as the first condition of a
civilized life, it is due to the existence of a government that maintain law and order and makes
‘good life’ possible. The government is the machinery that terminates the condition of anarchy. It

2
is universally recognized that as long as there are diverse interests in society, some mechanism is
needed to bring about and maintain a workable arrangement to keep the people together. The
government of a state should be so organized that it enforces law so as to maintain the conditions
of peace and security. The form of government may be monarchical, aristocratic, oligarchic,
democratic, or dictatorial and the like, what really needed is that if there is no government, there
is anarchy and the state is at an end.

3.1.4. Sovereignty

As already pointed out, sovereignty is the fourth essential attribute of the concept state. It is the
highest power of the state that distinguishes it from all other associations of human beings.
Sovereignty, in its simplest sense, is the principle of absolute and unlimited power. It has two
aspects - Internal and External. Internal Sovereignty implies that inside the state there can be
no other authority that may claim equality with it. The state is the final source of all laws
internally. On the other hand, External sovereignty implies that the state should be free from
foreign control of any kind (i.e. independence and freedom from external powers). It is, however,
a different matter that a state willingly accepts some international obligations in the form of
membership to some international intergovernmental and other organizations such as the United
Nations. Conceptually, the existence of sovereign authority appears in the form of law. It is for
this reason that the law of the state is binding on all and its violation is resulted with suitable
punishment. It is universally accepted that a sovereign state is legally competent to issue any
command that is binding on all citizens and their associations.

In addition to the essential attributes of the state agreed in the 1933, the contemporary political
theorists and the UN considered recognition as the fifth essential attribute of the state. This is
because, for a political unit to be accepted as a state with an ‘international personality’ of its
own, it must be recognized as such by a significant portion of the international community. It is
to mean that, for a state to be legal actor in the international stage; other actors (such as other
states, international intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations… etc.) must
recognize it as a state. Thus, recognition implies both approaching of the necessary facts and the
desire of coming in to effect of the legal and political results of recognition. Likewise, for a
government of a state to be formally to act on its behalf, the government must be recognized as
legitimate government of the state by other governments.

3
Therefore, the most appropriate definition of the state is that state is a community of persons
more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory, independent or
nearly so of external control, and possessing an organized government to which the great body of
inhabitants render habitual obedience.

3.2. Distinction between State and Society

In Society, there may have different units or structures, varying interests, and specific or general
norms and values. Examples of the basic units of society include the family, the neighbourhood
or village, clan or ethnic group, interest groups, clubs and associations, and the state with
its government. Among the organizations in society, the state is the most fundamental and
influential one. In fact, both society and the state are not necessarily one and same. The state and
society differ, among other things, in terms of their scope and objectives. Society embodies the
highest level of social existence with all associational forms, structures and modes of human life,
and thus, it is quite complex in terms of structures and organizational patterns. Compared to
society, regardless of its level of development, the state as a major political organization is
the ultimate manifestation of the political life of the society to which it belongs.

In general, besides the similarities shared between the society and the state, their
differences can be distinguished on the following grounds.

1. In terms of time, society is prior to the state. It means that society came in to being much
earlier than the state.

2. State is just a part of the society. As stated before, society implies the general relations
and associations of human beings. Since human beings are social creatures by their nature
and necessity, such relations are as old as humanity. Moreover these social relations have
diverse forms in the religious, cultural and economic directions, of these diverse forms, state is
one part (political part) that has its purpose limited to the maintenance of peace, order and
security to the people.

3. The two may also be distinguished in respect of their functions. The society performs a
multiplicity of functions in order to meet multi fold requirements of human beings. The family,
the community, religion, trade unions, clubs, etc, meet different kind of requirements of

4
people as intellectual, recreational, moral, cultural, and economic. But the function of the state is
to make and enforce a legal order so that people may lead a life of peace, security and honour.

4. But the most important point of distinction is that state possesses the attribute of
sovereignty whereby it may coerce and compel others by the use of force. The society has no
such force and whatever force it has, it appears in the form of moral persuasion. The customs and
traditions of the society are followed by the people because of the force of public conscience but
the laws of the state are obeyed, because their violation is visited with suitable punishment.

5. Society is concerned with both internal and external human behaviour; State is concerned with
external aspects of human behaviour:

State is concerned with external human behaviour. Its laws lay down rules which regulate the
external behaviour of the people and their groups, institutions, and organisations. State uses its
coercive power on each such person/group/institution which commits any breach of law.

In contrast, the society is concerned with all aspects of human behaviour and relations in society.
Social customs and traditions, and rules of morality cover all types of social relations at all levels
individual, family, community, regional and national.

6. Society is a very broad and comprehensive organisation of human beings. It is formed by all
types of relations (social, economic, cultural, political, moral, religious, and others) that emerge
and develop among the people who are members of the societies against this, State is only a
political institution or organisation. It is concerned primarily with the exercise of power in
society. State constitutes the sovereign power-system of the Society.

3.3. Type of state

Forms of State Structure: Unitary vs. Federal

A. Defining Unitary

Unitary is a form of state structure characterized by power centralization and indivisibility of

sovereignty i.e. the national government is legally supreme over sub-national territorial
bodies or units. Britain, the Netherlands, Romania, Poland etc… are examples of unitary state.

5
 Key features of unitary

By way of a summary presentation, the followings can be listed as some essential features
characterizing unitary State structure:

 Supremacy of the Central Legislature (Parliament): There is only one (unicameral)

legislature which is always absolutely supreme and hence it alone enacts and monitors the
law.
 Absence of subsidiary sovereign bodies: i.e. Sovereignty is vested in the national /central
government and hence sub national bodies are not sovereign.
 Unchecked/unilateral (re) centralization of Power at the canter: i.e. power that may have been
decentralized to sub-national bodies can be re-centralized at the will of the central government
unilaterally.

B. Defining federalism

Federalism is a form of state structure in which power is formally (constitutionally) divided or

shared between the federal /national/ and sub-National (regional/ provincial) governments , each of
which is supreme in its own sphere. Ethiopia, Nigeria, India, Brazil, USA, Canada, Australia,
Germany are examples of federal states etc.

Key features of Federalism

By way of a summary presentation, the followings can be listed as some essential features
characterizing federal state structure:

The existence of dual polities: i.e. two relatively autonomous levels of governments- the central
and the regional- exist each possessing a constitutionally entrenched ranges of powers and
functions.
Written constitution: A federal state has most of the time but not necessarily always a written
(codified) constitution that stipulates formal (constitutional) division of authority between the
central government and sub national governments.

6
Supremacy of federal Government and Constitution: this implies that in federalism the
federal government and constitution is usually superior and supreme over the sub national
governments and constitutions.
Absence of unilateral re-centralization of powers and authority by the central/federal
government at its will.
Absence of unilateral amendment of the federal constitution or some of its provisions by
either government level.
Constitutional Arbiter: The formal provisions of the constitution are interpreted by a supreme
court (the judiciary) at the federal level, which there by arbitrates in case of conflict (disputes)
between federal and regional government. The respective fields of jurisdiction of each level, the
judiciary in a federal level (system) is constitutionally empowered to determine. However, in
Ethiopia, the House of Federation (HF) is in charge of this power.
Linking institutions: In order to foster or develop cooperation, partnership and
understandings between the federal and regional (sub national) governments, federalism
normally offers the regional (sub national) governments representation through a bi-cameral
legislature.

Federalism and the issue of State power distribution

Federalism distributes state power in three broad categories of practices. These are;

I. Exclusive powers: these refer to powers exercised either only by federal or the regional
government authorities. In the context of Ethiopia, powers that are only exercised by the federal
government include among others; Foreign Affairs, Defense, Printing and circulating of money.

II. Concurrent powers: these refer to the powers exercised commonly by the federal and
regional governments. In Ethiopia, areas of concurrent powers include among others; Social
sectors such as education, health and labor and affairs, Transport and communication sectors,
Internal security, Agriculture, industry, trade and tourism, Local finance raising and spending
etc, Besides, compared to states in other federations, the states remain very powerful because
they still fashion important legal regimes, for instance police power, criminal law, tort, family
law, contract law, corporate law, trust and estate law, property law, education and health law that
normally are either centralized or fall within the concurrent scheme in other federations.

7
 III. Residual powers: These refer to the powers on which the constitution does not
expressly/explicitly mention as to which government level exercise them- the central or the
regional. I.e. in some federal states they are given to the central government while in others to
the regional ones. In Ethiopia, such powers are given to regional governments. The United
States, Switzerland, Germany, and Ethiopia have preferred to leave residual powers with the
states180 while in India such powers belong to the centre.

Processes of Federalism in brief

Most literatures in the academics of political science usually identify two processes through
which federal arrangements emerge and evolve. These are;

A. Federalism by disaggregation or Holding together federations

This is a process by which the federal arrangement is developed from a previously unitary state
mainly as government’s response to alleviate threats of secession by territorially clustered
minorities. Examples include Ethiopia, India, Belgium, Canada and Spain.

B. Federalism by aggregation or Coming together Federations

This is a process by which the federal arrangement is developed from previously

independently existing states by way of pooling their sovereign powers to a certain
domain for the sake of goods otherwise unattainable. Examples include the USA,
Switzerland, and Australia.

C. Confederal

Has “Many Different Chairs” confederal in since it is an association of independent states. The
central government gets its authority from the independent states. Power rests in each individual
state, whose representatives meet to address the needs of the group. America tried a confederal
system before writing an entirely new constitution.

Characteristics of a confederal form of state structure

 keeps the power of government at the local level

 States cooperate without losing their independence

8
 Central government may be too weak to be effective
 Laws may differ from state to state; no uniformity

4.1. The Role of the State

Brainstorming Questions:
What should states do? What functions or responsibilities should
the state fulfill, and which ones should be left in the hands of
private individuals?

Contrasting interpretations of state power have clear implications for the

desirable role or responsibilities of the state. With the exception of
anarchists, who dismiss the state as fundamentally evil and unnecessary, all
political thinkers have regarded the state as, in some sense, worthwhile.
Even revolutionary socialists, inspired by the Leninist slogan ‘smash the
state’, have accepted the need for a temporary proletarian state to preside
over the transition from capitalism to communism, in the form of the
‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Nevertheless, there is profound
disagreement about the exact role the state should play, and therefore
about the proper balance between the state and civil society. Among the
different state forms that have developed are the following:

 Minimal states
 Developmental states
 Social-democratic states
 Collectivized states
 Totalitarian states
 Religious states

9
4.1.1. Minimal States
The minimal state is the ideal of classical liberals, whose aim is to ensure
that individuals enjoy the widest possible realm of freedom. This view is
rooted in social-contract theory, but it nevertheless advances an essentially
‘negative’ view of the state. From this perspective, the value of the state is
that it has the capacity to constrain human behavior and thus to prevent
individuals encroaching on the rights and liberties of others. The state is
merely a protective body, its core function being to provide a framework of
peace and social order within which citizens can conduct their lives as they
think best. In Locke’s famous simile, the state acts as a night watchman,
whose services are called upon only when orderly existence is threatened?
This nevertheless leaves the ‘minimal’ or ‘night watchman’ state with three
core functions. First and foremost, the state exists to maintain domestic
order. Second, it ensures that contracts or voluntary agreements made
between private citizens are enforced, and third it provides protection
against external attack. The institutional apparatus of a minimal state is
thus limited to a police force, a court system and a military of some kind.
Economic, social, cultural, moral and other responsibilities belong to the
individual, and are therefore firmly part of civil society.

The cause of the minimal state has been taken up in modern political debate
by the New Right. Drawing on early liberal ideas, and particularly on free-
market or classical economic theories, the New Right has proclaimed the
need to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state’. In the writings of Robert Nozick
(1974), this amounts to a restatement of Lockean liberalism based on a
defense of individual rights, especially property rights. In the case of free-
market economists such as Friedrich von Haye and Milton Friedman, state
intervention is seen as a ‘dead hand’ that reduces competition, efficiency
and productivity. From the New Right perspective, the state’s economic role
should be confined to two functions: the maintenance of a stable means of

10
exchange or ‘sound money’ (low or zero inflation), and the pro motion of
competition through controls on monopoly power, price fixing and so on.

4.1.2. Developmental States

The best historical examples of minimal states were those in countries such
as the UK and the USA during the period of early industrialization in the
nineteenth century. As a general rule, however, the later a country
industrializes, the more extensive will be its state’s economic role. In Japan
and Germany, for instance, the state assumed a more active ‘developmental’
role from the outset. A developmental state is one that intervenes in
economic life with the specific purpose of promoting industrial growth and
economic development. This does not amount to an attempt to replace the
market with a ‘socialist’ system of planning and control but, rather, to an
attempt to construct a partnership between the state and major economic
interests, often underpinned by conservative and nationalist priorities.

The classic example of a developmental state is Japan. During the Meiji

Period (1868–1912), the Japanese state forged a close relationship with the
Zaibutsu, the great family-run business empires that dominated the
Japanese economy up until World War II. Since 1945, the developmental
role of the Japanese state has been assumed by the Japanese Ministry of
International Trade and Industry (MITI), which, together with the Bank of
Japan, helps to shape private investment decisions and steer the Japanese
economy towards international competitiveness. A similar model of
developmental intervention has existed in France, where governments of
both left and right have tended to recognize the need for economic
planning, and the state bureaucracy has seen itself as the custodian of the
national interest. In countries such as Austria and, to some extent,
Germany, economic development has been achieved through the
construction of a ‘partnership state’, in which an emphasis is placed on the

11
maintenance of a close relationship between the state and major economic
interests, notably big business and organized labor.

More recently, economic globalization has fostered the emergence of

‘competition states’, examples of which are found amongst the tiger
economies of East Asia. Competition states are distinguished by their
recognition of the need to strengthen education and training as the
principal guaranteeing economic success in a context of intensifying
transnational competition.

4.1.3. Social Democratic (Welfare) States

Whereas developmental states practice interventionism in order to
stimulate economic progress, social-democratic states intervene with a view
to bringing about broader social restructuring, usually in accordance with
principles such as fairness, equality and social justice. In countries such as
Austria and Sweden, state intervention has been guided by both
developmental and social democratic priorities. Nevertheless,
developmentalism and social democracy do not always go hand-in-hand. As
Marquand (1988) pointed out, although the UK state was significantly
extended in the period immediately after World War II along social-
democratic lines, it failed to evolve into a developmental state. The key to
understanding the social-democratic state is that there is a shift from a
‘negative’ view of the state, which sees it as little more than a necessary
evil, to a positive view of the state, in which it is seen as a means of
enlarging liberty and promoting justice. The social-democratic state is thus
the ideal of both modern liberals and democratic socialists.

Rather than merely laying down the conditions of orderly existence, the
social-democratic state is an active participant; in particular, helping to
rectify the imbalances and injustices of a market economy. It therefore
tends to focus less upon the generation of wealth and more upon what is
seen as the equitable or just distribution of wealth. In practice, this boils

12
down to an attempt to eradicate poverty and reduce social inequality. The
twin features of a social democratic state are therefore Keynesianism and
social welfare. The aim of Keynesian economic policies is to ‘manage’ or
‘regulate’ capitalism with a view to promoting growth and maintaining full
employment. Although this may entail an element of planning, the classic
Keynesian strategy involves ‘demand management’ through adjustments in
fiscal policy; that is, in the levels of public spending and taxation. The
adoption of welfare policies has led to the emergence of so called ‘welfare
states’, whose responsibilities have extended to the promotion of social
well-being amongst their citizens. In this sense, the social-democratic state
is an ‘enabling state’, dedicated to the principle of individual empowerment.

4.1.4. Collectivized States

While developmental and social-democratic states intervene in economic life
with a view to guiding or supporting a largely private economy, collectivized
states bring the entirety of economic life under state control. The best
examples of such states were in orthodox communist countries such as the
USSR and throughout Eastern Europe. These sought to abolish private
enterprise altogether, and set up centrally planned economies administered
by a network of economic ministries and planning committees. So-called
‘command economies’ were therefore established that were organized
through a system of ‘directive’ planning that was ultimately controlled by
the highest organs of the communist party. The justification for state
collectivization stems from a fundamental socialist preference for common
ownership over private property. However, the use of the state to attain this
goal suggests a more positive attitude to state power than that outlined in
the classical writings of Marx and Engels (1820–95).

Marx and Engels by no means ruled out nationalization; Engels, in

particular, recognized that, during the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, state
control would be extended to include factories, the banks, transportation

13
and so on. Nevertheless, they envisaged that the proletarian state would be
strictly temporary, and that it would ‘wither away’ as class antagonisms
abated. In contrast, the collectivized state in the USSR became permanent,
and increasingly powerful and bureaucratic. Under Stalin, socialism was
effectively equated with statism, the advance of socialism being reflected in
the widening responsibilities and powers of the state apparatus. Indeed,
after Khrushchev announced in 1962 that the dictatorship of the proletariat
had ended, the state was formally identified with the interests of ‘the whole
Soviet peoples.

4.1.5. Totalitarian States

The most extreme and extensive form of interventionism is found in
totalitarian states. The essence of totalitarianism is the construction of an
all-embracing state, the influence of which penetrates every aspect of
human existence. The state brings not only the economy, but also education,
culture, religion, family life and so on under direct state control. The best
examples of totalitarian states are Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR,
although modern regimes such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq arguably have
similar characteristics. The central pillars of such regimes are a
comprehensive process of surveillance and terroristic policing, and a
pervasive system of ideological manipulation and control. In this sense,
totalitarian states effectively extinguish civil society and abolish the private
sphere of life altogether. This is a goal that only fascists, who wish to
dissolve individual identity within the social whole, are prepared openly to
endorse. It is sometimes argued that Mussolini’s notion of a totalitarian
state was derived from Hegel’s belief in the state as an ‘ethical community’
reflecting the altruism and mutual sympathy of its members. From this
perspective, the advance of human civilization can clearly be linked to the
aggrandizement of the state and the widening of its responsibilities.

14
4.1.6. Religious States
On the face of it, a religious state is a contradiction in terms. The modern
state emerged largely through the triumph of civil authority over religious
authority, religion increasingly being confined to the private sphere,
through a separation between church and state. The advance of state
sovereignty thus usually went hand in hand with the forward march of
secularization. In the USA, the secular nature of the state was enshrined in
the First Amendment of the constitution, which guarantees that freedom of
worship shall not be abridged, while in France the separation of church and
state has been maintained through a strict emphasis on the principle of
laïcité. In countries such as Norway, Denmark and the UK, ‘established’ or
state religions have developed, although the privileges these religions enjoy
stop well short of theocratic rule, and their political influence has generally
been restricted by a high level of social secularization.

Nevertheless, the period since the 1980s has witnessed the rise of the
religious state, driven by the tendency within religious fundamentalism to
reject the public/private divide and to view religion as the basis of politics.
Far from regarding political realm as inherently corrupt, fundamentalist
movements have typically looked to seize control of the state and to use it
as an instrument of moral and spiritual regeneration. This was evident, for
instance, in the process of ‘Islamization’ introduced in Pakistan under
General Zia-ul-Haq after 1978, the establishment of an ‘Islamic state’ in
Iran as a result of the 1979 revolution, and, despite its formal commitment
to secularism, the close links between the Sri Lankan state and Sinhala
Buddhism, particularly during the years of violent struggle against Tamil
separatism. Although, strictly speaking, religious states are founded on the
basis of religious principles, and, in the Iranian model, contain explicitly
theocratic features, in other cases religiously-orientated governments
operate in a context of constitutional secularism.

15
16