You are here: UK Essays » Essays » Philosophy » Link Nation Sovereignty

Free Essays - Philosophy Essays

The Link Between Nation & Sovereignty

Compare and contrast the character of the state in two European countries with particular reference to the link between nation and sovereignty: from Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain.

This paper compares and contrasts the character of the state as achieved by two European countries. In this paper, the two countries used for the purpose of analysis are France and Germany. Various countries follow a variety of policies that define the direction that its politics, economy and socio economic sphere takes. In doing so, it forms a specific character that defines the state and its policies. (Elias, 2000)

To begin with, the character of the state may be defined as the ability of the state to do the following:

• Create the scope for the use of elements that define the basic policy to be followed by the state.
• The ability to define its relations within and outside the state on the basis of these policies.
• A course of action in relevant spheres that will propagate and adhere to the chosen policy framework within which the state defines itself. (Gellner, 2006)

On the basis of these basic premises, the two countries chosen will be defined so as to come to a conclusion as to what the character of the states signify and how they can be compared and contrasted with each other. These premises will help in building towards the relevant theories that link the nation and sovereignty that support the definition of the character and nature of the two states that have been studied in this paper.

France

Political legitimacy was a firm belief that emanated from various political quarters following the French Revolution in this country. Federalism is essentially a concept surrounded by political philosophy in the politics of France. This has special importance as far as sovereignty is concerned within the nation. According to this concept, a nation that follows federalism is one that believes in binding it various people, from diverse corners of the world, together. (Gill, 2003) Federalism is that system which brings people together under the able guidance of a representative who puts forward their issues without an iota of partiality. Under federalism, the nation looks at each of its citizens as equals and as brothers who are bound together geographically as well as in respect of national sentiment. The nation thus follows federalism is one that follows the principles irrespective of age, caste, creed, race, origin or color. The basic nature that has come up in the definition of the state in the case of France is one that adheres to the structuring of an international culture and society for politics that has to do with the building and propagation of new ideals. This has been well administered in France through the use of federalism so as to garner support and ideas from various quarters. (Hirst, 2001)

From the concept of federalism have come various other schools of thought, which have culminated into sub concepts in their own right within the state of France and its character. One of these is the concept of dual federalism according to which the best option before any government or nation is to organize itself into separate yet equal branches of government so as to divide the state and national government in various spheres of functioning and significance. This has been used by France in the creation of a well defined state. According to this, the state government may exercise sovereignty within its own boundaries while the national level authorities will be slated to have exclusive and enumerated powers. (Gellner, 2006)

Another concept that has branched out from federalism is that of cooperative federalism. According to this school of thought, the best course of action is to establish a strong network of consumer cooperative societies through which cooperative wholesale societies will be formed in order to undertake the purchase of farms and factories. According to federal cooperatives, the proceeds and profits thereof would be paid as dividends to the member cooperatives instead of the workers. This has been a major part of the definition of the nature of the state in France. (Skinner, 2003)

Having studied the various aspects of federalism, it would be imperative to state that the public policy making process in France is greatly influenced by the concept of federalism. To start with, one must understand that the public sphere is an important tool in today’s world of growing awareness and even greater media influence. In the case of France, through the proponents of federalism, the role of political players as well as official participants in the public policy making process is clearly etched out with mass public representation. Federalism not only binds people and their efforts together, it also provides a platform where issues can be addressed and solved. This has given an impetus to the process of following the correct direction in public policy making within France. (Gill, 2003)

Finally, it is crucial for federalism to continue to grow as an important factor in the public policy making process so as to make sure that there is sustained growth and development of all sections of the society and nation as a whole. Federalism as a concept is an important mechanism in the healthy functioning of the public sphere where decisions are made and affected for implementation in the public policy making process. (Skinner, 2003)

Germany

In a total contrast to France, Germany took a while to come into the peace mode following 1871. This was spearheaded by an encouragement of statesmanship, which essentially defined the character of Germany in terms of sovereignty. In this regard, the German state’s character has come to rest increasingly on the generation of public policy. This must not be confused by the more federal approach taken by France. In the case of Germany, public policy may be defined as that state of things or action where the public authorities exercise their freedom of choice in order to deal with certain issues. (Gellner, 2006) The tools or mechanisms used to deal with these issues are known as public policy. As far as the state’s character definition is concerned, the role of public policy within Germany has also been defined as a set of decisions that are interrelated to one another. Political parties in turn, take these decisions, as well as other individuals involved in social service, with the broad aim of selection of certain goals that will fit into the situation at hand. Public policy has been implemented to various aspects of one’s public and domestic life, including welfare, health, justice, feminist policies, and interest group conflict, among various others. (Skinner, 2003)

In this context, the participants in the public policy process may be segregated into two categories in Germany. The first are the official participants comprising of government officials, authorities as well as political players. On the other hand are the non governmental or unofficial participants who come in the form of social workers, individuals lobbying for the interests of certain pressure groups, and even the average citizen. (Keane, 1988)

There are various aspects of the policy process in Germany. When embodied in a person’s life as a profession, the policy process becomes a matter of drawing on statistical information and basing decisions on various kinds of analysis before arriving at the factors that will influence the elements to be included in a certain policy. Considering the fact that this will greatly influence a normal citizen’s life in various ways, the policy maker has to be doubly sure of the facts as he is responsible for a lot of people. In this context, an unofficial participant comes in where a reaction is required in order to point out any deviation from the larger aim, from the official participant’s end. (King et al, 2004) Also, when proposing the nuances of the issue to be dealt, the unofficial participant may put forward his views on how it should be dealt with in respect of the particular interest or group he is representing. It depends on how the official participant decides to make use of these views in the policy process. But the fact remains that in Germany, the unofficial participant’s voice has greater reach due to globalization and the rise of the public sphere through the advent of the media, which further lends significance and forces the official participant to pay attention to the needs represented by the unofficial participant. (Poggi, 1990) Further, while the official participant might seek to primarily set up a coordinated framework for dealing with the issues at hand, the unofficial participants simply choose the inroads that it may take in reaching its suggestions and views to the official participants. Another important difference between the character of state as far as France and Germany are concerned, is the fact that in Germany the official participant might follow the lawful method for reaching a goal, while the unofficial participant might adopt more creative methods and make use of the media, coalitions, etc, for reaching the same goal. (Held, 2006)

Conclusion

It may be seen that the turn of events in the political events as well as the international history of France and Germany, demonstrate differences in the implementation and the very definition of the character of state. While both nations have embraced the ideals of federalism in keeping with the changing nature of the character of the state in the modernized arena of international relations and politics, it may be seen that the character of state differs for both nations in terms of the implementation of this ideal. While France’s outlook depends more on the conscious evolution of new ideals within the political structure, the role of public policy as modified by non-official participants has a larger role to play in the definition of the character of the state. This has a lot to do with the fact that France reached a decision of simplification of the political process, while Germany’s response to the challenge of creating national sovereignty and globalization was delayed in context of its basic policy of dictatorship. (Elias, 2000)

References

• Elias, N. The Civilising Process [vol.2]: State formation and Civilisation, Blackwell 2000
• Gellner, E. Nations and Nationalism, Blackwell 2006
• Gill, G. The Nature and Development of the Modern State, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003
• Held, D. Models of Democracy, Polity 2006
• Hirst, P. War and Power in the 21st Century: the State, Military Conflict and the International System, Polity 2001
• Keane, J. Democracy and Civil Society, Verso 1988
• King, R. and Gavin Hendall, The State, Democracy and Globalisation, Palgrave Macmillan 2004
• Poggi, G. The State, its Nature, Development and Prospects, Blackwell, 1990
• Skinner, Q. and Bo Strath. States and Citizens: History, Theory, Prospects, Cambridge University Press 2003

All of the essays in this section were written by students and then submitted to us to publish and help others. Thanks to all of the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism! If you need custom essays on your exact essay questions, then have a look at our essay writing service.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: