Chauhan Rajinder S, Thakur, Harish K: Globalization and Human Rights, Radha Publications, New

Delhi, 2007, pp. 19-32

State Authority and Individual

Freedomfrom City-States to a Globalized World Order

Mohammed Khalid

The State as a political organisation exercising its authority over

a defined geographical area has undergone a sea change in the

recent Times.1 In this age of supraterritoriality global relations

are fast transcending the territorial distances and boundaries

are unfolding on the planet to make the globe a single social

space. The sovereign power as a central attribute of the State

too has slided down in this era of globalization. As a result, the

State’s sovereign right or power to act and to make ultimate and

final decisions about the terms of existence on a whole

territorially based body politic has come under strains. The ever

increasing revolution of aspirations and expectations of the

individual vis-a-vis the State has given rise to demand of more

civil, economic and political rights of the individual.

The philosophers and political scientists have argued

about the proper nature and purposes of the State ever since

the appearance of the City-States in the ancient Greece. Plato

and Aristotle wrote of the polis2 in which the whole community’s

religious, cultural, political and economic needs could be

satisfied. A man living outside the polls was considered either a

beast or god. The end purpose of the State, to Aristotle, was a

perfect and self-sufficing life i.e., a happy and honourable life.

The state was characterized primarily by its self sufficiency and

Aristotle saw it as a means of developing morality in the human

character. This idea corresponded to the modern concept of the

Nation i.e., a population of a fixed area that shares a common

language, culture (even race), and history. The modern idealists

like Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, T.H. Green and Bernard

Bosanquet more or less agree with this view. However, the

individual freedoms and civil liberties as such were unheard of,

in the Greek City-States.

The Roman concept of state passed through three periods

of growth; the period of City-State, the period of Republic and

the period of empire. They regarded the State as res publica or

Commonwealth. Res publica was a legal system whose

jurisdiction extended to all Roman citizens, securing their rights

and determining their responsibilities. The commonwealth was

the property of a people. But a people was not any collection of

human beings brought together in any sort of way but an

assemblage of people in large numbers associated in an

agreement with respect to justice and a partnership for the

common good.3

During this period, the existence of State as an entity was

constantly under the threat as the boundaries of the State were

undetermined and the military expeditions were the order of the

day. The military requirements of creating and sustaining such

entities tended to develop authoritarian systems. Individual was

expected to make necessary sacrifice of his individual liberties

for the sake of the unity,4 The Romans regarded the State as

legal entity and the individual as a legal person. The people

were regarded the ultimate source of law and had certain rights

which were determined and protected by the State. These rights

or freedoms were derived from concrete rather than abstract

sources.

The middle ages in Europe between the end of the Roman

Empire in the 5th century till 15th century the State remained a

hazy idea where political institutions remained dormant and

sovereign authority of the State was very weak if not non-

existent. There were no individual freedoms guaranteed by the

State and liberties were restricted to one privileged group or

class. Slavery remained a necessary institution of the society.

During this time liberty related primarily to social groups

seeking to wrest certain privileges from the sovereigns against

whom they contended for power. This kind of struggle resulted

in the Magna Carta imposed in 1215 on king John of England by

a group of barons. The Magna Carta has great significance in the

progress of human liberty.

The middle ages characterized the loose confederation of

tribes who coalesced into kingdoms. There were virtually no

institutions of governance who could effectively control different

domains. Christian Church was the only Universal institution and

powers were exercised within the Church hierarchy, by the local

bishops. It was only after about 1050 AD (during the high Middle

Ages) that the Roman Catholic Church organised into an

elaborate hierarchy with the pope as its head. During the late

Middle Ages the secular state began to emerge and the struggle

for supremacy between the Church and the State ensued for the

next few centuries.

By the end of the 13th century the medieval Europe began

to fade away and soon after the majority of characteristic

institutions and ideals of feudal age began to decay. New

institutions and ways of thinking gradually emerged. This

change extending from 1300 to about 1650 (known as the

Renaissance) broadly signifies intellectual revival and interest in

secular learning. The Renaissance -also referred to a ‘rebirth of

the European mind’- swept out a number of old ideas and swept

in a multitude of the new ones. With the end of Middle Ages the

Renaissance raised problems of intellectual freedom,

challenging the established dogma of the Catholic Church and

Reformation further promoted ideas of religious freedom and

freedom of conscience.

Machiavelli represented this period and enthused a new

spirit in understanding the State. He ignored the cardinal

tenants of Christian State and did not recognize Church’s

superiority or even independence from the State.5 He advocated

for a free state and that “the voice of the people is the voice of

God.” 6

Three great revolutions helped to define the individual

liberty and ensure its preservation. The Glorious Revolution

(l688-89)7 was the culmination of years of gradual imposition of

judicial and legislative restraints upon the monarchy; the Bill of

Rights adopted by the British Parliament against the Stuart

monarchs in 1689 established representative government there;

the American War of Independence8 (1775-83) combined the

problems of achieving individual liberty with those of creating of

new state. The Declaration of Independence (July 1776)

establishing United States of America and the first ten

amendments also known as the Bill of Rights9 in the American

constitution established guarantees of civil rights.

The modern concept of State emerged in the 16th century.

Machiavelli (1469-1527) elucidated the State in his discourses,

which needs to be healthy and free, should possess people with

virtues i.e., the people with vigour, public-spirit, law-abidingness

and trustworthiness in public duties. Jean Bodin (1530-1596)

defined the State in his six livers de la republique (1576) as a

government of households, and where villages, cities, and

corporations of various kinds are united by a sovereign

authority. He recognized the right to property and individual

freedoms at the level of family.10 Bodin, described the State as a

centralizing force whereby stability might be regained. Bodin’s

theory became the forerunner of the 17th century doctrine of

the divine right of the kings (sovereigns are representatives of

God and derive their right to rule directly from God). It also

helped to create a climate for the ideas of John Locke (1632-

1704) in England and Rousseau (1712- 1778) in France, who re-

examined the origins and purposes of the State.

Machiavelli gave prime importance to the durability of

government, sweeping aside all moral considerations and

focusing instead on the strength -the vitality, courage, and

independence- of the prince. Bodin, considered as the first

theorist of modern absolutism, argued that sovereignty was the

most high and perpetual power in a commonwealth and the

entity which has the absolute right and duty of law giving.

However, for him power was not sufficient in itself to

create a sovereign and rule must comply with morality to be

durable and it should have continuity.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in his Leviathan (1651)

provided a more refined and systematic exposition of the

concept of sovereignty.11 He attributed the origin of the State to

a social contract which wielded unfettered powers. Hobbes

made a forceful enunciation or the doctrine of sovereignty and

also made a powerful statement of individualism. He does not

let us forget that State exists to serve man’s needs and that its

moral authority derives from the consent of the governed.12

The State, according to John Locke, should exist for the

good of people, should depend on their consent and should be

constitutional and limited in its authority. He advocated for

certain natural rights -life, liberty and property. Individual liberty

is the right of a person to do whatever he wants so Long as that

is not incompatible with the Law of Nature.13

According to Rousseau the state owned its authority to the

general will of the people. He suggested that the nation itself is

sovereign and the law is essentially the Will of the governed as

a whole.The body politic, therefore, is also a moral being possessed of a Will; and this

general Will, which tends always to the preservation and welfare of the whole and of every part, and is the source of law, constitutes for all the members of the state, in their relations to one another and to it, the rule of what is just or unjust.14

The French Revolution (1789-1790), also called the

Revolution of 1789, denotes the beginning of a new era of

individual-state relations. Taking liberty, equality and fraternity

as their slogan, the French people overthrew their ancient

government. Rousseau’s writings effectively contributed as the

philosophy behind this Revolution. Generated by a series of

causes like; the inability of ruling classes and clergy to come to

the grips of the state; extortionate taxation of the peasantry;

impoverishment of workers; and the intellectual ferment of the

Age of Enlightenment the Revolution produced an equally vast

set of consequences. Set on a premise that tyranny begins when

natural rights of men are violated, the Revolution destroyed

feudal system to establish representative government; it

defined liberty as a natural right and ended the theory of the

divine right of the king. It gave birth to the new theory that the

source of all state power was the people. The Revolution was,

thus a triumph of the right of man over the irresponsible and

dictatorial powers. Its permanent achievements were individual

liberty, government by the consent of the governed,

constitutional limitations to safeguard the civil liberties of

subjects and the responsibility of officials to a nationwide

electorate.15

The Declaration of the Rights of man and of the citizen

became the basic charter of human liberties. The declaration

(containing 17 Articles) emphasized “Men are born and remain

free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only

on considerations of the common good” (Art. 1), and the aim of

every political association is the preservation of the natural and

imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are Liberty, Property,

Safety and Resistance to Oppression” (Art. 2). Adopted between

August 20 and August 26, 1789 by France’s National Assembly

and attached as ‘the preamble to the new constitution of 1791,

this Declaration remains by far the most important document on

human rights and individual liberties. The declaration greatly

influenced political thought and institutions considering it “the

creed of the new age”. It was a model for most of the

declarations of political and civil rights adopted by European

states in the 19th century.16

During the 19th century Hegel (1770-1831) opined that the

sphere of individual liberty is the whole state, with freedom not

so much an individual’s rights, but a result of human reason.

State for him was the culmination of moral action, where

freedom of choice had led to the unity of the rational will, and all

parts of the society were nourished within the health of the

whole. The essence of the modem state is “the Universal be

bound up with the complete freedom of its members and with

private well-being.”17

For the English utilitarian Jermy Benthem 1748-1832, J.S.

Mill 1806-73, Henry Sidgwick 1838-1900) of this period the state

was an artificial means of producing a unity of interest and a

device to maintain stability. Benthem advocated the principal of

utilitarianism, according to which the greatest total happiness of

the community should be the sole aim of the laws of the state.

Sidgwick also agreed that the right action, the good character,

and the right laws are those which maximize happiness of

individual.18 Mill (On Liberty, 1859) found freedom in the power

of the individual to assert himself against the State or even the

society. Mill makes the individual his own sovereign. It is “being

left to oneself. “All restraint qua restraint is an evil”, he says. No

interference with the individual’s liberty of action is justified

except to prevent him from harming others.19

Nature of the State underwent a change with the rise of

the ideology of Nationalism20 by the end of the 18th century.

Before that the states usually were based on religious or

dynastic ties. Citizens owed loyalty to their Church or the ruling

family. The tendency towards nationalism was fostered by

various technological, cultural, political, and economic

advances. People extended their interests nation-wide leaving

behind the mere clan, tribe or village affiliations, based on the

premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-

state21 surpass other individual and group interests. It became

paramount for the realization of social, economic, and cultural

aspirations of a people. The nation- state based on nationalism

in Europe was glorified as a moral entity able to confer

legitimacy on itself and its actions. The state authority then

onwards belonged to the nation and no group could attribute

authority to itself nor could any individual arrogate it to himself.

The rise of nationalism coincided generally with the spread

of Industrial Revolution, which promoted national economic

development, the growth of a middle class, and popular demand

for a representative government. The Revolutions of 1848 in

Italy and Germany for unification which could eventually be

realized in 1861 in Italy and 1871 in Germany and many other

events in Europe between 1878 and 1918 were shaped largely

by the nationalist aspirations. The concept of the nation-state

along with its attributes of popular sovereignty, individual

freedoms, general welfare and democracy spread in Europe

throughout the 19th century.

As the nationalism flowered and spread to the lands of

Asia, Africa and Latin America in the 20th century many

powerful national movements emerged in Japan (after Russo-

Japanese war 1905), Turkey (under the leadership Mustafa

Kamal Ataturk in (1922-23), India (under the leadership of

Mahatma Gandhi) or in China. These movements essentially

aimed at national freedom from the Western imperial powers

that culminated in the post-1945 period when the British,

French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese empires either

voluntarily granted independence or yielded to the national

freedom movements. 22

With the individual rights, liberties and equalities gaining

currency, the concept of popular sovereignty swept Europe and

it gave rise to the establishment of democracy and

representative institutions in Europe, America and later in the

other parts of the world. The first popular rebellion against

monarchy in England (1642), the political and revolutionary

action against autocratic European states resulted in the

establishment of republican governments with an increasing

tendency towards democracy. Before the end of the 19th

century every important Western European monarchy had

adopted a constitution limiting the powers of the Crown giving a

considerable share of political power to the people.

Representative legislatures modeled on the British Parliament

were instituted. British politics possibly became the greatest

single influence on the organization of democracies in Europe

and later in many other parts of the world. The success of

democratic institutions in the United States (with federal system

and Presidential form of government) also served as a model of

democracy for many other countries.

The major feature of a democratic state is individual

freedom, which entitles its citizens to the liberty and

responsibility of shaping their own careers and conducting their

own affairs; equality before the law; universal suffrage and

education. The four basic freedoms of expression, worship, from

want and fear (formulated in Atlantic Charter of 1941) are also

adhered to by many of the modern day democracies. The

individual liberties including the freedom of religion, press,

freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of privacy,

freedom from racial and ethnic discrimination etc. have also

become important ingredients of the democratic states. By the

middle of the 20th century, every independent country in the

world, with only a few exceptions, had a government that, in

form if not in practice, embodied some of the principles of the

modem liberal democratic states.

It is in this background we have to consider how the

globalization has influenced the state authority and individual

freedoms.

Globalization, State Authority and Individual Freedoms

Globalization encapsulates the growth of connections

between people on a planetary scale. It involves reduction of

barriers to trans-world contacts through which people are able -

physically, legally, culturally and psychologically- to engage with

each other on this globe. Technology and unprecedented growth

of electronic medium has made the globalization possible. The

telecommunication and computer net works have facilitated

instant interpersonal communication all over the earth. Since

the late 20th century the entire world as a whole is fast

becoming a single social space in its own right. Explicitly more

visible in Europe, North America and East Asia globalization has

not reached its finality but it is likely to engulf hitherto

untouched areas soon. The rise of global consumerism (internet

marketing, trade and commerce) global concerns (global

warming, ozone depletion, etc), voluntary associations (Amnesty

International, WTO, etc), outsourcing of skilled professionals,

multinational corporations, broadcasting (CNN, BBC etc.),

satellite communications have brought in a global consciousness

in almost every sphere. In the developing countries of Asia,

Africa and Latin America this process is slow and more urban.

The liberal economists attribute it to the role of unfettered

market forces in a context of technological development and

deregulation. The Marxists highlight the dynamics of the

international capitalist system as the engine of globalization. For

some sociologists globalization is a product of modem

rationalism. The technological innovations, fast means of

transportation and data processing at global scale have become

rampant. The innovations relating to (coaxial and later fiber-

optic cables, jet engines, packaging and preservation

techniques, semiconductor devices, computer software etc.

have become some of the physical tools to encourage the cross

planetary contacts.

Globalization is fast changing the contours of social

geography. It has much wider economic, political and cultural

implications.

Impact of Globalisation on State Authority

Increasing globalization23 of the world economy, the

mobility of the people and capital, and the worldwide

penetration of media has combined to circumscribe the freedom

of action of the State. The McDonald’s, Disney, Coca-cola

corporations capable of manipulating personal tastes of the

people are becoming new forms of economic and po1tical

domination. The state everywhere is losing control over the

distribution of goods and services. The military force is fast

becoming out of place or even powerless in many ways. The

control of culture and is production is becoming far more

important than the control of political and geographic borders.

The exchange of popular culture related to life style, pop music,

film, video, comics, fashion, fast foods, beverages, home

decorations, entertainment systems, exercise equipments is fast

becoming irresistible. The penetration of the World Wide Web

(www) since 1990s has transplanted the codes of ethics in many

countries (China, India, Iran etc.) and the idea of a borderless

world becoming a reality in many areas. It has been predicted24

that the internet will gradually erode the power of the state to

control its people and advances in digital technology would help

people to follow their own interests and form trans-state

coalitions. It is further argued25 that military conflicts and

territorial disputes would be super ceded by the flow of

information, capital, technology and manpower between the

states.

Globalization has significant implications for the conduct of

governance. Territorially based laws and institutions through

local or national governments are not sufficient by themselves

to regulate contacts and networks that operate in trans-world

spaces. It is stimulating greater multilateral collaboration

between states as well as the growth of regional arrangements

like the European Union, ASEAN etc. The resultant situation of

multi-layered and diffuse governance raises important questions

about the nature of sovereignty in a globalizing world.

State as a political unit is an essential and most effective

basis of governance and it remains central in the governance of

global flows. However the trends of globalization have

stimulated a lively debate as to whether the state can retain its

freedom of action and control the domestic ebbs and flow vis-à-

vis its citizens hitherto associated with its authority.

The doctrine of state sovereignty as its sole authority in

decision making process and in maintenance of order has been

constantly debated by the political scientists. It was traditionally

argued that sovereignty need not be exercised on behalf of the

people by the national governments, but could be divided on a

functional basis between the federal and state authorities (USA).

Similarly H.J. Laski and others developed the pluralistic theory of

sovereignty where state authority could be exercised by various

political, economic and religious groups in the state.

Accordingly, sovereignty in each society should not reside in any

particular place but shift from one group to another.

The Hague conferences of 1899 and 1907 established

detailed rules for conduct of war on land and at sea. The

Covenant of League of Nations restricted the right to wage war

as a solution to international controversies. The charter of

United Nations (Art 2) imposed the duty on member states to

“settle their international disputes by peaceful means...” and it

emphasized on “the principle of sovereign equality of all its

members.” All these and many other developments restricted

the state sovereignty as unrestricted power. The states have

already accepted a considerable body of laws limiting their

sovereign rights of acting as they pleased.

The globalization has further challenged the identity as

well as the working of the State. If globalization means

emergence of borderless states then the very existence of the

state is in question. The deteriorization of State Authority and

moving of products and capital with least possible hindrance

have raised the question of control of the State over the

territory, population and the government. The state is becoming

a silent spectator as it is in no capacity to take economic

decisions such as what to produce, how to produce and for

whom to produce. Liberalization and privatization has

considerably weakened the control and functioning of the

bureaucracy considered to be the backbone of the State. The

state legislations and decision making are only following and

adjusting to the trail of globalization.

If globalization has given unprecedented freedom of

choice and action to the individual, it has seriously impinged

upon various human rights. It has resulted in loss of jobs,

cultural identity, and democratic rights and has created social,

cultural, economic and technological divide. The Human

Development Report (1999) observed that “uneven globalization

is not only bringing integration but also fragmentation -dividing

communities, nations and regions into those that are included

and those that are excluded.”

However, despite the problems created by globalization,

this Juggernaut is gradually swallowing the world. It is a fact of

life and the only ideology of the present day world order. It is for

the state and promoters and protectors of human rights and

liberties to stop, mould or change its expanse to create a

balanced and humane civil society.

References

1. State has been variedly defined like, “particular portion of mankind viewed as an organised unit,” John W. Burgess; “the politically organised people of a definite territory”, Bluntschli: “a numerous assemblage of human beings, generally occupying a certain territory, amongst whom the will of the majority or of an ascertainable class of persons is, by the strength of such a majority or class, made to prevail against any of their number who oppose it”, Holland, Elements of Jurisprudence, 13th ed., Oxford, 1924, p. 46.2. Polis was a term for which there is no’exact translation but which we render most inadequately as the City State. It was much more than we mean by a city and a great deal more than we understand by a State. C.L. Wayper, Political Thought, B.I. Publications, Delhi, 1989, p.6.3. Definition of a State given by Scipio, one of the persons of the dialogue, see, Republic, I, XXV, p. 39.4. The principal of Unity, expressed in the form of citizenship, could not be stretched beyond a certain point. The imaginative statesmanship of Rome was not great enough to devise a political basis for an empire of the civilized world. As Gettell had remarked, “Greek had developed democracy without unity; Rome secured unity without democracy.” See, Maciver, The Modern State, p. 59.5. See, Foster, Michael B: Masters of Political Thought, OUP, 1975, p. 268.6. The Prince, Chapter i, ii.7. See, Ashley, Maurice: The Glorious Revolution of 1688, (1968): and Pocock, l.G. (ed): Three British Revolutions, 1641, 1688, 1776(1980).8. Bailyn, Bernard, et al: The Great Republic: A History of the American People (2nd ed), (1981); Kelley, Robert: The Shaking of the American Past, 2 Vols. 4th edition, (1986).9. See, Schwartz, Bernard: The Great Rights, of Mankind: A History of the American Bill of Rights (1977).10. See, Sabine, George H: A History of Political Theory, Oxford, 1973.11. Foster, Michael B: Masters of Political Thought, Vol. II, p. 100-110.12. Wayper, op. cit., p. 64.Globalization and Human Rights I 3213. Ibid., p. 70.14. Vaugham, C.E: Political Writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau, English Translation by GDH Cole, Vol. 1, p. 253.15. Sabine, op. cit., p. 590.16. Soboul, Albert: A Short History of the French Revolution 1789-1799, Translated by G Syncox (1977): Goodwin Albert: The French Revolution, 4th ed. (1966).

17. Philosophy of Righ, Section 260, addition.18. Scruton, Roger: A Dictionary of Political Thought, Pan Books, 1982, p.480.19.Wayper, op. cit., p. 114.20. The ideals of nationalism attempt to find the ingredients ofpolitical obligation and political identity in allegiances which are in some sense less than wholly political - matters of geographical, cultural and ethnic association. The motive is to fmd some binding force between people that is stronger than any revocable agreement to be governed, wider than any merely personal affection and sufficiently public to lend itself to the foundation of political institutions and laws. See, Scruton, op. cit., p. 316.21. A State organizedfor the government of a nation, whose territory is determined by national boundaries, and whose law is determined, at least in part, by national customs and expectations, See, Ibid., p.313.22. Many countries like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Malaysia, Ghana, Philippines, and Indonesia etc. in Asia became independent. Nationalist movements developed in Morroco, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Ghana, Iraq etc. during 1950 and 60s.23. See, Steger, Manfred B: Globalization, The New Market Ideology, Rawat Publishers, New Delhi, 2004, Chapters I, II & III; Dasgupta, Biplab: Structural Adjustment, Global Trade and the New Political Economy of Development, Vistaar Publications, New Delhi, 1998.24. Kevin Kelly: Out of Control, (1994)25. Richard Rosecrance: The Rise of the Virtual State, (1999).