Political Systems, States,

and Nations

A stateless nation. Kurds in Iraq protest, demanding greater regional autonomy for their group
and waving the flag promoting their larger goal, a state of Kurdistan.

From Chapter 5 of Understanding the Political World, Eleventh Edition. James N. Danziger. Copyright © 2013
by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.

115
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

Learning OBJeCTiVeS

1 Characterize the alternative 3 Outline the key components

definitions and goals of the state. of the political system.
2 Compare and contrast the
concepts of nation and state.

T
Read hey inhabit a region of 74,000 square miles, most living inside the cur-
and Listen to
this chapter at
rent borders of Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. But they are not Turks, not Arabs,
[Link] not Persians (Iranians). These kin-based, mountain nomads have always
Study
had their own language, a distinctive culture, and a powerful sense of shared
and Review the identity. They want to be recognized as their own country; instead, they have
Pre-Test & experienced centuries of discrimination, cultural destruction, massive violence,
Flashcards at
[Link] and even genocide.
They continue to dream of Kurdistan—the land of the Kurds. Kurdistan was
briefly recognized by a few other countries (e.g., the former Soviet Union) after
World War I, but their land was successfully claimed by other countries. Great
Britain held colonial control of some of the area, where substantial oil deposits
were discovered in 1920. The British gave most of the oil-rich areas inhabited by
the Kurds to Iraq, whose new leaders the British installed and assumed they could
control. At the same time, Atatürk was establishing the modern state of Turkey.
Atatürk launched a major military and cultural offensive against the 19 million
Kurds inside Turkey. He insisted they were not Kurds, but “mountain Turks.”
Kurdish language, names, schools, and cultural traditions were forbidden, and
when the Kurds resisted, the Turkish military killed 250,000 of them.
In Iran, Shia Muslims took power after the Iranian Revolution of 1979. They
have extensively persecuted the Kurds within Iran’s border because the Kurds are
Sunni Muslims. Then, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein—frustrated by the Iran–Iraq War
(1980–1988) and the defeat in the Gulf War (2003)—turned his wrath on the
Iraqi Kurds. In the military campaign known as Al Anfal, meaning “The Spoils,”
the Iraqi military were given orders to kill every Kurdish male between the ages of
18 and 55. Between 1986 and 1988, Al Anfal included mass executions of tens of
thousands of noncombatants; the destruction of more than 4,000 villages; the use
of chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, in more than 60 villages; the destruc-
tion of civilian buildings like schools and mosques; and the arbitrary jailing of
tens of thousands, including women, children, and elderly people accused only of
sympathizing with the Kurdish cause. More than 100,000 Iraqi Kurds were killed
during this genocide.
Although as many as 35 percent of the Kurds have fled the area to escape
the violence, about 36 million Kurds still live in the region, including about
19 million in Turkey, 9 million in Iran, 6.5 million in Iraq, and 1.5 million in

116
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

Syria. The granting of partial autonomy to the Kurdish region in Iraq after the
fall of Saddam Hussein has raised the hopes of Kurds throughout the region
that—through negotiation, political activism, and armed resistance—Kurdistan
will one day become a reality.
The desire of the 36 million Kurds for a state of their own highlights one
of the most significant causes of conflict in the modern world: the existence of
nations—groups of people with a powerful, shared sense of identity—who live
in areas that are not coterminous with the boundaries of states, which are the
legal political entities in the international system. Sometimes, as in the case of
the Kurds, as well as the Masai in Kenya and Tanzania, and the Palestinians in
Israel and Jordan, the nation spills over across the boundaries of two or more
states. Other times, the nation is a subgroup that exists within a single state but
wants autonomy or independence. This is the situation of groups such as the
Quebecois in Canada, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and the Basques in Spain, among
many others.
This chapter explains and distinguishes two crucial concepts characterizing
these large groupings: state and nation. States are arguably the most important
actors in the international system. However, nation-based identities are power-
ful, and the disjunction between state boundaries and peoples with shared identi-
ties might the greatest cause of violence and death in the contemporary political
world. The chapter concludes with a focus on a more abstract model that can help
us grasp how these large groups operate as a political entity—the concept of the
political system.

The STaTe
In discussing the politics of large groups of individuals, one of the core concepts 1 Charac­
is “the state.” Anthropological evidence suggests that early social organization terize
among humans was probably based on small living groups of family. As suggested the alternative
by humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow (1954), human groupings formed so definitions and
that people were better able to meet their physiological, safety, love, and belong- goals of the
ing needs. As groupings became larger, tribes or bands were formed on the basis state.
of more extensive kinship and economic ties. It might be argued that the “state”
Watch the
emerged in ancient times, when a large collectivity had distinctive leadership roles, Video
accepted rules for social interaction, and a set of organizational arrangements that “Somalia's
Pirates” at
identified and served collective needs. [Link]

a Legal Definition of the State

However, the social scientific concept of the state is a relatively modern one. It
is based on the legal notion that the state is a territorially bound sovereign en-
tity. The idea of sovereignty emerged in the 16th and 17th centuries. In current
interpretations, sovereignty is the premise that each state has complete authority

117
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

and is the ultimate source of law within its own boundaries. Sovereignty is the key
element in the legal concept of the state. It is a basic assumption of international
politics and is reflected in a fundamental principle of the United Nations–the sov-
ereign equality of all member states. This means that, before the law, Cambodia
is equal to China, Bolivia is equal to Brazil. While sovereignty has legal standing
and moral force in international law, the reality of international politics is that
a state’s sovereign rights depend ultimately on whether the state has sufficient
power to enforce its position (Sassen 1996). Thus, it is not likely that, when major
national interests are at stake, China will yield to Cambodia merely on the basis of
Cambodia’s sovereign rights.
State is among the most extensively used concepts in political science, and
it has various meanings. Notice that in the general language of political science,
the word state usually refers to the set of organizational units and people that
performs the political functions for an entire national territorial entity, such as
France, Indonesia, or Nigeria. In some countries, including the United States,
the concept of state also refers to subnational governmental units (e.g., the state
of Alabama). In this chapter, the term state will normally denote the full array
of governmental units that act on behalf of a sovereign country.
You should also be aware that the language of political science often treats
the state as though it were a single actor. For example, consider the statement that
“each state has complete authority. . . .” In reality, the state is composed of many
people who behave as individuals but whose combined behaviors are character-
ized as if they were performed by a single actor. This text also examines other col-
lectivities of individuals (e.g., the group, the political party, the judiciary) that are
discussed as though they operate as a single actor.
Associated with the idea of sovereignty in the legal definition of the state
is the doctrine of territorial integrity, which holds that a state has the right to
resist and reject any aggression, invasion, or intervention within its territo-
rial borders. As with the more general notion of sovereignty, a state’s actual
protection of its territorial integrity depends on the state’s capacity and politi-
cal power.
It might seem that there are many relatively clear examples of a state’s territo-
rial integrity being violated, such as the Iraqi army’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990;
but there is often considerable disagreement over claimed violations of territorial
integrity. First, territorial integrity is a fuzzy concept when there is a dispute over
borders. There are numerous current disputes between countries regarding owner-
ship of offshore waters and their resources (e.g., Canada, Denmark, Russia and
the U.S.). Such disputes are sometimes settled by adjudication by an international
agency. But border disputes can precipitate fighting, as a land border dispute did
recently between Cambodia and Thailand.
Second, attempts to exercise sovereignty can be disputed when there is dis-
agreement about who the legitimate rulers are. In Angola, for example, three
contending groups each claimed to be the legitimate ruling group of the resource-
rich country at independence in 1975. Each group controlled parts of the country,
and each had outside assistance (money, arms, troops) from actors such as Cuba,
South Africa, the former Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Nations.

118
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

This struggle over sovereignty resulted in a devastating civil war that ravaged the
country for more than 25 years (1975–2002). The toll included complete collapse
of the economy, 4.5 million refugees, tens of thousands who lost limbs to millions
of land mines, and the death of more than 1.5 million Angolans. Similar conflicts
over sovereignty have arisen recently in Ivory Coast, Somalia, and the Spanish
Sahara.
Third, the international community has become less sensitive to the protection
of sovereignty when there is strong evidence that the government is committing
serious human rights violations against its own citizens. This can lead to intense
controversies about whether sovereignty has been violated. One recent example
is Libya. After substantial numbers of Libyans openly protested against the rule
of Muammar Qaddafy in 2011, opposition groups seized control of considerable
territory, especially in Eastern Libya. Qaddafy responded aggressively, sending his
military forces against the rebels. Some major actors in the international commu-
nity, including the United Nations, Britain, France and the United States, insisted
that Qaddafy stop the violence against his own people. A NATO-led coalition
then intervened, claiming its goal was a humanitarian intervention to prevent
Libya from using its troops to engage in widespread, deadly violence against the
regime’s opponents. Airplanes and missiles destroyed some of Libya’s military
capabilities, but also attacked Libyan troops and other sites, including Qadaffy’s
residence. Qaddafy claimed that these actions were a clear violation of Libya’s
sovereignty. Whose claim is most compelling? Similar disputes over sovereignty
versus intervention are becoming more common as the international commu-
nity embraces the doctrine of R2P—the “responsibility to protect.” This issue is
explored in the Debate.

a Structural–Functional Definition of the State

As an alternative to the legal definition, the state can be defined by the key
organizational structures that operate as “the government” and the key func-
tions that the state performs. In this structural–functional perspective, the
state is defined as a country’s organized institutional machinery for making
and carrying out political decisions and for enforcing the laws and rules of the
government.
Max Weber (1864–1920), the great political sociologist, emphasizes one
specific function that distinguishes the state from all other organizations: the
state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and coercion in the society.
That is, only the state has the right to use violence to enforce the society’s laws
and decisions.
In the broader “state-centered” definition, the state is an autonomous actor,
composed of public officials making decisions. The state’s essential functions are
to maintain order and to compete with other actual or potential states (Levi 2002).
In this view, the state pursues “the national interest,” which it attempts to achieve
against resistance from both domestic and international actors (Morgenthau
2005; Kahler 2002). The particular way in which a state’s structures are config-
ured is crucial in shaping the content of public officials’ policy preferences and the
state’s effectiveness in implementing those policy preferences in the society.

119
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

Does humanitarian intervention Violate

The DeBaTe State Sovereignty?

A controversial issue in recent years is whether it

is acceptable for states and international actors to
use force (or the threat of force) against a state
that is suspected of or is abusing the human rights
of its own citizens. This is sometimes justified as
humanitarian intervention by those taking the actions
(Holzgrefe and Keohane 2003). However, the state
that is the target of such an intervention can object
that this is a clear violation of its sovereignty and
hence of international law (Jackson 2007). Indeed,
this policy has been termed “the most significant
adjustment to national sovereignty in 360 years”
(Gilbert, quoted in Pattison 2010:4). Disputes over
the clash between these principles have recently
been serious issues regarding countries such as
China, Congo, Libya, and Sudan. Is humanitarian
intervention an acceptable action if it violates a
state’s sovereignty?

PrOTeCTing human righTS TakeS

PreCeDenCe OVer STaTe SOVereignTy
j The international society of states now defines
sovereignty in terms of a bundle of both rights
and obligations. Respect for human rights to
“life, liberty, and security of person” is among
those obligations, by virtue of the Universal
Human Rights Declaration (adopted by the
United Nations in 1948) and other treaties.
Thus, a state that inflicts gross and widespread
At what level of human suffering can outside powers
atrocities on its own population has forfeited legitimately intervene within a sovereign state over the
some of its rights, including its claim that objections of the state’s leaders, as occurred in Sudan?
humanitarian intervention violates its sovereignty
(Pattison 2010). repression of peaceful protest, or extensive use of
j In 2005, the United Nations General Assembly imprisonment without due process (Evans 2008).
explicitly asserted its collective “responsibility j The global community of states has a clear
to protect” (R2P) people by humanitarian responsibility to take whatever actions are
intervention when a government does not necessary to prevent any state from abusing
safeguard its own peoples’ lives, particularly individuals’ human rights because this
in cases of large­scale state violence against demonstrates the states’ willingness to act beyond
its population such as ethnic cleansing, violent national self­interest.

(Continued)

120
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

j Outside states, acting in concert, also have a Even more important, there are no universally
responsibility to intervene in situations of a severe accepted standards regarding the level at which
humanitarian crisis, including actions to prevent human rights violations become so gross (that is,
a deepening of the crisis, to direct reactions so extensive, severe, and persistent) that outside
to it, and to engage in rebuilding efforts in the intervention is justified (Evans 2008).
aftermath, regardless of objections from the j States accept the principle that, in the absence
“sovereign” state (Pattison 2010). of full procedural support from the UN, external
j If no outside group intervenes to stop a state actors cannot intervene within a state that
from serious violations of human rights, the opposes such an action. Yet such interventions
state might engage in even more extensive and do occur (e.g., NATO in Kosovo and Libya).
unacceptable acts of violence against its own Such actions are often better understood as
citizens. Similarly, in the absence of such action an assertion by powerful states of the right to
by interveners, other states might be emboldened intervene (R2I) in the affairs of weaker states
to violate the human rights of their own citizens. that they wish to control—even if under the
cover of UN support.
STaTe SOVereignTy TakeS PreCeDenCe j Humanitarian intervention, when associated with
OVer OuTSiDerS’ COnCernS aBOuT severe economic sanctions and military invasion,
human righTS can cause more harm to the population than the
j State sovereignty is a central premise of human rights violations that prompted these actions.
international law. This core principle provides a This problem is compounded when intervening states
state with almost complete authority to implement do not follow international norms that require an
policy decisions within its own borders. A state’s intervention to be proportional to the human rights
right to this exclusive internal jurisdiction is violated violation (Pattison 2010).
if another state or group intervenes within its borders
without its consent. In accordance with international mOre QueSTiOnS ...
law, the state can respond by any means necessary to 1. How severe and extensive must a violation
defend its territory (Jackson 2007). of human rights be in order to justify the
j Despite the idealized notion of universal human intervention of other countries in the internal
rights, different cultures have significantly affairs of a sovereign state? Who can
different interpretations of individual rights legitimately judge the level of violation?
and the conditions under which such rights 2. Is R2P any more compelling if there appear
have been violated. It is not appropriate that a to be human rights violations by several
predominantly Western conception of human groups within a country, not just the
rights should necessarily take precedence over a government?
country’s own standards. 3. Is it acceptable for external interveners to cause
j It can be very difficult for outside actors to widespread suffering and destruction within
determine the precise level of the purported a country in the attempt to end the perceived
violations of human rights within another country. human rights abuses?

A widely used structural-functional approach, based on the work of the late

Gabriel Almond and his colleagues (e.g., Powell, Strom and Dalton 2012), centers
on two questions:
1. What functions must be performed if the state is to persist?
2. What structures perform these necessary functions within a given state?

121
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

The classic version of Almond’s structural–functional approach identifies eight

functions that must be performed in every state:
1. Political socialization is the processes through which individuals acquire their
cognitive, affective, and evaluative orientations towards the political world.
2. Political recruitment is the processes through which people are drawn into
roles as political actors.
3. Political communication is the mechanisms by which political information
flows through society.
4. Interest articulation is the low-level communication, by individuals and
groups, of what they need or want from the state.
5. Interest aggregation is the transformation of all these political needs and
wants into a smaller number of coherent alternatives.
6. Policymaking is the process by which the state establishes laws, policy deci-
sions, and value allocations.
7. Policy implementation is the actual application of such laws and policy decisions.
8. Policy adjudication is the interpretation and resolution of disagreements re-
garding what the policies mean and how they should be implemented.
While it might seem obvious at first glance that a certain structure always per-
forms a particular function, more reflection will suggest that the situation is usu-
ally more complex. In most contemporary societies, almost every political function
is performed by a variety of structures. Many of these structures are part of the
state, but others are nonstate actors such as interest groups, religious organiza-
tions, media, social groups, private businesses, and international organizations.
For example, it is not simply the case that Congress performs the policymaking
function in the United States. Many policy decisions are also formulated by the
president, by cabinet departments, by the bureaucracy, by the courts as they
both interpret and reshape laws, by structures at the local levels of government,
by special interest groups, and by citizens through electoral initiatives. Thus, the
central focus in structural–functional research is to illuminate the key processes
performed by each important structure and the subtle interrelationships among
structures as they contribute to a given function.

major goals
Another core question is: What major goals does a state pursue? Each state assigns
different levels of relative importance to a wide variety of goals; however, most
can be subsumed under three overarching goals: security, stability, and prosperity.
Each of these goals includes component goals that the political system might act
to serve. The significance of each component goal and the capacity of the state to
achieve each goal depend on many factors such as the state’s resources, strategic
location, history, political culture, leaders, political structures, and the behavior of
actors outside the political system. While many of these factors depend primarily
on dynamics inside to the state’s borders, others are substantially affected by the
actions of other global actors. Figure 1 illustrates this framework of basic goals. In

122
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

PR
ILITY OS
PE
AB RIT
ST Y
SECURITY

D O P P I S A D W E E
E R O R N U U O E C C
M D L E F R T M L O O
O E I S L V O I F N N
C R T T U I N N A O O
R I I E V O A R M M
A M C G N A M N E I I
T A A E C L Y C C C
I I L E E D
Z N I D G
A T D S E R
T E E T V O
I N V R E W
O A E I L T
N N L B O H
C O U P
E P T M
M I E
E O N
N N T
T

Figure 1
Basic goals of states

the descriptions that follow, the major components of each overarching goal are
presented in the general order of their priority for most states.

Security
1. Survival is the fundamental element of security. It entails the very existence of
the state, such that other states do not conquer it and that internal forces do
not destroy it.
2. Autonomy refers to the capacity of the state to act within its own boundaries
without intervention into or control of its affairs by external actors.
3. Influence involves the state’s ability to alter the actions of external actors in
desired ways by means of persuasion or inducements.
4. Prestige is the desirable situation wherein external actors admire and respect
the state.
5. Dominance is the use of power or violence to enable the state to impose
direct control over external actors.

Stability
1. Order maintenance is the capacity of the state to ensure social peace for its
citizens through the prevention of individual and group violation of societal
norms, especially those involving violence.
2. Political development refers to the concentration of political authority in a
state that has strong capabilities to make and enforce effective policies and to
gain support from its citizens.

123
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

3. Democratization is the process of institutionalizing a democratic system of

governance, which is achieved by allowing free elections, limiting the actions
of the rulers, and guaranteeing civil and political rights.

Prosperity
1. Economic growth refers to the increasing scale, complexity, and specializa-
tion of the productive system and of the goods produced.
2. Economic development is the capacity of the political economy to obtain,
manage, and transform resources into valued goods.
3. Welfare distribution refers to the private or public allocation of adequate and
increasing levels of valued goods to enhance the quality of life of the citizenry.
Notice that Figure 1 gives particular priority to security goals because survival
must be an essential goal of every country. In most states, certain prosperity goals
and stability goals are more important than some of the other security goals, such
as dominance. No state can fully achieve its desired level on all of these 11 major
goals. Thus, a state must make difficult trade-offs when pursuing multiple goals.
For example, when a state makes a costly increase in the amount of welfare goods
and services allocated to its citizens, it uses resources that it might otherwise have
reinvested in the state’s economic system to facilitate economic growth. This trade-
off is often referred to as the fundamental policy choice of growth versus welfare. In
another example, resources that the state allocates to the military for major security
goals are not available for either welfare or the production of consumer goods. This
policy trade-off is characterized by the phrase guns versus butter. Of the 11 major
goals listed in Figure 1, which ones do you think are most complementary? Most
incompatible?
Throughout this text, we will frequently examine the pursuit of the goals of
security, stability, and prosperity through the state’s actions within its own bound-
aries and the state’s interactions with actors outside its borders. There are crucial
normative questions that each state confronts regarding how much priority to give
to each goal, what strategies it should employ in the pursuit of its goals, and how
extensive state action should be. Moreover, there are strong disagreements within
each state regarding how expansive its domain of action should be. Everyone
agrees that the boundaries of state activity should be limited to res publica, a Latin
phrase meaning “things of the people.” But what “things” should be included?
And how expansive should the state’s involvement with these things be?
We shall see throughout this text that some states are active in almost every
aspect of their citizens’ lives, while other states intervene in only limited spheres and
to a limited extent. One state might provide a total health care delivery system to
all citizens, with no direct charges for doctors, hospitals, or treatment, whereas an-
other state might subsidize only hospitalization for the very poor. One state might
require schools to provide daily religious instruction, while another state might for-
bid schools from engaging in even the general discussion of religious philosophies.

124
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

In every society, there are persistent, and sometimes very contentious, political de-
bates about the appropriate boundaries of state action and about the best means to
achieve a particular aspect of one of the 11 major goals.

The naTiOn
In the political world, the concept of the nation has a psychological and emotional 2 Compare
basis rather than a legal or functional basis (as the concept of the state does). A and
nation is defined as a set of people with a deeply shared fundamental identifica- contrast the
tion. Different factors might be the basis of such identification: shared descent concepts of
(belief in a common kinship or history), shared culture, shared geographic space, nation and state.
shared religion, shared language, or shared economic order. The nation is a com-
Watch the
munity of understanding, of communication, and of trust (Connor 1994). The Video
Kurds are an example of a nation that fulfills all these conditions. “The South
Most people feel some identity with a variety of different reference groups or Ossetia Crisis” at
[Link]
communities such as a religion, local community, ethnic group, social club, and
sports team. In the usage here, what distinguishes a nation from other reference
groups is that the nation is a major group, beyond the family group, with whom
a person identifies very powerfully. It is an essential division between “us” and
“them.” The strength of a person’s primary national identity depends on the rela-
tive importance he places on various identities and the extent to which the most
important identities reinforce this basic conception of “us” versus “them.” Thus,
nationalism is a powerful commitment to the advancement of the interests and
welfare of an individual’s own nation, with minimal concern about the conditions
of those outside the nation.
A related concept is identity politics. This means that some key shared trait(s)
lead a significant group of people to see themselves as being distinctive, with a
shared political agenda that might shape their political beliefs or motivate their
actions (Hoover, Marcia and Parris 1997). Identity politics characterizes a group
defined by one of the major nation-based factors described above, such as ethnicity
or religion. However, some suggest that the concept of identity politics particularly
applies to groups that perceive themselves to be marginalized or oppressed within
their social order. In this sense, it has been applied to groups based on markers such
as ethnic minority status, caste, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.
Another broad class of nation-based groups that is sometimes given special
consideration is indigenous peoples—a term for more than 370 million people
in about 70 countries. Each of these 5,000 distinct nations is understood to be a
“first people” who originally inhabited a geographic area as “natives,” but who
were then subjugated by an invading nation. In nearly every case, these nations
have almost no political or social power and their culture is marginalized or sup-
pressed by the dominant culture. Since the early 1970s and most recently with the
Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), the United Nations has been
concerned about protecting such groups against discrimination and against ef-
forts to destroy their nationality identity and culture. Some of these nations have
become more politically assertive, demanding autonomy, although most countries
resist providing their indigenous peoples with special political rights.

125
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

nation and State

The best situation for effective governance is a nation–state, which is an area that
has both the territorial borders of a single state and a citizenry who all share the
same primary national identity. Only a few modern states have the combination of
common culture, history, ethnicity, religion, and language that results in a strong
sense of shared nationality among nearly all the citizens governed by the state.
Japan is an example of a relatively homogeneous nation–state.
However, the most common situations are what might be termed “stateless na-
tions.” Occasionally, one nation is split into two states, such as North and South
Korea. In such cases, the citizens often dream of reunification, even when their gov-
ernments and ideologies differ fundamentally. This occurred in Germany, which
was split into communist East Germany and capitalist West Germany after World
War II. In 1990, citizens of the German nation were reunited in a single country
after nearly half a century of antagonistic separation into two very different states.
The example of the Kurds at the beginning of the chapter illuminates the more se-
vere form of a stateless nation, with one nation distributed across multiple states.
The reality of the contemporary world is that most countries are multi­
national states, which include significant groups whose fundamental identities
are associated with different nations. When these nation-based identities are very
strong, they can produce intense animosity and violence between groups within
(and between) states (Laitin 2007; Miller 2007; Taras and Ganguly 2010). These
problems have been particularly evident in many of the states that gained indepen-
dence after 1945 with borders that were based on the arbitrary administrative de-
cisions of colonial powers, not nationality differences. But in many multinational
states, nation-based conflicts have not been permanently resolved, regardless of
the age of the country.
When identity and region are relatively similar, it is possible to provide greater
autonomy to major groups or to reorganize states and borders. So, for example,
Scotland and Wales have been given far greater regional political autonomy within
Great Britain. When the former Soviet Union—the world’s most multinational
state—collapsed in 1991, it was replaced by 15 states that were generally orga-
nized on nationality grounds. The recent split into Sudan and South Sudan was
another attempt to better align borders and nationality identities.
However, there are far more instances where the problems in multinational
states persist. The agitation by the Quebecois in Canada, the Basques in Spain, and
the Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland are testimony to the possibility that even
centuries-old states can struggle with nationality conflict. There are reports every
day of struggles such as those of the Israelis and Palestinians, the Tibetans in China,
the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and the South Ossetians in Georgia. The bloody national-
ity violence in Eastern Europe during the 1990s was based on devastating ethnic
battles among the Bosnians, Croatians, Serbs, and others in the former Yugoslavia.
Even this carnage is overshadowed by the horrendous ethnic conflict in Rwanda
and Burundi between the Hutus and the Tutsis. More than 100,000 (mostly Tutsis)
were slaughtered in Rwanda in only 100 days in 1994, and more than 300,000
Hutus and Tutsis were killed in ethnic conflict in Burundi between 1994 and 2006.
Some scholars predict that the current reorganization of states based on na-
tionality identities will produce more than 50 new states and that nation-based

126
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

conflicts might remain the world’s major cause of violence and instability
(Barber 1995; Miller 2007). The example of the Indian subcontinent in Focus
illustrates many of these issues regarding the challenges of balancing states and
nations.

FOCuS | State and nations: The indian Subcontinent

The problem of discontinuities between nations accentuates the need to resolve the conflicts between
and states is often most severe in states that have the two states.
gained independence since 1945. The Indian While the major religious difference on the
subcontinent exemplifies these problems. The Indian subcontinent was generally resolved by this
vast Indian subcontinent was a feudal society partition, many other nationality problems remained.
divided into many small kingdoms ruled by kings For example, since 1947, India and Pakistan have
(maharajahs). Starting in the 16th century, disagreed about which country should control the
the riches of India were pursued—and often region of Jammu and Kashmir. At independence,
exploited—by many traders, including the British, India was given control of the region, although the
Dutch, French, and Arabs. The states from which majority of the population was and remains Muslim.
these traders came began to struggle for dominance Disputes over control of the region have resulted
over the Indian trade, and the British finally gained in more than sixty years of military conflicts and
hegemony in the 18th century after defeating the intermittent guerrilla war, despite persistent United
French. From that time until 1947, the Indian Nations involvement.
subcontinent was the major jewel in the British The situation was further complicated by the
imperial crown, treated as a single territory under concentration of Muslims in two geographically
colonial rule. distinct areas in the northeast and northwest regions
After a lengthy and often violent campaign of of the subcontinent. As a consequence, Pakistan was
political and social action by Indian nationalists, composed of two parts at independence, separated
the British granted the subcontinent independence by more than 1,500 miles of rival India’s territory.
in 1947. Despite the desires of the British and the The two parts of the country engaged in a protracted
efforts of some Indian leaders, such as Mohandas nationality dispute between the two major ethnic
Gandhi, the subcontinent was deeply split on the basis groups, the Punjabis, who were dominant in West
of religion between Hindus and Muslims. Because it Pakistan, and the Bengalis, who were dominant
seemed impossible to fashion a single state out of in East Pakistan. The Bengalis felt discriminated
these two nations, two states were formed in 1947: against both economically and culturally by the
India, which was predominantly (82 percent) Hindu; Punjabis, who controlled the government and the
and Pakistan, which was predominantly (90 percent) military. When the Bengalis won a national election
Muslim. in 1970, the Punjabis in West Pakistan attempted to
Many Hindus in Pakistan and Muslims in India retain political power and refused to allow the elected
were forced to leave their homelands and migrate to Bengali leaders to take the reins of government.
the new state sharing their religion. The hostility and The Punjabis launched a brutal military operation
bloodshed associated with the partition resulted in to suppress the Bengalis, who decided that victory
one million deaths. There have been periodic violent in the struggle would enable them to form their own
boundary conflicts ever since. The ownership of independent nation–state. After a brutal civil war
nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan since 1998 in 1971, which resulted in 3 million deaths from

(Continued)

127
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

violence and starvation and 10 million refugees demanding greater political autonomy, and since the
fleeing Pakistan, the Bengalis of East Pakistan early 1980s, some have insisted on full independence
won the civil war and created a new sovereign state, to create the nation–state of Khalistan. Prime
Bangladesh. Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated in 1984
Major nation­based cleavages continue to plague by two Sikhs among her private guard in retaliation
India, creating substantial barriers to forging a for an Indian army attack on rebels inside the Sikh’s
single identity as a nation–state. There are 21 holiest shrine.
official languages in addition to the two “national” Rajiv Gandhi succeeded his mother as prime
languages, Hindi and English, each understood by minister, only to be the victim of another nation­
only about one­third of the population. In all, there based dispute. The Indian army had intervened on
are about 1,650 different dialects spoken in India, the neighboring island­country of Sri Lanka in an
most of which are mutually unintelligible. attempt to limit the extremely violent, ethnically­
India has at least five major religious groupings: based civil war between the native Sinhalese and
Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, and Buddhist. Hindu the Tamils, who had migrated to Sri Lanka from
nationalism has increasingly been expressed through southern India. Tamils in Sri Lanka were angry that
a political movement, resulting in the growing power India did not support their independence struggles
at the regional and national levels of Hindu parties, and by the treatment they received from the Indian
particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The army. In 1991, Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a
BJP, which dominated the government from 1998 Tamil woman who had strapped a bomb to her body.
to 2004 and is now the main opposition party, is the In sum, the many deep cleavages on the Indian
most serious threat to a secular Indian government subcontinent, based on religion, ethnicity, culture,
since independence. With the increase in Hindu and region, have exposed the (now five) states to
nationalism, violence against Christians and Muslims persistent instability, conflict, and nation­based
has risen significantly. carnage.
Another religion­based nation that has been a
source of political unrest in India is the Sikhs, who FurTher FOCuS
are concentrated in the northwest part of India called 1. What strategies can a state like India use to
the Punjab. The Sikhs have a very strong identity as overcome the many nation­based cleavages?
a religious community and an ethnic group. Their 2. Might the current problems in the region have
sense of nationality is heightened by their belief that been even greater if Gandhi’s vision of a single
they are discriminated against politically by the state had been fulfilled, rather than the split into
Hindus. The Sikhs have occasionally been militant in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan?

The POLiTiCaL SySTem

Formal models are abstractions that can sometimes be very helpful in enabling us
3 Outline
the key to better visualize how something works. A formal model that has influenced the
components way many political scientists (including me) understand the dynamics of politics
of the political is based on a concept called “the political system.” You might also find it useful,
system. perhaps as a metaphor, for thinking about politics.
The political system concept was developed in the work of David Easton
(1965), whose idea was to adapt “general systems theory” from biology. Any
“system” is a series of components that operate together and are interrelated, such
that change in any one component can affect other components. For example, an

128
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

engine is a mechanical system composed of such interrelated components as pis- Explore the
Comparative
tons, carburetor, spark plugs, and so on. A jazz band is an example of a human “Political
system whose components can be more improvisational but no less interrelated. Landscapes” on
And a political system is also a system of human behavior with multiple compo- [Link]

nents. The political system model identifies these components and the linkages
among them as they perform certain activities.
For Easton, the unique nature of the political system is that it performs a partic-
ular function: the authoritative allocation of values for the collectivity. This means
that the political system makes policy decisions (allocations) that are binding (based
on its authority) with regard to things that have importance (values) to the people
it serves (the collectivity). Each part of this definition is important for our general
understanding of politics, and so the next few paragraphs elaborate on each.

Values Values are those things that have great significance and importance to
people. Political values, those within the domain of res publica, have a variety of
other forms. They can be broad ideals like liberty, equality, freedom, and justice.
They can be material goods, such as a decent house or road system; they can be
services, such as quality health care or a good education; they can be conditions,
such as clean air or security from national enemies. Values can also be symbolic
goods, such as status. In addition to positive values, there are negative values such
as coercion or imprisonment, polluted water, epidemic disease, and so on. (Notice
that this social scientific concept of values is broader than the notion of values as
moral judgments that people use to guide their actions.)
Most values are scarce resources—either there is an insufficient amount of a
given value to satisfy everyone, or the enjoyment of one value by some requires
a loss of value to others. For example, a state’s vast arsenal of nuclear weapons
may make one person feel secure while at the same time it makes another person
feel extremely insecure. One person might favor more government expenditures to
fight global terrorism, while another would prefer the government to spend more
resources on providing quality health care, and a third might prefer lower taxes
rather than either of these forms of government spending. Every possible value dis-
tribution entails trade-offs among different values as well as some inequality in the
benefits and burdens linked to each person. Thus, there are always disagreements,
competition, and even violent conflict over whose values will be served and whose
will not. What are your top two values for your society? For yourself?

allocation Pierre Mendes-France, a distinguished French premier (1954–1955),

observed that “to govern is to make choices.” Allocation refers to such choice
making—to the process by which decisions and actions are taken to grant values
to some and deny values to others. Value allocations occur at every moment when
decisions are made to alter or even to sustain the existing distribution of values.
Making these decisions and actions in the face of competition and conflict over
values is a central aspect of politics.

authoritative Value allocations are authoritative when the decisions are

accepted as binding by those people affected by the decisions. One of the most
fascinating questions in political analysis is: Why do people accept the authority

129
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

of the political system to allocate values in a manner that is not to their direct ad-
vantage? That is, why do people accept the imposition of taxes, policies, and laws
that they judge to be undesirable for themselves? Compare suggests some of the
reasons people accept the decisions of the political system, comparing authority
relations with the exercise of power.

COmPare | Power and authority

Few discussions about politics can occur without accept what A wants because B greatly admires A’s
direct or indirect reference to power or authority. virtue and qualities, and because B believes that it
Both concepts imply the capacity of A (one actor) to shares important values with A. Thus A exercises its
control the behavior of B (another actor). What is soft power when B accepts A’s demand, even if not in
the difference between power and authority? B’s evident self­interest, without any explicit threat
Power. Coercive power is exercised when A induces or the promise of the provision of a resource. (For
B to behave in a manner in which B would not otherwise other views of power, see Bachrach and Baratz 1962;
behave, based on the use of force or the threat of force. Boulding 1989; Dahl and Stinebrickner 2003; Lukes
In some cases, A actually does inflict direct bodily harm 2005; and Wrong 1996.)
on B using an instrument of force (e.g., guns, bombs, authority. B’s compliance in an authority
torture), or A imposes undesirable conditions on B (e.g., relationship with A is not based on power. B behaves
imprisonment or discriminatory treatment). However, in the manner consistent with A’s demands on
there are many cases of power exercise where B’s the basis of authority when B willingly accedes to
behavior is controlled when B believes there is a credible what A wants because of B’s belief that A has a
threat that A will administer coercive power. legitimate right to demand compliance. Authority is
Some scholars distinguish a second form of power, voluntaristic. B accepts the decision or demand of A
economic power (Boulding 1993). In economic power, because it is “the right thing to do,” not because of
A manipulates the control of resources that B wants coercive, economic, or soft power. The judgment of
or needs, in order to alter B’s behavior. A might refuse B that A’s authority is legitimate might be grounded
to sell or give to B an important resource (e.g., oil, in one or more of the following (see Weber 1958a:
economic aid, or military protection) that B wants, 295–301):
unless B meets A’s demands. Alternatively, A might
promise to provide B with a resource (e.g., a trade j Law. B believes that the laws or rules enforced
agreement or a bribe) only if B does what A desires. by A are rationally established, purposeful,
Of course, A is not necessarily successful in the and enacted by a legitimate process, and thus
threat or use of coercion or the manipulation of compliance with those laws is proper behavior.
economic resources. B could decide not to alter its j Tradition. B is influenced by a long­standing
behavior in the way that A wants by ignoring a threat, habit among most people to accept patterns
by refusing the economic resources offered by A, or by of authoritative action by A. Socialization is
responding with its own coercive power, which could typically an element in this form of convincing
result in violence between A and B. When actors have (indoctrinating?) B to accept the authority of A.
competing values, the option of employing coercive j Charisma. B accepts the actions of a dynamic leader
power or economic power is always a possibility. whose personal qualities are so extraordinary that
A third form of power is “soft power” (Nye the leader wins B’s trust and unquestioning support.
2004). Soft power is evident when B is persuaded to This seems an extreme form of soft power.

(Continued)

130
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

Source: © The New Yorker Collection 1977 George Booth from

[Link]. All Rights Reserved.

j Contract. Acceptance of A’s authority is based on Notice that the dynamics of power and authority
B’s belief that there is a contract between A and relationships cover a vast number of situations that
B in which A enforces a social order that protects involve competing values and agendas and thus are
B’s interests. When actor A is the state, a broad political. There are many instances where the behaviors
version of this is the concept of the social contract of both actors A and B are a complex
proposed by classical political theorists such as mix of power and authority patterns. As with other
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke actors, even the power and authority of the state can be
(1632–1704). challenged. Consider: Antigone, in Sophocles’ (496–
(Continued)

131
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

406 b.c.e.) classic play, who challenges a law by the FurTher QueSTiOnS
king, her uncle Creon; Mohandas Gandhi’s campaign 1. In general, is it more sensible for the state to
of resistance to British rule in India; the civil rights rely on power or authority to achieve its goals of
movements in South Africa and in the United States; security, stability, and prosperity?
the citizens’ resistance to tainted political leadership in 2. Consider Lord Acton’s cynical aphorism that
many countries, such as the 2011 challenge to Libya’s “all power corrupts.” Do you agree with this
Qadaffy. Of course, not all challenges to a state’s power gloomy appraisal?
and authority are legitimate and desirable. Creon tries 3. American philosopher Henry David Thoreau
to persuade Antigone that a danger of defiance is social (1817–1862) writes: “If [the law of the state]
disorder: “He whom the State appoints must be obeyed is of such a nature that it requires you to be
to the smallest matter, be it right or wrong. . . . There the agent of injustice to another, then I say,
is no more deadly peril than disobedience” (Sophocles break the law” (Thoreau 1849: 92). What
1967: 144). The balance between compliance and injustice would persuade you to break the
resistance to power and authority is at the heart of law? What law would you be willing to
politics. break?

For a Collectivity The domain of activity for the political system is all those
areas where it makes authoritative decisions that affect people’s lives. In Easton’s
classic definition, a political system functions “for a society.” His definition
serves the purposes of this text well because the text focuses primarily on states—
country-level political systems. But a political system can exist at any level. This
concept could certainly apply to subnational political systems (including such
U.S. examples as states, counties, and municipalities). It could also apply to a
supranational political system that encompasses more than one country (e.g., the
European Union, which includes 27 separate countries). Thus, this text offers a
more generalized definition of the political system as “the authoritative allocation
of values for a collectivity.”

Conceptualization of the Political System

In Easton’s (1965) conceptualization, the political system can be viewed as a gigan-
tic processing mechanism that converts “inputs” into “outputs” (Figure 2). The po-
litical system exists within a larger environment that includes other systems, such as
the economic system, the cultural system, the physical resource system, and many
others. This broader environment generates many inputs, called demands and sup-
ports, which the actors in the political system consider. The political actors then
produce outputs, the decisions and actions that allocate values. If these outputs
have an effect on the environment, this might produce new demands and supports.
This processing system becomes a continuing cycle.
The environment of the political system is the name given to all those ac-
tivities that are not part of the political system’s activity domain. Do not think
of the environment as a separate physical area, but rather those things that oc-
cur around the political system and provide both opportunities and constraints

132
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

Extrasocietal Environment

Fe
Political Intrasocietal Environment Fe

e
dback Loo
ed
Economic

back Lo
Economic Political
Social system

p
Demands

o
Social
p
Ecological INPUTS CONVERSION OUTPUTS
Ecological Supports
Other

Other

Figure 2
Conceptualization of the political system
Source: Based on Easton 1965:31.

on its functioning. This environment could include anything, anywhere in the

world, although most of the global environment has little direct relevance to
any action by a particular political system. So, for example, if the physical
resources environment inside the country (or the relevant parts of the physical
resources environment outside the country) contain few energy resources, that
has an effect on the challenges facing those making political decisions. If the
internal cultural environment is permeated by religious conflict, that matters.
If a neighboring country is taking actions perceived as a threat to security, that
will affect the demands and supports that the political system must deal with.
You can see that many aspects of the environment can shape the inputs to the
political system’s actions.
Demands are wants or desires for particular value allocations. Demands might
come from individuals, groups, or systems either within the society or outside of
it. For example, when a citizen or interest group expresses a preference for lower
taxes, or more expenditure on health care, or greater regulation of corporations,
this becomes a demand on the political system.
Supports are actions by individuals or groups that indicate either favorable
or unfavorable orientations towards the political system. These actions can be
directed towards any actor in the political system, from a major figure like the
president to a low-level bureaucrat to a governmental body like the legislature
to a political symbol like the country’s flag. Support can be positive, as when a
person pays taxes, serves in the state’s military, salutes the flag, or votes. Support
can also be negative, through actions that criticize or oppose the political system
such as a person refusing to pay taxes, avoiding military service, burning the flag,
or defacing the ballot.
At the heart of the political system framework is conversion—the process
by which political actors assess demands and supports within the context of the
relevant environmental forces and then determine what values will be allocated
to whom. Many political analysts have been especially interested in studying this

133
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

process. There are three general explanations of how the political system makes
policy decisions: the class approach, the elite approach, and the pluralist ap-
proach. You will find that in each of these three approaches, a different mix of
groups wield power and influence as the political system converts demands and
supports into policy decisions.
Once policy decisions have been made and implemented, they become out­
puts of the political system. Some outputs are visible and obvious, as when the
political system authorizes the building of a new nuclear power plant, spends the
money to build it, and then puts it online producing energy. But it is sometimes
difficult to identify the decisions (outputs) because they might involve subtle ac-
tions, secret policies, or even “nondecisions” that perpetuate the existing value
distribution or bury issues. For example, if some people demand new government
subsidies for small farmers and the government does nothing, there has been an
allocation decision—even though no visible policy action can be identified. A
policy might also be implemented in multiple ways, making it difficult to specify
the exact policy output. For example, the state might have a law that a person
cannot kill another person, yet the state does not mete out identical punishment
to all those who do kill.
Most analysts distinguish outputs from outcomes—the impacts of the
decisions taken and implemented by the political system. Ultimately, it is the
impacts of the political system’s policy choices that really affect people’s lives.
The essential question is: What difference did that policy choice (that value
allocation) make? How does the implemented policy affect people’s health,
welfare, security, freedom, knowledge, self-worth, or other values? Even more
than in the analysis of outputs, it can be extremely difficult to identify with
precision the overall outcomes of a policy and its effects on particular indi-
viduals and groups.
The final component in the systems approach is the feedback loop. Decision
outputs result in outcomes that alter aspects of the environment and thus affect
the next round of demands and supports reaching the political system. Feedback
is the dynamics through which information about those changes in the environ-
ment are monitored by the political system. As changes alter both the environ-
ment and the demands and supports, political actors might decide to revise the
value allocations they have previously made. As Figure 2 indicates, feedback is
drawn as a loop to emphasize the continuous circular process among components
in the system.
For Easton (1965), a crucial question is: How does a political system persist
in a world of challenges and change? Political decision makers must maintain a
delicate balance of forces: The environments must be prevented from constrain-
ing or overwhelming the political system and must be exploited for the resources
and opportunities they present; political actors must be sensitive and accurate
in their perceptions and policy decisions; demands must be managed so that
they are not irreconcilable and do not overload the resources available; posi-
tive support must be nurtured and negative support discouraged or suppressed.

134
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

In short, the actors in the political system must operate with political skill and
political will. If the political system’s performance is poor, there can be serious
consequences: a substantial decline in the quality of citizens’ lives; major social
disorder as in Libya in 2011; a “failed state” such as Somalia; even the “death”
of the political system, as occurred in the Sudan in 2011 (when it broke into two
countries).

Three maJOr COnCePTS: a rePriSe

This chapter has furthered our understanding of the political world by exploring
three major concepts that characterize large political entities: state, nation, and Study
and Review the
political system. First, state emphasizes the legal standing and power of sover- Post-Test &
eign entities, the necessary functions that they perform, and the domain of their Chapter Exam at
actions. The discussion also identified an array of goals that most states pursue, [Link]

centering on the core goals of security, stability, and prosperity.

Second, nation indicates a mental state characterized by a sense of shared
identity among a set of people, distinguishing “us” from “them” in the socio-
political world. Multinational states face particularly strong challenges from
the instability that can result from different nation-based identities. The Indian
subcontinent is among the many examples of the problem of disjunction between
state and nation.
And third, political system attempts to provide political scientists with a basic
analytic concept for building a general theory of political entities and processes.
It is useful as a metaphor for thinking about the dynamic processes among the
crucial components in an open, dynamic, and adaptive system whose essential
function is the authoritative allocation of values for its collectivity.

key COnCePTS
authority political system
demands political values
environment of the political system power
feedback prosperity
identity politics res publica
indigenous peoples security
inputs stability
multinational state sovereignty
nation state
nationalism supports
nation-state territorial integrity
outcomes values
outputs

135
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

FOr FurTher COnSiDeraTiOn

1. Do you think there are circumstances in which a country’s sovereignty should be vio-
lated? What is the most serious problem with your position on this question?
2. Do you identify with more than one nation? Is there any conflict between these identi-
ties? Under what types of circumstances might a person’s multiple nationality identities
produce serious internal conflicts?
3. To what extent is it possible to align states and nations in the contemporary world?
Would doing this be desirable?
4. Develop a dialogue between person A, who believes that the authority of the state must
be obeyed under almost all conditions, and person B, who believes that the authority
of the state can be disputed in any situation in which B substantially disagrees with the
state’s decision.
5. Describe several situations in which the decision-making capacity of the most powerful
actors in the political system is almost completely constrained by factors in the extraso-
cietal or the intrasocietal environment.

FOr FurTher reaDing

Barber, Benjamin R. (1995). Jihad versus McWorld. New York: Random House. An inci-
sive analysis of current world trends, in which there is a simultaneous globalization of
culture and economics and a breakdown of peoples into distinct and hostile nationality
groups.
Connor, Walker. (1994). Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press. A detailed analysis of the nature of and the imperatives driv-
ing a people’s strong identity with nation as opposed to state, enriched by many illumi-
nating examples.
Evans, Gareth. (2008). The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once
and For All. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Linked to the Debate, this is a
vigorous justification of the obligation of a state to protect its own citizens from atroci-
ties and, if it fails, the necessity (R2P) for international intervention.
Hutchinson, John, and Anthony Smith, Eds. (1995). Nationalism. New York: Oxford
University Press. Hutchinson, John, and Anthony Smith, Eds. (1995). Ethnicity. New
York: Oxford University Press. These two “Oxford Readers” offer an exceptional selec-
tion of short excerpts relevant to understanding each concept. Each book includes per-
spectives from a wide variety of social scientists, historians, social theorists, and others.
Jackson, Robert. (2007). Sovereignty: The Evolution of an Idea. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
A thoughtful exploration of the concept of sovereignty, including its historical devel-
opment and its contemporary implications for interstate relations, human rights, and
global society.
Kaufman, Stuart J. (2001). Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press. The manipulation of ethnonationalist sentiments to serve
the political goals of leaders is described in a set of intriguing case studies.
Kesey, Ken. (1962). One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. New York: New American Library.
A funny, gripping novel (also made into a film) that, at its core, considers the virtues and
costs of defying institutional authority.
Marx, Anthony W. (2003). Faith in Nation: Exclusionary Origins of Nationalism. New
York: Oxford University Press. This study emphasizes the way in which nation-based

136
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

identity is created mainly by excluding groups, especially based on religious differences,

as an intentional strategy to establish nationalism and consolidate governmental power.
Miller, Benjamin. (2007). States, Nations, and the Great Powers: The Sources of Regional
War and Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press. The explanation of why some
regions are peaceful and others are war prone is based on different patterns of balance
or imbalance between nations and states in the region, using case studies from Europe,
South America, and the Middle East.
Paul, T. V., John Ikenberry, and John Hall, Eds. (2003). The Nation­State in Question.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. These essays explore the continuing power
and central importance of the state, despite the enormous forces undermining the state
from both nation-based identities and globalization.
Rashid, Ahmed. (2002). Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press. Author of the widely discussed Taliban (2000, Yale
University Press), Rashid offers a rich account of the rapid emergence of religious na-
tionalism in the “stans” of Central Asia (e.g., Tajikistan and Kazakhstan), driven par-
ticularly by poverty, corruption, and a reaction to the suppression of Islam in the region.
Snyder, Jack. (2000). From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict.
New York: W. W. Norton. In exploring four different types of nationalism (civic, ethnic,
revolutionary, and counterrevolutionary), the author examines the relationship between
nationalism and other dynamic forces, especially democratization, political leadership,
and political violence.
Sorensen, Georg. (2001). Changes in Statehood: The Transformation of International
Relations. New York: Palgrave. A useful taxonomy of states (modern, postmodern, and
postcolonial) is the basis for an exploration of how states attempt to achieve their secu-
rity goals as they respond to pressures from external and internal forces.
Taras, Raymond, and Rajat Ganguly. (2010). Understanding Ethnic Conflict: The
International Dimension. 4th ed. New York: Longman. In addition to a helpful concep-
tualization of the nature of ethnic conflict, revealing case studies discuss the problems
of nation and state in settings such as Canada, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, and the
former Yugoslavia.
Thoreau, Henry David. (1849/1981). Walden and Other Writings. Ed. J. W. Krutch. New
York: Bantam. These essays, especially “On Disobedience,” constitute one of the most
influential arguments in English for resisting authority.

On The WeB
[Link]
Atlapedia provides diverse statistical information and various maps for each country as
well as recent political history.
[Link]
The Web page of the Center for World Indigenous Studies, an independent, nonprofit
organization emphasizing the distribution of knowledge about the issues and status of
indigenous peoples (nations not coterminous with states) and promoting greater au-
tonomy of power to such peoples.
[Link]
The Internet Public Library provides links to numerous reference books, newspapers,
and magazines about various countries.

137
 Political Systems, States, and Nations

[Link]
The Web site of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency includes the CIA World Factbook,
a detailed and relatively up-to-date compilation of information about the political, eco-
nomic, geographic, and demographic characteristics of every country.
[Link]
The official site of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
[Link]
Operated by the U.S. Department of State, this site has country reports and information
on international organizations, human rights, and numerous other topics related to for-
eign policy and international relations.
[Link]
Country Reports provides comprehensive reports for most countries and includes access
to international news and reference maps.
[Link]
Infonation, developed by the United Nations, provides the latest statistics for all UN
member states.
[Link]
This site offers an encyclopedic array of portals with details of states and many aspects
of their governmental, cultural, and economic forms.
[Link]
This site, produced by the publishers of The Economist, a respected British newsmaga-
zine, contains detailed country profiles and links to international news resources.

PhOTO CreDiTS
Credits are listed in order of appearance.
Photo 1: Reuters
Photo 2: Anthony Njugua/Landov
Photo 3: © The New Yorker Collection 1977 George Booth from [Link]. All
Rights Reserved.

138