I. Introduction
It is rare for academic research to claim utility in avoiding violence, ethnic conflict, and even war. Crafting State-Nations: India and Other Multinational Democracies by Alfred Stepan, Juan J. Linz, Yogendra Yadav makes such an assertion, if only indirectly. The authors state their intention to “establish a normative standard to which multinational democracies can aspire” (p. 7) in order to peacefully manage diversity within their borders. Do they succeed? The book argues convincingly that multinational democracies—contrary to theoretical expectations—can elicit a high degree of trust, positive identification with the state, and support for democracy when they deploy a specific set of political institutions that the authors dub “state-nation policies.” Such policies facilitate identification with the state-wide political community while also establishing “institutional safeguards for respecting and protecting politically salient sociocultural diversities” (p. 5). In making their case, the authors privilege breadth over depth: their methodological approach encompasses ideal-type theorizing, cross-country survey data, a detailed case study of India, and shorter descriptions of the Ukraine and the United States. The authors thus do justice to their intention to “expand our collective political imaginations about what is feasible, and unfeasible, in different contexts,” (p. xiv) but the lack of depth means Stepan, Linz, and Yadav do not adequately address the all-important question of what makes a “robustly multinational” polity amenable to state-nation policies in the first place; this flaw undermines the book’s potential utility for leaders of such states.
This paper will assess Crafting State-Nations as a resear...
... middle of paper ...
... policymakers on matters of such fundamental importance.
V. Conclusion
The authors of Crafting State-Nations assert, alternatively, that they intend to “expand our collective political imaginations about what is feasible” and “argue that political leaders in [robustly multinational polities] need to think about craft, and normatively legitimate a type of polity with characteristics of a “state-nation” (p. xiv, p. 3-4). The first goal evidently motivated the authors to employ a wide range of methodological tools and cover as many existing arrangements for managing diversity as possible. The second goal would have been better served with a deeper and more focused research design. While this compelling book certainly succeeds in forcing the reader to rethink political institutions in multinational settings, the normative case for state-nation policies is less clear.
In this paper I will trace the roots of the nation-state and just how globalization affects it. Using examples such as the notable European Union and United Nations, I will then explain the differences between past nation-states and current sovereign states. By discussing the global economy, as well as the role the nation-state has in creating corporations for the global economy, I will prove that globalization fails to eradicate the nation-state solely because the ideals are too capitalistic. I will then examine how the nation-state still plays a vital role in a world rapidly moving towards one market with one nation and one set of rules.
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
The Transformation of the “Indian Problem”. In this paper, I plan to examine the marked transformation and the history of the so-called “Indian Problem.” The idea of an “Indian Problem” began with the arrival of white settlers in North America, and for them, it was a problem of safety, security, and land acquisition. Around 1890, the “Indian Problem” became an issue of how to help the Indians go extinct humanely, or to assimilate into white culture.
Tarrow, Sidney. “Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science, 2001.4.
The most important value of nationalism to democracy lies in the fact that it has the capacity to unite individual citizens into a single entity with shared beliefs. Democracy requires a definition of demos or who are included in the game and who are not (Nodia 6). Wherever the boundaries of the playing field are in dispute, democratic institutions (such as participation, representation, or cooperation) simply cannot function. Thus, for democracy to o...
Democratic states are perceived to be more peaceful because “democracies do not attack each other.” The proposition that democracies never (or rarely; there is a good deal of variation about this) go to war against one another has nearly become a truism. Since Michael Doyle’s essay in 1983 pointed out that no liberal democracy has ever fought a war with another democracy , scholars have treated pacifism between as democracies, “as closest thing we have to an empirical law in international relations.” The democratic peace proposition encourages hope for a new age of international peace. Over the years since Michael Doyle’s essay a lot of literature has been written about “democratic peace theory”. A lot of analysis has focused on the claim- that liberal democracies do not fight each one another. There is a lot of action- reaction sequence in the academic arguments. As an idea catches on it accumulates adherents. The more popular an idea, there is more likehood of a critical reaction that raises serious and strong reservations about the validity of the new idea. In this essay, I would like to examine the claim- that democratic states are more peaceful as democracy causes peace. In this essay I draw on the writings of John M. Owen, Michael Doyle, Christopher Layne, Mansfield and Snyder, Alexander Wendt, Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin for their views on why democracies do not fight one another and then deduce my own conclusions.
Wendt, A. (1992). “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, 46(2), pp. 391-425.
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
When looking at normative theories of politics, the main distinction is between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. In this essay the term community shall refer to political communities, or more specifically, states. It is important to note that these political communities have been defined territorially, and not necessarily by culture, although this is taken for granted to an extent by communitarianism. Communitarians say that each community is different, and therefore should act accordingly with each other. In other words, state autonomy should be absolute and law and moral standards should be self-determined by the community itself alone. Furthermore, communities should have no obligations to other political communities or any sort of international law. Contrastingly, Cosmopolitans say that there should be an overriding universal moral standard to which all states (or communities) should adhere. If a state is infringing on the rights of the individual or humanity, then intervention is appropriate and just. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
This essay will describe the characteristics of the modern nation-state, explain how the United States fits the criteria of and functions as a modern nation-state, discuss the European Union as a transnational entity, analyze how nation-states and transnational entities engage in foreign policy to achieve their interests, and the consequences of this interaction for international politics. Some of the characteristics that make up a modern nation-state are: the population of the territory is united in the national identity and traditions, has an official language or languages and common descent, has an organized government, shall have independence and sovereign (self-ruled), and has a defined territory and/or borders. An example of a modern nation-state is Egypt. Egypt’s identity is closely tied to its location and its long history.
Within the context of the period 1847-1947 to what extent was Indian independence primarily the result of the growth of Indian nationalism?
Vasco da Gama landed at Calicut, sailing via the Cape of Good Hope in 1498. This marked the beginning of
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. London. Oxford University Press.
There is an undeniable fact that there has been a rise in globalization. It has become a hot topic amongst the field of international politics. With the rise of globalization, the sovereignty of the state is now being undermined. It has become an undisputed fact that the world has evolved to a new level of globalization, the transferring goods, information, ideas and services around the globe has changed at an unimaginable rate. With all that is going on, one would question how globalization has changed the system that is typically a collection of sovereign states. Do states still have the main source of power? What gives a state the right to rule a geographically defined region? It is believed by many that due to the introduction of international systems and increasing rate of globalization, the sovereignty of the state has been slowly eroded over time. My paper has two parts: First, it aims to take a close look at how globalization has changed the way the economy worked, specifically how it opened doors for multinational corporations to rise in power. Second, to answer the question, is it possible for it to exist today? And even so, should it?