If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The issue of the principal of sovereignty is an issue that inspires some of the most intense ideological debates within society. Sovereignty is a concept that every society has its own definition of – in some parts in European society, sovereignty is derived from the just consent of the governed, or the ‘general will’. In other parts of European society, sovereignty is derived from one central power that is capable of overriding all other powers, or the ‘Leviathan’. In some parts of Islamic society, sovereignty is derived from ‘al-Sunnah’, or the will of God. In different societies there are different methods for determining who is the sovereign in that society, in order that any decisions can be acted upon with the consent of the most people possible within the group of people. This is the question of the principal of sovereignty. The answer for the question of what is the true constitution of sovereignty, whether the sovereign derives his sovereignty from ideas or violence, ultimately can be distilled from determining who is it that makes decisions in a given group, and why is it that their decisions are respected by the members of that group. Although ultimate sovereignty always lies with the people who are physically able to dominate the people in their group, in any given situation a person is sovereign if they receive respect from the people that they make decisions for; this readily allows for multiple sovereignties that are tied together by one sovereign capable of the legitimate use of violence.
In order to understand the idea of sovereignty, it first becomes necessary to define it. In any given situation when people come together to form a group, there becomes the problem of who will make the decisions and how they will be made for the group. If everyone is able to make the decisions for the group, then no decision will be respected because each person will feel that other peoples’ decisions and their decisions do not align; this assuming the natural state of disagreement among people in a group. If one person makes the decisions for the group, then that person runs the risk of his decisions not being respected by the rest of the group because they had no input in the decision making process. Therefore, the person who is able to have their decisions implemented and respected by the rest of the people in their group has sovereignty and is the sovereign.
Some people believe that sovereignty is based on legitimate and universal principles. In The Economist, Kofi Annan argues that sovereignty must be based on legitimate and universal principles and that, the international community must reach consensus not only on the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights must be checked, wherever they take place, but also on ways of deciding what action is necessary, and when, and by whom.1 In essence, Kofi Annan argues that sovereignty is based on the degree to which people promote human rights, stand against the violations of human rights, and are capable of deciding what actions are necessary to take to defend human rights. However, implicit in his understanding of sovereignty is that the ability to be seen as a legitimate sovereign corresponds directly with the amount that they uphold universal principles. This is not true; in a given group of people, the sovereign is the one that makes the decisions, and is able to have their decisions respected by the rest of the group. It does not matter how this respect is achieved; although it may be achieved with accordance to human rights, it can also be achieved through fear. Essentially, people may listen to the sovereign because the sovereign upholds universal moral principles, or because the sovereign makes them fear for their existence. It is in this sense that Kofi Annan is wrong; although sovereignty as a concept may intersect with some universal moral principles like life and liberty, sovereignty may also be formed through violence, or some combination of the two.
When the basis of sovereignty is based on a mix between universal principles and violence, it is more important for a sovereign to control the legitimate use of violence, than to be recognized as a moral leader, because violence alone is enough to sustain sovereignty. This was the case in colonial sovereignty – according Achille Mbembe, colonial sovereignty was “the exact opposite of the liberal model of debate…colonial sovereignty rested on three forms of violence…founding violence…being the sole judge of its violence…and the repetitive violence.”2 Colonial sovereignty did not seek to uphold any universal principles like human rights, yet they were the undisputed sovereign in their colonies. The colonized people respected them because they feared the power of the colonial regime. This fear allowed the colonial governments to maintain respect among the colonized people, and allowed for the implementation of any law it wished to enact; therefore, intrinsic to colonial sovereignty was the use of violence.
Contrastingly, an adherence to universal principles is not enough to sustain sovereignty. For instance, according to Steffen Jensen, Surrey Estates in Cape Town that had a highly Muslim population which created for itself a degree of sovereignty through the creation of a moral community. To Jensen, Surrey Estates “is contrasted with, and draws its basic morality from – not being like the surrounding townships. Second, Surrey Estate is constructed as a Muslim space, apart from the Christian majority at its doorstep. It is from the rental area that drugs, violence, and gangs emanate…”3 It was seen as moral because it contrasted itself with the immoral ‘other’, or those who engaged in drug dealing, violence, and gangs. They sought to make the immoral ‘others’ part of their moral community. However, sovereignty based solely on adherence to universal principles only works as long as the sovereign commands respect among those they make decisions for. Although they were sovereign within their group of people, because they did not have the respect of the immoral drug dealing ‘others’, they could not assert their authority over the immoral part of their town. Thus, they could only achieve sovereignty after, “asserting their moral position”.4 Ultimately, despite the fact that Surrey Estates was constructed as a moral community, it did not physically become the sovereign until it asserted its moral position, or based in sovereignty partially on violence and partially on morality.
When sovereignty is based on a mix of violence and adherence to universal principles, the sovereign achieves both the principled respect of the people for whom decisions are made, as well as creating the legitimate violent foundations vital for sovereignty. In the event this occurs, sovereignty becomes understood in terms of governmentality. According to Michel Foucault, the governmentality understanding of sovereignty is different from the traditional Machiavellian understanding of sovereignty, because traditional Machiavellian sovereignty defines the sovereign as the ruler of a place, while governmentality defines the sovereign as the ruler of things. In essence, the group of people that the sovereign makes the decision for ceases to become defined by any particular region, but become defined by the degree to which they identify with the sovereign. Sovereignty becomes less about “maintaining the principality”, and more about developing the “art of government”.5 Overall, when sovereignty becomes based on violence and universal principles, the sovereign consolidates power through incorporating peoples identities to coincide with itself, thus sovereignty becomes based on personal identity and economy rather than location.
In any instance of sovereignty that is understood in terms of governmentality, there arereadily multiple sovereigns, because there are multiple ways for people to identify within the current group.
For instance, in the town of South Africa, Jensen wrote about the Islamic authority that established itself as sovereign outside of the sovereignty of the state and the Christian Majority. They asserted their authority over the drug dealers with violence, and attacked prostitutes with welfare. When the police force became corrupted by the money from the drug dealers, they symbolically linked the state with immorality, and began to attack the state as well. Ultimately, they established themselves as a sovereign by creating a moral community, and using that unity of spirit to achieve its goals.
In addition, when a person is thrust into a position where they are uniquely able to provide people with sustenance or are necessary for the resolution of conflict, they begin to assume the role of sovereign. For instance, in the case of the Lukole refugee camp in Tanzania, Simon Turner writes about a group of young men who had “been successful in managing to adapt to the new situation and creating an importance place for themselves as power brokers…they could assure others jobs and other resources.”6 Although these men had no official title, they were instrumental in providing jobs, resources, and resolution to conflicts for the other members of the camp. By nature of their necessity, people began to look towards them with increasing respect, giving them a degree of influence and sovereignty.
Lastly, sovereignty can also be created or expanded based on the degree to which the sovereign is capable of advancing social protection. In South Africa, according to Jean and John L. Comaroff, there was an infestation of foreign plants that were seen as ‘alien’, and replacing the natural heritage of South Africa. After wildfires around the turn of the millennium, the South African government initiated a series of measures to deal with these foreign plants. It was perceived that these plants were the direct cause of the wildfires, which threatened the very core of South African society. However, according to the Comaroff’s, the procedures, “went far beyond the usual bounds of botany…it has a compelling story to tell about citizenship, identity, and nation-building.”7 Essentially, the South African government used this issue of the foreign plants to consolidate power. The foreign plants symbolized a direct threat to South Africa, and because the government positioned itself as the defender of South Africa, it increased its legitimacy among South Africans, and received a greater degree of their respect. Overall, when sovereignty is already established, sovereignty can be expanded due to moral, economic, or social issues that grant people power.
This view of sovereignty, that violence forms the basis of sovereignty, and by sovereignty being established there is the establishment of sub-sovereigns, is consistent with many other authors viewpoints. Achille Mbembe, in On The Postcolony, writes, “…all through the history of modern societies, taxation has provided the ultimate economic foundation of the state, just as the monopoly of legitimate violence was one key to state building”8. Mbembe believes that the state, which in modern society monopolizes the legitimate use of violence, further entrenches its sovereignty through asserting its economic authority in the form of taxation.
In addition to Mbembe, Steffen Jensen describes sovereignty as, “the ability to name someone a threat to the moral community” 9. Jensen describes sovereignty in terms of violence and morality; to Jensen, sovereignty is based on morality, and the ability to create the moral community in a certain way. Because morality is constituted in a particular style, immorality is also constituted in a particular style, thus violence by the moral community is justified against immorality.
Lastly, Eric Worby in Inscribing The State describes sovereignty as it relates to social construction, “…both figured the district as a repository of peoples affixed to the landscape, peoples that exist as eternal attributes of the place they live within. And above all, both established the grounds upon which state domination, in the name of a civilizing process, could be seen as justifiable” 10. To Worby, the people were described as a part of the landscape. Because people were described as part of the landscape, when they were incorporated into greater Zimbabwe, because the landscape did not change, the style of sovereignty did not change. Prior to their incorporation, if they were seen as a frontier people, after their incorporation, they were seen as a frontier people incorporated under the Zimbabwe government. In general, at the basis of sovereignty is the capacity for violence, but in applying sovereignty, sovereignty becomes justified on economic, political, or social bases.
In its most basic elements, sovereignty relies on the capacity for violence; however, if we wish to move beyond the these most basic elements of our society and achieve something greater with our lives, it must also be recognized that sovereignty relies on legitimacy, which relies on adherence to universal principles. When Kofi Annan argues that sovereignty must be based on adherence to universal principles, he is not arguing that sovereignty is based on universal principles; implicit in his statement is that sovereignty is based on violence. However, to him, if we wish to transcend violence, sovereignty must embrace universal principles as intrinsic to its existence as violence. This ideology is indicative of a man who seeks to integrate the world - a man who wishes to create a global society that is so legitimate in the eyes of the people that they cannot help but be compelled to support it. However, at the heart of this society will always lie the capacity for violence; declaring that sovereignty ought to be based on legitimacy, without the capacity to enforce this legitimacy, is akin to the moral community in Cape Town that tried to enforce its morality, but needed to resort to violence to deal with the immoral drug dealers. Therefore, although there may be an increasingly integrated world, where the traditional notions of state sovereignty are breaking down with each passing day, if a nation of people, or its government, or both, retains the capacity and the willingness to use violence for whatever ends they desire, they remain true sovereigns.
Works Cited
Annan, Kofi A. 1999. Two Concepts of Sovereignty. The Economist, September 16.
Hansen, Thomas Blom, and Finn Stepputat, eds. 2005. Sovereign Bodies: Citizens, Migrants, and States in the Postcolonial World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mbembe, Achille. 2001. On the Postcolony. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Foucault, Michel. 2000. Governmentality. In Power, ed. James D. Faubion, 201-22. New York: New Press.
Worby, Eric. 2004. Zimbabwe’s `Unfinished Business’: Rethinking Land, State and Nation in the Context of Crisis, ed. Amanda Hammar, Brian Raftopoulos, and Stig Jensen, 49–82.
9 Comments
<!--more-->
.
Using a contemporaneous model as an example: The country of Iraq may no longer be deemed a sovereign nation. The basis for this claim is simple: The governing body of this country is no longer the only group which claims a legitimate right to exercise military or police authority (violence). This authority has been (to some degree) usurped by political factions and religious sects (the militias) internal to Iraq. This authority has, additionally, been preempted by the United States (and coalition) military armies of occupation in Iraq. Thus it is possible to argue that, despite the claims of the current administration, Iraq no longer has a sovereign government and that its people no longer have an absolute right to self determination.
In addition, if one were to argue that sovereignity is defined by the will of "God" then, the question arises: can such submission be compulsory. The answer, of course, is no. Submission to the will of God must be elected, not compelled, otherwise it is meaningless. Thus anything which precludes the ability to make such an election (an act of absolute individual self determination) also precludes any legitimate claim to sovereignity. Thus one might argue, again, that Iraq is not a sovereign nation-state in that the US military presence has precluded the election of the individual Iraqis to choose a government that "submits to the will of God" as they understand their God. By enforcing a quasi-secular government upon the Iraqis, the United States has imposed a ruling body with no legitimate claim to sovereignity and which may actually not long outlast our occupation of that country. The argument here being, of course, that if the Iraqis were left to a free and unrestricted exercise of the right to self determination, they might constitute their government along a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy structure (similar to Iran). This would be an anathema to US interests in the region.
Using a contemporaneous model as an example: The country of Iraq may no longer be deemed a sovereign nation. The basis for this claim is simple: The governing body of this country is no longer the only group which claims a legitimate right to exercise military or police authority (violence). This authority has been (to some degree) usurped by political factions and religious sects (the militias) internal to Iraq. This authority has, additionally, been preempted by the United States (and coalition) military armies of occupation in Iraq. Thus it is possible to argue that, despite the claims of the current administration, Iraq no longer has a sovereign government and that its people no longer have an absolute right to self determination.
In addition, if one were to argue that sovereignity is defined by the will of "God" then, the question arises: can such submission be compulsory. The answer, of course, is no. Submission to the will of God must be elected, not compelled, otherwise it is meaningless. Thus anything which precludes the ability to make such an election (an act of absolute individual self determination) also precludes any legitimate claim to sovereignity. Thus one might argue, again, that Iraq is not a sovereign nation-state in that the US military presence has precluded the election of the individual Iraqis to choose a government that "submits to the will of God" as they understand their God. By enforcing a quasi-secular government upon the Iraqis, the United States has imposed a ruling body with no legitimate claim to sovereignity and which may actually not long outlast our occupation of that country. The argument here being, of course, that if the Iraqis were left to a free and unrestricted exercise of the right to self determination, they might constitute their government along a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy structure (similar to Iran). This would be an anathema to US interests in the region.
Decisions cannot wholly be made through peace, because peace-time decisions require previous agreement; if there is no previous agreement, no implementation is possible.
Decisions CAN however, be made wholly through war - the group can physically force someone else to submit to their will, or they can eliminate that person altogether. As in the colonial regiemes, they ruled with no sense of 'rights' or 'legitimacy' - the only legitimacy they had was the use of force.
But, if we want some better form of government, if we want 'good government', decisions must be made with a combination of both.
Ultimately, my biggest leap of logic is that because violence is enough to sustain sovereignty, it is more central to sovereignty. I do believe this to be the case; if person A is able to sustain an institution on his own without the help of person B, while person B needs person A to sustain an institution, person A is more important to sustain the institution.
Decisions cannot wholly be made through peace, because peace-time decisions require previous agreement; if there is no previous agreement, no implementation is possible.
Decisions CAN however, be made wholly through war - the group can physically force someone else to submit to their will, or they can eliminate that person altogether. As in the colonial regiemes, they ruled with no sense of 'rights' or 'legitimacy' - the only legitimacy they had was the use of force.
But, if we want some better form of government, if we want 'good government', decisions must be made with a combination of both.
Ultimately, my biggest leap of logic is that because violence is enough to sustain sovereignty, it is more central to sovereignty. I do believe this to be the case; if person A is able to sustain an institution on his own without the help of person B, while person B needs person A to sustain an institution, person A is more important to sustain the institution.
Basically an oppressive and coercive government is attempting to grab a handfull of water by making a fist. No matter how hard they clench their fist the water ALWAYS slips out of their grasp.
Basically an oppressive and coercive government is attempting to grab a handfull of water by making a fist. No matter how hard they clench their fist the water ALWAYS slips out of their grasp.
Case in point: the myanmar junta. Almost 0% support in the country, kills and tortures its citizens with no compassion; yet, because it controls the use of violence, it was able to successfully withstand the buddist led 'revolution'. In the history of religion, there have been no successful un-armed prophets. Moses had the hand of God (speaking of which, passover is coming up soon); Muhhamed had the conquest of Mecca; Jesus had somethin. Even liberalism, needed the Democratic revolutions to be implemented. Liberalism is inseparable from things like, the American Revolution.
You can base your respect on universal principles, like human rights, but you can also base your respect on violence. Violence, it seems, is also a universal principle; it is just a principle based on war rather than peace.
Case in point: the myanmar junta. Almost 0% support in the country, kills and tortures its citizens with no compassion; yet, because it controls the use of violence, it was able to successfully withstand the buddist led 'revolution'. In the history of religion, there have been no successful un-armed prophets. Moses had the hand of God (speaking of which, passover is coming up soon); Muhhamed had the conquest of Mecca; Jesus had somethin. Even liberalism, needed the Democratic revolutions to be implemented. Liberalism is inseparable from things like, the American Revolution.
You can base your respect on universal principles, like human rights, but you can also base your respect on violence. Violence, it seems, is also a universal principle; it is just a principle based on war rather than peace.
Your paper asserts that the concept of sovereignity is an ambiguous term. I say piffle. It's not ambiguous at all. You are arguing that forte-mayne type governance equates to sovereignity and it doesn't. Sovereignity derives from only one place and that is the right to self determination. To make it simple for you, slaves have no right to self determination (according to their masters). Those ruled by a class who deny their right to self determination will seize upon every effort to circumvent their laws, cheat, steal, and undermine the authority of the government. In the absence of the ability to do these things they will seek to flee or to overthrow the ruling body.
Arguing that strong arm type governance equates to sovereignity also ignores a vital factor: That the ability to "rule" under such conditions is entirely contingent on your ability to monitor and control the populace on a daily basis. The reason for this is that the people being ruled do not recognize your sovereignity (as in they did not freely and voluntarily elect to be subject to you) merely your ability to threaten them with violence. It's somewhat akin to saying that the guy who mugs you is your sovereign. He's not.
I would also observe, Bear, that the Germans (at one point) controlled the nation of France. They installed the Vichy government under Marshal Henri Petain. Was that government sovereign or was it the government in exile that was the sovereign government of France?
However, I'd say this: the 'government' that was in exile was not the sovereign of the French people, because they had no capacity to enforce their decisions among the people who decided to collaborate with the Germans. They, in essence, governed the people who wanted to 'actively' oppose the Germans; this was only a faction of those considered 'french'. This, assuming that there was actually an exiled govt to speak of.
(FYI - government != sovereign. They may sometimes be the same, but they are not always the same)
Therefore, there in this case, there were multiple sovereignties; there was not a single sovereign that was sovereign over the people of france. Each sovereign only was sovereign over its part. It was a case of sub-sovereignty; the ultimate sovereign in the south was germany.
However, I'd say this: the 'government' that was in exile was not the sovereign of the French people, because they had no capacity to enforce their decisions among the people who decided to collaborate with the Germans. They, in essence, governed the people who wanted to 'actively' oppose the Germans; this was only a faction of those considered 'french'. This, assuming that there was actually an exiled govt to speak of.
(FYI - government != sovereign. They may sometimes be the same, but they are not always the same)
Therefore, there in this case, there were multiple sovereignties; there was not a single sovereign that was sovereign over the people of france. Each sovereign only was sovereign over its part. It was a case of sub-sovereignty; the ultimate sovereign in the south was germany.
I never said that the Vichy regime was sovereign.
I could say all that I want about how the Federal Government is an illegitimate government, how it has lost the moral authority it has ever had and thus 'its not my government'. However, it still comes down to this: the Federal government makes the rules, it governs to a large extent the actions, and if domestic insurrection rises up for whatever reason, it has the ability to stop that domestic insurrection by virtue of its force.
As to your last point, that the nation of france under my premise
Secondly, we see that it never really managed to establish sovereignty among the people, because it failed to stop the resistance that actively worked against it. If it was a real sovereign, it would have been able to attack this resistance and destroy it; but before this could happen, DDAY happened and the major German support of the Vichy government ceased to exist.
Lastly, probably most importantly, something as abstract as nationality is almost purely imaginary; this doesn't make it fake, but nationality gets told through the stories that people tell about it. America is America because it has its own history, the Jews are the Jews because they have their own history, France is France and Germany is Germany, etc. To totally abolish the nation of France and reconstitute it as annexed into greater Germany would have just been stupid; the German people would not have accepted it because those 'frenchmen' aren't worthy of being called Germans. Thus, there was no attempt to remake the nation of Frenchmen; the attempt was to remake the sovereign and who controls the use of force, and to what ends.