Political theory of the state

The state was and still is regarded as a legitimate bearer of rule—a view rooted in absolutist thinking (Machiavelli 1513, Bodei 1576, Hobbes 1651). According to this view, the state, however it is governed, is preferable to war and chaos. Max Weber’s concept of domination provides an intellectual-historical bridge between this understanding of the state and the present day. According to Weber, domination exists when those subject to it obey a command in a disciplined manner (Weber 1921/1980, pp. 28, 29, 122, 123); domination thus appears generally legitimate. Above all, however, the state is still regarded as an instrument of rule to this day, as in Georg Jellinek’s three-element theory of the state, which defines the state as a unity of territory (a delimited area), people (the population belonging to it) and state authority (effective, sovereign power) (Jellinek 1900).

Civility Theory puts this understanding of the state into perspective: although the monopoly on the use of force is a feature of the modern state (a requirement even the gun-lobbyist Trump administration is beginning to grasp), state rule can also be illegitimate—for example, tyranny without the consent of the people and in violation of every human right. States can also operate not only as vertical structures of authority but as negotiating partners—a model of horizontal coordination that led Fritz Scharpf (1993, 2000) to develop the concept of the Negotiating State. Above all, however, the modern constitutional state coordinates itself in accordance with applicable constitutional and procedural law, operating in two dimensions. When it acts publicly on substantive policy, it operates in multiple dimensions.

This means the concept of state (from the Latin status: standing, condition, position) can no longer be confined by the concept of domination. This critique of an understanding of the state still influenced by absolutism—see, for example, China’s claim to absolute sovereignty in the face of any criticism of human rights violations, or Donald Trump’s psychopathic unilateralism—ultimately reflects an indisputable fact: so far, there is no territorially all-encompassing state on Earth; rather, nation-states, constellations between them, and subnational government units operate in an international system of competing claims and forms of legitimacy. No state is therefore absolutely sovereign; instead, public action for the good of humanity necessarily requires a willingness and ability to cooperate.

Anyone who still uses the concept of the state to mean absolute rule in this context has either thought too little or is deliberately misleading their audience. Above all, this blocks urgently needed political learning.

Read the full text on this topic by clicking the button below: