State theory

The state was and is considered the legitimate holder of power—a view that dates back to absolutist thought (Machiavelli 1513, Bodei 1576, Hobbes 1651). According to this view, the state, regardless of how it is governed, is preferable to war and chaos. Max Weber's concept of domination forms a historical link between this understanding of the state and the present day. According to Weber, domination exists when the ruled submit to a command in a disciplined manner (Weber 1921/1980, pp. 28, 29, 122, 123); domination thus appears as generally legitimate. Above all, however, the state is still considered an institution of power, as exemplified by Georg Jellinek's three-element theory of the state as a unity consisting of state territory (delimited territory), state people (the population belonging to it), and state power (effective, sovereign ruling power) (Jellinek 1900).

From a civil-theoretical perspective, this understanding of the state is relativized: While the monopoly of force is a requirement of a modern state (a requirement that even the gun-lobbyist Trump administration is beginning to grasp), illegitimate state rule also exists, such as forms of tyranny without the consent of the population and in violation of all human rights. On the other hand, states can operate not only as vertical organizations of power but also through negotiation—a pattern 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 a two-dimensional manner, bound by applicable constitutional and procedural law. When it operates through substantive public policy action, it operates multidimensionally.

This means that the concept of state (from the Latin status: status, condition, position) can no longer be confined by the concept of domination. This critique of the still absolutist-influenced understanding of the state—see, for example, China's claim to absolute sovereignty in the face of any criticism of human rights violations or the psychopathic unilateralism of Donald Trump—ultimately reflects an undeniable fact: To date, there is no spatially comprehensive state on Earth; rather, nation-states, constellations between them, and subnational governmental entities operate within an international system of competing claims and forms of legitimacy. No single state is therefore absolutely sovereign; rather, public action for the good of humanity necessarily requires a willingness and capacity for cooperation.

Anyone who still uses the concept of the state in the sense of absolute rule has therefore either not thought enough through the issue or is deliberately lying to their audience. Above all, this obstructs urgently needed political learning.

You can access the full text on this topic via the following button: