Why is a states authority to govern is always contested Essay Example

Why is a states authority to govern is always contested? Essay In all forms of government there is always an element of dissent and disobedience to the authority of the state. While in totalitarian states, dissent is not tolerated and crushed as and when it happens, in the more democratic forms of government it is actually seen as a healthy sign. If we go back in history, we find that most of the progressive legislations and grants of civil liberties have been won through hard struggle from below. So the merits associated with democratic governance today were largely a product of grassroots struggle of the people and their contestation of the authority of the state. So instead of looking at contestation of state power as a malign expression of social disorder, one could attribute positive conclusions about its role in the development and progress of society. But not everyone agrees with this point of view. Hence, it is safe to say that there is no consensus with respect to the problem of state authority and its relation to the general po pulation. The rest of this essay will explain why state authority is constantly contested by people and will elucidate how it will help foster social justice. The former Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK government, Sir David King had once famously remarked that the phenomena of global warming and climate change are more dangerous than social disorder in the form of terrorism. While Sir David King’s assessment might come across as far-fetched at first, there is proper rationale behind his views. To state it concisely, there is elaborate empirical evidence in the form of global temperature statistics and changing weather patterns to back up King’s views, than what one could possibly come up with to present the dangers of terrorism. And more crucially, unlike global climate change, the present governmental actions to mitigate or suppress terrorism are actually proving counter-productive, in that they are triggering off more terrorist retaliations. King’s concerns about the UK’s security are quite relevant in discussing about state authority and governance. For example, under the leadership of Tony Blair, the UK joined hands with the United States in launching counter-terror operations in Afghanistan and later in Iraq. Right from the beginning of these operations, the general public in the UK and the USA were strongly against it. This is clearly seen in the Gallup polls taken at periodic intervals for the last several years. The same polls show that the general population is more concerned with issues of livelihood, environment (including global warming) and civil liberties. Here is a classic case of the idea that the authority of the state to govern is always contested. In this particular example, the actions of the Tony Blair government were not mandated by the general public, as the opinion polls clearly indicate. It is fair to say that the legitimacy of so-called counter-terror operations were strongly called into question by the general public, both in the UK as well as the rest of the world. While the Gallup polls showed the statistical and quantitative proof of this contes tation, the public demonstrations in the form of protests and rallies in the lead-up to the War on Terror gives further credence to public displeasure toward government actions (Bromley, 2009, p.402). We will write a custom essay sample on Why is a states authority to govern is always contested? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Why is a states authority to govern is always contested? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Why is a states authority to govern is always contested? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Going back to the topic in question, people have a natural tendency to detest authority. It starts from early childhood, when a child resists its parents’ control over its actions and behaviour and later takes the generalized form of resisting those in positions of authority. While conceding that not all forms of authority are oppressive and exploitative in nature, it is also true that subordinate employees do not particularly enjoy taking orders from their superiors in office. It is fair to say that human beings, by virtue of their self-respect and sense of dignity, do not like to relate to other human beings through skewed power relations. This is one reason why a political philosophy such as Communism had found expression on several occasions during the twentieth century and still continues to draw attention in the academia and political debates. Despite Communism’s practical failings, it is closely allied to Anarchism, which is founded on strong distrust of all authority (Blakeley and Saward, 2009, p.370). The Making Social Lives text describes governing as â€Å"the process of trying to shape, direct or rule some areas of life. The process of governing – usually governing others – is undertaken by many sorts of agencies and groups who combine two things: a commitment to make things, or people, better (or to keep them the same in the face of threats that might make things worse) and a claim that they have the authority to bring this improvement about. This double aspect of governing – improvement and authority – can be found in many practices of governing†. (Bromley and Clarke, 2009, p.326) Although there is nothing objectionable with this stated objective of governing, there is often a wide gap between the objectives and actual results. There are several reasons why this is so. Firstly, there might be no unity of purpose and co-ordination among the various agencies and groups that were instated to carry out the objectives of governance. Secondly, of the two aspects of governing – improving and authority – the former is likely to be overlooked and the latter is prone to be abused. While national governments are not the only institutions of authority, they are quite distinct from the other forms. For example, institutions such as the Church, minority groups, trade unions, professional associations, human rights groups, etc all wield authority over certain people up to certain levels. This is true even with institutions such as the United Nations and the European Union, which apparently have a broader jurisdiction to exercise their authority. But the authority of the state â€Å"has a control of territory and population that is not generally given to other organizations and institutions, and ultimately it has coercive powers that are also not generally given to others. The government governs in the name of ‘the people’–the population of a given territory. Often, this population is a nation; and we generally associate governments with nation states, although identifying the nation is not always easy.† (Bromley and Clarke, 2009, p.326 ) This insight into the difference between state authority and other forms of authority is quite crucial to understanding why the former is constantly under scrutiny. In all other cases, the objectives are limited and interests are narrowly defined. Moreover, there is no pretence of serving the interests of the ‘greater common good’ with any of the aforementioned institutions. But in the case of a nation-state and its governance through democratic means, the general public has expressed their preferences electorally and is in anticipation of its execution. But only rarely do promises made during election campaigns get reflected in actions and results. Often, election campaigns turn out to be no more than an exercise in grabbing and exploiting authority, rather than an exercise of carrying out the public mandate. Given that this has largely been the trend since the inception of parliamentary democracy in Britain, it is no surprise that the general public views its government with a high degree of suspicion. Seen in this context, it is easy to understand why the authority of the state to govern is always contested. This is true in Western democracies such as the U.K. and the U.S.A, as it is in more authoritarian and dictatorial states elsewhere in the world (Bromley, 2009, p.422). When one takes a look at the disconnection between public policy and public opinion in the U.K., one is inclined to say that contestation of state authority is much warranted. Take, say, the most recent economic crisis that the world witnessed. In early 2008, the whole world was plunged into an economic recession, following the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market in the United States. The U.K. too was not immune to this global wave and hence got affected quite badly too. Just as some of the major institutions in the U.S.A were on the verge of bankruptcy, our own Bank of England, Royal Bank of Scotland, Merrill Lynch, etc were teetering on the brink as well. The policies of the New Labour government in the years leading up to the economic crisis and the remedial measures in its aftermath do give away where the government’s loyalties lie. The blind adherence to the principle of ‘light regulation’ and the irrational faith in unfettered capitalism had led to several economic crises in the past. But despite repeated failures of this system, the U.K. government has not learnt its lessons, making the people vulnerable to more such turmoil in the future too (Blakeley and Saward, 2009, p.352). Just as Sir David King, rightly pointed to the flawed priorities of the government in the context of the War on Terror, the same can be said of the economic policies of our government in the last few decades. Despite growing disparities in the distribution of income between socio-economic groups, and despite falling education standards at primary and high school levels, and despite no improvement in the standard of living for the middle classes, our government is keen on pushing the capitalist agenda on its people. Hence, it is understandable why people have become suspicious of their governments and sceptical of its policies. In order to change the situation, people have to organize at the grassroots level and conduct public demonstrations as a way of letting know the government that its authority cannot be taken for granted. References: Simon Bromley and John Clarke, Chapter 7, Governing Problems, Exploring Social Lives, published in 2009, The Open University. Georgina Blakeley and Michael Saward, Chapter 8, Political Ordering, Exploring Social Lives, published in 2009, The Open University. Simon Bromley, Chapter 9, Pirates and Predators: Authority and Power in International Affairs, Exploring Social Lives, published in 2009, The Open University.