What are the properties defining a state?

By Fesseha Nair

 Building states in post colonial developing countries were based on the empirical experience of the Western countries. The process of state building in Africa was not inclined to development and democratisation. This short article will discuss on state that is to be democratised

According to Weberian definition, the defining properties of state are :-

-         unchallenged control of the territory within the defined boundaries,

-         monopolization of the legitimate use of force within the borders of the state,

-         and the reliance upon impersonal rules in the governance of its citizens and subjects.

Most of the states of the developing countries do not fulfil these criteria. Eritrea is one of them. They have gained external sovereignty after independence through international recognition, but have yet to develop the internal sovereignty that defines the basis of statehood in Weber’s definition.

According Buzan, the strength and weakness of state can be explained by its interlinked components,

-         the physical basis of the state,

-         the institutions of the state,

-         the idea of the state

What is the physical basis of the state?  The physical bases of the state are:

-         territory

-         population

-         resources

-         wealth

What are the institutions of the state? The institutions of the state are:

-         legislative

-         executive

-         administrative

-         judicial bodies and other independent organs- national audit department and independent electoral commission.

The whole machinery of the government, the laws, procedures and norms by which it operates are included.

In this article, I will discuss on state structure and organization which is crucial at this time of crisis in Eritrean politics.

Most conflicts root depends on the role of state in society and emanate mainly from its structure and organization. In most countries, the state is the most powerful organization. Control of the state usually provides access to economic power since the state is the major means of the reproduction of capital. Consequently, there is  strong competition for control over the state apparatus, the cause of struggle between the regime in Eritrea and the opposition is  based on state structure and organization. The state building in Ertirea by the EPLF has alienated other communities who belong other political organizations and were fighting for the liberation of Eritrea. It has neglected all symbols and values of the Eritrean people rooted in religion and traditions. These conflicts would have been prevented if means of devolving power by a wide variety of arrangements have been discussed by the population.

Many Eritrean politicians and academicians never dare to discuss on state structure and organization. For them, the idea of state is taboo. Politicians with unclear state structure and organization are weak and the state they form stand on fragile political foundation. The state in Eritrea today has no clearly defined, well articulated and interconnected socio-political cohesion. The idea of state is the most vital in organizing the society- providing them security and freedom, this in its turn gives the necessary socio –political cohesion which provides legitimacy.

The problem of state making in Eritrea will be the main issue of conflict after the fall of the dictator. The solution is not to ratify a constitution or adopt the ratified constitution of the current regime in Eritrea. The solution of internal conflict is the main issue to be discussed and this requires adjustments to the state structure and organization. The state in Eritrea today is a failed state in its three components- physically, institutionally and ideologically. What means of power devolving or mechanisms have the opposition on future state building aimed to solve the internal conflicts in Eritrea?

Federalism. The best known arrangement is federalism, where power is devolved equally to all regions and each region has an identical relationship to the central government.

Autonomy.  An autonomous arrangement is when regions have devolved to them special powers to control their own affairs. The important distinction between federalism and autonomy is that in federations the regions participate actively in national institutions and national policy –making.

Lokal government institutions. Another way to devolve power is through local government institutions or forms of decentralization. These differ from federations and autonomy in that they do not have a specific constitutional status or constitutional guarantees. That is why, some opposition political organizations differ on their interpretation of decentralisation. A decentralization without constitutional status can be easily removed by central government at any time.

Federalism and autonomy devices have helped to mitigate or even solve internal conflicts or have provided a basis for peaceful co-existence of diverse communities.

The legal basis for autonomy

Despite the increasing use of autonomy solutions, the legal bases for autonomy remain unclear. There are two principle bases for autonomy.

Minority rights. In recent years, the United Nations has shown more interest in minority rights. It has adopted a Declaration on the rights of minorities which goes further than article 27 of the international Covenant of Civil and political rights in protecting minority rights. ( See Universal Human rights Declarations) The UN Human Rights Committee has adopted some interpretations of article27 that recognize that a measure of autonomy may be necessary for the protection of rights. Efforts have made by the Committee and others to interpret the right to self-determination to mean, where relevant, “ internal autonomy” rather than secession. What is best in case of the Eritrean state building should be based on human rights instruments the right to self –determination meaning internal autonomy and not secession

Self-determination. Self-determination is itself difficult and controversial concept, it has been increasingly analysed  in terms of internal, democratic organization of a state rather than in terms of secession or independence. The UN General Assembly resolved many years ago that autonomy is a manifestation of self-determination. The increased involvement of the UN and other international organizations in the settlement of internal conflicts has helped to further develop the concept of self-determination as implying autonomy in appropriate circumstances.

The period of struggle from dictatorship to democracy should settle the internal conflict in Eritrea by finding a meaningful devolution that resolves internal conflicts and be foundation for peaceful co-existence.