The future of the nation-state is one of social philosophy’s most debatable and still unresolved concern. The heated controversy around this issue has progressed to a new level, gaining increased relevance in the context of contemporary processes and phenomena named globalization. Over a long historical period, the state has served as the central organizing principle of political life, establishing itself in this capacity more with each passing decade. On the one hand, nothing seems to have changed, with the emergence of two dozen new states that have gained international recognition. Significant growth of nationalism is likewise evident, accompanied by bloody clashes that remind everyone of the power of this phenomenon. On the other hand, the principles of the national community are increasingly being radically questioned and reconsidered in the context of overall globalization processes. The creation of a large number of international institutions has weakened the phenomenon and power of the state as a separate and independent entity, however, its role is still irreplaceable.
Passing through a series of historical conflicts and transversal control over society, the nation-state was based on clear political distinctions between the internal and external space. The challenge adopted by democracy was to find a way of engaging the working class that was neither authoritarian nor conflictual (Voeten, 2019). The result was a democratic and social nation-state that, in addition to the constitutional guarantees, provided citizens with actual political participation and the right to economic well-being. However, having weakened considerably since the end of the Cold War, the nation-state, as a subject of international politics, has found itself in a difficult position in the subsequent era of globalization (Voeten, 2019). The age of globalization can be seen as an era in which violence and power movements are no longer likely confined to a geographic territory. Both terrorism and powerful migratory flows clearly show that it is increasingly difficult for the nation-state to screen and regulate what happens within its borders.
Over the past few decades, a network of transnational institutions has formed globally, virtually covering the entire world economic system and dictating their game rules to national economies. Firstly, it is worth mentioning a group of institutions represented by prominent financial and other economic international organizations – the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the WTO (Voeten, 2019). Providing support to the countries, these international organizations contribute to forming the most important national associations identical to their own, thus fitting national mechanisms of macroeconomic regulation into the universal world system of institutions. Often these regulatory mechanisms do not contribute to the development of national economies. Examples are the budget rule, the practice of accumulating gold and foreign exchange reserves, and the restriction of protectionist regulatory measures (Voeten, 2019). The second group of institutions is represented by international non-governmental organizations, whose activity results in developing a system of institutional indices. As international associations emerge and develop, they become complex collective entities, recognizing themselves as integral structures capable of developing and implementing long-term behavior strategies.
Thereby modern democracies affirm biopolitics: the life of each individual is in not protected from the influence of social forces as economics, technology, medical science, and the values and laws imposed by various social institutions. Individual autonomy, a fundamental humanistic principle of democracy, is seriously endangered. Moreover, as a direct consequence and violent reaction to multiculturalism, which threatens internal cultural homogeneity, new forms of collective identity are beginning to have a significant role in public politics. However, despite the weight of newly created institutions, a political structure capable of establishing order at the territorial level while preserving the freedoms of modern Western civilization is still needed (Voeten, 2019). In this sense, the nation-state may well have become obsolete, and its original categories may be challenged.
Still, the state continues to meet the urgent political requirements of democratic participation and adequate decision-making in the first place. Today, the potential of nation-states is far from exhausted. National states have intensified their activity in the world market, and the role of their governments in elaborating the joint strategy of regulation of the world market, especially its separate spheres, has increased. Their movement has advanced because even the most potent TNCs cannot regulate the world market’s spontaneous processes and are forced to resort to the help of states (Voeten, 2019). Besides, the actions of governments and central banks of national states to coordinate the currency and credit and general economic policies during critical situations on the world market are especially noticeable.
Currently, national structures cannot solve global problems of disarmament, ecology, demography, energy, raw material resources, and economic crises without the active participation of international institutions. They are undoubtedly becoming essential and have gradually weakened the state’s power as an independent political unit. Although the effectiveness of the nation-state has diminished considerably, it remains a rich and expansive space of theoretical and practical knowledge, experience, and organizational power, surpassing any corporation in this respect. Even if states are deprived of autonomy of actions at the international level, they can attempt to effectively manage the global crisis of capitalism at the local level.
Reference
Voeten, E. (2019). Making sense of the design of international institutions. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 147-163.