Evolution or End of the Nation-State?                          J. Suter

Part A – Problems

  1. History of the Nation-State

  2. Problems

  3. War

  4. Purpose

  5. Morality

  6. Power, Structure, Information

  7. New Factors

  8. Isolated

Are we witnessing the end of the Nation-State?  What does that mean?  What will follow?  Is the Nation-State (NS) the pinnacle of human social development?

Political scientist Nicolai Petro wonders whether the structure of the Nation-State has outlasted its usefulness.  He noted the 400-year existence of this structure that began the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, ending the 30 Years War.  Other historians point to a similar structure that began after the Battle of Hastings 1066, fought over the crown of England in which William beat Harold and introduced Common Law.   Still others believe that Rome was a starting point.  Much has been written about the fall of Rome, but Roman historian Mary Beard thinks the more interesting question is why Rome grew so large.  She concluded that Rome made all the conquered people into citizens and pushed them up to a higher level.

The 109 participants who signed the Treaty of Westphalia never met all in one room because they hated each other so much.  This collection of princes and warlords were tired of fighting and so agreed finally to keep their hands off the “property” of others and, of course, not assassinate each other.  This agreement provided a framework for the nation-state.  It was a group of elites who determined the laws, rules, and boundaries.  Life became safer and more predictable for common people who just wanted to get on with their lives.

Future of the nation-state?   What will emerge?

In one of the Smithsonian museums of Washington is the bronze statue of a pre-historic man (we might call Smithsonian Man), naked and crouching with fangs bared.  Viewers who are able to grasp the profound message of humankind’s journey and the struggle to survive will realize how far we have come.  The next question almost formulates itself, “How much further can we go?”  Are we going toward a larger, One World Order?  If not larger, then how do we divide?  Do we diversify or do a re-org?  De-colonization, on the surface, seems to have some answers, though the number of civil wars indicates that the lines re-drawn were not chosen carefully, at least from the perspective of the people who lived there.

Hans Morgenthau, a well-respected political scientist from the last century, argued for balance over domination.  The choices may be broader, however.  What makes a system work well is good feedback to help make the needed adjustments for any change in the environment.  Good feedback requires good information to the control points or to the decision maker.  Most democracies have voting every 2-4 years and maybe some special elections.  That amount of feedback will not be enough, especially during transition.  This implies the need for more interaction, not less, and the need for feedback that is more specific and targeted. 

Problems of the nation-state model.

For all their power, nation-states still have lots of problems, some of which seem intractable: forever wars, climate destruction, growing income gaps, and potential for nuclear annihilation to name a few.  An incumbent re-election rate for Congress of 95% should tell us something about the declining state of this society and the sclerosis that prevents adaptation and adjustments.  The unusually high rate of re-election indicates who is knocking on the doors of legislators. 

War as catharsis.  War as business.

War as a catharsis helps to release pent-up tension.  In 1999, American author and military consultant, Edward N. Luttwak wrote “Give War a Chance”.  In it he argues that a peace which comes too soon will simply prolong the fighting.   Luttwak’s point may have been an attempt to go deeper, to find a fundamental change versus simply a superficial moving of the pieces on the board.  But from a country club point of view with cigar and whisky in hand, he may not realize that anything can be learned by these pawns on the chess board.  From the big guy’s vantage point, it’s easy to let the small guys beat themselves up, then move in and take whatever you want. 

Alliances form, alliances dissolve and form again among the elite, many of whom are business people.  In Arthur Miller’s 1940’s stage play “All My Sons”, Miller wrote about the potential consequences of a bottom-line mentality.  The businessman character in the play manufactured airplane parts but he cut corners to make a larger profit.  In the end he sacrificed his son who died in an airplane accident.  Profiteering continues today in the military industry that will charge whatever the market will bear.  To be fair, anti-war can also be used as a business to raise money, or for that matter, any hot-button issue where someone can hire permanent staff.

Can a nation-state respond adequately to a changing environment?  (“environment” here could be any type of environment – natural, social, economic, or political.)

For climate issues and the threat of nuclear catastrophe, the nation-state seems inadequate.  We are not finding and moving Useful Information (UI) in a way that optimizes problem-solving solutions.  Some nations with nuclear weapons do not even talk with their opponents, allowing confusion that tends to create even more confusion.  Why?  Is it lack of a good role model? Maybe social pressure?  

Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex, but why did he wait until the day he left office to warn against this problem?  Was he afraid?  Did he not know how to do it, or were there other factors that involved the social hierarchy?

A larger purpose for the nation-state?  What’s the Story?

Do the People serve the Government or does the Government serve the People? 

A theologian might ask the same question in a different way, “Who does God love more – people at the top or the Grassroots?”  With an all-powerful God, the answer should be “both”.  It is the human spirit that has the will to survive, but the question itself brings in all kinds of religious, philosophical, political, and social views.

We have not escaped the question about purpose.  What is the roll, the task of the nation-state?  Is it simply a division of spoils?  Is it keeping peace among its members, or protection from invaders?  Part of the role must be the facilitation of commerce, creating organization, and sharing a civic life. 

Does the nation-state need an enemy?  Enemies give us a reason for being, even as individuals.  The fall of the Berlin wall and dissolution of the USSR was an opportunity for a visionary to lift us up to a higher level, but instead we chose to keep our enemy.  As a writer who has written extensively on nuclear issues, Jonathan Schell points out that arms manufacturing perpetuates systems of sovereign states – and vice versa.  

Did we need an enemy when a loyal opposition would do?  The task of a loyal opposition is to challenge a leader, to temper ill-conceived plans, and to goad a leader into action when that would be the better course.  Looking at the design of democracy itself, it appears that the founding fathers were not trying to empower the grassroots as much as trying to prevent the re-accumulation of power in a few people around a king.  The three branches of the government divide that power with each branch having a different function.  As a whole, the structure provides balance, feedback, and accountability.

Is there a purpose for the NS beyond its own borders?  Democracy requires citizens to be educated on a wide variety of issues and so cannot function well in countries with low literacy rates.  Even in literate countries, individual citizens cannot know everything, so it becomes relatively easy to spread disinformation.   As Ambassador Chas Freeman noted, in a democracy it becomes necessary for politicians to demonize their opponents in order to get elected.  Of course, this leads to a loss of Useful Information.   Yet we must have Useful Information to go forward, especially when any environment is changing. 

Survival and Morality

Can we create a One World Order that is healthy for everyone?  Will it require more or less violence?  Maybe more competition.   It may be a business opportunity for people who have no common goal except to enrich themselves, but even such people have a drive to organize others and that can be good.  

People Political scientist John Mearsheimer noted that the Arab elites don’t really care that much about Palestinians.  Actually they may really care, but like all leaders, they are paralyzed by their position in the social hierarchy.  That leaves it up to the grassroots who care about an issue to push for change. 

The drive to survive is paramount for the group if not for the individual.  Soldiers are sent off to fight, allegedly to protect the rest of the group.  Even among the lower animals, there are many examples of individuals sacrificing themselves for the group.  The loyalty of dogs is legend in this regard.

We must consider the question of what we mean by morality.  A fair definition of morality is: That which leads to the survival of the group is moral and that which leads to the group’s destruction is immoral.  This is how combatants on opposing sides in a conflict can both be moral – because they are fighting for the survival of their group.  With advent of nuclear weapons, the “group” is now the whole world.  In conventional war, one group’s survival corresponds to the other group’s destruction.  Nuclear war changes this equation with both sides going to zero. 

Power Types

As noted by Mao Tse Tung, the Barrel of a Gun (BOG) is the primary political power.

The executive branch loves it.  Congress, courts, and the police are all OK with use of military and police power to keep order, as are most citizens who do not want chaos.  By itself BOG-power, i.e. military and police power, can create a social hierarchy, but it can also suppress what would otherwise be recognized as useful information.  Those with military power will work to entrain economic power and informational power by creating their own laws and creating a narrative.

There is also power in the ability to print money.  Efforts to print more money can sustain the empire for a short periods of time, but this dynamic only increases the resistance to the flow of useful information and creates a bubble for those at the top, eventually leading to collapse of those in power.  

True economic power is related not only to the vibrancy of the economy but to the system of courts and contracts which, of course, are backed up by BOG-power. 

Governments cannot function without a judicial branch to settle disagreements.  With a good attorney who knows the law and how the judge might rule, the court becomes a ratchet mechanism, pulling money and advantages toward those who already have a step up.  So, the spoils belong to those who can hire good lawyers. 

Structures Influence the Flow of Useful Information

In the distant past, challenges to a leader involved real battles and tested the physical power and wits of the leader.  Most current leaders are still alpha males surrounded by others who do the fighting or who know how to use military force for control.  Besides a well-developed brain and opposable thumbs, what makes humans so powerful is the ability to form a social hierarchy, a pyramid created by subtle forces, some of which are natural and some created by the interaction of many other humans. 

Military power alone can create a social hierarchy but the problem becomes that it becomes like having someone else’s credit card, spending other people’s money and sacrifice other people’s children.  It warps the information that comes to and from leaders because everyone standing on that social hierarchy is afraid of falling off.  They will bite their own tongue and self-censor when they should be speaking out.  This hyper-control of the flow of information creates a bubble, making them susceptible to delusions. 

Information power includes the power of story, religion, and beliefs.   Stories have power if they touch reality at some point.   Of course, there is power in knowing what information is accurate and useful.  Reliable sources and filters are quite valuable.  The ability to spread rumors and misinformation has always been with us but it can backfire with a gradual (sometimes sudden) loss of credibility.  

Non-Violence is an underappreciated power that many leaders fear, but also something that must be coordinated and related closely to informational power.  Because non-violence seems easy to derail with paid agitators, it is difficult to effect change.  Yet proponents claim that it is the only way to create long-lasting results. 

Sanctions offer a type of power and are a type of feedback – but are they effective?  If leaders of the country being sanctioned do not care about their citizens, the sanctions will not have the intended effect.  Furthermore, if the target country is now able to manufacture their own material it can have the opposite effect and make that country more resilient.

Information can be elusive.  Robert McNamara was driven to examine the reasons why we got into the Vietnam War and wrote “In Retrospect”.  Despite ideas and hints from others, he never found a useful answer, and so the problem persists.  Except for the few advisors who like to talk to the public, the circle of advisors around a leader are mostly faceless and unaccountable.  Yet they have access to information that makes them all power players, much like J. Edgar Hoover who had secrets on everybody in Washington.

Imagination itself is closely tied to feedback from other people.  At the end of WWII, Truman failed to imagine a way to keep nuclear weapons from spreading.   Russia was not in a position to refuse nuclear weapons inspection by either a US inspection team or an international inspection team.  Truman was notified of this opportunity but apparently did not get the feedback he needed to explore this option. 

Two new factors of modern life will have a profound effect as history unfolds.  The first is that we have run out of New Lands.  Aside from the melting ice at the poles, there is really nowhere else to go unless one is willing to push aside the people who already live there.  Losers cannot simply find another place to pitch their tent.   

The second new factor is the advent of communication technology, allowing instant communication worldwide.  This too is a game changer for those who know how to use it but can easily be abused.  A larger nation-state might require more social control and tools of surveillance.  It is almost certain that AI will be used for surveillance unless we have other structures in place. 

Isolated

As mentioned above, BOG-power creates a force field that severely affects the flow of useful information.  It is easy for those at the top to broadcast their message but nearly impossible for grassroots to move useful information up the ladder.  Ironically some of this difficulty stems from the apparent power of communication technology itself.  With everyone having access to the internet and social media it becomes necessary to create more layers to gain access to a decision maker. 

Some elite have no understanding of what is happening around them.    They are also not trained to think about feedback design as engineers or scientists might be, and so they remain isolated.  It may be impossible for current leaders to help make the necessary changes.  They may have no mental model and no vision of where to go.  They are frozen into position within their own local social hierarchy.  Major players on the world scene now seem unable or unwilling to talk and negotiate with their adversaries.  Diplomat Richard Haas, in an interview with Ezra Klein, said that he felt too may of the leaders currently in power are out of touch with current events and current pressures.  Klein agreed.   

On the other hand, Leaders cannot look weak or they will be taken advantage of by people who want more power.  This is true of any type of government, but in a democracy, politicians will not listen to voters who have no ability to punish them at the ballot box.  Long term survival of a nation also requires an ability to discover or to formulate better Questions, and just how does a democracy formulate better Questions when the mainstream media appear to be compromised?

What lies ahead?  This question should be a principal task of any leader.  It should be our effort not to tear down or create a revolution, but rather make the change from within, steadily and efficiently.   Grassroots people want stability and predictability.  Military actions strive to push the enemy off balance, but between conflicts, we should want people outside our group to feel stable so they do not feel the need to come and steal our resources.  

Empires die because of disintegration of borders or disintegration of the economy – but that is not what this is about.  This is about an evolution of the concept and structure of the nation-state itself, not individual empires.