Traditionally, two fundamental approaches have been used to define state-society relation: taking state and society as distinct entities vs taking the two as interdependent entities. The first approach views the state as a ´sovereign´ political entity with certain characteristics (population, defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states). This approach, developed on the back of empirical concepts of Thomas Hobbes, Max Weber, Friedrich Meinecke and Niccolo Machiavelli, holds that common good can only be delivered by a strong state and hence argues in favor of an autonomous state.
According to this traditional school of thought—which gained in prominence after Skocpol, Rueschmeyer and Evans argued in favor of ´bringing the state back in´—an autonomous state inevitably results in a distinct society. However, seeing the state as a single entity with defined characteristics is problematic as it tends to ignore the presence of other institutions, organizations and actors with diverse roles.
The authority of a bureaucratic and autonomous state was questioned as the First World War destroyed two large empires—the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman—and gave birth to new states which were established on the principle of ´national self-determination´. The Second World War weakened stability even further. In addition, many new states were born after the break-up of colonial empires.
With this, the notion that ´all powerful authoritative state is possessed with a power of safeguarding its territory´ started losing its legitimacy. The new approach shunned viewing ´state´ and ´society´ as separate entities. Joel S. Migdal thus proposed ´state-in-society´ model, where society is depicted as a mélange of social organizations rather than a dichotomous entity. State-in-society model was born on the premise of ´idea of the state´ (one set of rules throughout the territory) and ´practices of the state´ (social practices intersecting with state rules). The new view held that state and society are in constant interaction and often struggle and compete for social control.
The important question in the federalism debate is not if it should be based on ethnicity or viability, but how well the state and society can work in tandem.
This lack of consensus on state-society relation has spawned a variety of approaches in various social science disciplines, from anthropology to law to political science. For example, many works in public administration, public policy and comparative politics focus on ´actors´ and ´institutions of the state´ to explore state-society relation. Focus also differs in whether the state-society relation is viewed from the angle of ´policymakers within the state itself´ or from the ´viewpoint of ordinary citizens, groups or organizations´ in society.
Whether the relation has been analyzed with a ´top-down´ view of actors and institutions or a ´bottom-up´ perspective which takes into consideration the voices emanating from lower rungs of state and societal organizations, also makes a lot of difference in the final analysis.
The development trajectory of Nepali State has been succinctly captured by Dev Raj Dahal. For him, "The Nepali state, founded on local vision, has undergone huge adaptation with the changing narrative of global discourse— the Westphalian legitimate monopoly on power, paternalistic welfare, neo liberal calculation of rationality and democratic coordinator of various forces of society for national cohesion."
In spite of such claims there is a fundamental problem in locating ´State´ itself in Nepal due to lack of research on the issue. State has come to mean many things to many people. Some think it as a ´polity´, whereas some believe it is ´government´. Still others take it as an ´agency´ responsible for providing all basic services as well as ensuring freedom and identity of its people.
These varied strands of thoughts have diluted both the sphere of state and society, making it difficult to draw clear demarcation between the two and leading to complexities in defining state-society relation.
State-in-Society model proposed by Migdal seems to be a more useful tool in capturing state-society relation in Nepal. Nepali state has not always been all-powerful and autonomous; rather it has constantly interacted with society and has evolved under the influence of societal forces in order to derive its legitimacy. To quote Sylvain Levy, “Old tradition and practices [in Nepal] were as strong as national laws to check the excesses of the centre”.
The centre was comparatively fragile throughout the unification process. Later, local-level actors (especially village headmen or mukhiyas) looked to enhance their authority and develop special connections with the centre. For instance, to quote John Whelpton, "The Limbu chieftains, known by the Nepali/ Mughal term subba, were one example, becoming more like local landowners than simply the representative of their clan. In the case of a smaller Kiranti group, the Jirels of Dolakha district, one clan probably boosted its status at the cost of the others… being recognized in 1795 as owners of the entire Jiri valley".
Thus, in Nepal’s context, both the state and society seem to have developed through a mutually beneficial relationship for long stretches of time; society acted as a part of the state, and state the product of the society. Nevertheless, at times the relationship has been difficult, marked with continuous conflict, for instance during the setting up of norms and values. The intellectual discourses that have been either attacking the legitimacy of the ´State´ with vengeance or are attempting to delegitimize the progressive growth of society have contributed to the disequilibrium between state and society. We all need to understand that neither can the society withstand the demise of state nor can the state be functional in the absence of a vibrant society.
As the country has already embarked on its route to federalism, there is a need to strengthen the ties between the state and society. The important question in the entire debate of federalism is not whether it should be based on ethnicity, identity, geography, natural resource or viability, but how well the state and society work in tandem to smoothen and institutionalize their interrelationship.
There is therefore a need to relocate the debate from the types of federalism to the ´state-society relation´ and draw clear standards on the basis of which both the centre and the periphery can secure their interests and safeguard their dignity on the basis of mutual dependence. None of the arguments of ´self-labeled´ progressives or conservatives can provide bread, butter and dignity to the common population unless they shift their attention to strengthening the ties between the state and society.
sharmasumit77@gmail.com
Related story
China urges U.S. to respect its right to develop, prosper
