Zenebe BASHAW - codesria

competing interest of the dominant class, it weakens and “withers away”. Using the
embeddedness of the state in class relationships, John Hobson shows how late-Victorian
British state was able to increase its extractive capacity, while Tsarist Russian state, that was
isolated, had weaker fiscal capacity (1997: 236 and 240). The state is not only viewed in its
functional aspect, but also as an arena in which different groups of the public sphere contest.
The strength or weakness of the state therefore is whether it is able to serve as a “neutral
arbiter” from which its legitimacy derives (Levi, 1988). State-in-public sphere approach, on
the other hand, posits that the state’s autonomy is enhanced and its capacity strengthened
through its “connectedness” to the public sphere (Evans, 1995: 50). Such a state is able to
coordinate its connectedness with forces of the public sphere by mobilizing resources and
harnessing “a sufficiently, coherent, cohesive state apparatus” (Weiss, 1998; Evans, 1995).
The boundary between state and public sphere is “elusive, porous, and mobile” and state
strength or weakness and legitimacy are variables, not constants (Mitchell, 1991; Holsti,
1996: 90). The strength or weakness of a state is based on the depth and breadth of
penetration of the public sphere by states’ institutions. This also depends on understanding
states as “coercion-wielding organizations that are distinct from households and kinship
groups and exercise clear priority in some respects over all other organizations within
substantial territories” (Tilly, 1990:1).
Two central issues are outstanding when discussing the concepts of the public sphere and
state formation. First, both concepts have been marked by contours that show transformations.
They are far from products uniformly developed in short periods of time, and more often than
not they undergo continuous changes. The infusion of social norms, rules and values produce
public sphere that gives rise to distinctive political and social communities which seek and
espouse increased participation and expression of ideas. The public sphere as space and
constellation of perceptions/imaginations constitute one crucial element of state formation (cf.
Anderson, 1991). Benedict Anderson’s (1996) treatment of nation-states as “imagined
communities” supposes the conceptualization of the state as far from universal and inherent,
rather as an artificial but resilient construction and amalgamation of identities that give
meaning to states. This is at the same time similar to what Charles Taylor views the public
sphere as being an important constituent part of the “social imaginary” created as a space
outside the power of the state, alternatively described as an “extra-political” status of the
public sphere (2004: 83-99).
5