e_Paper 1-12-2016

22
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2016
DT
Opinion
The smaller the better
It is easier to meet the needs of the people in smaller states
It is difficult to hold on to a singular identity when countries are so big
• Brig Gen AF Jaglul Ahmed
The idea of the state
evolved from the concept
of city states and singlerace
concepts like that of
Florence and Athens. Eventually, it
became larger until it became the
nation state.
The idea of the state, when
conceived, was not envisioned to
be as large as continents or prenation
state empires.
The role it needs to play to
satisfy the needs of the people
has now become complex.
Every nation needs to satisfy the
political and economic needs of
its people within its own national
boundaries.
Varying sizes of the nation state
have varying degrees of need for
resources. Thus, every nation,
regardless of its size, needs to set
its national interests based on the
choices of the people.
The idea of a national interest is
of significance and lies at the heart
of every nation.
The term “national interest”
looms extremely large, not bound
by national boundaries, the
physical feature that distinguishes
one nation from the other.
Its attainment may demand any
means necessary, even if it crosses
the moral boundary.
The idea often becomes
convoluted and leaves nations
constantly struggling to secure
it. The obsession with the idea
misleads and causes unnecessary
tension in matters of security.
Rarely is a nation able to secure
its national interests to the fullest;
wars are usually waged with
fallacious promises to its people.
During the Enlightenment,
changes were brought about in
the socio-economic-political
landscape of states.
A new ideology was developed
on how the world should work
and what people should do, an
ideology of secularism as a result
of unmanageable conflict in
religious ideology.
Political governance was
limited to serve the interests of
the masses. Politics has been
subservient to the economy to
allow more space for liberalisation.
The economy has
overshadowed all other national
lines of interest due to the
insatiable appetite of the few.
The nation state is now in a fix
to serve its people and secure their
interests.
The question arises: What size,
geographically, is manageable for
BIGSTOCK
securing national interests?
Should a state be happy
securing the economic comfort
of its people and stop aspiring for
more?
What is more important for a
state to serve its people: Politics
or economy? Can social or
ideological identity be subjugated
to or overshadowed by economic
comfort?
The term national interest has
therefore turned into a cliché,
demanding additional attention
to it.
Nations are independent
and have the right to formulate
policy beyond the influence of
other nations -- this is the truth.
Likewise, the other truth is that it
has to take into account the reality
of geo-politics, geo-strategy, or
geo-economics while securing its
own interests.
People elect their governments
to ensure their all-round security,
and rarely consider the complete
capacity of its government while
making irrational demands.
The paradox in the government
and the intense desire to return to
power force them to conceal the
global reality and constantly resort
to deceitful promises of securing
interests even when it is beyond
their capacity.
As a result, national interests
not only fail to be secured, but end
up becoming further endangered,
with the nation’s people
constantly deceived.
However powerful or strong
a nation may be, it compromises
its national interests to others
for either geo-politics or geoeconomical
compulsion.
But seldom does it inform
its people of the same thing
happening to them for fear of
being unable to come to power at
the end of their tenure.
Governance is built on a
foundation of fallacy because of
power.
The government, upon being
elected, finds itself in a position
from which it can subjugate
its people rather than feeling
pressured by people’s power to
Numerous stronger states like the UK find it difficult to secure national
politico-cultural interests in a globalised economy. For instance,
national interest was subdued by the interests of federal unions like
the EU, resulting in Brexit
remove them.
Therefore, the relationship
between the people and the
government suffers.
There is a disconnect between
the government and the people
in the understanding of national
interests and global realities.
Globalisation brought forth
trends such as the expansion of
international financial systems,
interconnectedness of national
interests, the rise of the global
media and communication
technologies, and the mass
migration of people.
All such trends are taking place
within and across the boundaries
of sovereign nation states.
Even the stronger states find
it difficult to adjust to the global
realities.
The market economy in the
guise of globalisation is forcing
some nations to become totally
subservient to the global economy.
This has happened to such an
extent that seldom are national
economic interests preserved
within national boundaries.
The global economic institutes
have become too powerful.
It becomes necessary for
weaker states to compromise their
interests for global realities.
In the name of globalisation
-- or shall we say neo-colonisation
-- business tycoons prefer being
global citizens rather than national
citizens to secure their economic
interests.
Numerous stronger states like
the UK find it difficult to secure
national politico-cultural interests
in a globalised economy.
For instance, national interest
was subdued by the interests
of federal unions like the EU,
resulting in Brexit.
A larger geographical unit to
serve common interests appears
fallacious against the perceived
realities.
Paradoxically, a borderless
economy both benefits and
encumbers both the stronger and
weaker states.
All states prefer to reap the
benefits of the global economy,
but are not ready to merge into a
single race socially, culturally, or
ideologically.
Hence, there are fissures
creeping over socio-cultural and
ideological lines, which endanger
the identity of the individual
nation.
It benefits the stronger states
but endangers its social and
cultural identity due to the influx
of immigrants into their system.
The identity of the nation state
suffers despite the comfort given
by an inter-connected economy.
The formation of a nation state
arose from the need to preserve all
national interests, not just along
economic lines.
Economic interests can conceal
the other fault-lines for the time
being. But no sooner does the
economy suffer a downturn do
other fissures erupt like a volcano,
putting the state on the brink of
collapse.
The bigger the size of the state,
the larger the need of its people. In
this context, the idea of a nation
state to some is sometimes too
weak, while to some too strong.
The smaller the state, the easier
it is to secure the interests that
satisfy its people, and there is less
room for power.
It is easier to maintain a social,
cultural, and ideological identity.
There is more space for peace and
less for conflict. •
Brigadier General AF Jaglul Ahmed is
Commandant, East Bengal Regimental
Centre.