The development of the modern civil state require the historical analysis in order to search for when and how this phenomena created the formation of the state as a system of rule. The concept of the power and the power relations among politics, state and society comprises of the historical perspective of the states. Before penetrating a historical analysis of the modern state formation, we should consider two significant and significantly different, definitions of the nature of politics, which belongs to David Easton and Carl Schmitt.
Firstly American Political scientist perceived the politics as an allocation. This term, appearing in the valuable objects, should not be arbitrary. The objects may range from physical goods to abstraction like power and the right to deference in order to allocate resources efficiently and rationally. He declared the politics how to structure in three ways of thinking. The initial part is custom that is a universal shared understanding, should be consensus. The second part is the exchange, value of things obtain the transactions of objects.
Eventually the command, requiring submission, direct allocation by saying so.
For Easton it is the most necessity term of this categorisation so that effective allocations can take place only when commands are binding. Then Easton use the term political only to those command based allocations whose effects are directly or indirectly valid for society as a whole. Carl scmitt, conservative theoretician, sees the definition of the state as a political entity and politics as the province of the state, Poggi stated that the nature or politics involved finding two opposing terms bounded by good/evil, profitable/unprofitable, or legal/illegal.
(Poggi, 1978: 5).
Therefore Schmitt pointed out that politics based upon the distinction between friend and foe in order to understand the nature of politics and binary thinking of such pairs. According to Schwab, Scmitt regarded the connection of state, politics and sovereignty as equal. (Schwab, 1996: 8). For Schmitt, politics is the most privilege activity of society as it is about the survival of the society. Politics can reduce the difference between friend and enemy by making decision to declare a war or to call some groups as enemy. Making political decisions merely belongs to the state.
The theory of Scmitt is summarised very brief that he is in favour of preserving the collectivity as an integrity or autonomous society. He considers a collectivity’ s political function to decide which other collectivities are its friends and which is foe. Both theorists attempted to express the definition of the nature of politics. Even thought both scholars had distinctive political traditions in their studies, it is possible to see reconciliation of their views. The first common perspective is that both writers give the privilege position to politics.
Moreover both of them encourages the use of punishment when it is needed in order to form a stable system of rule. There is no doubt that cohesion one of the most primary element of the system of rule to use the power against someone as we recognised every stages of the history. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Modern civil state exceeded the historical sequence of three types of rule system feudalism, the staandestaat and absolutism before coming the modernist system of rule. Firstly we need to look at the emergence of the feudalism. In the period of the rise feudalism, three crucial events led to changes of the Western Europe.
1- the collapse of Roman Empire, 2- Massive dislocation of population 3- new route of trade in Western Europe and Mediterranean. In this sense, these changes created the new system of rules in the feudalism era. The barbarian Gefolgschaft tradition, coming from the Germanic origin, was the most important system of rule for the development of feudalism. The Gefolgschaft as a barbaric origin comprised of providing the ideal of honour, loyalty and freedom which come to occupy a place of considerable importance in the system It included a band of warriors and their chief united by mutual obligations of service and loyalty.
This period contributed to the existence of feudalism in general administration. The main trend of the feudal period was the fragmentation of each large system of rule into many smaller systems. They were often at war with one another to have the structural problems in their power relations. The weakness of the effective control among feudal powers brought the feudal anarchy period. The extremities of the conflict and the existence of violent battles occurred in that era. These phenomenon led to pass over the stage from feudalism to Standestaat.
Standestaat is considered as a intermediate system between feudalism and absolutism. The rising town had the full reference with Standestaat in order to understand clearly. In the Medieval west during the late 14th and 15th the rise of town converted the social, economic and cultural context of emerging Standestaat from that preceding feudal system of rule. American famous historicist Wallerstein explains how the towns grew up in the Medieval West in this study ” The Modern World System”. The towns advocated the artisans in order to purchase the surplus and exchanged it for their product.
Towns existed in Medieval Europe before the decade of Feudalism. According to the Huberman the expansion of trade, leading to growth of towns inhabited by a rising merchant class, lead to conflict. The whole atmosphere of feudalism was one of confinement, where as the town was one of freedom. Feudal regulation and feudal justice were fixed by custom. In contrast trade is active, changing and impatient of barriers. It could not fit into the rigid feudal frame. He added that town life is different from life on the manor and new forms had to be created.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment