By Nancy Arellano (guest writer).
The State It is by definition a product of five components: territory (as effective dominion over physical space), population (people / society), nation (as culture and identity of people), legal-political system (articulated institutions) and recognition of the international community (which occurs based on the recognition of sovereignty exercised over the other components and the admission that it is part of a multilateral system).
I start with the State because we are all subject to it, wherever we live and whether or not we are nationals or citizens of that State. It is enough to reside to be under its control, by action or omission, because the State generates public policies in both cases, affecting, by acting or ignoring, the life of the diverse communities that live in it.
I would also like to point out that, since States exist as a Nation State and the international system is recognized (around the time of La Paz de Westfalia in 1648), there has been a healthy tension between its components. The search has been in how he can fight internally and survive externally. The tension itself led and led to the assimilation of democracy as the best system and after two world wars in a world increasingly powerful in war capacity, to delimit the system of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law.
Without the recognition of the DD. HH., The State, as an exercise of Government, would have no limits other than itself, which is why the role of social actors, understanding that human rights exist. HH., Within the framework of the rule of law, is indispensable and irreplaceable.
The State faces the challenge of making public policies. This imposes with scarce resources for the thousands of social demands, prioritizing which ones should be attended and which ones ignored. In every selection there is action. For this reason, the responsibility of the State is both its action and its omission.
Interest groups, from economics to groups of ethnic communities or diverse nationalisms, act as interlocutors and pressure groups (advocacy) in the system. They must. They are alarms about the effects of the State’s action or omission.
The absolute leadership of the State cannot be left, it is not healthy for democracy, to the pure discretion of those who temporarily hold power. Why? Because the multiple factors that influence the decisions of any government are precisely the product of a balance of costs: political, social, economic and cultural. Institutionality is the floor that should generate this space for healthy dialogue.
Neither politics, nor society, nor the economy, nor culture are static entities. On the contrary, they are organic elements produced by human interaction itself, and are, ultimately, the interest groups (not government / state) that give soul to these. If logic is submitted to only the official / authority on duty, the connection with the complexity of dynamics within each stakeholder is lost and it fails to meet social demands. Exercise legitimacy is lost.
A society always struggles between the prescribable and the describable, between the ought to be and what is, and all the average ranges of unforeseen results by those who, when making a policy, fail to understand why they are not directly affected by the policies they produce. for the simple fact of being the ones who produce them.
Therefore, any democracy that is respected in such a way will include economic agents other than the State, interest groups other than the government, for the achievement of public policies that are consubstantiated with the social fact that they intend to affect.
The atomization of society, into opposing groups on the same social or economic fact, is paralyzing and devastating; on the contrary, the generation of spaces for frank and open dialogue will always be the most essential task of the State. As long as the “asymmetry of political motivation” persists in the world and an “inferior” role is given to interest groups, without understanding the essential role they play, provided it is genuine, politics, in the democratic sense, will tend to autophagy.
As you will see, which Habermas, is a subject of communicative action. Of frank dialogue between actors and of being able to put the cards on the table. An essential communicative act. More in this hyper-communicated world, of liquid exchanges and interdependent results. But there are always the dikes that international politics and the advance of democratic constitutionalism have established in a complex system of justice, a counterweight to the powers and responsibilities of both the States and those who lead them.