2. ABOUT THE GOVERNED
The state and its structure
A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT only makes sense if it rules over a certain number of individuals that make up some kind of society. In turn, a society is a group of individuals linked by some type of fundamental right. Otherwise, it would be a congregation, a group linked by ethical, religious, or instinctive natural laws, as is the case with communities gregarious of nature.
Therefore, the fundamental condition of a group of individuals that make up a society is, as Rousseau writes, that they are linked to each other by the rights and obligations contained in a "social contract." If this obligatory and legal link does not exist, there can be no society, be it political, recreational, or whatever type; social is synonymous with legal commitment. Simultaneously, society only obliges its participants or "partners" to respect the law's norms that unite them, but not to have affection, friendship, or mutual understanding. These values must be acquired outside the social contract's fundamental right, promoted by religious or philosophical doctrines that incite fraternity.
Thus, both the government and the governed are subject to observing certain legal norms that make up the company's statutes or the state constitution.
Nor does the state make sense if it is not linked to a territory, where individuals make up a nation's lives. Its fundamental function is to delimit the scope of national sovereignty, necessary to determine which individuals' rights and duties in its constitution correspond. Therefore, the state is the political entity that grants sovereignty to an established nation within a territory, to determine the rights and duties for belonging to a nation.
The state can be political or natural. The primitive nations' state was made up of a certain ecological survival niche, with imprecise territorial limits. Thus, the colonized American Indian nations actually constituted natural states, which we can also call ecological, on which the political states established by the conquering colonists were imposed.
The other historical condition of the political state, which gave meaning to the formation of the absolutist the monarchical system, was the need for a supreme leader, or head of state, from whom constitutional laws and national sovereignty emanated. The absolutist Louis XIV was right in sentencing "The the state is me." But naturally, in current states, with democratic and parliamentary systems, where sovereignty resides in the people, the head of the state has been reduced to a representative and the symbolic political figure, be it its president in a non-presidential republic or the king in a parliamentary monarchy. In summary, the modern state is the result of the nationalization of a delimited territory, either through the consensus of a democratic national government, by dynastic agreements, or by the force of a military man supported by his army.
For its part, the nation is the population of which the state is constituted. It follows that a nation without a state cannot exist, because a territory without a nation, even if it is populated, is not a state. Thus, Palestinians are not a nation as long as they do not have a state; they are just the "Palestinian people."
There can be no more than one nation within a state, even in a federal state. The German federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate belongs to the German nation; California's federal state belongs to the American nation.
But the nation is, in turn, a political entity that acquires its cultural personality from the "country." Therefore, the nation's characteristic features: language, religion, and customs, are those of the country and not those of the nation or the state. The country also integrates its natural characteristics, "landscape," which determines its cultural and customs identity.
The country's political concept comes from the country since it simply means our parents or ancestors' country.
Politically, the country must coincide with the nation. Still, the heterogeneous and circumstantial composition of the population of some nations allows certain regions, autonomies, or federated states of being called "countries" (the German states are called "Länder," which is translated by "Countries"). In turn, with its homeland and its people, a country can be distributed among several national states, since a country's concept is cultural and does not affect its political concept's integrity.
And thus, we arrive at the circumstantial cause of the political concept of «people,» which is the country's human component. Therefore, the people acquire the country's cultural features, their traditional values of the homeland, their political entity of the nation, and their sovereign integrity of the state. From this reflection, it follows that a state's sovereignty ultimately resides in the people and not in the country, the homeland, or the nation.
But this traditionally accepted political conception is also in crisis, not recently but since the French Revolution itself, which gave full meaning to the modern political concept of "citizen."
In effect, the citizen is a political concept that directly relates the people to their nation through the city's link. What determines the meaning of this new conception of the social individual is that nationality is acquired not only by being born in a nation, country or country but by the fact of residing for a certain period of time in a "city," understanding that all individuals residing in any city, large or small, where they are legally registered.
Thus, a German citizen is an individual of German nationality because he resides or has resided, in a German city, where he has been naturalized, even if he had not been born in this country. But, for this same reason, citizenship is the cause of a nation, real or virtual. For example, a European Union citizen belongs to the European virtual nation, and a citizen of the world belongs to a virtual world nation. For this reason, the European Union is already in practice a potential nation-state, made up of diverse nations, countries, and homelands, with its cultural characteristics and traditional values.
In the most advanced and dynamic democracies, where population mobility is increasing, and there is an intense flow of immigration, the political trend is to equate the right of residence to that of birth to grant their nationality and their political and civil prerogatives, relegating each time more to the background the concepts related to the country, such as homeland and people. So in these states, and especially in the European Union's virtual state, sovereignty no longer resides in the people but in citizenship. The nations are made up of citizens instead of a people of "countrymen" and "patriots."
A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT only makes sense if it rules over a certain number of individuals that make up some kind of society. In turn, a society is a group of individuals linked by some type of fundamental right. Otherwise, it would be a congregation, a group linked by ethical, religious, or instinctive natural laws, as is the case with communities gregarious of nature.
Therefore, the fundamental condition of a group of individuals that make up a society is, as Rousseau writes, that they are linked to each other by the rights and obligations contained in a "social contract." If this obligatory and legal link does not exist, there can be no society, be it political, recreational, or whatever type; social is synonymous with legal commitment. Simultaneously, society only obliges its participants or "partners" to respect the law's norms that unite them, but not to have affection, friendship, or mutual understanding. These values must be acquired outside the social contract's fundamental right, promoted by religious or philosophical doctrines that incite fraternity.
Thus, both the government and the governed are subject to observing certain legal norms that make up the company's statutes or the state constitution.
Nor does the state make sense if it is not linked to a territory, where individuals make up a nation's lives. Its fundamental function is to delimit the scope of national sovereignty, necessary to determine which individuals' rights and duties in its constitution correspond. Therefore, the state is the political entity that grants sovereignty to an established nation within a territory, to determine the rights and duties for belonging to a nation.
The state can be political or natural. The primitive nations' state was made up of a certain ecological survival niche, with imprecise territorial limits. Thus, the colonized American Indian nations actually constituted natural states, which we can also call ecological, on which the political states established by the conquering colonists were imposed.
The other historical condition of the political state, which gave meaning to the formation of the absolutist the monarchical system, was the need for a supreme leader, or head of state, from whom constitutional laws and national sovereignty emanated. The absolutist Louis XIV was right in sentencing "The the state is me." But naturally, in current states, with democratic and parliamentary systems, where sovereignty resides in the people, the head of the state has been reduced to a representative and the symbolic political figure, be it its president in a non-presidential republic or the king in a parliamentary monarchy. In summary, the modern state is the result of the nationalization of a delimited territory, either through the consensus of a democratic national government, by dynastic agreements, or by the force of a military man supported by his army.
For its part, the nation is the population of which the state is constituted. It follows that a nation without a state cannot exist, because a territory without a nation, even if it is populated, is not a state. Thus, Palestinians are not a nation as long as they do not have a state; they are just the "Palestinian people."
There can be no more than one nation within a state, even in a federal state. The German federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate belongs to the German nation; California's federal state belongs to the American nation.
But the nation is, in turn, a political entity that acquires its cultural personality from the "country." Therefore, the nation's characteristic features: language, religion, and customs, are those of the country and not those of the nation or the state. The country also integrates its natural characteristics, "landscape," which determines its cultural and customs identity.
The country's political concept comes from the country since it simply means our parents or ancestors' country.
Politically, the country must coincide with the nation. Still, the heterogeneous and circumstantial composition of the population of some nations allows certain regions, autonomies, or federated states of being called "countries" (the German states are called "Länder," which is translated by "Countries"). In turn, with its homeland and its people, a country can be distributed among several national states, since a country's concept is cultural and does not affect its political concept's integrity.
And thus, we arrive at the circumstantial cause of the political concept of «people,» which is the country's human component. Therefore, the people acquire the country's cultural features, their traditional values of the homeland, their political entity of the nation, and their sovereign integrity of the state. From this reflection, it follows that a state's sovereignty ultimately resides in the people and not in the country, the homeland, or the nation.
But this traditionally accepted political conception is also in crisis, not recently but since the French Revolution itself, which gave full meaning to the modern political concept of "citizen."
In effect, the citizen is a political concept that directly relates the people to their nation through the city's link. What determines the meaning of this new conception of the social individual is that nationality is acquired not only by being born in a nation, country or country but by the fact of residing for a certain period of time in a "city," understanding that all individuals residing in any city, large or small, where they are legally registered.
Thus, a German citizen is an individual of German nationality because he resides or has resided, in a German city, where he has been naturalized, even if he had not been born in this country. But, for this same reason, citizenship is the cause of a nation, real or virtual. For example, a European Union citizen belongs to the European virtual nation, and a citizen of the world belongs to a virtual world nation. For this reason, the European Union is already in practice a potential nation-state, made up of diverse nations, countries, and homelands, with its cultural characteristics and traditional values.
In the most advanced and dynamic democracies, where population mobility is increasing, and there is an intense flow of immigration, the political trend is to equate the right of residence to that of birth to grant their nationality and their political and civil prerogatives, relegating each time more to the background the concepts related to the country, such as homeland and people. So in these states, and especially in the European Union's virtual state, sovereignty no longer resides in the people but in citizenship. The nations are made up of citizens instead of a people of "countrymen" and "patriots."
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario