Future Analysis of Nation State

future tense Analysis of The population-State brass Introduction It is habitual to hear of the threats to the rural atomic number 18a- express system in the modern knowledge base. Such threats seem to originate from numerous distinct quarters, at different level of the worldwide system. This impending guts that the res publica- body politic is just roughhow in crisis led to analyze the movement of the contemporary crisis of the soil- ground? al angiotensin-converting enzyme in advance we go into the analysis, it is important to look into the ideas that would help to understand the case, under discussion, in a better charge.To begin with, lets see the definition of nation, put in and the nation- domain system, according to the context under discussion. tribe According to the Oxford English dictionary, the intelligence service nation liter al unitedlyy means, companionship of people having mainly jet descent, history, language, and so forthor claying sovere ign land or inhabiting territory. From the in a higher place definition, on that point be twain kinds of nations, the social nation (comm social unity with plebeian descent) and Demotic nation (community with common territorial reserve reserve boundaries). E. K.Francis draws a distinction between paganal nations that are based on belief in common descent and a sense of solidarity and common identity, and demotic nations that are based on carry on administrative and array institutions, common territorial boundaries for surety and the mobility of goods and people. This is similar to the distinction lots do between pagan nations, based on criteria oftentimes(prenominal) as language, customs, devotion and the policy-making nations, that are more than contractual and derive from shared institutions, shared citizenship and a sense of shared history.State According to Oxford English dictionary, differentiate liter completelyy means, political community under wizard organization. This means a community which is coherent with the government of the deposit obeys the government with its own give, making government responsible for it. It is the political organization of the people under one government. Nation-State System The nation- put up system is traditionally, an amalgamation of nation (one people) with invoke (one government). If one were to imagine an lift image of the globe one would see gridlines.These lines mark off different nation- rural areas. Each one is separate from the designer(a)s and sovereign inside its defined and set borders. These nation-states interact with each different, be it done war or deal in a relationship that is theoretically simple. Each nation-state is equal in terms of having reign ( self-government) and the sole right to use certain get out inside its own borders. This modern nation-state system came into origination with the treaty of Westphalia, 1648.In world(a) system, low politics of trade and business and temporary agreement of MNCs, IGO and INGOs are less important than that of high politics the nation-state, with its role of protecting its reign from the attack and of maintaining st aptitude inside its borders. Today, there are more than cc nation-states in the demesne. Nation-State as a Historical-Political Form The ideal articulation of nation as a form of ethnical community and theState as a territorial, political unit is now widely accepted and lots taken as unproblematic.Yet scholars of guinea pigism grade out that that was not unendinglythe case. That all(prenominal) nation deserves its autonomy and identity by means of its ownsovereign state ( take down though many(prenominal) may not invite it) is an ideal that manytrace to the French Revolution. As Cobban points out, whereas before the FrenchRevolution there had been no necessary connection between the state as a political unit and the nation as a ethnical one, it became viable and desirablesince th en to think of a combination of these devil in a single impressionion of the nation-state.That this still cadaver an ideal and one vastly unrealized, as inthe existence of several multi- topic states, is also largely acknowledge, although more than of external relations theory fails to follow by on the implications of that dissolvedor. Concept of Sovereignty The meaning and concept of sovereignty has assumed many different shapes. Moreover, it has frequently changed its content,its laws and even its functions during the modern period. Hugo Grotius, in his famous plough De Jure Belli ac Pacis Sovereignty is that power whose acts may not be malarkey by the acts of other(a) human will. Other political theorists have, in general, pre assure similar definitions. Oppenheim Sovereignty is supreme authority, an authority which is independent of any other earthly authority. WilloughbySovereignty is the supreme will of the state. Various writers on political theory have insiste d that all legally recognized state by definition is sovereign. It is manifestly a reminder that just as every state is legally equal to any other, so it is legally sovereign. But if we see the contemporary interaction of states with reference to above definition, we would definitely background out that the concept of sovereignty has again changed.The concept of absolute sovereignty has reach obsolete and has been replaced by the concept of relative sovereignty/authority and interdependence. only as in real world, almost states are bigger in size, power and influence than others just like that sovereignty of the states has go bad relative. It must(prenominal) be recognized that there are now degrees of sovereignty and self-determination. totally sovereignty left with states is legal sovereignty. Except it every other spirit of the state is relative or dependent on intrastate and interstate highway factors. Concept of patriotismNationalism is the patriotic feeling for one s nation or country. Professor Louis L. Snyder defines nationalism as a product of political, sparing, social and adroit factors at a certain stage in history, is a condition of mind, feeling or sentiment of a group of people financial support in a well-define geographical area, speaking a common language, possessing a literature in which the aspirations of the nation have been expressed, attached to common traditions and common customs, venerating its own heroes, and in some cases having a common religion. virtually point out that the political nations are based more on civic nationalism, as opposed to the ethnic nationalism characteristic of the ethnical nations. These observations are based on two popular theories of nationalism. Primordialists approach the close to which culture exists as a given resource for the constitution of nationsand role player approach, the conclusion to which culture has to be invented by ultranationalistic elites.The primordialist approach, ev ident in the early break away of Geertz, Shils and in the socio-biological theory of Van den Berghe, argues that ethnic and pagan attachments are pre-givens, or at least assumed givens, and come forward natural to members of a group. As against this, the instrumentalist approach, show to varying degrees in the works of Brass, Hobsbawm and Nairn, argues that ethnic attachments are practically invented and manipu late(a)d by elites to construct the nation as a privileged source of a groups loyalty.Im of the view that all national identities are constructed as determined by the instrumentalist theory. In other words, there are no natural nationalities. There is no a priori manner in which peoples support be made into nations. It is the work ofnationalism to construct or produce a nation. In the words of BenedictAnderson, the nation has to be imagined. Nations are imagined because themembers of even the smallest nation will never know roughly of their fellow members, rival them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each livesthe image of their communion. It is through nationalist political orientation that thiscommunion is constructed. Anderson traces the teaching of nationalism to the development of print- dandyism, which helped to produce and disseminatea common culture to land the national imagination. 18 Regardless of what basisis used to ground this communion, nations are ultimately based on what EtienneBalibar has called fictive ethnicities. It is the work of nationalist ideology to ethnicize a community.It is through the re lookational wear of nationalist ideology that a community is constructed as if it formed a natural communionwith its unmatched and singular origin and destiny. Nation construct hasalways been a project of the state as well and the widespread existence of globalnorms on sovereignty and self-determination (and the continuing bring up of theideal of the nation-state) now ensure that existing states themselves have toenga ge to some end in seeks at nation building. In other words, it is notsimply that nations often seek and demand states, only states need nations as well.These efforts of nation building are more evident and stark at times of crisis such as war, still in reality are always in existence in more subtle ways through various statepolicies and programs, as well as through the ideological state apparatusesin civil society. In that sense state building and nation building have become simultaneousand symbiotic suees. Yet for analytical purposes it is perhaps better not toconfuse these two processes because, even if the ends they seek are sanelysimilar or complementary, the processes remain somewhat different.State buildingoccurs through the penetration and integration of the territorial economy,polity and society and speaks to dubietys of political authority and effectivegovernance. Nation building is the saying of a viscous cultural communitythat rumpister demand citizen loyalty a nd commitment. As it is shownin the nextsection, the atomisation of nation-states refers tonation building, and inparticular to the inability of the state to build cohesive nations, tour those that point to the effects of globalisation on weakening the nation-state often (but notexclusively) refer to problems with state building.Challenges to The Nation-State Forces of fragmentation The authority of the nation-state depends to a large expiration on its consistency,unity and stability in the eyes of its public or, in other words, of the ability ofthe state to project a united nation. The imagined nations, as Anderson pointsout, present themselves as communities,because regardless of the actualinequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is alwaysconceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship.Part of the project of the state is to seekconsent from its citizens as to the depth and equality of that comradeship. Yetthe national space has many differences and confli cts among ethnicities, races, religious groups, classes, genders, etc. Each of those differences threatens the coherence and unity of the national fabric. Most of the literature on fragmentation focuses on ethnic (and religious) conflicts within existing states. Nationbuilding requires that such ethnic and religious conflicts are effectively controlledby the state. still though assimilation has been an acknowledged oddment of many states historically, Talal Asad has pointed out that hegemonic power worksnot so much through suppressing differences by homogenization, as throughdifferentiating and marginalizing. The nation in projects of the state does notrepresent a singular cultural space so much as a hierarchy of cultural spaces. What RudolfoStavenhagen calls an ethnocratic state- a nation-state controlledessentially by a majority or pre dominating ethnie, able to use of goods and services cultural hegemonyover the rest of the ation is the rule deviatenatively than the ridda nce in the modernsystem of nation-states. The success of nation-building depends on the finishto which the state is able to secure a broad measure of consent on thishierarchy. The national project requires the construction of what Asad calls acultural core that becomes the essence of the nation. At the most basiclevel, fragmentation occurs when the state is no persistenter (if ever) able to effectivelysecure consent on this cultural core.States have a variety of available means to fill up the demands of ethnic and religious groups within their borders. To the extent that assimilation is no longerconsidered possible or effective, or even desirable, states flowerpot and do makeattempts to accommodate such demands through various political and institutionalmechanisms. Regardless of how determined and well form thosedemands are, which might make a polity instead unstable in certain situations,fragmentation refers more specifically to situations where such demands arelinked with cl aims to territory.Or using Oomens definition, it is when an ethnic group establishes a moral claim to territory within a state thatone can speak of sub nationalisms, or what are sometimes called ethno nationalisms. Many states that are classified as nation-states within global relationshave always been such multi-national states like in India where different ethnicand linguistic groups are regionally organized on the basis of claims to territory,or as in the case of the economical and Welsh within Britain. Such moral claims toterritory might not inevitably generate separatist movements.But it is the existence of such sub nationalisms that piddles the possibility of the fragmentation of the nation-state. Ultimately, thiscan be a crisis of the nation-state because such nationalisms threaten to fragmentone of the central bases of state sovereignty -the territorial impartiality of the existingnation-state. Or maybe the civic (more than the cultural) nationalism of manymodern states makes the nation-state (unlike ethnicity or religion), simply toolarge, amorphous and psychically distant to be the object of advise affection.The point here is that fragmentation occurs and is occurring rapidly in theworld, as evidenced in Bosnia, Rwanda, Spain, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Canada, toname a very few geographically diverse examples. Fragmentation occurs whenthere is a disarticulation between the state as a spatial unit (with fixed territory)with the spatial claims of the nation(s) in whose name(s) it speaks. The ultimate concern with fragmentation, as I mentioned above, is that itthreatens the territorial integrity of existing nation-states.But as IstvanHont points out, even though there might be legitimate grounds for concern over theterritorial integrity of contemporary states devolving into smaller territorialunits, this should be seen as a triumph or else than a crisisof the nation-state. Fragmentation is a threat to the existence of particular states, kind of thant he system of nation-states. It represents the failure of particular states to holdon to the spatiality (both geopolitically and culturally) of their claims toauthority.But in more general terms, fragmentation represents the success ofthe ideal of the nation-state that every nation deserves its own state. This seemsmore pellucid in the case of the end of empire and its dissolution into independentpolities each claiming the prenomen of nation-state, first in the post- instauration War II eraof decolonization, and more recently in the break-up of the Soviet Union andthe Eastern bloc countries. Forces of Globalization The effects of globalisation on the nation-state are a bit more complex.Forces outside the nation-state can hold back, enable and influence the nation-state in a variety of ways. For the purposes of this discussion, I classify these squashs into two groups forces of economic globalisation and forces of culturalglobalization, although the two are kinda closely relate d in many ways. Economic Globalization The development of thefield of international political economy (IPE) has pointedout thatexclusive focus on the nation-state as a unit of analysis can be inadequate inunderstanding the dimensions of economic action at law in the modern world.Some approaches within IPE, such as Interdependence, Regime and HegemonicStability Theories wrap up to be state-centric. But that is not the case with anumber of other approaches. Marxist approaches in particular have been dividedover the question of the role of the state. This division has been over thequestion of the extent to which the supranational character of the capitalistmode of production restricts all modern state structures versus the extent to which the state plays a direct role in promoting the internationalization ofcapital.Exemplifying the former perspective, Wallersteins serviceman Systems theory was based on the ontological mastery of the world capitalist system,based on a single divisi on of labor between the core, peripheral and semi peripheralregions of the world. rase though Wallerstein recognized the importee of nation-states in the modern world, in his analysis the essentials ofmarket exchange at the international level cut down state autonomy so much sothat nation-states were but super structuralattachments helping in the reproductionof the modern global capitalist system.But other scholars who have lookedat the internationalization of capital have stressed how the state continues toplay a role in the reproduction of capitalism. Robin Murray has pointed out thatas capital extends beyond its national borders, the historical link that bound itto its particular domestic state no longer necessarily holds. But the domestic stateis not territorially limited in its activities, and it might well follow its capital and manage the critical economic roles that it has always played in thereproduction of capitalism.The gradual respite from multinational corporations towards more transnational corporations or from the internationalization of economic occupation (aseconomic activity spreads crosswise state borders) towards the globalization ofeconomic activity (which involves a more purposefulcombination of economicactivity spread globally) also limits state capacity to control and influencedomestic national economies and consequently weakens state authority over its nationalspace.This is what Mittelman has called the spatial reorganization of production, the interpenetration of industries across borders and the spread of financial markets. The spatial reorganization of production has been accompanied by changes in the international division of labor, which has includedamong other changes the feminization of certain kinds of labor. The globalization of international finance has led to the enormous flow of capital andcurrencies with change magnitude rapidity, huge rowth of global currency speculation,offshoots trading and currency instability, and has increasingly reduced the ability of the state to control monetary and fiscal policy. In general, it hasbeen argued that in the formulation of economic globalization, state autonomy isconsiderably reduced, as the state becomes simply a facilitator of globalization. In particular, it is the weakening of the social benefit state occurring in the solution of the globalization of economic liberalization that is seen to limit state competenceand authority all over the world.If the origins of the state had been in the homework of certificate, the growth of the welfare state in post-World War IIindustrial societies has now been well known. But the decreasing appealof Keynesian macroeconomic management in post-industrial societies (and theshift to supply-side economics) and the accompanied reduction in public provision of social services threatens the legitimacy of the state as it increasingly fundsitself with myopic control over the economy (as jobs, investment migrate) and unable(p) to meet the expectations of the people for securing their prosperity.Inpost-colonial societies, the revolt of the developmentalist state with the increasing adoption of IMF- and World Bank-sponsored market liberalization,is also a potential threat to state legitimacy as the state is unable to lay aside onpromises of basic take provisions, as the vehicle for social rightness and equalityand as the symbol of national resistance to external pressures.In many ways, this sense of the declining political effectiveness of the contemporary state is not entirely baseless. Even if the state cannot, and perhaps nevercould, totally or effectively control economic activity within its borders, itsability to regulate such activity to an extent and its willingness to undertakeredistributive measures that raged some of the more socially evileffects of the market brought it a certain amount of legitimacy and approvalfrom large sections of the population.This expression of the nation-sta te, not simply as a supplier of order and security, but as a provider of social (andeconomic) needs (as in education, health care, nutrition, housing as well as inensuring a certain level of employment, minimum wages, price stability, etc. )has been an important and important development of the second half of the20th century. Even if there is increasing consensus in policy-making circlesaround the world of the efficiency of market forces and the need for marketliberalization and cut-backs in state activity in the economic kingdom, the expectationsof the population from the state tend to be more complex.Even wheremany sections of the population might be dissatisfied with the functioning ofexisting states, the initial impact of market reforms on large sections of thepopulation can be quite adverse and severe. This is evidenced, for instance, inthe cut-back of social welfare programs in advanced industrial societies on minority groups and women, as also in the adoption of IMF-imposed structuraladjustments programs on sad people and especially women in the lowereconomic classes in the developing world.The internationalization and globalization of economic activity, combined with the global spread of economic liberalization can in that sense certainly weaken the ability of the state to meet theexpectations of sections of the population, and possibly create news kinds oflegitimacy crises. This is not simply a practical problem for particular states, which of course it is. John Dunn points out that while the immediate appeal of the nation derives much more from the subjective force of being born in a particular setof social relations, the appeal of the state lies in its efficiency or competence, whichis much more objective.To the extent that the idea of the modern nation-stateis so closely linked to the idea of the welfare state or the developmentalist state, the effectiveness of the contemporary state depends on the ability of thestate to deliver on welfare or de velopment. To that extent, the decreasedcompetency of the state to deliver on those promises could create the kindsof legitimacy crises that might call into question the strong point of the nation-state. Perhaps, over time, expectations of what the state can or should do willchange. Decline of a particular form of the modern state does not indicate theend of the nation-state form.As David Armstrong argues, since states are social actors and indeed become states through international socialization,new conceptualizations of the states role in the national economy that emergeas a consequence of globalization may become statefied as states reach intersubjective understandings of how to restructure themselves and how to uphold the institutions of international society to accommodate globalization. Nation-state legitimacy will depend on the extent on which consentcoheres around new constructions of national/state identity more in tunewith the new roles of the state.To some extent, states that have recognized the impossibility of enjoyingpolitical autonomy over economic issues have increasingly turn to non-stateentities for performing these functions more effectively. For instance, Alan Milward has argued that post-war European integration, in particular the launchof monetary union, was an attempt by many European nation-states to increasethe capacity of the state to meet the expectations of its citizens, and in doing soto rescue the nation-state from its demise.Transfer of political authority overmonetary decision making to a supranational entity, hence losing fiscal andmonetary sovereignty, was perhaps the only way for states to ensure a certainamount of economic stability in many of the states racked by huge currencyfluctuations. In this somewhat personal analysis, the creation of supranationalentities like the European Union could in contradiction make the nation-statestronger preferably than weaker. But even if the role of the state can be reduced to being th e agent ofglobalization, the state remains important for a number of other reasons.Despitethe rise of various forms of terrorism, including state terrorism, the state accommodates significantmonopoly on the use of legitimate violence. The state continuesto have monopoly on taxation, is still seen as the ultimate negotiator of socialconflict, is expected to provide security from external threats, and to performa variety of other functions. Perhaps most importantly, in the count of globalization, the state continues to be seen as the site for many to seek protection fromsome of the effects of global corporate capitalism.As Panitch points out, notonly is the world still very much composed of states, but insofar as there is anyeffective democracy at all in relation to the power of capitalists and bureaucratsit is still embedded in political structures that are national or sub national inscope. The exercise of democratic control over capital takes on an even greaterimportance for Confe derate countries increasingly subject to IMF pressures, where the state is sometimes the only refuge against eo-imperialism. The point is that even though state legitimacy is potentially threatened by economic globalization, much depends on how state roles are reconfigured inthe face of globalization. Even if the economic limits to national politics is not anew problem for state legitimacy, the qualitative shift in economic globalization in late 20th-century capitalism, as well as the development of the nature of thecontemporary state, does change somewhat the implications for state legitimacy.In itself, the distribution of some of the functions of state to other non-state entities,whether supranational or sub national (micro-management rather than macro-managementby the state), does not threaten state legitimacy, but can in factstrengthen it. Economic globalization certainly requires different state roles, changingexpectations from the people, and new measures of state competency, butdoes not necessarily threaten the existence of the nation-state. ethnical Globalization There is also a cultural dimension to globalization that has implications for thenation-state and its future.This has more to do with issues of identity. RolandRobertson defines globalization as both the compression of the world and theintensification of consciousness of the world as a whole. While the process ofthis compression might have been occurring over a very long time, the recentgrowth of communications technology (cheap and fast air travel, telephonic andtelegraphic services, satellite media transmissions, the earnings and cyberspace)has both accelerated and deepened this process. This is a process that both brings the world together and splits the world apart simultaneously.As Stuart Hall points out, globalization at the cultural level has led to both the universalisation and the fragmentation and multiplication of identities. Robertson explainsglobalization leads to the simultaneit y of the particularizationof universalism (the rendering of the world as a single place) and theuniversalization of particularism (the globalized expectation that societies . . . should have distinct identities). In his more recent work, Robertson has offered the concept of glocalization to emphasize the simultaneity of the homogenizing and eterogenizing forces of globalization in the late 20th-century world. Keeping in mind that these two processes are simultaneous, future(a) are theirdifferent implications for nation-states. The homogenization forces of globalization, in one sense is, the universalisation of the demand of the nation-state as an ideal cultural political form of collective identity is itself a product of globalization. The now globalised belief that nations exist and deserve their states is fairlywell accepted and forms the prescriptive foundation for most contemporaryinternational organizations.In addition, these international organizations have served to institu tionalize the form of the nation-state, and execute a certain amount of standardization in the nation-state system. John Meyer has shown globalization in this sense serves to strengthen the nation-state. Meyer pointsout that despite the vast economic inequalities among states, there is a worldculture that creates significant isomorphism among nation-states and helps bring through this dispersed world polity together.The global system of nation-statesis based on global norms that define external and native sovereignty, and is exemplified and reproduced through the similarity of the goals ofequality and progresspursued by all nation-states. In other words, worldlevelcultural and organizationalinstructions for development and progress haveresulted in nation-state uniformity as all states follow similar objectives, policiesand programs.Connie McNeely elaborateson this concept of world culture by showing international organizations like the UN set normative and rigid standards of fash ion for statepractices (increasingly conformed to by nation-states around the world), andin doing so play a role in institutionalizing the nation-state system. She specifically shows the nation-state system has been standardized and reproducedthrough the invention and spread of national income statistics, resulting fromthe efforts of UN statisticians and from the UN accrual and distribution of comparative tables.At least in this sense, the homogenization force ofglobalization reproduces and continues the nation-state system, rather thanthreatens its existence. Another implication of homogenization is on globalized identities in terms of global consumer capitalism. Benjamin Barber describesthe homogenizing drives of McWorld (or what has also been called theMacDonaldization of the world) which has created commercialized anddepoliticized world. Kenichi Ohmae describes a consumerist world in whichbrand loyalty replaces national loyalty.But this world that is homogenized by the globaliz ation of exercise cant erase the troublesomeness of national commitments. Corporate icons cant provide the kind of collectiveunity that national identities provide, and this is perhaps one reason for theglobal localization that Ohmae points to, in which product marketing adaptsto local (often see as national) conditions, or what has come to be knownas micro-marketing. But it is these depoliticized identities that also create thedrive to resecure narrow identities so as to escape McWorlds monotonously trusty essentials.The heterogenising forces of globalization, or what Robertsondescribes as the universalization of particularismclaims, in which not only has the expectation of singularity become institutionalized and globally widespread, but the local and the particular itself isproduced on the basis of global norms. In other words, globalization of cultural norms has produced not just the legitimacy of the idea of the nation-state, butalso the expectation that such nation-states should embody unmatched and distinctidentities.This once again represents the globalization of the nationalist idea,the idea thatnation-states are legitimate because the nation is a unique, authenticcultural entity, with its singular and distinct identity. Beyer, in describingRobertsons work, calls this the relativization of particularisms, which leads to a search for particularistic identities. The globalization of this idea createsthe potential for declarations of national identity, and can ultimately create themomentum for fragmentation of existing nation-states that are somehow seen asinauthenticand hence illegitimate.To the extent that such differentiationalso occurs as a solution to certainhomogenizing drives of globalization,thisalso represents a success of the nationalist idea. Assertions of collective identityboth as an element of, as well as in response to, globalization is then morenation-producing than nation-destroying. This certainly is an effect of globalization tha t, in keeping with the argument of the final section on fragmentation,is not a threat to the nation-state but a measure of its success.The Altered Nation-State Panitch in Mittelman says, globalization is authored by states and is primarily aboutreorganizing rather than bypassing them. Rather than suggesting that the nation-state is fated to dissolve in the face of globalization, or that it will remainthe primary unaltered unit of international relations, there is a asking of an alteredstate. The nation-state is said to exist now in one form, to have existed in the past inanother, and to be transforming itself actively into a third.This is a proposition that assumes a resilient but elastic nation-state, one that evolves over time, and whichbecomes more or less influential in different spheres depending on the utility of thatinfluence. iodine example of this altered state thesis is that proposed by Philip Cerny, who suggests that the nation-state is not gone, although its role ha s changed. He envisages the transformation of the nation-state from being agoverning system concerned with welfare to being a system concerned with competitor. Unsurprisingly he calls this the competition state.The competition state exists in aworld of increased fragmentation and globalization, and is characterized by a decrease ofpublic services and an increase of private services or industry. The competition state is amix of civil and business organization, and is concerned with effective returns oninvestment or effort. In the long run the state is developing into an enterpriseassociation, with key civic, public and built-in functions subordinate to theglobal marketplace. Another example of the altered state is envisioned by Leo Panitch.Panitch thinks that globalizing pressures even on advanced industrial states has led to a reorganization of the structural power relations within states but has not cadaverous therole of the state. The nation-state is changing, but is not fac ing adisempowerment or loss of sovereignty. Indeed, Panitch would understand globalization as being written by nation-states, and the role of the state in collecting taxation,providing security, and having the monopoly of legitimate violence inside its sovereignborders as being unchanged.Globalization and variety of the state role is an attempt to secure global and domestic rights of capital, and not aneo-medieval dissolution of the state apparatus. Conclusion There are, no doubt, a number of threats to the coherence and durability of particular existing nation-states, but that doesnt weaken the nation-state as a historical form, as a contemporary organizing principle for collective cultural and political identity. Certainly, the severe crisis of particular nation-states, such as Afghanistan,Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia, can generate a sense of anxiety about thefuture of the nation-state itself.Yet this sense of crisis has not seeped into acrossthe globe and most existing nation-stat es remain relatively stable and viabledespite the existence of various ethno-nationalist movements within them. The graph given above shows the trend of nation-state over a period of 100 years. The graph is the statistical evidence of the appeal and continuance of the nation-state system as a dominant cultural-political system. In the article which was the basis of this analysis, Saquib Karamat indicates economic globalization, cultural globalization and blurring of the national ideologies as threat to the existence of nation-states.Furthermore, he says global issues also question the sovereignty of nation-states. But as analyzed above, economic globalization and cultural globalization in fact strengthen the nation-state than weakening it. While blurring of national ideology is the contemporary issue of weak states, who in some way need to put into work a national project of nation-building to keep their territories intact. The global issues like global warming dont question the au thority of the state rather they implicate that all nations need to work in such a framework of communication which enables to reach a solution of common consent.Now, the analysis on the future of nation-state has made some points clear, that a nation need not to be only one with common descent (ethnic nations), there can also be nations who share common boundaries (demotic nation). A state, which has either ethnic nation or demotic nation, needs to be coherent in order to remain legitimate. The historical-political form of nation-state was based on one nation one state rule. The concept of sovereignty has changed from absolute sovereignty to degrees of sovereignty and interdependence. The process of nation-building or nationalism is a tates tool to keep it coherent. All national identities are constructed by national elites and weak states which are facing the threat of territorial disintegration should consciously employ national labor in nation-building. The forces of fragmentat ion and forces of globalization which seems to put at risk the existence of nation-state system, actually strengthen nation-state as a historical form and are driving forces in the evolution of the nation-state as discusses above in the respective sections. So, nation-state needs to alter itself in order to remain competent system for the years to come.The exigency is evident from the change in the conceptof sovereignty. Since it has changed, nation-state should also be restructured in the face of globalization and fragmentation. Transferring some kinds of authority tosupranational entities, or devolving power downwards through decentralization are ways of coping with these changes, and can help retain state legitimacyrather than threaten it. Bibliography 1. E. K. Francis, Interethnic dealings An Essay in Sociological Theory ( upstart York Elsevier, 1976). 2. Alfred Cobban, the Nation State and National Self Determination (London HarperCollins, 1969). 3.Clifford Geertz, Old Societ ies and New States (New York The Free Press, 1963) Edward Shils, Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties , British Journal of Sociology, Vol. VIII, No. 2, (1957) capital of South Dakota Van den Berghe, Race and heathenity A Sociological Perspective , Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1978). 4. Paul Brass, Elite Groups, Symbol consumption and Ethnic Identity among the Muslims of South Asia , in D. Taylor and M. Yapp (eds. ), Political Identity in South Asia (London Curzon Press,b1979) Eric Hobsbawm, Introduction Inventing Traditions and Mass-producing Traditions Europen1870 1914 , in E.Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds. ), The Invention of Tradition (New York Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 1 14 Tom Nairn, The Break-up of Britain Crisis and Neo-nationalism, 2ndedn (London Verso, 1977). 5. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London Verso, 1983) 6. Kathryn A. Manzo, Creating Boundaries The Politics of Race and Nat ion (London Lynne Rienner, 1996) 7. TalalAsad, Genealogies of Religion (Baltimore Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993). 8.Robin Cohen, Diasporas and the Nation-state From Victims to Challengers , International Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3 (1996) 9. Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism, Joris De Bres (trans. ) (London NLB, 1972). 10. Andrew Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism Critical Theory and International Relations New York St. Martins Press, 1990). 11. Immanuel Wallerstein, The Capitalist World Economy (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1979 12. Immanuel Wallerstein, The Politics of the World Economy The States, the Movements and the Civilizations (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1984). 3. Robin Murray, The Internationalization of Capital and the Nation-state , New Left Review, Vol. 67 (1971), 14. Peter Dicken, Global Shift The Internationalization of Economic Activity, 2nd edn (New York Guilford Press, 1992). 15. crowd H. Mittelman (ed. ), Globalization Critical Reflections (Boulder Lynne Rienner, 1996) 16. R. OBrien, Global Financial Integration The revoke of Geography (London Sage, 1990 17. John Dunn (ed. ), The Economic Limits to Politics (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1990). 18. John Dunn, Introduction Crisis of the Nation State? , Political Studies, Vol. 42, Special Issue (1994) 19. Helen Thompson, The Nation-state and International Capital in Historical Perspective , Government and Opposition, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1997) 20. Leo Panitch, Rethinking the aim of the State, (Boulder Lynne Rienner, 1996) 21. Roland Robertson, Globalization Social Theory and Global Culture (London Sage, 1992) 22. Roland Robertson as quoted in Peter Beyer, Religion and Globalization (London Sage, 1994) 23. Stuart Hall, Cultural Identity and Diaspora, in Jonathan Rutherford (ed. , Identity Community, Culture, Difference (London Lawrence &Wishart, 1990). 24. Connie L. McNeely, Constructing the Nation-state (Westport Greenwood Press, 1995). 25. Benjamin R. Barber, Jih ad Vs. McWorld , The Atlantic Monthly (March 1992) 26. KemichiOhmae, The Borderless World (London Harper Business, 1990). 27. Kofman, E. and Young, G. Globalization Theory and Practice, (London Pinter,1996) 28. ShampaBiswas, W(h)ither the Nation-state? National and State identity in the Face of Fragmentation and Globalization, Global society, (16 (2), Abingdon Carfax. , 2002).