Subscribe

Español

Protection against the storm

Written by Pablo González and Pedro Nonay, trying to find what we can do in our adaptation to changes in world order.

Entry 1
Entry 2
Entry 3
Entry 4
Relevant context
Entry 5
Entry 6
Entry7
Entry 8
Entry 9

Entry 4

Does the Nation State have a future? 

October 20, 2024



I said at entry 2 that I was going to deal first with the issues that are going to change the soonest. Therefore, it may come as a surprise that I am speaking now of the concepts of the Nation State and the social contract. 

It is very true that these issues are going to change, but we are far from having the changes fully implemented. That could be an argument for talking about these things later on.

However, it is also true that these are very important issues. They set the stage for almost everything. Just as it is true that the changes have begun. We must observe the trends in detail, and adapt our decisions to them.

I think they are going to change the rules of the game in the middle of the game. Therefore, we should not make long-term decisions using the rules of the old game. 

The bad thing is that the rules of the future game are not defined in detail. The good thing is that we can observe the trends that will shape them.

A bit of history.

It is worth copying the second paragraph in Wikipedia talking about the Nation State. It read as follows:

There, it is also said:

In other words, the concept of political government that we still use (although much weakened, as we will see below) was born in 1648. But it did so because of a war that began in 1618. And the causes that called for a new form of government were well before 1648. They even predated 1618, since no one starts a war without first trying to find less drastic solutions.

The previous system of government was the one we call feudal order, and it was the one in force during the Middle Ages.

It is often said that the Middle Ages ended with the invention of the printing press (1453). That is when the Renaissance began. And it is important to note how the change in the system of government took a little less than two centuries. Although it is true that feudalism, still in force in the Renaissance, was hardly similar to that existing before the printing press. The wars of religion (Luther did set forth his 95 theses shortly after the printing press), the discovery of America, and the artistic, scientific and technological advances of the Renaissance, made a society like the one before the printing press impossible.

It follows that when society changes, the political systems for organizing it also change. It takes time to reach total change, but there are gradual changes from the beginning.

That transition time is the time it takes for the old powers to accept that they are losing control and must surrender to the new order. Unfortunately, this happens after wars and economic crises because of this senseless defense. Let us keep our fingers crossed that this time they will accept the change without the need for extreme turbulence, … and let us accept that there will be some.

The Internet is the new printing press.

As I said in entry 1 (and as many people are already saying), the Internet will have the same effects as the printing press had. This is so because both inventions changed the way knowledge moves, and knowledge is the basis of everything. 

Of course, today, almost nothing is done in the way it was done before the Internet. Society has changed.

It is therefore very foreseeable that the concept of the Nation State as we know it will disappear, and that it will do so with a kind of gradual metamorphosis that has already begun.

To see that the change has long since begun, it is enough to see that the government of nation states, according to Wikipedia’s definition, makes its decisions independently of other bodies. However, today there are a multitude of supranational bodies and agreements between countries that greatly limit the ability of governments to act, compared to what happened before.

Another way to see that the system no longer works is to realize that the government of any territory must be made with an administration capable of “controlling” the vast majority of the interactions of the citizens in that territory. This is so because, if there is a large percentage of interactions of the inhabitants outside the territory (e.g.: exports, but there are many other possible interactions, such as the diffusion of culture and doctrine), the administration will not be able to control them easily.

So, after inventions that change communications, citizens interact with more distant areas, it is necessary to make larger governments. For that reason, after the printing press, governments the size of a fiefdom (which worked well when there were few inhabitants who usually left the fiefdom) became too small, and it became necessary to create the countries we know today. And for the same reason, after the Internet, those countries have become too small for us to have an individual government with full powers.

Social contract.

The idea of the social contract comes to us (from what we were told in school) from Rousseau. However, it is much older. Already in ancient Greece, Protagoras spoke of the same thing.

The fact is that, if people have to live together, it is worthwhile to find an agreement whereby, even if we lose some freedom, we can have a peaceful coexistence with our fellow human beings close to us. Be careful, because “close” is one of the great current changes. After the Internet, someone who lives on the other side of the world can be “close” in the continuous relationship.

It turns out that, in the last few centuries, which coincide with the success of the nation-state concept, the social contract has worked more or less well under the idea that there are rules (based on policing and the functioning of justice) that allowed those who followed the rules to live reasonably well, and penalized those who did not.

It also happens that, in the West, this is no longer working. It is sad to admit it, but it is a reality that today there is little reward for complying with the rules, and more reward for breaking them. To prove it, just look at the situation of young people in the West (most of whom comply with the rules), and those of politicians (most of whom break them).

This is not the case in the quasi-dictatorial societies of what we now call the Global South. There, the social contract is very simple and says: “if you do what the boss tells you to do, and you make an effort, you will do well”. And it works, even if we don’t like to admit it.

In short, it is a matter of seeking a pact between the rulers and the ruled. The objective is that the governed do not rebel against the rulers. That it is not worth the effort of rebellion. Although this idea is sold to us with the embellishment that the rulers work for our good.

Today, in the West, the social contract is largely unfulfilled. The governed do not feel supported by the rulers. And this is independent of the ruling political parties in each place.

As a result, social tension is at an all-time high. Especially in the West.

Evolution trends.

I have already said that the nation-state and its social contract are in the midst of a slow metamorphosis towards its future form.

We will arrive at this future form of government by creating new structures of power and attributing powers to them. At the same time, the old forms of power will be emptied of competencies, but formally maintaining their existence. This will be the case until the transfer of powers is completed, at which point it will be recognized that those nation-states are no longer necessary, because they can no longer decide anything.

This process will be influenced by several trends.

Competencies.

The usefulness and importance of the government of any social structure (public or private) is related to its decision-making capacity. That is to say, with its competencies.

If a government cannot make decisions on issues of matter x, that government, with respect to that matter, will be a candidate to disappear as useless to the objective. Although there may be a period of permanence of the parts of the government referred to that matter, but with no work to do. That is, a period of theater with “appearance of existence”.

There is also a very different issue to keep in mind when it comes to competencies. It is that it is one thing to make decisions, and another to execute them. It is perfectly possible that decisions are taken at “the top”, but that smaller structures are needed to execute them. However, these execution structures should not be called “government”. Rather, they would be the “delegation in whatever territory for the execution of x matter” of what was decided by the real government.

As the previous paragraphs are a bit abstract, I will give examples. 

If we are talking about the economy, two of the most important decisions to be taken by whoever really governs are the interest rates and the legal tender to be used. It turns out that, in Europe, none of the “supposed” nation-states that make up the European Union has any competence in these matters. The interest rate is set by the ECB, and the currency is the euro by decision of the European government. The governments of the European nation-states only have the power to enforce these decisions in their territory. In other words, although all countries have a ministry in charge of economic affairs, this ministry (in Europe) cannot decide on the most important aspects of the economy.

Something similar happens with all the decisions taken in supranational bodies on environmental, health, international trade, … issues.

In other words, nation-states are losing many competencies by sending them “upstairs” to some supranational body. And it is important to realize that they do not send them to a single organization, which could be the embryo of a “world government”. They do so to a variety of organizations, each specialized in its own field (WHO, World Bank, UN, …). 

In addition, nation-states are also losing powers by sending them “downstream” to smaller, regional or local governments. This is happening because these governments are more efficient in making such decisions and adapting them to local needs and culture. This is the example of the opening and closing hours of restaurants, or decisions about infrastructure works, …

With these processes, the countries are becoming devoid of decision-making powers. What they do have are those of monitoring the execution of what has been decided. In other words, they are losing power and becoming mere delegated managers.

By the above, we can understand what we see continuously in the news. We almost always observe that politicians’ debates and pending laws are about matters of some importance (often of very little), but not about the really main issues. Considering that almost all the world’s stability is at risk, one might ask why politicians do not discuss what is really important? The answer is: because they have no competence. What they do is invent minor controversies to give the appearance that their work is necessary. And they encourage confrontation among their followers to make those issues seem more important than they are. Unfortunately, that works for them, and we have the result of societies polarized by minor causes.

This also explains another very common issue. We all see that in many countries leaders have a much lower charisma and intellectual level than those of previous times. This is logical. If really good people know that they will not be able to decide what is important, and that they will have to invent minor and stupid controversies in order to manipulate their followers, often by arguably legal means, it is normal that they decide to choose other jobs.

I repeat here that all this has its cause in the existence of the Internet. It is because of the Internet that communication and international trade have been greatly facilitated. This has made it possible to coordinate in territories much larger than the current countries in order to make important decisions (with their diplomatic difficulties). By the same token, these better communications and better knowledge have allowed small decisions to be made locally, without losing the ability to monitor that they are made correctly.

It’s not just the territory.

Above I have spoken of competences in a territorial sense. Some are almost worldwide. Others at city level. Few at the Nation-State level. And we have already seen that the very concept of Nation-State implied the government of a “territory”, without speaking of its size.

What happens now is that there are many competencies that may fall outside the concept of “territory”. Again, the Internet allows this.

Think, for example, of any professional activity. All of them have their associations in which debates and manuals of good practices in that sector are generated. In the end, they are the ones who tell governments what should be the content of the law affecting that sector.

And this process of granting competencies to non-territorial entities is being accelerated by post-Internet technology. This is the case of what is going to happen with the DAOs (decentralized electronically coordinated organizations).

Also with cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is not managed by any government. And we are talking about nothing less than the concept of “money”.

In short, it is not only the concept of “government” that is under discussion, but also the fact that it has to be led by the concept of “public administration” and based on the territory.

Democracy.

Another issue that is very common these days in democratic countries is that there are few governments with an absolute majority of one political party. And government alliances are formed that are very different from what the voters expected, especially in Europe.

It is known that one of the virtues of democracy is to allow alternation of governments without revolutions. And it is possible to avoid these revolutions because the elected government has the support of the army and the police, as well as that of more than 51% of the voters (who are not the inhabitants). With these supports it is difficult that a revolution triumphs, besides having the dissatisfied ones the possibility of winning the following elections.

But, in the current situation in many countries, what we have is that few people vote. Often less than 70% of those who are eligible. There are many inhabitants without the right to vote, the non-accredited immigrants. The most voted party does not reach 30 % of the voters, that is to say 18 % of the inhabitants over 18 years old (if 70 % vote and there are 15 % of immigrants without the right to vote).

If that party, with 18% of the population’s support, makes “strange” alliances, maybe even part of those who voted for it will be dissatisfied. 

In other words, avoiding revolutions by having the support of a large part of the population is out of the question. Fertile ground for problems with this government. A government which, because of what has been said above about the issue of competences, will not be able to do almost anything to solve the important problems of the population. Therefore, the discontent will be even greater.

Moreover, as I said above, technology now allows to coordinate the population in other ways more powerful than simply voting for a political party. Whether to disseminate opinions, to organize detailed voting, … or to make revolutions.

Democracy, as we have been applying it, is failing in its objective of having a peaceful society. It must evolve. 

A possible evolution would be towards electronic democracy by going into matters of detail. Such electronic voting could be such that those affected by the issue in question (or experts on that issue) would have the right to vote, regardless of whether they live in one country or another. In other words, they could go beyond the nation-state concept.

Claude.

Claude is one of the various AIs out there. Pedro has asked him a few questions about the evolution of governments if blockchain becomes popular for their function. It is interesting to see his answer and the graph he provides: 

The West is in the “roundabout”.

Pedro has had an idea that describes very graphically the situation in which we find ourselves. It is valid for this issue of nation-states as well as for all other aspects that are in flux.

He compares it to roundabouts for road junctions. The idea is that the road we were coming down has come to a roundabout. It was the road of the old world order and nation-states. 

Now we are circling the roundabout, because we have not yet decided which of the possible exits and new roads we should choose.

The possible alternatives for the countries of the West with respect to this nation-state issue are:

Conclusion.

I believe that the governments we know have a tendency to disappear. They will do it slowly. It will be with debacle, if they choose the wrong path. Or with a future, if they choose the good one, which is to adapt to the world of two blocs of countries that is being built.

First, they will be gradually emptied of their content, sending part of their competences to different supranational entities, and another part to small regional or local governments. There will also be another part sent to organizations outside the public administration, such as international associations, DAOs, or different blockchains.

Once emptied of content, they will still exist for a while in a formal way. It will be a theater, because they will be worthless.

In the meantime, we still have to live with them, but we must know that their days are numbered.

The conclusion for our personal and business decisions is that we can pay attention to the ideas of our governments for short-term issues. For the long term, we are better off paying attention to the supranational entities that affect us in each case.

Of course, knowing that there will be some government that will try to rebel against this tendency in a suicidal way. It will not succeed, but it will lead its country to debacle for a long time. If we identify that we are in one of those countries, the best strategy is to organize our exit from there. With the exception of if we are in one of the few countries that manage to be of the “non-aligned” and take care of the not very clean business of the necessary transactions between the two blocks. In the latter case, if you have few scruples, there may be opportunities in that country, accepting important risks.

*****

As always, I welcome comments on my email: pgonzalez@ie3.org

If you have any feedback or comments on what I’ve written, feel free to send me an email at pgr@pablogonzalez.org.

You are allowed to use part of these writings. There’s no property rights. Please do it mentioning this websitte.

You can read another writings of Pablo here:

Esta web utiliza cookies propias y de terceros para su correcto funcionamiento y para fines analíticos. Contiene enlaces a sitios web de terceros con políticas de privacidad ajenas que podrás aceptar o no cuando accedas a ellos. Al hacer clic en el botón Aceptar, acepta el uso de estas tecnologías y el procesamiento de tus datos para estos propósitos.
Privacidad