Main Page Contact Register Log In

You use the phrase state's interests without being clear about what you mean with it.

You treat the interests of an intelligence agency as synonymous with the interest of it's state. I don't think that's the way the phrase "state's interests" is usually used.
In a democracy every citizen is part of the state and therefore his interests are part of the state's interest.

I use "the state" to mean the institutional complex that has sovereign power over a territory; the people comprising the state, in their respective political-administrative-military roles, constitute its government. The interests of the state refer to the interests of its body of governing institutions, that generally remain stable even as the people holding the offices come and go. Examples of things that may be in the interest of a state, but not necessarily, directly, or obviously in that of its citizens, are: territorial expansion (people die in wars), alleviating national debt through austerity measures (it might work, but it would suck for consumers and businesses alike), defensive war propaganda and conscription (inadequately prepared military forces could mean you get conquered, maybe by a worse regime, but again, the flipside is people dying in wars), counter-insurgency and operations that target radical political groups (it preserves the state and the status quo, even though this might happen at the cost of the people's expressed desires), illiberal policies imposed in the name of national security, co-opting a majority church to further legitimise one's regime, social policies that target the birth rate, perhaps of certain social or ethnic groups, like bachelor taxes or monetary incentives/disincentives for having children, or restricting the right to divorce... in short, actions that strengthen the state even at the expense of the citizens. Policies that look good from the top.

Much as the theory of democracy may uphold the idea, I disagree that every citizen has a share of the state's interest. It strikes me as a case of the fallacy of division. It is my view that people, even in the best-functioning representative democracies, are de facto subjects to government rather than participants in it, and that the political class is a relatively uniform minority under little compulsion to represent its constituents adequately. Also, that most people don't know and either wouldn't understand or would disagree with a large part of what the government does.
Replies (1)

Replies (0)