State-Society Relations and State Capabilities

By African Bulletin on June 27, 2011

Why have some states struggled to fashion state-society relations, neutralise opposition,

gain predominance, and achieve social control, whereas others have been strong in this regard? Models do exist throughout the world where we learn that the state’s struggle for social control is characterised by conflict between state leaders, who seek to mobilise people and resources and impose a single set of rules, and other social organisations applying different rules in parts of the society. Thus, the lack of state social control means resistance to social control, and the society will be characterised by conflict and fragmentation across several social organisations.      Such conditions can enfeeble the state, resulting in a new distribution of social control that emerged as a result of this conflict, between the society and state. That is the main determinant of whether states become strong or weak. Probably the most important factor in the state’s ability to survive is its ability to mobilise society. Governments acquire the tools of political influence through the mobilisation of human and material resources for state action. For this purpose a standing army, a vastly improved tax-collecting mechanism, and an expanded set of judicial courts are vital for applying good levels of state social control which are reflected in three indicators: compliance, participation and legitimating. These are the tools used by the state to seek social control, where strategies need to include both material incentives and coercion, and the manipulation of symbols of how social life should be ordered.  In case of failure and difficulties of political mobilisation, then any country will be led to the “politics of survival” at the top and the triangle of accommodation at the bottom, thus reinforcing the social fragmentation.