Australia: Nation and State

This academic blog will illustrate and explain the distinction between the idioms of nation, State and nation-State. The essay will draw on the Australian Federal political structure (past and present), the 1901 Federation policy and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (1998) to act as a framework in demonstrating the divergence of functionality within these terms. The essay will also approach the definition of the State by combining, functional and integrationist perspectives to classical capitalist and class theories i.e. Marxism, neo-Marxism, liberalism and neo-liberalism.

The analysis will investigate this social phenomenon using a discourse analysis of various political authors such as Aitken et al. 2006; Davies et al. 1993; Fukuyama 2004; Hungerford 2006; Pusey 1993 (cited in Najman and Western 2000); Kukathas et al. 1998; Marshall 1998; White 1981 and various others.

It also focuses on the ‘Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, Chapter I: The Parliament, Part V – Powers of Parliament’ to highlight multiplicity of State authority. Due to the extensive range of State responsibilities, this essay will concentrate on the parameters of economic policy and the nation’s welfare to illustrate the definitions and concepts discussed.

Definitions:

Firstly, it is critical to define the terms nation, nation-State and power within the contexts of this essay.

Nation:
Nations create borders – thus separating people, cultivating pride as well as propagating cultures. Through the recognition of national boundaries, citizens define themselves in terms of their relationships within those boundaries, '... on one side are the kindred spirits and on the other are the “outsiders” ‘(Clampitt 2005, p. 181).

Nation State (State):

A socially constructed institution, which claims overall authority over members of the nation (Marshall 1998). Currently, there are 129 nation States registered under the United Nations banner (Aitken et al. 2006).
The State, by Pusey’s (1993) definitions, effectively governs the nation’s ethnic social unit.
The police, government, military, bureaucracy, The Australian Constitution, and legislature are one unit in terms of describing the State.

Australia, as a sovereign State, possesses four fundamental components:

· The right to govern its own affairs
· The right to enact or not enact it own laws (i.e. Emissions Trading Scheme)
· The right to reserve a rational sense of values, nationhood and cultural identity
· The right to determine its own economic policy, choosing to trade with other nations as it chooses (Hungerford 2006; Pusey 1993).

Its functional role, again by Pusey’s (1993) definitions, is to limit internal power by controlling struggles and conflicts, thus creating internal order, as well as exercise power towards other countries to protect the State’s interests. In addition, the State controls societal members through the pursuit of united goals and a degree of social solidarity; acknowledges the interests of diverse groups; aligns those interests in the policy making process and performs a welfare role (Hungerford 2006).
The welfare role was essential following the birth of capitalism and the failure of free market forces (Aitken et al. 2006; Fukuyama 2004; Hungerford 2006; Pusey 1993; Kukathas et al. 1998).

Power :
Power is defined by Lukes’ (1993) three-dimensional view of power. Lukes recognises the influence of human agency, ‘... to assume that it is in exerciser’s or exercisee’s power to act differently’ (Lukes 1993 p. 26). This viewpoint correlates in direct contrast to Dahl (one dimensional) and Bachrach and Barratz (two dimensional) theories.

Since Australia’s colonial beginnings, the State has intervened considerably in the development of a nation that has been open to international ethnic and social forces. Max Weber argued that the nation State is fundamentally a political organisation that claims binding authority through the monopoly of force and all other institutions are subordinate to its authority and power (Aitken et al. 2006; Marshall 1998).

This was the case at the time of Australian Federation (1901), wherein a fledgling nation depended heavily on Colonial Statism for its survival. Primary producers, for national economic survival, embraced the intervention of Statism. In terms of classic Marxist theory, the State promoted the elites who in turn promoted the State (Davies et al. 1993).

Moreover, Colonial Australia relied heavily on its ‘white’ immigrant population to provide cheap labour for the English capitalist marketplace. However, Australia in terms of immigrations was considered a ‘Hell on Earth’. Additionally, some critics described Australian society at this time as ‘deprived, drunken and unruly’, whereby convicts, selectors and their children where held in little regard.

These types of beliefs served as a damaging negative contrast to the identity the Barton Liberal Protectionist government of the day wanted to promote to the ‘immigrating’ world. Therefore, in a nation building attempt to counteract these conceptions, the founding ‘myths’ of the ‘workingman’s paradise’, the Aussie ‘battler’, the ‘Lucky Country’, and the idea of a ‘fair go’ were woven into the imaginary framework of the nations cultural identity. Consequently, representations of Australia’s nationalism have fundamentally been a ‘mythic’ creation which best served the interests of the English capitalist marketplace (Turner 1993; White 1981).

Additionally, in 1901 there were no formations of political parties by contemporary standards. However, there were small groups of like-minded people who held certain political values and beliefs. Colonial settlements were basically separate colonies that recognised the desire for nationhood, and a need to amalgamate and coordinate critical governmental functions. Much of the ideology of Federation clearly reflected the economic concerns of the capitalist elites that also included proposals of minimal State intervention (Davies et al. 1993). However, the creation of the Federal three-tiered ‘Westminster’ political system and the drafting of the Australian Constitution restricted the open slather power grab of a dominant unitary government and the second tier of federal Statism (i.e. in States like Queensland) retained independent self-governing rights.

 

As well, the governing Liberal Protectionist Party watered down ideas of imperial ‘colonial statism’ and commodity producer’s protection. Due to the increasing pressure by the Australian Labor Party, Barton’s members became more active with the Free Traders Party; increasing its welfare function to its citizens as well as playing a major role in adjudication and conflict resolution between the bourgeoisie and the proletariats.

As an early historical example of this functional interventionism, the Australian economy was especially vulnerable during the periods of both World Wars and the Great Depression, as were many other national economies.

Consequently, in 1944, global elitists (business and finance leaders) met at Breton Woods (U.S.) to discuss trade and labour mobility. The mostly U.S. and European delegation believed Hitler’s Nazi ‘socialism’ was a type of nationalism which had caused massive social disorder, and to prevent this situation in the future, national borders should be abolished and nations be united ‘... into a new (global) world order’ (Strachan 1998 p. 135).

This type of ideology began the gradual creation of a supra-national economic organisation, the European Union (E.U.). Australia also followed the ideas and concepts of ‘globalisation’ over subsequent decades by abolishing its ‘White Australia’ policy and enhancing free trade with the outside world by lifting tariffs (Davies et al. 1993). Ironically, the cultural ‘myths’ of the Aussie ‘battler’, the ‘Lucky Country’, and the idea of a ‘fair go’ again became the dominant ideological trope. The nation State played an instrumental cultural and economic role in protecting its nation’s citizens (Najman and Western 2000).
 

For example, after decades of crumbling national and global economics, the U.S. (Carterism/Reaganism) and Great Britain (Thatcherism) subsequently implemented drastic global marketplace policy changes to decrease growing national and international deficits.

The Hawke/Keating A.L.P. responded by sending the Australian economy and its citizens into the ‘... recession Australia had to have’ (Strachan 1998 p. 7). Such economic catastrophe had many nationalists questioning the welfare role of the nation-State and, in 1996; Australians precipitated the return of Liberal (yet ultraconservative) viewpoints with the election of the Howard government. In the face of weakened operations of the State itself, the Liberal/National coalition made a determined swing towards neo-liberal principles (Pusey 1993).

In order to stimulate national economic growth, the State created and promoted the formation of strong links between international elitists and national labour interests; henceforth, also creating strategic and mutually obligatory policies such as ‘Corporate Perspective’ Agreements. Agreements such as these provided new avenues for addressing the principles associated with Bretton Woods concepts associated with ‘privatisation’, deregulation’ and ‘globalisation’. In addition, these processes yet again enhanced Australia with ‘mythic’ idea’s of being a multicultural land of (capitalistic) opportunity.

Nevertheless, neo-Marxist political commentators such as Bell (1997) and Strachan (1998) argue that the State is now increasingly reliant on the global spread of industrial dealings and the interdependence of the world economic system by being interlinked with various other international economies in terms of production, trade, investment and consumption. The Global Financial Crisis is an ideal example in recent times. The globalising of corporate activity, as witnessed in Trans-National Corporations (T.N.C) and the T.N.C’s subsequent involvement within financial sectors has been causal in the weakening Statism (Bell 1997).


To reinforce this argument, Bell (1997) adds;

‘Australia has the worst current account situation in the O.E.C.D., reflecting strong commodity dependence and ongoing structural weakness in the economy ... economic weakness and State weakness have only reinforced each other’ (Bell 1997 p. 20 of 24). 

Henceforth, it is fair to agree that the post-modern State, through economic circumstance, has been causal in its weakening of power, not only from within its national boundaries, but internationally as well. Additionally, such weakening has also made it difficult for Australian citizens to clearly distinguish the functional role of the State, particularly when government partakes in ‘top secret’ economic and political dealings.

In 1998, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party exposed Australia’s ‘Multilateral Agreement on Investment’ (M.A.I.) and its resultant legislative policy. Multilateral Agreement on Investment 
This Agreement was, in part, a trade off because of the nations ‘... worst current account situation in the O.E.C.D.’ (Bell 1997 p. 20 of 24).


The Howard coalition government’s ‘less than transparent’ negotiations with the O.E.C.D. effectively made it ILLEGAL for the Government NOT to allow foreign trade (also coined O.E.C.D. elitists) onto Australian soil. 

Thus destroying one of The Australian Constitution's fundamental standpoints:
The right to determine its own economic policy, choosing to trade with other nations as it chooses.

Conversely, the government justified these dealings to Australian’s by claiming it was creating a trade and industry ‘level playing field’. While other, such as the then Deputy Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (A.C.C.C.), Alan Asher, argued that this concept was unfeasible because ‘... 80% of the economic activity is already managed by international corporations’ (Asher, cited in Strachan 1998 p. 4). Despite their disillusionment, however, the nations citizen’s were extremely clear on one point, that this was not a Constitutional decision made ‘for the people by the people’ and any further M.I.A. discussions ceased.

These dealings gave weight to the increasingly popular neo-Marxist viewpoint that the current form of liberal instrumentality was incompatible with the ideologies of ‘world governance’ and its subsequent organisations i.e. United Nations (U.N.). In addition, neo-Marxists believe only nation States are able to collectively organise legitimate authority (under the umbrella of a U.N. type organisation). This activity, theorists believe, is critical in enforcing the domestic rule of law; hence, States are key players in preserving and protecting global social order.

Equally however, other political thinkers such as Fukuyama (2004) argue that ‘world governance’ leads to further capitalist domination by ‘... a motley collection of multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations, international organisations and crime syndicates’ (Fukuyama 2004 p. 162). These corporations and organisations capitalistically possess increased power over weaker Third World political and economic systems. In addition, Fukuyama (2004) stresses that modern nation building primarily involves ‘the creation of new government institutions and the strengthening of existing ones’ (Fukuyama 2004 p. 152). With this in mind, there is no denying that with the ongoing march of globalism and its spiraling definitions of economic rationalism, Australia has to renegotiate its trade and labour boundaries and its descriptive discourse as a sovereign State.

Fundamentally, it would no doubt serve in Australia’s best interests to do as the E.U. did some 60 years ago in joining economically and monetarily with other nation States in the region. It is conceivable that Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Indonesia and other Pacific Rim nation States transform into a supra-national governmentality. This type of ‘nation building’ would serve as a win-win situation as, on one hand, there would be multinational-State ‘protectionist’ welfare for struggling countries to be able to more effectively deal with global elitists. While on the other, Australian trade, labour and investment can pro-actively focus on industrial areas of need such as the reformation of manufacturing industries (i.e. wool).

Considering the Australian nation and its formation of the Federation State in 1901, which bought about a multi-tiered system in which States (e.g. Queensland) retained unique governing rights; so too the ideologies of this democratic system can be extended to form a supra multi-national free trade ‘umbrella, while individual nations still retain their exclusive definition of nation State.

In conclusion, this essay has illustrated the distinction between the idiom of nation and State by drawing on the ideologies of the Australian federal political system to act as a framework to demonstrate the divergence of functionality within these terms. Furthermore, the investigation explored Australia as both an ethnic and cultural country and the functionalism of the State by highlighting the policies and ideologies associated with Federation (1901) and the contemporary political system of the post-modern era. Furthermore, the economics of the nation and welfare role of the State were analysed by combining critical, functional and integrationist perspectives to this social phenomenon by means of discourse analysis of various political authors and theorists. Also, recommendations for future ‘nation building’ concepts will effective place Australia and other Pacific Rim nation States as a viable and productive supra-national organisation.

Australia: Nation and State

 

The Recession Australia Had to Have