Is the state sovereingty a problem to flourish pluralistic society? An analysis
We tend to imagine that pluralism is a new phenomenon–that the past was a place of intolerance and cultural isolation, in which religious and ethnic minorities were violently persecuted. Then, the story goes, modern ideas of rationality kicked in and globalization made the world ever more interconnected so that now we have become more pluralistic and syncretic than ever. This story is quite wrong. In fact, there are many examples of times and places in the past where pluralism was the dominant philosophy! We have already seen that ancient India was ruled at one time by a pluralistic emperor, Ashoka the Great. Ashoka was a Buddhist, but he allowed Hinduism, Jainism, and countless other religions to thrive in his empire. Over a period, India was ruled by the Mughal Emperor Akbar, who was also renowned for his pluralism. Akbar was a Muslim, but he took counsel by Hindus and other religious thinkers in his royal court. In fact, Akbar went beyond tolerance and tried to create a new syncretic religion for India, based on a combination of Hinduism, Islam, and elements of Jainism and Buddhism.
Pluralism was also dominant in many times and places in the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic state that ruled the Middle East and lasted from 1299 all the way to 1923! Of course, in all those centuries, there were some times less tolerant than others, but overall the Ottoman Empire was remarkably pluralistic and allowed all sorts of ethnicities and religions to coexist under a single flag and a loose imperial alliance.
To some, pluralism seems to suggest relativism. According to this line of reasoning, in order to be a pluralist, it’s necessary to believe that all ethical laws are relative to culture and circumstance, so there can be no one moral law that applies to everyone. So by extension, some people believe that pluralism cannot exist alongside universal morality. This is often a criticism of pluralism.
However, not all pluralists think this way. Some pluralists, for example, argue for a limited kind of tolerance in which all views are tolerated as far as possible, with some restrictions added for truly hateful views. Other pluralists argue that universal morality comes from compassion and acceptance—the core of pluralism, and a primary message of almost every religion; thus, for example, they argue that issues like abortion or gay marriage are less important than being empathetic towards other human beings. This allows for pluralism alongside universal morality.
Pluralists point out that the power of the state is in no way infinite and free. The power of every organization is limited by its functions. The power of the state as a social organization is also limited by its jurisdiction. The state controls the external life of the people. But inner life cannot control. According to Barker, many actions are beyond the control of the state. In a nutshell, the field of this work is the mental endeavor of human beings in pursuit of a beautiful life. This attempt is not a matter of consideration of any particular person, but of all the persons who are collectively socialized. The emotional pursuit for a beautiful life is social on the one hand, personal on the other. All he needs is voluntary social support. He also thinks that this cooperation is needed not only in the mental or internal life but also in the external life of the people.
State sovereignty is limited by practical and ethical reasons. Although the state is an inevitable organization, it has no moral recognition. According to Lasky, the state is a means of enriching and establishing civic life. The claim of his power and loyalty depends on how the state can develop that possibility. He holds that the state can have no permanent claim to power. The government will gradually surrender to those on whom the outcome of his work is reflected. History teaches that in the end, the application of free will becomes fatal to the government.
Although the weakness of pluralism has diminished its influence, the pluralistic perspective has not been completely exiled from the courtyard of political science. Modern state scientists, such as Arthur Bentley, David Truman, have attempted to review state science from a group perspective. Robert Dall, Lipset, Richard Hofstadter, prominent US scientists have noted the need for different groups and associations in the framework of a liberal and moral democratic system. According to many, in the capitalist countries, antagonistic social classes and groups were formed for the position of the opposing social classes and for the interdependence of the capitalists.
Although various social unions are formed in socialist countries, certain political ideologies are bound to exist within them. In the socialist country, there is no possibility of rivalry for the absence of the opposing classes. In the modern world, the need for social associations is universally recognized. But according to the pluralist claim, they were never given the status of exercising their sovereignty or equal status with the state. They serve within the bounds of state law. States and other social associations rival each other, not two. The state is their guardian and controller.
The experts of Marx philosophy discussed the application of the character of sovereignty to a completely new and historical perspective. According to the Marxian theory, the state is a class governance machine, a state-owned class of economic power. With the help of machines and controlling the production, one tries to protect his own class interests. So the characteristic of political power and sovereignty of the state will depend on the economic power structure, ownership and production control. In order to explain sovereignty properly or the ultimate power of the state, one must understand the class character of the state. It is possible to realize and present sovereignty through the class character of the state. According to the Marxist view, in every exploited social system, the state system acts as the protector of the master of the means of production, i.e. the economically dominant class. In an exploited society, state power is never class neutral. If sovereignty can be termed a manifestation of state power, then sovereignty can never be neutral in any case. It is possible to prove its authenticity from the history of exploited society.
Through the capitalistic revolution, there has been no change in the ownership of handmade goods. The capitalistic system maintains ownership of private property. That is why in the capitalistic society, the ideals of public sovereignty, universal suffrage, public welfare, etc. are proclaimed, but the capitalists state acts as the director of the capitalist’s class interests. The bureaucratic class arranges state power in such a way that the exploited people cannot exercise real political power. If there is a danger of exploiting the interests of the exploited class through the limited rights that the public has in keeping with the capitalists system. The capitalists do not hesitate to suppress that right.
It is possible to establish public sovereignty for the first time in a socialist society. It was through the socialist revolution that the proletariat ended the economic, social and political domination of the oppressors, and established the rule of the oppressed masses. The socialist revolution is a new kind of revolution. Its main aim is to end the private ownership of the socialization of production materials, to end class exploitation, to end the role of the capitalist’s state as a means of exploitation, and to vest the state power in the hands of the majority. Private ownership of property is the source of exploitation and in the exploited society, the state acts to exploit power. Therefore, in all formerly exploited societies, the state power also became the political power of the exploiters, as the state became the instrument of exploitation of the exploiting classes.
Each state has to depend on another state for economic, cultural and many factors. Instead of competition, instead of cooperation and conflict, friendship has become the essence of the modern world. Lasky believes that the world has become so interdependent that the free will of any state can be a serious threat to humankind. According to him, as Roman law has become irrelevant now, state sovereignty has become irrelevant. The proliferation of nuclear warheads has introduced the need to restrict state sovereignty. The stubborn initiative of a state possessed by nuclear warfare can turn entire human civilization into ruin. There are currently two alternative paths facing the entire human race – the survival of humankind as a whole or the accelerating of the way to destruction. The sovereignty of the state is essential for the survival of the human race.