The goal of the modern state is to maintain order and happiness of its citizens. In other words, the role of public administration as defined by John Rohr (a leading scholar of the US Constitution and its relation to public administration and civil servants) is governing the society. Public administration provides numerous services to the public and serves their interests in many ways. As explained by Felix A Negro, the real core of administration is the basic service which is performed for the public. It is the administration which ensures the security and protection of life and property of the members of the society by maintaining proper law and order.

The following are some of the main role of modern states, according to the World Conference on Quality Improvement 2019 and other experts’ opinions:

(i) Provision of defense and security

(ii) Economic Function:

(a) Where Business is of Monopolistic Nature

(b) Where Private Capital is not Attracted:

(c) Protection of economically weak persons

(d) Exploitation by Forming Monopolistic combination

(e) Protection of Consumers

(f) Supply of Currency

(g) State and Economic Planning

(iii) Direct Social and Cultural Activities

(iv) Equitable Distribution of Wealth

(v) Execution of Laws and Judicial Decision

(vi) Protection of the Environment and the Natural Resources

(vii) Fight Against Criminal Activities and Drug Trafficking.

Hi Altaf,

If we accept the Greek city state as a template (albeit a distant and admittedly very different one) for Modern Western structures the key stone function of 'the state' was Eunomia, that is good order. There was an acceptance that without order the state couldn't function. When you look at modern failed states you can see the truth of this (ancient) wisdom.

The following principle was natural justice....

So, I think you must have order for a state to function, it's just a question of how much individual freedom you are prepared to sacrifice to see this order continue. A bit of a balancing act between chaos and a police state. Worth having a look at the differences between ancient Athens and Sparta if you get a chance. Athens had it's drawbacks (modern ideas of rights are far removed...) however for many a great deal better than being a Helot in Sparta....

Also worth pointing out that although Sparta defeated Athens in their struggles, it is Athenian ideas we cling to today as our foundation ethos...

Hope this helps,

Cheers,

Martin

Altaf, I would not put so much emphasis on 9/11. Threats specifically from religiously-motivated terrorism existed years before 9/11 (we can create the long list of these if you like), and threats in general have existed from the beginning of the human race.

One of the roles of the State has always been defense of the State. This was also true for tribes. I would say, securing the State from threats against it will always require the security mechanisms to keep up with the state of the art. These days, that includes cyber security, yes.

As to other roles of the State, it depends on the system of government. Some people believe that government is there to provide them a living. Other people believe that the government is there only to provide those specific services that the public demands, and nothing more. In the US, generally speaking, the government is supposed to "promote" the general welfare of people, but not to "provide" it. "Promote" implies laws that allow people do follow their passions, as opposed to a government that tells people what their passions must be. On the other hand, the government must "provide" for the defense of the State.

Albert Manfredi Jorge Morales Pedraza Martin Joseph Gallagher

I may be totally wrong that I believe Modern State (as compare to Empire) has regulated individuals. It has more focused on documentation and every citizen is asked to follow exactly State Laws. State levies Taxes but in return most of the States 'defends' boundaries instead Citizens live in.

At personal level, State and Organized Religion coupled with Nationalism has multiplied problems of human race.

Altaf, yes, however in a representative democracy, the laws that citizens must obey are laws that the citizens demand. In voting for their representatives in the legislature, the citizens make their wishes heard. Constitutions describe the exact formula used in this endeavor. In short, the laws, and the taxes required to keep the government funded, are the direct result of input from the voting public, and are adjusted over time. These laws and taxes are not imposed on the people by the government, even if some might get that impression on occasion. The laws and taxes are instead demanded by the preponderance of people, to be administered and enforced by the people's government. The government is the servant here.

Western democracies also strictly avoid any form of state religion being imposed upon the citizens, along with their religious laws, except as those religious laws might have been adopted, adapted, and modified, and incorporated into the secular laws of the State. The public is only held to those secular laws. Any religious laws are only the business of those religious faithful, and they must not conflict with the secular laws. The secular laws take priority.

This is the way I interpret the meaning of your "modern state." As opposed to the archaic vision of State, in which the public was considered to be "the subjects of the State," beholden to the State's ruling elite. This is no longer the case today. Not even in modern monarchies.

The role of the modern state is to serve the people, in ways that the people demand. And the state's government is funded to the level that the people deem adequate, to provide those requested services.

In addition to that, in a modern state, businesses are created by the creative and entrepreneurial spirit of the citizens, not by the state's elite. Businesses create the wealth, the state does not. The people, through their elected representatives, must determine how the wealth created by the businesses becomes distributed. This has to be done in a way that does not undermine people's creative drive, as excessive taxation does. It's a balancing act.

Albert Manfredi Thank you for the detailed response. I may not be aware much of the US or western democracies but in our part of the World, Wealth is created through State apparatus by those who direct State policies at any level. While reading conflict economies, there are instances how 'Creative and entrepreneurial spirit of the citizens' twist the situation through various means, mould public opinion, mobilize governments, over through entities, make busy themselves in relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction to earn money. Interestingly all this money comes from citizens taxes who had not paid for this purpose rather for their social security.

Quality discussion, following

Altaf, on this point:

Interestingly all this money comes from citizens taxes who had not paid for this purpose rather for their social security.

I'm not sure if by "their social security" you mean retirement benefits, or if you mean security in general. If you only meant retirement benefits, I don't think this is all people pay taxes for. Even if you mean personal security, it probably is not all people pay taxes for either.

People definitely demand police protection, protection of their borders, but also, for example, international agreements to promote trade? Businesses are in the hands of the people, therefore it benefits people if businesses can flourish. People also demand that their government ensure the safety of food, drugs and health care in general, and safety of the products they buy. People also demand that the masses be educated enough to be able to vote intelligently. And so on.

And people also vote and fund the government, to watch over businesses that may be misbehaving or may be unable to regulate themselves. For example, in cases like the utilities, where individual companies have the monopoly in a given location, and could therefore do whatever they please, the people definitely demand government oversight.

To me, these are the roles of the "modern state." When I think of states that control the people, it sounds more like the feudal systems of centuries past?

The modern state is the state that does not interfere in politics and remains away from it. It leaves politics to the power that comes through transparent elections produced by the ballot boxes. This authority implements a political programme that serves citizens of all categories and social levels, for a sacred goal, which is a decent living and well-being.

Hi Larbi,

I really like this as a definition, but maybe it should commence with 'The aspiration for a modern state is...'. Hope this doesn't appear to be cynical, just thinking of how things often unfortunately are.

Regards,

Martin

Dear Mattin,

It is really a worthy observation. Nevertheless, the paradox is between the thought of the politician and that of the academic.

The realization of this approach in the field requires long delays.

Best regards

Thanks Larbi.