Four Characteristics Of Population, Territory, Sovereignty And Government

1445 Words3 Pages

The State is characterized by four essential characteristics of a state which include population, territory, sovereignty, and government. Some sources list six or more characteristics when describing a state. Other characteristics may include a food supply, written records, and some type of commerce, but I will only discuss the four essentials which are Population, Territory, Sovereignty and government. The characteristic Population in the state: the state must have a population which may be variable in size. Populations may or may not share general political beliefs, but the ones that do are the most stable. Mobility of the population can affect its political and governmental stability. Territory: States have established territorial boundaries. …show more content…

The first distinction is between states that fail because of a lack of relevant capacities and those that fail to promote the interests of all their inhabitants through political choice, often with the intention of benefiting the incumbent regime and its supporters at the expense of another group within the state. Robert Mugabe’s ongoing manipulation of ZANU—PF and state power in Zimbabwe is a paradigmatic example of a regime, choosing to deny basic rights to certain segments of its population in an attempt to bolster regime security. The dynamics in this case are somewhat different from instances where a regime may well want to restore order to part of its territory but lacks the relevant capacities to do so. These dynamics are apparent in, for instance, the Ugandan control of formal and/or informal markets. In this view, weak or failing state institutions provide an environment from which such warlords and ‘spoilers’ can profit. The third set of contingent factors concerns the political economy of state failure, especially the adoption by governments of ‘bad’ macroeconomic policies resulting in fiscal deficits and balance of payments crises, and the paradoxical effects of structural adjustment policies encouraged by a variety of international donors. As Nicolas van de Walle has argued, both of these factors encouraged a ‘hollowing out’ of the state which, in turn, increased ‘the chances that minor political incidents and disputes could cause the descent into failure.’ Such political economies did not, however, automatically produce failed states. Hence, although Zaire/the DRC

Open Document