A Monopoly on the Use of Force?

Steven Taylor - The Lack of an Operational Security Apparatus in Iraq and the Implications Thereof

[There is an] ongoing incorrect analysis of the Iraq situation as being two sides of a coin: security (linked primarily to the surge) and the political.

The  ability of the Iraqi state to field an operative police force and military is very much part of the “political” side of the equation. The problem is that most people don’t think of it like that, thinking that it is part of the “security” side of the overly-simplified (and fuzzy) equation that is presented to the public in regards to Iraq.

The “political” problems in Iraq are not just about oil revenue sharing laws, whether a better PM can be selected, or if the sides would just do a better job of talking with one another. The problem in Iraq right now (and for the foreseeable future) is that there is no central state that can actually govern (i.e., make rules and enforce them).

This assessment has multiple components, but let’s focus on the police/military issue. As Max Weber famously observed, the fundamental definition of the state is the “monopoly over the legitimate use of force in a given territory.” Now, this may sounds harsh and overly focused on force, or it may sound too esoteric to make practical sense, but let’s think about it: all systems of rules requires some ability for those rules to be enforced. Rules sans enforcement are suggestions, not rules. Governing is about rules, not suggestions.

As always, Prof. Taylor thinks these things through quite carefully, with a minimum of hysterics and with no commitment to any pre-defined narrative. Read the whole thing. In today’s post, he links back to a similarly good post of his from a few days ago.

Comments

  1. rho wrote:

    BTW, although I enjoy these occasional politically-oriented posts, I’ve been following your Anabasis posts eagerly as well. It’s been terribly interesting.

    (Also they keep nagging me to continue with my modern Greek lessons which I’ve neglected.)

    Posted 06 Sep 2007 at 4:42 pm

  2. commissar wrote:

    rho,

    I’m glad you like the Anabasis, and greatly appreciate your comment.

    I am now re-re-reading Book I. *sigh* My purpose in reading Xenophon has always been to learn Greek, not so much to read the story for its own sake (although it is a good read). I’m not blessed with a photographic memory and I find that repetition and re-reading of stuff in context is all very helpful in cementing my knowledge. On this, my third reading, I am forcing myself to “just read,” and stay away from the glossary & footnotes, which results in a quicker pace.

    So, I’ll be caught up, and will pick up my posting of Book 2 in a day or so.

    Posted 06 Sep 2007 at 4:49 pm

  3. Grim wrote:

    FWIW, I think this currently-fashionable idea of “monopoly on the use of force” is one of the worst pieces of political philosophy out there. Not only is it demonstrably untrue, it offers no guarantee of stability, and in fact can pave the road to tyranny.

    1) Demonstrably untrue:

    If it were true that you could not have a stable state w/out a monopoly on the use of force, all nations would be in constant war. There would be no such thing as a stable, long term alliance — for example, the British/American alliance, or NATO, or the Holy Roman Empire.

    Even within stable states, balances of forces are often in play — for example, in the case of early (sometimes violent) labor unions, which pushed against police forces. The “monopoly” of force was not present; the forces supposed to have it were deployed to crush the unions, but the unions survived and flourished anyway in America, to the general betterment of society in their early phase.

    The truth is that balances of forces are more often of use than monopolies of force.

    2) Likely to lead to tyranny:

    We’ve seen a century in which governments destroyed more of their citizens than bandits. The event — “democide” — was widely practiced especially in Communist nations, which I don’t have to describe here; also Fascist ones. In other words, in precisely those environments in which “monopoly of force” was most pursued.

    Those nations willing to permit a balance of forces have been healthier, freer, better for their nationals, and better for the world.

    So no, I don’t buy this business at all. Give me balanced forces: for in the tension between them, liberty can exist.

    Posted 06 Sep 2007 at 8:32 pm

  4. commissar wrote:

    Grim,

    “within a territory”

    The good ole USA, Hitler’s Germany, Saddam’s Iraq, the peace-loving Finns, all have a monopoly on the use of force within their territory.

    Labor unions can’t use force (violence); they get arrested & jailed for that.

    Posted 06 Sep 2007 at 8:36 pm

  5. Grim wrote:

    Not true. Labor unions fought back fiercely, and claimed self defense — a legitimate, personal use of force under the law, even against law enforcement officers or US soldiers, so long as they are acting out of bounds. Given that we have a jury trial system, where local “peers” serve to adjudicate, it was not unheard of for such cases to be resolved in favor of those who fought the police.

    Even in cases where the jury did not side with the union, the labor union that claims “self defense” is not — say — a terrorist organization or a criminal enterprise. As long as it pays formal service to the concept of the law, it retains the right to shoot back and claim self defense next time, too.

    That’s not a monopoly of force in the conceptual sense. The law recognizes a right of resistance to tyranny, even by agents of the state.

    Posted 06 Sep 2007 at 9:48 pm

  6. commissar wrote:

    A sufficiently enlightened or ‘liberal’ government will permit its agents to be prosecuted for individual abuses.

    But those trials you refer to … they were presided over and their judgements enforced by the state.

    This is kind of an odd tangent, defining what is or is not a state/government. Ever since I read Weber’s definition (in some other context, long ago) the light bulb went on in my head, and I thought, “Yeah, that’s what defines a state. the sine qua non.”

    If I, or you, or the AFL-CIO go down to the village square and start executing people on our own authority, the state will put a stop to that very, very quickly. In Somalia and Iraq, no such monopoly exists.

    Posted 07 Sep 2007 at 10:30 am

  7. canuckistani wrote:

    I think a violation of the monopoly of force would be an armed and trained militia associated with a union or political party - I’ll avoid Godwin by not mentioning the SA, but I can certainly bring up the anarchist and syndicalist militias of pre-Civil War Spain. Under a certain level, violence against the state is just crime, and not a negation of the state itself.

    Posted 07 Sep 2007 at 1:45 pm

  8. Grim wrote:

    “But those trials you refer to … they were presided over and their judgements enforced by the state.”

    The state isn’t merely being enlightened or liberal by letting the jury have its way. It’s submitting its agent’s use of force to ratification by the people — who can simply nullify the law by refusing to convict. I was working for the Stone Mountain DA’s office after the Rodney King verdict, and saw this up close: for months, the state got no convictions in any trial. Its force was not a monopoly over which it exercised control — rather, its power to use force was set completely aside by the choices of the non-state actors in the jury pool.

    By the same token, the union member on trial in the historic example is submitting his (non-state) use of force to the same ratification. It was often the case that the people chose to ratify it, by finding him not guilty by reason of self defense. In that case, his power to act with force is legitimate regardless of the opinion of the state itself. It can use no force to restrain him for that act, and should it try to do so, he is free to respond with force again — and he can expect again to have his action ratified.

    Far from being the only legitimate source of force, the just state has to submit itself to a higher power. The citizenry decides whether the state has properly used force, or can continue to do so — they can let it continue to imprison you, or make the state release you. Every citizen likewise has the right of arrest, and can bring even state agents in for violation of the common law. Your example mentions Madison, but remember Jefferson too.

    Posted 07 Sep 2007 at 4:26 pm

  9. Les Jones wrote:

    Citing the unions’ use of force for self-defense really misses the point. If the unions had a right to use force they could draw their guns and arrest people who crossed picket lines and put those people in jail. See the difference?

    Posted 13 Sep 2007 at 3:50 pm

« Anabasis, Book 2, Ch. 2 - Jitters and a Joke in the night
Anabasis, Book 2, Ch. 3 - first part »