Disadvantage of democracy Essay Example for Free

Disadvantage of democracy Essay The primary disadvantages of democracy are a general lack of accountability, the prospect of personal interest becoming the predominant factor in decisions, and negative financial implications. A democracy lays the power to make decisions in the hands of the majority. This, ironically, places an emphasis on both individual and group power. A group controls the decision-making process, but an influential individual can control the group. The issue with democracy, in spite of the power of the people to control the decision-making process, is that there is no sense of accountability when the group makes a decision that turns out to be a bad one. Even particularly influential individuals in the group who may have persuaded the majority to vote for what led to the bad decision is free from blame because, ultimately, everyone in the group is responsible for his or her choice. In this way democracy, although a group-oriented approach, can become very much about what individuals believe is best for themselves and not for the majority. This type of decision-making also can be very expensive and have negative financial implications. First, a considerable amount of money can be spent in persuading voters to support an idea or cause. Second, voters may embrace an idea or cause, such as lowering taxes, because it sounds ideal when, in practice, it could lead to financial disaster. Disadvantages of Democracy Making the wrong choice In a democratic country, it is the common man who has the supreme right to choose their legislature and their prevailing authorities. As per a general study, not all the people are completely conscious of the political circumstances in their nation. The common masses may not be acquainted of the political matters in their society. This may lead to common man taking an erroneous selection during election. Authorities May Lose focus As the government is bound to changes and modification after each election tenure, the authorities may function with a interim objective. Since they have to go through an election procedure after the conclusion of each tenure, they may lose focus on functioning effectively for the citizens and  instead might concentrate on winning elections. Hordes Have Influence A further disadvantage of democracy is that hordes can manipulate citizens. People may vote in support of a party under the pressure of the bulk. Constrained or influenced by the ideas of those around, an individual may not put across his/her accurate judgment. Democracy averts radicalism and encourages teamwork and synchronization. It also slows things down, stops those in authority doing what they wish regardless of the majority’s desires. Since the military incursion into the Nigerian political scene on January 15, 1966, all the woes of this country are placed on the military. Most Nigerians do not want to hear the word â€Å"military†. They see the military as synonymous with evil. But does the military symbolize evil? Colonel Muamma Gaddafi is a military officer who seized power from the Libyan Monarch in 1969. Colonel Muamma Gaddafi as a military leader, was able to transform Libya to the envy of the world so much that other nationals including Nigerians are queuing at the Libyan embassy for her visa. Under a military leadership in Libya, Nigerians are rushing to the country on a daily basis because the country has a lower inflation of 1% than that of Nigeria which is 20% and a per capita of $8,400 while Nigeria’s per capital is $50. If military regime is synonymous with evil, why are Nigerians running from a country that is under civil rule to a country which is under a military leader? Ghana, our neighbouring West African country was also transformed from a corrupt and poverty stricken nation it was, to a transparent and an accountable nation by a military officer, Flight lieutenant, John Jerry Rawlings. At the moment, Nigerians are running to live in Ghana because the country has improved tremendously in terms of economy and infrastructural development. Ghana has also attained democratic growth and stability having transited from one democratically elected government to another two times. However, let us now compare and contrast the difference between military and civil rules in Nigeria. Nigeria gained independence from Britain on October 1, 1960. Out of the 50 years of Nigeria’s existence as an independent  nation, the military has ruled the country for 29 years. Within the 29 years the military ruled the country, 3 years were used to prosecute the Nigerian civil war, between 1967 to 1970, this means the military actually spent 26 years to rule the country. Out of the 50 years of the nation’s existence, civilians have ruled for 21 years. So, the difference between the years the military have ruled the country and those of civilians nine years. The questions one is asking are, if the military has destroyed the country within the space of 29 years as claimed by the civil leaders, can’t the civil leaders repair it within a space of 21 years? How long does it take to repair what is damaged? What has the civilian leaders be able to remedy since they have been ruling the country? Since Nigeria returned to democracy in 1999, we are still hearing the same old song by politicians, â€Å"You know the military have destroyed the country and you know that it is not easy to repair what has been destroyed†. I find this excuse unacceptable to the Nigerian people because something that was destroyed can be repaired. For instance, Germany, France, Austria etc were devastated during the first and second World War but today they have rebuilt to enviable status. Of all the things the military destroyed, which of them has the civilian leaders been able to put right? Some politicians who are out to deceive the poor masses will say that â€Å"the worst civilian regime is better than military regime.† But is it always true that the worst civilian regime is better than military regime? Politicians are also quick to say that â€Å"at least we can talk now that we are in a civilian regime and that we could not talk during the military administrations.† I found this argument very amusing because our mouths were not muzzled by the military during their administrations. I make bold to say that we spoke more during the military administrations than we do today because then we all saw the military as our common enemy and were united to fight against them. There were so many civil society organizations such as National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) which was headed by late Pa Adekunle Ajasin, Campaign for Democracy headed by late Dr. Beko Ransom Kuti, Civil Liberties Organization headed by former President of Nigerian Bar Association ( NBA ), Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), Afenifere, the Yoruba socio- cultural group headed by late Pa Abraham Adesanya, Association of Senior Staff Union of Uni versities, headed by the INEC Chairman, Professor Atahiru Jega, Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN ), headed by Chief Frank Ovie Kokori etc. These civil society groups spoke openly against the ills of the military and sent them back to the barracks. At that time too, journalists engaged in revolutionary journalism which made the press very vibrant and added impetus to the voice of the masses. During the military era, television and radio stations were mostly owned by both states and the federal governments. DAAR communications, owner of African Independent Television and Ray power Radio station and Minaj television and FM radio station which started in 1994 were the only privately owned broadcast organizations in the country, the rest belonged to both the states and federal governments. Would the governments have allowed the masses to use their media to criticize them? There is no government that allows such a thing in any part of the world. Let us assume that we did not talk during military administrations, what have we achieved since 1999 that we have been talking? Have those who claimed to be representing us both in th e State Houses of Assembly and the National Assembly ever taken our advise? We said the National Assembly should pass the Freedom of Information Bill into law, have they done it since it was introduced into the house? We said the Justice Mohammed Uwais recommendations on Electoral Reform be adopted by the National Assembly, have they adopted them? The Federal Government has earmarked #6.6 billion towards the celebration of Nigeria’s 50th anniversary, which the masses condemned in totality, yet the Federal Government is bent on wasting such amount of money on the celebration of failure. Will the States and Federal Governments ever listen to the masses? We said the huge allowances our so call representatives are receiving should be reduced, did they agree to reduce their allowances? A senator receives #45 million allowance quarterly, while each member of the House of Representatives receives #27.2 million allowance quarterly. Each senator receives #500 million constituency development allowance yearly which is not accounted for. Their salaries and other benefits are not included these allowances. Is there justification for such huge allowances considering the fact that they sit for 180 days in a year? Can we say with a sense of pride that the lives of Nigerians have improved positively since we returned to democracy in 1999? Let me make it clear that democracy is not just about having freedom to talk, it goes beyond mere talking. Democracy is about quality leadership that translates  into accelerated development and growth in all areas of human aspirations. Democracy goes beyond just having civilians in government. Any administration, be it military or civil government that cannot better or improve the lives of the people is a monumental failure. The main purpose of governance is to coordinate and harness the wealth of the people for an effective development that will enhance the standard of living of the people. Have we seen such achievements and development since 1999? Let us compare and contrast civil administrations since 1999 till date and military administrations from 1985 till 1999 when the military handed over the reins of power to civilians. We shall start this comparison with the economy. Before the civilians took over government in 1999, a 50 kg bag of rice was sold for N2,500, today it is selling for N8,000. A small bag of beans that was sold for N1,800, now sells for as much as N7,000. Is this not outrageous. Before the commencement of the Obasanjo’s regime in 1999, Nigerians were able to eat twice daily. Morning and night, which was popularly called one –zero-one. At present, most Nigerians eat once daily, which is popularly called zero one- zero. Is this not regression? If the agricultural sector is well funded and productive, why are prices of foodstuffs on the increase? The unemployment rate has gone up drastically because many industries are closing down while some are relocating to our neighbouring countries due to lack of regular supply of electricity. The Obasanjo’s regime in 1999, inherited 3,500 megawatts of electricity from the military, today it has reduced to a mere 2,500 megawatts for a population of 150 million people. The problems of industries and other organizations that consume large quantity of electricity are compounded as a result of the high cost of petroleum products such as petrol and diesel. These products are used to power generators which provide alternative power for industries. As at the time Nigeria return to democracy in 1999, the prices of petroleum product were cheap. But before ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo, who also doubled as petroleum minister, left office in 2007, he had increased the prices of these products eleven times. A litre of kerosene that cost N9.00 in 1999, now sells for N125.00. Petrol that cost N11.00 at that time, now goes for N65.00 while diesel that cost N10.00 then now sells for N120 per litre.

The Modernization Of China And Its Impact Environmental Sciences Essay

The Modernization Of China And Its Impact Environmental Sciences Essay The issue of global warming started way back in the early 1990s and since then there has been growing international concerns on combating global warming. In a step to bring all nations on board, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) was established in 1992, in Rio de Janeiro (Yu, 2008). The main objective of treaty was to deliberate on reducing green house gases emissions by individual countries worldwide and especially those countries who are the main emitters of carbon. Because of the direct link of this treaty to the economy, many nations are skeptical on signing to the treaty. Yu (2008) asserted that, mitigation of climate change will be achieved by substantial collaboration under the UNFCCC (P.1). Global warming has had a potential negative impact on the chinas environment. It has been found that since 1990, china has experienced environmental degradation due to this global warming. In fact Yu (2008) said that due to the adverse effect on the chinas environment, their leaders have had to rethink more about the issue. There are many effects of global warming such as environmental degradation, sea level rise and severe weather patterns that may lead to coastal flooding. Today China is believed to be one of the worlds polluter of environment owing to its growth in economy boosted by adequate supply coal and oil production (Yu, 2008). Interestingly, global warming is caused by human activities such as: use of oil, fossil fuels, and burning of coal which leads to release of carbon dioxide and green house gases into the atmosphere. The high proportion of this carbon dioxide in the atmosphere generates extreme global warming (Maslin, 2004). Sadly, rise in temperature in the planet-earth- poses a potential threat to the existence of human beings. Negal (1994) observed that the advancement of technology and economic growth and modernization has to a large extend contributed to the global warming. He warns that global warming and unusual weather patterns threaten the very existence of the globe (p.98). Nagel (1994) when writing about Asian development and public policy, describes china as being confronted with two interconnected challenges: maintaining technological advancement while combating ecological catastrophe generated by this technology. The increase in Chinas population over the years has led to the increase in the environmental pollution. According to Nagel (1994), about sixty cities in China have badly been affected by smog and factory emissions (p.199); and some cities in the Northern part projected high levels of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Because of rising demand for use of coal and oil, China is certainly predicted to have a significant increase in emission of Carbon dioxide. About 12.0 billion tons in 2030, which will be the highest ever attained by any nation have been projected (Lloyed, 2009, p.51). Lloyed warns that, if Chinas projected emission is what to go by, then it will be impossible to control the effects of global warming, however much, other countries try to minimize their emissions. Although china is one of the highly populated countries in the world with over 1.2 billion people, it is also one of the poorest (Harris, 2003). To support this growing population, China increased its industrial growth which translated to increased supply of food and other necessities within the country. According to Harris (2003), issue of global warming in China has aroused due to the modernization of economy and diversification of energy to feed the growing modernization. In respect to this, China increased its energy use by 208 percent between 1970 and 1990, while coal rose by 69.9 percent (Harris, 2003). Eventually, China recorded approximately 13.4 percent of the world carbon dioxide emissions which rated them as the second, after the United States, largest producer in the world. The Chinas policy on energy is informed by the strategy of increasing production and supply. In 1980s, China started facing acute shortage of energy due to its growing industries; other sources of energy that are economical and viable were needed urgently to boost the energy shortage. Therefore they resorted to oil which was easily available and required little amount of capital. To be specific, china uses a lot of coal in their industrial sector as compared to other nations in the world where their alternative sources of energy such as electricity are being used. Harris (2003) says that Chinas energy has been misused by users because of its low price policy of coal, inefficiency of industrial machines such as boilers which burn coal, and poor infrastructure (p.47) The outcome of all this overuse and misuse of energy was a serious environmental catastrophe. Harris (2003)described that China encountered serious water shortages, land degradation, water pollution; but among the most serious environmental problems is atmospheric pollution (p.47). In addition, respiratory complications increased due to pollution of air caused by incomplete combustion of coal from industries. There was also destruction of crops, forest and fisheries accelerated by unprecedented levels of acid rain (Harris, 2003). In conclusion, the Chinas modernization has had adverse impact on global warming. To start with, industrial expansion of China sparked high demand of fuel. In response to this demand, China increased supply of coal and oil. The rise in demand for the use of these carbon emitters fuel has had a devastating effect on China and even global climate change. Carbon dioxide and greenhouses gases which origins from burning of coal and oil, rises the earth temperature. The high emission of carbon dioxide in China has been caused by three key factors: low pricing policy of coal in China which led to the less conservation of energy by industries; low efficiency level of machines used by Chinese industries to burn coal and poor infrastructure. It is predicted that by 2030, China will be the leading producer of carbon dioxide with approximate 12.0 billion tons. The ramifications of this will be felt in so many generations to come. This is a collective responsibility for every nation towards the protection of the future generation. Therefore all nations should commit themselves in reducing the carbon dioxide emission to the environments.

The Crucible: Characters :: Essay on The Crucible

The Crucible: Characters Chetan Patel The Crucible, a play by Arthur Miller that was first produced in 1953, is based on the true story of the Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Miller wrote the play to parallel the situations in the mid-twentieth century of Alger Hiss, Owen Latimore, Julius and Ethel Rosenburg, and Senator McCarthy, if only suggestively. (Warshow 116) Some characters in the play have specific agendas carried out by their accusations, and the fact that the play is based on historical truth makes it even more intriguing. The characters in this play are simple, common people. The accused are charged and convicted of a crime that is impossible to prove. The following witchcraft hysteria takes place in one of America's wholesome, theocratic towns, which makes the miscarriage of justice such a mystery even today. The reasons the villains select the people they do for condemnation are both simple and clear. All of the accusers have ulterior motives, such as revenge, greed, and covering up their own behavior. Many of the accusers have meddled in witchcraft themselves, and are therefore doubly to be distrusted. (Warshow 116) The court convicts the victims on the most absurd testimony, and the reader has to wonder how the judges and the townspeople could let such a charade continue. The leading character of the play is John Proctor, a man who often serves as the only voice of reason in the play. He had an affair with Abigail Williams, who later charges his wife with witchcraft. Proctor is seemingly the only person who can see through the children's accusations. The reader sees him as one of the more "modern" figures in the trials because he is hardheaded, skeptical, and a voice of common sense. He thinks the girls can be cured of their "spells" with a good whipping. (Warshow 114) At the end of the play, Proctor has to make a choice. He can either confess to a crime he is innocent of to save himself from execution, or die proclaiming his innocence. He ends up choosing death because a false confession would mean implicating other accused people, including Rebecca Nurse. (Rovere 2632) Proctor feels she is good and pure, unlike his adulterous self, and does not want to tarnish her good name and the names of his other innocent friends by implicating them. (Warshow 117) By choosing death, Proctor takes the high road and becomes a true tragic hero. The reader feels that his punishment is unjust (especially since the crime of witchcraft is imagined and unprovable.) Because the trials take place in a Christian, American town, the reader must then wonder if anything like this

Roles of Colonial Militia and Continental Army in Winning the Revolutio

Roles of Colonial Militia and Continental Army in Winning the Revolutionary War When the fighting at Lexington and Concord broke out in 1775, the conflict unleashed a flood of resentment that had been building over the right of the colonies to govern themselves. This conflict became a symbol of the American fight for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." As James Kirby Martin and Mark Edward Lender argue in A Respectable Army: The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763-1789, the patriotic mythology of a united people fighting the tyrannical British oppressors for basic human rights permeated historical thought about the American Revolution until recently and obscured the inner conflicts that nearly destroyed the rebel effort (4). Martin and Lender maintain that the colonists did not develop a sense of national identity until after the Revolutionary War and that the lack of interest among the colonists in fighting for their cause prompted the use of the Continental Army to win the war. The authors also clearly regard the colonial militia with a great deal of contempt and spend a considerable amount of time discrediting them as an effective fighting force. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence, however, to indicate that some sense of nationhood existed prior to the Revolution, gaining momentum throughout the war but not firmly taking hold until after the war was over, and it was, in fact, the colonial militia that best exemplified that sense of nationalism. When the first settlers arrived in the New World, they attempted to transplant the European societal practices to which they were accustomed, but learned quickly that the wilderness of North America did not accommodate them. What resulted was the formati... ...had everything to lose and fought anyway better represented the national ideals for which they were fighting and it was for that reason that the public embraced them. The argument as to whether the colonial militia or the Continental Army deserves the most recognition in the war effort might never be settled. In some ways, the debate seems unnecessary. Winning the war combined more than just those two elements. If the French had not started a power struggle in Europe, the results would have been vastly different. If either the militia or the regulars had to fight the war alone, the results would have been vastly different. The laurels belong to no single group and should not be argued otherwise. Works Cited Martin, James Kirby, and Mark Edward Lender. A Respectable Army: The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763-1789. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1982.

Kesa and Morito

Love or Lust In Akutagawa’s â€Å"Kesa and Morito†, the text suggests notable differences between love and lust. In regards to the underlined symbols of love and lust, the characters identified within the short story may portray the differences between the symbols. Wataru’s character may symbolize the meaning of true love, and will identify the correlation to that of purity and innocence. However, the characteristics of Kesa and Morito may symbolize lust, and the evil and selfishness associated with it. Love may create kind and giving acts, such as the text describes Wataru’s actions toward Kesa.On the other hand, lust may lead to destructive and irrational gestures that are described by Kesa and Morito’s defining actions. According to Morito, Wataru Saemon-no-jo made a valiant effort to win the heart of his wife Mesa. Wataru loves his wife Kesa, and his actions proved such fact. Kesa’s aunt Koromogawa further stated, Wataru â€Å"spared no pain or effort to win Kesa’s heart† (p. 436). He has a reputation of being a prosaic man. With that said, Wataru even took on the burden of learning poetry. Wataru expressed his love for Kesa through the noted examples.The true symbol of love within the text appears to acknowledge Wataru and his efforts to win over Kesa. Wataru has a profound love for his wife. Due to such love, the text implies that Kesa and Morito may have felt sympathetic toward him. In a few circumstances, Kesa and Morito actually consider Wataru’s feeling throughout their encounter. In the beginning of the story, Morito explains how his heart would hurt if he has to kill a man he does not hate. When Morito found out that Wataru and Kesa were married, he burned with jealousy. After the affair with Kesa, Morito mentioned that his jealousy faded away.He actually stated that he has no hatred or spite toward Wataru. In fact, Morito thought kindly of Wataru. One can understand how Morito could bec ome jealous, knowing that the woman of his desire married another. After all, Morito had an association with Kesa three years prior. Without the three year absence, their relationship may have been different. Thus, many reasons can account for Morito to dislike or have hatred toward Wataru. Although the text does not state the exact reason Morito thinks kindly of Wataru, the inference may lead one to suggest.Due to the honorable means Wataru won over the heart of Kesa, Morito could not maintain malice thoughts. Ultimately, Morito acknowledged Wataru’s innocent and pure love for Kesa. Such attribute most likely caused Morito to idolize his character. Lusting after the flesh can be just a mere thought. Once the thought becomes an action, significant ramifications may follow. According to Morito, during the three year separation from Kesa, he dreamed of an intimate encounter with her. He never admits to loving Kesa, therefore an inference may suggest the feeling of superficial d esires.The dream of intimacy can lead one to believe that lust is a factor. As mentioned in the earlier text, Morito once burned with jealousy over the union between Kesa and Wataru. After their affair, the jealousy faded. Such fact may lead one to believe that love could not appear as a factor. Several times after intimacy, Morito questions his own feeling for Kesa. â€Å"But do I really love Kesa†? (p. 437) Morito asks. He thought that he loved her before she married Wataru. After looking into his own heart, he realized several motives may have caused such thought. Morito struggles with the fact that he had not intimately engaged her years prior.Knowing that Morito had never experienced intimacy prior to their absence, his fleshly desire may have been the driving force. His proclaimed love for her may simply unveil nothing more than â€Å"sentimental embellishment of the motive that drove Adam to Eve† (p. 437). The text suggests that within their three year break in association, Morito appeared unsure of his love for Kesa. Morito felt tortured with the fact of not experiencing Kesa’s body. He describes the feeling as regretful. Upon the completion of the Watanabe Bridge, Morito finally connected with Kesa.Morito resorted to all sorts of means to reconnect with the woman of his desires. Once they met, the regrets immediately began to fade. Due to the fact that he broke his virginity, his fleshly desire may have dissipated. As the text progress, Morito describes the diminished beauty of Kesa. He describes his disappointment, because she did not appear how he envisioned her to be. Morito states, that she does not possess the â€Å"statuesque beauty that he had imagined for the past three years† (p. 438). At such time, Morito felt the need to maintain the course and accomplish his past lustful desires.After intercourse, Morito felt an empty feeling. He did not feel an attachment with Kesa. Morito describes how lust dominated him. The unexplainable lust turned into hatred. Like a blink of an eye, Morito despised Mesa. After describing the confusion he felt with the lust and hatred, Morito decided to kill Wataru. As mentioned in the earlier passage, Morito thought kindly of Wataru. However, due to the confusion of lust and hatred, Morito felt no other way to address such iniquities. The gesture of killing Wataru clearly implies an irrational thought process, and could not be explained by Morito.Upon interpreting Kesa’s motive to engage in adultery, it appears that lustful feelings factored in her decision. According to Kesa, she felt ashamed of her actions. She described that she would have to live in shame, and live life like a prostitute. â€Å"In this case I shall carry my regret beyond my grave,† (p. 440) Kesa stated. Uncertain if Morito would kill Wataru, Kesa refers to Morito as selfish. Kesa describes the feeling of hurt, based upon the perception of ugliness within her heart. According to the text, Kesa mentions how she gave her body to a man she did not love.Her lustful behavior appears to summarize her action as a, â€Å"delirious moment† (p. 440). In addition, Kesa refers to Morito as a â€Å"lascivious man who hates and despises me† (p. 440). Although Kesa made it clear that she can not reciprocate her husband’s love, she maintains a deceitful lust for Morito. Kesa made an omission that she had a shameful desire for Morito. Ultimately, Kesa cast blame on Morito for taking her body for, â€Å"his wicked lust† (p. 441). After rationalizing the deadly ending, Kesa ponders about her husband’s feeling, in the event he should find her dead.In the end, her statement was, â€Å"no I won’t think of him† (p. 441). The contrast between love and lust were noted throughout â€Å"Kesa and Morito†. The only person associated with the symbol of love appears pure, genuine, and honorable. Wataru possesses all of those attributes and characteristics. On the other hand, Kesa and Morito were the symbols of lust and fleshly desires. Due to the decision to act upon the lustful desires, the text outlined reactions to such actions. In conclusion, the symbols of lust define the actions of evil and irrational thought processing.

Angels Demons Chapter 58-61

58 â€Å"Seven-forty-six and thirty†¦ mark.† Even speaking into his walkie-talkie, Olivetti's voice never seemed to rise above a whisper. Langdon felt himself sweating now in his Harris tweed in the backseat of the Alpha Romeo, which was idling in Piazza de la Concorde, three blocks from the Pantheon. Vittoria sat beside him, looking engrossed by Olivetti, who was transmitting his final orders. â€Å"Deployment will be an eight-point hem,† the commander said. â€Å"Full perimeter with a bias on the entry. Target may know you visually, so you will be pas-visible. Nonmortal force only. We'll need someone to spot the roof. Target is primary. Asset secondary.† Jesus, Langdon thought, chilled by the efficiency with which Olivetti had just told his men the cardinal was expendable. Asset secondary. â€Å"I repeat. Nonmortal procurement. We need the target alive. Go.† Olivetti snapped off his walkie-talkie. Vittoria looked stunned, almost angry. â€Å"Commander, isn't anyone going inside?† Olivetti turned. â€Å"Inside?† â€Å"Inside the Pantheon! Where this is supposed to happen?† â€Å"Attento,† Olivetti said, his eyes fossilizing. â€Å"If my ranks have been infiltrated, my men may be known by sight. Your colleague has just finished warning me that this will be our sole chance to catch the target. I have no intention of scaring anyone off by marching my men inside.† â€Å"But what if the killer is already inside?† Olivetti checked his watch. â€Å"The target was specific. Eight o'clock. We have fifteen minutes.† â€Å"He said he would kill the cardinal at eight o'clock. But he may already have gotten the victim inside somehow. What if your men see the target come out but don't know who he is? Someone needs to make sure the inside is clean.† â€Å"Too risky at this point.† â€Å"Not if the person going in was unrecognizable.† â€Å"Disguising operatives is time consuming and – â€Å" â€Å"I meant me,† Vittoria said. Langdon turned and stared at her. Olivetti shook his head. â€Å"Absolutely not.† â€Å"He killed my father.† â€Å"Exactly, so he may know who you are.† â€Å"You heard him on the phone. He had no idea Leonardo Vetra even had a daughter. He sure as hell doesn't know what I look like. I could walk in like a tourist. If I see anything suspicious, I could walk into the square and signal your men to move in.† â€Å"I'm sorry, I cannot allow that.† â€Å"Comandante?† Olivetti's receiver crackled. â€Å"We've got a situation from the north point. The fountain is blocking our line of sight. We can't see the entrance unless we move into plain view on the piazza. What's your call? Do you want us blind or vulnerable?† Vittoria apparently had endured enough. â€Å"That's it. I'm going.† She opened her door and got out. Olivetti dropped his walkie-talkie and jumped out of the car, circling in front of Vittoria. Langdon got out too. What the hell is she doing! Olivetti blocked Vittoria's way. â€Å"Ms. Vetra, your instincts are good, but I cannot let a civilian interfere.† â€Å"Interfere? You're flying blind. Let me help.† â€Å"I would love to have a recon point inside, but†¦Ã¢â‚¬  â€Å"But what?† Vittoria demanded. â€Å"But I'm a woman?† Olivetti said nothing. â€Å"That had better not be what you were going to say, Commander, because you know damn well this is a good idea, and if you let some archaic macho bullshit – â€Å" â€Å"Let us do our job.† â€Å"Let me help.† â€Å"Too dangerous. We would have no lines of communication with you. I can't let you carry a walkie-talkie, it would give you away.† Vittoria reached in her shirt pocket and produced her cell phone. â€Å"Plenty of tourists carry phones.† Olivetti frowned. Vittoria unsnapped the phone and mimicked a call. â€Å"Hi, honey, I'm standing in the Pantheon. You should see this place!† She snapped the phone shut and glared at Olivetti. â€Å"Who the hell is going to know? It is a no-risk situation. Let me be your eyes!† She motioned to the cell phone on Olivetti's belt. â€Å"What's your number?† Olivetti did not reply. The driver had been looking on and seemed to have some thoughts of his own. He got out of the car and took the commander aside. They spoke in hushed tones for ten seconds. Finally Olivetti nodded and returned. â€Å"Program this number.† He began dictating digits. Vittoria programmed her phone. â€Å"Now call the number.† Vittoria pressed the auto dial. The phone on Olivetti's belt began ringing. He picked it up and spoke into the receiver. â€Å"Go into the building, Ms. Vetra, look around, exit the building, then call and tell me what you see.† Vittoria snapped the phone shut. â€Å"Thank you, sir.† Langdon felt a sudden, unexpected surge of protective instinct. â€Å"Wait a minute,† he said to Olivetti. â€Å"You're sending her in there alone.† Vittoria scowled at him. â€Å"Robert, I'll be fine.† The Swiss Guard driver was talking to Olivetti again. â€Å"It's dangerous,† Langdon said to Vittoria. â€Å"He's right,† Olivetti said. â€Å"Even my best men don't work alone. My lieutenant has just pointed out that the masquerade will be more convincing with both of you anyway.† Both of us? Langdon hesitated. Actually, what I meant – â€Å"Both of you entering together,† Olivetti said, â€Å"will look like a couple on holiday. You can also back each other up. I'm more comfortable with that.† Vittoria shrugged. â€Å"Fine, but we'll need to go fast.† Langdon groaned. Nice move, cowboy. Olivetti pointed down the street. â€Å"First street you hit will be Via degli Orfani. Go left. It takes you directly to the Pantheon. Two-minute walk, tops. I'll be here, directing my men and waiting for your call. I'd like you to have protection.† He pulled out his pistol. â€Å"Do either of you know how to use a gun?† Langdon's heart skipped. We don't need a gun! Vittoria held her hand out. â€Å"I can tag a breaching porpoise from forty meters off the bow of a rocking ship.† â€Å"Good.† Olivetti handed the gun to her. â€Å"You'll have to conceal it.† Vittoria glanced down at her shorts. Then she looked at Langdon. Oh no you don't! Langdon thought, but Vittoria was too fast. She opened his jacket, and inserted the weapon into one of his breast pockets. It felt like a rock dropping into his coat, his only consolation being that Diagramma was in the other pocket. â€Å"We look harmless,† Vittoria said. â€Å"We're leaving.† She took Langdon's arm and headed down the street. The driver called out, â€Å"Arm in arm is good. Remember, you're tourists. Newlyweds even. Perhaps if you held hands?† As they turned the corner Langdon could have sworn he saw on Vittoria's face the hint of a smile. 59 The Swiss Guard â€Å"staging room† is located adjacent to the Corpo di Vigilanza barracks and is used primarily for planning the security surrounding papal appearances and public Vatican events. Today, however, it was being used for something else. The man addressing the assembled task force was the second-in-command of the Swiss Guard, Captain Elias Rocher. Rocher was a barrel-chested man with soft, puttylike features. He wore the traditional blue captain's uniform with his own personal flair – a red beret cocked sideways on his head. His voice was surprisingly crystalline for such a large man, and when he spoke, his tone had the clarity of a musical instrument. Despite the precision of his inflection, Rocher's eyes were cloudy like those of some nocturnal mammal. His men called him â€Å"orso† – grizzly bear. They sometimes joked that Rocher was â€Å"the bear who walked in the viper's shadow.† Commander Olivetti was the viper. Rocher was just as deadly as the viper, but at least you could see him coming. Rocher's men stood at sharp attention, nobody moving a muscle, although the information they had just received had increased their aggregate blood pressure by a few thousand points. Rookie Lieutenant Chartrand stood in the back of the room wishing he had been among the 99 percent of applicants who had not qualified to be here. At twenty years old, Chartrand was the youngest guard on the force. He had been in Vatican City only three months. Like every man there, Chartrand was Swiss Army trained and had endured two years of additional ausbilding in Bern before qualifying for the grueling Vatican prva held in a secret barracks outside of Rome. Nothing in his training, however, had prepared him for a crisis like this. At first Chartrand thought the briefing was some sort of bizarre training exercise. Futuristic weapons? Ancient cults? Kidnapped cardinals? Then Rocher had shown them the live video feed of the weapon in question. Apparently this was no exercise. â€Å"We will be killing power in selected areas,† Rocher was saying, â€Å"to eradicate extraneous magnetic interference. We will move in teams of four. We will wear infrared goggles for vision. Reconnaissance will be done with traditional bug sweepers, recalibrated for sub-three-ohm flux fields. Any questions?† None. Chartrand's mind was on overload. â€Å"What if we don't find it in time?† he asked, immediately wishing he had not. The grizzly bear gazed out at him from beneath his red beret. Then he dismissed the group with a somber salute. â€Å"Godspeed, men.† 60 Two blocks from the Pantheon, Langdon and Vittoria approached on foot past a line of taxis, their drivers sleeping in the front seats. Nap time was eternal in the Eternal City – the ubiquitous public dozing a perfected extension of the afternoon siestas born of ancient Spain. Langdon fought to focus his thoughts, but the situation was too bizarre to grasp rationally. Six hours ago he had been sound asleep in Cambridge. Now he was in Europe, caught up in a surreal battle of ancient titans, packing a semiautomatic in his Harris tweed, and holding hands with a woman he had only just met. He looked at Vittoria. She was focused straight ahead. There was a strength in her grasp – that of an independent and determined woman. Her fingers wrapped around his with the comfort of innate acceptance. No hesitation. Langdon felt a growing attraction. Get real, he told himself. Vittoria seemed to sense his uneasiness. â€Å"Relax,† she said, without turning her head. â€Å"We're supposed to look like newlyweds.† â€Å"I'm relaxed.† â€Å"You're crushing my hand.† Langdon flushed and loosened up. â€Å"Breathe through your eyes,† she said. â€Å"I'm sorry?† â€Å"It relaxes the muscles. It's called pranayama.† â€Å"Piranha?† â€Å"Not the fish. Pranayama. Never mind.† As they rounded the corner into Piazza della Rotunda, the Pantheon rose before them. Langdon admired it, as always, with awe. The Pantheon. Temple to all gods. Pagan gods. Gods of Nature and Earth. The structure seemed boxier from the outside than he remembered. The vertical pillars and triangular pronaus all but obscured the circular dome behind it. Still, the bold and immodest inscription over the entrance assured him they were in the right spot. M AGRIPPA L F COS TERTIUM FECIT. Langdon translated it, as always, with amusement. Marcus Agrippa, Consul for the third time, built this. So much for humility, he thought, turning his eyes to the surrounding area. A scattering of tourists with video cameras wandered the area. Others sat enjoying Rome's best iced coffee at La Tazza di Oro's outdoor cafe. Outside the entrance to the Pantheon, four armed Roman policemen stood at attention just as Olivetti had predicted. â€Å"Looks pretty quiet,† Vittoria said. Langdon nodded, but he felt troubled. Now that he was standing here in person, the whole scenario seemed surreal. Despite Vittoria's apparent faith that he was right, Langdon realized he had put everyone on the line here. The Illuminati poem lingered. From Santi's earthly tomb with demon's hole. YES, he told himself. This was the spot. Santi's tomb. He had been here many times beneath the Pantheon's oculus and stood before the grave of the great Raphael. â€Å"What time is it?† Vittoria asked. Langdon checked his watch. â€Å"Seven-fifty. Ten minutes till show time.† â€Å"Hope these guys are good,† Vittoria said, eyeing the scattered tourists entering the Pantheon. â€Å"If anything happens inside that dome, we'll all be in the crossfire.† Langdon exhaled heavily as they moved toward the entrance. The gun felt heavy in his pocket. He wondered what would happen if the policemen frisked him and found the weapon, but the officers did not give them a second look. Apparently the disguise was convincing. Langdon whispered to Vittoria. â€Å"Ever fire anything other than a tranquilizer gun?† â€Å"Don't you trust me?† â€Å"Trust you? I barely know you.† Vittoria frowned. â€Å"And here I thought we were newlyweds.† 61 The air inside the Pantheon was cool and damp, heavy with history. The sprawling ceiling hovered overhead as though weightless – the 141-foot unsupported span larger even than the cupola at St. Peter's. As always, Langdon felt a chill as he entered the cavernous room. It was a remarkable fusion of engineering and art. Above them the famous circular hole in the roof glowed with a narrow shaft of evening sun. The oculus, Langdon thought. The demon's hole. They had arrived. Langdon's eyes traced the arch of the ceiling sloping outward to the columned walls and finally down to the polished marble floor beneath their feet. The faint echo of footfalls and tourist murmurs reverberated around the dome. Langdon scanned the dozen or so tourists wandering aimlessly in the shadows. Are you here? â€Å"Looks pretty quiet,† Vittoria said, still holding his hand. Langdon nodded. â€Å"Where's Raphael's tomb?† Langdon thought for a moment, trying to get his bearings. He surveyed the circumference of the room. Tombs. Altars. Pillars. Niches. He motioned to a particularly ornate funerary across the dome and to the left. â€Å"I think that's Raphael's over there.† Vittoria scanned the rest of the room. â€Å"I don't see anyone who looks like an assassin about to kill a cardinal. Shall we look around?† Langdon nodded. â€Å"There's only one spot in here where anyone could be hiding. We better check the rientranze.† â€Å"The recesses?† â€Å"Yes.† Langdon pointed. â€Å"The recesses in the wall.† Around the perimeter, interspersed with the tombs, a series of semicircular niches were hewn in the wall. The niches, although not enormous, were big enough to hide someone in the shadows. Sadly, Langdon knew they once contained statues of the Olympian gods, but the pagan sculptures had been destroyed when the Vatican converted the Pantheon to a Christian church. He felt a pang of frustration to know he was standing at the first altar of science, and the marker was gone. He wondered which statue it had been, and where it had pointed. Langdon could imagine no greater thrill than finding an Illuminati marker – a statue that surreptitiously pointed the way down the Path of Illumination. Again he wondered who the anonymous Illuminati sculptor had been. â€Å"I'll take the left arc,† Vittoria said, indicating the left half of the circumference. â€Å"You go right. See you in a hundred and eighty degrees.† Langdon smiled grimly. As Vittoria moved off, Langdon felt the eerie horror of the situation seeping back into his mind. As he turned and made his way to the right, the killer's voice seemed to whisper in the dead space around him. Eight o'clock. Virgin sacrifices on the altars of science. A mathematical progression of death. Eight, nine, ten, eleven†¦ and at midnight. Langdon checked his watch: 7:52. Eight minutes. As Langdon moved toward the first recess, he passed the tomb of one of Italy's Catholic kings. The sarcophagus, like many in Rome, was askew with the wall, positioned awkwardly. A group of visitors seemed confused by this. Langdon did not stop to explain. Formal Christian tombs were often misaligned with the architecture so they could lie facing east. It was an ancient superstition that Langdon's Symbology 212 class had discussed just last month. â€Å"That's totally incongruous!† a female student in the front had blurted when Langdon explained the reason for east-facing tombs. â€Å"Why would Christians want their tombs to face the rising sun? We're talking about Christianity†¦ not sun worship!† Langdon smiled, pacing before the blackboard, chewing an apple. â€Å"Mr. Hitzrot!† he shouted. A young man dozing in back sat up with a start. â€Å"What! Me?† Langdon pointed to a Renaissance art poster on the wall. â€Å"Who is that man kneeling before God?† â€Å"Um†¦ some saint?† â€Å"Brilliant. And how do you know he's a saint?† â€Å"He's got a halo?† â€Å"Excellent, and does that golden halo remind you of anything?† Hitzrot broke into a smile. â€Å"Yeah! Those Egyptian things we studied last term. Those†¦ um†¦ sun disks!† â€Å"Thank you, Hitzrot. Go back to sleep.† Langdon turned back to the class. â€Å"Halos, like much of Christian symbology, were borrowed from the ancient Egyptian religion of sun worship. Christianity is filled with examples of sun worship.† â€Å"Excuse me?† the girl in front said. â€Å"I go to church all the time, and I don't see much sun worshiping going on!† â€Å"Really? What do you celebrate on December twenty-fifth?† â€Å"Christmas. The birth of Jesus Christ.† â€Å"And yet according to the Bible, Christ was born in March, so what are we doing celebrating in late December?† Silence. Langdon smiled. â€Å"December twenty-fifth, my friends, is the ancient pagan holiday of sol invictus – Unconquered Sun – coinciding with the winter solstice. It's that wonderful time of year when the sun returns, and the days start getting longer.† Langdon took another bite of apple. â€Å"Conquering religions,† he continued, â€Å"often adopt existing holidays to make conversion less shocking. It's called transmutation. It helps people acclimatize to the new faith. Worshipers keep the same holy dates, pray in the same sacred locations, use a similar symbology†¦ and they simply substitute a different god.† Now the girl in front looked furious. â€Å"You're implying Christianity is just some kind of†¦ repackaged sun worship!† â€Å"Not at all. Christianity did not borrow only from sun worship. The ritual of Christian canonization is taken from the ancient ‘god-making' rite of Euhemerus. The practice of ‘god-eating' – that is, Holy Communion – was borrowed from the Aztecs. Even the concept of Christ dying for our sins is arguably not exclusively Christian; the self-sacrifice of a young man to absolve the sins of his people appears in the earliest tradition of the Quetzalcoatl.† The girl glared. â€Å"So, is anything in Christianity original?† â€Å"Very little in any organized faith is truly original. Religions are not born from scratch. They grow from one another. Modern religion is a collage†¦ an assimilated historical record of man's quest to understand the divine.† â€Å"Um†¦ hold on,† Hitzrot ventured, sounding awake now. â€Å"I know something Christian that's original. How about our image of God? Christian art never portrays God as the hawk sun god, or as an Aztec, or as anything weird. It always shows God as an old man with a white beard. So our image of God is original, right?† Langdon smiled. â€Å"When the early Christian converts abandoned their former deities – pagan gods, Roman gods, Greek, sun, Mithraic, whatever – they asked the church what their new Christian God looked like. Wisely, the church chose the most feared, powerful†¦ and familiar face in all of recorded history.† Hitzrot looked skeptical. â€Å"An old man with a white, flowing beard?† Langdon pointed to a hierarchy of ancient gods on the wall. At the top sat an old man with a white, flowing beard. â€Å"Does Zeus look familiar?† The class ended right on cue. â€Å"Good evening,† a man's voice said. Langdon jumped. He was back in the Pantheon. He turned to face an elderly man in a blue cape with a red cross on the chest. The man gave him a gray-toothed smile. â€Å"You're English, right?† The man's accent was thick Tuscan. Langdon blinked, confused. â€Å"Actually, no. I'm American.† The man looked embarrassed. â€Å"Oh heavens, forgive me. You were so nicely dressed, I just figured†¦ my apologies.† â€Å"Can I help you?† Langdon asked, his heart beating wildly. â€Å"Actually I thought perhaps I could help you. I am the cicerone here.† The man pointed proudly to his city-issued badge. â€Å"It is my job to make your visit to Rome more interesting.† More interesting? Langdon was certain this particular visit to Rome was plenty interesting. â€Å"You look like a man of distinction,† the guide fawned, â€Å"no doubt more interested in culture than most. Perhaps I can give you some history on this fascinating building.† Langdon smiled politely. â€Å"Kind of you, but I'm actually an art historian myself, and – â€Å" â€Å"Superb!† The man's eyes lit up like he'd hit the jackpot. â€Å"Then you will no doubt find this delightful!† â€Å"I think I'd prefer to – â€Å" â€Å"The Pantheon,† the man declared, launching into his memorized spiel, â€Å"was built by Marcus Agrippa in 27 B.C.† â€Å"Yes,† Langdon interjected, â€Å"and rebuilt by Hadrian in 119 A.D.† â€Å"It was the world's largest free-standing dome until 1960 when it was eclipsed by the Superdome in New Orleans!† Langdon groaned. The man was unstoppable. â€Å"And a fifth-century theologian once called the Pantheon the House of the Devil, warning that the hole in the roof was an entrance for demons!† Langdon blocked him out. His eyes climbed skyward to the oculus, and the memory of Vittoria's suggested plot flashed a bone-numbing image in his mind†¦ a branded cardinal falling through the hole and hitting the marble floor. Now that would be a media event. Langdon found himself scanning the Pantheon for reporters. None. He inhaled deeply. It was an absurd idea. The logistics of pulling off a stunt like that would be ridiculous. As Langdon moved off to continue his inspection, the babbling docent followed like a love-starved puppy. Remind me, Langdon thought to himself, there's nothing worse than a gung ho art historian. Across the room, Vittoria was immersed in her own search. Standing all alone for the first time since she had heard the news of her father, she felt the stark reality of the last eight hours closing in around her. Her father had been murdered – cruelly and abruptly. Almost equally painful was that her father's creation had been corrupted – now a tool of terrorists. Vittoria was plagued with guilt to think that it was her invention that had enabled the antimatter to be transported†¦ her canister that was now counting down inside the Vatican. In an effort to serve her father's quest for the simplicity of truth†¦ she had become a conspirator of chaos. Oddly, the only thing that felt right in her life at the moment was the presence of a total stranger. Robert Langdon. She found an inexplicable refuge in his eyes†¦ like the harmony of the oceans she had left behind early that morning. She was glad he was there. Not only had he been a source of strength and hope for her, Langdon had used his quick mind to render this one chance to catch her father's killer. Vittoria breathed deeply as she continued her search, moving around the perimeter. She was overwhelmed by the unexpected images of personal revenge that had dominated her thoughts all day. Even as a sworn lover of all life†¦ she wanted this executioner dead. No amount of good karma could make her turn the other cheek today. Alarmed and electrified, she sensed something coursing through her Italian blood that she had never felt before†¦ the whispers of Sicilian ancestors defending family honor with brutal justice. Vendetta, Vittoria thought, and for the first time in her life understood. Visions of reprisal spurred her on. She approached the tomb of Raphael Santi. Even from a distance she could tell this guy was special. His casket, unlike the others, was protected by a Plexiglas shield and recessed into the wall. Through the barrier she could see the front of the sarcophagus. Raphael Santi 1483-1520 Vittoria studied the grave and then read the one-sentence descriptive plaque beside Raphael's tomb. Then she read it again. Then†¦ she read it again. A moment later, she was dashing in horror across the floor. â€Å"Robert! Robert!†

Future Analysis of Nation State

Future Analysis of The Nation-State System Introduction: It is common to hear of the threats to the nation-state system in the contemporary world. Such threats seem to originate from many different quarters, at different level of the global system. This impending sense that the nation-state is somehow in â€Å"crisis† led to analyze the question of â€Å"the contemporary crisis of the nation-state? † But before we go into the analysis, it is important to look into the ideas that would help to understand the case, under discussion, in a better way.To begin with, let’s see the definition of nation, state and the nation-state system, according to the context under discussion. Nation According to the Oxford English dictionary, the word nation literally means, community of people having mainly common descent, history, language, etc or forming sovereign state or inhabiting territory. From the above definition, there are two kinds of nations, the ethnic nation (communit y with common descent) and demotic nation (community with common territorial boundaries). E. K.Francis draws a distinction between ‘ethnic’ nations that are based on belief in common descent and a sense of solidarity and common identity, and ‘demotic’ nations that are based on shared administrative and military institutions, common territorial boundaries for protection and the mobility of goods and people. This is similar to the distinction often made between ‘cultural nations’, based on criteria such as language, customs, religion and the ‘political nations’, that are more contractual and derive from shared institutions, shared citizenship and a sense of shared history.State According to Oxford English dictionary, state literally means, political community under one government. This means a community which is coherent with the government of the state obeys the government with its own will, making government responsible for it. It is the political organization of the people under one government. Nation-State System The nation-state system is traditionally, an amalgamation of ‘nation’ (one people) with ‘state’ (one government). If one were to imagine an abstract image of the globe one would see gridlines.These lines mark off different nation-states. Each one is separate from the others and sovereign inside its defined and unmoving borders. These nation-states interact with each other, be it through war or trade in a relationship that is theoretically simple. Each nation-state is ‘equal’ in terms of having sovereignty (self-determination) and the sole right to use legitimate force inside its own borders. This modern nation-state system came into existence with the treaty of Westphalia, 1648.In international system, ‘low’ politics of trade and business and temporary agreement of MNCs, IGO and INGOs are less important than that of ‘high’ politics th e nation-state, with its role of protecting its sovereignty from the attack and of maintaining stability inside its borders. Today, there are more than 200 nation-states in the world. Nation-State as a Historical-Political Form The ideal articulation of ‘nation’ as a form of cultural community and the‘State’ as a territorial, political unit is now widely accepted and often taken as unproblematic.Yet scholars of nationalism point out that that was not alwaysthe case. That every nation deserves its autonomy and identity through its ownsovereign state (even though many may not demand it) is an ideal that manytrace to the French Revolution. As Cobban points out, whereas before the FrenchRevolution there had been no necessary connection between the state as a political unit and the nation as a cultural one, it became possible and desirablesince then to think of a combination of these two in a single conception of the nation-state.That this still remains an †˜ideal’ and one vastly unrealized, as inthe existence of several â€Å"multi-national’’ states, is also largely recognized, although much of international relations theory fails to follow through on the implications of that ‘reality’. Concept of Sovereignty The meaning and concept of sovereignty has assumed many different shapes. Moreover, it has frequently changed its content,its laws and even its functions during the modern period. Hugo Grotius, in his famous work De Jure Belli ac Pacis: Sovereignty is ‘that power whose acts †¦ may not be void by the acts of other human will. Other political theorists have, in general, given similar definitions. Oppenheim: ‘Sovereignty is supreme authority, an authority which is independent of any other earthly authority. ’ Willoughby:‘Sovereignty is the supreme will of the state. ’ Various writers on political theory have insisted that every legally recognized state by defin ition is sovereign. It is simply a reminder that just as every state is legally equal to any other, so it is legally sovereign. But if we see the contemporary interaction of states with reference to above definition, we would definitely conclude that the concept of sovereignty has again changed.The concept of absolute sovereignty has become obsolete and has been replaced by the concept of relative sovereignty/authority and interdependence. Just as in real world, some states are bigger in size, power and influence than others just like that sovereignty of the states has become relative. It must be recognized that there are now degrees of sovereignty and self-determination. Only sovereignty left with states is legal sovereignty. Except it every other aspect of the state is relative or dependent on intrastate and interstate factors. Concept of NationalismNationalism is the patriotic feeling for one’s nation or country. Professor Louis L. Snyder defines nationalism as ‘a pr oduct of political, economic, social and intellectual factors at a certain stage in history, is a condition of mind, feeling or sentiment of a group of people living in a well-define geographical area, speaking a common language, possessing a literature in which the aspirations of the nation have been expressed, attached to common traditions and common customs, venerating its own heroes, and in some cases having a common religion. Some point out that the political nations are based more on ‘civic’ nationalism, as opposed to the ‘ethnic’ nationalism characteristic of the cultural nations. These observations are based on two popular theories of nationalism. Primordialists’ approach the extent to which culture exists as a given resource for the constitution of nationsand instrumentalist’ approach, the extent to which culture has to be invented by nationalist elites.The primordialist approach, evident in the early work of Geertz, Shils and in the socio-biological theory of Van den Berghe, argues that ethnic and cultural attachments are pre-givens, or at least assumed givens, and appear ‘natural’ to members of a group. As against this, the instrumentalist approach, evidenced to varying degrees in the works of Brass, Hobsbawm and Nairn, argues that ethnic attachments are often invented and manipulated by elites to construct the nation as a privileged source of a group’s loyalty.I’m of the view that all national identities are constructed as dictated by the instrumentalist theory. In other words, there are no ‘natural’ nationalities. There is no a priori manner in which peoples can be made into nations. It is the work ofnationalism to construct or produce a ‘nation’. In the words of BenedictAnderson, the nation has to be ‘imagined’. Nations are imagined ‘because themembers of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members,meet them, o r even hear of them, yet in the minds of each livesthe image of their communion. It is through nationalist ideology that thiscommunion is constructed. Anderson traces the development of nationalism to the development of print-capitalism, which helped to produce and disseminatea common culture to ground the national imagination. 18 Regardless of what basisis used to ground this communion, nations are ultimately based on what EtienneBalibar has called `’fictive ethnicities’. It is the work of nationalist ideology to ‘ethnicize’’ a community.It is through the representational labor of nationalist ideology that a community is constructed as if it formed a natural communionwith its unique and singular origin and destiny. ‘Nation building’ hasalways been a project of the state as well and the widespread existence of globalnorms on sovereignty and self-determination (and the continuing appeal of theideal of the ‘nation-state’) now ensure that existing states themselves have toengage to some extent in attempts at nation building. In other words, it is notsimply that nations often seek and demand states, but states need nations as well.These efforts of nation building are more evident and stark at times of crisis such as war,but in reality are always in existence in more subtle ways through various statepolicies and programs, as well as through the ideological state apparatusesin civil society. In that sense state building and nation building have become simultaneousand symbiotic processes. Yet for analytical purposes it is perhaps better not toconfuse these two processes because, even if the ends they seek are somewhatsimilar or complementary, the processes remain somewhat different.State buildingoccurs through the penetration and integration of the territorial economy,polity and society and speaks to questions of political authority and effectivegovernance. Nation building is the construction of a cohesive c ultural communitythat can demand citizen loyalty and commitment. As it is shownin the nextsection, the fragmentation of nation-states refers tonation building, and inparticular to the inability of the state to build cohesive nations, while those that point to the effects of globalization on weakening the nation-state often (but notexclusively) refer to problems with state building.Challenges to The Nation-State Forces of Fragmentation The authority of the nation-state depends to a large extent on its consistency,unity and stability in the eyes of its public or, in other words, of the ability ofthe state to project a united nation. The imagined nations, as Anderson pointsout, present themselves as ‘communities’,‘because regardless of the actualinequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is alwaysconceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship’’.Part of the project of the state is to seekconsent from its citizens as to the depth and eq uality of that comradeship. Yetthe national space has many differences and conflicts – among ethnicities, races, religious groups, classes, genders, etc. Each of those differences threatens the coherence and unity of the national fabric. Most of the literature on fragmentation focuses on ethnic (and religious) conflicts within existing states. Nationbuilding requires that such ethnic and religious conflicts are effectively controlledby the state.Even though ‘assimilation’ has been an acknowledged goal of many states historically, Talal Asad has pointed out that hegemonic power worksnot so much through suppressing differences by homogenization, as throughdifferentiating and marginalizing. The ‘nation’ in projects of the state does notrepresent a singular cultural space so much as a hierarchy of cultural spaces. What RudolfoStavenhagen calls an ‘ethnocratic state’- a nation-state controlledessentially by a majority or dominant ethnie, able to exercise cultural hegemonyover the rest of the ation – is the rule rather than the exception in the modernsystem of nation-states. The success of nation-building depends on the extentto which the state is able to secure a broad measure of ‘consent’ on thishierarchy. The national project requires the construction of what Asad calls a‘cultural core’ that becomes the ‘essence’ of ‘the nation’. At the most basiclevel, fragmentation occurs when the state is no longer (if ever) able to effectivelysecure consent on this cultural core.States have a variety of available means to meet the demands of ethnic and religious groups within their borders. To the extent that assimilation is no longerconsidered possible or effective, or even desirable, states can and do makeattempts to accommodate such demands through various political and institutionalmechanisms. Regardless of how determined and well organized thosedemands are, which migh t make a polity quite unstable in certain situations,fragmentation refers more specifically to situations where such demands arelinked with claims to territory.Or using Oomen’s definition, it is when an ethnic group establishes a moral claim to territory within a state thatone can speak of sub nationalisms, or what are sometimes called ethno nationalisms. Many states that are classified as nation-states within international relationshave always been such multi-national states – like in India where different ethnicand linguistic groups are regionally organized on the basis of claims to territory,or as in the case of the Scots and Welsh within Britain. Such moral claims toterritory might not necessarily generate separatist movements.But it is the existence of such sub nationalisms thatcreates the possibility of the fragmentation of the nation-state. Ultimately, thiscan be a crisis of the nation-state because such nationalisms threaten to fragmentone of the central bases of state sovereignty -the territorial integrity of the existingnation-state. Or maybe the civic (more than the cultural) nationalism of manymodern states makes the nation-state (unlike ethnicity or religion), simply toolarge, amorphous and psychically distant to be the object of intimate affection.The point here is that fragmentation occurs and is occurring rapidly in theworld, as evidenced in Bosnia, Rwanda, Spain, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Canada, toname a very few geographically diverse examples. Fragmentation occurs whenthere is a disarticulation between the state as a spatial unit (with fixed territory)with the spatial claims of the nation(s) in whose name(s) it speaks. The ultimate concern with fragmentation, as I mentioned above, is that itthreatens the territorial integrity of existing nation-states.But as IstvanHont points out, even though there might be legitimate grounds for concern over theterritorial integrity of contemporary states devolving into smaller territorialunits, t his should be seen as a ‘triumph’ rather than a ‘crisis’of the nation-state. Fragmentation is a threat to the existence of particular states, rather thanthe system of nation-states. It represents the failure of particular states to holdon to the ‘spatiality’ (both geopolitically and culturally) of their claims toauthority.But in more general terms, fragmentation represents the success ofthe ideal of the nation-state – that every nation deserves its own state. This seemsmore obvious in the case of the end of empire and its dissolution into independentpolities each claiming the title of nation-state, first in the post-World War II eraof decolonization, and more recently in the break-up of the Soviet Union andthe Eastern bloc countries. Forces of Globalization The effects of globalization on the nation-state are a bit more complex.Forces outside the nation-state can hold back, enable and influence the nation-state in a variety of ways. For the purposes of this discussion, I classify theseforces into two groups – forces of economic globalization and forces of culturalglobalization, although the two are quite closely related in many ways. Economic Globalization The development of thefield of international political economy (IPE) has pointedout thatexclusive focus on the nation-state as a unit of analysis can be inadequate inunderstanding the dimensions of economic activity in the modern world.Some approaches within IPE, such as Interdependence, Regime and HegemonicStability Theories continue to be state-centric. But that is not the case with anumber of other approaches. Marxist approaches in particular have been dividedover the question of the role of the state. This division has been over thequestion of the extent to which the supranational character of the capitalistmode of production restricts all modern state structures versus the extent to which the state plays a direct role in promoting the internationaliza tion ofcapital.Exemplifying the former perspective, Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory was based on the ontological dominance of the world capitalist system,based on a single division of labor between the core, peripheral and semi peripheralregions of the world. Even though Wallerstein recognized the significance of nation-states in the modern world, in his analysis the essentials ofmarket exchange at the international level reduced state autonomy so much sothat nation-states were but super structuralattachments helping in the reproductionof the modern global capitalist system.But other scholars who have lookedat the internationalization of capital have stressed how the state continues toplay a role in the reproduction of capitalism. Robin Murray has pointed out thatas capital extends beyond its national borders, the historical link that bound itto its particular domestic state no longer necessarily holds. But the domestic stateis not territorially limited in its activities, and it might well ‘follow’ its capital and perform the critical ‘economic roles’ that it has always played in thereproduction of capitalism.The gradual shift from multinational corporations towards more transnational corporations or from the internationalization of economic activity (aseconomic activity spreads across state borders) towards the globalization ofeconomic activity (which involves a more purposefulcombination of economicactivity spread globally) also limits state capacity to control and influencedomestic national economies and thus weakens state authority over its nationalspace.This is what Mittelman has called ‘the spatial reorganization of production, the interpenetration of industries across borders [and] the spread of financial markets’. The spatial reorganization of production has been accompanied by changes in the international division of labor, which has includedamong other changes the feminization of certain kinds of labor . The globalization of international finance has led to the enormous ‘flow of capital andcurrencies with increasing rapidity, huge rowth of global currency speculation,offshoots trading and currency instability, and has increasingly reduced the ability of the state to control monetary and fiscal policy. In general, it hasbeen argued that in the face of economic globalization, state autonomy isconsiderably reduced, as the state becomes simply a facilitator of globalization. In particular, it is the weakening of the welfare state occurring in the wake of the globalization of economic liberalization that is seen to limit state competenceand authority all over the world.If the origins of the state had been in theprovision of security, the growth of the ‘welfare state’ in post-World War IIindustrial societies has now been well known. But the decreasing appealof Keynesian macroeconomic management in post-industrial societies (and theshift to supply-side economics) and t he accompanied reduction in public provision of social services threatens the legitimacy of the state as it increasingly fundsitself with little control over the economy (as jobs, investment migrate) andunable to meet the expectations of the people for securing their prosperity.Inpost-colonial societies, the disintegration of the ‘developmentalist state’ with the increasing adoption of IMF- and World Bank-sponsored market liberalization,is also a potential threat to state legitimacy as the state is unable to deliver onpromises of basic needs provisions, as the vehicle for social justice and equalityand as the symbol of national resistance to external pressures.In many ways, this sense of the declining ‘political effectiveness’ of the contemporary state is not entirely baseless. Even if the state cannot, and perhaps nevercould, totally or effectively control economic activity within its borders, itsability to regulate such activity to an extent and its willi ngness to undertakeredistributive measures that raged some of the more socially evileffects of the market brought it a certain amount of legitimacy and approvalfrom large sections of the population.This expression of the nation-state, not simply as a provider of order and security, but as a provider of social (andeconomic) needs (as in education, health care, nutrition, housing as well as inensuring a certain level of employment, minimum wages, price stability, etc. )has been an important and significant development of the second half of the20th century. Even if there is increasing consensus in policy-making circlesaround the world of the efficiency of market forces and the need for marketliberalization and cut-backs in state activity in the economic kingdom, the expectationsof the population from the state tend to be more complex.Even wheremany sections of the population might be dissatisfied with the functioning ofexisting states, the initial impact of market reforms on large sect ions of thepopulation can be quite adverse and severe. This is evidenced, for instance, inthe cut-back of social welfare programs in advanced industrial societies on minority groups and women, as also in the adoption of IMF-imposed structuraladjustments programs on poor people and especially women in the lowereconomic classes in the developing world.The internationalization and globalization of economic activity, combined with the global spread of economic liberalization can in that sense certainly weaken the ability of the state to meet theexpectations of sections of the population, and possibly create news kinds of‘legitimacy crises’. This is not simply a practical problem for particular states, which of course it is. John Dunn points out that while the immediate appeal of the nation derives much more from the subjective force of being born in a particular setof social relations, the appeal of the state lies in its efficiency or competence, whichis much more objective .To the extent that the idea of the modern nation-stateis so closely linked to the idea of the welfare state or the developmentalist state, the effectiveness of the contemporary state depends on the ability of thestate to deliver on ‘welfare’ or ‘development’. To that extent, the decreasedcompetency of the state to deliver on those promises could create the kindsof legitimacy crises that might call into question the durability of the nation-state. Perhaps, over time, expectations of what the state can or should do willchange. Decline of a particular form of the modern state does not indicate theend of the nation-state form.As David Armstrong argues, since states are ‘social actors’ and indeed become states through ‘international socialization’,new conceptualizations of the state’s role in the national economy that emergeas a consequence of globalization may become ‘statefied’ as states reach‘ intersubjecti ve understandings of how to restructure themselves and how tostrengthen the institutions of international society to accommodate globalization’. Nation-state legitimacy will depend on the extent on which ‘consent’coheres around new constructions of ‘national/state identity’ more in tunewith the new roles of the state.To some extent, states that have recognized the impossibility of enjoyingpolitical autonomy over economic issues have increasingly turned to non-stateentities for performing these functions more effectively. For instance, Alan Milward has argued that post-war European integration, in particular the launchof monetary union, was an attempt by many European nation-states to increasethe capacity of the state to meet the expectations of its citizens, and in doing soto ‘rescue the nation-state’ from its demise.Transfer of political authority overmonetary decision making to a supranational entity, hence losing fiscal andmonetary so vereignty, was perhaps the only way for states to ensure a certainamount of economic stability in many of the states racked by huge currencyfluctuations. In this somewhat personal analysis, the creation of supranationalentities like the European Union could in contradiction make the nation-statestronger rather than weaker. But even if the role of the state can be reduced to being the ‘agent’ ofglobalization, the state remains important for a number of other reasons.Despitethe rise of various forms of terrorism, including ‘state terrorism’, the stateretains significantmonopoly on the use of legitimate violence. The state continuesto have monopoly on taxation, is still seen as the ultimate negotiator of socialconflict, is expected to provide ‘security’ from external threats, and to performa variety of other functions. Perhaps most importantly, in the face of globalization, the state continues to be seen as the site for many to seek protection fro msome of the effects of global corporate capitalism.As Panitch points out, ‘[n]otonly is the world still very much composed of states, but insofar as there is anyeffective democracy at all in relation to the power of capitalists and bureaucratsit is still embedded in political structures that are national or sub national inscope’. The exercise of democratic control over capital takes on an even greaterimportance for Southern countries increasingly subject to IMF pressures, where the state is sometimes the only refuge against eo-imperialism. The point is that even though state legitimacy is potentially threatened by economic globalization, much depends on how state roles are reconfigured inthe face of globalization. Even if the economic limits to national politics is not anew problem for state legitimacy, the qualitative shift in economic globalization in late 20th-century capitalism, as well as the development of the nature of thecontemporary state, does change somewhat the implications for state legitimacy.In itself, the distribution of some of the functions of state to other non-state entities,whether supranational or sub national (micro-management rather than macro-managementby the state), does not threaten state legitimacy, but can in factstrengthen it. Economic globalization certainly requires different state roles, changingexpectations from the people, and new measures of state competency, butdoes not necessarily threaten the existence of the nation-state. Cultural Globalization There is also a cultural dimension to globalization that has implications for thenation-state and its future.This has more to do with issues of identity. RolandRobertson defines globalization as both ‘the compression of the world and theintensification of consciousness of the world as a whole’. While the process ofthis compression might have been occurring over a very long time, the recentgrowth of communications technology (cheap and fast air travel, te lephonic andtelegraphic services, satellite media transmissions, the Internet and cyberspace)has both accelerated and deepened this process. This is a process that both brings the world together and splits the world apart simultaneously.As Stuart Hall points out, globalization at the cultural level has led to both the universalisation and the fragmentation and multiplication of identities. Robertson explainsglobalization leads to the simultaneity of ‘the particularizationof universalism (the rendering of the world as a single place) and theuniversalization of particularism (the globalized expectation that societies . . . should have distinct identities)’. In his more recent work, Robertson has offered the concept of â€Å"glocalization’’ to emphasize the simultaneity of the homogenizing and eterogenizing forces of globalization in the late 20th-century world. Keeping in mind that these two processes are simultaneous, following are theirdifferent implicati ons for nation-states. The homogenization forces of globalization, in one sense is, the universalisation of the demand of the nation-state as an ideal cultural – political form of collective identity is itself a product of globalization. The now globalised belief that nations exist and deserve their states is fairlywell accepted and forms the normative foundation for most contemporaryinternational organizations.In addition, these international organizations have served to institutionalize the form of the nation-state, and enforce a certain amount of standardization in the nation-state system. John Meyer has shown globalization in this sense serves to strengthen the nation-state. Meyer pointsout that despite the vast economic inequalities among states, there is a worldculture that creates significant isomorphism among nation-states and helpskeep this dispersed world polity together.The global system of nation-statesis based on global norms that define external and internal sov ereignty, and is exemplified and reproduced through the similarity of the goals of‘equality’ and ‘progress’pursued by all nation-states. In other words, worldlevelcultural and organizationalinstructions for development and progress haveresulted in nation-state uniformity as all states follow similar objectives, policiesand programs.Connie McNeely elaborateson this concept of world culture by showing international organizations like the UN set normative and rigid standards of behavior for statepractices (increasingly conformed to by nation-states around the world), andin doing so play a role in institutionalizing the nation-state system. She specifically shows the nation-state system has been standardized and reproducedthrough the invention and spread of national income statistics, resulting fromthe efforts of UN statisticians and from the UN collection and distribution of comparative tables.At least in this sense, the homogenization force ofglobalization re produces and continues the nation-state system, rather thanthreatens its existence. Another implication of homogenization is on globalized identities in terms of global consumer capitalism. Benjamin Barber describesthe homogenizing drives of ‘McWorld’ (or what has also been called the‘MacDonaldization’ of the world) which has created ‘commercialized’ and‘depoliticized’ world. Kenichi Ohmae describes a consumerist world in whichbrand loyalty replaces national loyalty.But this world that is homogenized by the globalization of consumption can’t erase the troublesomeness of national commitments. Corporate icons can’t provide the kind of collectiveunity that national identities provide, and this is perhaps one reason for the‘global localization’ that Ohmae points to, in which product marketing adaptsto local (often interpreted as national) conditions, or what has come to be knownas ‘micro-marketingâ€⠄¢. But it is these depoliticized identities that also create thedrive to ‘resecure narrow identities’ so as to ‘escape McWorld’s monotonously firm essentials’.The heterogenising forces of globalization, or what Robertsondescribes as the ‘universalization of particularism’claims, in which not only has the ‘expectation of uniqueness’ become institutionalized and globally widespread, but the local and the particular itself isproduced on the basis of global norms. In other words, globalization of cultural norms has produced not just the legitimacy of the idea of the nation-state, butalso the expectation that such nation-states should embody unique and distinctidentities.This once again represents the globalization of the nationalist idea,the idea thatnation-states are legitimate because the nation is a unique, authenticcultural entity, with its singular and distinct identity. Beyer, in describingRobertson’s work, calls t his the ’relativization of particularisms’, which leads to a search for particularistic identities. The globalization of this idea createsthe potential for declarations of national identity, and can ultimately create themomentum for fragmentation of existing nation-states that are somehow seen as‘inauthentic’and hence illegitimate.To the extent that such differentiationalso occurs as a response to certainhomogenizing drives of globalization,thisalso represents a success of the nationalist idea. Assertions of collective identityboth as an element of, as well as in response to, globalization is then more‘nation-producing’ than ‘nation-destroying’. This certainly is an effect of globalization that, in keeping with the argument of the last section on fragmentation,is not a threat to the nation-state but a measure of its success.The Altered Nation-State Panitch in Mittelman says, ‘globalization is authored by states and is primar ily aboutreorganizing rather than bypassing them. ’ Rather than suggesting that the nation-state is fated to dissolve in the face of globalization, or that it will remainthe primary unaltered unit of international relations, there is a postulation of an ‘alteredstate’. The nation-state is said to exist now in one form, to have existed in the past inanother, and to be transforming itself actively into a third.This is a proposition that assumes a resilient but elastic nation-state, one that evolves over time, and whichbecomes more or less influential in different spheres depending on the utility of thatinfluence. One example of this ‘altered state’ thesis is that proposed by Philip Cerny, who suggests that ‘the nation-state is not dead’, although its role has changed. He envisages the transformation of the nation-state from being agoverning system concerned with welfare to being a system concerned with competition. Unsurprisingly he calls this the ‘competition state’.The competition state exists in aworld of increased fragmentation and globalization, and is characterized by a decrease ofpublic services and an increase of private services or industry. The competition state is amix of civil and business organization, and is concerned with effective returns oninvestment or effort. In the long run the ‘state is developing into an enterpriseassociation, with key civic, public and constitutional functions [†¦] subordinate to theglobal marketplace. ’ Another example of the ‘altered state’ is envisioned by Leo Panitch.Panitch thinks that ‘globalizing pressures even on advanced industrial states has led to a reorganization of the structural power relations within states [but has] not diminished therole of the state. ’ The nation-state is changing, but is not facing adisempowerment or loss of sovereignty. Indeed, Panitch would understand globalization as being written by nation-states, and the role of the state in collecting taxation,providing security, and having the monopoly of legitimate violence inside its sovereignborders as being unchanged.Globalization and alteration of the state role is an attempt to secure ‘global and domestic rights of capital’, and not aneo-medieval dissolution of the state apparatus. Conclusion There are, no doubt, a number of threats to the coherence and durability of particular existing nation-states, but that doesn’t weaken the nation-state as a historical form, as a contemporary organizing principle for collective cultural and political identity. Certainly, the severe crisis of particular nation-states, such as Afghanistan,Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia, can generate a sense of anxiety about thefuture of the nation-state itself.Yet this sense of crisis has not seeped into acrossthe globe and most existing nation-states remain relatively stable and viabledespite the existence of various ethno-national ist movements within them. The graph given above shows the trend of nation-state over a period of 100 years. The graph is the statistical evidence of the appeal and continuance of the nation-state system as a dominant cultural-political system. In the article which was the basis of this analysis, Saquib Karamat indicates economic globalization, cultural globalization and blurring of the national ideologies as threat to the existence of nation-states.Furthermore, he says global issues also question the sovereignty of nation-states. But as analyzed above, economic globalization and cultural globalization in fact strengthen the nation-state than weakening it. While blurring of national ideology is the contemporary issue of weak states, who in some way need to put into work a national project of nation-building to keep their territories intact. The global issues like global warming don’t question the authority of the state rather they implicate that all nations need to work in su ch a framework of communication which enables to reach a solution of common consent.Now, the analysis on the future of nation-state has made some points clear, that a nation need not to be only one with common descent (ethnic nations), there can also be nations who share common boundaries (demotic nation). A state, which has either ethnic nation or demotic nation, needs to be coherent in order to remain legitimate. The historical-political form of nation-state was based on one nation – one state rule. The concept of sovereignty has changed from absolute sovereignty to degrees of sovereignty and interdependence. The process of nation-building or nationalism is a tate’s tool to keep it coherent. All national identities are constructed by national elites and weak states which are facing the threat of territorial disintegration should consciously employ national labor in nation-building. The forces of fragmentation and forces of globalization which seems to put at risk the existence of nation-state system, actually strengthen nation-state as a historical form and are driving forces in the evolution of the nation-state as discusses above in the respective sections. So, nation-state needs to alter itself in order to remain competent system for the years to come.The necessity is evident from the change in the conceptof sovereignty. Since it has changed, nation-state should also be restructured in the face of globalization and fragmentation. Transferring some kinds of authority tosupranational entities, or devolving power downwards through decentralization are ways of coping with these changes, and can help retain state legitimacyrather than threaten it. Bibliography 1. E. K. Francis, Interethnic Relations: An Essay in Sociological Theory (New York: Elsevier, 1976). 2. Alfred Cobban, the Nation State and National Self Determination (London: HarperCollins, 1969). 3.Clifford Geertz, Old Societies and New States (New York: The Free Press, 1963); Edward Shil s, â€Å"Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties’’ , British Journal of Sociology, Vol. VIII, No. 2, (1957); Pierre Van den Berghe, â€Å"Race and Ethnicity: A Sociological Perspective’’ , Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1978). 4. Paul Brass, â€Å"Elite Groups, Symbol Manipulation and Ethnic Identity among the Muslims of South Asia’’ , in D. Taylor and M. Yapp (eds. ), Political Identity in South Asia (London: Curzon Press,b1979); Eric Hobsbawm, â€Å"Introduction: Inventing Traditions’’ and â€Å"Mass-producing Traditions: Europen1870 – 1914’’ , in E.Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds. ), The Invention of Tradition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 1 ± 14; Tom Nairn, The Break-up of Britain: Crisis and Neo-nationalism, 2ndedn (London: Verso, 1977). 5. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983) 6. Kathryn A. Manzo, Creating Boundaries: The Politics of Race and Nation (London: Lynne Rienner, 1996) 7. TalalAsad, Genealogies of Religion (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993). 8.Robin Cohen, â€Å"Diasporas and the Nation-state: From Victims to Challengers’’ , International Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3 (1996) 9. Ernest Mandel, Late Capitalism, Joris De Bres (trans. ) (London: NLB, 1972). 10. Andrew Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990). 11. Immanuel Wallerstein, The Capitalist World Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979 12. Immanuel Wallerstein, The Politics of the World Economy: The States, the Movements and the Civilizations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). 3. Robin Murray, â€Å"The Internationalization of Capital and the Nation-state’’ , New Left Review, Vol. 67 (1971), 14. Peter Dicken, Global Shift: The Internationalization of Econ omic Activity, 2nd edn (New York: Guilford Press, 1992). 15. James H. Mittelman (ed. ), Globalization: Critical Reflections (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1996) 16. R. O’Brien, Global Financial Integration: The End of Geography (London: Sage, 1990 17. John Dunn (ed. ), The Economic Limits to Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). 18. John Dunn, â€Å"Introduction: Crisis of the Nation State? ’ , Political Studies, Vol. 42, Special Issue (1994) 19. Helen Thompson, â€Å"The Nation-state and International Capital in Historical Perspective’’ , Government and Opposition, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1997) 20. Leo Panitch, â€Å"Rethinking the Role of the State’’, (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1996) 21. Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture (London: Sage, 1992) 22. Roland Robertson as quoted in Peter Beyer, Religion and Globalization (London: Sage, 1994) 23. Stuart Hall, â€Å"Cultural Identity and Diaspora’â€℠¢, in Jonathan Rutherford (ed. , Identity: Community, Culture, Difference (London: Lawrence &Wishart, 1990). 24. Connie L. McNeely, Constructing the Nation-state (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1995). 25. Benjamin R. Barber, â€Å"Jihad Vs. McWorld’’ , The Atlantic Monthly (March 1992) 26. KemichiOhmae, The Borderless World (London: Harper Business, 1990). 27. Kofman, E. and Young, G. Globalization: Theory and Practice, (London: Pinter,1996) 28. ShampaBiswas, W(h)ither the Nation-state? National and State identity in the Face of Fragmentation and Globalization, Global society, (16 (2), Abingdon: Carfax. , 2002).