A pro-Trump comment I often hear is that the US is a business, and "who better than a businessman to run a business." As much as I disagree with this position, I cannot deny that business and economics do play a substantial role in politics. This makes me think of the poll in our last class, which led to a discussion of economic vs. political power. I would suggest that these two types of power are inherently linked, and that one cannot be sustainable without the other. As such, the legitimacy of a state cannot be discussed without addressing both the political and economic power of said state. Furthermore, the state's interest in both protecting and restricting the authority of private corporations proves to be a complex issue.
The legitimacy of state sovereignty is determined by its ability to maintain authority and power. When we think of these two concepts, we often think "politics" (i.e. the majority political power within the state). Political power, however, is driven by more than just ideology; economic power is inherently linked to the capacity of political power because any source of power needs resources to drive it. We can, of course, look to the economic capacity of the government itself, but the economic power of the state is also driven by private corporations. We see clear examples of this right here in the US. Major corporations and donors back political leaders and parties which contributes to the capacity of said party/leader to spread their political ideology. Additionally, corporations which may not directly donate to a political party may support ideologies in line with a particular party, thereby proliferating this ideology. Think of companies that openly promote an anti-LGBT rhetoric, for example. This very public approbation of said ideology spreads to consumers, which then impacts and/or reaffirms their own political choices.
The clear connection between economic and political power means that the government's interest in holding private corporations accountable is a complex matter. On the one hand, the state wants to restrict corporations where possible so as to mitigate any possible threats to their own sovereignty. On the other, should the state pose as a threat to a corporation's capacity to make a profit or grow, the state may face negative consequences vis-a-vis the potential for economic support from the corporation. Instead of imposing restrictions and consequences on private corporations, I think we may see more covert ways in which the state supports corporations as an incentive for the corporation to support the state. For example, say a major pharmaceutical company provides major economic backing for the state. In return, the state may mandate a new vaccine that the pharmaceutical company manufactures. So, instead of acting as a threat to the corporation, the state provides an incentive for the corporation to maintain its financial partnership with the state. This then creates a symbiotic relationship, as the corporation does face the potential for the state to reverse its mandate should the corporation remove financial support to the state.
In theory, public government and private corporations should function separately, but the inherent link between political and economic power is clear. Both function at its fullest capacity when they act symbiotically.
I agree that the legitimacy of state sovereignty is determined by its ability to maintain authority and power, and that “economic power is inherently linked to the capacity of political power because any source of power needs resources to drive it.” Inayatullah talks about this dynamic in his article and cites Egypt as an example. When Mohammad Ali was in power he tried to industrialize the economy but the plan failed because the majority of Egyptian people did not have an education and they were illiterate, Ali did not understand European technology, and the burden places on the masses were too great which caused resistance and eventually a revolt. Unlike Ali, his successor Ismail permitted foreign investment. Even though the country modernized quickly and came out of poverty it was manipulated by its investors and turned Egypt into source of raw materials for European industry. By accepting foreign aid to improve living conditions at home Egypt was exploited and thus, their sovereignty undermined by European paternalism. However, this example and others including the history of India and Greenland, prove that economic stability is necessary and deeply intertwined with political power and autonomy.
ReplyDelete