The State and the institutions that work in the administration of a country
The State comprises all the institutions dedicated to government work and administration, to facilitate their performance and avoid the concentration of powers, these institutions are divided and subrupted in the powers of the State, which, according to the classical divisionof powers, correspond to three, the Executive Branch, the Legislative Power and the Judicial.
What differentiates the State from other organizations is its ability to prepare and enforce laws applicable to a certain population, for this it has coercive means: the courts, the criminal system, the army and the police. Essentially the State is in charge of the monopoly of the legal authority and the use of the legally allowed means of coercion, therefore, who controls the State access to the nucleus of political power.
The term State is usually used to refer to the institutions that are part of a government, without neglect, rules and guidelines that are specific such as the provision of services to citizens. In a broad sense one could say that they are part of the State: the legislative assemblies, the courts, the army, public educational institutions, public hospitals, etc.
For Weber, the modern state is an institutional domination association, which in the interior of a territory has successfully tried to monopolize legitimate physical coercion as an instrument of domain, and brings together the material means of exploitation in the hands ofits leaders, but having expropriated all the state officials who previously had those in their own right and replacing them with their own supreme hierarchies.
Norberto Bobbio in the Policy Dictionary defines the modern State as the passage to territorial sovereignty that arises from the induced social transformation and managed by the incipient bourgeoisie, in the process of finding the exclusive space of action in the things of the world in need regimes of regimes ofsecurity.
For Capetellitti, the State is born from social classes and private property, it is the guarantee of all power and privilege, it is the maximum expression of the interests of certain individuals and certain classes, it is born from cowardice and nourishes from petty interests.
Regarding the purpose or objectives of the State, these vary according to the interest of the ruling elites and the way in which they are imposed on the population, for example, if these elites are subject to democratic controls, if they violate theirwill or combine democratic and dictatorial features, the result of this way of operating establishes the limits and criteria on which the objectives of the State are built.
Modern political science conceives the State as a form and expression of power under the conception of State-apparatus and considers it another element of the global political system, as well as other political forces or subsystems such as political parties or pressure groups, thanThese are structures where political power is exercised and organized.
It is noteworthy that in political science there are at least three frequent uses of the state meaning. The first use refers to the concept mentioned above, refers to the set of political-administrative entities and public employees;The second use of the term is where it is assumed as a synonym at all of a country. In summary, a state in the spheres of international relations is a political regime possessing authority over the population of a country. For example, the United States, Japan, Colombia and Argentina are "states";Relationships between their governments are called interstate relationships. Finally, the word state is sometimes used to designate a specific unit derived from the political-administrative subdivision in certain countries. Thus, Venezuela is divided into twenty -three states;Germany, in sixteen federated states;United States in fifty states.
The point where state action converges or should do is general well -being, and that is why the modern state as we know it, is formed by the agreement of wills for social welfare, the State exists by citizens and for citizens, should not be erected as a tool at the service of a given sector that takes advantage of its dominant character.
The State holds the concentration of political power by creating a relationship of command and obedience with respect to its citizens through each of its organs and institutions, for example, the legislative power creates the laws the citizen is obliged to obey, the Judicial Power sanctionsThe citizen and the Executive Power assign the public resources that must benefit through public goods such as roads or hospitals;Therefore, citizens from their side of the balance can react to the power of the State if they consider it a threat to their well -being, thus two concepts that define the attitude of the citizen to the state authority, legitimacy and legality come into play.
Legality refers to the fact that the power that the State, its institutions and the government uses, conforms to the law, for example, legal institutions advance their actions according to what is stipulated in the normative order of the State and this leadsthat his action is unquestionable to the citizen;the independent legitimacy of legality approves the action of the State for its effectiveness;Depending on the degree of acceptance under these two reasons for the political power of the State with respect to citizens, they will cooperate or hinder their operation, which will be reflected in actions such as respect for the law and the payment of taxes.
Within the state apparatus, in the beginning the idea of the separation of powers was aimed at achieving the efficiency of the institutions and preventing citizens from being overwhelmed, but as the State evolves, more institutions arise and itsoperation, and articulation, the division of powers has to go hand in hand with specialization, in addition to independence.
The specialization of the State by effectiveInstitutions must lead to the adverse effects that may arise as a result of the centralization of political power, which can become a threat to individual rights and freedoms, which would go against the reason of being of the State that according to John Locke,It is the political power aimed at the protection of individual rights
Montesquieu, meanwhile, identifies the division of powers with the need for control of it, since the power corrupts, however, considers that the legislative power must be supreme, that the Executive must deal with international relations and judicial only of theApplication of laws and must be independent of others, to guarantee the supremacy of the Legislative Power proposes that this exerts its control function from the budget, threatening to deprive the Executive of funds if he thinks he is imposed, but gives the Executive the Executive the powerof veto on the legislation issued by Parliament, which in turn must be bicameral so that they can be made counterweight at the time of approved legislative initiatives.
Kant says that the branches of the power of the State must be separated to avoid tyranny, but must operate in a coordinated manner and complement each other in order to protect the integrity of the State Constitution.
Faced with the articulation of the power branches that make up the State and the institutions that are part of them, it is evident that they work with a certain level of autonomy, but in turn operate under a harmonic collaboration model that interrelated them, within thewhich must exercise among themselves control of power to guarantee a balanced functioning of the state aimed at common interest.
Leave feedback