Reconsider separating the state from civil society

January 2003

Washington DC -- Political Studies professors usually teach their students a simple model, which postulates that in any modern country, there are two broad entities, called ‘the state’ and ‘the society’. 

The model is then superimposed on different countries, and used as one of the numerous measuring rods of their political development: the more advanced a country is, the more prominent is the dividing line between the two entities.

Despite the obvious appeal of such an abstract model, its validity as a measuring rod for political development seems to be questionable (at best).  One of the most significant incidents that points to that weakness took place in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq.  Under the pretext of attempting to stem post-war chaos, the Pentagon awarded uncontested contracts worth several billion dollars to a small number of corporations that have long histories of doing business with the former. 

If isolated, such an irregularity in the relationship between a state-entity and several ‘societal entities’ might seem appropriate in the face of such daunting challenges.  But, put into an historical context, it becomes clear that the Pentagon’s behavior in Iraq simply reflected the way it conducts its business in Washington.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has consistently been receiving the largest share of the US federal government’s budget since the start of the Cold War – hovering between two and four percent of GDP.  With so much money at stake, one would expect higher than usual scrutiny from the tax-payers’ representatives in Congress. 

The reality, though, has been the opposite.  According to Franklin Spinney, a former member of the Pentagon’s Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, the DoD has failed at least four of its most recent annual audits.  

During the same period, at least one trillion dollars has been unaccounted for in the myriad of Pentagon accounting systems.

Another specific incident that has been making headlines recently is the unusual clash between Congress and the Pentagon over a contract that was awarded to Boeing, which would have provided the Air Force with around a hundred re-fuelling air-tankers.  Both Boeing’s CEO and CFO “retired” due to unethical behavior connected to this contract:  during the negotiation process, they actually hired the Pentagon official who was negotiating on behalf of the Air Force. 

They also acquired (from the Air Force) a copy of the Airbus consortium’s own bid for the contract, with the obvious intention of out-bidding them.  To top it all off, the actual contract was framed in such a way that some have referred to it as the Air Force’s bail-out of the troubled Boeing corporation.

With such brazen collusion between individuals from ‘state’ and ‘non-state entities’ in the most powerful and ‘advanced’ country of this world, it is interesting to notice the standards that have been imposed on the countries of the southern hemisphere. 

Furthermore, in the United States, the ripple-effects of decisions made in the Pentagon are felt in all sectors of society.  For example, the correlation between defense spending and economic booms since WWII is undeniable.  Moreover, technological innovation, which is the foundation of American economic growth, depends tremendously on military research and development. 

With such realities, one should encourage students to challenge the notion that there exist only two separate and competing entities called ‘the state’ and ‘society’. 

What is obvious is that under the façade of structures and institutions there is a ‘power elite’ that disregards the barriers of ‘state’ and ‘society’ in order to achieve its own ends.   The only difference between nations is how successful the power elite is hidden from the lime-light.

Raja Abu Hassan is a Political Studies graduate student at the University of Washington, USA.  He wrote this commentary for Alternative