State Organization and National Power
Cores and Capitals
Most political geographers believe that the total number of
independent states will surpass 200 in the near future. These
200 plus countries will occupy the surface of a small planet
of which over two-thirds is covered by water or ice! With
such a large number of entities, some large and others very
small, some well-endowed and some poor, it is inevitable
that equality will remain a mirage. We turn now to a
consideration of the human and organizational dimensions
of the state.
A well-developed primary core area and a mature capital
city are essential components of a well-integrated state. The
core refers to the center, heart, or focus. The core of a nationstate is constituted by the national heartland—the largest
population cluster, the most productive region, the area with
the greatest centrality and accessibility, probably containing
the capital city as well. Countries without recognizable cores
(e.g., Chad, Mongolia, or Bangladesh) may have notable
capitals, but these alone do not produce a well-integrated
state. Some states possess more than one core area, and such
multi core states confront particular problems. If the primary
core is dominant, as in the United States, such problems may
be slight but in a country like Nigeria, where three core
areas—none truly dominant— mark ethnically and
culturally diverse parts of the state, serious problems arise.
Core-Periphery Model (Again)
The effects of colonialism have changed the global order of
politics, often creating unequal cultural and economic
relations. The height of the colonial era came in the 18th &
19th centuries, when the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese,
Dutch, and Belgians consolidated their overseas holdings.
The Germans and Italians were latecomers. It was evident,
however, that the small European countries would not be
able to control large, distant empires forever. Elsewhere in
the world, two other colonial powers built major empires:
Russia and Japan. Even the United States got involved late
in the game.
The long-term impacts of colonialism (and imperialism) are
vast and varied. Advances in health care, literacy, and the
fight against many diseases diffused to parts of the colonial
world. However, one of the most powerful impacts of the
colonial era was the construction of a global order
characterized by great differences in economic and political
power.
The World-Systems Analysis proposed by
Immanuel Wallerstein views the world as an interlocked
system of states. In his work, he tied political and economic
geography together. It is a classic core-periphery model.
The core consists of the economically dominant states and
regions (e.g. United States, EU, Japan,…). The periphery
signifies the developing states, whom have little autonomy
or global influence (e.g. Sub-Saharan Africa). The semiperiphery is in the middle, and keeps the world from being
polarized into two extremes (e.g. Eastern Europe). WorldSystems Analysis views the world as a system of interlinking
parts that need to be understood in relation to one another.
Nigeria is a multicore state; its northern core area
lies in the Muslim realm, while the southern core
areas lie in Christian influenced Africa. Pressures
on Nigeria are rising, and disintegration
(devolution) remains a threat.
The core area is the heart of the state; the capital city is the
brain. This is the political nerve center of the country, its
national headquarters and seat of government, and the
center of national life. This special status is often recognized
by using the name of a country’s capital interchangeably
with that of the state itself. The primacy of the capital is yet
another manifestation of the European state model, one that
has diffused worldwide. In general, the capital city is the
pride of the state, and its layout, prominent architectural
landmarks, public art, and often its religious structures
reflect the society’s values and priorities. It is the focus of the
state as a political region.
In some countries the capital city is by far the largest and
most economically influential city in the state. Mexico City,
Jakarta (Indonesia), and Paris (France) all fit this category.
Cities of this nature are primate cities, which are the most
culturally expressive of the country and usually the capital.
Some newly independent states decided to relocate their
capital cities, at enormous expense. Some moved them from
a geographically peripheral location to a more central one.
Nigeria’s capital used to be Lagos, but they moved the
capital to Abuja, away from the coast and closer to the
geographic center. Moving a capital city may focus a
society’s attention on a national objective. In Pakistan’s case,
the transfer of the capital from Karachi to Islamabad in the
far north was part of a plan to orient the nation toward its
historic focus in the interior. It has also served to give them
a sense of greater legitimacy to contested land in Kashmir, in
which India has also laid claim to. These cities are often
referred to as forward capitals. Berlin once served as a
forward capital. The United States has moved its capital
several times. From New York City, to Philadelphia, to the
more southern Washington D.C., the U.S. capital was moved
to help unify the nation. Since no region would agree to
locate the capital in another region, the capital was built on
federal territory initially taken from Maryland and Virginia.
Unitary and Federal Systems
All states confront divisive forces—some strong enough to
threaten their very survival. The question is how best to
adjust the workings of the state to ensure its continuity.
When the nation-state evolved in Europe, this was not a
problem. Democracy as we know it today had not yet
matured; governments controlled the use of force and could
suppress dissent by forceful means. There seemed to be no
need to accommodate minorities or outlying regions where
the sense of national identity was weaker. The European
state model was a unitary state and its administrative
framework was designed to ensure the central government’s
authority over all parts of the state. France, for example, was
divided into more than 90 départements, whose
representatives came to Paris less to express regional
concerns than to implement governmental decisions back
home.
European notions of the state diffused to much of the rest of
the world, but in the New World and former colonies
elsewhere these notions did not always work well. In
Europe, the only genuine, long-term federation was
Switzerland, but conditions there were too different from
those in the New World to allow it to serve as a model.
When colonies freed themselves of European dominance,
many found that conditions in their newly independent
countries did not lend themselves to unitary government,
and such situations led to the emergence of the federal state.
Federalism accommodated regional interests by vesting
primary power in provinces, States, or other regional units
over all matters except those explicitly given to the national
governments. The Australian geographer K.W. Robinson
described federation as “the most geographically expressive
of all political systems... federation enables unity and
diversity to coexist.” Canada, Australia. Brazil, Nigeria, and
India are examples of federal governments existing today.
Internal Political Boundaries and Arrangements
“All politics is local,” it is often said, and in truth a voter’s
most direct and important contact with government is at the
local level. Electoral geography seeks to understand how
the spatial configuration of electoral districts and voting
patterns that emerge in particular elections reflect and
influence social and political affairs.
Territories within states are usually subdivided into smaller
areas such as counties, cities, school districts, and voting
precincts. As a result, local government agencies and
municipalities may have overlapping functions, and several
agencies may have jurisdiction over the same geographical
areas. In the United States, proportional representation
prevails in the House of Representatives (Congress), while
the rights of States with small populations are protected in
the Senate. Maps of voting patterns often produce surprises
that can be explained by other maps. Church affiliation,
income level, ethnic background, education level, and many
other social factors are studied to learn why voters voted the
way they did.
Probably the most practical area of electoral geography deals
with representation. When there are a certain fixed number
of seats for representatives in an elected legislature (such as
the 435 congressional seats in the U.S. House of
Representatives), there must be a fixed number of electoral
districts from which those representatives are elected. It is
up to each State to draw a map of congressional districts
from which representatives will be elected.
After the 1990 census, the U.S. government instructed all
States with substantial minority populations to construct socalled majority-minority districts (within which a minority
would have the majority of the voters). Redistricting occurs
after every census because the population shifts: some States
gain seats, whereas some States lose seats. Since people and
ethnic groups are not evenly distributed across the country,
our pluralistic society requires the construction of some
oddly shaped districts in order to adhere to the majorityminority rule.
In 1812, Governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced with a hard
G) of Massachusetts signed a district into law that it gave his
party an advantage. It was so oddly shaped that it was said
it resembled a salamander. A colleague immortalized it by
naming it a gerrymander. Ever since, this term has come to
signify redistricting for advantage.
In 1990, Florida’s
Congressional District No.
3 was designed to create a
majority-minority district.
It had about 310,000
African-Americans, 240,000
whites, and 16,000
Hispanics. In some places,
District 3 was no wider
than a highway!
The spatial organization of voting districts is a
fundamentally geographic phenomenon. Electoral maps are
widely used not just to show who has won and lost
elections, but patterns of support for different candidates
and issues. The 2004 U.S. presidential election displays a
distinct regional and cultural pattern. The map below shows
districts that went for Bush (republican) in red, and for
Kerry (democrat) in blue. It is obvious that red covers more
land area (top map), but if you represent the districts in
terms of population (bottom map) you can plainly see a
different pattern. The blue districts tend to coincide with the
more populous urban districts as opposed to red.
“Below” the State Boundaries
Political boundaries of significance exist both 'above' and
'below' the state. For 'above' the state, boundaries such as
the former Iron Curtain, the current boundary between
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and non-NATO
states, or the European Union are good examples. For
'below' the state, we have already looked at voting districts.
To fully understand the world in which we live in we must
consider the hierarchy of political-territorial organization,
from municipalities (local self-government) and special
districts, to counties, states, and provinces, to the state itself.
In each case, it is important to go beyond the simple
presence of political territories to consider the ways the
political organization of space influences the distribution of
power and opportunity.
It is important to describe
territorial arrangements that may not fit within the usual
hierarchy of political-territorial governance-such as Indian
Reservations in the United States. Such territorial structures
reflect the tension between the dominant political pattern
and antithetical influences.
Focusing attention on smaller-scale political-territorial units
allows us to see how everything from the delivery of
services to the reach of certain laws is affected by the
particular configuration of political territories. We have
already seen how the structure of government differs
between unitary and federal states. For example, laws made
at the federal level in the U.S. may affect local communities
as much as the global community.
Opposing Forces
All states suffer in some measure from disruptive forces, and
all states possess unifying bonds. Strengthening these bonds
to overcome divisions is a principal task of government.
States are held together by centripetal forces such as
nationalism, education, circulation (the system of integration
of and movement through language, education,
transportation, and transportation), and the institutions of
government. By manipulating the system, many countries
have managed to enhance the centripetal forces that shape
unity. Charismatic leaders, whether for better (Churchill) or
for worse (Hitler), also serve as centripetal forces. Religion
has also proved to a powerful uniting force throughout
history (e.g., Catholic Church).
States must also deal with divisive or centrifugal forces in
the form of ethnic disunity, cultural differences, or regional
disparities. When these centrifugal forces outweigh the
centripetal ones described above, the state will collapse. In
recent times we have witnessed the disintegration of the
world’s largest colonial empires, including, in the late 1980s,
the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia collapsed when a quasi-federal
system failed to withstand the forces of division. In newly
independent countries throughout Africa and the Middle
East, tribalism (the affinity toward one’s specific region – or
tribe) has threatened national unity.