The modern state is not a natural continuation of earlier governance, but a historically new institution that emerged in Europe from the 16th century, defined by its claim to absolute sovereignty as the ultimate, self-referential source of law.

Its core problem is institutional autonomy: the state positions itself as judge in its own cause with no superior authority, leading to the gradual absorption of all other social institutions (family, Church, education, property, money, etc.).

True political centralization and monopoly on jurisdiction are inherent to the state’s logic, not mere size; reducing the state’s functions without rejecting the principle of sovereignty only makes it less visible while preserving its power.

Governance—understood as the set of mechanisms aimed at coordinating social life and regulating conflict—has been a constant feature of human existence from the moment people find themselves living in proximity to one another. Far from being an abstract category, it is a tool for peace and prosperity.

It does not follow, however, that political centralization—so prevalent today—is inherent to every form of governance. Political centralization is not new; the state, however, is.

The state as an institution does not represent a continuation of earlier forms of political organization, but a new historical form that emerged from a series of ideological transformations in Europe beginning in the sixteenth century.

Reflection on the state typically focuses on its capacity for coercion, but what is truly problematic—and what explains that capacity—is its institutional autonomy: the claim to constitute itself as the ultimate source of law without recognizing any authority superior to itself. This quality is not confined to the legal domain; through the production of law, it expands gradually into the rest of society, eroding every institution in its path—whether property, money, the family, the Church, or education.

The Supposed Continuity of the State

Before any consideration of the state, it is essential to distinguish two senses of the term. In its generic use, “state” designates any form of organized political community—in that sense one speaks of the Greek, Roman, or feudal state. In its specific use, it designates a particular historical form of political community with characteristics that make it irreducible to any earlier form.

The problem arises when the generic use slides into the specific and vice versa. In other words, the “state” is presented as a synonym for order and communal life—appropriating classical concepts such as polis or regnum—so that the “state” as a monopoly of law and order comes to be taken for........

© Eurasia Review