The Economic Theory

The exponents of the economic theory believed that the state developed out of man's economic wants.
Man in isolation could not procure all the necessary things that he needed. To satisfy his wants, he could
not be an island. He had to associate with other men in order to provide themselves with their various
needs through exchange of goods and services and led a societal existence. Thus the state was formed.

The economic theorists were perhaps influenced by Plato in his analysis of the typical state, in which he
claimed that societies arose out of the needs that could be satisfied only if men cooperated with one
another. He conceived the state as a social system of services in which the members both gave and
received not only for their mutual benefit but also for the general well-being of the community."

THE MEANING OF THE STATE

Having studied the origin of the state, let us now turn our attention to the next question: What is the
state? According to James Gamer, the state is a community of persons more or less numerous occupying
a definite territory completely free of external control and possessing an organized government to which
the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.

Benn and Peters refer to the state as a human society composed of individuals bound together by an
order of normative rules "which defend the rights and duties which they have toward one another, the
ends which they may pursue, and the ways in which it is legitimate to pursue them. The state, according
to Rodee et. al., consists partly of government institutions, but "state" is not synonymous to
"government." And to Burke, the state is "an idea that extends through time, and so its characteristics
are drawn from a long history of governments marked by a series of crises and accomplishments." For
purposes of this study, the definition of James Garner is given. more importance since it presents more
fundamental characteristics or attributes of the state of the modern contemporary period.

The above definition of Garner mentions four essential elements of the state: people, territory,
government, and sovereignty.

People. The term people refers to the inhabitants or population of a state. The number of people
comprising the state is not definite. Its population may be small and big depending on the size of its
territory. However, this statement may not be completely true since there are states with large
territories (e.g. Australia and the United States) which are still underpopulated, while smaller states, like
the Philippines, Japan and Italy are thickly populated and so with medium-sized states like India.

The significant problem to consider is whether a country that is thickly populated, but having a small
territory, has enough food supply and resources to maintain a good and decent life for its people, and
whether that country is able to protect its independence against strong and powerful states.

Another important factor to account for is that the people should be politically united. They should have
strong national ties because unity is essential to the continuous existence of the state. They should
possess ingenuity like the Japanese who have been able to make Japan a very prosperous nation.

Territory. The territory consists of the land within the boundaries of the state, the air space above the
land, the inland waters like the rivers, the springs, lakes, bays, mineral and natural resources, and the
twelve miles of the sea beyond the state's coastlines. If the state is an archipelago, its territory also
consists of the bodies of water surrounding, in between and connecting the islands comprising it,
including the sea beds, continental shelves and other marine areas beneath these bodies of water (e.g.
the Philippines and Indonesia).

The territory is an indispensable element of a state. It determines whether the state can maintain its
existence in the modern age of power. In the interplay of power politics, tiny states often seek assis-
tance and protection from one or more of the bigger powerful states to preserve their existence. Small
states do not have enough land area to produce enough food to feed their own population. They lack
raw materials for industrial purposes and enough power resources to make themselves economically
stable. There are exceptions to this situation. Japan, England, and Germany are world powers because of
their highly industrialized economy and technology that develop their rich natural resources. Thus,
resources are also as important as land area.

An ethnical group of people seeking a homeland or a territory to settle in permanently, like the
Palestinians today could not lay claim to statehood. The same was true to the Israelites when they were
wandering Jews during World War II, until they found a homeland now called Israel and recognized as a
state by the United Nations. Likewise, communist insurgents in the Philippines do no enjoy the status of
statehood not until they succeed in bringing a substantial portion of the Philippine territory under their
control. If they succeed in doing so, democratic Philippines becomes a com- munist state. But this is
unlikely to happen since the CPP-NDF-NPA has been much weakened by a split caused by conflicts of
policies between leaders of the insurgency movement and due to the downful of communism in Europe
and in the former Soviet Union.

Geography. The geographic location of a state is a very im- portant factor that affects its political,
economic and military policies in protecting and preserving its territory. Island states, like Japan and
Great Britain developed strong navy and air force to protect them from foreign attack. The English
Channel was a natural barrier that protected Great Britain from direct invasion by the Germans during
World War II.

The United States, which is the only superpower left in a new world order after the collapse and
fragmentation of the U.S.S.R., strives on with equanimity in solving its domestic problems and in
developing its abundant economic resources without fear of invasion from any outside force. The United
States, it should be noted, is a continental power with two long coastlines; it has the most modern
nuclear armed forces to defend its territory.

India, the biggest democracy in Asia, recognizes Cambodia as a communist state because it is surrounded
by powerful communist states: the former Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, and Vietnam.

The Philippines, which is an archipelago composing of 7,100 islands or more is very much prone to
invasion because it has the weakest armed forces among neighboring countries. If attacked by an
aggressive neighbor, it cannot defend its territory. The only deterrent of attack is its non-aggressive
policy, its membership in the ASEAN, its mutual defense pact with the United States, and its friendly rela-
tions with other nations of Asia.

Government. Government is the essential instrument or machinery of the state that carries out its will,
purposes and objectives. Through the government the state maintains its existence and carries on its
functions. Government is an institution by which society's needs for social services are satisfied and by
which men's conflicting interests are reconciled.
In the words of Justice William O. Douglas of the United States Supreme Court

Government is the most advanced of human relations. It dispenses the various services that the
complexities of civilization require or make desirable. It is designed to keep in balance the various
competing forces present in any society to satisfy the dominant, contemporary demands made upon it.
As a result’ it serves a high purpose; it is 20 the cohesive quality in civilization.

The government is not similar to the state. The state comprises the entire body of people, while the
government consists only of a few persons within the entire political community. Again government may
change or be completely abolished and a new system may take its place, but the state is always a
permanent polity as long as it retains all its essential elements.

Government is composed of institutions, agencies, and personnel that carry out proliferated functions
such as law and order, defense, justice, and other modern functions related with education, social
services, economic planning, public works services, and world-wide foreign relations. Government as an
overall agency of the state exercises its authority with political legitimacy, which means that citizens
regard functions of government, institutions and its personnel, policies and programs as morally right
and acceptable to them. The authority given to government leaders in carrying out such functions is
derived from the mandate of the people.

What are the purposes and objectives of the state that the government seeks to attain? They are:
establishing domestic order and tranquility, providing for a common defense of the state, securing for
the citizens the blessings of liberty and justice, promoting the general welfare, and advancing public
morality.

1. Domestic Order and Tranquility. The primary purpose of the state that its government seeks to
achieve is the maintenance of domestic order and tranquility. The government can realize this by
providing laws to regulate the people's conduct and an effective system of law enforcement. The
government performs essential func- tions, like the maintenance of an effective police force to
apprehend criminals and suppress domestic violence; and keeping an independent and impartial court
system to settle disputes.

2. Common Defense of the State. Concomitant with the maintenance of domestic order and tranquility,
the government also undertakes to defend the state from external aggression. To attain this end, the
government builds a strong armed force for common defense. Another way of establishing order and
protecting national security is the maintenance of foreign service to promote peaceful and friendly
relations with other nation-states. The Philippines, for example, has a very weak armed force. It has to
employ diplomacy in her territorial claim over the Mischief Reefs, and other islets in the Spratleys to
preserve her national security, rather than settling dis- putes that may arise over the claim with military
power. In the meantime, she has to modernize her armed force to maintain a balance of power between
her rival claimants.

3. Blessings of Liberty and Justice. The third objective of the state is to secure for the people the
blessings of liberty and justice. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the inalienable rights of
man. The freedom of the individual to enjoy these rights is depen- dent upon government, which is
instituted to safeguard them. Freedom of speech and of the press, freedom of association, freedom of
religion, and the rights of persons accused of crimes should not be subject to restraints.
But the doctrine of liberty and freedom does not mean that the individual has the freedom to commit
license. In a democracy he has not only the legal right but the moral responsibility to exercise these
rights with "right reason," and within limits prescribed by law.

On the other hand, the political task of safeguarding individual rights and liberty may not attain the
ideals of democracy if the government does not promote justice for the people. Modern govern- ments
are interested in dispensing legal justice and social justice. for the people. Hence, the promotion of
justice is a very essential political function, especially in regulating the affairs of men and resolving
human conflicts.

Legal justice is administered by the courts under the law. As discussed earlier, legal disputes can be
settled fairly under a system of court procedures. Every party to dispute is given due process of law.

Social justice is concerned with the sharing of the economic wealth of the state. It can be promoted
through equitable distribution of property, through equality in employment opportunities, through the
promotion of labor, social security, and welfare. It is a means by which the gap between the rich and the
poor is bridged.

4. Promotion of the General Welfare. Another important purpose of the state is to promote the general
welfare. This is undertaken by the government by performing service functions, like the creation of
essential public services (i.e. establishment of roads, bridges, hospitals, irrigation systems, schools, etc.),
promotion of health and sanitation, regulation of business and dissemination of public information, and
other governmental activities relative to the care of the general interests and well-being of the state.
Welfare has become an imperative, subject to which modern governments in all civilized countries
operate.

5. Promotion of Public Morality. This end of the state is concerned with value judgments and moral
standards. Governments should set one code of moral conduct for all, including public officers. It should
set a high standard of morality in running the affairs of the state. This can be done when public officials
perform their duties and functions with the highest sense of dignity and responsibility, and when they
consider themselves accountable to their people. In this way, the people will not only accord them
respect and trust but also follow their example.

The attainment of these purposes by the state would make it, as Aristotle said, the most supreme
political community which aims at the highest good to attain the good life.

Sovereignty. A country can hardly be called a state if it does not have sovereignty. Sovereignty is defined
as the supreme and final legal authority of the state to enforce its will on its members by coercive
sanctions, if necessary, which must not be subject to any like power. Coercive sanction presupposes
legitimate force which is the very essence of the state's existence, or any political system for that matter.
Legitimate force runs through the action of the political system that gives it a special quality and
importance." The political system includes not only government organizations such as executive,
legislative, and judicial bodies, and administrative agencies, and "all structures, including family and
social groups, in their political aspects." Security, social welfare, services, and others are related to the
use of legitimate force which generates compulsory actions where obedience is compelled such as
legislations, law enforcement and defense policies. There are two aspects of sovereignty: internal
sovereignty and external sovereignty.
Internal Sovereignty. Internal sovereignty is the supreme or absolute power of a state to enforce its will
on the people within its territory. It implies therefore, that the government must possess adequate
powers to control and regulate the conduct and affairs of the people within the borders of the state. We
can hardly conceive a state that cannot suppress internal violence (for example, rebellion or
insurrection) or which cannot apprehend criminals, nor curb the conduct of lawless elements and other
irresponsible groups. The exercise of internal sovereignty must always be for the general good, since
such supreme power arises from the general will which considers only the common interest.

External Sovereignty. External sovereignty means independence of a state from control by any other
state. External sovereignty of a state should be recognized and respected by the nation-states, otherwise
this attribute would only be a misnomer or a figment of the imagination. If an individual in a democracy
expects his rights to life, liberty and property to be protected and guaranteed by his government, then
each nation-state also looks to the international com- munity to respect its existence, independence, and
territorial integrity.

External sovereignty implies that all nation-states enjoy equality under international law. The Charter of
the United Nations declares sovereign equality of all its members. This principle becomes realistic only if
nation-states within the global community regard each other in a spirit of international amity and
cooperation. In large measure, this goal can be attained by the conduct of foreign policy that promotes
international friendly relations among nation-states. Why do new states immediately seek membership
in the United Nations? The reason is: "to establish their recognized right to sovereign equality."23

In the operation of the international political system, however, sovereign states are not really equal. The
legal claim to equality or independence is belied by many factors of inequality such as: territorial size,
geographic location, population size, natural resources, technological and industrial development,
agricultural development, economic and political stability, military strength, and cultural values. But
every independent state has the legal right to impose its own will upon its inhabitants in its own
territory. Basically, this is the substance of sovereignty and equality.

There are two doctrines enunciated by the United Nations Charter for adherence of nation-states, big or
small, in their relations with each other in the international community. They are the doctrines of
territorial integrity and territorial supremacy. Territorial integrity refers to the right of a state to resist
and reject any aggression, invasion, or intervention in its affairs from outside its territorial boundaries.
25

Territorial supremacy means that the state has the legal authority and power to impose what it wants to
all the people: individuals, groups, organizations or associations inside its territory without interference
from any other foreign power. These are the fundamental attributes of external sovereignty or state
independence. But these legal principles remain only as concepts if states, especially the weaker ones,
do not seek the ingredients of power which will reinforce their legal competence and enable them to
assert their real independence in the arena of world politics.

This concept of external sovereignty was influenced by Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527). In this book,
The Prince, which was written for his prince, Lorenzo de Medici of Florence, Italy Machiavelli made
recommendations to him, suggesting that the rule of the Prince should be free from control by the
Church. At that time, the Pope was claiming superiority of Church sovereignty over that of temporal
rulers. In fact long before Machiavelli advised Lorenzo de Medici to resist the Papal claim, Marsiglio de
Padua theorized that the sovereignty of the state must take precedence over that of the Church, on the
ground that sovereignty is essentially a political, not a religious, concept.

However, Marsiglio de Padua's theory was forgotten in the medieval age of obscurantism; and it was
Machiavelli's view that became the basis of the modern theory of external sovereignty. As stated earlier,
external sovereignty, or independence of a state should be extended recognition and acceptance by
other nation-states in the international community to clothe it with de jure status.

Characteristics of Sovereignty. Sovereignty is absolute, comprehensive, permanent and indivisible.

1. Absolute. The exercise by the state of its sovereign powers is absolute in the sense that the state is
not subject to restriction by any other power. Jean Bodin (1530-1597), father of the modern theory of
sovereignty, defined sovereignty as the supreme power over subjects and their possessions unrestrained
by law. It is unrestrained by law because the sovereign is the source of law.

In like manner, the state through its government is the ultimate authority that can enforce the law upon
its own people or upon any organization or association within its territory. No other force can restrain its
action.

De Maistre, a French political philosopher during the French Revolution defended the absoluteness of
sovereignty by asserting that every kind of sovereignty was absolute in nature. Sovereignty is "always
one, inviolable, and absolute" no matter where it is located and how it is defined.

However, in reality, we cannot say that the sovereignty powers of a state are absolute, especially when
the state has treaty agreements with other states. Treaties are the chief basis of international law, and if
a nation-state is signatory to a treaty, say, a defense treaty or a military agreement, then it has to
surrender some sovereign rights that infringe upon certain provisions of the treaty. No matter how
strong and powerful that nation-state may be, it has to pattern its policy according to the provisions of
the treaty to which it is a signatory.

Thus, in this sense, international law limits the sovereign power of a nation-state. In international
relations, many so-called independent nation-states are actually dependent economically or militarily on
one or more of the big powers.

For instance, the Philippines although declared independent from Spain on June 12, 1898, became again
a colony of another foreign power - the United States - upon proclamation of the American President of
official occupation of the country by American forces. When the United States granted the Philippine
political independence on July 4, 1946, it did not have absolute independence during the ensuing years
for it remained a vassal of United States economic imperialism.

However, the rejection by the Philippine Senate of the U.S.- Philippine Military Bases Agreement in 1991
removed in effect all American facilities in the Philippines for the preservation of Philippine sovereignty
and the enforcement of the principle of sovereign equality in the relationship between the Philippines
and the United States.

2. Comprehensive. The sovereignty of a nation-state is comprehensive for its supreme legal authority
extends to all the citizens, aliens, associations or organizations within its boundaries. There is an
exception to this characteristic of sovereignty. Rules of international relations, however, provide several
exceptions to this characteristic. Under the principle of mutual respect or international courtesy,
diplomatic immunity is extended to foreign ambassadors and ministers together with their respective
families during the period of their assignment in the host nation-state. Under the principle of ex-
territoriality, diplomatic immunity means that diplomatic representatives and their families are
exempted from the local juris- diction of the state.

3. Permanent. Sovereignty is perpetual in the sense that as long as the state exists, sovereignty also
exists. This is so because sovereignty is an inherent attribute of the state. Rulers may be ousted through
elections, or they may be overthrown from power through revolutions. Government may be changed
from one form to another. But as long as the state exists, sovereignty is always present as one of its
elements.

4. Indivisible. As a characteristic of sovereignty, indivisibility has caused misunderstanding among

political theories. Bodin, for example, sought to prove the indivisibility of sovereignty by his theory that
sovereignty should reside in an absolute monarch un- restrained by law because the sovereign is the
source of law. It is perpetual and inalienable and not subject to prescription. Yet, he also advocated the
sovereign should be limited by the laws of the nation, laws of God and the natural law." There is no
doubt in the mind of Bodin that the sovereign is required to respect agreements involving political
obligations toward his subjects or toward other sovereigns and the right of private property.

Another limitation on Bodin's theory of state sovereignty is the existence of a peculiar class of laws
which are essentially connected with the exercise of sovereignty and which the sovereign cannot change.
These laws are called leges imperii which cannot be violated by the sovereign.

Sovereignty, according to Rousseau, a French social contractualist and political philosopher who came
much later than Bodin, is inalienable and indivisible in terms of the "general will" which is posited in the
great body of people. Such a general will is always for the common good of the polity. For every act of
sovereignty, every act in the name of the general will binds and favors all the citizens equally. The
general will is the people's will and not particular individual wills.29

All that is important to understand about indivisibility of sovereignty is that such supreme authority or
supreme will is the monopoly of the state. The exercise of authority may be delegated to the various
organs of government, or even to subdivisions of the state for certain purposes. This concept may be
best applied to a federal system like that of the United States. Between that of the United States and
Hawaii, a component part, which is sovereign? In this case, there can be no two supreme powers in a
state; only the United States is sovereign: it is the only locus of sovereignty.

However, Hawaii can be independent from the federal government when it exercises governmental
powers on local matters. But the exercise of such powers should conform with the political system of the
United States. Moreover, such exercise of powers by Hawaii as a "state" is not an exercise of sovereignty.
If it ever exercises a sovereign power for a certain purpose that power is only delegated by and is derived
from the supreme authority of the United States.

Types of State Sovereignty. Sovereignty may be also classified as legal sovereignty, political
sovereignty, popular sovereignty, de facto sovereignty, and de jure sovereignty.

1. Legal Sovereignty. Legal sovereignty is defined as supreme authority of the state expressed by the law
and the constitution. This definition is supported by John Austin, a famous nineteenth century English
jurist, who is in his Lectures on Jurisprudence describes law as a supreme command enforce by the ruler
upon his people who in turn render habitual loyalty and obedience to the ruler. Austin calls that law
positive law.

Whichever authority has the power to make the law or amend the constitution, that authority exercises
legal or constituent sovereignty. In Great Britain, it is the Parliament that exercises the legislative as well
as the constituent sovereignty inasmuch as it has the power not only to enact laws, but also to amend
the English Constitution. In the United States, the legal sovereignty is exercised by the United States
Federal Congress proposing amendments to the Constitution and three-fourths of the states ratifying
them. In the Philippines, it is the Congress or the Constitutional Convention and the people which
exercise legal authority. Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed by the Congress, a
Constitutional Convention, or by the people through initiative. Proposal from Congress requires 3/4 vote
of all members of Congress. The question of calling a Constitutional Convention requires 2/3 vote of all
the members of Congress or by a majority vote of all members therein, with the question of whether or
not to call a Constitutional Convention to be resolved by the people in a plebiscite.

Proposal for the people through initiative on the other hand requires the petition of at least 12% of the
total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3%
of the registered voters therein.

Political sovereignty is the supreme will of the state expressed by the electorate. Political sovereignty is
also called electoral sovereignty in the sense that this supreme authority of the state is exercised by the
electorate in the choice of public officers at least during election time. The exercise of electoral
sovereignty is done in a manner by which the electorate exercise the untrammeled choice of public
officials in a clean, honest, peaceful, and credible election. In this way, a free and genuine democracy is
achieved in which the power of the people prevails over the machinations and deception of a few greedy
men.

3. Popular Sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is supreme authority of the state which resides in the
people. This authority means that the people are the ultimate source of power and so they possess
coercive power to control government through which they allow themselves to be governed. It was said
that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. For instance,
when the martial law dictatorship failed to address itself to the hopeful expectations of the Filipino
people from 1972 to 1986, the people rose in a peaceful revolution, called the "people power" or EDSA
revolution; they successfully overthrew the dictatorship. Just as a new democracy was restored in the
Philippines, the winds of change veered towards community countries in Europe where people yearning
for freedom were able to overthrow the communist dictatorship to be free. The winds of change later
wrought havoc to the Soviet Union and fragmented it into free independent republics. As a result a new
world order set in almost everywhere to uphold the concept of popular sovereignty.

This view is embodied in Locke's theory of popular sovereignty in which the citizens have the vested right
and power to choose their representatives in the parliament. These representatives exercise powers of
government, the power to make laws, in accordance with the will of the people. If they abuse their
authority, they may be changed or replaced. This means that rulers or public officials chosen by the
people may be changed through peaceful elections or at worst, through revolutions.

Rousseau's theory of popular sovereignty points to the "general will" of the whole political community,
or body politic, acting as the seat of supreme sovereignty. Whoever refuses to obey the "general will"
may be compelled to do so by the whole community. Every act of sovereignty, reflecting the general will
affect every citizen equally. Such act is not between a superior and an inferior, nor between government
and the governed, but between the political community collectively and is members individually. Thus,
the general will is legitimate by reason of the social contract and can have no other end or purpose
except that of the general good.

4. De Facto Sovereignty. This type of sovereignty, called de facto, is vested on a person or a group of
persons who have succeeded in displacing the legitimate sovereign. The authority or coercive power of
this person or group of persons exists in fact and is sanctioned by the people within the state territory. A
more recent example of a unique exercise of popular sovereignty was the "people power" or EDSA
revolution as was explained above. This revolution started on February 22 and ended on February 25,
1986. When the deposed President and his family left the country to Hawaii on the night of February 25,
there was acceptance by the Filipino people of the success of the revolution. This acceptance was an
established fact. However, from the legal standpoint, the revolutionary government that was established
after the installation to the presidency of Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino was not sanctioned by the
Constitution for the power that it exercised was not found in the Constitution or in the laws. Hence, the
revolutionary government was de facto.

However, this supreme will of the state lacks the essence of full legitimacy when power of the
government to govern is not recognized by the international community. The source of legitimacy is
purely internal.

The de facto status of the first Philippine Republic which was established upon the proclamation of
independence on June 12, 1898, is a very good example in support of the above principle. Those coun-
tries that did not extend recognition to the newly-born Philippine Republic viewed it as a de facto state
exercising de facto sovereignty.

5. De Jure Sovereignty. A state is de jure from the viewpoint of recognizing states. Its sovereignty is de
jure. The theory of de jure sovereignty is that the supreme legal authority of the state is based on the
supremacy of law. Many political writers aver that the manifestation of state sovereignty is in the
fundamental law promulgated by the sovereign people. This means that sovereignty is formally
expressed by the constitution and by the laws enacted conformably with its provisions.

With reference to the revolutionary government as explained above, it was at its inception illegal for lack
of a constitutional basis. But in time it acquired a de jure status when it gained wide acceptance from the
people and recognition from the community of nations. Under these circumstances, the structure of de
jure sovereignty derives therefore from de facto sovereignty

STATE VERSUS NATION

Many people are of the belief that state and nation are one and the same and therefore can be used
interchangeably. However, political scientists distinguish the two terms as different concepts.

A state is a political concept, a legal fiction. It has perpetual existence as long as its four elements people,
territory, government, and sovereignty are intact. A nation on the other hand, is an ethnic concept, a
sociological collectivity of individuals who possess in common certain non-political characteristics, such
as common racial origin, common language, common religion, common historical experience, a common
cultural and social tradition, or common beliefs and creeds. There must be among them a common
unifying bond that holds them together emotionally, culturally, spiritually and socially. They must
demonstrate a spirit of national unity.

Even if some of the essential elements of a nation may not be present, like absence of common racial
origin, or religion, or common culture, or those of a state, like absence of sovereignty or lack of territory,
provided the spirit of nationalism is strong among the people, they still constitute a nation although they
do not form a state.

The United States and Switzerland may be cited as good examples of countries having peoples of
different racial origins, languages, religions, cultures, and traditions. Yet their peoples are animated by a
strong sense of solidarity and love for their country. It is important to present here the statement of
Lester B. Pearson, former Canadian prime minister and Nobel Prize winner, about nationalism. He said
that the most frequently recurring factor in the molding of nationalism is what he called "a common
culture. common habits, common traditions, common customs," but above all, "a common desire to live
together as a separate group, a communal society with certain well-defined loyalties and objectives."
The latter part of Pearson's statement characterizes the nationalism of the peoples of the United States
and Switzerland. It may also refer to the nationalism of the Israelites. In spite of Israel's internal factions
which originated from various origins, her overriding concern is her security and preservation as a
nation-state. "National morale in Israel is high, and it centers around the determination to survive as a
nation-state, to maintain the homeland for the Jews." Israeli nationalism is enhanced by the presence of
an enemy near Israel's borders (referring to the Arab states) equally conscious of having a mission of
preserving a homeland for a nation coming from a variety of backgrounds.

The Philippines is composed of population groups with diverse cultures, customs, languages, and
religions. But over and above their regional ties is the more predominating and overriding belief that
they are first and foremost Filipinos, rather than Ilocanos, Pampangos, Tagalogs, Bicolanos, Visayans, or
Muslims. The Filipinos success- fully gained their national independence successively from two colonial
powers Spain and the United States. Their nationalist leaders kept aflame the embers of anti-colonial
nationalism. They successfully staved off American influence in the removal of U.S. bases in the
Philippines. In the economic front, the Philippine nationalist leaders, especially in Congress, have been
trying to protect national interest against the stranglehold of the World Bank, International Monetary
Fund (IMF) and other foreign financial agencies.

Nationalism is associated with such famous names as Rousseau, who aroused love of one's country
through his writings; Renan, who called the nation a soul, a spiritual principle; John Stuart Mill, who
considered nationalism as a necessary condition for government to function according to nationalities;
Mazzini, who championed liberal nationalism; Hitler, who vigorously insisted that purity of blood or race
is the only element that molds a nation. And to Rizal, a nation is built by a bond of national unity of a
people that becomes desirable and enduring due to their sacrifice.

Indeed, nationalism is a very strong force that cements together a people into a nation, which, in turn, is
sine qua non to the emergence and continued existence of the modern state. Nationalism is probably
the most important ingredient in making a nation. When it becomes identified with a political
community given the necessary elements, it gives rise to a nation-state.