The state is a relatively recent development in human attempts to organise their lives together, ensuring basic needs through collective effort. For a long time, people managed to live without a state, and even today, there is room in political philosophy for the popular view regarding the need for, and the possibility of, liberation from the state. Meanwhile, advocates of the state have always emphasised its eternal nature: if a state has been formed, it is impossible to abandon it, and the state is said to be the highest form of social organisation, allowing societal needs to be most fully realised. However, the processes of globalisation, technological advancement, and rapid changes in habits and opportunities once again prompt us to reconsider the suitability of the state in modern circumstances.

The existence of a state must be justifiable; that is, one must answer the question of what benefit is gained from the state’s existence and what interests the state best serves. It is no secret that the countries found on the world’s political map today differ enormously and are often almost impossible to compare. Aristotle observed this phenomenon long ago, describing it in his “Politics” and offering a classification of states. A key role in Aristotle’s classification was the nature of the interests that the state secures. If the state serves the private interests of certain powerful individuals, it is deemed a poor state. Conversely, if the state acts to ensure the common interests of society, it is considered a good state. Defining the common interests of society is complex. It is essential to reconcile individual interests and generalise them sufficiently to demand from the state what is necessary for almost everyone, while at the same time taking into account the individual desires of as many people as possible.

Western democratic, rule-of-law states are organised close to Aristotle’s ideal of a good state: predetermined laws prevail in society rather than the arbitrary will of individuals, the aim of state action is to ensure the common good, and mechanisms are provided to prevent the possibility of individuals or groups seizing state power to act in their own interests. In Western democracies, the goals and frameworks of the state are determined by the constitution – the rules for governing the state.

Constitutions define the most important goals of a state’s existence. They record the matters most important to society, for the sake of which the state was established. Looking at the Constitution of Latvia, it is easy to see what society expects from the state. It is expected that the state will ensure the freedom of everyone and of society as a whole, as well as promote prosperity. The Constitution stipulates that the Latvian state will be the guarantor of the existence of the Latvian nation, its language, and its culture.

However, the text of a constitution, as a plan of best intentions and visions for the future, quite often tends to remain just on paper, failing to influence everyday life. Aristotle also warned that good states tend to “deteriorate” over time. Therefore, what is decisive in a state is not so much constitutional declarations as practical state policy – how the state acts to secure the goals set out in the constitution. Implementing a constitution requires politics – a process in which state goals are concretised through public debate and priorities and actions for achieving these goals are defined. A democratic, rule-of-law Western state places responsibility for politics primarily on society itself. The constitutional principle that state power belongs to the people is no empty claim. Society itself must be involved in the workings of the state and the determination of state action. The minimum level of political participation requires citizens to follow state policy and take part in elections to choose the politicians who will wield state power.

The constitution defines state goals in very general terms, and they can therefore be interpreted broadly. In a sense, this is only logical, as everyone has their own idea of the necessary extent of freedom, the threshold of prosperity, and other things we expect from the state. Therefore, state goals can be refined, aligning them with societal expectations and allowing society itself to decide what it expects from the state right now. This alignment is facilitated by political debate. The diversity of society and the differing demands made of the state result in the existence of competing political offers; citizens must then choose between these offers.

The Constitution of Latvia does not foresee a specific political ideology or only one permissible path by which it is possible to achieve state goals. The Constitution leaves it to society to determine, at any given moment, what policy should be implemented. The Constitution does not grant priority to conservative or liberal, right-wing or left-wing policies. Society is free to choose any of these options, provided it does not violate the boundaries of the Constitution. Political and ideological neutrality (or, more precisely, the setting of inviolable boundaries) is the strength of the Constitution, which ensures its longevity and prevents it from becoming outdated. No matter how societal ideas and quests for a better life may change, the Constitution sets a clear framework for defining public expectations: it is the political process of a democratic, rule-of-law Western state with genuine public debate on policy, free elections in which citizens can truly shape the future, and the admissibility of various future scenarios.

Real political competition allows us to better understand what individual groups in society primarily desire, finding the possibility for sensible compromises aimed at achieving the public good. However, this is only possible if the citizens who make up society take an interest in state affairs and are prepared to set aside time to participate in them. A democratic, rule-of-law Western state, much like the politeia described by Aristotle, can only exist if citizens are prepared to maintain such a form of state.
Article first published in the January 2018 issue of the magazine Rīgas Laiks