Talking about the sovereignty to what I knew before was just a small knowledge compared to what I have come to know after reading more and deeper about it. Though I have heard the word ‘sovereignty’ before, it was quite difficult to define what sovereignty really is. To my understanding before, any independent nations that enjoy freedom and peace was considered sovereignty. I never thought about when and how did sovereignty emerge instead the state conquered by powerful man who can make his people work by force was a sovereignty to me. Having read the text, I came to know that the religion was supreme in the medieval period and then later the supremacy turned into the hands of the powerful man. Garnar (as cited in Gauba, 2008) defines sovereignty as, ‘that characteristic of the state in virtue of which it cannot be legally bound except by its own will or limited by any other power than itself.’
I realized that powerful man with high authority would have acknowledged himself as a God. But while learning about sovereignty in the class, what I knew about the above statement was a categorized sovereignty falling under Political sovereignty. While learning, there are actually two types of sovereignty and they are Legal or De Jure Sovereignty and Political or De Facto Sovereignty.
In the class, when the tutor said that the two types of sovereignty are political sovereignty and legal sovereignty, I was confused to define either of it. Since the word ‘political’ is to do with politics, I thought this sovereignty could be legal. On the other hand, seeing ‘legal sovereignty’, by looking we know it is something legal. Then the real question to me was if both are legal, what is the difference between the two? How can I differentiate the two when both are legal? After having read the book, the main differences between the two are the power and authority. Under legal sovereignty, in The Six Books of the Commonweal (1962), Bodin argued for a sovereign who made laws but was not himself bound by those laws. Another is Political sovereignty that is to do with one’s power (by force) rather than the will of people. Understanding the types of sovereignty in the class, I was able to define what authority and power are.
127 our experts are availableright now
Power is by force making people agree with even if they are not willing to whereas authority is a legal power and the people are willing to do what he says. These two types of sovereignty (i.e. legal & political sovereignty) are traditional theory. Now there is Pluralist theory of sovereignty and from the word ‘pluralist’ itself, I come to know that sovereignty is not influenced by power or by authority rather there is other group that influences sovereignty. Having a little idea from the name, I realized that my understanding about it was right. As understood, pluralist theory of sovereignty beliefs that state is not supreme because there are other associations that influence sovereignty. State is there to associate other associations like family, church, union, local government.
Hearing the tutor saying the above statement, I thought that family, union, church, local government and all play a vital role in contribution to sovereignty. And there are internal and external sovereignty. For me, I know what both means. Internal sovereignty to me was the internal matters or the internal affairs where the country enjoys independency. And external sovereignty is the external affairs where other countries see that particular country as an independent country. Even after reading the definitions of it, I was right about it.
I have learned about cold war and many internal as well as external conflicts in history before, however I haven’t thought that these conflicts such as imperializing, colonizing and all were the challenges to sovereignty. But now when I come to learn more about sovereignty, these are one of the challenges to sovereignty. But I know that these challenges to sovereignty are relevant only in ancient times and not today as we have UN who avoids disputes among countries. And I can say that these act of imperializing and colonizing during ancient times is the direct challenges to sovereignty. These challenges doesn’t work today so new challenge has come up and it’s called Neo-colonialism that can be indirect challenge to sovereignty.
I am pretty sure that neo-colonialism has come up due to globalization. When my tutor said that neo-colonialism is the economic method of colonizing, what suddenly popped in my mind was “China”. Though I was not sure about it, I thought that China is promoting economic trade to colonize its trading partner. Knowing all these, I understood that we as a people of Bhutan who enjoys peace and independent nation should minimize the imported goods from neighboring countries because soon if we keep depending too much on imported goods, there is a big chance that one day Bhutan as an independent nation will be just a story in the history. So therefore, even if we Bhutanese can’t fully produce everything within the boundary, we can at least decrease the consumption of imported goods for the sake of our harmonious country.
The world is becoming tough, big countries have high economic power that have the capability to influence other small countries. It’s in the hands of people the country to either let their country suffer or to strengthen sovereignty by preserving and promoting their country’s trend.
After reading about sovereignty, I m convinced that a country without sovereignty is a hell in real and with sovereignty one can enjoy the fruits of heaven. Doing the assignment on sovereignty really made me realize how proud I m to be Bhutanese and my hearty gratitude to our brilliant ancient fighters who tirelessly fought many tough internal and external conflicts to unite us. And I m convinced that I as a Bhutanese will do my responsibilities and further I will educate my families, friends and other about sovereignty (i.e. why it is important? What are the challenges to it) so that they will contribute to sovereignty.
References
- Gauba, O. P. (2008). An introduction to Political theory.
- Heywood, A. (2005). Political Ideologies: An Introduction (3rd ed.).
