The abusive and intentional use of the word “State”

In Portugal, news comes out practically every day in which, in the title or content, expressions such as “The State attributed”, “The State offers”, “The State makes available”, “The State allows”, “The State benefits”, “The State assists”, “The State monitors”, “The State punishes”, among others of the same nature, are found.

This type of expression leads any ordinary person to consider that the word “State” represents or means, simply and without major complications, a large entity that manages, cares for, guides, educates, punishes us, always in a paternalistic tone.

This use of the term "State" in the aforementioned terms is frequently made by some (or even the vast majority) representatives of political bodies, whether members of the Government, the Presidency of the Republic, members of the Assembly of the Republic, heads of local government bodies, and even public administration officials. The big question, in this regard, is whether this is done because it is a habit already ingrained in the mental makeup of these individuals, or whether this use is intentional (and abusive, as we will explain below).

Returning to the concepts with the help of old dictionaries, the word State will mean, in the aspect we are analyzing, "A socially, politically, and legally organized people, which, having its own administrative structure and government, has sovereignty over a given territory." It can also be considered as "The government, the highest administration of a country" (1). In a more legal analysis, the concept of State can mean "...a territorial collectivity in which a people is established, governed by a sovereign political power, whose institutional activity, exercised within the framework of a legal system, aims to satisfy general interests." (2).

From the analysis of the translation of the entry or the legal concept of the word “State”, three elements seem to be inseparable from what should be understood when this word is used: people, territory, political power.

Why do most people, and the political class in particular, insist on isolating only the element of "political power" when using the term "State"? We would add another nuance: what is the purpose of these same people in using the term "political power" even more restrictively, usually referring to the power granted to the country's Public Administration to manage public services and resources?

In this context, let us return to the power of language: in a society like Portugal, where the vast majority of decisions, guidelines, and plans depend on the Public Administration, where the Government is its highest representative and executive body, where civil society has little influence and influence, and where the private economic sector finds itself in the shadows and embrace of the public sector, it is the holder of power in general who is intentionally interested in continuing the tradition of attributing to the word "State" its common, mentally recognized meaning. Allowing these same people to even consider that they themselves—i.e., the people—are included in the concept of "State" could mean a loss or concession of power by the rulers to their governed, a situation that no political party with governmental responsibilities, whether at the central or local level, seems willing to concede.

In this Portugal captured by powers, interests, corporations, there will be no interest in “pulling” the “people” element from the concept of State to the current decision-making sphere, restricting itself to voting as its only weapon, the possibility of which only arises from time to time.

Portugal's greatest leverage can and must, essentially, come from changing the mental structure of each of the people who make up this nation-state. And this path begins with language, with a broader and critical understanding of concepts, which allows us to elevate our thinking and question what is "publicized" as politically correct. And no, the state doesn't give us anything: we give ourselves, whether through work, taxes (which should only be used for functions related to state sovereignty), and the pursuit of our own happiness (where family is an essential element). This is despite the constant attempts to convince us otherwise, both abusively and intentionally.

*In memory of Gustavo Pacheco, a courageously convinced liberal.

Ref:

1 – In “Koogan-Larousse-Selections Encyclopedic Dictionary”, Editora Larousse do Brasil, Ltda, Rio de Janeiro, 1979, p. 349.

2 – See CARLOS BLANCO DE MORAIS, In “Constitutional Law Course – Law and Normative System”, Volume I, Almedina, 2022, p. 13.

Editorial note: The views expressed by the authors of the articles published in this column may not be fully shared by all members of Oficina da Liberdade and do not necessarily reflect the Oficina da Liberdade 's position on the topics discussed. Despite sharing a common view of the state, which they want to be small, and the world, which they want to be free, the members of Oficina da Liberdade and its guest authors do not always agree on the best way to achieve this.