Politics (1990) l O ( 1 ) pp40-46

MICRO=STATES : A SPECIFIC FORM OF POLITY?

JEFF RICHARDS

IT MAY be a matter of debate whether or not ‘small is beautiful’in the political world but political scientists can learn much from the study of communities where the influences connected with the operation of politics and government can often be more plainly seen than in a large state. This article is concerned with an examination of some of the major characteristics of such small independent political communities, or micro-states as they are sometimes called, and raises the question of whether they may reasonably be regarded as a specific form of polity. Initially this involves a consideration of the basic distinction between the small community which is part of a larger political system and the small independent community. I then seek to explain how the latter can present the paradox of over-arching pressures for conformity coexisting with what can be at times a very deep factionalism. The dilemma posed by modernisation for these communities is also explored, together with some of the arguments concerning the allegedly differing characteristics of conflict in ‘smaller’ and ‘larger’ political systems, and the role of personality politics. The conclusion presents the case for the recognition of the micro- state as a specific form of polity.’

Definitions2 A micro-state is a very small state. To define it, however, one must be clear about the meaning given to both ‘small’ and ‘state’. In neither case is the meaning as obvious as it might seem at first sight. The contemporary notion of the state is the product of a complex and varied history. It is a concept of rich and flexible significance which hinders attempts at precise definition. Amongst the various criteria usually thought necessary for an entity wishing to be regarded as a state are a given territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to entertain relations with other states. There are a multitude of complications here as far as ‘small’ polities are concerned. In short, any definition of ‘micro-state’ can only be arbitrary and for the purposes of this short article certain working definitions will be adopted. Micro-states have been defined by the United Nations Secretary-General as ‘entities which are exceptionally small in area, population, and human and economic resources, and which are now emerging as independent states’ (UN DOC, 1967, para 164). A more specific working definition was given in the UNITARSeries No 3 Status and Problems ofvery Small States and Territories (UNITAR, 1969, pp 221-9) which refers to polities with a population of less than one million. It is, of course, possible to have a small-scale society in a very large territory; it is also possible to have part of a large-scale society in a small territory. Benedict (1967, p 45) states that ‘the criteria of scale for territories are land and population; the criteria of scale for a society are the number and

40

MICRO-STATES: A SPECIFIC FORM OF POLITY

quality of role relationships’. With the main areas from which evidence to support the propositions advanced here has been drawn we are concerned with small-scale societies which are also micro-states, ie they are small independent communities. They are tolerably self-contained in all social respects and inclusive, possessing their own organs of political representation and a self-conscious political identity. These areas are the Faroe Islands, Malta, and the Isle of Man. Each of them meets the criteria for micro-states both in terms of land area size (being less than 1,000 square miles) and population size (being less than one mill i~n).~

Some General Aspects of Small-Scale Political Societies One of the features of small-scale societies in general is that there tends to

be an overlapping and coincidence of roles compared with more structurally differentiated larger societies. Not only are there fewer roles in a small-scale society but, because of the smallness of the total social field, many roles are played by relatively few individuals. It is common in anthropological studies of small communities that economic, political, religious, and kinship systems are very often coincident or nearly so. The same individuals are brought into contact over and over again in various roles and activities. W e r e n t types of primary group tend to coincide or overlap in large measures’ (Firth, 1951, p 47). According to Talcott Parsons (1949, p 191) ‘the more two people’s total personalities are involved in the basis of their social relationship, the less it is possible for either of them to abstract from the particular person ofthe other in defining its content’. This is what occurs in a small-scale society. Where the total sotial field is small, relationships tend towards particularism. Smallness also tends to present certain common economic problems which may be listed briefly as follows: 1. small internal markets, with subsequent lackof opportunity for diversity,

2. reliance on one or a few industries, these being mainly for export or

3.lack of large locally based industrial enterprises, necessitating a search

4.a proportionately high cost of government; 5.an overall population loss through emigration with its impact on the

demographic pattern; 6. the dilemma over offering economic advantages to attract foreigners and

foreign capital versus the political disadvantages for the natives reflected particularly in nationalist anti-foreign feeling over their presence, and the attendant effect on employment, housing, cost of living, and the unsettling influence or onslaught on the traditional way of life and local culture.

In short, the very fact of smallness in general terms means a tendency to greater homogeneity and particularism in society. The implications in terms of the nature and operation of political activity are of major significance.

specialisation, division of labour, and economies of scale;

services;

for outside capital;

4 1

JEFF RICHARDS

Government and Participation One of the cardinal features of life in small polities is the ubiquity of government. In a small state one cannot progress very far in any public or business activity without running into government in some shape or form. The same is true as far as progressing up any occupational or prestige ladder is concerned. The established elite must necessarily be small. Opportunities for upward mobility are limited and more easily monitored by those in power because the whole social fieldis smaller. Closely knit families, particularistic ties within the community, and traditional bonds of patronage or clientage all tend to militate against radical internal social mobility. A small governing elite is not of course a peculiarity of small states. The relative power of decision-makers tends to be compounded, however, by the coincidence and interlocking of role relationships among the established elite. Decisions in the economic, political, and legal fields have a pervasiveness which they lack in larger societies. This is because people are connected to each other in so many different ways and because the implementation of decisions can be more readily checked on and enforced by economic, political, legal and social pressures. This pervasiveness of politics and governmental authority through its dif€usion via individual and office-holders is one of the most marked features of such polities. It is often assumed, particularly in the advanced western world, that smaller state systems provide more opportunity for citizens to participate effectively in reaching decisions (Dahl and T u b , 1974). This is by no means always the case in practice. Smallness tends to facilitate greater comprehension of the political structure and the individuals involved but does not necessarily ensure greater participation. What is clear, however, is that it is often easier for the citizen of a small polity to perceive a relation between his own self- interest or understanding of ‘the good’ and that of the general or public interest. Conversely in larger states where there is likely to be a greater diversity of beliefs, values and goals, social and economic characteristics, occupations, and so on, it is more likely that the link between the views of the individual and the policy of the general good will not be seen. The distances, literally and metaphorically or social and geographical, between the part and the whole are shorter in the small polity. In addition it is less likely in a larger state that the single interest of one section of the society will dominate the whole system. Thus larger states are more likely to generate multiple or pluralist loyalties to the various ‘communities’ within the wider society. By contrast in the small state the pressures towards conformity and homogeneity are more likely to produce a feeling of loyalty to the idea of a single integrated community.

The Paradox of Consensus and Conflict One major consequence of the above can be seen in the perception of the relationship between state and society. Society in large states is much more an autonomous aggregate of groups separate from the state, whereas in small polities society and the state are still very closely intertwined. This linkage takes place through individuals and personalities rather than impersonal organisational bureaucracies representing the state. The result is a stronger feeling of ‘community’ partly due to the relative absence of alienation often said to characterise the relations between individuals and the state in large-

42

MICRO-STATES: A SPECIFIC FORM OF POLITY

scale societies. The notion of the community connoting togetherness, shared interests and common identity equates more closely with that of the whole society. But the conversely, such differences that do occur are more personal, more intense, and more emotionally charged. A key development in modern western societies has been the depersonalisation of the state; in other words the changing nature of state power away from the personal authority of particular rulers towards the exercise of an abstract and ‘rational-legal’ power. In small-scale states, however, people are more likely to display some degree of emotional commitment towards civic relationships as these are represented through or by people and stand for values with which they can identify. This contrast of small-scale personal involvement with large-scale neutrality in respect of civic and public affairs finds a further expression in the way in which individuals regard their fellow citizens. There is a paradox in the contrast between the stress on conformty and compliance which reinforces the pressures for homogeneity with respect to beliefs, values, and goals on the one hand, and the depth of factional feeling which can be found in small-scale polities on occasions. In small states people are more likely to consider each other as friends or enemies according to whether they agree or disagree on politics. The paradox is explained by the depth of feeling involved over divisions in small-scale communities; it is the other side of the same coin. Just as friendships run deeper then so do enmities, involvingmany aspects of life.

The Dilemma of Modernisation The pressures for homogeneity and solidarity are both internal to the small independent community and external through the challenges and problems posed by the outside world. The outside world looms larger to the micro-state than it does to others. Key political questions are concerned in the case of every micro-state with the place of the country in the world economy and the degree of external penetration which may be desirable or inevitable, and what form it should take. The basic dilemma which confronts these polities in this respect is how to retain that distinctive self-conscious identity which marks them out as a separate and unique national community while at the same time making the necessary accommodation with the outside world for reasons of economic survival and material improvement. Economic success can bring its own problems. In the words of the old Faroese saying: ‘It takes strong shoulders to bear good fortune’.

Conflict in ‘Smaller‘ and ’Larger‘ Systems Many of the characteristics noted in respect of conflict in small systems are oRen taken to apply only to small areas within political systems, such as villages, small towns, or national subsystems. Dahl a n d m (1974, p95), for example, argue that in all democratic countries at any rate conflict would tend to have the characteristics ascribed to larger systems’. Indeed, they claim that ‘the available qualitative and impressionistic evidence indicates that among the smaller European democracies, conflict does not have the characteristics ascribed to %maUer systems”; on the contrary, these countries seem to fit mainly the description of conflict in ”larger systems” ‘. I would argue against this if by the term ‘smaller European democracies’ they include the micro-~tates.~ Conflict in the micro-states still largely exhibits the

43

JEFF RICHARDS

characteristics common to ‘smaller systems’. The extent of diversity in a political system is a function of at least two different sets of factors: 1. unique historicallcultural influences and social organisational factors

such as size, especially of population; 2. the extent of the modernisation process including specialisation of labour

and industrialisation together with the density of population, particularly as marked by the degree of urbanisation.

The social-organisational factors are highly inter-related and generally reflect the transition from the small-scale traditional forms of social organisation to the urban and modern forms. That is to say, divergence grows with modernisation. Among the organisations characteristic of this ‘modern’ society are competitive political parties. It follows that even in a relatively small political unit, urbanisation, industrialisation, and increasing socio- economic complexity are likely to lead to more highly organised party competition, and to styles and forms of polities in general that a t first sight appear to be characteristic of larger units. Another feature of modernising polities, whether large or small, is that as overt political conflict becomes an everyday feature of political life institutionalised processes are found necessary to prevent controversy from escalating into the sort of conflict which could destroy the basic framework of the society and state. This channelling and resolution of public conflict increasingly takes place through formal and impersonal organisations rather than through informal, face-to-face negotiations by the antagonists themselves. The most visible organisation involved in conflict articulation and management in representative democracies is the political party. The local political culture is of course a major determinant of the way in which a political system operates. Even within a large nation-state one can find a mixture of party conflict and community consensus at local and national level. Small societies which are also small states, however, have firstly greater societal homogeneity and secondly a re-emphasis of the over-arching need to present a uniform front to outsiders through common institutions and practice. The strong pressures which tend to encourage conformity can sometimes create a situation of ‘apolitisme’ in small homogeneous political communities. In such an atmosphere opposition is frequently seen as weakening, disruptive, u n d i w e d and divisive. The notion of a legitimate and ‘useful‘ opposition owes much to the operation of a parliamentary system where it also serves to articulate to the government of the day some of the criticisms and concerns of society at large and to keep it ‘on its toes’. In micro- states, however, the separate society at large is seen to be less visible in the small personalised world which has a closer unity between state and society through the individual office-holders. Therefore the perceived need for an opposition in this classic sense tends to be weaker. Certainly as far as external factors are concerned a community which can present a united front to the outside world is considered to be stronger. The role of political parties tends to be viewed similarly in the sense that as separate entities they are less important than the over-arching homogeneous community, whether that be of myth or substance.

44

MICRO-STATES: A SPECIFIC FORM OF POLITY

The Role of Personality Politics One of the most marked features of political life in micro-states is the enhanced importance of the individual political personality. In a society where particularistic norms are stronger and where ‘everyone knows everyone else’ it is to be expected that the whole personality of a politician will interest the electors. The dividing line between private and public concerns tends to become blurred. Moreover, other factors such as the politician’s background connections of family, locality, and sub-group affiliations become more important. Where a political party system has still not taken a strong hold, the personality of the individual becomes of even more significance. This is evidenced by the nature of the relationship between politician and elector, the manner of electioneering and canvassing support. The brokerage role, the doing and promising of personal favours, reinforces the necessity of face-to- face contact between individuals who are often known to each other as neighbours in the locality. Even in a micro-state where a party system has developed more fully the style still remains highly personalised. The importance of the personal network of contacts which individuals have in small polities in linking various groups and the community as a whole together is a feature which should not be overlooked. It is important to show that one has contacts with various individuals and groups in the community and appreciates their support. It is difficult in a micro-state to explain to a candidate that while you have chosen not to vote for him it is ‘nothing personal’. As a further result of these pressures the ‘good constituency member‘mustbe the ruleratherthan theexception. Lifeinasmallindependent community is not like Time magazine, where the sections dealing with politics, education, religion, and so on are neatly separated. In a micro-state one deals with the whole person not the partial person in one segregated capacity.

Conclusion My argument has been that micro-states can be differentiated from the style of both national and local politics in the large polities of the world and stand on their own in a specific category. They are more than mere hybrids or ‘half- way houses’ between large states proper and the local subdivisions within such states. The differences are qualitative as well as quantative. It is the combination of the societal homogeneity and particularism associated with smallness; the strong self-conscious feeling of a collective cultural identity asserted against the outside world; the more intimate relationship of state and society; the prominence of personality politics and its impact on the political parties; the relatively muted role of opposition - it is all these factors and more located together within a discrete area which give the micro-state its separate and distinctive character. I have attempted also to explain the paradox of strong pressures for overall consensus coexisting with what can be at times deep conflicts in these national communities. It is here that the face- to-face dimension and the role of personality politics are so important in placing social limits on conflicts between individuals and factions through inter-related brokerage networks. Persons whose loyalties are dividedbetween the conflicting sides have a vested interest in the maintenance of peace and the limitation of disharmony in a way that is not easily found in large scale

45

JEFF RICHARDS

modernised political systems. In short, social relations in a small independent community are to a very considerable extent governed by the spirit of the Maltese saying, ’Don’t make an enemy of your neighbour’.

Notes 1. This article is based on research which followed an initial ‘think-piece’ paper

entitled The Size Dimension In Politics - Some Aspects Of Smallness presented to the Political Studies Association Annual Conference held at Sheffield University in 1979.

2. The problems concerning definition of terms used in this area are legion, as are those relating to the scale and context of the micro-state. A competent discussion can be found in Dommen and Hein (1985).

3. It may be argued that, whilst Malta is a sovereign state, Man and the Faroes are political dependencies of larger states. There is a time scale dimension here. Certainly Malta is legally a sovereign state now but until 1964 it was a British ‘appendix’ like the Isle of Man. Man and the Faroes both enjoy ‘Home Rule’ status and neither are part of the European Community, although both the United Kingdom and Denmark are, which poses interesting questions of international law and relations. More importantly for the purposes of this article the Manx and the Faroese regard themselves, like the Maltese, as a unique self-conscious political and cultural community in a very real (if not totally sovereign) sense.

4. Stein Rokkan (1968) offers a useful typology for the examination of ‘smaller European democracies’ in his seminal work in this area. It should be noted, however, that the terms ‘smaller European democracies’ and ‘micro-states’ (even when ‘democracies’ and ‘European’) are not necessarily synonymous.

References Benedict, B (ed), (1967), Problems of Smaller Territories, Institute of Commonwealth

Dahl, R A and M e , E R (1974), Size and Democracy, (Stanford University Press). Dommen, E and Hein, P (eds) (1985), States, Microstates and Islands, (London:

Firth, R (1951), Elements of Social Organisation, (London: Penguin Books). Parsons, T (19491, The Professions and Social Structure’, Essays in Sociological Theory, Pure and Applied, (Illinois: Glencoe Press).

Rokkan, S (19681, The Structuring of Mass Politics in the Smaller European Democracies : A Developmental Typology’ Comparative Studies in Society and History, 10, pp 173-197.

Taylor, R (1969), ‘A Statistical Typology of Micro-states and Territories: Towards a Definition of a Micro-State’ annex to Status and Problems ofvery Small States and Territories, (UNITAR, Series 3, mimeo).

United Nations (1967) Introduction to thehnua l Report of the Secretary-General on the Work ofthe Organisation, (22 UN-GAOR, Suppn 1A- UN DOC M6701lAdd 1).

Studies, Paper 10, University of London, (London: Athlone Press).

Croom Helm).

46