556 Journal of the Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies N. 5 / 2015 as it regulates the use of force by the government at the hand of its institutions.67 In the following paragraphs, we intend to analyse the reasoning that underpins this form of state organisation and the yielding of the monopoly on violence to the state. The process by which humankind chooses to live side by side is complex; it is underpinned, in broad brush strokes, by an observation of the advantages offered by life in society as compared to that of an isolated individual. This associative and imaginative capacity is unique to human beings and distinguishes us from other animals. This ability to associate with one another allows humankind to establish rules that help situations of well-being to reoccur, something that other animals may only do instinctively or in an extremely simple manner. This mechanism is what spurs man on to organise the rules governing society. By the same token, human beings are able to set rules that allow them to distance themselves from potentially dangerous situations. Freund refers to an agonal state as he describes a utopic situation in which humankind successfully organises itself into a society and establishes rules that dispel violence from any activity. It is a model of state organisation within which all conflict is substituted by competition. In an agonal state rivalry is ever-present, and may occasionally be conflictive, but the rules preclude any recourse to violence. Hostile intentions also fall outside of the boundaries. Those who do not adapt to these rules are punished (sanctions) and even removed from society (imprisonment).68 The political organisation of modern societies has given rise to models whereby this monopoly on violence has been ceded to the state. We know such models as democracy and autocracy. In reality, in the case of the latter, there is no cession of monopoly, instead a social group, usually lead by an individual, obtains this monopoly on the use of force and employs it to ensure its own order. One fundamental difference between both systems of social organisation is that an autocracy excludes competition from state organisation with a view to safeguarding the order that prevents generalised violence. In current times, we could say that the form of social organisation that most resembles the agonal state is the democratic state.69 organization New York 1966 p 407 apud KHAN, Rasheeduddin, “Violence and economic and social development” in JOXE, A. (coord.), La Violence et ses Causes, Paris, Unesco, 1981 p 192. 67 Apud FREUND. Opus cit. p 90-94. 68 Ibid. p 72-74. 69 Ibid. p 74. http://revista.ieee.es/index.php/ieee
REVISTA IEEE 5
To see the actual publication please follow the link above