The State is an entity expected to provide its citizens with protection, order, and stability.
Does it provide protection? Does it maintain stability? Does it prevent chaos? Does the state honestly fulfill its role? The State is an entity expected to provide its citizens with protection, order, and stability. It is the backbone of society; a source of both stability and strength. Individuals agree, “we judge a society by how we treat our elderly, needy, and sick” (Doerksen, 1). Based on this statement, the Canadian State is not living up to society’s expectations. In Canada “social policies are being redesigned to diminish their impact on provincial and federal budgets” (Harder, 176). Recent welfare cuts confirm the notion that the government can no longer satisfy the roles and responsibilities towards the state. These social program cuts have revealed the government’s failure to suitably perform its duties of protection, stability and order.
Protection is the primary function of the state. This remains ignored by the recent modifications to the welfare scheme. Lipson claims that state protection is a reflection of the citizens “desire for security of life and limb” (43); a force, which citizens can believe will safeguard and defend them. Presently, the state fails to protect the basic needs of its people. The new legislation will force over 29 000 welfare recipients off government funding in April 2004 (Jones, 1). This vigorous action demonstrates the conventional belief that the only way to end citizens’ reliance on the state is to coerce them off the system. Judith Lavoie reports the government’s claim that all recipients, who will be forced off welfare, are able workers who will most likely find a job (Lavoie, 1). Unfortunately, the facts have proven the opposite. The article declares “that only two thirds of those who will have their welfare benefits terminated will be both qualified and capable of finding work, the other one-third will remain vulnerable” (“30,000 lose welfare in April,” 1). This decrease in both social assistance and protection, displays the state’s negative social power. The power, which is exercised by the state, is expressed in both utilitarian and persuasive forms. Although, the government exists as a monopoly, it cannot justify the withholding of life’s essentials from its citizens. In the end, the state uses its power to influence the unemployed. Unfortunately, the consequences of this type of power are uncertain and can be catastrophic. In theory, the state should utilize its power to protect the interests of its people; in reality however, the state’s power endangers the survival of its citizens. Over 100,000 people, in British Columbia alone, rely on welfare as a last resort (Lavoie, 1). Many will find themselves struggling to make ends meet while others will lose their homes. The government is expected to protect people from poverty. By contrast, it seems that the government’s actions only increase the risks of poverty. Welfare was designed to provide the public with a better quality of life and “Hacking away at the country’s social safety net is not the way to make Canada a Northern tiger” (Bauch, 1). The role of the state should be to strengthen social programs in order to both support citizens and better protect their needs. The two-year welfare regulation reveals both the state’s failure to protect its citizens’ needs and the state’s abuse of power. Ultimately, people of a state are entitled to the basic necessities of life. To deprive an individual of this is not only a breach of protection, but also a total disregard of state duties.
