A region is a political tool.

HEMIS no.: 125851

Page

A Region is a Political Tool

In the Concise Oxford Dictionary, the word ‘region’ has been defined as “an area of land, or division of the earth’s surface, having definable boundaries or characteristics”. It can therefore be said that a region may serve many different purposes for both human and physical processes. A region may be a naturally occurring phenomenon, such as a range of mountains or the course of a river, and hence be a distinct physical observation. However, a it may also be seen to be a human-devised locale, drawn out for the benefit of people in order to distinguish different sections of land. The most obvious examples of this type of region to us are the national borders of the countries of the world, whereby the particular nation states can govern and safeguard their populous within these written boundaries.

Despite this, it is important to note that artificially imposed political parameters, such as national borders, are not the only boundaries put into place to define a region that incorporates human activity. This is because it is obvious that areas show their own social, cultural, and economic diversity. Such issues present us with an interesting argument as to the relevance of politics in declaring a region.

The purpose of this essay is thus: to identify the extent to which politics is responsible for defining boundaries, and whether other forces are also successful in creating identifiable regions.

One of the first questions we must ask as to the purpose of regions is why do we as human beings designate them in the first place? Traditionally, humans have often defined the areas of land on which they live and work (and ultimately die) as their own personal territory. It could be said that this is the origin of the human region; a marked area of territory on which mankind carries out his daily life. Historically, such areas were likely to be defined by physical features of the landscape, such as rivers and mountain ridges and so on and so forth. This is a process that can still be found in the modern world, as it is a method used, particularly in tribal communities, as a way of pronouncing domestic terrain. Societies that can be evidently included within this parameter are certain African peoples such as the Zande tribe of the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly known as Zaire), and some of the indigenous inhabitants of the Amazon rainforest. Much closer to home, boundaries of this nature are still in existence from medieval times: the River Tamar has been the border between the counties of Devon and Cornwall in southwest England for centuries.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Although some communities define their territory for their own principles and functions, in today’s world these smaller regions are laid out within much larger areas of state boundaries; areas of land mapped out by centralised governments as areas of a well-defined nationality. Within these boundaries, a government can initiate programs to serve the interests of the population; actions such as healthcare, education and transport networks et cetera. Within these states, nations often break down further to outline smaller zones of authority. In the United Kingdom for instance, these regions are known as counties. Although they do have their own political power to a certain extent, its magnitude is kept to a minimum in order to serve in the best interests of the local people and not to impede upon the major laws of the country as a whole. National governments could not possibly dictate smaller regions and give them as much attention as local governments can, so for this reason district regimes are necessary as they have more relevant representation and control at a local level. Examples of this authority in the UK are habitually that of byelaws, that is slight changes or modifications of national laws and regulations to suit the regional community. Rule changes of this nature may include, for example, the restriction of the use of local footpaths.

Other countries across the globe hold a completely different stance on regional government all together. The United States of America for instance is a country whose fifty representative states are not only coupled with the national federal government, but each has its own extensive state-run manifestation which is far more autonomous of the national command than that of local authorities here in Great Britain. In the USA, the individual states have the power to instigate their own, totally independent laws such as minor traffic regulations, authorised age to purchase alcohol or even the age at which a person can get married. In other words, they control the routine management of the state but within the limitations of the federal constitution of the country.

All of these processes clearly show how the marking of a region can be used as a political tool.

Where the states of the USA are regions tied to a central authoritarian system, other organisations respectfully brush over national boundaries for mutual their benefit. However, at the same time their members continue to maintain almost completely individual status.

Europe is a region that is currently locked deep in a period of terrific economic, social and cultural transition. Political endeavours have been brought about that increase as well as aid this evolution. In this world of ever-increasing international relations, the European Community evolved into the European Union following the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in February 1992 in order to promote the freedom of people, money and goods throughout the continent of Europe. With this vision in mind, the EU regulates such practices as the production of crops and the movement of livestock throughout the region in an attempt to harmonise the nations’ economies. It is a further example to illustrate the positive view that a region can be used as a political tool.

Unfortunately, as with any idea it isn’t always perfect. The BSE (commonly known as ‘mad-cow disease’) crisis that swept through the British Isles in the late 1990s led to a massive drop in sales of British meat across the EU region and subsequently all over the world. As the Union does not actually govern the nations that are a part of it, there was and still is a definite slump in the British farming industry. Until faith is one hundred percent fully restored (an occurrence, it might me added, that is highly unlikely) the national economy will undoubtedly continue to suffer.

Nevertheless, as a region the overall success of the EU had since led to the landmark induction of the single European currency, the Euro (€). The Euro began to trade as a so-called ‘virtual-currency’ on the world’s stock exchange at the stroke of midnight on 1st January 1999. The changeover of notes and coins from domestic currencies of the countries in the “Euro zone” was made on 1st January 2002. The introduction of the Euro is history in the making as it is by far the largest monetary changeover the world has ever seen. Indeed, the last single currency in Europe was at the time of the Roman Empire more than 1,500 years ago. Twelve European countries have so far changed over to the new currency. These nations are Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Ireland, Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Finland.

The successful development of the Euro is seen by many as being pivotal to the design of creating a Europe in which people, services, capital and goods can move freely.

As could be expected however, monetary union in Europe is not without its sceptics and opponents. This is because many believe that the single currency could, or indeed will, lead to the creation of a European super-state and therefore the loss of national identity.

Regions fearing the loss of their national identities are not confined to single countries within a group either. A number of areas in Europe alone are actively engaged in regionalism at varying degrees of strength and ambition. The continent is experiencing two opposing political tensions – supranationalism and regionalism.

The European Union is an example of supranationalism; an external force that, in short, removes considerable political powers from the nation states, as they are seen to be significant barriers to the embodiment of an important core idea (in the case of the EU, cross-border links) that it is hoped will prove to be of great benefit to all those involved. This idea influenced Denis de Rougemont, who adopted the extreme view in his 1970 book, ‘Europe of the Regions’ that the breaking down of the European nation states should be the “primary political task of our time” – new regions to be created as a political tool for the shared interests of the people.

Regionalism on the other hand is an internally acting force. Far from being a new phenomenon, regionalism has its roots in the personal pride of local, native identity. Historically, the struggle for regional identity has been a bloody one; from the Scots’ fight for their homeland against the English in the fifteenth century up until the continuing bloodshed that occurs between Israel and Palestine in the Middle East. This conflict of boundaries in particular, it might be said, is a good example of how political clashes may be crossed over with deeper social and cultural aspects of life such as religion.

Where modern politics tries to work with supranationalism (again, the EU may be used as a clear-cut example), it also attempts to address the issue of regionalism. The Scottish National Party is an example of a group of regional activists who campaigned for and successfully held a referendum for its own parliament in 1997. This Scottish Parliament, which sits in Edinburgh, can initiate or do away with its own laws but does not have total independence from the British government. It therefore has similarities with the state governments on the other side of the Atlantic. Wales too has its parties who held a referendum for regional government, but they were unsuccessful in their bid.

Arguments have raged over the belief that although the physical borders of countries remain, the world’s cultural diversity is shrinking. It is reasoned that cause for this is the process of globalisation, which is said to have been aided by free trade, encouraged within the EU and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). Some have claimed that these organisations reduce national boundaries to irrelevance within some spheres of trade, as taxation is no longer an obstacle. Globalisation is a process through which all aspects of modern human existence; cultures, commerce and civilisation, are entities no longer restricted to their places of origin.

All this is true up to a certain point. It can be argued that all regions of human designation may be seen as political tools. Although formal opinionated parties may not be a symbol of them, personal identity – our want to speak out and proclaim our pride in who we are and where we come from - is clearly important to a significant number of us. This passion may therefore define the boundary of a cultural region just as clearly as any national border. As the territorially ruling factions in our world today, governments continue to hold a tight grip on the borders and boundaries around us. But it is the people who ultimately decide upon the common interest of who is who, what is what and what is where.

It also appears that economics is the engine that drives politics today - it seems that no state can be totally self-sufficient and be prosperous. This may be one reason for the demise of Communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, this itself has brought the idea around almost full circle: a region of individually governed countries working in political union for their own advantage.

Bibliography

THOMPSON D (Ed.) (1998), The Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th Edition), Oxford UK

CLAVAL P (1998), An Introduction to Regional Geography, Blackwell, Oxford UK

ISARD W (1975), Introduction to Regional Science, Chapter 7: “The Base, Economic Structure and Development of a City or Region”, Prentice-Hall International Inc., London