Lessons for Sovereignty.

What is Sovereignty?

It is often viewed as an ultimate authority to govern self without interference from another. It is the exclusive authority that is capable of delegation. However, this authority is not meaningful if it is not supported by actual power to enforce that authority through decisions and to ensure its security. The relationship between sovereignty and power becomes essential. The concept of sovereignty is frequently more about appearances than substance. It illustrates why mere claims of sovereignty are insufficient.

While States may assert their independence, their authority lacks if they do not have the means to act effectively. This gap between what States claim and what they can actually do highlights that sovereignty claims alone, without the power to enforce it, fails to be practical. Sovereignty involves not just the right to govern but also the practical ability to manage a territory and enforce authority. For example, if a state cannot effectively control its own affairs or respond to threats, its sovereignty is reduced to a theoretical concept rather than a functional reality or perception.

Similarly, some entities might be recognized as sovereign but struggle to exercise real control. Such that when legislation such as the Constitution 2010 positively identifies and puts the sovereign as central emphasis to public participation, it fundamentally defines what governance should look like. It is agreeable then that accordingly effective governance requires more than just a claim of authority; it demands the ability to use various forms of power—whether military, economic, or diplomatic—to maintain control. Without these resources and capabilities, sovereignty cannot be upheld.

Where the Power Lies.

Historically, the concept of authority has been linked to the capacity to enforce rules and provide stability. More recently, its who has monopoly of violence. Without the power to ensure security and manage affairs, authority is a superficial claim. Governance requires more than just making decisions. It needs well-structured systems and mechanisms to implement those decisions. Without these structures, authority remains ineffective and unrealized. When considering individual sovereignty, the challenges become even clearer.

An individual, unlike a state, would lack the necessary institutions, resources, and power to exercise effective authority. This lack of support means that their claim to sovereignty would be weak and unstable. Individuals that would attempt to assert sovereignty would face significant hurdles. One, they would lack the administrative systems which a state has which are needed to enforce rules, the resources to maintain control, and the broad-based legitimacy required to be taken seriously.

Recent instances for example the mass protests witnessed in Kenya show that while individuals might exert some level of control, their authority is frequently dependent on show of might through influence or force. The apparent deduction was that for an individual to exercise effective authority, it is essential to establish robust support systems, secure resources, and gain widespread legitimacy.

Therefore, sovereignty without the means to enforce and protect it is an ineffective claim. Real authority requires substantial power and support to be meaningful. For individuals, achieving effective authority would mean developing the necessary infrastructure and resources to back up their claims.