Nation and Nationalism

Nation and Nationalism

Nation and Nationalism

The world suffers constant conflicts arisen from the nationalist sentiment. In recent times we have witnessed the dismemberment of the Yugoslav Republic, the disintegration of the USSR, and even the split of Czechoslovakia into two States. If we go backwards something more in the timeline we find all the national liberation movements of the African colonies, or the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. Already in the nineteenth century the process of independence of the Latin-American nations and the formation of two new European nations took place, in this case in a centripetal movement: the German and Italian unifications.

Nowadays, war conflicts or serious political tensions are developing on the basis of nationalist sentiments: the conflict of the Kurdish people, which affects several States, South Sudan and Palestine.

A current paradigmatic case is that of Sudan. It was divided into two States in 2011, with the Republic of Sudan in the north, being predominantly Muslim and Arab, and the Republic of South Sudan in the south, predominantly Black and Christian. Needless to say, behind the nationalist conflicts are always hidden economic interests, in this case oil and natural resources, or simply living standards. It would seem that with this division of the country the nationalist conflict should already be solved, but the reality is that South Sudan is still plunged into a bitter civil war. The two majority ethnic communities in the new country have simply and plainly confronted each other in order to hold the power, with an exclusionary and disruptive approach. Once again, under the nationalist umbrella, what really hides is a struggle to get the power by the elite even at the cost of the suffering of the majority of the civilian population. Once the seed of hatred is sown, the only harvested fruit is violence, responding to more violence and engendering more hate, in an involution that precludes any reconciling solution of the conflict.

We can’t ignore the nationalist aspirations of certain European regional entities, such as: Catalonia and the Basque Country in Spain, Brittany and Corsica in France, Scotland in the United Kingdom, Flanders in Belgium, Padania in Italy, Kosovo in Serbia, Pro-Russian regions in Ukraine, and the case of Quebec in Canada, to cite only the best-known cases.

Faced with such a panorama of conflicts with a common denominator, which is nationalism, we can wonder for its origin and the keys that define it and then draw the appropriate conclusions. We find two definitions of Nation:

1.- Social community with a common political organization and a territory and its own governing bodies, which is sovereign and politically independent of other communities. In this case Nation is synonymous with State or Country. This is a definition considering the legal-political point of view.

2.- Group of people of the same ethnic origin who share historical, cultural, religious ties, are aware of belonging to the same people or community, and generally speak the same language and share a territory. This definition shows a socio-ideological criterion.

The first definition identifies Nation with State, considering it as a social community subject to a common political organization under the protection of a constitution and laws that develop it, forming a legal body that protects and obliges its citizens, settled in a common territory, being at the same time sovereign and independent of other communities. In this sense, Nations are all countries recognized by the United Nations, being in this case synonyms the concepts of Nation, State and Country.

The second definition of Nation, or Cultural Nation, is the one that explains the origin of the nationalist conflicts, since it corresponds to a national feeling of a society that aspires to become a sovereign State. From the international point of view the State is a subject of Rights, characteristic that does not have the Nation.

The liberal or voluntaristic nationalism, represented by Mazzini in Italy, considers that the Nation arises from the will of the individuals that make it up and the commitment that those acquire for coexisting and being governed by common institutions. From this point of view it is the person, who subjectively and individually, decides to be part of a particular political unit through a compromise or pact. A clear example of this sentiment was the Italian unification in 1870.

Conservative or organic nationalism, whose highest representatives are Herder and Fichte in Germany, considers that the Nation presents external hereditary features, expressed in a common language, culture, territory and traditions, generated throughout a long historical process. The nation would then possess an objective existence that would be above the particular desire of the individuals who form it, that’s to say, who belongs to it does it for life, regardless of where it is. It is clearly an idea contrary to the universal liberalism born of the French Revolution. This current opposes the peculiarities of peoples to the rational change towards progress, justice and cosmopolitanism; and the instinct or feeling to the reason. The fruit of this nationalist idea was the German unification in 1871.

Liberalism has its roots in the seventeenth century with philosophers like John Locke, later developed in the eighteenth century in its philosophical-political side. As a result, the Liberal State was created as opposed to the Absolute Monarchy. Faced with the concept of subjects or servants of the King, they opposed that of citizens or men free and equal before the law, and against the sovereignty of the King, that of Nation. The most prominent consequences of this liberal ideology were the independence of the United States in 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789. Finally, the emergence of nationalism occurred throughout the nineteenth century driven by the literary and artistic movement of romanticism.

Romanticism was a cultural movement that emerged as a reaction to rationalism, exalting freedom, individual self and local customs and traditions. It is a subjectivist and individualistic movement, which exalts the individual as itself and the Volksgeist or national spirit, against the universality in force throughout the XVIII century. Sturm und Drang (storm and impetus) was the motto of this cultural current in Germany, reflecting the revolutionary spirit against the order and rationalist ideas prevailing in society until then. Given the appeal to individualism and traditions, its interpretation and practical expression is different depending on the country in which it manifests itself.

The essential elements of Nationalism are:

A common ethnic origin

Shared links of a common history

A common culture expressed by customs and traditions

A shared a territory

They practice the same religion

They speak the same language

They share the feeling of belonging to the same people or community.

If we focus on the current European nationalisms we see that the regions that claim it have shared history, culture, religion, and territory for centuries with the country in which they are integrated. Ethnic origin is not always an argument to expose, to avoid falling into the accusation of xenophobia and racism, at the same time that it would be unjustified given the population mobility that has occurred in the last century. That said, it is also important to note that the nationalist elite is essentially racist and excluding, even if by opportunistic tactics did not manifest it in the initial stages of the nationalist movement, when they consider it as a priority to add as many followers as possible. Perhaps the only objective differentiating sign is, in some cases, the language, and in general the level of development. These few objective elements, conveniently exploited by the political movements that encourage these nationalist movements, generate a sense of belonging to the same people, in most cases on purely symbolic bases, lacking a real base to justify them.

Taking a highest level of economic development as a justification for the craving for independence is, in most cases, a fallacy. The development achieved by some regions has happened thanks to the membership of the State which it belongs to. One could explain individually that level of privilege due to the captive market that they have enjoyed, as a consequence of a protectionist policy of the state itself, which they now deny.

Finally we consider the factor that could be the most essential and in which they try to justify their differential characteristics: culture and language. Within the culture are the traditions, folklore, and artistic creations of all kinds, literary or musical, among others. This is a poor argument, since each region has traditions, customs or folklore that differentiates them clearly one from each others, a fact that no one questions, not being that an excluding reason to belong to the State, which they are part of. It does not make any sense to consider that such a fact can justify a nationalist feeling.

Finally we have the language, which in my opinion is the most distinctive cultural element in a community that tries to singularize itself. It’s clear that language creates bonds of union or identity between the individuals who share it. Starting from that, it develops a whole differentiating cultural content, which nationalists strive to accentuate to the maximum, since it is the basis of their own existence. A clear example is the Basque language, a language that in the 1970s was spoken by scarcely 20% of the Basque population, with multiple local dialects or variants, and thirty years later they managed to increase that percentage to 36%, with a big official expending for their promotion in kindergartens and elementary schools. The obsessive work of the nationalists is to stimulate differences and to soften the similarities and even create differences where they did not exist, where it’s a clear example the Basque language in the Basque Country. This policy is its own raison d'être. Sow and develop the idea of feeling different, provoking confrontation, whose cornerstone is the language accompanied by some other traditional or folkloric elements.

The basic postulates of the nationalists are:

- To develop the own language by institutionally forcing its use and penalizing the common language of the State, even in cases where it is an international heritage, as is the case of Spanish.

- To stimulate the cultural manifestations that, starting with the language and traditions, create a differentiating identity as marked as possible with respect to the State in which they are integrated.

- To blame the central State for all social problems that may arise, to combat the symbols that represent the common state or culture, and to despise its institutions.

- Justify their relative higher standard of living in relation with the rest of the State as a result of their industriousness, and not as a result of the economic policies of the State, that with its protectionism made possible its start and development.

- Alter the story by twisting events to fit the nationalist postulates. Actions are considered good or bad not because of their merits, but according to who performs them.

The ultimate goal of this nationalist process is to create a sense of victimhood in the population, blaming the "oppressor" state for any social problem that may arise. As a result of this policy there is a social gap that separates and confronts the nationalists with those who think differently, in a continuous process of accentuating a supposed and not real differentiation with respect to the rest of the State. For nationalist movements and parties, permanent confrontation, whose ultimate goal is the conquest of power, is its sole reason and justification of its own existence, with total indifference to the penalties that such actions may cause in the population. The constant manifestation of the idea of oppression and confrontation is its tactics, sowing the seed of hatred with attitudes that invite violence, to enter into a vicious and involutive circle that makes impossible a negotiated settlement. When it suits their interests, their representatives participate democratically in the legislative and executive organs of the State, "forgetting" at other times that democratic and legal channels are the only valid to solve any conflict that might arise.

At present, where progress and competitiveness are marked by integrative processes to compete in a global economy, where the big economic zones are the ones that set the pace of development and technological potential, this type of disrupting movement is doubly anachronistic. They’re the big countries that have achieved greater economic and social development, being in turn those who dictate the future of the world.

To conclude, one can wonder why a developed society, with access to a free and diverse culture, pays attention and fanatically follows movements that do not support a minimum critical analysis. A democratic society, with channels of political participation, freedom of expression and all other fundamental rights in force, could not be compared with the social situation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. At that time the States were governed on the basis of the existing power structure of the Old Regime, with monarchs endowed by the Grace of God of absolute power, their subjects being subject to oppression, lack of freedom and lacking the most elemental rights. Then there were plenty of reasons for rebellion and struggle to win freedom and human rights. Today there is no relevant motive in democratic countries.

The accelerated social transformation that we have experienced in the last decades, the phenomenon of globalization, migratory and economic crises, create a void or vertigo in some social groups. Such a changing world has caused a broad reaction backwards. To shrink and turn back to themselves, as if hiding their heads under the wing they were to avoid reality. This explains the growing extreme right-wing nationalism in European countries, with protectionist proclamations, coming out of supranational institutions, and finally returning to a dangerous nationalist position, confrontation rather than cooperation, whose consequences were dramatically experienced in Europe twice in the twentieth century.

The lack of individual moral values derived from an accelerated abandonment of religious morality, prevailing materialism and the lack of a socially implanted ethical code have led to a tremendously selfish and individualistic society. On the contrary, the welfare society's message that the State deals with the citizen from the cradle to the grave, that we are entitled to everything by the mere fact of being born in a certain place, leads us to believe that responsibility for everything lies in the State. With that personal and selfish vision it is always the "others" who have to solve any individual problem. So in this way it is very easy to manifest altruistic insofar as the individual is not affected directly. A paradigmatic case of these contradictory attitudes are the people who defend the open door policy for immigration, but at the same time oppose globalization, when this is the way that allows other nations to raise their standard of living and their citizens do not have to emigrate to the first world.

The individual is a social being and needs the protection of the clan, a clear manifestation of the evolution of tribalism. In a society as depersonalized as the present, this dressing and search for protection is manifested in belonging to secondary social groups, such as membership to a sports club, or to a nationalist political movement, or to such a variety as it could be the Animalist party and so many other groups. It is ultimately a flight back, seeking in the smallest environments the supposed protection against an increasingly global world.

Some authors have pointed out that nationalism is more a political religion than a political ideology, a substitute for religion. As an example we cite Roberto Augusto, who has affirmed that "believing that a given community is a Nation has to do more with faith than with reason, it is an individual belief that can be shared with others and that it is closer to religious thought than to scientist one, hence the difficulty of trying to refute it rationally. "

Jorge Luis Borges pointed out that nationalism is the main scourge of all evils. It divides people, destroys the good side of human nature and leads to inequality in the distribution of wealth.

Finally I transcribe the idea of Nation for the Israeli philosopher Avishai Margalit in The Ethics of Memory (2002), which I believe faithfully reflects the nonsense of fanatic nationalism that occurs in some peoples today. With a clear critical vision he says: "A nation has been defined as a society that feeds a hoax on the ancestors and shares a common hatred for the neighbors. Therefore, the need to maintain a nation is based on false memories and hatred to all who do not share it. "