LIBERALISM 15 page

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 358.

Political nationalism is a complex and diverse phenomenon. Its major forms are liberal nationalism, conservative nationalism, expansionist nationalism and anticolonial nationalism. Liberal nationalism assigns to the nation a moral status similar to that of the individual, meaning that nations have rights, in particular the right to self-determination. As liberal nationalism holds that all

-254-

nations are equal, it proclaims that the nation-state ideal is universally applicable. Conservative nationalism is concerned less with the principled nationalism of self-determination and more with the promise of social cohesion and public order embodied in the sentiment of national *patriotism. From this perspective patriotic loyalty and a consciousness of nationhood is largely rooted in the idea of a shared past, turning nationalism into a defence of traditional values and institutions that have been endorsed by history. Expansionist nationalism is an aggressive and militaristic form of nationalism that is invariably associated with chauvinistic beliefs and doctrines, which tends to blur the distinction between nationalism and *racialism. In its extreme form, sometimes referred to as ‘integral' nationalism, it arises from a sentiment of intense, even hysterical, nationalist enthusiasm. Anticolonial nationalism linked the struggle for ‘national liberation' in Africa, Asia and Latin America to the desire for social development, and was typically expressed through socialist doctrines, most commonly through the vehicle of revolutionary *Marxism. However, developing-world nationalism has since the 1970s assumed a postcolonial character, which has been expressed most clearly through *religious fundamentalism.

Significance

It would be difficult to overestimate the significance of nationalism to modern *politics. For over two hundred years nationalism has helped to shape and re-shape history in all parts of the world, making it perhaps the most successful of political creeds. The rising tide of nationalism re-drew the map of Europe in the nineteenth century as autocratic and multinational empires crumbled in the face of liberal and nationalist pressures. This process was continued in the twentieth century through the Treaty of Versailles (1919) and culminated in 1991 with the collapse of the political successor to the Russian empire, the USSR. Both the First and Second World Wars were arguably the result of an upsurge in aggressive nationalism, and most regional and international conflicts are to some extent fuelled by nationalism. The political face of the developing world has been transformed since 1945 by the rise of anticolonialism and a subsequent postcolonial process of ‘nation building', both of which are essentially manifestations of nationalism. On the other hand, there have been claims since the late twentieth century that

-255-

nationalism has become an anachronism. These claims are variously based upon the fact that nationalism has achieved its aim in that the world is now mainly composed of nation-states; that nation-states are themselves losing authority as a result of *globalisation and the growth of *supranationalism; and that ethnic and regional political identities are displacing national ones.

The normative character of nationalism is notoriously difficult to judge. This is because nationalism has a schizophrenic political character. At different times nationalism has been progressive and reactionary, democratic and authoritarian, rational and irrational, and left-wing and right-wing. Nationalists argue that a ‘higher' loyalty and deeper political significance attaches to the nation than to any other social group or collective body because nations are natural political communities. Nationalism is merely the recognition of this fact given ideological form. Supporters of nationalism, moreover, view nationalism as a means of enlarging *freedom and defending *democracy, since it is grounded in the idea of self-government. Such a defence of nationalism is most easily developed in relation to liberal nationalism and anticolonial nationalism. However, opponents of nationalism argue that it is implicitly and sometimes explicitly oppressive, and that it is invariably linked to intolerance, suspicion and conflict. Nationalism is oppressive both in the sense that it submerges individual identity and conscience within that of the national whole, and because of the potential it gives political leaders and elites to manipulate and control the masses. The argument that nationalism is inherently divisive stems from the fact that it highlights difference amongst humankind and legitimises an identification with, and preference for, one's own people or nation; in short, it breeds tribalism. This may be implicit in conservative nationalism and explicit in expansionist nationalism, but all forms of nationalism may harbour a darker face that is essentially chauvinistic and potentially aggressive.

PATRIOTISM

Patriotism (from the Latin patria, meaning ‘fatherland') is a sentiment, a psychological attachment to one's *nation, literally a ‘love of one's country'. The terms patriotism and *nationalism are often confused. Nationalism has a doctrinal character and embodies the belief that the nation is in some way the central principle of political

-256-

organisation. Patriotism provides the affective basis for that belief, and thus underpins all forms of nationalism. It is difficult to conceive of a national group demanding, say, political independence without possessing at least a measure of patriotic loyalty and national consciousness. In that sense patriotism is sometimes considered to be a weak form of nationalism. However, not all patriots are nationalists. Not all of those who identify with or even love their nation see it as a means through which political demands can be articulated. For instance, to support one's national team in sporting events does not necessarily imply support for national self-determination.

Significance

Patriotism is widely considered to be natural and healthy. It is natural, as sociobiologists have argued, for people to seek security through group membership and to identify with others who share similar characteristics to themselves. It is desirable both because it is a means of generating national unity and solidarity and because it builds in individuals a sense of rootedness and belonging. Conservatives, and in a more extreme sense fascists, have therefore seen patriotic loyalty as the basis of national identity, and linked patriotism to *citizenship. However, patriotism has by no means been universally accepted. Opponents of patriotism, who tend to espouse forms of *liberalism and *socialism, view it as an irrational herd instinct that harbours chauvinism and breeds bigotry. In this light patriotism operates through a distinction between ‘them' and ‘us': there has to be a ‘them' to fear or hate in order to give ‘us' a stronger sense of loyalty and identity.

REGIONALISM

Regionalism is the transfer of decision-making authority from central government to intermediate bodies which stand between the centre and *local government and have territorial jurisdiction over a region or portion of a *state. Regionalism thus implies *decentralisation but without calling the integrity of the state and the final *authority of national *government into question. However, regionalism is an ambiguous and contested concept.

-257-

Regionalism, for instance, may take the form of *devolution, in either its administrative or legislative guise, or it may involve *federalism, in which case regional or provincial bodies are constitutionally entrenched and exercise a share of *sovereignty. The term is also sometimes applied to cooperation between and amongst *states in particular regions of the world, through the idea of regional integration. Regionalism at an international level may thus take the form of *intergovernmentalism or *supranationalism.

Significance

Regionalism has generally become more respectable and has, in states ranging from the UK, France and Spain to Canada and India, become a more powerful political movement since the 1960s. The forces supporting regionalism include the growth of ethnic and cultural *nationalism, and the declining capacity of the *nation-state to maintain a high level of political allegiance in an increasingly globalised world. In that sense regionalism may be a counterpart to *globalisation. However, it is sometimes argued that regionalism is only appropriate to certain states, notably to relatively large and culturally diverse states in which there are strong and meaningful traditions of regional political loyalty. Criticisms of regionalism fall into one of two categories. They either warn that regionalism threatens the *nation's territorial integrity by strengthening regional loyalties and identities at the expense of national ones or, from a separatist perspective, they argue that regionalism is a device employed by central government to contain and control centrifugal pressures within the state. This latter view implies that regionalism may take the form of ‘regionalisation', the process by which central authorities respond to regional demand without redistributing policy-making power.

SUBSIDIARITY

Subsidiarity (from the Latin subsidiarii, meaning a contingent of supplementary troops) is, broadly, the *devolution of decision-making from the centre to lower levels. However, it is understood in two crucially different ways. In federal states such as Germany,

-258-

subsidiarity is understood as a political principle that implies *decentralisation and popular participation, benefiting local and provincial institutions often at the expense of national ones. This is expressed in the idea that decisions should be ‘taken as closely as possible to the citizen'. However, subsidiarity is also interpreted as a constitutional principle that defends national *sovereignty against the encroachment of supranational bodies. This is expressed in the commitment that the competence of supranational bodies should be restricted to those actions that cannot be sufficiently achieved by *nation-states.

Significance

The principle of subsidiarity is important because it addresses the question of the most appropriate level within a political system at which decisions should be made. In advocating that political decisions should always be made at the lowest possible level of government, it clearly endorses *decentralisation. However, it is better thought of as providing a test of appropriateness: if a governmental function can be carried out as efficiently or effectively by smaller or lower bodies, then it should be devolved, otherwise larger or higher bodies should take responsibility. The notion of subsidiarity is most firmly established in federal systems such as those in Germany and Switzerland, where it has been used in its political sense in allocating powers appropriately between federal government and provincial bodies, and sometimes between provincial bodies and *local government. The term has gained a wider currency, however, since its use in the Treaty of the European Union (Maastricht Treaty) of 1993. Opponents of Euro-federalism have used subsidiarity in a narrow constitutional sense as an embodiment of the rights of member states, and as a defence against the growth of a European ‘super-state'.

SUPRANATIONALISM

Supranationalism is the existence of an authority that is ‘higher' than that of the *nation-state and capable of imposing its will upon it. Supranationalism thus differs from *intergovernmentalism

-259-

in that the latter allows for international co-operation only on the basis of the sovereign independence of individual *states. Although, strictly speaking, empires are supranational bodies, being structures of political domination that comprise a diverse collection of cultures, ethnic groups and nationalities, supranationalism usually refers to international bodies that have been established by voluntary agreement amongst states, and which serve limited and specific functions. The best examples of supranational bodies are therefore international federations, such as the European Union (EU), in which *sovereignty is shared between central and peripheral bodies. However, the EU is a difficult body to categorise as it encompasses a mixture of intergovernmental and supranational elements and is thus more accurately described as a federalising than a federal body.

Significance

The advance of supranationalism has been one of the most prominent features of post-1945 world politics. It reflects the growing interdependence of states, particularly in relation to economic and security decision-making, but also in matters such as environmental protection, and the recognition that *globalisation has perhaps made the notion of state sovereignty irrelevant. From this point of view the shift from intergovernmentalism to supranationalism is likely to be a continuing trend, as intergovernmental action requires unanimous agreement and does not allow for action to be taken against recalcitrant states. For instance, the United Nations, strictly speaking an intergovernmental body, acted in a supranational capacity during the Gulf War of 1991 by sanctioning military action against one of its member states, Iraq. This drift towards supranationalism is supported by those who warn that respect for state sovereignty is simply misguided, or that it is dangerous in that it allows states to treat their citizens however they wish, and produces an anarchical international order that is prone to conflict and war. Supranationalism is therefore one of the faces of *internationalism. Opponents of supranationalism continue, on the other hand, to stand by the principle of the nation-state, and argue that supranational bodies have not, and can never, rival the nation-state's capacity to generate political allegiance and ensure democratic accountability.

-260-

FURTHER READING

Anderson, B., Imagine the Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991).

Axford, B., The Global System: Economics, Politics and Culture (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995).

Batley, R. and Stoker, G. (eds), Local Government in Europe: Trends and Developments (London: Macmillan, 1991).

Bogdanor, V., Devolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979).

Camilleri, J. and Falk, P., The End of Sovereignty? The Politics of a Shrinking and Fragmented World (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1992).

Gellner, E., Nations and Nationalism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983).

Hindley, F.H., Sovereignty (New York: Basic Books, 1986).

Hirst, P. and Thompson, G., Globalisation in Question (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995).

Kegley, C. and Wittkopf, E., World Politics: Trend and Transformation (New York: St Martin's Press, 1995).

King, P., Federalism and Federation (London: Croom Helm, 1982).

Meny, Y. and Wright, V. (eds), Centre–Periphery Relations in Western Europe (London: Croom Helm, 1995).

Reynolds, C., Modes of Imperialism (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1981).

Smith, A.D., Theories of Nationalism (London: Duckworth, 1991).

Taylor, P. and Groom, A. J. R. (eds), International Organisations: A Conceptual Approach (London: Pinter, 1978).

Tivey, L. (ed.), The Nation-State (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1980).

Wilson, D. and Game, C., Local Government in the United Kingdom (London: Macmillan, 1994).

-261-

Glossary of Key Political Thinkers

-262-

-263-

-264-

-265-

-265-

-266-