|
The
idea of a nation is the basic conception of the
existence of a State, whether the idea of democracy
legitimize the survival of the State. However, both
Democracy and Nationalism could be a complementary or
opposing force.
Nationalism Primordial or Modern Idea
Ethnic nationalism's search for social homogeneity is
profoundly traced back in the enlightenment era of
German and Italian unification in the second half of the
19th century; however, one of the classic
questions in the study of nationalism, that of whether
it is primordial or modern. One way of stressing the
urgency of the question is to note the entirely split
within the different concept and ideas of the emerging
power of nationalism. Gellner's descriptive sociology
insisted that the industrial mode of production of
modernity demands national homogeneity, that homogeneity
can often only be achieved brutally, by mass population
transfer, forced integration, ethnic cleansing and
genocide (Gellner, 1994: Chapter six).
However, the idea of a nation State could also be trace
back to the 100 years wars between France and Britain
during the Middle Age. What seems to matter most of all
in the first creation of nations is not
industrialization but state competition. As early as
1244 legislation was passed in England, in the aftermath
of defeat in war, preventing the aristocracy owning land
on the continent. As the social reach and financial
burden of war intensify, so does national
homogenisation. It is in the administrative and
fiscal interests of a state to have a single lingua
franca, and to that end a language is selected and
endorsed and injunctions often issued against any
continuing use of alternates. Coercion is not, however,
everything. Adaptation to an official language brings
the benefits of law, whilst its use in any case
initially only concerns the few. The experience of
geopolitical competition leads to ever more powerful
cultural innovation. Relations between geopolitics and
nationalism have continued to matter a very great deal,
not surprisingly since modernity comprises states as
much as industry.
Nationalism is the most popular, simple, fanatic, and
irrational ideology (see comments below).
Mussolini and Hitler approach nationalist ideas to
legitimize its mandates. The glory and greatness of the
nation always became a myth in every modern man and any
other ideologies were open to nationalist ideas since it
would rally mass support, and legitimize mass politic,
which is the trend of modern government. Even communism,
which was based on the internationalization of a unity
of workers, walks along the line of nationalism. There
is every type of biological, social and political
explanation of a nation, and it is revised and modified
to suit the environment of any modern contemporary
nation-states institutions.
Democracy and Nationalism
Immediately after the end of the Cold
War, there was much talk of a "New World order," and
even of the "end of history." The general idea was that
one of the two great political ideologies of the
twentieth century, Marxism-Leninism, had been
discredited, leaving world politics free for the triumph
of its only serious rival, liberal democracy. It was
widely assumed that liberal democracy consisted of three
main elements: human rights, democracy and market
economics. The idea that a new world order could and
would be built on this conception of liberal democracy
has been undermined by the outbreak of violent ethnic
conflicts, the persistence of brutal dictatorships, and
by resistance to its implementation, and even to the
recognition, of universalistic principles by appeals to
state sovereignty, economic or political necessity,
and/or cultural difference. (Freeman: 2000,
The Perils of
Democratization,
11).
Liberal-democratic theory notoriously neglected the
topics of ethnicity or nationalism. Democracy is defined
as a system presupposed in a single ethnos because there
is no such word as Ethnocracy. In the founding period of
modern democratic theory, Rousseau required either that
democracy be constituted by a common ethnos, or that, if
ethnic diversity were permitted, ethnicity must be
strictly subordinate to "the general will of the
people." The lack of guidance of democracy towards the
issue of nationalism provoked each nation to to deal and
experimentized its form of democracy without destroying
its national interest and sovereignty. Many of the
twentieth century nationalism was a creation of an
artificial needs in complementary or adjacent to the
State.
Multinational Empires collapsed or started to decay in
the last quarter of the 19th century and the
first half of the twentieth century. The result, were
the creation of many States adjacent to its cultural and
national conception and the creation of many independent
multicultural and multinational ex colonies, which
boundaries was not determined by its national and
cultural division; however, by its old colonial
boundaries.
In
the early phase, the friction of each nationality in
those countries unified trough colonial force is however
not seen, and it illustrated the opposite force since
those nationalities had a common cause, which was to
fight the forces of colonization. However, nationalist
feelings and conception based on historical cause would
sooner or later lost its value, just like the
Multi-National Empires lost its colonies. With that
reason soon countries created, an artificial feelings
and empirical nationalist ideas, not based on the usual
conception of a nation, but not less bizarre and
irrational than the usual conception approaching an
opportunist based and flexible need of the State.
How Modern Democracy Deal With Nationalism
What
is citizenship within this social world then? Is it now
possible to detect a movement beyond narrow national
homogeneity to some sort of multicultural civil
nationalism?
As democracy approach
or integrate to our socio and political life, conflicts
started to narrow down and spread to many different
cultural, and ethnic minorities dominated by other
dominants or majorities. The presence of democracy
provokes separatist nationalism. In contrast, a
totalitarian regime impedes the strong desire to have an
autonomous determination of a particular group of
people. Every new democratic regime, especially after a
prolonged authoritarian experience, has to decide how to
face this episode and how to incorporate it into the
national history. This is an extremely delicate task
because it involves considering the complicities of part
of the national community with the dictatorship.
All authoritarian and,
to an even greater extent, totalitarian experiences
leave some sort of fratricidal memories in the nation,
since all dictatorships enjoy the support of part of the
national community and its more or less active
participation in the repression of the other part. This
problematic legacy of national conflict has to be dealt
with by the new democracy which has to decide how to
integrate the authoritarian period into the history of
the nation, and which continuities and discontinuities
to emphasize with respect to former periods. More
specifically, the democratic government will have to
decide which national commemorations to discard, given
the need to detach itself from the dictatorship, which
to preserve, given the necessary continuity of the
national community, and which new national foundational
dates to create, given the importance of reinforcing the
democratic regime with new sources of legitimacy.
All new democratic
regimes have to dissociate themselves from their
predecessors in order to make it clear that a different
period is being inaugurated. Even before approving the
new rules of the game, the new elites feel compelled to
abolish certain elements inherited from the previous
regime such as commemorative dates directly linked to
the legitimacy of the old regime. Governments, in
transitional periods, have to decide what to do with the
past while, at the same time, maintaining the political
equilibrium among the various forces in order to
stabilize the new democratic regime.
Democratic government
had usually and often to deal with reshaping a new
national identity that usually lead up into conflict of
ethno-nationalism that disrupts the process of
democratization. However, a strong sentiment and
perception of the importance of democracy should and
could unify separatist and nationalist, into a peaceful
resolution. Separatism is a consequence of a
long-standing resentment towards the central government,
it is therefore, very important to show a real effort of
the new democratic government to make it clear that a
different period is being inaugurated into the nation’s
history. Not committing the same mistake and associating
itself with the previous regime. Because indeed many of
the separatist demands to form an independent and
sovereign State is just a reflection of formality;
however, nevertheless it should not be undermined or
crushed into a more repressive manner.
To promote a dualist
nationalist idea in the modern nation-state is main
formula for a country to survive and prevent the process
of disintegration. A man can be equally proud to be
belonged within a particular group of nationalities, but
still accept its integration within one greater State.
This only could and would be successful with the process
of more autonomous and regional type of government. The
idea is to keep the national right and feeling of a
particular community and to give a more extensive
freedom and liberty in practicing those cultural needs
such as the preservation of languages groups, national
symbols, and myths.
Reza Adenan
(Student of
International Study on Development Stream, Canada)
(Sources:
Catalonia, Canada: Quebec the Distinct society,
The Spanish Democracy,
and various ideas of nationalism and democracy from
various authors whose names I mentioned every time I was
referring to its ideas)
Comments:
Just like almost anything
in life, any extreme behavior could be destructive.
Nationalism is no exception. It could transform into
chauvinism
which is an
excessive or blind
patriotism that could create an attitude of superiority
toward others (who are different from them). It could
also transform into fascism, a political philosophy that
exalts nation and often race above the individual or
nation; that stands for a centralized autocratic
government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe
economic and social regimentation, and forcible
suppression of opposition.
Nationalism is
different from chauvinism and fascism. According to
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, nationalism is loyalty
and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of
national consciousness exalting one nation above all
others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its
culture and interests as opposed to those of other
nations or supranational groups.
Elwin
|
The Prospect
is published by The Indonesian Institute. Our messages are democracy,
unity and prosperity.
