The rise of nationalism in china can be viewed to be unique in its respect. This nationalism has been characterized by several distinct features which have been demonstrated in several ways. The rise of nationalism has taken another dimension from that which existed in the past. Conscious definition of the new nationalists unlike the liberal ones of the 1980s.These nationalists are not in tandem with those of the 1980s whom they claim their times were full of radicalism and Romanism. They claim to be more realistic with their programmatic principles in their time. That they are the advocates of order and stability in society.
They believe in Confucianism is characteristic of nationalism in China. The supremacy of pride in Confucianism civilization is present in the nationalists in China. This ideology seems not to be limiting nationalism but it forms the basis for the rising nationalism in China. The rise of Confucianism has come about due to the collapse of communism and most nationalists evince this ideology in their political works.
In the international arena, Chinese nationalism has experienced insecurity. The rivalry between China and Japan is still evident with nationalists describing Japan as a paradigmatic enemy. The foreign main cause a lot of anxiety in most Chinese nationalists. In China’s nationalism, there is a reemergence of a feeling that China is like a sexually violated woman. The blame is adversely put on the Whiteman And the Americans. This shows that the nationalists in China are not on good diplomatic terms with the Americans for what they believe is an assault with the Chinese and have exploited her.
Instances such as the Belgrade bombing are a clear indication of growing self-esteem in the nationalism of china. Chinese nationalists have tended to differ in ideology concerning the issue of what ideology and policies would make china a very strong nation. The issue of foreign policy and international relations with the world powers has also been an issue of contention between the nationalists. Nationalism in china has managed to manifest itself in several ways and this is significant in the sense that ideological diversity has been greatly enhanced in the country. Such diversity has contributed towards the responsiveness to both local and foreign events in the country.
Most of the efforts of the current Chinese nationalism is the focus on reunification of the mainland to Taiwan. There has been a consensus with the current crop of nationalists on maintaining the status quo. There is controversy in the relationship between China and Taiwan. Some theorists have come up with assertions the current nationalism In china is imperialist as it has led to the oppression of some minority groups in the country.
In Chinese nationalism nowadays, Intellectuals contribute significantly and they have become a major dividing force in the politics and ideology of China. Intellectuals in this case can be taken to mean that people who have been educated like the doctors, teachers, and so on have been involved in the articulation of new ideas.
Therefore in conclusion I can note that the rising nationalism has been influenced by the educated elite in the society. This goes as far as ideology is concerned and this can be witnessed in the way the current ideology differs from the one in the past which had its ideologies.
References
Peter Hays Gries, Chapters 1 & 7 in China’s New Nationalism. (Should be online somewhere)
After the end of the Second World War, populations assembled within their nations with great hope of developing their home countries, which had undergone destruction following the aftermath of the war. Emigration and migration activities were part of the events that marked the World War II with powerful states exercising slave trade that displaced cultural communities to form mixed states.
Nation-building started immediately and the world exponentially started developing into unique world structures characterised by globalisation. Latin American, Europe, and Asian nations have been historically the predecessors of campaigning for nationalism, though quite unsuccessful, following ethical and religious divisions that have proven critical matters over the years.
Nationalism can be understood as the conception that a society, state, or nation is the natural political and social appearance of the modern world. Little literature prevails on nation-state and nationalism, hence the poor understanding or misunderstanding surrounding this concept. This essays thus seeks to examine whether it is possible to imagine nationalism without the nation.
Meaning of the two terminologies
Nationalism
Nationalism has become a huge field of study, discourse, and one of the globally controversial concepts with studies seeking to expound the understanding of the concept to reduce the augmenting fury of confusion (Wimmer & Schiller 2002). Studying the concept of nationalism is becoming essential in understanding world politics.
The historical development of the notion of nationalism streams from the ancient politics that witnessed the dramatic emergence of the French Revolution of 1789 that marked the formation of the first ‘nation-state’ (Spruyt 2002). It was during this moment that nationalism, as a global concept, became a powerful idea, thus changing the European states into rising towards nationalism and governing through Napoleonic rules.
Nationalism, in its simplest terms, can be expressed as a desire of citizens of a nation to establish and maintain an autonomous political component. According to Tishkov (2000), nationalism generally refers to the creed and intuition streaming from the political dogma that describes the attitude of individuals over their identification and association with a certain nation.
A nation
Latin America has been the most renowned anomaly in the backdrop of nationalism and hence the term nation itself. The word nation came from the Latin and when it was first introduced, it clearly demonstrated the idea of common blood bonding. From the contemporary literature as elucidated by Lowrance (2012), “a nation refers to a group of people thought to share a common history, culture or some aspects of identity” (p. 85).
A nation entails individuals or nationalists mainly embedded by transnational boundaries and guided by certain political principles, judicial frameworks, and certain religious convictions, but with distinct racial, cultural, and ethnical backgrounds.
Defining a nation thus becomes a confronting issue, especially considering the socio-ethnical dimensions and political systems that finally lead to distinguishing nationalism in different perspectives, including civic nationalism and ethnonationalism (Connor 1978).
With several racial and ethnical dimensions, a nation can thus mean a community or populace living under certified transnational boundaries bounded by certain statutory and political principles.
Quandary in connection between the terminologies
Tracing the history and development of the concept of nationalism and its context within nations and states have never proved challenging as finding its appropriate definition and its connection with the state or nation.
An incessant quandary exists over the concept of nationalism and its relationship with a nation or state, as nationalists themselves within countries differ idiosyncratically and the question is whether there is any interdependence.
Despite streaming from Western nations with the French Revolution making the beginning of nation-state politics that nationalism signifies numerous nations, including the European states and Latin American nations themselves, have failed to achieve nationalism.
Miller (2006) affirms, “Lacking the linguistic and ethnic distinctions commonly associated with national identities in Europe or Asia, lacking a secure process of state consolidation, and lacking, too, the economic success of the United States and Canada” (p.201).
A nation can only be distinguished best from its boundary, but not from behaviour of its people, as it is very normal that a nation comprises individuals with different ethnical and racial backgrounds.
Researches consider the aspect of nationalism and nation as one of the most challenging, especially when individuals seek to identify the connection prevailing in the two terminologies. As postulated by Connor (1978), “far more detrimental to the study of nationalism, however, has been the prosperity to employ the term nation as a substitute for that territorial juridical unit, the state” (p. 381).
How the practice of interchanging the two terminologies developed over the years is still ambiguous, but the French Revolution and the West politics of the seventeenth century can provide a substantial background.
Early literature is crucial in understanding how nationalism gradually developed, including the terminology ‘nation’ as a territorial juridical unit for any state.
As noted by Connor (1978), the literature and theories discussed by writings of the early men including Locke are integral in the discussion of nationalism as they always identified people as the forerunners of political power, hence making the state and people almost the same thing.
Perhaps the augmenting mental quagmire and failure concerning political practice and theory relating to the practice of a nation and nationalism, inclusive of general and contemporary studies of nationalism, is making it even more challenging to understand the nation-state ideology.
As noted by Tishkov (2000), a nation is continuously becoming a powerful symbol in which two forms of social alliances known as polity (the state) and ethnic unit (the people) are confronting to possess as their elite property.
The question that continues to linger across scholars’ minds is whether a nation is the geographical boundaries that differentiate one state from another or the people and the principles, culture, and belief they consider in their life practices.
Nationalism is one’s perception or conception that he/she belongs to a certain nation and at this point, the issue of patriotism becomes essential while considering whether nationalist can prevail without a nation (Miller 2006). The notion that nationalism has to come first before a nation will also remain debatable.
Can nationalism exist without a nation?
From the conviction that a nation-state exists when individuals come forth and with anticipated solidarity, unify their nation through nation-building, the question of whether nationalism can prevail without a nation persists (Kuzio 2002). The struggle to build a nation-state has always been in existence with inventors and predecessors of the nationalism concept struggling to achieve this vision but constantly ending up in dismay.
This assertion holds as the messianic nationalists have never believed that human beings are capable of joining their nation in any possible way (Spruyt 2002). Any nation struggling to achieve nationalism through nation-building, including those that consider themselves democratically governed, have always suffered a massive blow towards achieving a nation-state status.
Nation-state continues to be applied indiscriminately to all nations within ethicised political systems taking place each successive regime. Brubaker (2004) notes that in some contexts, “the community imagined as nationalists to a certain nation fail to coincide with the territorial aspects and citizenry of the state” (p.119).
Building a nation needs nationalists
A nation is, as stated before, a geopolitical area that entails individuals or nationalists mainly embedded by transnational boundaries and guided by certain political principles, judicial frameworks, and certain religious convictions, but with distinct racial, cultural, and ethnical backgrounds (Wimmer & Schiller 2002).
However, nationalists or people within a nation from an integral basis of the ethnic composition and not the geographical boundary, which is still unclear to many. Nation-building is efforts of nationalists to engage harmoniously in activities that promote impartiality, justice, and peace within their nation (Connor 1978).
Formation of laws, governance of people, and community building that result in strengthened nationhood is achievable through contributions of nationalists through the process of civilisation.
The actuality beyond this assertion is that a nation entails people and building it requires real patriots or nationalist, all of which are persons still. A nation marred with socio-political and ethnic bias will receive potential challenges when struggling to build a nation-state.
In a bid to enjoy equal state rights and privileges once in a nation-state, it is paramount for all individuals to remain bound to the reality that solidarity in nationalists is critical and viewing one another as individuals who need one another is of importance. Territorial states become nation-states on the basis that state-building and nation-building contain a relatively closer meaning of nation-state building.
Spruyt (2002) posit, “State-building (the attempt to enhance the capacity to rule) and nation-building (the attempt to construct a shared political identity among the subjects of that particular territorial state) thus went hand in hand” (p. 133). Further importance in acknowledging the essence of people and nation as inseparable entities prevailed in studies throughout literal documentations.
One of the noticeable documentations is the conceptions of Tishkov (2000) that a nation is not merely a political entity, but it comprises a system of cultural representations and that people are not only legal citizens of a certain nation, but also possess critical knowledge on nation-building through the national culture.
Why it is impossible to have nationalism without a nation
A great excitement over whether nationalism can prevail without the presence of a nation will remain an endless argument whether one is liberal or democratic. From this paper’s arguments, a nation needs nationalists who are patriotic at building it, and thus, it is impossible to have nationalism without a nation.
While arguing on this stand, individuals should understand that a “nation is a symbolic community and this element accounts for its power to generate a sense of identity and allegiance” (Tishkov 2000, p. 629). One is a nationalist when he/she considers her/himself as an individual belonging to a certain nation with all prerequisites needed to become a nationalist, including national identity.
This assertion explains why it becomes significantly challenging to develop states bound to individuals cultural dimensions and ethnographic circles (Kuzio 2002). Citizenship is all about considering oneself to be of an origin or currently attached to a certain nation and this aspect happens only when there is a willingness to shift from tribal affinity to associational citizenship.
Referring an individual to a certain national background begins with building civic knowledge that makes individuals entitled to beliefs of having a connection with a certain state and the strength of defending patriotism will depend on how individuals feel about their nations (Wimmer & Schiller 2002).
As denoted earlier, state-building and nation-building are two inseparable things that complement each other in development. State building requires public building and the vice versa and at this point, nation-state building becomes achievable (Spruyt 2002).
Building a nation requires patriotism from nationalists and through this aspect, one should concur that it is relatively impossible to have the concept of nationalism within the existence of a geopolitical nation itself.
However, the role of nationalism in the modern state-building to develop nation-state is downsizing as real nationalism remains anticipation, but not an achievement (Wimmer & Schiller 2002). As public building requires patriotism from nationalist, it becomes difficult to imagine nationalism without a nation.
Following a survey conducted in 1971, Connor (1978) presented significant evidence that nation-state building signifies the importance of nationalism as well as nation-building. From the survey that included approximately 132 entities considered as states in 1971, the following protracted from this survey.
Only 12 (9.1%) states out of the surveyed 132 could remain described as nation-states, twenty-five (18.9) contained a nation accounting for above 90% of the state’s total population, but also with minorities. Another 25, accounting to 18.9%, included a nation accounting for approximately 75% and 89%.
From the few evidences, it is possible to realise that nation-building has primarily depended on state-building and hence making the two inseparable concepts from theoretical to a practical perspective.
From this analysis, Connor (1978) concluded that there are no vital differences between nation and state as no great harm would occur from referring to them as simply nations as they theoretically and practically coincide in their application.
No nationalism in nations
From the historical development of the concept of nation-state and its political campaign to achieve this form of civilisation, nationalism has been ever challenging to achieve especially considering the prevailing social, cultural, and economic differences that result in the presence of minority population.
The forerunners of the nationalism concept, including the Latin Americans, Europeans, and other Asian countries have been anticipating, but not successful in achieving nationalism. The current state compositions include individuals of diverse racial backgrounds and ethnic origins following the migration activities that have been eminent in the modern decades.
Racial and ethnic differences in the western nations have persisted and despite their democratic governance, which they contend so, significantly failed to achieve nationalism.
Miller (2006) affirms, “All these experiences, together with those of black people and other immigrant groups, have led to severe questioning of the official claim that Latin American nations are racial democracies” (p. 204). Nations have become ethnical and they behave more of racial and religious identity rather than region and national identity.
Racial & Ethnical disparities
Nationalism occurs after individuals feel free and have an attitude of relationship with their certain state or nation. This feeling erodes in situations where civilians feel unappreciated, undermined, and living with differences from their statehood.
Despite holding significant evidence over their contribution to the development of the nation-state, Latin American states became part of the racial divide in the1960s when the US started nation-building based on racial foundations.
The United States itself has been a victim of social aggression, within the nation-state building characterised by racial differences rather than building the nation on civil grounds (Wimmer & Schiller 2002).
Efforts to build nations on strong civilisation grounds has received substantial challenges following the conviction that different races are battling for the same share of state with each of them claiming as its property. Coupled with globalisation that is racially divided, this aspect seems to generate different perceptions of the state of nationalism as perceived by its practical meaning.
The United States and other West nations, including Europe, have been witnessing racial differences that have been marred by political and cultural contributions. Of late, they have witnessed separatist movements resulting from a racial confrontation with the nations divided on perceptions that specific cultural units (whites or blacks) are more important than others in these nations are.
Blacks, American Indians, Black Americans, Mexican Americans and other minority group races in the US and other European nations have been fighting for equity and recognition by their governments, claiming of racial partiality, employment favouritism, and political segregation.
The United States’ immigrants from history to present have experienced prejudice in one way or the other and continuously received unequal treatment in their nation.
How would these individuals then consider themselves as nationalist of such countries where prejudice forces them to have a different perception over their connection with their nation? Presumably, this issue will remain a debatable factor when almost every nation contains minority groups.
Religious differences
Religion is one of the important players of contemporary global politics as nations are divided on religious grounds. Nationalism has been a controversial concept in determining the context at which nations’ politics are becoming largely influenced by the religious issues (Connor 1978). Israel and Palestine are practical examples of nations divided by religious differences, with Israel promising to deliver its civilisation to humankind.
The main religions involved in changing global politics that have led to different perceptions against nationalism are the Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
As noticed by Brubaker (2004), “needless to say, this use of ‘nation’ excludes Muslims from membership of the nation, just as similar claims to ‘ownership’ of the state due to ethnocultural core nation exclude other ethnoreligious, ethnolinguistic, or ethno racial groups” (p. 117). This assertion brings up the question of nation-state with individuals divided into ethnoreligious groups and very divided into nation-building.
Conclusion
Nationalism is all about considering oneself to be connected legally to a nation and having a creed that one belongs to certain ethnic group. Ideally, a nation is more of a political entity and it contains significant consideration of cultural representations.
People also are not only legal citizens belonging to a particular nation, but also they are capable of participating in the idea of statehood or nationhood bound to certain national cultures.
Building a nation requires one’s understanding and love for the state, with aspects of racism and prejudice creating a different perception over nationalism, nation, and nation-state building. Nationalists are the people who remain patriotic to a nation and state-building and thus there cannot be nationalism without the nation.
Reference List
Brubaker, R 2004, ‘In the Name of the Nation: Reflections on Nationalism and Patriotism’, Citizenship Studies, vol. 8 no. 2, pp. 115–127.
Connor, W 1978, ‘A nation is a nation, is a state is an ethnic group is…’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 1 no. 1, pp. 377-400.
Kuzio, T 2002, ‘The myth of the civic state: a critical survey of Hans Kohn’s framework for understanding nationalism’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 25 no. 1, pp. 20–39.
Lowrance, S 2012, ‘Nationalism without Nation: State building in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine’, Middle East Critique, vol. 21 no.1, pp. 81-99.
Miller, A & Schiller, G 2002, ‘Methodology nationalism and beyond: nation-state building, migration and the social sciences’, Global Network, vol. 2 no. 4, pp. 301-334.
Miller, N 2006, ‘The historiography of nationalism and National identity in Latin America’, Nations and Nationalism, vol.12 no.2, pp. 201-221.
Spruyt, H 2002,’The origins, development, and possible decline of the modern state’, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 5, pp. 127- 149.
Tishkov, V 2000, ‘Forget the ‘nation’: post-nationalist understanding of nationalism’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 23 no.4, pp. 625-650.
Wimmer, A & Schiller, N 2002, ‘Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation–state building, migration and the social sciences’, Global Networks, vol. 2 no.4, 301-334.
Nationalism is often seen as a political doctrine, with an ideology of self-governing entity results in what is popularly known as “nation-state”. In other words, it is an ideology or a form of socio-cultural movement that drives a group of people towards forming a self governing state or nation (Smith, 1993, P.72).
Historically, however, there has been significant argument over the origin of nations and nationhood, with many specialists like (Smith, 1998, P. 39) agreeing that the ideology of nationalism has its roots in Europe, that came as a result of series of revolutions in the 19th century, preciously related to the French revolution that pushed for sovereignty in the late 18th century. More significantly, its emergence has been associated with the historical events like the World War I and II and consequential rise of many notable radicalism (Laqueuer, 1976. P. 15).
The socio-political ideology on nationalism dictates that the people who belong to a particular state or nation should be willing to adhere to the principle of nationhood and be ready to legitimize and defend their sovereignty (Laqueuer, 1997, P. 90). However, some of the attempts to pursue and defend the nations, which are mostly multinationals or multiethnic in nature, has led to numerous forms of both internal and external wars, secession, and at worst genocide or holocaust, scenarios that have led some pundits to believe that nationalism is simply “a divisive and destructive force in the contemporary world” (Goebbels, 1939, P. 18). But is this the case considering human nature to group together?
Nationalism theories
In the late 19th century, socialists like Carl Max and Rosa Luxemburg were the greatest critics of nationalists’ movements, in their critical socio-political analysis of the then nationalists’ movements in Europe, more specifically Central and Eastern Europe (Koln, Calhoun & Craig, 1942, p. 20). However, late socialists and communists alike are more supportive of the nationalism, describing it a form of self-defining factor (Anderson, 1991, p. 6).
But it is critical to observe that most theories related to nationalism originated mainly after the World War II, with emerging issues like, who is the real member of the state and who is not? And who came first, nation or the nationalism? In order to understand the nationalism aspects and its implications on the general welfare of the people, it is prudent to understand the classifications put down by scholars to explain its varied facets (Smith, 1986, p. 8-10)
Classification of nationalism
Nationalism may emerge as a result of an official ideology of state or just as a popular non-state movement that can be expressed in terms of ethno-cultural, religious, location, and/or ideological perspectives, where the people generally believe that they share some form of common understandings or cultural believes (Connor, 1994, p. 29). However, this concept is overruled by the classified form of understanding that reiterates that people and culture can be separated by national boundaries, which result into a self-defined nation or state. This brings us to different approaches to nationalism types of classifications such as; civic/ cultural, ethnic, irredentism, revolutionary, fascism, expansionist, liberation, and stateless nationalisms (Connor, 1994, p. 36-41)
Civic or cultural nationalism; this is a form of nationalism looks at the culture of the people who makes up the nation. In other words it does not dwell on any form of hereditary of family roots or connections of the people hence mainly focus and advocate the establishment of the common and binding cultural values (Connor, 1994, p. 43). This normally allows people from different backgrounds to get assimilated into one thing that gives a nation or a state its cultural identity
Ethnic nationalism; as opposed to civic nationalism, ethnic nationalism tends to bring the people of same ethnic group together. The people coming together are of similar ethic lineage or are hereditarily connected. It therefore seeks to unite all people of a particular ethnic heritage to achieve a particular purpose of unity that is mostly political and economic driven (Smith, 1986, p. 14-18).
Irredentism; according to Smith (1986, p. 16), irredentism is a form of nationalism that entails the believe of promoting annexation of territories, which used to have or currently have members of a particular group dwelling in them, and making then to be under the state or nation that have most of its members.
Expansionist nationalism; this is a form of nationalism that promotes the theory of expansion of a nation’s territories in an attempt to acquire more space or land to accommodate its people (Smith, 1986, p. 18)
Liberation nationalism; this from of nationalism involve an attempt by some movements within the nation who come together to protest or fight for the liberation of their state with the notion that some other people or nations are oppressing them in one way or another (Breuilly, 1994, p. 32). They therefore fight to have self-identity, separate from their oppressors. This form of ideology is closely linked to Marxism and Leninism which identifies that nationalism can be applied in an international context rather than regional where the liberators can fight for the freedom of their country without principally involving the racial or even religious divisions (Breuilly, 1994. p. 34)
Fascism; this category of nationalism is associated with the authoritative or dictatorial form of leadership ideology (Breuilly, 1994. p. 34 & Brubaker, 1996, p.18). It therefore supports and advocates for national revolutions, collectivism at national level, expansionism, and a totalitarian state with an aim of national unification and growth. It is therefore noted that fascists will always promote ethnic nationalism and at the same time promote cultural nationalism like the peoples’ assimilation without ethnic bias.
Stateless Nationalism; after the establishment of a recognized entity in the name of a state or nation, the first principle goal of nationalist’s movements is surely achieved (Timothy, 2005, p. 44). However, within this system, there are some discontented individuals or groups within the movements who will emerge and express their dissatisfactions in terms of how the mainstream political system is run. Considering the fact that the movements that brought this mainstream system of government did not die, they keep on inspiring quite many more political parties or movements (Brubaker, 1996, p. 56).
These movements therefore form the stateless movements within the state. They can either decide to fight for their own autonomy within the mainstream state or just fight to get their own state Brubaker, Rogers. 1996. In stateless nationalism, the proponents always advocate for the less strengthened national unity, challenging the laid down mainstream state policies that seem to reinforce a form of political behavior from the top hierarchy.
This makes it more open to be influenced by foreigners or other states that may have vested interests in the outcome of such conflicts. However, stateless nationalists are different from radical nationalism since they have civil liberation influence and do not agree with extremists’ idea of radical acquisition of power. They mainly strive to make everything flexible to collaborate with their neighbors whose interest may be common with theirs and redefining of national territory that is seen as way of opening their territory for foreign trade to strengthen economic base (Greenfeld, 1992, p. 197)
It is rational to argue that emotions that lead up to nationalism can be negative in nature, no matter what kind of nationalism is it, as the proponent may either in pursuit of a particular group interest or protecting their legitimacy. A particular sense of being threatened by another group can bring the nation and its people together and strengthen the sense of nationalism in the people, against all odds of political, ethnic, cultural or religious differences (Hobsbawm, 1992, p. 87).
A typical example is the September 11 bombing of the America world trade center. The people of America came together, despite the political parties varied views and differences. However, just like it has brought the people of America together, it has had substantial negative impact too on the relationship between America and the Muslim world, whose radical group claimed responsibility for the offence. Another case is if the state has lost a war. For example, the Germany’s loss of World War I, subsequent economic crisis, Treaty of Versailles humiliation led to the emergence of Nazism since the used to be bourgeois patriotism before this war was completely eroded (Goebbels, 1939, P. 27)
Nationalist proponents warn that nationalism should never be confused with radicalism, and that it should never be defined to suggest that some ethnic or any other group is superior over the other. This kind of belief is what leads to the emergence of conflicts and wars as has happened in many countries, where the ethnic cleansing takes the center stage in such a nation. As happened in Germany, the holocaust made some self proclaimed nationalists to use the term to do the ethnic cleansing, in what Goebbels (1939, P. 27) would call ethnocentric protectionism or ethnocentric supremacy.
The study of several ethnic and psychological studies has disapproved this notion. The revelation is that the behavior is somehow a derivative innate behavior of humans that begin at an infancy stage and therefore should never be associated with the sense of nationalism in any way (Greenfeld, 199, p.20). In the United States, there exist both the movements of non-indigenous people i.e. ethnocentric “black” and “white” peoples’ movements (Greenfeld, 199, p.26).
These kinds of “nationalisms” are everywhere all over the world and they tend to believe that some specific nations are doing better than their own nation and therefore should be taken as a positive success case study. In Germany, the movements of the so called “Nationalists” and fascists exploited the dominant biological race theory to advance the national policies such as the National Sociologist ideology.
However, Hobsbawm (1992, p. 92) states that “race” as a universal term is no longer relevant in any attempt to explain the varied cluster of human phenotype, and should therefore be referred to as ethnocentrism instead. That is, the ever infamous ethnic cleansings has on several occasions been regarded as representing nationalism, a claim that has been denied by many modern socialists who say that this phenomenon is purely ethnocentrism that is more of individual and personal feelings and not group or national collective behavior (99). This is because not all nations would expel or mistreat the minority communities or groups in their nation (101).
Many scholars accept that nationalism is sometimes a very misguided and controversial ideology that lead particular group of individuals using the term to demand more unrealistic or just a far reaching and unrealistic demands. For example, the Israel and Palestinian states, where each state has failed to recognize each other as legitimate entity, with Palestinians using history to back up their claim that such a state as Israel never existed in their current place, and Israel defending their legitimacy, thereby creating more rebellions and radical groups like the Hamas in Palestine (Delanty, Kumar & Krishan, 2006, p. 72).
In the past, the classical movements of nationalists criticized nationalism because it was associated with the empires that were seen as multi- ethnic, they were even against the geopolitical ideology that was seen to be prominent in every nation-separate-state structure (Motyl, 2001, p.34-36).
The subsequent rebellion led to more repression and autocracy by those emperors who felt that their authority was being threatened, a phenomenon that has persisted even today even though in a much smaller scale with basically smaller states being attacked by bigger states, in an attempt to control their aggression (37). The western world has bore the brunt of anti-nationalism in the past than any other part of the world, with the resurgence of Islamic radicals who criticize the presence of nation- state especially those that collaborate with the west.
Presently, many people who are critical of the nationalism concept say it is the cause of all the ills that affect states (both internally and externally). That is, accusing the theory as the cause of persistent wars between nations and states all over the world. They argue that it is the states have disguised under “nationalism” to convince their citizens to take part in conflicts and wars, 1998, P. 44). For example the World War II, nations and states used “nationalism” concept to spread propaganda against other states. However, it is clear to note that the freedom of individuals is more important than the national ideology of nations, which is by far collective in nature. As Smith (1998, p. 46) states, this is why many liberals are sympathizers of nation-state existence and are just opposed to some of its ideologies fronted by some proponents and nationalists.
In his Nationalism works, Pacifists like Bertrand Russell criticized nationalism since he viewed it as “diminishing individual’s capacity to judge his or her own fatherland’s foreign policy” (Laqueur, 1976. p. 88). It is such pacifists views that suggest that nationalism mainly dwell on violence movements with military actions, and the conflict between nations that is brought about by chauvinism and arrogance, tarnishing the whole concept of nationalism. William Blum sums it up, “if love is blind, patriotism has lost all its senses” (Snyder, 1990, p. 3].
On the other hand, anti-nationalist have also generally criticized the ideology basing their views on particular attitudes of other nations, who basically believe in the nationalism doctrine that nation-state purely exist for only a particular one group who have that right to execute or mistreat the other (Motyl, 2001, p. 11). This is backed by their claim that such states dwell on chauvinism as well as xenophobia that have basically resulted from individual “nationalist’s” sentiments or proclamations (12). But this generalization may not help much given that some states exist with homogenous ethnic or religious group, but still engage in conflict and wars. So how would one classify such states or nations?
Politically, nationalism has been treated with contempt especially the leftists who despite their unwillingness to embrace nationalism ideology, have never attempted to dismiss the existence of nation-states. Some looked at it as involving nation-state revolution ideology. This is why many Marxists criticized the ideology by illustrating the failure by the socialists’ movements and socio-democrats to mobilize the workers all over the world to oppose the World War I and II. Incidentally, most left acknowledge nation- state in pushing for their political agenda.
Conclusion
From these it would be prudent to conclude that nationalism concept has been adversely misused by the individuals pursuing personal interests, and the ideology is not generally divisive in nature. Nationalism should therefore include all and not only elites, that should have a legally constituted political institutions, true and justified ideologies, that can eventually be recognized internationally and drawing of borders to enhance competitiveness economic and social welfare.
References
Delanty, G., Kumar, K., eds. 2006. The Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism, London: Sage Publications, ISBN 9781412901017.
Goebbels, J. National-Socialism, Bolshevism and Democracy, Documents on International Affairs, vol. II, 1938, pp. 17-19. Accessed from the Jewish Virtual Library.
Smith, AD. 1993. National Identity. Reno: University of Nevada Press. p72. ISBN 0874172047.
Smith, AD. 1998. Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415063418.
Laqueuer, Walter. 1976. Comparative Study of Fascismby Juan J. Linz. Fascism,A Reader’s Guide Analyses, interpretations, Bibliography. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, Pp. 15.
Laqueur, W. 1997. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. Oxford University Press. P. 90.
Koln, H & Calhoun, C. 1942. The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in its Origins And Background. Transaction Publishers, P. 20, University of California, Journal of Central European Affairs, Volume 2.
Connor, Walker 1994, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p.29. Web.
Billig, Michael (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage. ISBN 0803975252.
Gellner, Ernest (2005). Nations and Nationalism (Second ed.). Blackwell. ISBN 1405134429.
Canovan, Margaret (1996). Nationhood and Political Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. ISBN 1840640111.
Miller, David (1995). On Nationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198293569.
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities. ISBN 0-86091-329-5, p. 6.
Smith, Anthony D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations, London: Basil Blackwell. Pp 6–18. ISBN 0-631-15205-9.
Laqueuer, W. 1976. Comparative Study of Fascism, by Juan J. Lin Fascism, A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, interpretations, Bibliography. Berkeley and Los Angeles University of California Press, Pp. 15.
Laqueur, W.1997. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. Oxford University Press, P. 90.
Timothy G R. 2005. Non-Western Educational Traditions: Indigenous Approaches to Educational Thought and Practice, Routledge, p. 4–5 ISBN 0805848576, ISBN 9780805848571.
Greenfeld, L. 1992. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-60319-2.
Hobsbawm, E J. 1992. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43961-2.
Motyl, A, ed. 2001, Encyclopedia of Nationalism, San Diego: Academic Press, ISBN 0122272307.
Snyder, Louis 1990, Encyclopedia of Nationalism, New York: Paragon House, ISBN 1557781672.
Examples of nationalism are seen everywhere in the world. The presence of national flags at sports events, advertisements that urge tourists to choose specific countries as tourism destinations, and the portrayal of the effects of terrorist activities and wars all over the world are stark indicators of nationalism. However, nationalism is an idea and belief that everybody claims to understand but very few can articulate and convey it in the true sense. Nationalism is to some extent comparable to being devoted to one’s country but while devotion can be described as being love for the country, nationalism centers more on the shape that a nation ought to take. Hence it has to encompass the emotional and cultural aspects as also the historical and political implications.
In being support for the nation, nationalism has different connotations by way of aim and origin of the issues being taken up. Nationalism is a vast area that cannot be exhaustively defined by the strongest nationalists but a basic objective is for the nation to succeed. It has been a subject matter of much dispute with both positive and negative features being hotly debated. Nationalism is often referred to as forming the national identity in exercising for a country, its right to defend and to have its own specific identity. It is also construed as opposing the influences of autocracy, domination, and oppression. Nationalism is seen as being a powerful means since it derives its strength from the sense of belonging to the nation that most people have. This trait has made politicians exploit the sentiments of individuals by making them united for a common national cause. It is for this reason that nationalism cannot be said to be the exclusive characteristic of the west or any group of nations.
A just war is waged when all nonviolent alternatives have been exhausted. Only then can the use of force be justified to achieve the solution to the given problems. The war is said to be just only if it is initiated by the lawful authorities. An action of war or aggression cannot be justified if it is taken by groups of people who do not have the legitimate authority vested with them by the society of the given nation. War is described as just only if it is waged to rectify wrongdoings, such as acts of self-defense against armed attacks. A just war has to be fought in keeping with the right intention and the sole objective of the war must be to only redress the oppression. It has to be waged if there are rational chances of success since injuries and deaths resulting from a fruitless endeavor cannot be justified morally. The purpose of the just war must be to restore peace which implies that the establishment of peace after the war should be a better option than the peace that could have prevailed if the war had not been fought. The extent of violence and aggression used in the just war has to be in almost equal proportion to the loss suffered by the act of the aggressor. Hence states are advised not to exceed the use of force that is more than what is required to address the losses suffered. The weapons used in the war should be such that combatants and civilians are differentiated. There is no permission to target civilians in a war and all possible efforts must be made to avoid the killing of noncombatants. The death of civilians can be warranted only when they become the victim of specific attacks on enemy targets.
The development of several Southeast Asian countries was profoundly affected by prolonged colonial rule. For many years such states as Philippines and Indonesia were under control of Western-European superpowers, namely the Netherlands and Spain. This fact gives rise to a great number of questions. First, it is necessary to single out those methods which European governments employed in order to subdue these people. We need to ascertain the reasons why their dominance was so tenacious and lasting. Furthermore, it is vital to identify the steps of escaping this dominance and challenging imperialism. For this purpose we should refer to such novels as This Earth of Mankind by Pramoedya Ananta Toer and El filibusterismo written by José Rizal. Although these are literary works they can be extremely helpful in this discussion because they provide first-hand information about the life of Indonesians and Philippines during that period. They authors portray the struggles of average people who strive to prove to themselves and to the rest of the world that they must not be treated as inferior or subhuman. These works may throw light on many of the issues which we need to discuss.
Mechanisms of controlling the colonized country
In his book Pramoedya Ananta Toer gives the reader very deep insights into the strategies of the Dutch government. In fact, it was a classical technique which is usually known as “divide and rule”1. Its key objective is to spread enmity among the members of the host population by granting privileges to one group and abusing the other. The author eloquently demonstrates this approach: for instance, the main character Minke attends Holland school because he is of European descent. In turn, the native people are not allowed into this educational institution and no explanation is given to them.
It should be pointed out that Minke frequently becomes ashamed of his origins because a person can be humiliated only for being a native or a Javanese, to be more exact (Toer, 159). Thus, another technique of conquering the nation was to downgrade its own culture, make it look primitive, unsophisticated. Furthermore, the author emphasizes the lack of appropriate education: many native people, especially women were deprived of any opportunity to enter educational institutions. (Toer, 184). These examples show that there was actually no need to use military force, this effect could be achieved by means of well-staged public campaign. This is why this political course seems to be even more dangerous.
The main goal of these policies was to isolate different layers of the society from each other. Those, who achieved status in the community, were quite content with their position. Moreover, colonial rulers were perceived as the main benefactors. Those people who lived beyond poverty line did not have any chance of resistance. This case shows that Western-European countries were not willing to use power or resort to violence. Yet, they worked out more subtle or even Machiavellian methods of attaining dominance.
José Rizal describes similar tactics. In Philippines, Spanish colonizers also enabled some part of the native population to reach success as it was with Crisóstomo Ibarra who was once a well-to-do jeweler. But due to his misfortunes he grows more and more resentful against the foreign rule. Judging from these facts, we can argue that the strategies do not differ from each other. Colonizers were helping only those people who intended to cooperate with them and supported their orders. As for the rest of the nation, they were at a disadvantage. Thus, there was no unity among them. Logically, foreign governments were quite satisfied with such state of affairs. The thing is that people who are driven only the longing for individual safety can never join their efforts because they pursue only their own interests and have no concern for the welfare of the whole community.
Naturally, none of the writers actually calls the policies of foreign governments in this particular way. In their novels they only enumerate some of its elements, like discrimination. But at the end of the nineteenth century, the “divide and rule” approach was quite widespread among many Western-European governments. As a matter of fact, no one tried to conceal this fact. Again, many European politicians as well as philosophers maintained that all these brutalities were only for the sake of less advanced nations (Hobson, 253). But these books show all the callosity and inhumanity of this method. It can be observed that both Javanese and Filipino people were once reduced to powerless state. They virtually became aliens in their own country. This analysis leads us to the question of how to resist such form of dominance.
Strategies of overcoming the foreign dominance
It is rather difficult to enumerate the methods of overthrowing colonial rule. History offers us a great number of examples. In the vast majority of cases, Asian or African countries gained their autonomy because European states were no longer interested in keeping colonies. Sometimes former Western superpowers fell in decline and they were no longer able to control foreign lands, as it was with Spain. Still, it has to be admitted that without political mobilization of the host nation no change is possible. The essence of imperialism lies in superior attitude towards other ethnic group. This superiority frequently relies only on stereotypes and inability to accept the values of others. However, it is practically impossible to disprove these misconceptions. The most striking detail is that even now at beginning of the twenty-first century such beliefs are quite widespread. These remnants of colonial policies will survive, until former colonies fulfill their potential.
In this respect, we may refer to Pramoedya Toer work. The novelist says that even during school years, many Javanese people were raised with the feeling of inferiority. Minkes teachers constantly reminded him of “the Dutch nations contribution to civilization” (Toer, 113). So, it is not surprising that that he admires the invaders or at least pretends to do so in order to avoid punishment. One should not think that this conduct is unworthy of a noble man because at that time many Javanese people behaved in similar way. Perhaps, the nation can escape the dominance of others only if each member of this community feels the need for change. Pramoedya Toer and José Rizal offer us different explanations of this problem.
According to Toer, there are several steps to overcome this situation. First, in order to obtain national independence, the countrys people need to be politically mobile. They must feel the need for improvement. This can be done only if poorer layers of the community are able to think and judge for themselves and the only way to acquire these skills is continuous education. In his novel Pramoedya Ananta Toer stresses the fact that this is the only possible way to bring change into ones life. The main characters Minke and Nyai clearly understand they will remain helpless until they are financially and socially independent. But at the same time, they understand that they cannot do it without the Dutch support.
The paradox of this situation is that even if Minke and Nyai achieve any success; they would no longer associate themselves with Javanese. Any successful person does not want to have anything to do with those who have failed. This is one of the most though-provoking themes in Toers novel. The behavior of the main characters reminds individual rather than collective struggle. They do not think that they are responsible for others. To some extent, such perspective is quite understandable because a person cannot be answerable for others. Nonetheless, this approach is mostly based on vanity and egoism.
Apart from that, Pramoedya Toer expresses an idea that Indonesians must become more active. One of the characters says, “Europeans can no longer do anything to help. The Natives themselves must begin to do something” (Toer, 148). This statement hints at the idea that without political mobilization, the nation would never become self-sufficient. Again we need to remember the “divide and rule” tactics which acts like a system of checks and balances: it prevents the members of the community from merging into a single entity.
Pramoedya Toer does not support radical measures. Undoubtedly, the nation can obtain independence in the course of military conflict but this achievement will be short-lived because in the future people will not be able to live without someone elses guidance or prompt. Thus, we can argue that it is necessary to reach a certain level of maturity. In this case, we are not supporting former imperial claims of Western-European countries and these claims are morally impermissible but brutality cannot be conquered through brutality. This eventually creates a vicious circle that is almost impossible to break. The thing is that violence and cruelty are not able to produce anything except bloodshed. However, this is only view on the question and not everyone would agree with it.
In sharp contrast Jose Rizal presents a different scenario. The main character of the novel El filibusterismo, Juan Crisostomo Ibarra chooses rebellion or revolution. In his opinion, non-violent methods of resistance are of no use. José Rizal presents the protagonists line of reasoning in the following way, “It is the final argument of the weak, force against force, violence against violence’ (Rizal, 273). This man believes that force is the ultimate solution because he is not able to see any other way of solving this conflict. Unfortunately, even now some people are firmly convinced that “force against force” is best way to prove their rectitude.
Undoubtedly, from modern perspective this argument may seem appalling, to say the least. But in the course of history, a great number of nations attained independence only through active measures, as the United States did at the end of the eighteenth century. It should be mentioned that the protagonists point of view does not fully coincide with that one of the author. Father Florentino conveys Jose Rizals ideas. This character says that nation will liberate itself when all Filipinos acquire the sense of dignity and self-esteem (Rizal, p 254). By subduing ones enemy, the person cannot possibly improve his or her self-esteem. Unfortunately, Juan Crisostomo does not comprehend this self-evident truth.
He believes that the only way to overthrow the Spanish rule is to challenge them in open struggle but he does not find the support of other people, and this is his greatest tragedy. This is the main reason why his struggle does not yield practically any fruit. Apart from that, we should say that in his pursuit of freedom, Juan Crisostomo turns into a brutal and cynical criminal, who does not value the live of another human being. His example shows that sometimes people can commit the most terrible things under very noble pretexts. To some degree, José Rizal warns the reader against such errors.
Conclusion
The path to national independence is always associated with many obstacles and pitfalls. Neither literature nor history cannot offer step-by-step instructions how to escape colonial rule. Obviously, there might be various events or factors that can stimulate the nations rising. One of them is the military rebellion coup or revolution as José Rizal suggests but it is almost always doomed to failure unless it is supported by the public, whose members feel themselves self-sufficient and worthy of autonomy. Furthermore, armed rebellion frequently erases the line between good evil and even the noblest person can grow into a villain. In turn, Pramoedya Ananta Toer shows that the only way to sovereignty is continuous education because it gives the feeling of fulfillment and dignity. The novels, which have been discussed in this paper, prove that autonomy cannot be gained through individual effort because the concept of nation cannot be reduced only to one individual even if he or she is the most educated or courageous.
Works Cited
Hobson., J.A. Imperialism: A Study. Cosimo, Inc., 2006.
Rizal J., Soledad, M, & Locsin, R. El filibusterismo: subversion : a sequel to Noli me tangere. University of Hawaii Press, 2007.
Toer P.A., & Lane, M. This Earth of Mankind (Buru Quartet). Penguin Books, 1990.
Footnotes
1 This phrase is derived from Latin expression “divide et impera”.
Nationalism and democracy are two political concepts that are incompatible in theory, but they are closely related. Conceptually, the concepts are contradictory because they are based on different principles. While nationalism is based on the principle of exclusively, democracy is majorly reliant on inclusive principle whereby each group should be included in policy formulation. History shows that the two concepts have been applied successfully to realize better results in terms of socio-political and economic development. In this regard, democratic states are in need of the nation-state to perform well in the international arena. In fact, some scholars are of the view that democracy cannot exist without nationalism because a particular cultural homogeneity must exist for a political system to flourish. Therefore, it is true that shared national identity and cultural features play a critical role of fostering solidarity and trust among members of society.
Moreover, shared national goals give a sense of belonging to its members. For some scholars, nationalism can never coexist with democracy because nationalism calls for the exclusion of certain groups in resource distribution. Exclusivity is a threat to democracy because it denies some groups a chance to participate in development. Democracy is defined as a system of government that grants people political sovereignty meaning that the populace is allowed to exercise governmental power through representatives. Some analysts are of the view that the people include the entire population of the world while others observe that homogeneity is always considered when talking about the people. Based on this standpoint, cultural homogeneity (nationalism) is the prerequisite of democracy. Moreover, certain homogenous characteristics must be considered for a democracy to work.
Nationalism is a concept that applies in all societies, including the developed democracies, such as the United States and Britain. Miller (3) noted that nationalism in industrialized states plays a moral role because it encourages people to care for one another. The main function of democracy is to ensure equal participation, but it does not foster the sense of belonging, which is critical as far as nation building is concerned. The nation-state is made up of moral communities whose major responsibility is to realize the interests of the group. Through realization of group goals and objectives, an individual would have a chance to fulfil his or her interests.
Rationality is not needed for an individual to help a fellow citizen. In developed countries, such as the United States, huge organizations are seen supporting the poor through funding educational and health programs. This is a show of nationalism and patriotism because such organizations do not consider social corporate responsibility a loss. Haugaard (350) noted that nationalism relieves an individual of thinking about his or her security because the nation would definitely provide security. Giddens posited that modernity presents a number of challenges that makes it difficult for an individual to coexist peacefully. In other words, modernity increases reflexivity, which calls for social actors to establish a lasting logic of their behaviour.
The actions of individuals in the modern society are no longer determined by the family lineage, but instead they are influenced by their own choices. In some situations, events might overburden an individual, which calls for the intervention of the community. Therefore, nationalism plays the role of providing safety, something that Haugaard (350) referred to as an inherent being in the world. On the other hand, democracy demands that an individual be sovereign and should have the right of making decisions without necessarily consulting other people. This means that an individual stands on his own in modern society, unlike in the traditional society whereby an individual belonged to the community.
In industrialized societies, such as the United States and Japan, nationalism plays a critical role of allowing individuals to make rational decisions. However, an individual is faced with the danger of solitude and alienation in case the community does not intervene. The nation offers an individual a sense of belonging. Moreover, it liberates people from disaffection, loneliness and inscrutability. Based on this view, it is evident that nationalism enables solidity, which is a fundamental requirement of democracy.
Some scholars observe that nationalism in industrialized societies has assumed the role of religion because it brings people together. Tamir was of the view that people feel a sense of being when they belong to the national culture meaning that living in a nationalized community is of great value to individual development. Through national culture, an individual would be an independent self-governing actor. This would further enable him or her to contribute in decision-making. Tamir further noted that life in a recognizable cultural atmosphere is a requirement for making logical decisions and becoming independent (Tamir 434).
Ringmar (539) observed that nationalism brings about intimacy, which implies that individuals in the modern society are not only logical actors, but also interior individuals who aim at disclosing their identity in the public. It is true that people in developed democracies have nothing to hide because their public life is just like their private life. In other words, they are proud of their identities, as compared to individuals from developing countries, who might be unwilling to reveal their identities in public for fear of ridicule. Political leaders are evaluated based on their policies because people are concerned with the performance of their nation. Nations are compared to families because their members are morally connected, irrespective of the leadership. Political leaders an important role when it comes to dealing with crises hence they should be people of high integrity. They are expected to offer help to their co-citizens in the same way a family helps its members during a crisis.
Unfortunately, leaders do not have a moral responsibility towards members of other nationalities. Nations are also compared to clubs whereby selection committees play a role of ensuring that membership is attained by using certain systems. Numerical quotas and availability of materials determine the national membership status of people in developed democracies. Cultural boundaries are often drawn regarding the definition of the nation. Incidentally, citizens of any nation are always unwilling to allow anybody to be a member. People with shared aspirations, wishes, and interests are the only ones allowed to be members of a particular nation. Since the nation influences the life of an individual in a number of ways, people are always interested in the process of selecting leaders. Macedo (74) was of the view that nation-states make decisions that have adverse consequences to citizens hence the populace must always be consulted before allowing people to their culture of the nation.
How Secessionist Movements Convince their Followers
Secessionist movements refer to a group of individuals or certain subunits that aim at separating from the larger political unit in which they initially belonged. Separatist groups are always in constant conflict with the main political unit mainly because of issues related to resource distribution and allocation. In Africa, the secessionist groups advocated for freedom since they perceived that colonialism never favoured their interests. In developed democracies, such as Canada, secessionism is associated with political parties and movements, which arose in early 1960s. The political parties and the social movements in Canada advocated for self-governance and sovereignty in early 1960s.
South Sudan is the latest country to be declared a sovereign state after a very long time of struggle. The leadership of South Sudan employed a number of strategies in order to convince the electorate to support its secessionist claims. In Canada, a secessionist group emerged in Nova Scotia shortly after Confederation mainly because of the unbearable economic conditions. However, the movement did not achieve its objectives, as it was defeated before it became strong. In late 1950s, a strong secessionist movement emerged in Canada in Quebec, as the country was undergoing socio-economic changes. The movement participated in elections and managed to garner only nine percent of the Quebec vote. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, secessionist movements intensified their campaigns in Quebec, with economic independence as their main priority. In 1976, the separatist group garnered forty-one percent of the Quebec vote and attained seventy-one seats. The group promised to consult the people of Quebec before holding a referendum to realize full independence. The separatist movement formed government and held a referendum in 1980 whereby it was defeated by sixty percent. The group retained power in 1981 and promised to delay its secessionist plans for four years.
In the subsequent elections, the group attained forty percent of the Quebec vote on the declaration of self-governance. The popularity of the separatist group went down in 1985, after several of its members defected to the opposition. In the late 1980s, the separatist group restored its lost glory by capturing the major seats and forming government, with promise of secession being its major agenda. In early 1990s, the group managed to garner over sixty-five percent of the Quebec vote on secession. In 1994, the popularity of the group went back to its initial status since only forty percent of the populace was in support of secession. The group became a national movement in 1993 when it convinced a section of the Canadian electorate to support its quest for independence. In 1995, the movement entered into negotiations with other regions to strategize on economic matters. Bouchard became the premier in the subsequent elections whereby he came up with economic reforms that would enable Quebec eliminate economic deficits.
At this time, secession was not the priority since the economy of the region was on its toes. The central government came up with various measures to silence the secessionist movements in Quebec. The country’s premier appointed experts to ensure that resistance in Quebec was eliminated. Stephen Dion was assigned the responsibility of dealing with the menace at Quebec. He drafted two major plans that he termed plan A and plan B. Plan A consisted of inducements that would encourage the secessionist groups to enter into agreements with the government while plan B was aimed at stopping the activities of the group through the courts. The court supported secessionist claims by declaring that the groups had the right to demand for sovereignty, as long as they followed the right procedures.
From the above analysis, it is eminent that secessionist groups employ a number of strategies to convince the electorate to vote for them. One of the major strategies is to prove to the electorate that their reasons for demanding sovereignty are valid. In Quebec, the movement proved to the electorate that their national share was not distributed adequately because all major resources were being channelled to other parts of the country. In terms of employment, the movement convinced the electorate that it would provide adequate jobs for the youths who lacked something to do. When it acquired power in Quebec, the movement performed very well. It provided job opportunities to the youths and women, as well as improving the economy. The voting system proved that the movement gained support from all quarters, including the trade unionists, professionals, such as teachers and administrators, and white-collar workers.
Regional/National Autonomy
National/regional autonomy refers to the arrangement whereby each ethnic group is allowed to manage the affairs that affect its people both politically and economically. In China, this form of autonomy is granted to each ethnic group in various regions. It allows each ethnic group to coexist peacefully for the purposes of development. The government of the People’s Republic of China recognizes the existence of fifty-six ethnic groups implying that China is made up of unified multi-ethnic groups. Ethnic groups vary greatly in terms of culture meaning that it would be difficult for them to coexist under common regulations. The Han ethnic group is the largest in China, constituting of an approximated ninety percent of the total population. The government came to the realization that it would be very difficult for the ethnic minorities to achieve their interests in case they were subjected to similar conditions. Each ethnic group was allowed to draft polices that affected its people, but the leadership had to adhere to the regulations of the national government. Regional governments are allowed to develop self-government organs, which encourages the exercise of autonomy (Beissinger 93). The policies enable equal representation whereby equality and unity are the most valued principles.
Regional/national autonomy is very different from full independence in a number of ways. Regional governments play a delegated role meaning that the central government must always approve their policies before implementation. On the other hand, governments operating with full independence have the capacity to determine their own destinies without necessarily consulting any other authority. For instance, the regional government cannot enter into agreements with a foreign power without involving the central government. A nation with full independence has the power of engaging other actors in the international system in matters related to foreign relations. A national/regional government cannot confer citizenship to an individual, unlike a government operating with full independence, which determines the nationality of an individual. Individuals from various communities of China are not identified with their regions, but instead they are all referred to as the Chinese. China is an independent state with full sovereignty that confers citizenship to an individual.
National autonomies cannot replace full independence because they exist in small groups that cannot give them any advantage regarding economic development. For development to occur, the population must exist. For the Chinese case, a single regional autonomous group referred to as Han has a population of over ninety percent while the fifty-five of the ethnic groups have only eight percent of the total population. In terms of development, the minorities would strain because production would be hampered. Internationally, small ethnic groups would not be recognized because they would not be having numbers, which is an important variable regarding trade and commerce. China is a respected country worldwide because it has an adequate population for the consumption of goods and production. Many organizations relocate to China because they are assured of reliable labour and market.
Democratic Institutions that Impede Nationalism
Studies show that aggressive nationalism is one of the major impediments of consolidating democracy. This was proved in post-communist states during the 1990s transition period. Nationalist rhetoric cannot be substituted with social and political reform. As earlier noted in the previous section of this paper, democracy and nationalism are theoretically incompatible because one of them advocates for inclusively while the other calls for exclusivity. The civil society is one of the democratic institutions that serve to impede nationalism. Nationalism aims at making a group of people effective by uniting them. In this regard, the major aim would be to develop some loyalty and supremacy.
However, the civil society demands that any nation opens up to criticism, which is a major threat to developing the sense of community. Many individuals view nationalism as a factor behind integration. However, it becomes irrelevant when it denies an individual the chance to participate effectively in nation building. Civil groups view this as an impediment to individual fulfilment hence they will always oppose any move by the state to instil the sense of nationhood to its people (Bartolini 21).
The civil society groups claim that jingoism results to ethnocentrism or bigotry, which is prejudiced or imperialistic. Xenophobia denies some groups an opportunity of joining hands with other groups in order to improve the standards of living. Democracy demands that people cooperate in all fronts in order to better life. Nationalism would simply seek territorial extension and political supremacy hence basic rights would not be observed. In all places that nationalism is advocated, there have been bloodshed and untold suffering. In developing regions, nationalism is perceived in narrow terms, which results to serious divisions and conflicts. However, it is supported in developed democracies because it is perceived in broader terms. Civil groups observe that nationalism should be perceived in terms of patriotism if it were to benefit anybody. However, this is usually not the case because political leaders interpret it in a way that would give them an advantage over their opponents (Banting 89).
The mass media is one of the democratic institutions that encourage greater moves toward independence. In Africa, the mass media played a critical role in forming nationalist movements that fought for independence and self-rule. After independence, the media has always fuelled ethnicity in the name of promoting patriotism. It labels certain groups by associating them with certain traits. This encourages various groups to work hard towards the realization of certain needs. In fact, some scholars are of the view that ethnicity is not a reality, but instead it is a creation of the media. The mass media has a tremendous influence on the life of an individual because it shapes the public opinion. In the modern society, people consume according to media adverts, which shows that the media has taken over the primary socializing role of the family. If the media advises an individual to be patriotic, an individual will work hard to be patriotic.
How Democracies Use Nationalism to Hold the Country Together
Many scholars are of the view that democracy can only flourish under delimited space, which means that nationalism is a prerequisite for democracy. It is factual that no democratic regimes have ever attempted to embrace the whole world, but instead they exist within an exclusivity of a nation-state. A democratic system functions well if its constitutive organs, which are the citizens, have faith with the system. In developed democracies, Almond and Verba (89) noted that citizens can identify themselves with a system affectively or would as well support it through evaluative believes. Research shows that people tend to believe in a system particularly when they are proud of their nation. Furthermore, the support that people give any political system is determined by the national identity meaning that individuals who are willing to identify themselves with a certain nationality would be ready to support the leadership as well. Conversely, support to a political system is very weak when the nation is highly polarized.
The European Union has been able to achieve its goals and interests because of the support it receives from member states. Members are always willing to identify themselves as Europeans because they are proud of the European nation. This is compared to the African Union, which has been facing various challenges because people are not willing to identify themselves as Africans. In other words, there is no African nation as compared to the European nation and the American nation. Some individuals in Africa identify themselves with Arabs while others associate themselves with Europeans. Nationalism is applied effectively in the developed world to enforce compliance whereby individuals are encouraged to drop their extreme claims for the sake of the nation. Through nationalism, the American nation has always reached certain conclusions regarding matters that affect the state. Therefore, nationalism has always been utilized in arriving at consensus in the developed democracies (Abizadeh 870). It is concluded from the above analysis that nationalism is not a challenge to democratic ideals.
Examples of Ethnic National Identities
The United States and France are the two modern democracies that serve as examples of ethnic national identities. The two countries share many things, including the idea that they both revolted against a kingly rule to come up with stable republics. They became the state-nations of considerable size based on self-government and regime, by forcing the kings to surrender power. They both embarked on massive involuntary transportation of Africans, who provided forced labour. After independence, some groups identified themselves with certain cultures in the United States, which were very different from those of others. This led to conflicts that sparked the American Civil War. Some ethnic groups felt that their culture was superior to that of any other group hence they had to be respected. However, other ethnic groups could not allow this to happen because they also valued their culture (Abizadeh 37). Through constitutional reforms, the ethnic conflicts were resolved, which allowed communities to coexist. Constitutional reforms have dampened the ethnic national identities of various groups in the United States.
Works Cited
Abizadeh, Arash. “Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders.” Political Theory, 36.1 (2008): 37-65. Print.
Abizadeh, Arash. “On the Demos and Its Kin: Nationalism, Democracy, and the Boundary Problem.” American Political Science Review, 106.4 (2012): 867-882. Print.
Almond, Gabriel, and Verba, Sidney. The Civic Culture. Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. New Dehli: Sage Publications, 2009. Print.
Banting, Keith, and Kymlicka, Will. Multiculturalism and the Welfare State. Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.
Bartolini, Stefano. Restructuring Europe. Centre formation, system building, and political structuring between the nation state and the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.
Beissinger, Mark. “A New Look at Ethnicity and Democratization.” Journal of Democracy, 19.3 (2008): 85-97. Print.
Giddens, Anthony. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990. Print.
Haugaard, Mark. Nationalism and Liberalism. London: SAGE Publications, 2006. Print.
Macedo, Stephen. The Moral Dilemma in U.S. Immigration Policy: Open Borders versus Social Justice?” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print.
Miller, David. Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Theoretical Reflections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Ringmar, Erik. “Nationalism: The Idiocy of Intimacy.” The British Journal of Sociology, 49.4 (1998): 534-549. Print.
Tamir, Yael. “The Enigma of Nationalism.” World Politics, 47.3 (1995): 418-440. Print.
This is an opinionated and social philosophy that advocates on promotion of the traditional institution through support and maintenance. Some conservatives will try to preserve things by leaving them in their original forms while others will try to change things by use of modern mechanisms. From the time of its establishment, the term has been used in the description of a broad range of views about political science. Conservative has far been viewed as an attitude, a force and a function of time aimed at developing a free society in response to the basic requirements of human nature (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
A category of conservatism that combines the aspects of conservatism with liberalism is referred to as conservative liberalism. This ideology owes its origin from the beginning of liberalism when the political class was formed under conservative liberalism. The impact of the First World War brought a more variable classical liberalism that brought this ideology. Libertarian conservatism combines the two and was common in US and Canada and lobbies for economic and personal freedom. This ideology supports free trade and opposes national banks, and business regulations (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
Fiscal conservatism is an economic principle that calls for wisdom in government spending. Conservatism argues that the government should be responsible for its debt accumulation and should not throw the responsibility to its citizens. Green conservatism entails involvement of green concerns into their ideologies. They are mainly concerned with finding efforts in curbing environmental issues, conservation of the natural resources and protection of human environmental health (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
Social conservatism calls for sharing of culture s between nations. They have a strong faith in traditional values in politics in trying to maintain nationalisms. Social conservatism is much different in that, the government has responsibility to enforce and encourage these values so as to preserve morality and social norms (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
Religious conservatism will try to accommodate the teachings of a specific religion in politics, by fixing their values into their teachings and in some cases trying to make those teachings influence the law. The incorporation of religious beliefs into the helps in shaping the religious power that can be used in governance. These religious values can be included in the making of the laws by the bodies concerned.
Psychologists’ researchers in their studies argue that relationship that exists between conservatism and racial related issues is strong. This will only depend on different levels an individual has attained in terms of education and relationships.the correlation between conservatism and racism is also dependent on the society dominance in terms of orientations than in terms of laid down principles (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
Nationalism
This is an ideology concerned with the identification of groups or individuals with political stands nationally. The identity of a person is created by the nationalism. Different strands of nationalism can also be used to identify a group of persons or an individual. Citizenship can be restricted to ethnic groups, religions, cultural, or identity groups. One has the right to express his/her national identity even if the origin is from a minority group. In some cases nationalism due to some reactions calls for the rebuild of the nation give home for the underclass ethnic groups by means of forming revolutions to expel the foreigners (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
Nationalism will emphasize on collective identification of individuals to create unity in expression of national that stands alone. This brings about a unit with different social classes but of same goal in politics. The deep emotions expressed in respect of these symbols are as sign of patriotism and loyalty to ones nation and nationality. As per the principle of civic nationalism, the nation is not based upon the same ethnic origin but political unit of whose foundation is not laid upon ethnicity. Ethnic nationalism does not mean being dominance in terms of ethnicity over the others. This may be in full support in some nations through means of offering better services and protection for the supreme ethnic groups (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
National purity is the act of some nationalists keeping specific groups in exclusion. These groups are kept in separate following their language, religion, ethnic groups or the all of these combined. This will tend to make these minorities feel not being true components national community. Socialist nationalism is a movement motivated by politics with nationalism. Most of these movements are aimed at liberating a nation against miss use by other nations.they require put efforts among themselves so as they can uproot themselves from the alleged intruders (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
In territorial nationalism it is believed that all those occupy a particular nation.
Owns their origin to their country of birth or where they were adopted. In this case it is believed that citizenship is maintained by territorial nationalism in trying to maintain culture in terms of traditions norms and populations. The opposite is pan nationalism whereby a large area of population is considered with more ethnic groups. Ultra nationalism is keen nationalism that shows full support of ones national’s principles. It is involved if finding illegal immigrants, reduction and stopping of immigration, removal and deposition of non natives (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
Anti colonial nationalism originated after the period of war.Mainly, this came from the response of Africana and Asia recovering from colonial powers.This took many forms some being peaceful and some took a form of massive resistance. Nationalism have been criticized that it has not been clearly known of what really constitutes a nation or the reason for a nation being the only solid figure in political rule unit. It should therefore be viewed as a cultural figure and not necessary as a political monument that is associated with a particular territorial area (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
Socialism
This is an economic system whereby the sequence and production means have been dominated and its control is in form of cooperatives.It is based on removal of hierarchy in management of affairs in politics and economy as its way of social organization. Economic socialism is concerned with production for basic consumption and distribution of economic inputs to satisfy the demands needed for human use. The cost of production is accounted following the measure of labor, quantities of resources and the physical magnitude (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
The finished goods and services are supplied and distributed through market depending on the purchasing powers of the consumers as per their levels of income. Socialism as political movement deals with a wide range of political philosophies. Nationalism is advocated for by socialism by the use of different stake holders who are used in the formation of strategies to implement socialism. Since its origin socialism has criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership of properties in the society (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
Socialists see capitalism as a method designed to produce wealth through the use of power to control the process of production within a concentrated area by the means of exploitation. This brings inequality in the society due to the unequal sharing of available opportunities. Socialism is aimed at allowing an equal distribution of wealth depending on how one is ready to give onto the society as per what one holds.
A major goal of socialism is to fight for social equality and distribution of wealth to benefit the society in full (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
Today, the social democracy is mostly supported by many socialists in efforts to establish reforms on the current issues affecting socialism. The current social democracy is aimed at coming up with projects that will try to make changes on capitalism to make it more humane and equitable. Democratic socialism tries to come up with an economy that is free especially for the working class (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
Leninism work is to guide the working class of people in their race to reach the state. It is believed that socialism cannot rise instantly after the fall of capitalism due to lack of development of socialists consciousness by the workers. The solution is only provided by the leadership provided by the promoted party. Leninists will try to build a state in which the working class takes power over which they see it essential to build a society that is stateless (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
In my opinion, socialism provides the best perspective of freedom of equality. This is mainly depicted by democratic socialism through social democracy. The act of trying to fight with capitalism helps people to freely involve themselves into projects that bring down capitalism and come up with an economy that is free for all. The formation of stateless society means people will have a more humane and equitable life.
Feminism
Feminism is a political ideology that emphasizes on social, economic and political equality between men and women. Feminists are people in support of feminism and who seek gender equality for women. Activities of feminism involve campaigns for women’s rights especially in men dominated environments. Feminism movements fight for the rights of women, their independence and their physical integrity by campaigning against sexual harassment, domestic violence, and equality at work place. Feminists have advocated for equal pay, career opportunities, leadership roles and working conditions for both men and women (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011). This paper seeks to explain why some feminists view women as oppressed. It also outlines this situation as depicted by contemporary Canada.
Feminism as a political ideology comprises of liberal feminism, radical feminism, socialist feminism, and conservative feminism. Radical feminists, and most common, seek to totally reconstruct the society since they believe that the male dominated society is the defining characteristic of oppression. Socialist feminists link women with oppression and attempt to stop both discrimination in terms of class and gender. Conservative feminism depends on the society or the subjects in question (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
The fundamental reasoning or belief of a feminist is that “women are an oppressed class”. They work very hard to stop this oppression by liberating women; giving them equal rights in the society. Some feminists seek to change the entire system by which men and women have grown. They have challenged the traditional setting where men have been given the “hard roles” and women have taken what is considered the “light roles”. They have widened and deepened the basic meaning of being a woman in an arguably male dominated society. Other feminists believe that the system does need to change, but it needs to be challenged (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
Feminists view women as oppressed and this makes them very active in their campaigns. However, this has been viewed as aggression by those who campaign against feminists. Feminists allow themselves to enter into the world of oppressed women and react against their own oppressors. However, they assert that they do not fight against men as individuals, but they fight against the entire oppressive system. The reaction against their ways of campaign is not always welcomed by the society. In most cases, feminists have been described as “man-haters” and have been criticized as rebels, regardless of their campaign approach.
Feminists view women as oppressed due to the way women are treated in the society. In Africa and some parts Asia, female genital mutilation is still evident even after decades of activism. Women do not make major decisions; young girls are married off when still young and are not supposed to question the decision. Feminists have discovered discrimination against women goes beyond sexual orientation. It has a lot to do with the societal belief on gender roles, something that is emotionally oppressive. The society has historically dictated how a woman should act, her roles, and her behaviors; this results to oppression because this typical master slave environment.
The society has a lot of misconceptions on women. There are some beliefs that women are less interested in sex, a misconception that degrades their sexuality. There are also beliefs that most feminists are lesbians. In the work place, the traditional assumptions were that women were not allowed to take lead positions. These misconceptions are some of the reasons why feminists believe that women are the oppressed gender.
Statistics indicate that most women are sexually and verbally abused at some point in their life; no such statistics exist for men. This is a form of oppression that makes feminist believe in women’s oppression. Statistics also indicate that domestic violence oppresses more women than men (Mintz, Close, & Croci, 2011).
There is a perceived social superiority accorded to men. The same men harass women at all places; when taking walks, driving, in shopping malls, and even in public gatherings. It is very hard to find a man harassing another man; the few cases end up in fights, something impossible for women. The society has formed an oppressive culture that makes men to believe that women are inferior. The law dwells much on physical abuse than on verbal abuse which are more oppressive. Feminists attempt to empower women to get rid of the belief that they are meant to be dependent, passive, placating, and submissive.
The oppressive culture in contemporary Canada is encouraged silently by the entire society. Although language has allowed equivalence in gender, this is neglected. In reality, it is possible to hear someone referring to grown woman as a “girl, honey or baby”. These terms have no equivalence in men, and as a matter of fact, an immature boy is sometimes promoted to a man or a gentleman. Some TV personalities have gone to the extent of introducing grown women as a “beautiful girls”. Although the news anchor may mean no harm to the lady, feminist have viewed this as oppressive.
The majority of Canadians question the relevance of feminism, and some believe that is extraneous. The contemporary Canada has repetitively attacked and abused the right of women. The feminists’ organizations or any women organizations suffer lack of funding. Women, both indigenous and refugees face equal oppressive treatment. This was among the first nations to recognize the rights of women to vote in 1919 and the first woman parliamentarian in 1921, but Canada still need the roles of feminism.
The current conservative government is limiting women and feminism activities. Recently, human rights and women movements found their rude shock when a bill that was to criminalize coercion into abortion failed. The current government can be described as “antifeminist and oppressive to women” because it has seen the elimination of the word equality in the mission statement of Status of Women Canada. All the funding in support of independent research, advocacy and campaigns carried out by Status of Women Canada has been withdrawn. Many feminist organizations have died or ceased to operate for lack of funding.
The national feminist organization in Canada, “The National Action Committee” was dissolved as a result of lack of financial support from the government. The only existing feminist organizations are grass root in operation and do not have a national coverage. Some are characterized by young people seeking to fight oppression and patriarchy existing in Canada. The first Canadian Young Feminists Gathering convention was held in 2008 has been growing since than. Currently, the organization is reaching the entire country and empowering all the young feminists to rise against oppression, capitalism and patriarchy in Canada.
References
Mintz, E., Close, D., & Croci, O. (2011). Politics, Power and the Common Good: An Introduction to Political Science, 3rd ed. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Education.
Nationalism is freedom and the beginning of equality and prosperity. The people make a nation strong and united. China must have its people as one, in order to become one of the leading nations in the world.
The Chinese have had a long history of hardships and sometimes were rewarded with happiness. Throughout the 19th century, the times have shown to be as difficult as ever. The moral fabric of the Chinese people has become jeopardized by the beliefs of the masses and the support of the government. The power and the control of the country do not lay with the people of China, foreign peoples and world trade and economy are the ones that have China in a tight grip. The times when there were secret organizations of anarchy and communism are recent. The Western culture has had its influence of the nationalism of China where people would want to follow the Western way of life. There are those who believe that it is possible to stay ethnically Chinese but become westernized and this deprives China of its Nationality and strength. Ethnic backgrounds are based on genetics, biology and in no way unify people in a moral sense. Nationality is the feeling of belongingness and belief in one’s Nation. Pluralism is not allowed in the struggle for the common good. It is clear that the modern times are rapidly changing and China must stay together with the world that is reshaping itself and the way things are done in it. China has always been a nation full of traditions and beliefs in the unity and strength of people. The modernization of the world has created a gap between the Chinese and the rest of the world. Nationalism is the way to show how together people of China can do so much. The social support and networks must be supported and strengthened, in order for the country to develop. There must be a high level of trust in the society and the community, which allows contributing to the collective success and creates decisions in the common national problems and issues. Nationalism will also provide the basis for the assimilation of the minorities and establish an order amongst people. The collective of people is one of the major moving forces in the fight for the country and its position in relation to other Nations. The world economy has somewhat added to the strength and goals of China. It has made the market more developed, both internally and globally.
But, at the same time, nationalism can lead astray and change an individual into becoming obsessed with their nationality. Their views become distorted and they focus on their personal goals, tricking themselves into believing that they are acting on behalf of people and for the people. The key aspect of Nationalism is that the most important thing is the people. They are the ones to dictate and determine what is best for the country but more specifically, the Nation. Unfortunately, individual development and the present world, naturally lead people away from the common goal. The interests of the nation will eventually lead to the benefits for every person individually. Sometimes, there are groups of people within a society who focus on bettering China and the conditions its people face. The government of China sees a lot of positive influence in the world and global market. Thus, the Chinese world is pulled into a place that does not have the proper conditions for a person to reach their full potential. The national economy and the social sphere must be strengthened and not changed into something that was not tested before. Right now the Chinese people are faced with many laws and regulations that govern the society and pull it in a certain direction. These are the criteria which govern the development of the cultural advances and changes. The nationality of China is under question with today’s moral changes and implications. The Cultural Revolution has taken people further from older traditions that were a part of life for many generations. This moving away from the “ancient” way of life does not mean that the nationality of the country will be lost. It is important for it not to be lost. This is where nationalism becomes extremely valuable. It is one of the highest forms of social unity and it is the primary force in the formation of a country or nation. There could be several political movements within a society that take somewhat different avenues. People will always have different ways of doing things but as long as they are fighting for the common good and the goodness of the country, it is still the same fight. The traditions must be kept intact, as they are the supportive base for any nation. People can rely and find consolation in the beliefs and traditions that have existed for hundreds of years. The history of a nation is exactly what makes it different from other nations and to forget one’s roots, is to forget the nationality and the ancestors. The key to China’s national strength was its long commitment to the forefather’s beliefs. This made the goals of every generation shared, with everyone having an input into the development of social multifaceted world. The nature of the world has set certain barriers between cultures and nations. The Chinese nation is determined by the fundamentals that cannot be found in the rest of the world. The love and friendship among the Chinese people and the helping hand that they offer one another, is truly a great quality that could be observed throughout Chinese history. The person belonging to the nation and its interests, supports the legitimacy of the government and the country. It is the people that make a nation strong, making it an important and inseparable factor in the building of an effective and flexible nation.
The most unfortunate part of nationalism is that sometimes it reaches extreme methods and innocent people become involved in very harsh realities. Genocide and other ethnical cleaning are considered to be a part of nationalist movement. In such context the word “nationalism” becomes very hard to define. It is lost in the fanatical goals of a select few who pursue the greatness of their nation through violence and destruction. There are theories that nationalism is a dangerous thing because it leads to the buildup of cultural differences and public inequalities. Nationalism means the agreement with anything that is chosen for the majority. As the definitions are usually very strict and regulated, a lot of people are forced into a system they cannot belong with. Also, the individual development is halted when all the efforts are taken to form a nation of strong and unbendable morals. Nationalism should not be political or religious. It should be based on the moral goodness of people and their interest in making the nation strong but not at the price of individuals and cultural setbacks. There are those who believe that a strong nation cannot have several groups of people of different ethnicities or backgrounds. This separates the nation and does not add to the greater good. In reality, it would be absolutely impractical to try to root out or separate different ethnic groups from the nation. These people make up the population and have the same say in the formation of the nation. They are a great resource and their commitment to the common goal is proof enough of their interests in making the nation strong. Nationalism should be guided by highest standards. The unification of many types of people but with a common territory, will be beneficial for a national movement. The people of China should not segregate people who live on its territory and want to be part of the country. It is everyone’s personal choice of what they choose to believe in and fight for. It does not matter if a person is of different background but it matters what they presently believe in. If they want to be a part of the great Chinese history and tradition, they should be allowed a place in between the people who are proud to be Chinese, who are making the nation one of the greatest and richest ones in the world.
Threats Posed to the New States by the Current International Arena
The process of gaining independence and annexing a region from its motherland is always marked by bloodshed. However, long civil strife and destruction of the property lead to talks that force political leaders to cease part of their territories to others to ensure there is peace. This process is usually marked by celebrations and national festivities that attract leaders from all corners of the world. Human right groups spring up almost immediately after the formation of new states and neighboring countries including the international community starts salivating for the attractive opportunities offered by young nations. However, these new states like Kosovo and South Sudan hardly enjoy their freedoms before the bitter truth lands on their doorsteps. They think that they are independent and can make decisions without interference from other nations; however, this is usually not true and they are always shocked when they realize that they were more independent when they were part of other nations than what they are today. Globalization and the current international arena are hostile to all new states and that makes their entrance a nightmare that they wish to overcome.
First, modern international relations are controlled by policies that ensure states interact in a healthy way. Their policies must reflect the need to respect other players in the global scene. Therefore, nations cannot make independent decisions regarding their policies without consulting other states. New nations seldom enjoy their freedom with other states in the international arena due to the need to establish policies that do not only benefit them but also other countries. Therefore, this is an important way of understanding that there is not absolute freedom and new nations are exposed to uncertain futures regarding their policies. There is a need for new states to adjust very fast and accommodate the international policies that govern global issues. Today, new nations especially those in Africa are faced with the dilemma of choosing to do business with eastern or western countries; therefore, this affects their policies because they are forced to behave according to how their masters dictate.
Secondly, economic globalization has threatened the authority of most new states. The process of gaining sovereignty is not as easy as some people and states think. People and regions go to war with each other and this is accompanied by bloodshed and destruction of valuable property and infrastructure. Civil disobedience and other criminal activities become the order of the day and nobody cares about the future. However, when all the dust settles the reality begins to sink on them and they realize they have no roads, food, buildings, and other important economic resources. These new states must reorganize their economic regulatory standards and eliminate most of them to attract foreign capital. Therefore, they cannot act in opposition to market forces because they do not have the power to develop and sustain their economies. Globalization forces new states to expose their citizens to the dangers of international trade and restrictions. The social policy becomes subject to the needs of structural competition and dynamics of the labor market. Therefore, new states become vulnerable and interdependent because of contemporary security threats. The introduction of international monetary policies and the use of standard measures of value (dollar and pound) offer economic challenges that force new states to change their policies to attract foreign investments so that the value of their currencies can become stable and allow local traders to conduct their activities.
Thirdly, globalization enables new states to open their gates to other countries in the name of economic, social, and political exchange. However, the reality of this issue is that there is no country in the world that is sovereign. This terminology exists to fool countries to believe that they are in total control of their destiny. However, this ideology is wrong because it ignores the tenets of international coexistence. First, nations cannot become independent if their masters do not want to let them go. Therefore, they do not gain independence by themselves but by the deliberate action of their masters to allow them to do so. Secondly, new nations form armies very quickly and establish other security measures that will protect them from attacks from other countries. However, these attacks cannot resist or fight the introduction of modern technology, new ideas, and products in their countries. Even the strongest army in the world needs to borrow new ideas from other countries to ensure it strengthens its ability to protect its territory.
Lastly, terrorism knows no bounds and new states are becoming fertile grounds for the establishment and development of terrorist activities. Somalia had been in civil strife for more than two decades and gained independence recently. However, the presence of a new and weak government and its structures has offered fertile grounds for terrorism to exist. The new nation is unable to fight terrorism and at the same time develop its economy; therefore, it has to forego one aspect and this has increased insecurity in the East African region. The effects of terrorists in Somalia are felt by terrorism attacks on neighboring countries like Kenya and Uganda and there are fears that this criminal gang is becoming bolder due to the support it receives from Al-Qaida.
Links between Nationalism, Globalization, and Identity
Nationalism is a practice and belief that makes people have a sense of belonging to their country. Patriotism is a way of behavior that shows an individual loves his country. Nations have different ways of showing their uniqueness that enable them to be different from others. National anthems, flags, logos, constitutions, and other civic aspects distinguish nations from others. Nationalism is achieved when individuals accept and follow the rules that guide their behavior and love all aspects that promote development in their countries. A country’s history is an important part of its national culture and this includes past and present political leaders, events, and places that are respected because of their historic value. Globalization is a process that interrogates nations and enables them to exchange social, political, and cultural issues. This process is enhanced by improved transport and communication systems and world stability in politics and the economy. The need to improve local business and production activities force people to look for efficient and fast technologies and this enhances inter-states trade activities. Globalization is a two-way process that involves the exchange of ideas between developing and developed countries. Westernization is a one-way process because it involves Americanizing other countries. Identity is the expression of sovereignty and independence by nations or individuals. This helps them to be identified by others and thus it highlights the important characteristics that make them unique.
Nations have various aspects that enable their citizens to promote their sovereignty and ensure they protect and enjoy their territorial privileges. They identify themselves through their national flags and other aspects like constitutions, anthems, and policies that make them unique from others. Having a sense of identity promotes nationalism because it enables citizens to be proud of their countries. Patriotism is enhanced through identifying and protecting national aspects that are important in the history of a country. Celebrations of national holidays and key figures give states identity and allow them to express their patriotism to their countries. People cannot be proud of their country and promote nationalism if they do not identify what aspects make their countries unique. In addition, they cannot promote cohesion if they do not know and understand important events in their national calendars.
Globalization is a serious threat to nationalism and identity in the following ways. International policies endeavor to unify all countries and ensure they are equal and adopt similar laws. This means that some countries are forced to abandon their practices and traditions to avoid violating international regulations. In addition, globalization dilutes local traditions as modern technology replaces traditional practices and modern production. Nations adopt similar practices and this means that there will be no differences between them; therefore, they will lack identity as their practices become synchronized and characterized by modern aspects. Moreover, globalization pushes nations to abandon the need to promote regional development and makes them selfish. They relate with those that will benefit them and avoid relations with countries that will not offer then social, political, or economic gains. However, globalization makes the world to be similar and thus promotes integration among individuals and communities. In addition, it fosters good international relations by promoting the exchange of ideas, products, and technologies between countries. Lastly, it facilitates development in third world countries by ensuring that there is access to modern technology and ideas that help them to adopt cheap, efficient, and faster ways of transport, communication, production, and learning.
Yi Hangno and Ch’oe Ikhyŏn appear very devoted to preserving the Korean culture and nation and opposing external influences. In fact, they are quite sharp in their writings; for example, Ch’oe Ikhyŏn refers to the Japanese as people who “have the face of human beings but the mind of beasts” (Lee & de Bary, 1997, p. 241) and repeatedly refers to them as bandits. Both writers strongly oppose the religion that the conquerors are bringing them, and Yi Hangno claims that “Buddhism is nothing more than a heretical sect from the remote Western Regions” (Lee & de Bary, 2997, p. 140), while Ch’oe Ikhyŏn, his disciple, calls the religion that the Japanese promote wicked. Overall, these writings make the impression that the authors were nationalists in a negative sense, meaning that they constantly stressed how evil and barbarian foreigners were, which suggests their certainty about the superiority of the Korean nation over other nations.
However, there is a more complicated understanding of nationalism. In addressing it, one should ask: Is nationalism about loyalty to a government (or a royal family), appreciation of a culture, or dedication to the nation as a whole? In this regard, the identity challenge is faced. Different opinions can be expressed as per what it meant for a Korean in the 19th century to be a Korean. For example, one can speculate on what was more important for Yi Hangno and Ch’oe Ikhyŏn: Confucianism or the political independence of Korea? Upon reading their texts, I think the latter was more important for them despite the fact that they ferociously denied the religion imposed on them. In fact, religion and culture can be intertwined, but I think that the authors identified themselves as Koreans to a larger extent than they identified themselves as Confucian scholars.
Reference
Lee, P. H., & de Bary, W. T. (Eds.). (1997). Sources of Korean tradition. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.