Essay: What role does nationalism play in the modern state?

The question of what role nationalism plays in the modern state is widely disputed, with many arguing that nationalism, is and always has been a negative force within the state. (spencer & wollman 2002) Understandably so, as throughout history, nationalism has been an instrument of world powers to forcefully expand their empires, oppress cultures and to start wars. However, according to Sutherland many ‘new nationalisms’ may be seen as ‘generally civic movements which incorporate a broad social base and are progressive in their discourse’ (2011:34). Firstly, I will look at how modern day nationalism continues to play a significant role in the legitimation of power within modern states. Secondly, I will argue that nationalism allows many states to develop and consolidate their democracies. Finally, I will argue that nationalism plays a massive role in protecting the rights of Ethnic minorities within modern states.
First it is important to outline the variants of nationalism discussed in the essay. Civic nationalism is seen by some as a more modern and tolerant type of nationalism where all citizens are counted as being within the nation, despite their other existing personal identities. Ethnic nationalism instead bases an individual’s right to citizenship within the nation by their ethnic origin. However, in this essay I will argue that nationalism in modern states is usually of the civic variety and the role it plays is one which is of a more progressive and liberal nature.
In the first part of this essay, I will demonstrate how nationalism continues to play a legitimizing role within the modern state. It is widely thought that the importance of nationalism is declining as a result of globalization. The state becomes “disengaged” with nationalism in the face of globalization, as it lessens a state’s sovereignty and in doing so decreases the authority it has over its people. (Delanty and Kumar 2006) However, this is highly debateable and a great amount of evidence would suggest the opposite. I would argue that globalization in reality provides the state with an incentive to perpetuate nationalistic ideals, in order to maintain its sovereignty and legitimize its power over the people it governs. The challenge of globalization has therefore not decreased the significance of nationalism as a legitimizer ‘On the contrary, this challenge has only emphasized nationalism’s importance in maintaining the nation-state construct” (Sutherland 2011:35) this supports my view that as states become more and more influenced by foreign affairs in recent times, they must compete to retain authority over the nation by stimulating nationalistic ideals within the state. It is also important to highlight the fact that “globalization weakens states and by doing so strengthens nationalism” (Sabanadze 2010:101) when a state is weak and its legitimacy is highly uncertain, governments advocate nationalism as a way of maintaining support and legitimacy from the people. It is fundamental also to note that nationalism continues to be an integral way in which totalitarian regimes are able to legitimize their power. In most modern states the Legitimation function of nationalism may solely provide a state with sovereignty and create unity within the nation. However, in countries such as North Korea, the state uses nationalistic ideals to maintain totalitarian control over its people. Nationalism is clearly one of the major ways in which north Korean dictators gain legitimacy and keep such strict control over the people. “In order to extract his own legitimacy as leader in front of the people, Kim Junior set about to officially canvas the Korean nation and race as supremely superior to other peoples and creeds” (Nasr 2012:10) Although this extreme example shows that Ethnic Nationalism continues to support xenophobic beliefs in order to legitimate power, I will go on to discuss in the following parts, that nationalism is becoming less about ethnicity and is becoming much more civic in nature. Overall, it is clear that nationalism is paramount for legitimizing power within the modern state.
In the second part I will argue that nationalism plays a major role in consolidating and developing democracy within modern states. Firstly, nationalism tends to gain success within the state by the extent to which the state is able to deliver the ideology in a way which is representative of the people. When nationalism is implemented in such a way that it represents the citizens and makes them feel as part of a community, power within the state is said to be legitimate and democratic. (Zandberg 2010:54) Therefore in democratic states which have a successful liberal nationalist government, the citizens are provided with self-determination which in turn allows them to make the best choices over who will govern them. Representation is an Integral part of both Democracy and Nationalism. In the UK before the industrial revolution, the people were still very much ruled over by the monarchy, and the vast majority were excluded from political participation. However, as the country developed into a modern state, citizens become less and less influenced by the monarchy and instead society became very individualist. As a result, a new way of bringing about social cohesion was in the form of nationalism. (Gellner 1983:6) Nationalism provided the solidarity amongst the people which was needed at the time in order to transform the UK into a modern and democratic state. However, to look at the other side of the argument, it has been suggested by some that nationalism provides an undemocratic or even fake sense of solidarity and that ‘The cohesion it secures is essentially pre-political’ (Spencer and Wollman 2002:201) Despite this it is clear that nationalism plays a major role in developing and consolidating democracy within the modern state. Lastly, using the example that ‘Inclusive nationalisms have meaningfully supported the establishment of democratic regimes in India and Indonesia’ (Tudor and Slater 2015:17) whereas in the very similar east Asian countries of Pakistan and Malaysia, the lack of a civic national movement has inhibited any democratic development from taking place. Showing clearly the importance of Nationalism as a democratizer in the modern state.
Finally, I will look at how recent civic nationalism movements have protected the rights of Ethnic minorities within the modern state. Nationalism has undeniably become much less concerned with ethnicity and in fact it can be said that ‘Ethnicity and nationhood were understood as definitionally antithetical’ (Brubaker 1996:81). In most western states where there is a nationalistic movement, a lot of the time they are those of a civic and liberal nature, which are highly inclusive of ethnic minorities. During the 2014 Scottish independence referendum it was shown that a majority of 64% Scottish Asians were backing the yes Scotland campaign, clearly showing ethnic minorities support for the nationalist movement. Civic nationalist movements gain support from ethnic minorities as their political quest is not for ethnic purity, but instead for things such as independence, self-determination and unity within the nation. As a result, this creates a sense of community and solidarity which is inclusive to ethnic minorities, which might not have been possible without the back up of a civil nationalist movement. Minorities are accepted and feel part of the community as they are all striving towards the same political goal. As it is widely noted that prejudice against ‘outgroups’ is reduced when subjects are going towards a common goal (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006:761) Clearly Civic nationalism is highly beneficial in reducing prejudice and is inclusive to ethnic minorities within the state. Although it is clear that in many cases nationalism has become much more supportive of Ethnic minorities, there are still modern nationalist movements that take a more derogatory view towards minorities. For example, with Parti Quebecois leader Jacques Parizeau blaming the lack of success of Quebec independence on “money and the ethnic vote” (Leask, 2014) Therefore, it is undeniable that although nationalism can protect the rights of minorities, it can also become detrimental and do the opposite.
Throughout this essay I have examined some of the various different roles which nationalism plays within the modern state. Overall I looked at how the role of nationalism has become increasingly one of a more liberal and progressive nature within the modern state, in comparison to how ethnic and expansionist nationalism has prevailed in the past. Firstly, by looking at how modern states are able to legitimate power and in doing so fight the pervasive influence of globalization with the use of nationalism. Secondly, I highlighted the importance of nationalism in maintaining and developing a democracy within the state. Nationalism is undoubtedly becoming much more progressive in the way it is seen to democratize states, and allow the people of the nation to be represented. Finally, in the last part, I argued that in some cases, such as in Scotland, nationalism is now supportive of the rights of ethnic minorities, by providing an alternative political community where minorities can find solidarity with the rest of the nation, and by the fact like with many states, the nationalism is not concerned with ethnicity, but instead with a particular political goal.