Essay: Methodological nationalism

Methodological nationalism has resulted in the perception that the nation-state is the focal element of politics through, as Martins describes, the naturalised assumption that the nation-state delineates the boundary and scale for understanding socio-political developments (Jeffery and Wincott, 2010: 171). The approach is premised on the idea that people are naturally divided by national borders, within which they organise as nation-states through statewide governance (Beck, 2002: 51). Rather than a distinctive approach, methodological nationalism is expressed as an instinct that leads scholars to focus their research on the nation-state, prioritising it over the study of sub-state and supra-state levels. Thus, attention to the method was ignited by its own critics, notably the Edinburgh school and proponents of cosmopolitanism, who argued the nation-state focus it perpetuated was insufficient for gaining a complete understanding of political activity and other levels of governance deserved greater scholarly attention (Jeffery and Wincott, 2010: 167-8). This essay will examine voters’ attitudes towards non-statewide parties in the UK in order to understand their perceptions of multi-layered politics and how much importance they place on the nation-state. Non-statewide parties (NSWPs) are organisations which stand for election in only one region, rather than campaigning across the whole nation-state (Jeffery and Schakel, 2013a: 327). Using methodological nationalism, a nationwide picture of voting behaviour will be established to understand voters’ party preferences, and therefore their attitudes towards NSWPs. Voting behaviour in the 2017 General Election will be used to determine these attitudes at the nation-state level; success at election demonstrating a positive voter attitude. In order to evaluate the approach, regional elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland will be utilised for comparison to discern whether methodological nationalism, that is the evidence from the nation-state level, is effective and sufficient in accurately explaining voter attitudes towards NSWPs. While both Northern Ireland and Scotland are states in their own right, they are often treated as regions on the political stage and subordinate to the sovereignty of Westminster. Therefore, the UK can confidently be conceptualised as the nation-state.
Methodological nationalism has three key conceptual characteristics. As the nation-state is considered as the structuring principle of political and social organisation, it is perceived as the most important unit of analysis in social science (Beck, 2002: 52). Since methodological nationalism mainly materialises as an instinct rather than an intentional approach, its application is not a rational thought process. It is purely a predisposition to deal with political phenomena primarily at the nation-state level. This assumption that the nation-state is the most important unit of analysis, has manifested itself into the prioritisation of data collection at this level over all others (Jeffery and Schakel, 2013b: 299). The emphasis on the importance of the nation-state has also reinforced the idea that it is the locus of progress and modernisation (Chernilo, 2006: 6-7). It is generally believed that national governments stimulate their countries’ socially and politically progressive initiatives, and are therefore the core of the values of modernity and welfare expected in modern democracies. The further implication of this is that sub-state governance is considered as subordinate, insignificant, and a source of regressive policies (Jeffery and Schakel, 2013b: 299-300), and that social change is an endogenous process, with external factors having little impact on the nation-states evolution (Chernilo, 2006: 7). The final characteristic of methodological nationalism is the equation of the nation-state and society (Beck, 2007: 286). The nation-state is perceived as the nucleus of political and social organisation, as well as the way in which citizens should claim their identity, therefore society is rooted in this level (Jeffery and Wincott, 2010: 167). The state imposes a homogenous national identity upon its citizens to enhance the idea of a national community within its boundaries (Henderson and McEwen, 2005: 174), thereby producing the view of societal harmony at state level, and vesting the state with responsibility for defining citizenship and identity. Further, this homogeneity reinforces the use of the nation-state as a unit of analysis by excusing researchers from examining other levels to understand various identities and nationalisms (Requejo, 1999: 257).
The origin and persistence of methodological nationalism has three explanations; historical, sociological and practical. The historical explanation for this approach is the cyclical reinforcement and perpetuation by scholars and states themselves over the years. The historical presupposition that the nation-state was the core and boundary for political action and progress has failed to be challenged in mainstream scholarship, and the process nation building has resulted in populations and governance being identified primarily with their nation-state. The sociological explanation is intertwined with the historical, as the process of nation building has encouraged the idealisation of the nation-state as a socially cohesive and politically self-sufficient unit. Nation-states are self-interested in presenting this image in order to maintain their relevance, create internal solidarity, and promote nation-state competition which maintains these sociological ideas (Chernilo, 2006: 8-9). The final, practical explanation is the constraints of data collection. The bias in favour of the nation-state has ensured the wide availability of, and advanced methods for collecting data at this level, while suppressing sub- and supra-state data collection, thereby making it far more straightforward to carry out nation-state level research (Jeffery and Schakel, 2013b: 300-1).
By applying methodological nationalism to voting behaviour this essay seeks to explain voters’ opinions of non-statewide parties. Through examining election results in a national context, an understanding of voter attitudes towards various parties will be developed, allowing us to judge comparatively their importance within the nation-state. The 2017 General Election was perceived by many as a referendum on Theresa May’s and Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, and discussion throughout the election campaign and in the aftermath focused primarily on the two principal statewide parties. The results reflected the dominance of these parties with Conservatives winning 318 seats and Labour 262 of the 650 available; they took over 40% of the vote each (BBC, 2017a). The Conservatives were successful as they won the election with the most seats, while Labour’s success was illustrated by the obdurate failure of the Conservatives to achieve their expected landslide win, alongside their triumph of invigorating the disaffected youth vote (Sloam, 2017: 20). A 68.7% voter turnout, higher than the four previous elections (UK Political, 2017), demonstrates that voters were highly engaged in the issues surrounding this election, notably Brexit and national security (Thorsen, Jackson, and Lilleker, 2017: 8), as well as with the two most successful parties. While, different voters reacted contrary to each party, the success of both in the general election suggests that these statewide parties were considered by voters to be the most important parties, and the high electoral turnout suggests that voters perceive national elections as a critical aspect of their political participation. However, other statewide parties failed to make much of an impact on the results. The Liberal Democrats managed to gain four new seats, pulling their number up to a rather unimpressive 12, without altering their vote share. The Greens held onto their one spot in Parliament, while UKIP lost theirs and decimated their vote share (BBC, 2017a). Methodological nationalism suggests that the niche interests of the Greens and UKIP inevitably lead to their poor electoral performance as they failed to resonate with voters beyond the issues of the environment or Brexit, the defining characteristics of each (Requejo, 1999: 256-7).
The performance of the non-statewide parties was massively overshadowed by their leading statewide rivals, in terms of national parliamentary representation. The SNP, the largest NSWP in Parliament, lost a massive portion of its seats, gaining only 9% of the number achieved by the Conservative. The DUP and Sinn Fein both increased their share, totalling 17 seats between them at the expense of their moderate counterparts, the UUP and SDLP. Finally, Plaid Cymru came out the weakest of the NSWPs with only 4 seats. Therefore, applying methodological nationalism to party performance suggests that non-statewide parties fail to engage many voters nor garner much support for their regionally specific issues. To voters it appears that statewide parties are more relevant and worth their votes than non-statewide or niche parties as the Conservatives, Labour, and even the Liberal Democrats, gained more seats than any regional party.
However, methodological nationalism proves ineffective in sufficiently and accurately explaining voters’ attitudes towards these parties. By explaining results from a regionally viewpoint the fortunes of NSWPs in the general election appear far more positive. As each party only stands in a specific region it is necessary and fair that their results be judged in a regional context rather than a national one. The SNP gained over half of Scotland’s 59 parliamentary seats, while Plaid Cymru emerged as the third largest party in Wales. Most significantly, the DUP and Sinn Fein took nearly all of Northern Ireland’s seats between them, losing out in North Down to an independent rather than any statewide party. Regionally NSWPs made significant impacts in the 2017 General Elections. However, the strength of these parties within their regions, as well as their regional purpose, is ‘hidden from view’ by methodological nationalism’s emphasis on the importance of the nation-state. Therefore, the real implications of voting behaviour in these regions are marginalised.
Further, the UK’s statewide parties have created various regional branches (Hepburn, 2009: 491), demonstrating that these parties perceive NSWPs as serious competition within these regions. Both Labour and the Conservative party have developed distinctive Scottish and Welsh counterparts to undermine the voter support for NSWPs by addressing regionally specific issues, thereby introducing multi-dimensional policy making into these statewide parties which reflects regional interests alongside national ones (Hepburn, 2009: 490-1). The Conservative won seats in Scotland in 2017 were triumphs by the Scottish Conservatives, votes for Ruth Davidson rather than Theresa May, therefore highlighting the regional character of voter support. Statewide parties must learn to balance regional interests, usually demands for greater autonomy and economic investment, with their desire for party homogeneity (Fabre and Swenden, 2013: 344). The regionalisation of statewide parties, despite the risk to their own cohesion, demonstrates the importance of NSWPs in these areas and the electoral threat they pose, demonstrating the significant voter support these regional parties both possess and have the potential to gain.
The regionalisation of statewide parties is also the result of devolution in the UK, enabling NSWPs more legislative potential due to increased regional authority (Marks, 2008: 169-71). Devolution has reinforced the importance of regionally specific interests as well as enabling substantial policy divergence from the national level. For example, in 2017 Northern Ireland initiated an innovative policy to decrease the amount of food waste in landfills by refusing to empty grey bins which contained recyclable materials (NI Direct, 2018). This undermines the assumption of methodological nationalism that the nation-state is the locus of social progress, demonstrating substantial micro-level innovation for tackling a global community issue. Differences in policy approaches in different regions emphasis the relevance of NSWPs to voters as regional interests are specific and value-driven (Henderson and McEwen, 2005: 183-4). The prevalence of these regional interests is evident in regional elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland where NSWPs dominated. The 2016 Scottish Parliament and 2017 Stormont elections illustrate a far different picture than that created by the 2017 General Election. Regional parties dominate both legislative bodies as the SNP nearly claimed a majority with 63 of the 129 Holyrood seats (BBC, 2016), and Green was the only statewide party to gain seats within Stormont (BBC, 2017). Thus, in a regional context voters’ vest NSWPs with a lot more power than statewide parties, showing that they are attached to the regional interests NSWPs stand for.
From the standpoint of methodological nationalism, the performance of NSWPs at regional elections signifies little as these elections are minor events to voters in comparison to national elections. Consequently, Reif and Schmitt (1980) labelled such non-nation-state elections as second order and subordinate to national politics. The voting turnout in Scotland appears to support this assumption as the national election gained 10% more than the regional. However, voter turnout in Northern Ireland promotes a contrary view as both national and regional turnouts were similar, with NSWPs securing practically all the votes in both (BBC, 2017b). Indeed, the Scottish turnout was the highest it has ever been (Scottish Parliament, 2016: 22), suggesting that over time voters are becoming accustomed to Scottish devolution and recognising the value in regional elections. The importance of regional elections for NSWPs is demonstrated by their leaders running for office on a regional level rather than in national elections (Deschouwer, 2003: 218). Nicola Sturgeon, Arlene Foster, and Michelle O’Neill all sit in their devolved institutions, leaving the leadership of their Westminster contingents to those with lower ranks; the core level of governance for these parties is regional (Deschouwer, 2003: 218-9). The development of multi-layered statewide parties to appeal to different regions provides further evidence that voters consider regional elections to be crucial, especially in regards to their regional interests, as these parties must adapt themselves to the regional context in order to rival the power of NSWPs.
As well as using NSWPs to protect their regional interests, voters are attracted to these parties to express their territorial or ethnic identity, which deviates from the homogenous uniformity promoted by the nation-state. Both Sinn Fein and the SNP promote distinctive identities, which advocate complete separation from the national British identity. Their popularity within their regions demonstrates how these diverse identities resonate with voters, suggesting their desire for at least greater regional autonomy and cultural appreciation. Voters understand the value of supporting NSWPs within regional governance to protect their territorial interests and dissenting identities; they distinguish the different functions of regional and national elections, voting accordingly without considering one to be less important (Jeffery and Schakel, 2013a: 327). The regional influence of NSWPs undermines methodological nationalism’s assumption that the nation-state defines identity and society.
These regional conclusions have implications for the supra-state level as voters do not conceptualise legislative bodies solely with the nation-state. Thus, supra-level governance is understood as at least equally significant to the nation-state politics. Further, the importance of supra-state interactions is highlighted by Beck’s (2007) discussion of the modern world as a global risk society where crises surpass the nation-state and cannot be tackled effectively through the insular nature promoted by methodological nationalism. National boundaries need to be broken down to effectively protect communities. These global risks also empower stateless movements (Beck, 2007: 287) whose identity transcends the nation-state. Therefore, alongside regions, acknowledgement of supra-state processes is essential.
In conclusion, methodological nationalism proves ineffective in explaining voters’ attitudes towards NSWPs as it marginalises regional results which illustrate their value to citizens. While methodological nationalism would be a useful approach for understanding more centralised states, such as Norway, in territories where regional authority has significantly increased it is insufficient for explaining socio-political phenomena. Therefore, greater attention should be paid to the sub- and supra-state levels, their political importance recognised, and the reductionist emphasis on nation-building curtailed. This would end the cyclical reinforcement of methodological nationalism and develop a much more complete understanding of political processes in an era of substantial multi-level governance.
12.4.2018