Today’s Zaman, Turkey
May 13 2007
Problems for nationalism
DOGU ERGIL [email protected] Politics
I have always maintained the position that nationalism is the
ideology of advancement for the nation.
To achieve this national unity has to be forged out of diverse
ethnic, religious and cultural groups (in the framework of an
encompassing political supra-identity within which each sub-group can
identify themselves with some degree of comfort and satisfaction), a
sustainable, relatively efficient and inclusive economy has to be put
into motion, and a utopian vision for a better future must be in
place to generate a sense of hope and common fate. The second aim of
nationalism ought to be that of securing a respectable place for the
nation and the national state within the international arena. With a
failing state and a pathetic national image no society may have a
revered place among the family of nations. Thus the national state
must be economically vibrant, politically inclusive and successful in
managing change for nationalism to be a functional cohesive ideology.
Otherwise what? Well, if not, nationalism turns into a defensive
ideology in the international arena and a divisive ideology within.
Domestically a failing state or an authoritarian state that holds the
`nation’ together by force fails to reconcile diverse ethnic and
cultural groups and develops an exclusive understanding of nationhood
based on the superiority of one of them. Built-in fault lines
generate incessant frictions between included and excluded groups.
Systemic crises reinforce this search for communalism; either because
the nationalism imposed is not inclusive, or else the state that is
imposing it is fails to forge a nation out of diversity. Failing
and/or authoritarian national states define the nation as an
exclusive group lacking social differentiation or a mono-cultural
entity that is a political fabrication.
Two things have happened simultaneously in recent decades. This
fabricated national (exclusive identity) construct came under strain
because the national state failed to deliver what it promised in the
name of equality of welfare, freedom and respect. On the other hand
globalization deprived the national state of its instruments by which
it controlled and partially pacified their citizens. Citizens felt
bereft of the security (no matter how partial) and the support of
their traditional values and reference systems, which were no longer
relevant in the face of global challenges at all levels.
People had two choices: a — To seek refuge in newly invented and
defined communities and communal identities on the one hand, and b —
To reinvent those national symbols that are common to the society.
However what has emerged is not nationalism. At best it is a
pseudo-nationalism that is based on fear of the external and the
unknown, with an indefinite future feared most of all. The generation
of such pseudo-nationalism is made easier by the unearthing of past
traumas and wounds inflicted on the national psyche. There is nothing
healthy or therapeutic about this process. On the contrary it creates
a sense of victimization and mixed feeling of anxiety and anger
against alien and inimical forces/actors that are perceived as the
enemies that caused a lot of the pain the nation has suffered in the
past and is about to suffer in the near future.
So can we call this process `a surge of nationalism,’ as I have done
before? Hardly. But there is a surge of potent and negative feelings
against the failures of the system and the international developments
(globalization) that have disrupted the traditional life of
insufficiently developed societies. The only refuge within which to
seek shelter is the already-failing national state, which needs to be
reinforced to protect its unprotected citizens. This may seem like a
contradiction, but the pseudo-nationalism of nowadays is pretty much
a futile effort to reinforce and to revitalize the national state
that is part of the problem. So this so-called `surge of nationalism’
is an unproductive effort that will end up further aggravating the
frustration of the people who seek its protection.
There are two key ingredients of this pseudo-nationalist surge: fear
and frustration. The combination of these is explosive in that it
leads to rage and violence against often fabricated `enemies’ if
other conditions avail. Other conditions are encouragement and
protective leniency of official circles in order to get rid of the
`enemies’ of the nation and thuggish role models who are exalted as
`heroes’ by popular culture through the media. So it was with the
assassin of Hrant Dink, the Armenian-Turkish journalist (O.S.) and
the man who shot Pope Jean Paul II (Mehmet Ali Agça) nearly thirty
years ago. Both are in circulation as `nationalists.’ But in fact
both figures hate many groups in the (political) nation as defined by
the constitution and identify themselves not with the whole, but with
a faction of the nation that is either ethnically, religiously or
politically defined, or a combination of these. Why? It is because
the `national identity’ or the national state neither includes nor
satisfies many sections of the nation. Yet this failure is
transferred to the putative external enemies of the nation such as
the IMF, NATO the EU or the US. Hence the `community’ is reinvented
in a new context where the nation state does not deliver
sufficiently, and globalization challenges all that there is with new
demands and standards.
However the multiplicity of communities runs counter to nationalism
and loyalty to the nation state. This fragmentation leads to further
popular anxiety regarding the integrity of the nation. That is why
even the communities use common nationalistic symbols and seek a
common shelter. This shelter is found in the persona of the state,
devoid of the original concept of the nation that ought to be
homogeneous and harmonious. If this process leads to an inclusive
state structure that reconciles differences rather than dictates
uniformity, and if the exiting of communities leads to a
multi-cultural or pluralist understanding of the nation, then there
is hope for democracy and a state that is respectful of pluralism.
Otherwise there is more stormy weather ahead.
13.05.2007