Jeffrey Harrod

NATIONISM  

In this essay I launch a new concept — “nationism”   

The precipitating cause of this effort was a Dutch politician’s appeal that we should not allow the force of nationalism to be captured, almost always, by the extreme right and there should be something approximating “civilized nationalism”.  As a retired professor of international relations I realized that the current language and discourse concerning nations, states, and countries had no room for anything but extreme nationalism and dismissive internationalism. Hence the need for a new concept.

The whole essay is about 15,000 words long and will be published in two parts. This post is the first part which is an introduction to the concept and a brief summary of the whole essay.   The second part will be a substantial enlargement of the points and arguments made in the summary.  An academic version with references and linkages will be published later.

----------------------

Jeffrey Harrod has degrees in law, international relations and a doctorate in political science. He gave graduate university courses in and wrote articles about international law, organization, international relations and global political economy and lived most of his life as an immigrant. Much of this essay arises from that experience. Specific publications of his on these topics discussed here can be found on his website or on Researchgate, Academia or are available on request.

Nationism

A Brief Summary of the Essay

Nationism is the “ísm” between internationalism and nationalism. Nationism is not nationalism. Nationism can therefore accommodate all or part of the current attempts of those seeking a ‘moderate’ nationalism, ‘positive’ nationalism, ‘progressive’ nationalism, ‘liberal’ nationalism, ‘civilized’ nationalism, ‘neo’-nationalism, ‘good’ nationalism, and those who call themselves sovereigntist, independentists and separatists. 

Nationism is the “ísm” between internationalism and nationalism.

Nationism views a nation-state as broader than the formal legal definition currently used in international relations. In particular a broader definition of nation-state places special emphasis on the existence of majority and minority groups in structures which are in existing nation- states or those in the process of substantial reconfiguration.

A modern nation-state is composed of a defining majority group of similar race, religion or ethnicity and minority groups which differ in some way from the majority. The defining majority is that which usually gives the name to the nation-state. Both majority and minority groups are characterized by class, vocational and political hierarchies.

The nation that is within the state is often the defining majority group and the state is the organization which presides over both majority and minority groups. The broader nation-state is therefore the primary area for politics, power, empowerment, and social justice. It is not a permanent legal entity but it is the largest feasible unit of humanity in which individual and collective participation is possible.

Of the 195 distinguishable national units in the world in 2021 about 160 of them, or at least 75 percent of the world population, are in countries divided from each other by the defining majority differences in race, religion, ethnicity, or unique combinations of them.

 

…. at least 75 percent of the world population, are in countries divided from each other by the defining majority group differences in race, religion, ethnicity, or unique combinations of them.

Nationism is then a policy, practice or ideology which emphasizes the importance of the broader nation-state as a vital element in human history and as an important institution for the management and delivery of welfare, order and justice and which is able to promote some degree of solidarity and community. One of the fundamental aspects of the policy is the primordial human right of self-determination as the right to belong in security. 

 The Reality of Nation-states.

Without the conventional names and borders the world in reality is a patchwork of majority and minority groups in configurations which are only sometimes named nation-states.

The importance of minority groups in the broader nation-state has meant that the management by the majority of relations with and between minority groups in the framework of respect and equal access and has always been a fundamental part of nation-state governance. Such management includes respect for the right of self-determination and demands for various degrees of autonomy.

Without the conventional names and borders the world in reality is a patchwork of majority and minority groups in configurations which are only sometimes named nation-states.

Because the most powerful forces for mobilizing populations are religion and ethnicity, inter-locking majorities and minorities across nation-states have been a principal source of conflict in international politics.

The broader nation-state produces an attachment which is so powerful that people are always reluctant to move internationally. In 2021 less than 3.6 percent of the people of the world are living outside the borders of the nation-state in which they were born. This includes all migrants and refugees. The importance of the divisions that have been created is also indicated by the building of walls to separate one defining majority from another. There are currently 80 walls of separation built or under construction and 60 percent of the world population live in a country which has a wall of separation.

The Need for Nationism

A new concept dealing with the divisions of the global population has become necessary because the old concepts of internationalism and nationalism have become useless or distorted.  Extreme internationalism rejects the nation-state while the nation-state is glorified by nationalism.

Conflicts which are said to be between nation-states as legal entities while ignoring the group and social composition of the states have ended and will end in endless wars and loss of life.

The attempts at internationalism based on legal definitions of states has resulted on the rigid adherence to sovereignty while nationalism posits the extreme domination of the defining majority within the state.  The result has been the marginalization or even denial of the importance of the nation-state as a basis for governance and the source of solidarity mobilization and community.  The insistence on rigid territorial and formal description has frozen dynamics and developments and ignores the group composition of nation-states and the need for continued adjustment of the territory and composition.

Conflicts which are said to be between nation-states as legal entities while ignoring the group class, and social composition of the states have ended, and will end, in endless wars and loss of life.

The residue of failed internationalism and nationalism has meant that there is no room for dialogue, discussion, mediation or synthesis without accusations, recriminations or assumptions of being an internationalist or a nationalist. Nationism presents the possibility of forging amalgams and synthesis without such accusations.

Challenges to Nationism

The centuries of defending internationalism and decades of opposing nationalism have resulted in a widespread, in the terms of this essay, “anti-nationism”.

The three major current challenges to nationism are globalization, the universal promotion of ‘civic’ nationalism and the residues of integrative federalism. 

Globalisation. as with some practices of internationalism, is a hegemonic, if not imperial policy, based upon international trade and finance which has the result of transferring wealth between nation-states. Globalisation capitalizes on the myth that international trade is needed for peace and welfare. Trading relations without democratic control within nation states has brought neither peace nor welfare for the majority of world citizens and has contributed significantly to environmental degradation.

Three major challenges to nationism are globalization, the universal promotion of ‘civic’ nationalism and the residues of integrative federalism.

The second challenge to nationism is the promotion of so-called “civic” nationalism in which citizens are supposed to be united by shared values such as democracy, freedom and justice.. Many countries purport to subscribe to civic nationalism when in reality their internal solidarity is based on ethnicity or religion. The practical effect of this is that any nation which seeks to secure citizen’s unity based on location, region, ethnicity, religion, race or belonginess is considered as nationalist and therefore opposed.  

Finally, the residue of discredited integrative federalism remains extant in regional and international organizations and supports those who oppose nationism.

This results in what can be called “imperial dysfunction” in which the voluntary imported or imposed orders or practices do not fit or are impossible to implement in the new environment.

These three all have a common characteristic in that they require that processes, practices, form, organizations or instructions arising from one or more usually dominant nation-states are received and executed in other nation-states. This results in what can be called “imperial dysfunction” in which the voluntary imported or imposed orders or practices do not fit or are impossible to implement in the new environment. Imperial dysfunction is what has brought down empires as the frustration of coping with unsuitable demands fueled a general revolt against hegemony and domination.

Recognition of the special and usually unique aspects of each nation-state which impede these hegemonic or imperial demands is what nationism emphasizes and permits.  

Conclusion

From a nationist perspective there are a number of important policy deviations from the current practices sourced in nationalism or internationalism. All issues even when global in scope must begin at the level of the nation-state. All governments of nation-states should attempt to achieve as much independence as possible in finance, food, economic factors, demographic, technological and environmental policies. Policies and practices arising in one nation are rarely transferable to another without substantial adaptation.