THE NATION-STATE

Nation-State

The Nation-State is the Best Defence Citizens have Against the Corrosive Effects of Globalisation

Introduction

By 1918 the nation-state was the accepted model for political organization in Europe and areas of white settlement beyond Europe. The Wilson Principles made it clear that those seeking to establish successor states in the territories of the defeated powers would have to justify this in national terms. In the USSR the Bolsheviks exploited national resentments against the Romanov empire and built principles of nationality into the constitution of the new state. However, the principles were not applied to the overseas empires of the victors. Indeed former possessions of defeated powers were transferred to the rulership of the victors, e.g., Ottoman territories in the Middle East and German colonies in Africa.

From then on one can identify three basic state- nationalism relationships: those within and between European nation-states established after 1918; those involving self-proclaimed socialist states; and those concerning new states formed outside Europe, mainly in the decolonization process after 1945. In virtually all these states the legitimacy of the national principle was recognized and claimed. The state did not oppose nationalism in principle but justified itself in nationalistic terms, opposing its own nationalism to the nationalism of others. This paper discusses how the nation-state is the best defence citizens have against the corrosive effects of globalisation.

Discussion “We have made Italy, now we must make Italians” was the famous comment of D'Azeglio following Italian unification in 1859-1860. Given that nation-state formation was often due to a combination of external intervention and elite nationalist movements rather than on the basis of a widespread and strong sense of national identity, this was a general problem. In the 20th century the term “nation-building” has been coined to describe meeting the challenge D'Azeglio forecast. (Raedts 2004)

One must distinguish between deliberate nation- building policies and processes which unintentionally spread and strengthen a sense of national identity. Modern states introduced systems of universal and compulsory elementary schooling from about 1870. This raised literacy levels sharply, usually accompanied by the imposition of a standard national language. This policy might be deliberately nationalist, especially when imposed upon minority language groups. Sometimes the policy succeeded, sometimes it backfired, and sometimes it had to be replaced by a pluralist policy. However, the driving force was not nationalist at all. Compulsory elementary schooling and the push toward universal literacy invariably accompanied the growth of modern urban-industrial society and did so whether or not associated with nationalism.

More significant have been the kinds of nationalism which developed within new nation-states. These can be divided into “old losers” (Germany, Austria, and Hungary) and “new winners” (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia) of World War I. Italy fell into a special category—officially on the winning side and gaining some new territory, but at the same time feeling that it had lost out badly in the peace settlement. (Raedts 2004)

Here three kinds of nationalism linked to three kinds of state-nation relationships developed. The first, mainly found with the “losers,” was resentful of the ...