|
|
To what extent does nationalism help or hinder in integrating a state? I. INTRODUCTION Nationalism has often been synonymous in influencing methods of governance. However, the interpretation of nationalism has brought about unexpected consequences. Nationalism has seen a war that witnessed massive destruction to the world in the mid twentieth century, all due to the nationalist ambitions of Germany’s Adolf Hitler. Likewise, Italian leader Benito Mussolini harboured similar aspirations only to suffer the same fate as Germany. Conversely, nationalism also gave birth to the most populous nation in the world, China. The teachings of Mao Tse Tung, beginning in the nineteen fifties up to seventies has shaped China’s economic and cultural landscape fifty years later. But not all leaders have been as successful as Chairman Mao. Robert Mugabe’s leadership has been less impressive in Zimbabwe, with Zimbabwe’s economic policies being rather myopic for its people (BBC, 2003). Nationalism has also fuelled a man to change the course of history for his people. The civil war in the Balkans saw Yugoslavia disappear from the map of Europe. It then disintegrated to six smaller nations due to irreconcilable differences in race and religion. Nationalism has achieved significant desired results. The social unity displayed by the Japanese, for instance, ensured their meteoric rise from the brink of disaster to one of the world’s economic superpowers. However, differing takes on nationalism by two leaders has brought about the division of Korea. This paper shall discuss the vagaries of nationalism and how experiences in world history have shown to either mould or divide a state as a result of various ideologies adopted by the respective leaders of states. II. THEORIES OF NATIONALISM A. Liberal Nationalism According to Heywood (2002), nationalism suffers from “the political equivalent of multi-personality syndrome” (p. 111). He views nationalism to fall under different categories of interpretation. Jean Jacques Rousseau, believed to be the chief instigator of the French Revolution (Kohn, 1965, p. 23), stressed that national unity can be achieved through democratic rule where equality amongst its citizens is the predominant belief of the state. The active participation of the citizens in deciding political leadership of the state is translated as “a feeling of brotherhood and mutual devotion” (Kohn, p. 21-22). This idea of “national self-determination” is termed as liberal nationalism. B. Expansionist Nationalism However, Rousseau’s interpretation is not universal. National unity can actually be achieved through unerring obedience and allegiance to a single authority (Heywood, p. 116). The leaders would glorify the past achievements of the state (Heywood, p. 117). This is known as expansionist nationalism. C. Conservative Nationalism Heywood also mentioned that nationalism is often an agent for social cohesion and order, where emphasis is based on “the sentiment of national patriotism” (p. 114). This view of nationalism is known as conservative nationalism. D. Anti-colonial Nationalism Independence movements, often epitomized by the African countries, are features of another form of nationalism. Anti-colonialism acted as a “summons to the people” which brought about political consciousness (Guibernau & Hutchinson, 2001, p. 167). This has helped to bring people of different races and ethnicity together under the common aim to get rid of colonial masters.
|
