|
|
European
Studies
MA.
European Politics
Unit. Nationhood, Nationalism and Integrationtopic: Understanding
Nationalism and Nationalism in European Union
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Key words: nationalism . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
1. Nationalism – Introduction Nationalism,
the belief that particular group has the right to their own state has
played and important role in the international politics since the
creation of the inter-state system. Since the French Revolution
especially, it has been a destructive force in European affairs. Prior
the modern period, European wars were primarily caused by dynastic
ambitions with the people as such having a role of follower or victims:
“states were justified by reference to their rulers, their dynasties,
and their religion” (Halliday, F. Nationalism
see in Baylis, J. and Smith, S. 1997, p.360). But with the French
Revolution of 1789, the people embodied in the nation began to assume
more importance as the basic political unit. Efforts to build states
based on the nation – the nation-state “as a context in which the
whole of a geographical area that is the homeland for people who
identify themselves as a community because of shared culture, history,
and probably language and ethnic character, is governed by one political
system (Robertson, D. 1993, p.332). The consequent nationalist
sentiments have not necessarily contributed for international stability,
as in the twentieth century Europe has been devastated in two world
wars. The European concepts underlying nationalist sentiments have been
exported and practiced throughout the Third World. The doctrine of
self-determination serves as a motivating force behind the process of
the liberation of many third world countries from the colonial rule.
National self-determination principle, according to which “every
nation has the right to decide on its own fate, to be independent, or,
if not, to choose freely to be part of a larger state. This has meant
that all the principles of international order, law, legitimacy, derived
original from other bases, are now justified by reference to this
principle. Nationalism has become the ethnical, moral, based of
international relations so much so that the body grouping the states of
the world is called the United Nations (Halliday, F. Nationalism
see in Baylis, J. and Smith, S. 1997, p.361).
2. Nationalism – Definition Understanding of what are the essential ingredients of the ‘nation’ and ‘nationalism’ has not changed much in the last almost of two centuries or so. The
nation as defined by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873): “A portion of
mankind may be said to constitute a nationality if the are united among
themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any
others – which make them co-operate with each other more willingly
than with other people, and desire that they should be governed by
themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively” (Utilitarianism, Liberty
and Representative government, p.359-360).
Ernest
Renan (1823-92) defined a nation is of ‘soul and spiritual
principle’. Nation is a ‘community of sentiment’ (Max Webber,
1920), or ‘an imagined community’ (B. Anderson, Imagined
Communities, 1983). A nation is a body of people who possess some
sense of a single communal identity, with a shared historical tradition,
with major elements of common culture, and with substantial proportion
of them inhabiting and identifiable geographical unit (Robertson, D.
1993, p.331). Ernest Gellner, however, has indeed provided concise definition: “Nationalism is primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and the national should be congruent” (Gellner 1983, p.1). Modern definitions, however, often tend to place more emphasis on the international dimensions. David Robertson’s definition of nationalism: “the political belief that some group of people represents a nature community which should live under one political system, be independent of others, and, often, has the right to demand an equal standing in the world order with others” (Robertson, D. 1993, p.333). According to Breuilly John (Breuilly, J. 1993, 2ndEd, p.1): “Nationalism is best understood as an especially appropriate form of political behaviour in the context of the modern state and the modern state system. Nationalism primarily as a form of politics, as state of mind, as the expression of national consciousness, as a political doctrine elaborated by intellectuals. Probably the most common-held assumption – is that nationalism arises ultimately from some sort of national identity and that it is the search for such an identity. The other common approach is to regard nationalism as the expression of something ‘deeper’ such as class interest or an economic or social structure or a cultural formation. However, although particular nationalist movements can be illuminated by reference to this or that class, economic development, programme of modernisation or cultural achievement, it is not such ideas help one understanding nationalism generally. To focus upon culture, ideology, identity, class or modernisation is to neglect the fundamental point that nationalism is, above and beyond all else, about politics and that politics is about power. Power, in modern world, is principally about control of the state. The central task is to relate nationalism to the objectives of obtaining and using state power. We need to understand why nationalism has played a major role in the pursuit of those objectives. To understand that we need to examine closely how nationalism operates as politics and what it is about modern politics that makes nationalism so important”, in fact, as this aspects of politics has make nationalism again upsurge in an unprecedented scale through out Europe since the end of the Cold War and the collapsed of Eastern Soviet Bloc. The phenomenon, however, has become ever a powerful forces as recently experiences in European politics, as its has gave rise to number of the far right political parties pass into embark upon control the power of many government states in the European Union. The below is an attempt to examine these events of nationalism that recent stretching out as shockwaves across Europe.
3.
Europe’s Nationalism in 21st Century Europe
entering the 21st century has seen the burst emergence of the
rightwing and far-right political parties. The far-right parties may
sometimes be called neo-fascist. Nationalism has echoed, in any case, as
a key issues across Europe. The phenomenon perceive a link between crime
and immigrants, that combines with anxieties about job and welfare
security, blamed on globalisation or defending democracy, even sometimes
emphasis against the European Union’s integration. Perhaps, in
particularly, since the suicide hijackings of 11th September 2001, fears
of terrorism and prejudice against Arabs and Muslims may be feeding the
appeal of the far-right parties. As showed recently in the French
presidential election, Jean-Marie Le Pen's second place in the first
round has shocked political circles across Europe. But the result also
reflects unmistakeable trends across Europe as a whole – a general
move to the right and the rise of new populist parties with an
anti-immigrant and anti-crime message.
This latter phenomenon has appeared even in traditionally liberal
societies like Denmark and the Netherlands. It was in the year 2000, in
Austria, the far-right Freedom Party of the erratic populist Joerg
Haider entered the government. In the same year also seen leader of the
right wing Vlaams Blok in Belgium, which took a third of the vote in
Antwerp. In many governments in the European Union, there have been blowing a gale which was in many cases put the traditional liberal social democratic (the-left- parties) into the corner of the corridors of power. The left, they were defeated in Italy, Norway and, as well as in Denmark all in the year 2001. There in Demark, the anti-immigration and anti-European Union People's Party became the third largest in the country and has dominated the immigration policy of the Danish government. In the Netherlands, another far right anti-immigration party is campaigning strongly for parliamentary election. This Leefbaar Nederland party, and their strain popular is moving like a new wave of invaders and only cooled down a bit as a result of the dead of the leader. Even though, the result of recent election in May 2002 has shown that their strain popular of extremist far right political sentiments has accounted 27 seats in the government which represent as a second largest party whereas the first largest party gained only 29 seats. Yet after all, the generally strain of anti-migration is thoroughly frowned upon lingers throughout the European Union.
4. Nationalism – Case of Denmark For more than a century, the democratic form of government of Denmark has serves as a cornerstone of the nation state. However, today, the nation state is subject to pivotal process of change. This strain has shown from the late of the year 2001 to now, Denmark has step into a period described as a ripe of change in politics and policy. The unprecedented development and implementation a range set of theories and policies as a result of the defeat of Social-democratic party and, its victory gave rival to mainstream right and the far-right which, through negotiation and bargaining, incorporate into the ever greatest central of power and, hence, almost entirely dominate the whole political system of the country. The Social-Democratic party, whom actually has been in power for a period more than sixteenth years since 1985 and, although has stepped down only to as a second largest parties, however, now faltering and suffering of its weakened. As
to concern the issues of immigration, anti-immigrant is surging in its
discourse. The need of more workers or people from the outside world is
now have to underlined and make it clear is “over”. Twenty-first
century is not just the same as the twentieth century, whereas Denmark
was happily imported people from the southern Europe for Denmark, to
meet the demand of workers as the industries and infrastructures were
booming. But as it is now that Denmark in a new era politics of
challenge and change, even the tendency of the family unification of the
people who live or left outside and in search to enter to Denmark to
live together with their family have to be made a “stop” if not
really in full. Not just that, Denmark’s modern politicians in
pursuing for the other opposite of destination, namely, to send back
people already in Denmark back to the destination of country origin.
That is it looks like. The new Danish government has however, sent out
the clear signal thought the media and television stations on the day
17th January 2002 which, echoed into the winter sky: “Liberalism of
the Century”. That is to means, a new government with a new form of
politics, has now carry out into practices the hypothesis of its own
development ideology, in which, emphasis much on immigration policies
and reform institution bodies, thus for the most of its is to closing
down, and it was also suggested to close the Human-right institution,
therefore, its new mode of politics of Denmark, to a very large extent,
is quite distinctive in compare to the rest of Europe. Yet in the past,
globalisation has made Denmark exposing its attraction to the Third
World, but now new government has called the phenomenon into its
closure, and as result is the emerging new set of policy which
eventually operate as new set of politics instrument tools to defending
democracy and construction immigration wall in order to disintegrate the
flow of people from the outside, in particularly people from the third
world. Nationalism sentiments as it has seen, has serves as a new
platform of politics, yet the message is obvious quite clear –
nationalism rather than globalism or pluralism, even thought the new
mainstream right government never say these directly terminology set of
words into the sentence. However, others do, as for the far-right
anti-immigration and anti-European – the “Danish People’s
Party”, a third largest in the country, that is the day of turning
point in Denmark’s history. In fact, the party as a whole, they feel
as Denmark have make a comeback, as just like the day of 29 August in
1943 under the second world war, were fighting against occupation of the
alien (Mads Kastrup and Olav Hergel, Berlingske 19th January 2002).
Apparently, the alien now are not the German army but nevertheless, the
immigrants and refugees. However, this sort of excessive nationalist
sentiment can in many cases give rise to xenophobia: “fear of hatred
of strangers special foreigners” (G Roberts and A Edwards, A new
Dictionary of Political Analysis, 1991, p.152.). Thus, evidenced in
world story has shown, extreme xenophobic sentiments have led to the
Holocaust, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and genocide in Rwanda. While EU underlying these issues of immigration and refugees politics as describes as set of resources of growing tremendous pain and have not find the solution to dealing with, Denmark, however, has bring out to the scene the blue print of immigration politics in which, contained the set of magic methodology of policy change, to countdown the influx, as well as to shows how its works. Yet, Denmark has entered into the period of unprecedented development process of reform in re-constructing the political apparatus and, seeks to challenge the traditionally mode of politics and thus, introduced a new form of politics, apparently, politic of nationalism, hence, the effects is not merely surging nationalism sentiments internally discourse, but its further evoke its image throughout the EU. The
phenomenon throw light on idea of political pluralism in the late
decades of twentieth century has now brought into justify, with emphasis
much of a new method political thinking of integration, that is to say
for those who has the outside background of origin and if they do not
willing to moving away from Denmark then, in order to survival in the
new image of the Danish society, people of other types should make
themselves to become more Danish in term of the language as well as to
religious belief. Speak other language than Danish and promote other
religious than Christian is discourages. In addition, if a child of any
alien population who is 3 year’s old and does not speak Danish should
go to the Danish kinder garden as the expend of their own parent’s
assess (Christian og Rikke Egelund, Politiken, DK 15 Jan 2002), even
then, if they have no job and they living on receiving social welfare,
in fact, that the social welfare now for a family with two adult and two
children get 2,370 Danish krone less than what they can get from the
previous government. A comment on these new set of policies, Morten Ejrnæs,
an expert from Ålborg University has observes: “For some refugees who
have job, but for most of them who have no will be living in a very low
sources of income. This is to means, they will not have enough neither
the economic assets nor human resources to become integrated into the
Danish society, but instead, they will become a new group of
underclass” (Signe Damgaard Jepsen, 17th January 2002). Apparently,
nationalism of politics has showed its face. Thus, economic nationalism
is a powerful force promoting and adaptation. We living in a paradoxical
world, increased globalisation is undermining the legitimacy of the
nation state, but one more major consequences of globalisation is an
increasing identification with an ethnic community, which may lead to
the development of even more groups seeking national self-determination.
To complicate matters even further, the internationalisation of ethnic
conflict actually is part of the process of globalisation.
5. Conclusion For more than one hundred years or so, the democratic form of government has been the principle bedrock of states in the Western Europe. Despite the widespread success of centre-left national governments in the 1980s and throughtout the 1990s in the European Union, however, the fundamental factor sustaining the rise of the far right as we entering into a new era of a new century, and therefore the decline in political homogeneity, is unlikely to diminish in importance in this decade. That factor is immigration and refugees. These pressures against immigrants are likely to intensify if economic turmoil in Eastern Bloc and continuing poverty in developing world lead to strong tendencies toward attempted economic migration to enter European Union. A new immigration wall to keep the poor out would be a depressed paradox after the fall of the Berlin wall and obsolete the iron curtain. Such impose a rigid immigration policy may be the price the political centre will be faced with and be willing to pay to be contains the far right and exclude them from power. The
society of states thus became a world of self-sufficient entities each
is acting on its own will (Bull, H. 1997).
As the advance countries seek to police the movement of the
world’s poor and exclude them, the capriciousness of the notions of
citizenship and of political community will become ever more evident.
Advanced states will not be able to make effective use of the claim to
cultural homogeneity as a principle of exclusion for they are already
ethically and culturally pluralistic. Exclusion will be stark fact, with
no other logic or legitimacy than that states are fearful of the
consequences of large-scale migration. A world of wealth and poverty,
with appalling and widening differences in living standards between the
richest and the poorest nations, is unlikely to be secure and stable:
– the people in rich advanced countries fear of cheap labour of
developing countries, the rise of immigration and refugees and crime
made them feel insecure and anxieties about the future prospects of
their own social welfare system, hence surging nationalism and
accounting the success for the political far-right parties. In contrast,
the people in developing countries for the most of its population are
living in poverty, suffering from disease, famine as a result from
drought and environmental degradation, civil wars, etc, the poor in
developing countries see themselves as abandoned by rich world might
gave rise to terrorist groups sought action against the rich world. Both
groups are cemented within the borders of states, forces to observe
their countries as communities of kismet and to seek solutions within
limits of their enforced dwelling. However, stark nationalism as such
will accommodate no solution to these matters.
REFERENCES Anderson,
B., (1983) Imagined Communities, 1983. Breuilly,
J. (1993), Nationalism and the State, Manchester, Manchester University Press,
second edition, p.1. Bull,
H. (1997), The Anarchical Society:
A Study of order in World Politics, London, Macmillan.
Christian
and Rikke Egelund, Splid i regeringen om udlændinge, DK, Politiken
15th Jan 2002. Gellner
(1983), Nations and Nationalism, Oxford,
Blackwell, p.1. Halliday,
F. Nationalism see in Baylis,
J. and Smith, S. (1997), The
Globalisation of World Politics, Oxford University Press, p.360. John
Stuart Mill (1806-1873): Utilitarianism, Liberty
and Representative government, p.359-360. Mads
Kastrup and Olav Hergel (2002), “Tid
til forandring”, DK,
Berlingske 19th January 2002. Renan,
Ernest (1823-92), What is
a Nation. Roberts, G. and Edwards, A. (1991), A new Dictionary of Political Analysis, 1991, p.152. Robertson
D. (1993), Dictionary of Politics, The Penguin p.332. Signe
Damgaard Jepsen, Stramninger
skaber ny underklasse,
DK, Berlingske,
17th January 2002.
|
|
|
|