The Death of Statist Nationalism

"The nation-state is dying. Men have begun to transfer their allegiance, loyalty and love from the older nations both upward to the new transnational regimes that are arising and downward to the sub-nations whence they came, the true nations, united by blood and soil, language, literature, history, faith, tradition and memory."

These are the words Pat Buchanan wrote in one of his most recent articles titled "The death of the nation-state". Despite some problems with the semantics Buchanan uses("older nations" vs. "true nations"), he is for the most part correct. However, does this necessarily mean the end of nations as a whole or even the concept of a nationally-based state? No, rather it means the demise of the one form of such that has long dominated the conscience of modern political thinking.

Nations, ethnicities, tribes and other communities based upon kinship have existed since the beginning of time. There is nothing incredibly modern about such forms of social organization. Almost any sincere sociologist and/or anthropologist would concur.

Although Modernist-inclined scholars(who believe nations and nationalism are constructs of the modern age) will staunchly deny this, neither is the concept of a ethnically-based state. For example, Steven Grosby has argued that the basic notion of an ethnic-based state could be found throughout the Ancient Near East in places like Egypt, Babylon, and especially Biblical Israel(which later became the major model for European concepts of nationhood).

Even during the Medieval period similar concepts forged the basis for political organization. According to Medieval scholar Susan Reynolds the basic concept behind the kingdom of the time was that it "comprised and corresponded to a 'people'(gens, natio, populus), which was assumed to be a natural, inherited community of tradition, custom, law, and descent."( Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe 900-1300, page 250). The late Adrian Hastings also argued that the roots of modern nationhood originated during the Medieval period.

So clearly the notion of a state being organized around an ethnic community is not new. However, all the scholars above will admit that the ancient or Medieval concept of such is remarkably different from the nation-state that we see in the modern era. So how are they different? The differences depend upon distinct theories of how governments should rule and interact with society at large.

Few people today would deny the fact that Medieval governments operated on a different basis than a modern state would. Most people imagine that Medieval governments operated on the basis of all power being centralized into the hands of the monarch, whereas the modern state operates on the principle of a division of powers between central and local authorities.

John P. McCarthy has written much on how this viewpoint is quite contrary to the historical reality. Medieval governments actually operated on a basis of decentralization, whereas modern governments operates on the basis of centralizing power as much as possible.

Now what does that have to do with nations? Well, under the Medieval system of decentralization, each subdivision of the nation(regions, tribes, etc.) was given a relative amount of political self-rule; which also implied a certain amount of cultural self-expression as well. So while there was a strong sense of national unity, it did not necessarily mean a strong sense of national uniformity. This also applied to any national or ethnic minorities that resided within the borders of a particular kingdom. So while the Medieval kingdom did correspond to a particular ethnic/national community; it was not based on the notion of complete ethnic homogeneity within its borders.

By, contrast the modern state has sought to do the opposite. By centralizing authority (in the interests of making the government more "efficient"), the autonomy and self-rule that many regions/tribes/localities enjoyed were brutally suppressed. By extension, the unique customs of such communities were also brutally suppressed; to be replaced by a more uniform sense of national identity that derived from the state rather than the natural communities that made up the national/ethnic community. National uniformity also implied the notion of national homogeneity; the results of which are all too well known.

It was this latter philosophy that governed the formation and implementation of the modern nation-state. Yet now, after so many generations of living under such a system, many communities are striking back. Communities who once had their cultures and self-rule suppressed are now demanding what is rightfully theirs. Hopefully what we are now seeing before our eyes is a return to a system more aligned with the Medieval way of governing; where each local community(ethnic, regional, tribal, etc.) is given a certain amount of political self-rule and cultural self-expression.

The nation-state is indeed dying. Good riddance to bad rubbish!