The tension between globalism and nationalism is a key emerging issue in Europe. These two elements are often perceived to be antithetical to one another. The defeated Front National candidate for the French presidency, Marine Le Pen, made this a key point of her campaign; she argued that the choice is no longer between left and right but between globalism and nationalism.
Changes in migratory patterns are also prompting policymakers and politicians to look afresh at the notion of borders. Borders do not solely serve a security function; they are also a symbol of a nation’s sovereignty and of its ability to control who enters and exits that particular territory.
Rather than burying the nation-state, the emergence of supranational structures reignited and reoriented the debate. The central question over the relevance of the nation-state led to a resurgence of the debate on nationhood.
The ‘Individual Investment Programme’ launched by the government in Malta in 2014 brings to the fore some of the debates concerning nationhood, identity, security and citizenship. This programme was allegedly “designed to attract to Malta’s shores applicants who can share their talent, expertise and business connections”. Nonetheless, it was immediately labelled as the ‘sale of citizenship’ by both the Opposition and the press.
There were two principal bones of contention. Some viewed it as an irresponsible act with negative security implications. Their main argument was that such a scheme could only attract individuals whose sole purpose was to acquire an EU passport.
Others took a more philosophical approach and believed that citizenship is intrinsically tied to nationhood and identity. They questioned whether money should be a key factor when acquiring citizenship. For the latter group, this programme would indirectly alter the significance of nationhood. Clearly, in Malta, the nation-state still holds considerable legitimacy and appeal.
The post-war anti-nationalistic consensus has robbed many individuals of the ability to interpret the appeal of the nation
The late Benedict Anderson offers some food for thought. Through carefully argued case studies, his magnum opus – Imagined Communities – traces how communities began to imagine and interpret themselves as ‘nations’. He argues that nationhood and nation-ness are “cultural artefacts of a particular kind”. To understand them “we need to consider carefully how they have come into historical being, in what ways their meaning has changed over time, and why, today, they command such profound emotional legitimacy”.
In a globalised and multipolar world, many have come to regard nationalism as a backwards and anachronistic expression. Imagined Communities is a must read for all who are interested in the origins of today’s complex political scenario – particularly as nationalistic discourse gains traction throughout Europe. Anderson revisits some of these themes in his autobiography. A Life Beyond Boundaries was published posthumously in 2016 and it takes the reader on a journey through a life dedicated to scholarship and learning. His book is living proof that academics need not be detached from the subjects they study.
In the book, he muses on some of the developments of contemporary life. Nationalism, he writes, “has become a powerful tool of the state and the institutions attached to it: the military, the media, schools and universities, religious establishments, and so on”. It is concerned primarily with its survival and hence, unlike the original anti-dynastic nationalism, has “little interest in cross-national solidarities.”
Despite this element, Anderson acknowledges that contemporary nationalism can have a powerful egalitarian element: “The huge modern gains in relation to the position of women, ethnic minorities, gays, and lesbians, for example, would have been unimaginable without its help.”
His observations are worth engaging with in light of the challenges Europe faces. The post-war anti-nationalistic consensus has robbed many individuals of the ability to interpret the appeal of the nation. This has the indirect consequence of antagonising those who do not feel that they are “citizens of the world”. The arguments in favour of economic integration and security collaboration are not strong enough to replace the emotional and primordial pull of the ‘nation’. Nor is nationalism a dirty word; when expressed in bombastic and jingoistic terms, it has the tendency to morph into an unpleasant exclusivist expression.
Nevertheless, when it concerns itself with the defence of the rights and freedoms of the nation, nationalism emerges as a legitimate alternative political credo.
Those who shape political discourse face a difficult challenge: that of striking the right balance between the various expressions of nationalism. Treating nationalism as a fringe idea will only serve to strengthen its more antagonistic and exclusivist proponents.
André DeBattista is an independent researcher in politics and international relations.