Craigie
Craigie
Craigie
Introduction
Hobsbawn argues that there are no more than a dozen states in the world were
state and nation perfectly overlap (1996: 257). Within orthodox interpretations of
nationalism, minority nations are framed as challenging the established order, while the
state is framed as neutral. This paper challenges this interpretation along two mutually
reinforcing axis. Firstly, it seeks to build a theoretical framework for what can be termed
‘majority nationalism’. While many authors hint at this phenomenon, and allow for it
within the theoretical frameworks they construct (Mann 1993, 1995, Hechter 2001,
Deutsch 1966a, Billig 1995, Gagnon and Iacovino 2007), it has received scant academic
attention, with the edited volume by Kaufmann (2004) being a notable exception.
Secondly, it outlines ways in which identity becomes problematized within the state due
to majority nationalism. Thirdly, it introduces opposing interpretations of the state in
multinational communities, which can manifest in opposing ‘pure-type’ interpretations of
the state; Unionist and Pan-Nationalist interpretations. Much of the current nationalism
literature appears to interpret nationalism as being the ‘fault’ of minority nations. This
work seeks to establish that nationalism is the result of a dialectical relationship between
the majority and minority nations and their conflicting interpretations of the nature of the
state.
Majority Nationalism
As the state and the majority nation become intertwined, the majority community
expresses its understanding of the way society should be organized (with their corresponding
interpretations of ‘good’ and just’) through the state. As it is national culture that establishes
public standards and norms, determining state policy (Kuper 1999), the state becomes the
medium for which the majority community’s identity is transmitted. Accordingly, as the majority
community expresses its culturally based understandings of liberal values through the state,
minority communities interpret this as state building majority nationalism. Individuals can only
be free in an environment in which their culture and values are respected, and while most modern
states would argue that they rule according to universalistic norms, minority groups may argue
against this.
1. Tyranny of the Majority. As stated above, democracies are not solely defined
by majority rule, as the consent of the loser in the democratic process is key to a
functioning democracy. In order to be seen and interpreted by national minorities and
majorities to be fair and equitable, state institutions need to be sympathetic to the
aspirations of national minorities who are faced with a political system in which they can
never form a majority of the population. The perceived effectiveness of institutions is
equally important to institutional arrangements in managing relations between national
groupings.
Yet saying that institutional arrangements need to be perceived a certain way and
designing institutions is no easy feat. There are extreme difficulties in developing
workable constitutional arrangements in multinational states. According to Choudhry
(2007: 612) states can be structured to both accommodate and integrate when there is
more than one demotic people. But constitutions are compromises between the different
nations (Boismenu “Perspectives” 99), and as society changes, without continual
renegotiation, the constitutional arrangements of the state may no longer ensure that
‘voice’ is maintained by the minority nation within the democratic process. The
accommodation/integration of the minority nation is a complex process, a process in
which it is relatively easy for the majority nation to simply impose its will on the
minority nation and not even realize that it has done so.
Divergence of Aims. Balance is central to understanding how states comprising multiple nations
need to accommodate different norms and values, and the eventual outcomes (or aims) of these
societies. The above section discussing losers consent demonstrated that democracies create
winners and losers, but in a multinational state this can be of particular concern to the minority
nation(s), especially if they continually find themselves on the loosing side of interpretations of
what is considered ‘good’ or ‘just.’ As liberalism is actually a construct of cultural
understandings of what is ‘good’ (Kuper DATE) if a state has different nations within it, their may
be different national interpretations of what constitutes ‘good.’ Both may articulate these
conceptions of good within a liberal-democratic discourse, but these liberal-democratic
discourses could have different outcomes as they could be based on different assumptions.
Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, one sees how this could result in situations
in which the majority and minority nations simply want different outcomes from the state. If
actors in the majority nation do not recognize the multi-national character of the state, the
reaction within the minority nation may simply be regarded as a form of nationalism and a danger
to the state. Majority actors will not take into account the role of the majority nation (of
themselves) into account in this process of identity mobilization. In order to balance distinctive
aims within a single state may require what can be referred to as ‘deep diversity’ (Taylor 1998) or
‘differentiated citizenship,’ (Gagnon and Iacovino 2007). Yet in order for this to be successful, it
requires recognition within the majority nation that there are more than one legitimate ‘demos’
within the state.
Tierney (2007) makes the point that within much of the study of the state there is
an assumed single demos, while in reality a multinational state has multiple demos. From
this, one can interpret it to mean that there are differing understandings of the state.
Accordingly, two opposing ‘pure types’ emerge; a unionist and a pan-nationalist
interpretation of the state. While in reality, these may exist as two poles along a
continuum; here these will be developed as two separate concepts. It is from these two
understandings of the state that friction within the state occurs, reinforcing nationalist
movements, and contributing to the problems within multinational states.
Unionist interpretations privilege the concept of the partnership (compact, union etc)
between the constituent nations of the state. This interpretation of the state recognizes the
existence of multiple demos within the multinational state and the multiple sources of legitimacy
that this implies. It sees the nation as being formed by its constituent elements, where
sovereignty lies. This is similar to Hechter’s (2001) unification model of nationalism in which
the nation and state are created by the bottom up as members come together, except that the
constituent nations keep their national identities. Loyalty to the state takes the form of a non-
nationalistic ‘patriotism’ as it recognizes the fact that the community of the state is not built
around a common national identity, rather it is built around a constitutional order in which a
citizens relationship with the state is mediated through membership in a constituent nations of the
state. The state need not be culturally neutral, per say, rather the state incorporates multiple
cultures. In respecting its individual citizens dignity, it ensures the member nations dignity is
respected as well.
Similar to theories of state building nationalism, pan-nationalist discourse envisages the
union that creates the states as the creation of both a new unified national whole and a single
demotic people. It encourages loyalty and allegiance to the centre, along the lines of the model of
civic-nationalism (see Yack ). State building nationalism is a top down process whereby the state
and nation expand outward from the centre. It focuses on the over-arching and state-wide
objectives and identities. While a unionist interpretation of the state sees sovereignty divided
amongst its component nations, pan-nationalist interpretations see the state as the representative
of a single unified demo, representing a single source of democratic legitimacy.
Literature on nations and nationalism in general shows that the nation is always being
redefined and redrawn (Resnick 1994: 71). Current interpretations of “the nation” are the
interpretations of the segments of the nation holding power; controlling the national discourse and
controlling the manner in which the nation is defined. Neither unionist nor pan-nationalist
interpretations of the state will be held by every member or either the majority or the minority
nations. Rather these two interpretations of the state will compete against each other in elite
debates. As these competing views are about the fundamental nature of the state, when they enter
political debate they provide the opportunity for regional actors within the majority nation, as
member of the majority nation, to express their views on the nature of the state.
Conclusion
Unionist and the Pan-nationalist discourses are a result of the dialectical relationship
between not only the constituent members of the state, but the interpretations of the state that
transcend membership within the constituent nations. That the interpretation of the state
manifests itself along this axis is a result of the nationalism of the majority community, a
nationalism that does not realize it exists. As the relationship between liberalism and culture is
complex, liberal democratic norms which are thought to be culture free by the majority are
challenged in multinational states. It is through this challenging the interpretation of the state that
one can see the roots of these two discourses and the mobilization of territorial identity.
Bibliography
Anderson, Christopher J. and Silvia Mendes (2005) “Learning to Lose: Election
Outcomes, Democratic Experience and Political Protest Potential” in the British
Journal of Political Science 36: 91-111
Billig, Micheal (1995) Banal Nationalism. London: Sage
Choudhry, Sujit (2007) “Does the world need more Canada? The politics of the Canadian model
in constitutional politics and political theory” The International Journal of Constitutional
Law (5)4: 730-758
Deutsch, Karl W. (1966) Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry Into the
Foundations of Nationality. London: the MIT Press
Deutsch, Karl W. (1966b) “Nation Building and National Development” in Karl W. Deutsch and
William J Foltz eds Nation-Building. New York: Althorn Press
Gagnon, Alain-G and Raffaelle Iacovino (2007) Federalism, Citizenship and Québec: Debating
Multinationalism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Hazell, Robert (2006TEQ) “Introduction: What is the English Question?” in Robert Hazell (ed)
The English Question. Manchester: Manchester University Press
Hobsbawm, Eric J (1996) “Ethnicity and Nationalism in Europe Today” in Gopal Balakrishnan ed
Mapping the Nation. London: Verso in association with New Left Review
Kaufmann, Eric P (2004) ed. Rethinking Ethnicity: Majority groups and dominant
minorities. London: Routledge
Kuper, Adam. Culture: The Anthropologist’s Account. London: Harvard University Press, 1999
Mann, Michael (1995) “A Political Theory of Nationalism and Its Excesses” in Sukumar Periwal
ed Notions of Nationalism. Budapest: Central European University Press
Poggi, Gianfranco (1990) The State: Its Nature, Development and Prospects. Campbridge: Polity
Press
Taylor, Charles (1998) “Nationalism and Modernity” in John A. Hall ed Ernest Gellner and the
theory of Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Tierney, Stephen (2007) “Giving with one hand: Scottish devolution within a unitary state” in
International Journal of Constitutional Law 5(4): 730-753
Tilly, Charles (1998) “Social Movements and (All Sorts of) Other Interactions – Local, National
and International – Including Identities.” In Theory and Society Special Issue on
Interpreting Change at the End of the Twenties Century 27(4): 453-480
Yack, Bernard. (1999) “The Myth of the Civic Nation,” in R. Beiner, ed., Theorizing Nationalism.
Albany: State University of New York Press