Nationalism in the Contemporary Globalized World
The concept of the Nation is important. There is no technical definition, however a nation is a broadly described as a "body of people who possess some sense of a single community identity, a shared historical tradition, with major elements of common culture, and with a substantial proportion of them inhabiting an identifiable geographical area" (Robertson, 1993). The idea of nationhood and identity has been especially important this century. Since the 1945 over 50 countries have relinquished their colonial status and become independent from Britain. The recent trend has been for colonies and "regions" to exert their own nationhood. In the last 15 years the former Soviet Union has undergone political upheaval. Now there are places like the Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, and Georgia that have become nations in there own right. However, at the same time as these new Nations have been emerging, the media has latched on to the idea that there has been increasing globalisation.
The word globalisation seems to have appeared everywhere in the 1990s. But what does it mean for politics and nations in particular? Globalisation in terms of global travel and communication has changed social life. Developed countries are on the whole multicultural societies. Television allows us to feel close to distant countries. The world's media can keep us in touch with what is happening elsewhere. Mass media coverage can even help us to form views about nations that we have never even been to. There is another aspect too. There are some "hyper-globalisers" who only see globalisation as being linked ideologically to world business and commerce (Giddens, 1996). According to this view, globalisation is all about the expansion of the global Market place. In fact, the extent of economic globalisation has now put the power of nation states in question. Perhaps the economic strength of large multinational companies can be as influential as nations themselves.
Globalisation is also related to the growth in large institutions like the International Monetary Fund, The United Nations, NATO and the European Union. By taking the European Union as an example, it is clear to see how it has grown since it first began as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which created a single market for trade in coal and steel. The ECSC came into force in 1952 between Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Those same six countries later formed the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, which came into effect on January 1, 1958. The United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark joined the EC in 1973, Greece joined in 1981, and Spain and Portugal joined in 1986 (Bentley, 1995).
One of the problems of politicians across the world is whether to be part of these global institutions. Should nations get involved in these political institutions when it could compromise the decision-making power of their own parliament and could possibly erode their own national identity. This debate is seen in Britain where "Euro-sceptic" MPs fear that closer links with Europe will undermine the Westminster Parliament. On the other hand, there are those who are pro-Europeans who don't want Britain to "fall behind" the rest of Europe. These Euro enthusiasts would urge Britain to join European monetary union first and foremost for the potential financial benefits. They would see globalisation as the harmonisation of laws and policies.
It could be argued that there has always been huge global trade between Nations since the early nineteenth century. "Globalisation" simply feels new because of the fact that technological advances make it easier to report global trade, and successive transport improvements allows trade to happen at a faster rate. With communications, satellite and Internet technology, it really may seem like we are living in a "global-village". But the reality is that individual countries still have as great a say - over their own legislation, defence, trade, and borders - as the ever had. In addition, common economic views may be held by governments but it does not necessarily mean that their peoples have enough shared values and cultures to give up their distinct nationalities - nations are prepared to work with each other for economic advantage and strategic purposes but little else.
Having considered "globalisation", it is worth looking deeper into what the consequences are for nations and whether nations have a future. It is my opinion that globalisation is not a new phenomenon. The first signs of it have been around for all to see: the formation of NATO in the West, Warsaw pact in the East, the United Nations, Asian trading blocks and the EU. These different institutions all have their objectives for their collective memberships. But they do not all erode the sense of nationhood, in fact, they often intervene in conflict to stop some Nations being absorbed by others.
While it is often the large organisations like the United Nations that make the news headlines world-wide, the evidence suggests that nationalism is not dead. We might even be living through its "high-noon" as there are on going campaigns for small territories across the world to become fully independent self-governing Nations. These nationalist campaigns include the democratically fought election campaigns by political parties like Plaid Cymru (in Wales), the Parti Quebecois (Canada) and the Scottish National Party. These examples of nationalism are described as civic - "it envisages the nation as a community of equal, rights-bearing citizens, united in patriotic attachment to a shared set of political practices and values" (Ignatieff, 1993). But there are also the violent destructive forms of nationalism too. In recent years, ethnic nationalist tensions have caused violence in places like Serbia, Yugoslavia, Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia. The existence of both destructive nationalism in the aforementioned "war-torn" countries and the democratic based nationalism in the others serves as a reminder that nationalism is alive and well in various places. Globalisation does not make the contentious issues of borders, boundaries, individual cultures and national identities go away.
Nationhood is very important to the world's Nations. They each contribute in the development of the world systems and in large-scale global institutions. However, they do also guard their sovereignty and border controls. Even within the European Union where free-movement of goods and people is one of the top priorities governments still debate the tightening of immigration controls. They are also defensive of their own contributions to the EU budget. So while they co-operate in some instances, they still show some nationalistic tendencies too. For example, Britain is defensive of the monarchy, has not yet decided on the single currency, and Britain opposes other EU members over fishing rights. There is sufficient belief in British nationalism to resist losing her nation status.
In conclusion, globalisation produces solidarity in some places and destroys it in others. In other words, it is a contradictory process because when globalisation steps too far, countries will vehemently look after their own national interests. Global institutions will probably come and go and they will have to change with the political climate. Yet, just as a country might become independent, it could join an institution like the EU. In Europe, political will for integration led to the creation of the Euro earlier this year, with a queue of other nations wanting to join the EU. Nato is also marking the entrance of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic to its ranks. Ironically, although the break-up of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin Wall were catalysts for separatism across large swathes of Europe, they also led to the reunification of Germany. So throughout the globalisation process new nations and unions have been created.
It is my opinion that globalisation, in the economic sense, really does bring like-minded countries together. Global policies are needed on the environment, trade, and communications. These are areas where global co-operation between countries is a good thing for all and national differences must be put aside. Nations have to be careful in case the line between international and domestic law becomes blurred. If there is any serious problems with globalisation then individual governments will firstly defend their own interests, as their separate identity and nationhood remains most important to them. At the present time, countries are able to involve themselves in common interests and their individual national interests therefore nationalism and globalisation can co-exist.
Bibliography
Bilton, T. 1995. British Politics in Focus. Causeway Press: Lancs.
Haralambos & Holborn. 1994. Sociology Themes and Perspectives. Collins: London.
Ignatieff, M. 1993. Blood & Belonging: Journeys into the new Nationalism.
BBC Books: London.
Robertson, D. 1993. Penguin Dictionary of Politics. Penguin Publishing: London.
