Citizenship Not Nationalism
Authoritarian populists are on the rise around the world, taking nations in a particularly ugly direction, and undermining liberal democracy in the process. Yascha Mounk argues that liberals should reclaim nationalism from bigots and racists who support these leaders and try to make nationalism as inclusive as possible. Mounk’s op-ed, adapted from his book, The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It (2018), explains the recent decline of support for liberal democracy and the growth in support of right-wing extremists. To reverse this course, Mounk suggests liberals not give up on nationalism, but rather offer a more tolerant and just counterweight to the otherwise bigoted and racist kind. But his is a reaction, not really an alternative -ism. He conflates today’s social liberals with liberals in the broader, liberty-loving sense that gave rise to nations much earlier.
In 19th-century Europe, liberalism was highly related to nationalism. Liberals like John Stuart Mill championed the advancement of societal ideals and the protection of freedoms under a body of laws. The nation was the logical, if necessary, social construct to achieve this. Young nations united peoples—often along similar ethnic, religious, and ethnic lines—under common banners and within common borders, making citizens of them. Giuseppe Mazzini, for example, called for the unification of Italy on these grounds.
Conservative governments eventually espoused liberal ideals while advancing others, namely a balancing act of power among fellow nations and eventually spreading their influence over other peoples. Even countries from non-European regions approximated this nationalist behavior. It took two world wars to stem the destructive consequences of nationalism. Since then other countries around the world co-opted its ideas for the construction of their own nations.
Nationalism today therefore isn’t entirely new. Neither is its inevitable potential for conflict. Swapping left-wing nationalism for right-wing nationalism is hardly a guarantee of a better world. So, what’s a modern liberal to do?
Mounk is on solid ground by arguing that the idea of citizens transcending all sense of nationhood is fantasy. Breaking down citizenship to narrow identity politics doesn’t particularly help unite citizens within nations either. We’re stuck with nations as a necessary evil for now. He asserts: “The only way to keep the destructive potential of nationalism in check is to fight for a society in which collective identity transcends ethnic and religious boundaries—one in which citizens from all religious or ethnic backgrounds are treated with the same respect as citizens from the majority group.”
But the solution is not for liberals to embrace a more inclusive form of nationalism since nationalism of any kind still leads to conflict both within and between nations. Rather it is for liberals to reclaim the ideals of citizenship. This transcends the narrow silos of identity politics to espouse a shared sense of rights and duties with the nation. Citizenship in a nation with liberal democracy means having a say in government, even when not all citizens are socially liberal or agree on public policy. Citizenship also operates on all levels of government, from the local and national, to the international. And perhaps most importantly, citizenship is a practice as well as an idea that, unlike nationalism, is not an ideology.