Humans are social animals. We tend to form social groups that range from small families with a shared inheritance, to organizations with shared beliefs, interests or aims, and entire nations with a shared history or culture. We all, to some extent, tend to identify ourselves by our membership of these groups. And the nations, regions, towns and villages we live in are defined not simply by their borders on a map, but the attachments and allegiances of the people within them.
Our attachment to a particular group is often a source of pride, and a willingness to defend it from criticism or attack can be an important factor in social cohesion, enabling people to live together as a society. It is inevitable, then, that the way that we organize and govern these societies – our political systems – is influenced by those things that have brought them together in the first place, and which make them distinct from other societies.
Today, we tend to think of the nation states as the political units that make up the world, and people tend to consider their nation as a significant factor in how they identify themselves. This attachment to national identity can become the basis for a political ideology – nationalism – with nationalist movements and parties aiming to strengthen or protect a sense of national unity. Many nationalist movements have arisen as a reaction against oppression, particularly in the fight for liberation from an imperial power, or to establish the independence of a distinct minority group within a larger nation. Others have their roots in conflict with neighbouring countries, or to gather support for expansionism. While nationalism can be a positive force for social cohesion and against oppression, it also has the potential to become xenophobic. In many European countries, the perceived threat of immigration and multiculturalism to so-called indigenous populations has given rise to more or less racist nationalist parties, often with far-right authoritarian leanings.
Nationalism can be seen as the political manifestation of feelings of national identity, a specific ideology on which various political movements and parties are founded. Patriotism, while closely linked to the concept of nationalism, is different in that it is not a particular belief, but the way in which people show their attachment to their nation. In a sense, nationalism is built on the idea that a nation is there for the benefit of its people, whereas patriotism is the idea that the people are there for the nation.
Indeed, nationalism can call on patriotism for support, which can be so deeply ingrained that it becomes ‘my country, right or wrong’. Like nationalism, patriotism involves an element of pride, but also carries notions of loyalty and even devotion to the nation, and its institutions and symbols of state. Many nations have a formal oath or pledge of allegiance, which aspiring citizens are required to take confirming their duty to protect and defend their country.
Nationalism is not defined by national borders and can take a variety of forms. Any social group is defined by the thing or things its members have in common, and national identity is strongly linked to the idea of common characteristics. Ethnic nationalism is a form of nationalism that defines the nation in terms of a shared heritage, both as a common ancestry and a common culture, which together are often known as ethnicity.
Ethnic identity has a long history, defining the differences between tribal groups from which our nations have evolved, and on very basic level are based on kinship or ‘blood relationships’. Consequently, there is often a racial element in any form of ethnic nationalism. Allied to this, however, is the notion of heritage: the culture, customs, religion and language of a society. And because ethnicity has evolved organically over a long period, it is deeply rooted in societies, transcending national borders, and so is sometimes at odds with political ideas of nationality.
Nationalism based on notions of ethnicity can lead to xenophobic attitudes and foster conflict between different ethnic groups. A shared cultural and racial heritage can also be exclusive and intolerant of ‘outsiders’. Liberal political thinkers propose instead a more inclusive form of civic nationalism. In line with the Enlightenment tradition of rationalism, they define a community as comprising all who live in it regardless of their ethnicity. Thus, national identity is not created by accident of birth but is decided upon voluntarily, by moving to or choosing to remain in a country, or civic nation.
Civic nationalism began to gain ground in the 19th century, as an alternative to ethnic nationalism, especially in countries such as the USA, as the young nation asserted its independence with a distinct identity, a strong liberal tradition and an ethnically diverse population. In more recent times, there have been calls for a greater emphasis on civic nationalism to counter the rise of extreme ethnic nationalist movements.
Nationalist movements frequently arise as resistance to imperial or colonial occupation of what the inhabitants consider to be sovereign territory. Nationalism may, however, also be part of the ideology of an occupying power. Aggressive nationalism is often a component of expansionist policies, playing on feelings of patriotism and superiority. In contrast to liberal nationalism, expansionist nationalism tends to be overtly chauvinistic, and a pretext for acquiring territory or gaining dominance over other nations.
Implied, and sometimes explicitly stated, is a notion that some nations are superior to others and have a right to exert power over them or encroach upon their territory. This was most noticeable in the empire-building of the 19th century, when it was a matter of pride for European nations to expand their influence by acquiring colonies around the world. Nationalism, both civic and ethnic, also figured in the Japanese and German military expansionism that led to the Second World War.
Some nations assert their superiority over others, by extending their borders and invading their neighbours to build empires. This urge for imperialism is driven by a desire for not only ideological dominance, but also economic gain, through acquisition of resources and territory. And with advances in transportation, empires have been built not simply by expanding into neighbouring countries, but also by colonizing more distant ones. Spain and Portugal, for example, colonized South America, while other European powers acquired territories in North America and Asia, and later with the ‘Scramble for Africa’, global empires were formed. This kind of colonialism established networks of international trade that survived the empires themselves. Even after independence, colonies maintained trading and cultural links with their former masters, and with one another, sometimes formally as in the formation of the British Commonwealth. The influence of colonialism was also reflected in the political and cultural institutions of the newly independent nations.
The 1948 voyage of the Empire Windrush began a wave of migration into post-War Britain from across its dwindling Empire.
The history of slavery is as long as that of empires. It was common in all the civilizations of the ancient world, providing a cheap labour force generally consisting of people taken from a conquered nation. With the advent of the great trading empires in the 15th century, however, the nature of slavery changed fundamentally, as slaves became increasingly considered as a commodity that could be traded. This grew in importance as European empires colonized new countries and required a large labour force to supplement local workers.
The slave trade became big business, with fortunes being made by European slavers moving staggeringly large numbers of African slaves across the Atlantic to work in the cotton fields and sugar plantations of North America. The move to abolish the slave trade helped to shape liberal politics in the 19th century, but the change slavery made to the demographic of especially America and the Caribbean profoundly influenced political attitudes to race and ethnicity to the present day.
Anti-colonial and post-colonial nationalism
In their struggle for independence from the empires of the old European powers, many countries experienced a surge in nationalism – an assertion of their specific national identities. Interestingly, in the USA – the first nation to successfully break from colonial rule – it was the settlers rather than the indigenous population who led the revolt. These were mainly European emigrants, inspired by Enlightenment ideas of rights and freedom, so the nationalism they inspired was civic rather than ethnic.
Elsewhere inspired by the American revolt, the nationalist movements in South America and the Caribbean, and later in Africa, followed ethnic lines, which are still reflected in the nationalist politics of those countries today. Nationalist movements also emerged in Europe in the 19th century as countries sought to break from the Ottoman and Russian empires, and more recently as eastern European countries asserted their independence from the Soviet bloc.
Independence and self-determination
As more and more countries won independence from the old empires, they asserted their new-found freedom by establishing new nation states on their own terms – not just installing a new local leader or government, but setting up a system of government from scratch. The precedent for this right to self-determination was set by the US Declaration of Independence, closely followed by its Constitution. But this right was by no means universally recognized. In 1823, the USA issued the Monroe Doctrine, stating that any colonization or interference in its affairs (or in those of other new nations in the Americas) by European countries would be regarded as an act of aggression, effectively proclaiming its status as a sovereign state. The old imperial powers, however, hung on to their empires elsewhere and maintained influence even in some ex-colonies. Pressure for international recognition to the right of self-determination increased through the 20th century, supported by the USA and Britain, and was finally enshrined in international law after the foundation of the United Nations.
British Prime Minister Harold McMillan acknowledged the need for self-determination in his ‘Winds of Change’ speech, made during a 1960 trip to Africa.
What are now loosely referred to as ‘racial’ issues became more important politically through the effects of imperialism and the slave trade, and the nationalist movements prompted by them. The term ‘race’ is itself controversial and has been used to refer to many different aspects of what would be more accurately called ethnicity – involving culture, language and religion, as well as physical differences between different groups, such as skin colour.
The attitude that one ethnic group is superior to another forms a dark side of ethnic nationalism, and can be reflected in the relations between countries of predominantly different ethnicities. Even within countries, minority ethnic groups are often treated with suspicion or hostility. This may result in overt – and sometimes state-sanctioned – discrimination and segregation, denying certain people the same rights and freedoms as the majority. Less obvious forms of prejudice put race and ethnicity squarely on the political agenda.
Despite its avowed commitment to equality and rights set out in its Declaration of Independence, the USA denied rights to all but privileged white men until well into the 20th century. While it took a civil war to achieve the abolition of slavery, the substantial black population remained without equal rights and suffered segregation in the southern states from the notorious ‘Jim Crow laws’.
At the beginning of the 20th century, black activists such as W.E.B. Du Bois helped to instigate campaigns for equal rights, which gained momentum to become a major civil rights movement. Under the leadership of Martin Luther King in the 1960s, segregation was brought to an end. Similar struggles for civil rights were ongoing, notably in South Africa, where the white-minority government’s oppressive system of apartheid was finally brought to an end by pressure from an international anti-apartheid movement and the inspiration of the leader of the African National Congress party, Nelson Mandela.
By the end of the 20th century, many of the goals of the civil rights movement (see here) appeared to have been achieved, in theory at least. The majority of democratic countries had adopted legislation that granted equal rights to all people regardless of ethnicity, generally alongside laws against discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity. But there is still some way to go before civil rights are universally and comprehensively protected. Attitudes are slowly changing, but public and even official observance is lagging behind the law. Even in countries that are officially opposed to ethnic discrimination, old prejudices and suspicions remain entrenched in their institutions, with the effect that the law is not always strictly or fairly enforced. Minority groups are more likely to be stopped and searched, or convicted of crimes, and less likely to have access to the best universities or the best jobs. Immigration laws are often seen as targeted at minority ethnic groups, as are those banning conspicuous or ‘provocative’ signs of religion, such as the hijab, or headscarf.
Despite the widespread adoption of anti-discrimination legislation, minority ethnic groups (and women) are still in practice at a disadvantage in many areas of life. This is particularly noticeable in employment, where the top posts are occupied almost exclusively by members of the predominant (usually white-European) ethnic group, and minorities are more than statistically likely to be in lower-paid or unpleasant jobs. Legislation is clearly not effective in preventing discrimination, so to try to rectify the inequality, some countries have used a system of positive discrimination. India, which has a very ethnically diverse population, operates a system of quotas of educational places and jobs for the various ethnic groups; elsewhere applicants for vacancies from minority ethnic groups are given preferential treatment. Although these ‘affirmative action’ schemes have been successful in ironing out inequalities, they have also been accused of unfairly tipping the balance, and run the risk of increasing rather than decreasing prejudice against minority ethnic groups.
One of the hopes of nations that were founded on a notion of civic rather than ethnic national identity is that it would promote inclusiveness, and minimize discrimination against ethnic minorities. Implicit in this idea, for many states, was a notion of homogeneity or uniformity, with the nation as a ‘melting pot’ in which different ethnic groups would blend together. But what emerged in many nations with diverse ethnic populations was a multicultural society, in which people retained their ethnic identity (customs, religion and language) within the wider civic nationality.
Multiculturalism can minimize ethnic discrimination and xenophobia, when the diversity of ethnic groups is recognized as a complement to civic nationalism. Acknowledging the right to observe different cultural customs can increase tensions, particularly if institutions, such as faith schools, separate groups from the wider community, and minority and especially immigrant groups can become ‘ghettoized’.
Since the 19th century, improvements in transport have meant that huge numbers of migrants have left their home countries to seek a better life. Young nations such as the USA and Australia have become prosperous through their acceptance of immigrants, and older countries in Europe have at one time or another been reliant on an immigrant workforce. But in recent times, many countries have imposed severe restrictions on immigration, which is increasingly seen as a problem rather than a boon. Instead of importing labour, it has become more economical to outsource production to another country, freeing up more of the domestic workforce to staff the service industries. Immigrants have consequently been regarded as a threat to local jobs for local people, and a drain on resources. A distinction is sometimes made between these ‘economic migrants’ and refugees from natural disasters, or asylum seekers fleeing oppression. This has become a major issue for some right-wing nationalist political parties, who point to social problems arising from multiculturalism.
While in the USA and Africa the driving force behind the civil rights movements was one of white-European supremacy over black-Africans, elsewhere there were other racial tensions. Jewish people had suffered discrimination, long before even African colonization. Displaced Jewish communities in Europe and parts of Asia had been frequently persecuted, segregated and even confined to ghettoes – discrimination so widespread that it has its own name: antisemitism. Some Jews campaigned for the establishment of a separate homeland. Zionism, the movement pressing for a Jewish state of Israel, gained political support from certain quarters, but was vigorously opposed by others, including many Jews. The argument centred on the question of Jewish identity: is it defined by race, religion or culture, and is it a nationality? In the wake of the Nazi Holocaust, the state of Israel was founded in 1948, and continues to support its existence and security in the face of criticism and actual violence directed against it, which some believe are antisemitic.
Perhaps more than any other aspect of ethnic identity, religion has the ability to be a positive force for social cohesion and, at the same time, very socially divisive. Religion is traditionally a central part of many societies, and the shared faith underlying their social and political structures not only unites communities, but also improves relations across national boundaries. But differences of religious belief, even on minor points of doctrine, arouse strong passions and can lead to persecution of religious minorities, xenophobia and conflict.
It is no coincidence that many of the internal tensions within countries are between communities divided along religious lines, nor that international conflicts are similarly over religious as much as political boundaries. For these reasons, a large number of liberal democracies have taken an official line that religion and politics are best kept separate, in so far as that is possible. However, a significant number of states around the world still recognize a role for religion in their political systems.
The laws of God and the laws of Man
One of the roles of religion in society is to provide a moral code and a set of rules for behaviour, such as the Ten Commandments. These, for believers, are the laws that God has revealed to us and, as such, have divine authority. In contrast, the laws decided by governments are man-made and, for the believer, lack the same authority. Reconciling conflicting earthly and divine laws became more of a problem as societies developed political systems separate from their religions.
This was particularly true in the medieval Christian world, where the Catholic church was intricately involved in political power. Christian philosophers suggested that man-made laws do have authority over earthly affairs, but that divine laws presented the overarching spiritual code; man’s law is a part of God’s creation, and so supplements, rather than contradicts God’s immutable law. This solution gave governments some authority, while the Church – as the moral arbiter that shaped its laws – was not excluded from political affairs.
In almost every culture, it has been believed at some time that a leader is given authority by God to rule over his or her people. In Ancient China, this was described as the ‘mandate of heaven’, which was bestowed upon a just emperor – if his rule was unjust this was withdrawn and his legitimacy removed. Because of this widely held belief in a divine right of kings, the authority of absolute monarchs, given by God, trumps the authority of political leaders, whose authority is merely earthly.
This gave considerable power to monarchs – and the Pope, who not only has divine authority, but is also considered infallible – placing them effectively above the law. From the late medieval period, in Europe at least, that power was challenged. Only a handful of absolute monarchs supported by the claim of a divine right to rule remain in power today. There are still many royal families whose privileged position is justified by ‘the grace of God’, and a lingering tradition even in some democracies that political leaders should have some form of divine approval.
The connection between politics and religion runs very deep. Religions have provided societies with the moral code that underpins their laws. In many cases, there is a predominant religion in a country that is intrinsic to its national identity and cultural heritage, even if it is now only practised by a minority of the population. The United Kingdom, for example, is often considered a ‘Christian country’ despite its multicultural make-up.
Some faiths are endorsed as official, state religions, in a similar way to the adoption of a language as the official language. This may be a formal acknowledgement that gives little or no real status to the religion or its clerics, where the religion plays a purely ceremonial role, or where representatives of the faith may play some part in the secular government. Today, most countries with a state religion are Islamic, but there are some countries, notably the UK, which have retained an established Christian church.
Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury between 2002 and 2012, at the UK State Opening Of Parliament.
As republics replaced the old monarchies, the political power of religions, and particularly the Christian church, was increasingly seen as incompatible with the idea of democracy. Many of these new nations followed the lead of the USA in establishing themselves as secular states, excluding religion from the political process while adopting a strict neutrality on matters of faith. This follows the liberal principle of giving all citizens an equal right to practise their chosen religion, or none, without favour or discrimination. The majority of modern liberal democracies are either founded on or have adopted the idea of a secular state. However, some have gone further in the separation of state from religion, declaring themselves officially atheist. The Soviet Union, China and North Korea have all adopted this form of secularism, and tolerated religion to a greater or lesser extent, while Albania actually banned religion in 1945. But religion continues to have an influence, even in the most secular of states: in 1954, the USA amended its pledge of allegiance to include the phrase ‘one nation under God’.
Literally meaning ‘rule by God’, theocracy is the form of government in which the clergy of a particular religion rule over the civil state. More than simply a recognition of an official state religion, it is an adoption of that religion as the source of the official policy of the state, administered by its leaders. The officials of a theocratic government are believed to be divinely chosen and guided, and their authority, like the divine right of kings, is God-given rather than granted by the people. The laws that they make and enforce are laid down by their faith, and support its doctrine.
Christian theocracy was once the distinguishing feature of medieval Europe, but is now confined to the Vatican state. Today, the idea is more associated with Islam – regimes, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Ayatollahs in Iran, where clerics are accorded considerable political power. Although absolute theocracy is rare, even in Islamic states, clerics continue to have significant influence in many countries.
The civic laws of most countries in the world today have been decided by people – governments, legislators, judges and constitution writers – rather than set by God or dictated by the doctrine of a religion. Nevertheless, these civic laws often bear a resemblance to the moral code of the predominant faith or faiths of that country; furthermore, some laws, such as those against murder, theft and so on, are universal. In Islamic states, the religious law of Islam – sharia – is the primary source of legislation. Taken from the Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah, sharia is accepted in these countries as the infallible word of God, which requires no human additions and cannot be contradicted. Many devout Muslims believe that sharia must be observed over and above the civic law. Unlike other religious laws, it is more than simply a code of ethics and personal morality; it includes rules for political and economic conduct. Sharia constitutes a large part of the legislation of several Arabic countries, and is the basis for laws in most Islamic countries.
The liberal notion of allowing freedom of religion has helped to soften attitudes towards the separation of religion and state, and to a large extent religions have gradually accepted ideas – such as attitudes to sexuality and gender equality – that previously were unthinkable. But there are factions within some religions that do not accept these changes, and believe that the doctrine of their faith is immutable.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the term ‘fundamentalism’ first appeared to refer to some of the Christian communities in the USA who insisted on a literal interpretation of Christian scriptures. More recently, the word has been more associated with Islam, and a particularly hardline observance of the Qur’an and sharia. It has also been used to describe some of the more extremely orthodox branches of Judaism. Because their beliefs often clash with the values of modern democracy – and those of other religions – religious fundamentalist movements have become a significant political force.
One of the distinguishing features of nearly every religious fundamentalist movement is a desire to turn the clock back. Fundamentalism is most prevalent in the Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – which had been established centuries before the advent of modern political systems. It is the same Enlightenment ideas that challenge these faiths the most, and to some extent force change upon them.
Modernism, for these fundamentalists, takes the form of liberal attitudes to rights and freedom at the expense of morality and traditional values. Some, such as the Amish and Mennonite communities in the USA, have simply cut themselves off from the modern world they disagree with. Others, however, are more aggressive in their opposition to modernity, calling for the repeal of what they see as immoral secular liberalism, and even democracy itself, and a return to the values and ethics on which their religion is founded.
Conservative Christianity, including traditionalists within the Catholic church and some Nonconformist Protestant groups, exists throughout the Christian world, but largely limits itself to theological rather than political disputes. In the USA, however, a fundamentalist movement among American Protestants gained considerable support – as well as rejecting liberal theology, it took a stance against what it saw as a decline in moral and cultural standards in society caused by liberal politics. The popularity of these largely evangelical groups gained momentum and, helped by the media exposure of ‘televangelists’ from the 1970s, built up considerable financial resources and political influence. Movements such as the American Christian Cause, Christian Voice and the Moral Majority formed what was dubbed the new Christian Right, which increasingly involved itself in political activism. As well as campaigning for changes to laws that are antithetical to its beliefs, it has actively supported conservative Republican candidates in elections, in return for influence over policy.
An extremely conservative approach to Islamic teaching led to the formation of the Wahhabi movement as early as the 18th century, and it has since gained a large following worldwide. Its fundamentalist ideology is behind theocratic Islamic states, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and has been widely adopted in other countries, including Pakistan.
However, the term ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ has today taken on a different meaning, referring to revolutionary and often violent Islamist movements – more accurately called ‘radical Islam’. As a fundamentalist movement forcibly opposing the influence of Western liberal modernity, radical Islam first gained prominence with the revolution in Iran in 1979, which ousted the Shah and replaced him with a theocratic government of Ayatollahs. Since then, numerous movements, both Sunni and Shia, have fought for the formation of Islamic states, including terrorist networks, such as Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (IS, or ISIS or ISIL).
The concept of jihad in Islam, in simple terms, is the religious duty of all Muslims to struggle and resist in order to protect the faith from harm. In the latter part of the 20th century, this was taken by radical Islam as a call to arms, especially after the establishment of the state of Israel and the spread of Western-style democracy into Islamic countries.
Outright conflict was, until the 21st century, confined largely to the Middle Eastern countries, but terrorism increasingly became a threat elsewhere. A turning point was the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001, coordinated by the Al Qaeda network. This marked the beginning of a global ‘War on Terror’ declared by President George W. Bush, which in turn was met with further terrorist attacks on Western targets, and the recruitment of Islamic ‘jihadists’, not only from Islamic countries but also from those ‘radicalized’ by influential fundamentalist preachers in the West.
