In the lawless world of the ancients the need for a great leader was never in question. In a time when tribes and small nations regularly go to war there was a need for a strong leader and there were times when members of a community, tribe or city would willingly offer themselves and their family under the authority of dictator in exchange for a life of stability and safety. In ancient times and to some extent to the present generation, people had found stability in monarchy.
In order to perpetuate kings and queens regarded themselves as children of the divine and therefore secured the right to rule. But in the modern age, people who were disgusted and fed-up with their abuse of authority decided to form nations based on the idea of liberty and equality. Although liberalism is linked to the idea of freedom there is a need to examine if liberal nationalism advances shared national interests at the deliberate expense of state power and sovereignty.
Background
It would be difficult to fully understand nationalism and the rise of liberal theory without going through the finished work of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke believed that men were created equal in the eyes of God and should never be shackled under the power of a dictator or tyrant. Thomas Hobbes on the other hand is believed that personal freedom can be sacrificed for the sake of peace, security, and progress.
Thomas Hobbes was born a few decades before John Locke and he was born into a European continent where nations are constantly at war.
His particular experience with the English Civil War and its accompanying hardships led him to the conclusion that, “There must be some coercive power to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants, by the terror of some punishment, greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant” (Knutsen, 1997, p.12). In other words Hobbes made it clear that a powerful leaders is needed to sustain a country or a community.
Political analysts explained even further Hobbes’ point of view by explaining that, “Because virtually any government would be better than a civil war, people ought to submit themselves to an absolute political authority.
Continued stability will require that they also refrain from the sorts of actions that might undermine such a regime … Hobbes aimed to demonstrate the reciprocal relationship between political obedience and peace” (Lloyd, 2002, p.1). Hobbes believed there is nothing wrong with a centralised government having the power to hold sway over the livesof many people.
John Locke on the other hand was one of the first to outline the idea that a human being has inalienable rights such as life, liberty, health, and property (Uzgalis, 2007, p.1). Locke and Hobbes may disagree on the idea of freedom and equality but they had the same view when it comes to the idea that there is such a thing as a natural state from which all beings came forth. In this natural state man is free and has rights. A human being has the right to self-preservation and that he or she has the right to liberty and property.
Hobbes was well-schooled in the failures of civilization and so he asserted that it is only when man surrenders his rights and obey without question the rules given by a king then man could never experience the full benefits of good governance and at the same time ensure the stability of a nation. Locke on the other hand, feared that power will corrupt any ruler.
Nationalism
It has been said that “the concept of nationalism is a relatively new idea” (Haas, 1997, p.3). Hobbes and Locke may have thought about it but their “ideas were focused on kingdoms and perhaps tribal groups” (Haas, 1997, p.3).
It can be argued that it is only in the “Age of Renaissance where one can find the emergence of this particular idea, the idea that a group of people came together to form an association in order to attain a common goal” (Kohn, 2005, p.7). It has been argued that it was in modern day England wherein the idea of nationalism was first used (Haas, 1997, p.4). But others say that it was the in France when the concept of nationalism was developed and used in its present form (Kohn, 2005, p.7).
Nationalism is seen as a byproduct of ethnicity (Kohn, 2005, p.7). Hans Kohn then presented his case by saying that: “There is a natural tendency in man … to love his birthplace or the place of his childhood sojourn, its surroundings, its climate, the contours of hills and valleys, of rivers and trees (Kohn, 2005, p.7). This is nationalism as understood in its present form.
Nationalism is just the framework that allows political analyst the capability to group individuals and ethnic groups and label them conveniently. But there is a need to know how to govern this people or at least identify the principles that can be used to develop laws and statutes that will ensure peace, progress, and equality.
Just about the same time when nationalism was invented, the idea of liberalism also took off with great speed and spread far and wide in the Western world. John Locke wrote that liberals are in a “state of perfect freedom to order their actions …. as they think fit … without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man” (Gaus, 2010, p.1).
John Stuart Mill said that “the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition … the a priori assumption is in favour of freedom” (Gaus, 2010, p.1). It is clear therefore that liberty is rooted in humanism or in simpler terms the concept that man is a special being that even a King or Prime Minister has no right to look down on him, use him as an instrument to satisfy his lust and capricious living.
Liberal Nationalism
Liberalism has been extolled as the saviour of the world. In the modern world wherein ideas flowed freely and men and women were stirred up b a different type of nationalism, one that will put them on equal footing with their king, liberalism was a powerful concept that transformed traditional and conservative societies into bastions of liberalism – the people have absolute freedom within the confines of a law that view everyone equal and placed an end to tyranny. It paved the way for the creation of a government for the people and by the people.
According to philosophers who studied this phenomenon, “Each individual imagines himself absolutely free, unencumbered, and on his own – and enters society, accepting its obligations, only in order to minimize his risk … his goal is security is the assurance of his egoism” (Walzer & Miller, 2007, p.98).
This simplified the purpose and significance of living and that is the emergence of an individual separated from the community, isolated, and only thinking about his private interest and working “in accordance to his private caprice” (Walzer & Miller, 2007, p.98).
Using the definition given above one can put all of it together to have a general idea of liberal nationalism and it is based on the assumption that “liberalism is a theory abut the eminence of individual liberties and personal autonomy, nationalism is a theory about the eminence of national-cultural membership and historical continuity, and the importance of perceiving one’s present life and one’s future development as an experience shared with others” (Tamir, 1993, p.79).
Based on this overview of liberalism and nationalism one can begin to understand that the theory of liberal nationalism is going to lead the nation to a place of greater freedom and more benefits but through the expense of state power and sovereignty.
According to this political theory the only way that true liberalism can be experienced is through the reduction of the power of the state to control its members. There is always the tension between the two. A government requires a certain level of surveillance or at least a basic understanding of the movement of people within its borders.
This is the reason why some countries use a national identification system and to some extent this is the purpose of conducting a regular census to know more about the population under its governance. But liberty, equality, and prosperity can only be achieved in full without the power of the government bearing on it like sentinel ready to punish those who break the law.
The law is important but it can too excessive at times. The law is beneficial only to the degree that the political leaders wielding this power can be trusted to dispense this power with an egalitarian mindset. But history and current events is proof that this type of leadership is rare.
Thus, an application of liberal nationalism will result in an ideal situation where there is a sense of community that pervades the nation as men and women live in harmony with the knowledge that they are one. But at the same time there is less control to enforce this homogeneity. The government does not interfere with the affairs of people. There is freedom in all sectors and the masses are given the chance to explore and at the same time experience the fullness of life.
Conclusion
Liberal nationalism can be understood as some form of an ideal concept with regards to the creation of state. It is sustaining a process of nation building that extols the necessity of liberty and equality and yet at the same time having the capability to maintain a state or nation with a people united with a sense of nationalism that allows them to move forward in unity.
This is significant because it is only through unity that a group of people – especially a nation that has millions of inhabitants – can pool their resources together and leverage all that they have to achieve great things. However, the absence of control coming from a centralised government is something difficult to achieve.
References
Gaus, G. (2010). Liberalism. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Web.
Haas, E. (1997). Nationalism, Liberation, and Progress. New York: Cornell University Press.
Kohn, Hans. 2005. Nationalism: A study in its origins and background. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Knutsen, T. (1997). A History of International Relations Theory. New York: Manchester University Press.
Tamir, Y. (1993). Liberal Nationalism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Uzgalis, W. (2007). John Locke. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Web.
Walzer, M. & D. Miller. (2007). Thinking Politically: Essays in Political Theory. MA: Yale University Press.