Blogs
Answering the contemporary national question
For us in Uganda, therefore, our journey to first world status, is also our journey to the consolidation of a stable multi-national commonality of the Ugandan people, within a strong and vigorous East African Federation
Kenneth David Mafabi.
By: Admin ., Journalist @New Vision
__________________
OPINION
By Kenneth David Mafabi
Since 1990, 34 new countries have come into existence in the world. 15 of these emerged from the ashes of the defunct Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), 6 from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia when it imploded in 1992, etc. In Mother Africa, a new Namibia was born in 1990, a new Eritrea in 1993 and South Sudan in 2011. How has the “National Question” played out in each of these entities over the last at least 120 years?
Lately, a number of friends have been inquiring about what precisely we mean when we speak of the “National Question playing out” in various political and armed conflict situations today in Africa. What is its significance? We have responded by asking even more questions! What is a “nation”? Is the “nation” the same as “country”? Is it the same as “state”? What about the classical “nation-state” that emerged from the 1648 Peace of Westphalia — where is it today? Where do “allegiance”, “national unity”, etc — lie in all this? What about the “rights” of nations to “self-determination” - up to and including “secession”? What about questions of Social Justice and Social Progress?
Do we find pride in being “nationalists” or “patriots”? In what historical era is this conversation being held? Under what mode of production of wealth and sustenance? Do we have a single-sentence definition of “National Question”? We do not. But, shall only state for now that the questions asked immediately above, constitute part of the “National Question” — in given national and historical specificities.
To assist us build a template, matrix or schema for teasing out the broad essentials of the question, we have borrowed very heavily from a most unlikely source — the seminal work of Joseph Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question”. For avoidance of doubt, we do not agree in toto with Marshal Stalin — but find this particular 1913 work extremely useful and reader-friendly. Recently, when we quoted American Professor Walt Whitman Rostow in our discussion on the Political Economy of Take-Off in Uganda, we were accused (to our immense entertainment) by a certain group of quoting a “discredited Academic and CIA agent”! It will be interesting to listen to what they will say this time round — when we quote Stalin in extensia! But, we shall not be distracted, and shall certainly stay the course.
“What is a nation? A nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people. This community is not racial, nor is it tribal. The modern Italian nation was formed from Romans, Teutons, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs … Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people.
On the other hand, the great empires of Cyrus and Alexander could not be called nations
…They were … casual and loosely connected conglomerations of groups
Do we find pride in being “nationalists” or “patriots”? In what historical era is this conversation being held? Under what mode of production of wealth and sustenance? Do we have a single-sentence definition of “National Question”? We do not. But, shall only state for now that the questions asked immediately above, constitute part of the “National Question” — in given national and historical specificities.
To assist us build a template, matrix or schema for teasing out the broad essentials of the question, we have borrowed very heavily from a most unlikely source — the seminal work of Joseph Stalin, “Marxism and the National Question”. For avoidance of doubt, we do not agree in toto with Marshal Stalin — but find this particular 1913 work extremely useful and reader-friendly. Recently, when we quoted American Professor Walt Whitman Rostow in our discussion on the Political Economy of Take-Off in Uganda, we were accused (to our immense entertainment) by a certain group of quoting a “discredited Academic and CIA agent”! It will be interesting to listen to what they will say this time round — when we quote Stalin in extensia! But, we shall not be distracted, and shall certainly stay the course.
“What is a nation? A nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people. This community is not racial, nor is it tribal. The modern Italian nation was formed from Romans, Teutons, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs … Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people.
On the other hand, the great empires of Cyrus and Alexander could not be called nations
…They were … casual and loosely connected conglomerations of groups
...Thus, a nation is not a casual conglomeration, but a stable community of people.
But not every stable community constitutes a nation. What distinguishes a national community from a state community? The fact, among others, that a national community is inconceivable without a common language, while a state need not have a common language. I am referring, of course, to the spoken languages of the people and not to the official governmental languages. Thus, a common language is one of the characteristic features of a nation.
But why do the English and the Americans not constitute one nation in spite of their common language? Firstly, because they do not live together, but inhabit different territories. A nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation … Englishmen and Americans originally inhabited the same territory, England, and constituted one nation. Later, one section of the English emigrated from England to a new territory, America, and there … came to form the new American nation … Thus, a common territory is one of the characteristic features of a nation.
Common territory does not by itself create a nation. This requires, in addition, an internal economic bond to weld the various parts of the nation into a single whole … the Americans … would not deserve to be called a nation were not the different parts of America bound together into an economic whole … Thus, a common economic life, economic cohesion, a national market for industry, agriculture and services is one of the characteristic features of a nation.
Apart from the foregoing, one must take into consideration the specific spiritual complexion of the people constituting a nation. Nations differ not only in their conditions of life, but also in spiritual complexion, which manifests itself in peculiarities of national culture … Thus, a common psychological make-up, which manifests itself in a common culture, is one of the characteristic features of a nation.
We have now exhausted the characteristic features of a nation.
A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.” Joseph Stalin, 1913.
For us in Uganda, therefore, our journey to first world status, is also our journey to the consolidation of a stable multi-national commonality of the Ugandan people, within a strong and vigorous East African Federation, as part of a rising African people and Pan African Economic Community.
One of the lessons from Stalin is that the consummation of modern national statehood in the old feudal states of Western Europe, took place with an onslaught on feudal vestiges and inhibitions - by young and rising capitalism. These revolutions were led by the bourgeoisie, with liberalist ideology at the fore.
The revolutions against feudal privilege in the more backward states of Russia and Eastern Europe, on the other hand, were led by the working class in alliance with the peasantry - with socialist ideology at the fore.
In our case, which social forces shall consummate the consolidation of our national statehood? Under which ideological banner? We shall return to these questions - which we have already been raising over the last few months.
The writer is a Senior Presidential Advisor/Political Affairs (Special Duties) State House
But not every stable community constitutes a nation. What distinguishes a national community from a state community? The fact, among others, that a national community is inconceivable without a common language, while a state need not have a common language. I am referring, of course, to the spoken languages of the people and not to the official governmental languages. Thus, a common language is one of the characteristic features of a nation.
But why do the English and the Americans not constitute one nation in spite of their common language? Firstly, because they do not live together, but inhabit different territories. A nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation … Englishmen and Americans originally inhabited the same territory, England, and constituted one nation. Later, one section of the English emigrated from England to a new territory, America, and there … came to form the new American nation … Thus, a common territory is one of the characteristic features of a nation.
Common territory does not by itself create a nation. This requires, in addition, an internal economic bond to weld the various parts of the nation into a single whole … the Americans … would not deserve to be called a nation were not the different parts of America bound together into an economic whole … Thus, a common economic life, economic cohesion, a national market for industry, agriculture and services is one of the characteristic features of a nation.
Apart from the foregoing, one must take into consideration the specific spiritual complexion of the people constituting a nation. Nations differ not only in their conditions of life, but also in spiritual complexion, which manifests itself in peculiarities of national culture … Thus, a common psychological make-up, which manifests itself in a common culture, is one of the characteristic features of a nation.
We have now exhausted the characteristic features of a nation.
A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.” Joseph Stalin, 1913.
For us in Uganda, therefore, our journey to first world status, is also our journey to the consolidation of a stable multi-national commonality of the Ugandan people, within a strong and vigorous East African Federation, as part of a rising African people and Pan African Economic Community.
One of the lessons from Stalin is that the consummation of modern national statehood in the old feudal states of Western Europe, took place with an onslaught on feudal vestiges and inhibitions - by young and rising capitalism. These revolutions were led by the bourgeoisie, with liberalist ideology at the fore.
The revolutions against feudal privilege in the more backward states of Russia and Eastern Europe, on the other hand, were led by the working class in alliance with the peasantry - with socialist ideology at the fore.
In our case, which social forces shall consummate the consolidation of our national statehood? Under which ideological banner? We shall return to these questions - which we have already been raising over the last few months.
The writer is a Senior Presidential Advisor/Political Affairs (Special Duties) State House