Why citizens should love their nations

Jan 24, 2017

Geography, race, religion, language and economic interests determine the consciousness of nationality.

By Samuel Baligidde

Nationalism, which prompted a group of young men and women of the NRA 36 years ago to launch a struggle for the liberation of Uganda, is a good, even a necessary thing. President Donald Trump is right! 

Nations should exist and citizens should love their nations but creating a cordon sanitaire [building physical and psychological walls] around a great country like the USA such as the new American President has vowed to do and is already doing will be counterproductive in many different ways. 

According to scholar Carlton Hayes, there is no agreement as to what nationalism is or as to whether it is good or bad, transitory or eternal.

Geography, race, religion, language and economic interests determine the consciousness of nationality but rather than any of them it is the common heritage and determination to continue living together that may ‘make America great again'; a phrase that implies the shared glories of the past, a common will in the present and future, to have done great deeds together like the NRA and the Compatriots of the Luweero Bushwar did and desiring to do more.

However, the peculiarities of American Democracy make Trump's nationalism dangerously potent. When he was inaugurated as the 45th President of the US his maiden speech was sprinkled with several pinches of a nationalistic vow to put "America first"; declaring a new political era and marking a possible return to the old times of fierce nationalism not only to his country but also to the entire world.

"From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land" Trump said promising an end to business-as-usual during his presidency. Then he spent some time complying with the norms of American political culture by meeting the ‘Invisible Government' [CIA, NSA] for a briefing and debriefing session.

Technological, psychological and politico-religious factors and since 11/9 international terrorism, led to the unlimited concentration of power in the hands of the American State; epitomized by the Invisible Government. These created and reinforced the power of a Leviathan that is invisible but omnipotent. In the US and indeed in every country the State has become almost invulnerable to the nationalistic revolutions experienced up until the 20th centuries. Never mind that nationalism has been referred to by analysts as a political religion; in the days of Italian unification intellectual spokesman Giuseppe Mazzini nationalism was characterized by its humanitarianism and moderation but was replaced by the new radical universalism of 20th century nationalism. Among national memories sorrows have greater value than victories because they impose duties and demand common effort.

When the abstract principles of metaphysics and theology are excluded from politics there remains men with their fears, desires and of course the need for survival. Against a background of the economic and industrial nationalism preached by Trump which have the potential for absorbing the dynamics of the re-industrialization of America becoming geared towards the products and resources of the American state for the eventuality of war, the American political elite which included three former presidents most of whom graced his inauguration ceremony probably used Back-channel Diplomacy to persuade him to meet the CIA.

The existence of a Nation-state guarantees the liberty which would be lost if the world had but one universal law and one ruler but modern nationalism is characterised by the demand that each nationality establishes its own territorial-state that includes the whole nationality.

A deep attachment to one's native soil and to local traditions such as the Electoral College vote determining the winner even when a candidate loses the popular vote, and to established territorial authority has existed in varying strength throughout history.

Nationalism has dominated the impulses and attitudes of the people and served as the justification for the authority of the State but its legitimatisation of force against its own citizens and other States is morally indefensible.

The writer is a former diplomat

 

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});