Why has nationalism not run its course?

The war-torn twentieth century finished with the end of communism in Europe. National solidarity energised and drove these political changes toward a new and more dignified social order where personal and collective aspirations of people and their homelands would be finally fulfilled. Nationalism which accompanied these transitions turned out to escape its democratising intentions. The post-socialist transitions to democracy became overwhelmed by the newly asserted and mobilised ethnicity which demanded to address historical, territorial and political claims on behalf of the nation. In the turmoil of collapsing states, discredited ideologies, redundant political identities, repositioned borders and new successor states (and consequently new minorities), all three multi-national socialist federations Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia disintegrated the last amidst a brutal war and shocking violence. In 2015, there is a war in Europe and on its edges. The current conflicts whether in Ukraine or the Middle East are identity-related civil wars of huge humanitarian and political dilemmas with far-reaching consequences for international order. Nationalism seems to have returned to Europe. It scapegoats foreigners and immigrants and right-wing nationalist parties, such as the Golden Dawn in Greece, thrive across the whole continent. Whether this is a result of miss-managed geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East, global financial crisis or European integration, the nationalism we are observing in both western and what used be called eastern Europe demonstrates that the response to political uncertainties and threats – real or perceived – is accompanied by the rise of nationalism. This variety of ‘national’ response makes claims to protect the identity of the nation, to maintain (or obtain) more autonomy for it and safeguard its unity (Smith 1991: 73). In that sense, today’s version of nationalism is not very different in its definition to nationalism of the past. The object of all nationalism’s endeavour is the nation. The concept of the nation is open to interpretation, depending on ‘the extent to which the criteria for membership in the national collectivity are correlated with ethnicity’ (Harris 2009: 50). It is either civic, that is, open and volunteristic and equates with citizenship, or ethnic. The ethnic interpretation is exclusivist; it does not equate the nation with citizenship and has inherent tendencies toward exclusion of non-co-ethnics. The civic/ethnic dichotomy endorses and is endorsed Nations and Nationalism 22 (2), 2016, 243–247. DOI: 10.1111/nana.12185