On Nationalism

Nationalism has acquired a bad reputation. To some people it means xenophobia, ethnic exclusivity or hostility to outsiders. To others it means little more than patriotism. Neither understanding is quite correct.

George Orwell drew a useful distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is love of one’s country and way of life. Nationalism, by contrast, becomes a political doctrine. Patriotism says “this is my home”. Nationalism asks what political importance should be attached to that fact.

I am both a patriot and a nationalist, but only up to a point.

I believe nations are real. They are not merely administrative units. A nation is a historical community, connected by language, culture, institutions, customs, historical memory and attachment to a particular place. Nations often possess an ancestral homeland that shaped their character over centuries.

This matters because political communities do not emerge from nowhere. Limited government, democracy, social trust and broad consensus all depend upon people possessing enough in common to cooperate with one another.

For this reason, I reject the idea that nations are merely arbitrary collections of individuals.

But there must be an “ah, but”.

The existence of a nation does not mean that the nation becomes the highest political value.

The first problem is determining what the national interest actually is.

Nations do not literally speak.

Governments do.

Parties do.

Interest groups do.

Politicians routinely present their preferred policies as expressions of the national interest. The danger is that disagreement then becomes disloyalty and citizens become subordinate to a supposedly higher collective purpose.

This leads to the second problem.

How far should individuals be sacrificed to the common good?

I believe only to a very limited extent.

The proper role of government is to provide those public goods for which broad consensus exists: security, defence, courts, public order and essential infrastructure. Beyond this, political authority becomes increasingly difficult to justify.

The nation provides the community that makes political cooperation possible. It does not provide a blank cheque for unlimited governmental power.

I also reject hard ethnic nationalism.

I considered whether ancestry, blood or descent might provide a sound basis for national membership. The idea quickly collapses.

Modern nations are not Bronze Age tribes. Most people possess mixed ancestry within only a few generations. Any political system based primarily upon descent would require arbitrary distinctions between different categories of citizen, with governments constantly deciding who truly belongs.

The moral and political costs are far too high.

However, this does not mean citizenship is meaningless.

Membership of a nation should reflect a genuine connection to the community.

Ancestry and deep roots may contribute to that connection. Cultural participation, residence, language, loyalty and belonging may contribute as well.

A nation is entirely entitled to adopt newcomers into its political community. But citizenship should be understood as something akin to adoption rather than an automatic entitlement. Membership is a serious matter because nations are serious things.

The objective is neither a closed tribe nor a borderless administrative zone.

It is the preservation of a genuine political community.

Finally, nations do not necessarily require complete political independence.

The principle that matters is not nationalism but subsidiarity.

Governmental powers should exist at the lowest level capable of exercising them competently.

Some matters belong to local communities.

Some belong to nations.

Some may belong to larger federations.

I am Welsh. Welsh culture, identity and institutions remain alive within the British Union. Defence, however, is far more effectively managed at a UK-wide level. A hypothetical European federation might legitimately exercise certain continental powers while leaving most matters to nations and regions.

The question is not where authority must stop.

The question is whether authority is exercised legitimately.

Nations matter because they provide the cultural foundations of political life. They create trust, continuity and belonging. But they must never become excuses for unlimited power, hereditary citizenship classes or the subordination of individuals to some abstract collective will.

The nation is a community we inherit and sustain.

It is not a god before which liberty must kneel.