Patriotism: the acceptable face of nationalism?

A slightly longer version of my introductory remarks at this year's Battle of Ideas Patriotism: the acceptable face of nationalism?

The referendum on membership of the European Union has thrown the issue of nationalism and patriotism centre stage, (although as I’ll examine later this has merely bought to the surface a long term hostility towards nationalism from the political class). Any positive identification that citizens have with a nation is now deemed highly dangerous. Membership of the European Union, the argument goes, diffuses such backward patriotism in favour of brotherly, transnational co-operation with other member states. Why would anyone on the left take a ‘nationalist turn’ against a transnational set up? Why would progressive believe that patriotism, a love for fellow countrymen in a nation state, could ever be cause to stand up to?

Nationalism is not in itself an ideology, but rather it’s the belief that the nation state should be the most important organising principle in society. As with actual political ideologies, there are more than one type of nationalism, and the characteristics of national identity has more than one sense of belonging too. Rejecting nationalism and patriotism because it has associations with aggressive, exclusive forms of nationalism is a bit like arguing that we should reject all politics on the basis that there are far right political beliefs. It’s often argued that the experience of Nazism has discredited all forms of nationalism, that there’s no longer an awareness of liberal or progressive nationalism.

I’m not entirely sure about that argument, particularly in a British context. Nationalism in Britain was exceptionally strong in the post-war period and in the 1970s. In fact, anti-Nazism ironically enough became a major source of national pride and patriotism in this country. It’s also forgotten that during that exact same period, to be a nationalist was also associated with being anti-colonialist, from South Africa to the Republican nationalists in Northern Ireland. Nobody would accuse Irish republicans or the African National Congress for being fascists either. But if we take those examples, I think it’s clear that nationalism and patriotism towards fellow countrymen has an entirely progressive content and cause. The idea that nationalism is only the property of a ruling class, conning citizens into identifying with ideas that are not in their interests is not true. If anybody has been watching the Secret History of the Troubles, whereby Irish republicans describe IRA volunteers as being patriots who love their country, its clear that patriotism can be a politically independent movement in opposition to powerful interests.

But we don’t even have to look to anti-colonial movements to make the case for progressive nationalism. Wester nation states were built on the historically progressive development of nation states built on liberal values. For Enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau, patriotism was grounded in a love of civic virtues, of creating a common belonging based on a shared agreement in rights, freedoms, toleration and democracy. Far from this demoting a hatred for others, it provided a cohering identity on citizenship and democratic accountability of rulers. Rather than a national identity being based on cultural values, a progressive liberal nationalism has its foundations within a shared love of a free and politically equal society. This does not prevent migrants moving to a liberal nation, but only that if you want join this club, you would be expected to follow its rules and values. Finally, this type of nationalism would also respect the national borders of other nation states because other states would be viewed as autonomous entities in the same way that individuals would be viewed as autonomous entities possessing rights.

The more we look at nationalism in this way, you can clearly see how it puts the mass of citizens centre stage within society, particularly notions of popular sovereignty and its pressure on political leaders and the state. Now for the past 30 years or ago in Britain, especially when there was no longer any use for reactionary nationalism, the backlash is against liberal nationalism rather than any pre-emptive strike against xenophobic attitudes. It is an easiness and hostility towards the idea that the masses or the mob should be involved in democratic decisions making. Liberal nationalism celebrates popular sovereignty as a way of cohering society, but today radicals reject popular sovereignty on the grounds that the uneducated plebs are actually not up to that task. It’s worth remembering that it was the old Tory party who initially started to distances themselves from their old nationalism, re-branding it as a plebeian identity - Remainers are merely echoing sentiments that have been just below the surface for quite a while.

This is why after the referendum results, the chance to reclaim popular sovereignty and a national identity based on the belief that decision making should be accountable to citizens is the most radical and explosive issue today. Not since the Chartists and the Levellers, has this street level yearning for liberal nationalism and a patriotic attachment to fellow citizens has been independent from and hostile to the present political class.