NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently got given this as an essay title:

Consider the view that 'democracy is incompatible with nationalism'

just wondered if any of you guys had any thoughts on this?

I would imagine the spartans had a lot to say on this subject.

i don't know anything about them. i know they were sort of anti-materialist warriors or something. what did they have to say about nationalism?

i don't know anything about them. i know they were sort of anti-materialist warriors or something. what did they have to say about nationalism?

They liked it. And they didn't like democracy.

What's your basis for that statement?

ah, i see. i just found what looks like an interesting article on google: Bush's choice: Athens or Sparta. first thing that came up :)

What's your basis for that statement?

it's not my statement. but i was thinking of looking at such party manifestoes as the BNP with their brand of nationalism and severely limited democracy and new labour's 1997 focus on 'Cool Brittannia' for ideas.

ah, i see. i just found what looks like an interesting article on google: Bush's choice: Athens or Sparta. first thing that came up :)

Yes, there is nothing new in the world, is there? Ah well plus ca change.*gallic shrug*

Yes, there is nothing new in the world, is there? Ah well plus ca change.*gallic shrug*

yep, from a cursory scan it seems like they are likening bush's foreign policy and military bent to sparta.

Take a look at the US. Sometimes there's no patriotism, but downright nationalism. The democracy there is somewhat questionable too (two-party system, the government spying on its citizens, elections with dubious outcomes, etc.), though.

It depends on what kind of nationalism you're talking about. American creed nationalism is heavily inspired by John Locke. Its core beliefs are devotion to democracy, liberty, and cultural and political egalitarianism.

Some American nationalists attempt to spread democracy throughout the world (ie. Bush)... but is imposed democracy truly democracy?

yep, from a cursory scan it seems like they are likening bush's foreign policy and military bent to sparta.

There's an obvious parallel. The US doesn't acutally want any more territory under it's political control, and has little real interest in the domestic affairs of 'non-threatening' nations. It does however want everyone else to view it as 'first among equals' and tell them how to conduct their foreign policy.

Not unlike sparta.

I wouldn't blame bush entirely though. This has been going on since the end of WWII.

Anyhoo, the spartans disliked democracy too.

They liked it. And they didn't like democracy.
Wong, wrong, wrong... and a common misconception. The Spartiates were in fact democratic; they had elections for the yearly ephors, more powerful than the two kings; and the assembly as well...

Wong, wrong, wrong... and a common misconception. The Spartiates were in fact democratic; they had elections for the yearly ephors, more powerful than the two kings; and the assembly as well...

Oh please, the assembly was probouleutic. It had no power. The Gerousia proposed all subjects to be debated, and could set aside the results of any debate when they did not like the results.

The power in sparta was all with the gerousia.

It's clear from the Lykourgian constitution.

Oh please, the assembly was probouleutic. It had no power. The Gerousia proposed all subjects to be debated, and could set aside the results of any debate when they did not like the results.

The power in sparta was all with the gerousia.

It's clear from the Lykourgian constitution.
Actually it was all with the elected ephors, who could recall the kings and had all the power over them... the gerousia had power, but not the highest.

Take a look at the US. Sometimes there's no patriotism, but downright nationalism. The democracy there is somewhat questionable too (two-party system, the government spying on its citizens, elections with dubious outcomes, etc.), though.

Yes my friend, the Democracy here is VERY questionable.

Its funny, we go around Imposing demorcracy around the world on other nations yet here at home we have somthing closer to a police state.

Take a look at the US. Sometimes there's no patriotism, but downright nationalism. The democracy there is somewhat questionable too (two-party system, the government spying on its citizens, elections with dubious outcomes, etc.), though.

It depends on what kind of nationalism you're talking about. American creed nationalism is heavily inspired by John Locke. Its core beliefs are devotion to democracy, liberty, and cultural and political egalitarianism.

Some American nationalists attempt to spread democracy throughout the world (ie. Bush)... but is imposed democracy truly democracy?

i would question whether nationalism, in the purest sense of the word, is possible in the us since the us is actually a state and not a nation:

In a more strict sense, however, terms such as nation, ethnos, and peoples denominate a group of human beings, in contrast to country which denominates a territory, whereas state expresses a legitimised administrative and decision-making institution. Confusingly, the terms national and international are used as technical terms applying to states

A state is an organized political community, occupying a territory, and possessing internal and external sovereignty, which successfully claims the monopoly of the use of force. wikipedia.org

a view shared by my political geography lecturer. she rekons that mixing up the two words is unhelpful and inaccurate. patriotism is certainly possible in the us as it means loyalty to the state not the nation which is what nationalism is. new labour's nationalism would then be more properly called patriotism (cool brittannia) whereas the BNP which is very english despite having 'british' in their name would be nationalist.

Naturally, nationalis neither precudes nor negates democracy, as portrayed in classical Athens, the most complete democracy ever to grace the earth, since nationalism is, essentially, a set of perceptions, whilst democracy is a political system.

Actually it was all with the elected ephors, who could recall the kings and had all the power over them... the gerousia had power, but not the highest.

It's true that the college of ephors gained wide judicial and executive functions, but they were sworn to the kings, who were sworn to uphold the constitution. The gerousia still held veto on the assembly and policy of sparta. In theory, if not in practice.

Further, I would imagine that the ephors were elected in the same way as the gerousia - by a hidden panel of judges estimating the volume of applause for each candidate. It's really hard to describe that as a democracy.

Naturally, nationalis neither precudes nor negates democracy, as portrayed in classical Athens, the most complete democracy ever to grace the earth, since nationalism is, essentially, a set of perceptions, whilst democracy is a political system.

but it can hinder democracy: who is to be included in the nation? a strict nationalist would say only those who can be said to be part of their nation (in england: pure anglo-saxons [non-existent i should point out]) can be included in the democratic process. this excludes all immigrants. and while it might be just a set of perceptions, it is highly politicised and almost always used for political ends.

ancient greek democracy excluded all non-citizens from the voting process which in their criteria included all women, slaves and immigrants. hardly a pure democracy.

but it can hinder democracy: who is to be included in the nation? a strict nationalist would say only those who can be said to be part of their nation (in england: pure anglo-saxons [non-existent i should point out]) can be included in the democratic process. this excludes all immigrants. and while it might be just a set of perceptions, it is highly politicised and almost always used for political ends.

ancient greek democracy excluded all non-citizens from the voting process which in their criteria included all women, slaves and immigrants. hardly a pure democracy.

The process and its machinations was inherently democratic, if not randomised to the detriment for the state. Incidentally, that great advocate of democracy, Pericles, implemented the electoral parentage legislation, a policy we ought to implement in England to ensure the survival of what little of Brittania remians.

another point of view that i just found is that "the idea of the nation is the most significant of several categorical identities that mediate between the autonomous but relatively week individual and complex and powerful global force... individuals are often able to trancend their finite nature through identification with the nations to which they belong" (Guibernau, 1996)

in this case nationalism would actually help the democratic process by encouraging people to think about what's beneficial for their wider community rather than just for themselves in considering political policies when voting.

the electoral parentage legislation, a policy we ought to implement in England to ensure the survival of what little of Brittania remians.

what's that?

and what's so good about 'brittania' that means it should be protected above any other cultures that exists in the uk? such as welsh, scottish, irish or cornish gaelic traditions or newer arrivals such as 'china town' in manchester or 'the curry mile' in bradford i think it is. and for that matter, what is 'brittania'? i challenge you to come up with a satisfactory definition for it.:p

I recently got given this as an essay title:

Consider the view that 'democracy is incompatible with nationalism'

just wondered if any of you guys had any thoughts on this?

Total nonsense, at least assuming that the so-called "liberal democracies" should in fact be considered such.

An obvious counterexample being the United States.

what's that?

and what's so good about 'brittania' that means it should be protected above any other cultures that exists in the uk? such as welsh, scottish, irish or cornish gaelic traditions or newer arrivals such as 'china town' in manchester or 'the curry mile' in bradford i think it is. and for that matter, what is 'brittania'? i challenge you to come up with a satisfactory definition for it.:p

Britannia is undefinable yet inherently recogniasable, it is the last night of the proms, changing of the guards, fish and chips, tea and scones, cricket et al.

As for the superiority of Britannia over "multicultralism" (please note I do not object to gaelic, irish, scottish or welsh culture since it is native), one alludes only to our having defeated, colonsed and civilized the descendents of those who now cavort in the suburbs of Britain.

Britannia is undefinable yet inherently recogniasable, it is the last night of the proms, changing of the guards, fish and chips, tea and scones, cricket et al.

last night of the proms: where they play music by composers from all over europe and the world
changing of the guards: an institution of the german monarchy
fish and chips: originally brought over by dutch settlers (or danish i can't remember)
tea: from india
scones: scottish
cricket: who knows?

when people say they see 'brittannia' i see a multiculturalism that has been in action for hundreds if not thousands of years.

As for the superiority of Britannia over "multicultralism" (please note I do not object to gaelic, irish, scottish or welsh culture since it is native), one alludes only to our having defeated, colonsed and civilized the descendents of those who now cavort in the suburbs of Britain.

unsure of you opinion of other cultures from this but i would say that the idea that colonialism brought 'civilisation' to places like india is laughable. industrialisation maybe, 'civilisation' no.

So, because Britain industrialised early and then went out and used this power to conquer much of the world, our culture is then superior?

Any Britannia worth defending can defend itself.

And multiculturalism, handled carefully, is good for this country.

Britannia is undefinable yet inherently recogniasable, it is the last night of the proms, changing of the guards, fish and chips, tea and scones, cricket et al.

As for the superiority of Britannia over "multicultralism" (please note I do not object to gaelic, irish, scottish or welsh culture since it is native), one alludes only to our having defeated, colonsed and civilized the descendents of those who now cavort in the suburbs of Britain.

Fish and chips is from the sephardic jews. It is the sine qua non of multiculturalism.

last night of the proms: where they play music by composers from all over europe and the world
changing of the guards: an institution of the german monarchy
fish and chips: originally brought over by dutch settlers (or danish i can't remember)
tea: from india
scones: scottish
cricket: who knows?

when people say they see 'brittannia' i see a multiculturalism that has been in action for hundreds if not thousands of years.



unsure of you opinion of other cultures from this but i would say that the idea that colonialism brought 'civilisation' to places like india is laughable. industrialisation maybe, 'civilisation' no.

Cricket is all english. It's the only one on that list though.

last night of the proms: where they play music by composers from all over europe and the world
changing of the guards: an institution of the german monarchy
fish and chips: originally brought over by dutch settlers (or danish i can't remember)
tea: from india
scones: scottish
cricket: who knows?



unsure of you opinion of other cultures from this but i would say that the idea that colonialism brought 'civilisation' to places like india is laughable. industrialisation maybe, 'civilisation' no.

Nonetheless all of the above are percieved as quintissentially British, whilst I did not refer to India, nor China, but more the west indies and tribal Africa.

Democracy is incompatiable with nationalism...yes... please tell me where you were schooled im compiling a survey.
Hitler.
Mussolini.

and to a lesser extent
Disraeli or Britain
G.W.Bush all the way back to George Washington.

To summarize the statement is laughable at best.

So, because Britain industrialised early and then went out and used this power to conquer much of the world, our culture is then superior?

Any Britannia worth defending can defend itself.

And multiculturalism, handled carefully, is good for this country.

Debateable, integration is preferable, since, according to my general studies teacher, deportation or ghettoes would be fascist.....:eek: really, well done

Nonetheless all of the above are percieved as quintissentially British, whilst I did not refer to India, nor China, but more the west indies and tribal Africa.

'tribal' africa had large complex civilisations long before britons and anglo-saxons ever emerged from their hill forts and henges.

'tribal' africa had large complex civilisations long before britons and anglo-saxons ever emerged from their hill forts and henges.

Yes. Tribal civilisations.
We had guns first so we win.
Rulllleee britanniaaa

'tribal' africa had large complex civilisations long before britons and anglo-saxons ever emerged from their hill forts and henges.

Those than failing to progress beyond that due to the utter suitability of their surrounds.

Debateable, integration is preferable, since, according to my general studies teacher, deportation or ghettoes would be fascist.....:eek: really, well done

integration is fine as long as the integrators accept some adjustment of their own culture as part of the process. deportation and ghettoisation would be fascist if they were enforced. as it is i think it's great that such places as china towns and curry miles exist, afterall we've got 'typical english seaside towns' already. 'integration' of these is already happening with huge housing estates being built around them and multi-national chainstores occupying their high-streets.

integration is fine as long as the integrators accept some adjustment of their own culture as part of the process. deportation and ghettoisation would be fascist if they were enforced. as it is i think it's great that such places as china towns and curry miles exist, afterall we've got 'typical english seaside towns' already. 'integration' of these is already happening with huge housing estates being built around them and multi-national chainstores occupying their high-streets.

Not with the French model of integration we would not have to alter Britain:)

Those than failing to progress beyond that due to the utter suitability of their surrounds.

the idea that they were failing to progress is simply based on the observations over the very short period between european 'discovery' and take-over/colonisation.

Not with the French model of integration we would not have to alter Britain:)

yes, and look how that ended up. the french model of integration involves: put them all in suburban tower blocks and forget about them, unless they break the law in their effort to subsist then fuck them over til they're so angry they burn your cities for a few weeks!?!

the idea that they were failing to progress is simply based on the observations over the very short period between european 'discovery' and take-over/colonisation.

Or upon the historical evidence that implies that African advancement was negligable between 1 and 1500 ad. beyond North Africa.

yes, and look how that ended up. the french model of integration involves: put them all in suburban tower blocks and forget about them, unless they break the law in their effort to subsist then fuck them over til they're so angry they burn your cities for a few weeks!?!

I hate to be fascist (well, not really, I love it;) ), but that is precisely what I would advocate to stem the tide of immigration.

I would like to point out that the democratic system of Greek city-states, whether Athens or Sparta or whatever, was very different from modern democracies, and one should keep that in mind when drawing parallels.

Also, the American democratic system is commonly supposed to have been descended from Greek or Roman systems (at least, that's what we tell the kiddies in school), but it owes a lot to the Haudenosuanee (Iroquois) system too. They practiced a representative democracy, had a clearly defined system of checks and balances, and drew a distinction between regional and national government. They also had a constitution (although it was based on oral and not written law). That government is still in place today, although it is somewhat different from that of 300 years ago.

Visit the official Six Nations home page (http://www.sixnations.org/) to learn more about the Iroquois system of government.

you should look into the struggle in Ireland b/w the IRA/nationalists and the UDA/loyalists.

long history of repression, justifiable grievances, a catalyst to bring about violent demand for reform, community support for reform, the end of violence, the rise of a political minority party.

the things that i think would be most interesting is the recent rise of the extremist parties to power on both sides and its effect on democracy. also the dissolving of the N.Ireland govt. by the British.

should prove to be an interesting concept if you want to know about a correlation b/w democracy and nationalism, of course, in this case, democracy failed miserably due to disenfranchisement, discrimination, and straight out tyranny by the majority, but it is a good example of the confilict between nationalism and democracy

the idea that they were failing to progress is simply based on the observations over the very short period between european 'discovery' and take-over/colonisation.


There's a similar misunderstanding about the Americas. Recent studies indicate that before the arrival of the first European explorers there were something like 50 million people living in North and Central America (I forget the exact numbers, but it was pretty high). Diseases brought by the explorers effectively wiped out much of the native population, so by the time European colonization began, the land was "empty" and the people living there "undeveloped." Native cultures were far more widespread and sophisticated than we have traditionally thought (or than many of us want to think).

I hate to be fascist (well, not really, I love it;) ), but that is precisely what I would advocate to stem the tide of immigration.

Yeah, I'm surprised you haven't used the all-time classic: 'I don't think we should let any more in...'

Just to let you know, I couldn't care less how many 'foreigners' come here. Everyone is a foreigner if you go back far enough. Unless this - http://www.deadbrain.co.uk/news/article_2004_05_01_0150.php - literally happens, I'm just not bothered.
Also, the article referred to has a wonderful quote, something I notice a lot of tabloid papers often claim: that immigrants want 'to simultaneously "sponge off the state" and "take away jobs from hardworking British people".'

"Tide of immigration"

Britain is going to be 'swamped' is it? Mr Powell? Or was it Griffin?

We should have open borders to anyone who hasn't been deported, and isn't wanted by a government we have extradition treaties with. We should be more willing to deport those who will not accept our society, but we should accept anyone who will accept us.

Democracy is incompatiable with nationalism...yes... please tell me where you were schooled im compiling a survey.
Hitler.
Mussolini.

and to a lesser extent
Disraeli or Britain
G.W.Bush all the way back to George Washington.

To summarize the statement is laughable at best.

so hitler and mussolini were democratic? stop me if im wrong but werent they dictators? dont know anything about disraeli but bush rigged an election - thats not democratic. unless ive completely misunderstood your post it sounds like you're talking out your arse.:confused:

For my views on democracy, here is my rather long winded rant.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10497158&posted=1#post10497158

On the subject of nationalism, I would argue that it is not only possible within a representative system but it is also widespread and existant. Nationalism or 'the nation' is simply nothing more than the acknowledgement by a person that they are part of a larger group of people that share certain characteristics that may include certain political beliefs, ethnicity, religion etc... within an area. Nationalism is a shared consciousness.

In a sense, the United States is a nation because it has for the most part common values, ethnicity and political beliefs. That is not to say however that their is exclusivity. I was born in Scotland and yet raised for the majority of my life in England. I feel affinity for both nations as well as for the larger national consciousness of the UK. I am a man of many nationalisms.

Perhaps soon enough I will add Wales to the list as it now serves as my home for most of the next three years.

I don't see how democracy can exist without nationalism. I'd go one step further, and say that the 'purer' the democracy, the higher extent of nationalism. Democracy, after all, is the people's use of the State to further it's own ends. Therefore, the more truly representative of the people's will that democracy is, the more likely that people will take to heart their institutions of state, thus pride of nation, etc.

Nationalism can naturally exist without democracy, of course.

I don't see how democracy can exist without nationalism. I'd go one step further, and say that the 'purer' the democracy, the higher extent of nationalism.
What of Germany then? Germans aren't exactly nationalists these days, yet it seems the country is quite democratic.

On the other hand, Americans are very nationalistic, but their democracy is in all sorts of strive, with debate replaced by insults, only two virtually indistinguishable parties, government offices being created and staffed by corruption and cronyism rather than proper processes and the vice president giving himself powers he was never meant to have.

What of Germany then? Germans aren't exactly nationalists these days, yet it seems the country is quite democratic.

On the other hand, Americans are very nationalistic, but their democracy is in all sorts of strive, with debate replaced by insults, only two virtually indistinguishable parties, government offices being created and staffed by corruption and cronyism rather than proper processes and the vice president giving himself powers he was never meant to have.

I'm not sure how nationalistic Germany may or may not be, me not being German and all. However, I think the rise of fascism in the not-so-distant past could have a lot to do with that. Also, Germany, along with France is a big proponent of the EU. I'd say that Germany is looking outside it's own state, and thinking of a future, 'European State'.

And I would hardly call America's democracy perfect. It's a pretty old rickety system. And I did say that Nationalism can exist with or without democracy.

I think that in small doses, Nationalism is acceptable. Unfortunately, people tend to take it way too far and use it to blind themselves from understanding what is going on around them. In elections we see patriotism blustered about by unpatriotic politicians, who seek to blur the issues that should be discussed in detail. If you're weak on the issues, what better way to get elected than to directly yank the voters emotions. Nationalism is thus often an enemy of democracy, because it uses emotion to fire up voters into backing the politics of hate.

The Bruce

I don't see how democracy can exist without nationalism. I'd go one step further, and say that the 'purer' the democracy, the higher extent of nationalism. Democracy, after all, is the people's use of the State to further it's own ends. Therefore, the more truly representative of the people's will that democracy is, the more likely that people will take to heart their institutions of state, thus pride of nation, etc.

pride in the state is patriotism not nationalism. nationalism is the loyalty a group of people feels to some perceived common history, culture, set of values and origin. it is an ethnocentric ideology which, more often than not, excludes anyone who does not fit even one of the criteria. such an ideology of exclusion can not be associated with pure democracy because 'the people' are defined so narrowly. without nationalism 'the people' would just be those who live within the territorial limits of the state (plus expats i suppose).

On the other hand, Americans are very nationalistic, but their democracy is in all sorts of strive, with debate replaced by insults, only two virtually indistinguishable parties, government offices being created and staffed by corruption and cronyism rather than proper processes and the vice president giving himself powers he was never meant to have.

Look, the debate in english speaking countries, is insult. It comes from having a representative tradition that goes back hundreds of years. And it's not confined to the US: "Selsdon man", "Not fit to run a whelk stall", "Thatcher milk Snatcher" are all of recent vintage and from the UK.

As to the parties being indistinguishable; they are to you, because you focus mainly on foreign policy, and foreign policy tends - or at least should be - moderately coherent. You can't completely re-invent it every four years absent some major event - which John Kerry admitted as much. Domestically, they have major differences. Just they are differences you don't appreiciate. (Pretty much like americans can't appreciate the banning of hate speech, or holocaust denial. Because as much as you say those laws have a purpose, to most US citizens, the purpose sounds silly).

Finally, you wait and see what happens when the EU parliament actually gets some teeth, and you have 450,000,000 people represented by 700 odd MEPs. I think you'll find a lot of issues get tossed by the wayside to form working majorities. Especially across a wide geographic, cultural and socio-economic range.

(And before you start, the US isn't a cultural monoblock. It merely shares a common language. There is as much difference between a small town in Wyoming and my neighborhood, as there is between Berlin and Hawick.)

pride in the state is patriotism not nationalism. nationalism is the loyalty a group of people feels to some perceived common history, culture, set of values and origin. it is an ethnocentric ideology which, more often than not, excludes anyone who does not fit even one of the criteria. such an ideology of exclusion can not be associated with pure democracy because 'the people' are defined so narrowly. without nationalism 'the people' would just be those who live within the territorial limits of the state (plus expats i suppose).

I never really thought of the distinction between the two. I figured patriotism and nationalism as generally the same idea.