A Form of Nationalism Based on the Idea of Strict Adherence of Legal System

A Form of Nationalism Based on the Idea of Strict Adherence of Legal System

Some political theorists [Who?] argue that any distinction between forms of nationalism is false. In all forms of nationalism, people believe that they share some kind of common culture. One of the main reasons why such a typology can be considered erroneous is that it attempts to bend the fairly simple concept of nationalism to explain its many manifestations or interpretations. Arguably, all sorts of nationalism simply refer to the different ways in which academics have tried to define nationalism over the years. This school of thought accepts that nationalism is simply the desire of a nation to determine itself. The general form of the profound Community arguments is as follows. First, the community premise: there is an undisputed good (e.g. the identity of a person), and some kind of community is essential for the acquisition and preservation of that community. Then there is the assertion that the ethnocultural nation is the kind of community that is perfectly suited to this task. Then comes the statist conclusion: for such a community to retain its own identity and support the identity of its members, it must (always or at least normally) take the political form of a state. The conclusion of this type of argument is that the ethno-national community has the right to an ethno-national state and that the citizens of the state have the right and duty to favour their own ethnic culture over any other. These conditions can create a powerful common mythology. Therefore, the mythical homeland is actually more important to national identity than the actual territory occupied by the nation.

Smith also postulates that nations are formed by the involvement of the entire population (not just the elites), the constitution of legal and political institutions, nationalist ideology, international recognition, and the establishment of borders. State nationalism is a variant of bourgeois nationalism, often (but not always) combined with ethnic nationalism. This implies that the nation is a community of those who contribute to the maintenance and strength of the state, and that the individual exists to contribute to this goal. Italian fascism is the best example of this, embodied by Benito Mussolini`s slogan: “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato” (“Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”). Not surprisingly, this contradicts liberal ideals of individual freedom and liberal democratic principles. The revolutionary Jacobin creation of a unified and centralist French state is often seen as the original version of state nationalism. Francoist Spain[11] is a later example of state nationalism. Nationalism is an ideology that affirms that a nation is the fundamental unit of human social life and takes precedence over all other social and political principles. Nationalism usually makes certain political claims based on this belief: above all, the assertion that the nation is the only perfectly legitimate basis of a state, that each nation has the right to its own state, and that the borders of the state must coincide with the borders of the nation. Nationalism refers to both a political doctrine and any collective action by political and social movements on behalf of certain nations. Nationalism has had a huge impact on the history of the world, as the nation-state has become the dominant form of state organization.

Most of the world`s population today lives in states that are, at least nominally, nation-states. Historians also use the term “nationalism” to refer to this historical transition and the emergence of nationalist ideologies and movements. In fact, purely “bourgeois” loyalties are often classified separately under the title of “patriotism,” which we have already mentioned, or “constitutional patriotism.” [4] This leaves two extreme options and a number of intermediaries. The first extreme option was proposed by a small group of respected theorists. [5] According to its purely voluntarist definition, a nation is any group of people who aspire to a common political organization of the state type. If such a group of people succeeds in forming a state, the loyalties of the members of the group become more “bourgeois” in nature (as opposed to “ethnic”). On the other hand, nationalist claims focus on the non-voluntary community of common origin, language, tradition and culture: the classical ethno-nation is a community of origin and culture, including a language and customs. The distinction refers (but not identical) to that established by the old schools of social and political sciences between “bourgeois” and “ethnic” nationalism, the former supposedly from Western Europe and the latter being more from Central and Eastern Europe and originating from Germany. [6] Philosophical discussions that focus on nationalism tend to concern only ethnic-cultural variants, and this habit will follow here. A group that aspires to the nation on this basis is called an “ethno-nation” to emphasize its ethnocultural and not purely bourgeois foundations. For the ethno-(cultural) nationalist, it is the ethnic-cultural origin that determines his belonging to the community.

You cannot choose to be a member; Instead, adherence depends on the coincidence of origin and early socialization. However, the original commonality has become mythical for most contemporary candidate groups: ethnic groups have been mixing for millennia. Liberal nationalists seek to preserve the traditional nationalist link between the ethnic “property” of the state and territorial sovereignty and control, but in a much more flexible and demanding environment. Tamar Meisels therefore argues that “existing national colonies should be taken into account as a central factor in the demarcation of territorial boundaries,” since this line has “both liberal foundations” (i.e., in the work of John Locke) and a liberal-national appeal (2009:159), which is based on its affinity for the liberal doctrine of national self-determination.