Daniel A Knowles

    The distinction between the two types of nation varies according to time and space. Variables important to the study include integration, economic development, economic trade, historical background, political practise, perception of continuity and change and persuasive influences.

    If a minority successfully integrates into a society it can create a sense of a social nation. The minority ‘adopts the society’ of the majority. For example Leicester is racially very well integrated. The ethnic minorities have adopted the cultural values of society such as the same tastes in television programs, food and socio-economic variables. This can heighten the sense of civic nationalism as the minorities have accepted the values of the state. However, if minorities do not integrate well, such as the Bengali’s at the Isle of Dogs or the Asian mass in Wolverhampton, the opposite can occur. Poor race relations leads to enhanced ethnic ties. Groups prejudiced against naturally form barriers against others. Closely intertwined and exclusive communities are formed which anti-establishmentarian views of the state. They negate civic ties and normally turn to primordial ties such as that of their ethnic nation to give them their sense of identity.

    Developed states generally have a stronger sense of civic nationalism due to the individuals reliance on the state. State provision of welfare has produced a reliance culture and provision of other services (i.e. road-building and street-lighting and a co-ordinated defence policy) has also heightened the sense of reliance upon the state. Where this reliance is present, the individual feels indebted to the state. That gratitude produces a strong sense of a civic nation. In contrast in third world countries there is little to no emotional debt to the state. In many cases there may be resentment towards the state when it is undemocratic and abuses it’s subjects. In cases like these belonging to an ethnic nation is more important than civic ties. The future of economic development is likely to have an important bearing on ethnic and civic nations. Nations which advance economically (and politically) will give their subjects or citizens more to be grateful for and thus increase their loyalty to the state. However some states are likely to be left behind. The population of Africa has grown eight-fold since the turn of the century compared to the World populations growth of two and a half-fold in the same time. That has meant that African states (in the main) have had negative or slight growth. Their major problem is that an increase in the population of such sizeable amounts means that any economic growth is likely to be to the benefit of the few and at the expense of the majority. Africa may prosper economically but the lives of the majority won’t improve. The existence of a civic nation will mean little, as the proletariat will be afforded few rights.

    If the speed of integration in communities is slower than that of increased trade, strain and conflict are more likely to ensue than mutual understanding, bringing about a response of ethnic nationalism.

    Successful trade may lead to reduction in civic nationalism due the importing of foreign goods and services diluting the civic identity. For example in 1994 the U.K had 58% of it’s trade with the EU. The most popular food eaten in the U.K changed from ‘British’ beans to Indian Curry with Italian Pizza close behind. The British cultural identity was diluted by trade.

    Capitalist culture has created an economic imbalance that works to the detriment of economically less developed states. For example the U.K can import tea from Sri Lanka and India at a cheaper rate than they would pay a more developed country. This creates resentment from the Sri Lankan’s and Indians towards the UK and from the people of Sri Lanka and India towards their states. They see their state as subordinate to others which reduces the scope of civic nationalism. The UK can feasibly hold civic nationalism for amongst other reasons, it can be proud of it’s economy as one of the largest in the world. Sri Lanka and India cannot.

    Scotland can point to a history of self governance prior to 1707 and limited control since (i.e. own legal and educational system and now a powerful devolved government). It’s history pushes it’s claim for nationhood forward as it is closer to the forefront of the publics mind. Scotland can point to an ethnic nation in its Gaelic language, cultural heritage and Presbyterian religion. This claim is however dying. The Gaelic language is rarely used, the culture has become intertwined with that of the rest of the UK due to Westminster rule and intermarriage, and religion is not a valid reason for nationhood due to the growth of many Scots away from the church towards non-conformatism. However it can point to civic nationalism within the country due to a powerful Nationalist party (Scottish Nationale Party), previous self rule, ability to survive economically as an independent state (largely due to North Sea Oil), resentment of the Westminster government due to the democratic deficit, and a strong desire for some form of autonomy.

    Ireland can point to civic and ethnic nations within the country. In 1893 Douglas Hyde formed the ‘Gaelic League’ which spoke of the Irish as a Celtic race, implying some kind of genetic decent (ethnic nationalism). Hyde said “We have lost the notes of nationality” by which he called for the Irish language to be learnt to bring back the ethnic nation.

    In 1905 Sinn Fein (Ourselves alone) were created which stressed civic ties. It wanted a sovereign Ireland where the Catholic/Protestant split would be bought together. The split was instead emphasised by the creation of the Irish Dail in 1921 headed by a controversial Protestant Taischock. The Protestant government wouldn’t allow Catholics to stand for election despite the Catholic ethnic majority in Ireland. Those Catholics did not believe in the worthiness of the Irish state so turned towards ethnic nationalism. The days of the Irish civic nation passed at the death of the home rule parliament. It was Charles Stewart Parnell (Home rule leader 1880-91) who said “we can’t afford to lose a single Irishman.” Though a protestant himself he wanted a civic nation of Ireland.

    However, a nation with the UK has also been called for and alleged. In 1885 the Irish Ulster Alliance was created and in 1905 the Ulster Unionist Council was created calling for stronger links with the UK. In the elections for the devolved government in Northern Ireland in 1998 the Ulster Unionist Party won, with the Democratic Unionist party in third. The people of Northern Ireland, though divided, mostly want a civic nation with the UK. They point to an existing ethnic nation due to the integration Ireland into UK culture. Southern Ireland are less enthusiastic about a British Nation due to their very successful economy. The Dail now allows Catholics and Protestants to stand for election with Universal suffrage meaning they can point to a democratic system. The Irish citizens can point to rights afforded to them and believe in the values of an Irish civic nation. In general they shy away from speaking of an ethnic nation though because the protestant minority are still a large ethnic minority with many rights in property and business rooted from the times when Protestants were the only land-owners.

    Political practise is public policy. Politicians tend not to speak of nationalism as it evokes undertones of the xenophobia that led to the crimes of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Pinochet. Civic nationalism is more politically acceptable than ethnic nationalism due to it’s evocation of a milder patriotism as opposed to something bordering on xenophobia.

    Public Policy can also be aimed at reducing discrimination against ethnic minorities (or majorities in rare circumstances). For example the Race Relations Act of 1976 in the UK created the Commission for Racial Equality and fought against direct and indirect discrimination. This sort of action by a government can have a two-fold affect. It can help race relations which as already explained increases the role of the civic nation. The preferential treatment (as opposed to affirmative) can also ostensibly discriminate against the ethnic majority, which can lead to deteriorating race relations.

    A community’s perception of continuity and change has a bearing on nationalism. A community willing to unquestionably accept socio-economic or political change is less likely to strive to maintain ethnic nation status than one that is not willing to accept change. The UK, as a conservative nation is unwilling to give up it’s status as an ethnic nation. It’s tight border controls on immigration are an example of the UK’s desire for the Status Quo. As the UK is multi-cultural it is more accurate to describe it as a civic nation. Many white, British by descent, individuals would argue wrongly of an ethnic nation. This can be equated to the Pushtuns who populate the Afghani-Pakistani region who believe themselves to be an unadulterated ethnic nation despite clinically descending from several groups who emigrated and passed through the region centuries ago. What is important is that the Pushtun people ‘know’ (although wrongly) that they are a pure ethnic nation.

    Increasingly, persuasive influences such as the media have had an influence on nations. The public have a general tendancy to soak in information and bias they find in the media regardless of it’s purpose. For example previous to the Scottish devolution referendum of Sept 11^th 1997, opinion polls in Wales held devolution as unwanted by the majority. Between the 11^th September and the 18^th (date of the Welsh referendum) the mass media campaigned strongly for Welsh devolution on a civic nation basis. They used the Scottish vote as a bandwagon affect making the Welsh think ‘us to’. The resulting devolution vote bought the devolved Welsh assembly. The media had induced civic nationalism. The Welsh media induced ethnic nationalism when campaigning successfully for the Welsh language to be made compulsory up to GCSE standard at school.

    The future of nationalism is oblique. Devolution (i.e. to Scotland and Wales) and decentralisation (i.e. Local government Act 1999 giving the ‘best value’ system) may give power closer to minorities which can increase civic nationalism (or spurn it by withdrawing the individual from the state too much). Centralisation may evoke ethnic nationalism growing due to discontentment with majoritarian government.

    Civic and Ethnic nationalism may go hand in hand but can often contradict each other. Very few states can claim to be nation states (in 1971 in 29.5% of declared states, the largest nation or potential nation accounted for less than half of the population). The growth of economies and increased willingness to uproot and move house means that the World will eventually become full with immigrants. It has been said that America is a country of immigrants having no sense of an ethnic nation. Europe in particular as it edges towards federalism will become a Europe of individuals. Thatcher indirectly predicted the end to ethnic nations when she claimed “there is no such thing as society” In the future diversity and immigration will lead to further individualism. Most states will become no more than a civic nation, a group of people with nothing in common but shared citizenship.

Bibliography

Ø      Nationalism : Hutchinson and Smith

Ø      The God of Modernity: Josep R Llobera

Ø      Citizenship, Nationality and Ethnicity: T.K Oommen