The geopolitical world is being reconfigured. Vladimir Putin challenged the
idea of the nation-state, stating that it was a Western construct, designed and
applied to promote Western interests. Greater Russia, he went on, had a
historical legitimacy assembling Russian-speaking peoples within a resurgent
Orthodox, Slavic state. Crimea and Eastern Ukraine had only temporarily
resided outside the Russian Empire. Ukraine was a a puppet of the United States
and NATO, ruled by corrupt leaders with no historical or contemporary vision.
It was a state that was neither here nor there, inchoate, powerless, and
meaningless.
The non-Russian speaking Republics were indeed part of Russia but their
sovereignty was only conditional, and they were subject if not indentured to the
laws, culture, and social ethic of the Slavic majority. Putin has never
conceived of a pluralistic, inclusive, diverse Russia. His empire, like the
Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia before it covers a vast territory including many
small minority cultures. Despite their militancy and rebellious defiance of
Putin and ruling Russia, they have been subjugated and are allowed to express
their ethnic and religious identity within very strictly controlled limits.
In other words Putin has rejected the idea of Western pluralism and
democracy – the foundational pillars of the liberal European state. He has no
intention of joining Europe, NATO, or any other alliance which insists on
electoral representation, political, social, and ethnic diversity. His reach
will extend as far as his hegemonic vision, will, and popular support will take
him. It is with such a clear historical vision, a suppression of dissent,
and a reward of a uniformly loyal populace that Russia will become great again.
There is no question that under his rule Muslim minorities will be
marginalized and remain barely tolerated populations rather than full members of
the polity. There is no moral imperative, says Putin, to inclusivity; but there
is one in preserving, promoting, and defending the Slavic, Russian-speaking
majority whose cultural and ethnic roots extend to the early medieval Rus.
China’s nationalism is similar that that of Russia. The Han Chinese
politburo has the same sense of historical determinism, the same intent to
preserve classical Chinese culture and tradition, and the same defiant rejection
of Western liberalism. While the Uighur and other ethnic minorities are indeed
targets of Han Chinese cultural imperialism, they can do little against the
overwhelming political, social, and military power of the ruling party. Unlike
the Russians who continue to tolerate ethnic minorities while subjugating them,
Chinese leaders want to expunge all traces of minority culture and influence and
encourage, by any means necessary, the progressive integration of these
minorities into the majority culture.
Unlike Western critics who insist that diversity is an absolute good and most
representative of the higher ethics of democracy which ensure pluralism and
civil rights, the Chinese value the integrity of a traditional,
millennia-old Han culture which remains the ideal not only for China but for the
world.
France is a country with a fabled history. It was Roland and Charlemagne who
held off the Muslim armies at Roncesvalles and saved Europe. For that feat
alone France considers itself la fille aînée de l'Eglise; but
through the Middle Ages and especially the Renaissance and the Enlightenment
French culture, literature, philosophy, science, and art were supreme. Today’s
ethnic French are heirs to more than a thousand years of cultural achievement,
political and military power.
It is no surprise that such ethnic French are angry, hostile, and
aggressively protective of their culture which they see as threatened by Muslim
immigrants and residents who defiantly reject it. We are not all
French, they say, obverting the classic French statement of laïcité.
Nationalism in France today is not the xenophobic racism depicted in the
progressive press. It is a reaction to what is seen as the erosion if not
destruction of the legacy of a storied past. French neo-nationalism is most
definitely and unapologetically French, European, and Christian.
ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban share this same vision of cultural, ethnic,
and religious hegemony. Nothing less than an Islamic Caliphate – a theocratic
kingdom extending throughout the Middle East and beyond – will do; and, like
Russia, they have rejected Western liberalism, secular democracy, and the civil
rule of law. Such a Caliphate would not, unlike Russia, tolerate difference.
Their belief in the absolute rightness of a Muslim Empire is such that it would
only be their duty to oblige compliance to its rules.
The exit of Great Britain (Brexit) from the European Union has less to do
with anger at a ponderous bureaucracy run by non-elected commissioners who set
insufferable pan-European rules and regulations than it does with nationalism.
There is a feeling in Britain that its sovereignty is being threatened by a
supra-national authority and that its culture is being eroded by the massive
influx of foreigners and refugees.
Great Britain, like France, China, and Russia has an imperial history which
has influenced art, culture, politics, and civil society for over a thousand
years. It was unmatched in global reach, military power, maritime supremacy,
and universally admired for the intellectual achievements of philosophers,
scientists, and poets. There is a cultural ethos to Great Britain as there is
in other historically powerful countries. There are certain traditions –
independence, sovereignty, justice, fair play, and enterprise – which continue
in modern Britain. It is not simply a country defined as all others by a
pluralistic mix of ethnicities, races, and religions; certainly not a European
country with distinct historical and cultural roots, but a unique country, one
with a shared ethos.
While it is certainly true that the Leave voters were predominantly older
ethnic Britons with a clear recent memory of Britain’s heralded past; and that
those who voted Remain were younger Britons who had increasingly looked to the wider world of Europe; but the populist mandate, after much debate and contention, has one the day. Britain is no longer European. It never was, but agreed reluctantly to assimilation for fifty years.
The United States has become more overtly nationalistic than ever. Donald
Trump speaks for tens of millions of Americans who feel their traditional
culture – Christian, fundamentalist, socially conservative, patriotic,
entrepreneurial, and English-speaking – is being taken over by unwelcome
newcomers. Despite our long history of immigration and polyglot society, there
is something ‘American’ about the country. As a relatively young country none
of us are far removed from Western expansionism, virile industrialism, frontier
justice, and farm family values. The Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are living documents – often distorted and
misinterpreted, but still revered as statements of national identity, purpose,
and character.
The current angry nationalism has more to do with the aggressiveness of
advocates of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusivity’. It is not that Americans do not
welcome foreigners or reject any but white bread culture. It is just that
diversity, separatism, and ethnic, racial and gender identity have been
militantly forced on a conservative, traditional base. Suddenly the Danes and
the Dutch, traditionally the most tolerant and welcoming countries of Europe,
are shocked by the cultural disruption provoked by massive refugee immigration,
Muslim terrorism and Islamic militancy. Enough is enough, they say. We are all
for pluralism but at a pace which ensures full assimilation into traditional
culture.
The Trump and Brexit phenomena are not one-off events. Resurgent nationalism
is here to stay. There must be years if not decades of social and political
realignment before any resolution can come about. The EU is sure to disband and
reorganize by nation, each of which will be more demanding and insistent on
cultural hegemony and full social integration of all residents and newcomers.
The nationalism sparked by Donald Trump will not go away. In the past four years progressive policies have become increasingly aggressive and have hardened the resolve of Trump supporters and helped gain new ones. .
The world is now very, very different than it was five years ago before
Russian imperialism, the Arab Spring, ISIS, the rise of the Far Right and
Brexit. Nationalism is back, and the next president better get in step quickly
and surely.
Friday, June 24, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.