Democratic institutions are created with the consent of the people. More importantly, however, democracy can only remain stable and in power when the leader continues to act with the greater good’s interests in mind. People have always been at odds regarding what democracy truly constitutes, a tension that has increased since the end of the Cold War. Still, even with its systemic flaws, it is commonly believed that this form of government is the best model and that there is no better alternative. However, it is important to address shortcomings as democracy is not stagnant; in the context of democracy as a society, a political body, and an economy, it has inevitably changed over time.
One such area that requires attention is the perceived value of nationalism. Research scholar Ghia Nodia describes how nationalism and democracy coexist in almost a permanent state of tension. According to Nodia, Western social values often teach us to see democracy as the hero and nationalism as the villain, while in reality, this is not necessarily the case. Nationalism, through a political lens, can be perceived as necessary in that it instills its people with a sense of patriotism, which a successful government requires in a specific class of people: the military. However, as Spohn and Sauer explore in “War zeal, nationalism, and unity in Christ” during World War I, even German Protestant theologians and church leaders were exceptionally susceptible to nationalism and war zeal, resulting in evangelical missions that spurred the cause for war among the masses. Religion evidently plays a large role in the proliferation of nationalist views. This seems plausible in some instances because religion as a doctrine, often teaches its devotees that tradition is the greatest principle and that their actions must seek to preserve this virtue, including a country’s identity. However, this cannot be generalized to all religions because of the differing interpretations of texts by priests or religious leaders.
Although nationalism is integral to the internal fabric of a political body, more often than not, it leads to its destruction. It is important to consider what type of nationalism is present when analyzing its effects on a specific country, however. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, specifically focusing on the Democratic Republic of Congo, nationalism spread as a political tool. The standing government at the time used nationalism to suppress the opposition and sideline divisions among the citizenry that would otherwise pose a threat to the leadership’s power. This explains much of the instability in the region, the constant riots, and overall civil unrest, because artificially-created nationalism by the ruling class was pushed onto the people instead of “achieved nationalism,” which is rather realized by the people on their own through a sense of pride and trust for their representatives. Achieved nationalism then seems like it would be the most successful in maintaining democracy.
Nonetheless, this is not always true. In addition to religion, the changing desires of the electorate is a driving force behind the formation of nationalist perspectives. In particular, India is a region that has time and time again seen the repercussions of this prevailing attitude. Indians, tired of being oppressed by their British conquerors, sought independence from Britain to be able to have their well-deserved freedom--freedom to shape their own institutions, their own industries, their own national life. They achieved this by uniting together to throw the foreign forces out, resulting in an increased sense of nationalism.
However, this nationalism quickly deteriorated into polarization with the conflict between the Hindu majority and Muslim minority escalating to the point of division, an ensuing trauma that continues today. The rise of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Indian politics can be attributed to nationalism. When Modi first came into the public eye, he portrayed himself as a man of the people, a common man with a modest background as a tea vendor at a local train station. His rallying calls to put India first, to rebuild the economy by providing greater infrastructure and jobs, appealed to voters of all classes. He represented the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), or the Indian People’s Party, a name which itself reflects an ideology that prizes the collective people. Through this image, he was able to champion himself as a man of the people, in contrast to his opponents, and easily won with a sweeping majority of the votes. Modi’s popularity among the people has allowed him to seemingly get away with just about anything. Most recently, Indian citizens and their belief in Modi were tested when the tensions in Kashmir escalated. By unjustifiably removing Article 370, which would remove special protections for the regions, Modi put not only India at stake, but also the people of Jammu-Kashmir, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, as well as the very meaning of democracy. This has become such a contentious topic between the Western world denouncing Modi’s actions and his partisans praising him. When I conducted interviews with my own family in India, all of them said they support Modi, claiming that he is simply helping the region of Kashmir, which had been torn politically, economically, and socially ever since its creation, and that India has the right to take over and protect the Hindu minority in the area. In their eyes, at the same time, Western media portrays a different story: that Modi is akin to an authoritarian, taking land from the people of Kashmir like the British did in India.
There are countless examples of populism devolving into dictatorships, such as those seen in Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela where the concentration of power in the hands of the elected leaders and their changing behaviors slowly diminish the people’s trust in democracy. Mirroring Modi’s election, these respective candidates won in the first place because they seemed to be “the people’s men.” Not fulfilling these promises leaves people unhappy and creates a class that is ripe for the revolution, a truth that these leaders clearly ignore or simply do not care about. In fact, this was one of the pressures that culminated in the Arab Spring uprisings. Due to the people’s discontent with their government, there was an overwhelming sense of anti-nationalism, which “propelled discourse about liberation from an oppressive regime,” and the lack of nationalism also leads to factionalism within the regional states as well, leading to a shift in power from the federal to the state governments, in turn harming the ruling body itself.
These rulers are able to methodically rise to power and stay in power by ridding themselves of any possible threats by first deeming that the opposition is misrepresenting the leader’s actions and branding them with the trait of anti-nationalism. Using the bully pulpit as a medium to disseminate false and spiteful views, the leader traps the uneducated and uninformed, who fall into a mobocracy that becomes increasingly polarized, with one side supporting the leader while the other protests and seeks to promote change. This is seen most evidently with the current democratic state of the United States. Donald Trump, similar to Modi, was able to attain his presidency by appealing to the common, working-class people of American society, by promising jobs, a better economy, among others. He works under a false image of devotion to the country; rather, as Lepore writes, patriotism is animated by love, nationalism by hatred.
Once the president or leading governing body has planted the seeds for nationalism, however, it is natural to ponder as to who sows these seeds and ensures the views prosper. Inevitably, because democracy is authorized by the consent of the people, even a nationalist leader would not be able to maintain a stable polity without their support. This is where social media comes in. When Twitter was founded in 2006, it was meant to be a platform of communication and expression, a way to stay up to date with issues whether on a person or a global level. Originally, it was just used by the common person and not given much attention by the government or its agencies. But things quickly changed with Twitter becoming a medium for hate speech. Note that it is not a question here as to whether or not hate speech should be allowed, but rather here the focus is on its relation to nationalism as a result of the discourse of the time. The propagation of such hate groups is often linked with physical attacks against minorities. Although hate speech and hate crime do not always have a direct correlation, speech often serves as a catalyst due to its sometimes incendiary and dividing nature; this is seen with how white supremacist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, operate with a select group of people instigating and stirring the disgruntled masses. According to statistics released by the FBI, it is clear that hate crimes are seeing no decline as in 2017 alone, over eight-thousand hate crime offenses were reported. These groups continue the cycle that began with the President all in a fake sham of nationalism.
Again, it is necessary to consider why countries value a degree of nationalism. As expressed in Nationalism and Democracy:
“Patriotic celebration of such things may grate on the sensibilities of individualistic liberals, but it offers no threat to ethnic minorities. On the contrary, a custom of tolerance for minorities can also become a point of national pride, as it has in the case of many Americans or citizens of other long-established democratic nations.”
In this sense, a celebration of diversity warrants feelings of nationalism. Yet, it is difficult not to find these words ironic. In a country founded on the back of immigrants and minorities, people of color are still discriminated against, with those with darker skin facing the most backlash. In addition to being underrepresented in public office and Congress, minorities feel unheard by their president. For Americans to truly be able to feel a sense of national pride in terms of their treatment of minorities then, they must take a step back and reflect on whether or not America is the same for all, or if it is a living nightmare for others.
Countries such as the United States and India, now through its pursuits in Kashmir, as well as other well-developed and developing democracies, continue fearlessly in their endless goals of nation-building. However, given the assessment of the existence of nationalism and other autocratic tendencies, the first step is for these countries to pay greater attention and focus their political and sociological research and studies towards this exact question. Then, once the root of the problem is identified along with any other possible factors, policymakers must act to find a solution after which they can report to their officials. Convening in a national conference, global leaders can then discuss how to better the circumstances and decide whether or not compromise is necessary. While this background work is being done to widen our knowledge on the issue, if a country must intervene in the affairs of another, to help form or stabilize democracy, the least harmful method would be to station a few troops in the region--this way the country can maintain indirect control without doing anything that will cause harm in the long run. But until then, one must keep a vigilant eye on the upcoming United States 2020 presidential election.