• Federated Micronations
• Institutions
• Balanda Republic
• Capricornia
• Naquarnia
• Murwillumbah
• Musograd
• Federal Territories
• Education
• AAD
• Nation Forming
• Musanian Nationalisms
• IKG
• Kosnice University
• Murwillian UoS
• SU Balangrad
• TU Balangrad
• FIES
• Naquarnian IU

Comparative Analysis of Nation Forming

In 1977, the Scottish political scientist Tom Nairn published his famous anthology "The Breakup of Britain". In it, he not only analyzed the different starting points of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England in their development towards independent nations, but also covered the theories of Nationalism in general and the development of the European Union. A similar, if somewhat different analysis was published by Leopold Kohr in 1957, under the title "The Breakdown of Nations".

With this essay, political historians at the AAD attempt to apply Tom Nairns theory on nations and nationalism both to the current worldwide situation. In a separate essay, we will apply it to the development of the Musanian nations.

Nationalism

In "The Breakup of Britain", Tom Nairn, a materialist if not fully marxist political scientist, describes nationalism as a direct consequence of the uneven development of capitalism. Like a fire, capitalism started in certain regions of England and Wales in an age where nationalism in the sense of an overwhelming feeling of loyalty to the nation, throughout all classes of a society, was not really present. During the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars, nationalism started to develop on the European continent, both in France and in the states threatened by the French army. At the same time, English industry started to develop and to dominate world markets with their industrial goods.

According to Nairn, Scotland and Wales profited from this development early on in the 19th century, before they could develop their own nationalism. Scotland had just lost its independence but retained many proto-national structures. But the industrial and imperial success of the United Kingdom was so overwhelming that the Scottish bourgeois class never developed a true Scottish nationalism. In the British isles, only the catholic parts of Ireland developed their own nationalism.

On the continent, in contrast, nationalism developed like a shockwave, first in the regions of today's Belgium, Germany and Italy, then moving east towards Northern and Eastern Europe. The process could be compared with crystallisation in an over-saturated solution. Marginal countries, threatened both culturally and economically by their western neighbours, developed their own nationalism based on their current or historic national languages.

Nairn sees this as a development necessary for modernization in an environment of uneven capitalist growth. It is a Janus-headed development, though, as at a certain point nationalism destroys tolerance towards minorities and may lead to extreme belligerence. Both the First and Second World War centered around countries which had recently moved into a nationalist phase of development, Germany, Italy and (in WW II) Japan. Imperial states like Austria-Hungary, Russia and the UK attempted to protect their political models with their involvement, but finally failed, except for Russia, converting itself in the USSR.

Past and current developments

45 years after "The Breakup of Britain" was published, the wave of nationalism as a defence against externally imposed capitalism and modernity has washed away more pre-nationalistic state structures. The USSR has broken up, releasing both a number of semi-national Eastern European states into modernity as well as creating (or re-creating after a short period of independence after WW I) a number of strongly nationalist states, the Baltic, Caucasian or Central Asian republics. In the Muslim world, Iran and in a certain sense also Turkey moved to an islamist version of nationalist modernity, while similar attempts in the Arab world failed.

The "capitalist shockwave" theory is more difficult to apply to South and Central America, China and India. In these regions, borders remained fairly stable, with the exception of Bangladesh, a classic case of "unequal development", which led to its independence from (West) Pakistan. In China, a strong authoritarian central government was able to hold the country together, using Chinese nationalism on purpose to stabilize a rapid capitalist development. Marginal regions exist, eg Tibet and East Turkestan, but their nationalist tendencies are suppressed by the central government. Also in Hong Kong, a proto-nationalist development was extinguished by force. Taiwan, in contrast, not occupied by the PRC, has moved to their own nationalism, relinquishing de facto their position as nationalist Chinese government.

The risk is high, though, that China will move to a fascist phase of nationalist development by attacking both Taiwan and other regional neighbours, involving also the United States. Internally, China has done the first steps by allowing a highly nationalist discourse and by suppressing Muslim minorities in labour and reeducation camps. The end result might be a breakdown of the centralist Chinese state after losing a major war in the attempt to occupy Taiwan. Unequal development within China has created many tensions, and there are also linguistical differences between the regions.

The situation in India is also problematic. We are currently seeing a stronger pan-Hindu nationalism which might also lead into a fascist phase. Any Indian imperialism is restricted, though, by their natural borders, the Himalaya and the ocean, and by the fact that both India and Pakistan are armed with nuclear weapons. Hindu nationalism might threaten India's unity as the latter is based on a federalized model with relatively autonomous states. To propagate Hindi as national language and to concentrate development in the Hindi belt in the north might be enough to create state nationalism in the marginalized southern and eastern states.

A textbook example of nationalist modernization is Ukraine. Originally a core eastern slav territory, it was marginalized over several centuries under Russian, Muscovy, rule. This almost colonialistic rule was finally ended after the breakdown of the USSR, and the external shocks of 2014 and 2022 have created a proud nationalism and a push towards modernization, away from an oligarichic economic model. At the same time, Russia, after the end of the USSR, has moved towards a hybrid nationalist / imperial model, with Moscow still ruling over many "minor" nations while propagating a fascist nationalist Weltanschauung.

The synchronicity of the fascist-nationalist phases in Russia, China and Iran reminds one of the similar situation in the 1930s, where Germany, Italy and Japan had moved into such phases. It could be that conflicts around China and Iran join the Russian war against Ukraine in a similar way as conflicts in 1939 merged into WW II. The main difference is that most parties would be armed with nuclear weapons in such a conflict, this time.

On Africa, we do not have enough knowledge to estimate the level of nationalist development. There are some individual cases which we followed, e.g. the conflict in Ethiopia, where a centralist nationalism is colliding with regional ones, or South Africa, where history and the fight against Apartheid formed a strong national consciousness, while regionalisms are tolerated and thus absorbed. But in the majority of African countries, it must be assumed that the relationship between state and people is still more or less feudal. There are many low-key conflicts going on which in some cases are proto-nationalistic. But in the majority of cases, the "rebels" could better be described as robber bands using religion or ethnicity as a cover. The colonial borders do not follow ethnic lines, and both Christiantity and Islam are dynamically growing in the continent, which creates long term tensions. We hold it for probable that the setup of Africa in 100 or 200 years will be completely different from today, with some exceptions like Ethiopia or South Africa.

Finally, the most nationalistic of nation states in this age, the United States, might develop new nationalisms, too. Currently, the population is split in two halves, liberal and conservative, hating each other in an almost religious fervor. Those halves are no proto-nations, though, as they have only limited ethnic or religious alignment. Geographically, on first glance, the split is clearer, between the "old south" and "flyover" states on the conservative and the "west coast" and "east coast" states on the liberal side. But those groupings have no name or identity other than their political orientation, and also are often split within the states between urban, suburban and rural populations. The 1861 Civil War has proved though that this can swiftly change into new national identities, "Confederation" vs. "Union", in a tipping point behaviour. We sincerely hope that this will not happen, as it would lead to extremely bloody conflict and also to the loss of stability for the rest of the world.

Conclusion

Nationalism is probably the most important political influence in the current world, more important than ideology or religion. As Nairn wrote, it is a two-edged sword, helping to modernize states, but also fostering wars and being used to stabilize tyrannical governments. He assumed that the wave of nationalist development had already run through most of the world, with most former colonies now UN-recognized countries. But he more or less ignored the fact that the USSR, China and India all were at an imperial phase of their development, and that this could lead to a further wave of nationalisms forming.

Therefore, we see the development of nationalisms as a reaction on uneven development to continue. Climate change will probably even strengthen it, as its consequences must be managed by strong state governments through public works, rationing and even resettlement and absorption of refugees. If a state is able to organize this as evenly as possible, its nationalism will be strengthened, if not, local distress will lead to new nationalisms and separatisms.

At the same times, federative models of supra-national cooperation, like the EU, are of high value in controlling the dark sides of nationalisms. Their most important difference from multi-ethnic empires is the voluntary membership, the possibility to leave the federation. This makes them hugely attractive, as new members know that joining is no one-way street. In this respect, Brexit was a major boon to the EU, while the ongoing rejection of a second Scottish "Indyref" by the British government will not stop the breakup of the UK.

AAD Nationalism Research Unit, 2023.02.24