A distinction can be drawn between three central elements for successful nation-building, which are closely interlinked in most cases: a unifying, persuasive ideology, integration of society and a functional state apparatus.
Nation-building will only be successful in the long term if it stems from an integrative ideology or produces this from a certain point on. Fundamental restructuring of politics and society requires special legitimation with regard to justification of policy as well as social mobilisation for its ends. The different variations of “nationalism” clearly have to be regarded as the classic ideology of nation-building – with “nationalism“ here meaning everything ranging from the meaningful development of a common national identity up to and even including violent disassociation from other national or ethnic groups. Nation-building necessarily presupposes the forming of a “nation”, which can, however, be constituted in extremely different ways. As long as people in a region define themselves primarily as Pashtuns, Maronites, Bavarians, Yussufzai (a Pashtun tribe), Ismailites or members of a particular clan, nation-building has either not been concluded or has failed. The existence of the respective identities is not in itself the problem but, rather, their relationship with a “national” identity covering all groups. It is quite possible for someone to be a Pakistani or Afghan and a Pashtun or Shiite at the same time if the two are made possible ideologically, just as someone can simultaneously be a Bavarian, Muslim and German. However, as long as the primary identity and loyalty lies with the tribe, clan or an ethnic or ethno-religious group and the “national” identity level remains subordinate or is missing, a nation-state will continue to be precarious. It is not absolutely essential, though, for such an integrating ideology forming the basis for nation-building to always and automatically be “nationally” oriented. It can also be replaced by other value and identity models, at least for a time: constitutional patriotism - “liberty, equality, fraternity” -, secular ideologies (e.g. socialism) or religion can assume the same function or auxiliary functions. The cases of the founding of the states of Pakistan and Israel are illustrative in this respect: when states were founded for the “Muslims of India” and “the Jews”, these originally religious classifications were increasingly reinterpreted in a “national” way.
The second prerequisite for a successful nation-building process involves the integration of a society from the loosely associated groups that existed previously. Pashtuns, Baluchis and Punjabis must not only be convinced that they belong to a common nation, this notion must also be found in the social reality. To achieve this, the patterns of communication between the social groups need to be intensified to the extent that communication does not principally take place within the groups. Even though the internal communication of the (ethnic, religious and other) groups may remain stronger than that between them, a certain degree of close communication among them is a requirement for successful and enduring nation-building. However, apart from the political-cultural aspect, there are also practical requirements for this: nation-building needs a “national” infrastructure. Transport and communication infrastructures, the development of a “national economy” from regional or local economic areas, plus nationwide mass media for establishing a national political and cultural discourse are key variables.
A crucial component of nation-building is the development of a functional state apparatus that can actually control its national territory. This implies, firstly, that the corresponding society has constituted itself as a political society, which corresponds to the two processes outlined above, especially the formation of a common society with its own self-awareness. In this way, the state becomes the political organisational form of a society that is able to act – if it did not already exist before playing a key role in the social integration process. State-building is a key aspect of successful nation-building. It presupposes a range of practical capabilities, such as creating a financial basis for a functioning state apparatus, i.e. an effective fiscal system, as well as an organised police and legal system and an administrative apparatus that is effective and accepted throughout the country. The state needs loyal personnel that do not identify primarily with individual social, ethnic or religious communities but, rather, with the state and the “nation”. In particular, the state apparatus must assert its monopoly of force over the entire national territory in order to be successful over the long term.
For successful nation-building, this results, all together, in a triangle formed from the highly complex individual elements of state-building, social integration and ideological legitimation. Certain components can be provided relatively easily from outside, such as parts of the infrastructure, while others are very difficult or even impossible to furnish from outside, e.g. in the case of ideological nation-building. In the end, however, it is only engagement with each other providing mutual strength that will decide the success or failure of nation-building. As a rule, external players will consequently make nation-building easier or harder, but hardly ever be able to force it or completely prevent it where the internal factors stand in the way of this.
0 comments:
Post a Comment