Notes on (yet another) New Nationalism

Nationalism is widely considered a dirty word, and with good reason: the ills of the 20th century sprung largely from the idea that one country, with its borders demarcated by arbitrary freaks of history, was morally superior to any other country, and had the right to assert its prominent position. That is the classic definition of nationalism- more recently we have seen broader nationalist movements, such as Arab Nationalism, the absurd idea that Arab speakers from Morocco to Iraq were united as one political, religious and ethnic identity, and should speak with one voice (this is the same idea that fuels the degrading and lazy notion of "The Arab Street").

But nationalism isn't always bad. In the last few months we have seen a new kind of nationalist resurgence, which seems to be at least partially inspired by the more benevolent half of American nationalism.

An explanation is in order. The classic idea of American nationalism is pride in the institution of democracy and the philosophy of freedom. Not in what America does, good or ill, but what America is, which is only good. Now, there is another kind of nationalism, the traditional kind, where America is something that is good and holy and one has to approve of whatever it does: a red, white and blue blimpishness that degrades and even contradicts the gentler version of nationalism (Anatol Lieven has a new book out on this. I have yet to read it, but have heard and seen him interviewed several times and feel it is worth checking out. His thoughts helped shape this section).

It is a gentler form of nationalism, this belief in institutions, but it should also be the stronger one, the one defended more fiercely. It is this version that the Bush Doctrine pledges to export to other countries, outposts of tyranny, anachronistic despotisms, and anyone else who wants to raise the flag of liberty. The problem is the domestic Bush doctrine systematically undermines the very institutions it correctly believes are worthy of exportation. Redefining torture (that vestige of autocracy) to make it easier, holding American citizens without access to lawyers or specific charges, grinding down the wall between church and state, trying to grant the President unlimited powers- these are symptomatic of the more virulent nationalism.
But, as of yet, the Administration does not hold sway in other parts of the world, at least not directly. And it is these parts foreign that we see the gentle, benevolent, but fierce from of nationalism growing, in a way that few would have expected.
Start with Lebanon. Following the murder of Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese began to take to the streets and demand that Syria leave, with surprising unity. An AP story in the Chicago Tribune talks of protesters holding "a copy of the Koran in one hand and a cross in another," an astonishing sight in a country still bearing the scars of sectarian civil war. The shock is doubled when one realizes that mass demonstrations against Syria were unthinkable even two months ago.

In addition, other Arab countries are joining in on the Syrian pile-on. Amr Moussa, former Egyptian Foreign Minister and current Secretary-General of the usually laughable Arab League is negotiating a withdrawal plan with the Syrians, though there have been a few twists and turns, and they have been filled with the kind of half-truths and complicated wordplay inanities that are the hallmark of dishonesty.

The other Arab countries joining in is incredible. In general, the Arab League and its member nations are slow to the point of absurdity to ever criticize a brother member. After all, one has to show solidarity to the outside world. If Arabs are taking the Arabs to task, it will just fuel the fire outside our neck of the woods. They were even loathe to say a word about the astonishing human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein.

This extended to the personal as well- the even the great Edward Said took Kanan Makiya behind the woodshed for airing dirty Arab laundry in public for his book "Republic of Fear" about excess cruelty of Saddamism (Makiya details the Said case, and the closed-door nature of Arab politics in full in "Cruelty and Silence"). After the fall of Saddam, Said “revealed” in Al-Ahram, the state-run weekly, that Saddam’s regime was “despicable one in every way and it deserved to be removed.” This would be more convincing if he hadn’t spent most of the previous six months coming up with every conceivable excuse to leave it in power. He talks of a “sense of anger at how outlandishly cruel and despotic the regime was.” This, it reads, was a surprise to the Arab people (Said's article is dissected in full on the old website.)

Were it a surprise, it was because of his efforts and the silence of other voices in the Arab world. But those are beginning to crack, as Arabs are rallying around the idea that Lebanon, and other countries, should be free to pursue their own destinies. But this is not a democratic Arab nationalism- this is individual nationalism in individual countries, giving sympathy to and drawing inspiration from each other. This is especially the case in Lebanon, where the Lebanese are not asking Syria to be a more benevolent Arab Big Brother, but merely to get out, and not let the door hit them on the way out.

In Egypt, too, there are louder grumblings about President Mubarak running for a fifth unopposed term, as the boredom and frustration with his tepid, half-hearted government is reaching new heights. Even Saudi Arabia had limited elections, a big step for a country that still has public beheadings. And one cannot forget Palestine and Iraq. The Palestinians voted overwhelmingly for Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate man who renounces violence is steering a course of intelligent, but passionate, pragmatism. And this all comes from Iraq, where the body politic rejected the notion of "vote and die," and also rejected the secular candidates of the occupying forces. So the election was not perfect, but it was also not a disaster.

There can be little doubt that Lebanon would be happening were it not for Iraq. Because people realized there were more important things than the phony banner of Arab solidarity and rallying behind dull ciphers like Bashar al-Asad. This Lebanese nationalism is very intelligently discussed on the very valuable beirut2bayside, located right here on blogspot. To read the relevant article, scroll down to where it says "The Wrong Nationalism," but one would be well-served by reading everything.

It is not just in the Arab world that this is happening. In Africa, the young NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa's Development) has been surprisingly bold in criticizing fellow African leaders. There was always a pact of sorts among the post-colonial governments never to say ill about another post-colonial government, as that would be giving aid and comfort to those who think Africa can't develop on its own in the modern world. There was some merit to this, some understandable wagon-circling, but the distressing irony is that this siege mentality and back-slapping blindness did incredible and tragic damage to Africa's development. It was hard enough to deal with the evil legacy of colonialism without further handicapping themselves with cruel and greedy natives.

But the leaders of NEPAD are sick of that. The most visible leader of NEPAD is Thabo Mbeki, but for my money the finest man they have is the Senegalese president Abdoulaye Wade, a long-time dissident and fierce champion of democracy. He is not talking of a united Africa, except as a loose body of countries helping the people become free of the generation of corrupt and cruel leaders that sprung up since the white man pulled up stakes and fled into the night. A longer discussion of African leaders is important, but beyond the scope of this article. Suffice to say, in a few corners of that blighted continent that realize nationalism is about letting the people have a say in the workings of a responsible government, not about having a manly image around the world and playing to the fears of history.

You see this in a few other places as well. The recent revolutions on the Ukraine and Georgia were for responsible governance where a vote counted and institutions meant something. They were about national pride- but in the sense that people wanted a nation to mean something rather than just a flag and ancient battles. Were it just nationalism, in the traditional sense, the flag-waving, chest-beating old-guard kleptocracies would have waltzed away with victory. And nowhere was this more true than in Serbia, where the people resoundingly rejected violent nationalism in the revolution that toppled Milosevic.

Now, this does not represent a pattern where one can boldly say that freedom is on the march. The situations are too disparate to tie them together. There are different battles being fought in every one. But it does put paid to the parochial idea found on both the isolationist right and left that Western-style models of governance and ideas of responsibility are confined to America.

I know this responsible nationalism threatens the idea that the nation means less in a globalized world, but that is nothing to be afraid of. Nations just fading away, as envisioned (terrifyingly) by Kaplan or (wonderfully) by the most wide-eyed globalists, was probably not going to happen, and if it did it would more likely be the Kaplan-esque nightmare scenario of The Coming Anarchy. Who needs that? If the world can develop good clean governments, that would be a welcome alternative to a continuation of politics as usual.