National state - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
The National state, a concept both familiar and elusive, represents a political organization where the legitimacy and authority of the state are intrinsically linked to the idea of a nation, a culturally or ethnically defined group. Is it a natural evolution of human societal structures, or an artificial construct imposed upon diverse populations?
While the fully articulated concept emerged later, the seeds of the National state can be traced back to the late medieval and early modern periods in Europe. Thinkers like Machiavelli, in The Prince, grappled with the challenges of building and maintaining political unity within a defined territory, a concern that would later morph into the question of aligning political boundaries with cultural or linguistic ones. Erasmus, a contemporary of Machiavelli, advocated for intellectual and religious tolerance, suggesting an alternative path to social cohesion that contrasts sharply with later nationalist ideologies, an early attempt to create ethical frameworks for pluralistic societies. Documents such as the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years' War, began to establish the principle of state sovereignty, a cornerstone for the development of individual nations, but these were still primarily dynastic states, rather than states based on national identity. The philosophical landscape was shifting. Ideas surrounding natural rights, the social contract, and the legitimacy of government based on consent were starting to emerge, challenging the divine right of kings and laying the groundwork for new forms of political organization.
The 18th and 19th centuries witnessed the rise of nationalism and the corresponding surge in the ideal of the National state, as seen in the writings of philosophers such as Johann Gottfried Herder, who emphasized the unique spirit (Volksgeist) of each nation. The French Revolution, with its emphasis on liberté, égalité, fraternité, provided a powerful model for national self-determination, though the revolutionaries did not use the term to describe themselves, they did however put it into practice. Thinkers like John Stuart Mill contributed to the notion of representative government and individual liberty within a national framework. The unification of Italy and Germany in the 19th century showcased the potent, and sometimes violent, force of nationalism in reshaping the political map of Europe. Paradoxically, the pursuit of national unity often led to the suppression of internal diversity and the exclusion of minority groups, raising ethical questions about the limits of national belonging and the balance between collective identity and individual rights. The legacy of colonialism, fueled in part by nationalistic fervor, adds another complex layer, highlighting the global impact of the National state model and its role in shaping power dynamics around the world. It also asks us to consider fairness in justice on an international scale.
Today, the National state remains a dominant form of political organization, though its meaning and implications are constantly debated. The rise of globalization, transnational organizations, and multicultural societies challenges the traditional notion of a homogenous national identity. Contemporary movements advocating for regional autonomy, Indigenous rights, and cosmopolitanism question the boundaries and limitations of the National state. The resurgence of nationalist sentiments in some parts of the world raises concerns about xenophobia, intolerance, and the erosion of international cooperation. As we grapple with issues such as climate change, global pandemics, and mass migration, the question remains: is the National state a necessary framework for addressing shared challenges, or an obstacle to building a more interconnected and equitable world? Could a global framework of ethics be the next step?