Minority Rights and The Nation State

Minority rights and The Nation State

We live in a world composed of Nation States with significant ethnic majorities, or at least cultural majorities. Russia is supposedly Russian, Germany is German, China is Chinese, Japan is Japanese and so forth. The stereotype is of a nation composed mainly of a cohesive and pure ethnic group with a common cultural affinity. When we look beneath the covers, so to speak, we find something quite different. There is a majority ethnic and or cultural group; however there are many ethnic minorities, culturally different groups, and certainly significant differences of opinion politically. With the concept of majority rule, and democratic institutions, we are all supposed to be part of one big happy family, represented by the State and the history of its people.

One would argue that the greater the ethnic and cultural concentration, the more efficient the state becomes. After all, a common history, culture and ethnic group, should help to align the aspirations of its citizens towards a common goal. In other words, it is assumed that greater alignment will lead to greater cooperation and a higher potential for achieving the common objective; a prosperous, economically and militarily competitive Nation State. After all, classical 19th century Nationalism maintained that an individual would best blossom within his ethnic and cultural group; Two world wars later, and we begin to have some doubts as to the merits of aiming towards a monolithic ethnic and cultural Nation State. Perhaps we would be better off accepting a more diverse ethnic and cultural mix, which might lead us into becoming a more tolerant and culturally aware society.

When we look at countries such as the United States, we can see that to call the US ethnically pure is not within the norms of possibilities. At one point, perhaps before the beginning of the 20th century we might have been able to call it a Nation composed of European descendants with a significant Black minority. Today, one hundred years later we would have to remove the European label, and say that the US is composed of a variety of people from all over the world, with a common American culture, and no particular ethnic purity. One hundred years into the future and we might begin to speak of an American ethnic group. The point being that the most successful nation of the last 100 years is anything but ethnically pure; there is an American culture, but it is composed of many sub cultures. We might say, there is a dominant culture, with lesser sub cultures. Even in this environment, there are significant issues around language, religion, race, regional differences, urban versus rural differences, and class differences. The United States is held together not by ethnicity or cultural affinity, but by common beliefs in individual freedoms, democracy, and the mistrust of government involvement in cultural or religious institutions. It is a country where Jews can be Jewish, Christians can be any number of different sub-faiths, Muslims can be Muslims, and if you believe in voodoo then so be it. Religious rights are protected in the US constitution. Culturally, the state does not attempt to promote one culture over another, and the media is typically viewed as an economic activity with no state interference. Americans are however becoming highly concerned about the rise of Spanish as a language of communication, and historically have shown a degree of racism to match that of any monolithic ethnic state. So, even in a multi ethnic, multi racial, multi cultural State as the United States, minorities have their work cut out if they wish to maintain a degree of independence and not be coerced into the common culture. However, when we compare the freedom that minorities possess in the United States with the lack of freedom of minorities in more monolithic cultures; we have to wonder, what is the rationale for the continued suppression and coercion of these minorities?

The unity of the state is sacrosanct, and this unity, with the exception of the United States, is premised not on common beliefs and individual freedoms, but more on historical land claims, ethnic purity, common language and culture, and the need to protect the mother or father land against old and new enemies. Invariably this includes protection from internal coercion by minorities and somewhat not quite ethnically pure individuals. We therefore have the history of the Jews in Europe, where they may not have been all that different from the common ethnic group they lived with, but were seen as outsiders, different, suspicious, and resented for their success, or lack of success in the case of the Roms or Gypsies. We have all the minority groups from neighbouring states that had to either suppress their Nationality or leave. We have had more recently a mass immigration into western European countries, and the difficulty of being accepted by the majority ethnic groups. In places such as China where the majority Han Chinese are so much the overwhelming majority group, that one would think they would not be worried about giving Tibetans and some other ethnic group some degree of autonomy and self rule; at least as concerns religion, culture, and language. Moreover, the Chinese continue to maintain that they are a monolithic culture, even though there are many regional differences, both culturally and ethnically. Russia, rather than adapting its constitution to the reality of the varied minority groups within its territory, insists on the indivisiveness of Russia and has basically devastated Chechnya and the Chechen people in order to make a point about its integrity as a state.

It seems that rationalizing why the state’s ethnic and cultural purity and its borders must be maintained, is an easy excuse to trample on minority rights. One would even say it is primal, its part of our need to belong, its part of maintaining our identity and the greater identity which the group bestows on us. The idea of a State with common values, but composed of various ethnic minorities, cultural groups, and even different language groups, is something which threatens the very core of who we are. We somehow seem unable to operate as a group unless we have cultural, religious, ethnic, and language similarities. Is it any wonder, that the ideal Nation State was to be culturally, ethnically, religiously and linguistically a monolith, within a prescribed national territory. Was this ideal, ever achieved? Probably not; never the less it is what continues to dictate our view of the world and the people within it. From ridiculous symbols such as National flags and the Olympic flag, with its supposed five races, to National histories emphasizing the maximum geographic range of its national ethnic group, to the achievements in battle, technology, science, culture, and civilization; the National ethnic group is pure, glorious, and not to be let down. We after all, pledge allegiance to the Nation State and its sacrosanct borders.

This would all be great, if it were thus; however, the reality is quite different. I know of no monolithic state, I know of no state with only one religious group in it, I know of no state without cultural or linguistic minorities, I know of no state where its cities are not populated by a variety of people from all over the world. Is it not time to see the state for what it is; a 19th century concept requiring significant revision? The major role of the State after all was to provide security to its citizens, this was achieved by being economically competitive, thus permitting the creation of a standing army to protect both your national and economic interests. In a world with a significant global trade, and a significant economic interdependency, what role is the state providing? It is true that as little as 60 years ago we were involved in a life and death struggle between the forces of evil and the forces of good, as some might argue; however, was this really a struggle between Nations, or was it a struggle for freedom and democratic principles against the proponents of might is right. Certainly both a Nationalistic interpretation and an ideological one could be argued. So it may be somewhat premature to abolish the Nation State and open ourselves to the acceptance of international standards of conduct, composed of common beliefs, values, and respect for human beings and human diversity.

Can we at least commence the process by which minorities are granted certain rights? Minorities should have the right to practice their culture, language and religion, without fear of coercion or persecution. Minorities should have the right to not pay taxes for items that are essentially meant to marginalize them or force their integration into the larger groups’ culture. In other words, states should refrain from pushing one culture over another, one religion over another, or one language over another. Minorities should be protected against economic discrimination. Minorities should have equal representation under the law. Minorities should have the right to associate and support each other as they see fit. In a larger sense, the people needing protection are the minorities, not the majority. The argument will be that this type of state will break apart, as the cohesiveness of the state will be undermined. This does not have to be so, if the state argues for a set of inclusive values, such as individual freedom, democracy, equal justice under the law, and protection for all under the constitution. After all this has worked in the United States of America. As a European from a supposed monolithic ethnic state, it had always amazed me how many blacks were prepared to fight for their country, even though to a large extent they were severely discriminated against both by fellow citizens and by the state. What I did not understand, at the time, was their belief in the American constitution and the civil rights movement in getting America to recognize that its black citizens had equal rights to their white brethren. By doing their part in defending the United States they would have a greater authority in demanding that those rights were recognized. Today we have a black US president.

The Nation State will have greater cohesive ability if it focuses on common values, then if it focuses on a non-existing monolithic ethnic group to justify its existence. As security needs diminish, as the state becomes less important in the economic success of its citizens, as international economic and cultural integration evolves, the state will fall apart; unless it has beliefs and values that transcend cultural and ethnic grounds.
If we are not careful, we will return to times where masses of people were forced to move and return to recreate the ethnic pure states from whence they came. This would set back human civilization, and contribute to greater conflicts and possible military interventions.

We need to understand that the majority must consciously protect its minorities and ensure their equality in all areas, otherwise ethnic, cultural, religious and political strife will ensue. In a world where migration and economic integration continues at a relentless pace to the benefit of all humanity; we need to ensure that the Nation State concept of an ethnically and culturally pure citizenry is viewed as a phenomenon of our past. A progressive ethnically mixed, multicultural Nation State focused on individual freedoms and reflective of the dynamism and diversity of today’s major urban population needs to be championed and protected as a symbol of human cooperation and cohabitation, hopefully leading to less tension between Nation States and especially between the majority community and the growing list of minority groups.

We have come a long way from the cohesiveness and belonging to the tribe, and need to recognize that we have evolved beyond the ethno-centric Nation State. Our future lies not in protecting our turf or territory from all who would imperil it, but rather in the opening ourselves up to other cultures and ideas, within a framework of equality for all and respect for others different but never the less acceptable lifestyle.

Does this mean that competition between people will end? No it implies competition at both a cultural and ethnic level, but competition based on merit and ability to influence others; not competition based on threats, coercion, and the advantage that majority rule might temporarily bestow on us.

In the past we protected ourselves from the unknown by a close allegiance to our fellow ethnic or cultural group. Today we should protect ourselves by associating with others and making common cause against anyone that would endanger our individual freedoms and our right to associate with those with which we feel an affinity. As long as we do not infringe on anyone else’s rights and freedoms, then it is no one’s business as to how we choose to lead our life, regardless of which Nation State we are citizens of. Our protection against tyrants, and other would be domineering groups, lies in the power of our ideas and sharing those with other common minded individuals and coming to the aid of any part of the Global Village that might be under attack.

If Tibetans are persecuted and suppressed, it matters to us all. If Chechens are murdered for their desire to be free of Russian oppression and domination, it matters to us all. If Kurds are not allowed to have some minimum form of cultural self rule, it matters to us all. If the Basques, the Catalans, The Corsicans, the French Canadians, and any other cultural or ethnic minority want some form of local cultural independence then we should all support it. Where we should draw the line is where these same groups or others are interested in creating the equivalent of the oppressive state they are interested in separating from.
Just as we should be decentralizing cultural and ethnic power, we should be centralizing economic and legal statutes based on the concept of equality, individual freedoms, and respect for minority rights. Our future lies with the growth and enlightenment of all mankind, not in protecting and advancing the power and influence of our little part of the globe that our Nation State represents. After all, power no longer rests with the size and productivity of our agricultural fields, but with the ability to add value through wider economic cooperation and technological innovation. Moreover, our challenges do not lie in protecting and enhancing our little corner of the world, but with the management of our planet’s resources in an equitable manner ensuring the long term sustainability of our economy and our planet. The best way to achieve this is through some form of equitable distribution and inclusiveness in the management of the economy and the eco-system of all of the planet’s citizens. For the moment, as a first step, minorities must be made to feel full and equal partner in the decision making process. At some future point, the concept of the Nation State will fade away, to be replaced with some yet to be defined global distribution of power through international institutions.