Clash of nationalisms

Clash of nationalisms

The battle is now properly joined between its inclusionary and exclusionary versions.
It may not be the Cold War redux. But a war of world views is in full swing. It isn't communism versus capitalism; it isn't old-style fascism versus liberalism. It is an escalating global war between rising forces of nationalist populism and the idea of liberal democracy.
The Brexit vote last year approving Britain's withdrawal from the European Union was an initial shot fired by an inward looking, England-first majority of voters. Then came the shocker of Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election. Open-minded, tolerant people gasped, wondering whether the liberal democratic world order would soon disintegrate.
This week came a breather. Liberal democracy won the battle for Holland.The white Christian nationalist Geert Wilders, who many thought had a chance of winning and becoming prime minister, lost decisively. Over 80% of the electorate voted and the populist right got just 13.1% of the vote. But the genie of intolerance is out, in Holland and the rest of Europe.
Its baleful influence, aggravated by the Syrian refugee crisis but unleashed earlier by the opportunistic stoking of nativist fears of a white Christian Europe being swamped by a brown-black tide, continues to haunt the continent. We await the outcomes of elections coming up in France and Germany that will critically affect the future course of nationalist populism.
Elsewhere ¬ in Erdogan's Turkey, Duterte's Philippines, and Putin's Russia ¬ liberal democracy, which can only thrive in a climate of tolerance, is under assault. In the world's largest two democracies, India and the US, populism has gained the upper hand and proponents of tolerant liberalism struggle to retain popular appeal. The contest is on.
In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi consolidated his populist style of leadership with resounding electoral victories in UP and Uttarakhand. BJP didn't quite win those states as a political party; it was Modi who crafted the victories with his brand of Modi who crafted the victories with his brand of personalised politics. His style combines a can-do personal image framed within a Hindutva-defined national identity. It has worked electorally so far in a large swath of the country. However, the exceptional structure of a linguistically and ethnically diverse India, coupled with myriad streams within Hinduism, is unlikely to allow the imposition of a singular national-religious identity, outside perhaps a cricket stadium.
In the US, the battle over what is the idea of America intensifies by the day. Meanwhile, not only have hate crimes risen sharply in frequency since the election of President Trump, but what were nativist dog-whistles during the election campaign have become clarions blown openly by far right ideologues who play key roles in the administration and in the legislative arena.
Thus when Republican congressman Steve King, who has a history of bigoted statements, endorses white nationalism by tweeting “We can't restore our civilisation by somebody else's babies”, after expressing admiration for Geert Wilders, he is openly lauded by David Duke, grand wizard of the racist Ku Klux Klan. Trump's close adviser Steve Bannon, who many see as the brain behind a planned deconstruction and remaking of the United States, has said often he is a fan of a 1970s French novel, `The Camp of the Saints', which is an outright racist tract about an invasion of the white world by dark skinned people. Conspiracy theories fanning fears about the survival of the white nation abound in an atmosphere in which facts are seen as overrated.
Nationalism as an ideology is inevitable, even necessary, in a world that began to be organised into nation-states a little over three centuries ago. It is a primary adhesive sentiment in an age in which nations have become the dominant global vehicle of group identity.
But there seem to be two distinct nationalisms: inclusionary and exclusionary.One symbolises loyalty to a nation that is tolerant, accommodative and open to evolving cultures and mores. The other advocates a nation which must resist diversity and construct an exclusive ethno-religious identity that must be defended against any dilution the Other might bring into society.
The first kind is the default option for large, diverse nations like India and the United States. I think the second kind, while more suited to small ethnically homogenous nations, won't survive long amidst the hurricane of change, technological and civilisational, that is buffeting the globe.