Which Came First: The Nation or the State?

While many people use the words state and nation-state interchangeably, there is an important difference between the two responsible for increasing tension and domestic turbulence all over the globe. Nationalism has been the source of countless conflicts around the world yet the current political makeup of the globe is fairly new, historically speaking. Despite the prejudices some have today, empires were actually the norm through much of history. Only since the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 have certain groups of people believed in their absolute right to a specific piece of land. As time went on, the idea caught on and ultimately led to the splintering of the great empires (English, Dutch, Spanish, Ottoman, German, Russian, French etc) into smaller states whose geographical borders closely represented the ethnic makeup of the territory.

From giant conglomerations of peoples to tiny states with just a few thousand people,today, people the world over find themselves facing another variation of this age old problem. With the ease and increase of international travel, communications and commerce, the peoples of the world have again began to mix while the borders of their states remain static. As many settle down, learn the local language and gain residence or citizenship, the question arises: Who is Swiss? Who is German? Who is Turkish?

Ironically, this is one major problem that both Europe and Turkey share. While Germans debate whether German-speaking Turks born and raised in Germany are really German, Turks debate what it means to be Turkish. According to the Turkish constitution for example, Turkey is a Turkish state whose language is Turkish. Where then, does this leave the Kurds, who’ve lived in the region thousands of years longer than the Turks?

An article in Today’s Zaman on Turkish and Kurdish nationalism notes:

The MHP needs to reevaluate these ideologies and principles and generate new ideas. Bahçeli referred to Oct. 29 1923 when explaining the basic rules of living under the roof of a united Turkish Republic and coexisting in a Turkish national identity. But the date is wrong, most of the sensitive concepts and descriptions we debate today date back to after 1923. Are we going to describe Turkishness according to the more enclosed description in the 1924 Constitution or, the more limiting description in the 1982 Constitution? Also Bahçeli needs to elaborate on what he means by “one state, one nation, one flag, one language,”? which he listed as the principles of “national unity and solidarity.”? How will we place the Kurds, whom it is believed to come from a different ethnic root, within this “one nation”? conception?

Nowadays, the most successful states are arguably those who born from settler colonies, specifically British ones. To be American, Australian or Canadian isn’t to be a certain race or religion. While white Anglo-Saxons are clearly the majority at the moment, everyone else has been and is just as welcome and not seen as less Canadian, American or Australian. Indeed, for countries based on an idea and where no group “owns” the land, the freedom to change, adapt and grow is far greater than in those based on ethnicity and religion with far older cultures and traditions. While some people advance the idea of so-called Market-States, one if the biggest and most overlooked questions of our century is that of identity. Will we see more melting together? More nationalist backlash?

I invite readers to share their views on the increasingly important role of identity on both the individual and state level and the effects thereof on states and their domestic and foreign policy.