Within the above pages my concern has been to point out dilemmas that arise from the theory and practice o f nationalism and democracy generally. This thus sets out the theoretical foundations on which the exploration o f nationalism and democracy rests for the remainder o f this thesis. It can be reduced to the following three points: 1) the intrinsic link between nationalism and the formation o f the political unit, from which derives the significance o f nationalism in the transition to democracy; 2) the compatibility o f the self-determination principle with democratisation, but the contradictory logic of their extension to nation-building and state-building; 3) nationalism’s evident capacity to offer a group identity, allegiance, representation and recognition, which accounts for nationalism’s capacity to mobilise and legitimise - the reverse side o f this capacity is nationalism’s proneness to the appropriation o f political power.
In order to conclude this question o f the compatibility between nationalism and democracy which is crucial in deciding the role o f nationalism in the democratisation process o f a particular state, the last link to explore is whether whatever national/ethnic identity has to offer is conducive to democracy, and how it is different from nationalism. The political importance national identity carries can be summed up as a feeling o f cohesion and purpose in achieving a common goal which despite many divisions inside the state can be surmounted, in return for safety and belonging. In short, national identity makes the complexities o f life and politics simpler, by offering a clearer definition of interests and choices and some guidelines in the formation o f relationships with others.
Democracy does not offer this comfort. It is a system o f certain principles and procedures and uncertain outcomes170. It arrives at collective decisions through
controversies and many compromises - at best it is a decision which is perceived as ‘good enough’ by the majority o f people. One o f the many sources o f making sure that there is a general sense o f satisfaction with the outcome is national identity. At the beginning o f the transition process, when open state institutions already function, but the nascent democracy suffers from not yet clearly established rules o f competition for power, when not enough time has passed for the population to settle into the new regime and experience its benefits, in such an environment the claims o f nationalist demagogues can become very persuasive for obvious reasons.
First, the very quality o f democracy - choice, uncertainty and complexity - makes nationalism appealing, because by defining national community in less political and more ethnic, therefore homogenous terms, it makes the definition o f interests easier to grasp and thus appears to simplify the political landscape that has become too complex. Secondly, democracy allows for nationalist politicians to promote their ideas. But, let us not forget what those ideas can be. Nationalism’s strength lies in the elevation of one national group’s identity and solidarity, therefore by implication in the exclusion of others from all advantages that belonging brings. This is not the kind o f solidarity that democracy seeks. Hence, national identity in a democratic nation should mean the loyalty to a political community o f the whole citizenry, held together by common efforts to realize the common project - democracy and justice.
But, as has been pointed out by Dimitrije Djordjevic, “it is easier to be an
emotional nationalist than a rational democrat” 171, so the question is whether nationalism and democracy can be reconciled, in order to decrease nationalism’s challenge to
democracy, particularly in multiethnic states. Can nationalism facilitate democracy, can it be a source o f cohesion, solidarity and identity in the state? It would appear that every positive element nationalism has to offer to democracy is matched by its negative side, thus reducing the chances for compatibility.
Nevertheless, the contention o f this thesis is that the reconciliation between nationalism and democracy is possible and depends on the compatibility o f their
objectives. The following case studies will provide the empirical evidence for this claim. Democracy presupposes a political unit and the implicit suggestion in the work o f many democratic theorists (e.g. Mill, Rustow, Linz and Stepan) is that democratisation is
easier in a state with largely one culture, because there is less tension between nation- building and state-building policies. The clue to a successful transition to democracy then must lie in the establishment o f a political community with corresponding identity and loyalty attached to that community. This does not presuppose the removal o f cultural identities, which evidently is not so easy, but the forging of an overarching identity that corresponds with the boundaries o f the state and envelops all ethnic communities.
People’s identity may draw on cultural roots, but it is also changeable and adaptable according to social and political conditions. It is precisely that human capacity to accept multiple identities, alongside with or over their ethnic identity, that makes democracy possible172 in multinational states.
The recent history o f nationalism does not offer much faith in nationalism’s capacity to promote such an identity, yet the beginnings o f ‘the nation’ endowed with the status o f a sovereign political body are to be sought in the revolutionary origins of nationalism. By the same token, the sheer magnitude o f postcommunist changes was partially delivered by nationalist endeavour, hence there is no denying nationalism’s capacity to facilitate democratic changes. Whether nationalism can sustain democracy longer term is doubtful. It depends on whether it is willing to promote the loyalty to the political rather than ethnic community, thus shift its inherent ethnic emphasis from ‘one’ nation to ‘more’ nations in order to contribute to democratic state-building. Such a shift cannot be just called into action, but depends on the socio-political conditions in the state, as the following will argue.
2.4. INTRODUCING THE CASE STUDIES: NATIONALISM AND