Nationalist specter raises its head in a crisis
<p>Nationalist specter raises its head in a crisis</p><p>By Makmur Keliat</p><p> SURABAYA (JP): Is it necessary for Indonesia not to endorse
the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) reform package because of
nationalistic reasons? Is nationalism an answer to our economic
turmoil? The answer seems inconclusive and to a large extent it
will be determined by how we define and put the idea into
practice.</p><p>Semantically, the term nationalism originated from the word
nation. The term nation itself, which is derived from the Latin
word nasci, meaning to be born, refers to a group of people who
identify with a state. According to Herbert M. Levine,
nationalism can be defined as an ideology in which a people,
irrespective of religion, race and class, feel they have more in
common with each other than they have with other people and give
their loyalty to a state. No one doubts, therefore, that
nationalism is of great importance to all countries. It is a
miracle force uniting diverse ethnic and tribal groups into a
larger political unit called a state.</p><p>It is common to hear people say proudly "I am Indonesian" or
"I am American" when they are out of their country. In this
context, it may not be an exaggeration to say that a sense of
nationalism has led them to feel dignified when mentioning the
name of their country.</p><p>It is important to note, however, that identifying with a
country does not merely imply a legality. It is not just a
confirmation of legally holding a passport issued by a
government. Of no less significance, it embodies an
anthropological notion, meaning that culturally and socially they
belong to Indonesia or the United States.</p><p>In the context of internationally recognized norms, the
anthropological perception seems more manifest and far stronger
than the legal one. This can be easily seen in the case of
refugees. For instance, it is wrong to say that people from
Myanmar who have illegally crossed the border into India or
Thailand are stateless or people without nationality.</p><p>Irrespective of the fact that they do not possess official
passports issued by the Myanmar government, they still culturally
and socially belong to the Myanmar people. By implication,
although the establishment of the state is a political gesture of
nationalism, it does not necessarily mean that the state itself
is identical with nationalism. It is easy to see why.</p><p>There is always a possibility that those who control the state
have misinterpreted the ideology of nationalism to the point of
causing social, political and economic calamity in their society.</p><p>Let us take an example from Nazi Germany. By equating
nationalism with people's boundless loyalty to the state and by
inculcating the idea that Germans were the super race, Hitler
established a fascist regime through which the state was seen as
more important than the individual.</p><p>It was through such a regime that Hitler turned the ideology
of nationalism into that of chauvinism, and provoked the country
to instigate World War II. This bitter experience, in turn, has
encouraged people not to believe in a political parlance saying
that "right or wrong, my country". The expression, initially
stated by American Admiral Stephen Decatur in 1816, has been
refuted and strongly criticized because it totally disregards the
aspect of morality in international relations.</p><p>If seen from a moral view point, there should be a clear-cut
definition of what kind of behavior is right and wrong, not only
in each government but also in the international community as a
whole. In other words, nationalism should also respect the canons
of internationally recognized norms in which right is right and
wrong is wrong. Otherwise, people could easily be trapped in a
sort of excessive nationalism to the point of seeing outsiders as
inferior, uncivilized and hostile. This does not mean to say that
nationalism has become redundant and superfluous.</p><p>There is no doubt that nationalism is more important for
developing countries than for developed countries. The reason
lies in the fact that their territorial jurisdictions are largely
based on maps drawn up by their former colonial masters. As a
result, most developing countries are diverse societies in terms
of religion, language and ethnicity.</p><p>This diversity makes many countries somewhat vulnerable to
political movements of separatism and irredentism. Since
nationalism derives its legitimacy from the assumption that a
nation is established not on the basis of religion, language or
ethnicity, but on the sense of belonging among a people, the
governments in developing countries should be encouraged to
cultivate a strong sense of nationalism in their citizenry.</p><p>Seen from this point of view, particularly when a state is
being overwhelmed by a crisis, an idea of revitalizing a strong
sense of nationalism seems a persuasive political idea. It could
be used positively by a government as a psychological bulwark
against foreign intervention.</p><p>As a saying goes, a good idea can be ruined by a bad advocate,
so nationalism can also be manipulated by a ruling government for
a hidden political agenda. For developing countries, it is not
difficult to trace the reason why this likelihood cannot be
underestimated. There have been plenty of cases of developing
countries, particularly in Latin American, showing the misuse of
nationalism by ruling elites to obscure their inability to manage
and resolve domestic economic problems.</p><p>Ranging from statements such as "we are a sovereign nation",
and "we do not want to be dictated to", to "our economic problems
have been created by external powers", some governments in Latin
America -- which in the 1980s was beset with an acute problem of
servicing its debts -- on occasions aired these kinds of
statements and blamed the IMF when they defaulted and asked for
moratoriums. There are strong reasons to believe, however, that
what they actually sought to achieve was to distract people's
attention from the real situation.</p><p>It should be noted that in most cases it was not the IMF that
caused the region's acute problems in servicing its debts. The
introduction of IMF economic reforms emphasizing belt-tightening
policies and market economies was largely a consequence of the
region's bad policies and wasteful spending. If the countries in
the region had not strongly believed in indebted
industrialization, the IMF would not have provided its financial
help and bitter economic prescriptions with high social costs.</p><p>Keeping this in mind, it sounds strange if a government which
has relied on indebted industrialization criticizes the IMF over
its economic reform package because of economic nationalism. The
logic, however, is not difficult to explain.</p><p>Indeed, since the very beginning, while implementing indebted
industrialization, such a government puts aside nationalism in
economic development. Moreover, it is not uncommon to find the
elite in developing countries, which have been indulged in the
building of beacon projects, spending part of the debt by taking
a holiday in foreign countries or even buying luxury goods.</p><p>With this situation, it would be fair to say that to criticize
the IMF's economic prescription because of nationalism would be
to formulate a nationalism with a double standard.</p><p>In other words, revitalizing nationalism is valuable but if
government leaders do not match their words with deeds, it could
lose its persuasiveness and become a white elephant. It would
only give birth to a form of pseudo nationalism in which the
supporters would be pseudo nationalists.</p><p> The writer is a teacher of political science at Airlangga
University, Surabaya.</p>
the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) reform package because of
nationalistic reasons? Is nationalism an answer to our economic
turmoil? The answer seems inconclusive and to a large extent it
will be determined by how we define and put the idea into
practice.</p><p>Semantically, the term nationalism originated from the word
nation. The term nation itself, which is derived from the Latin
word nasci, meaning to be born, refers to a group of people who
identify with a state. According to Herbert M. Levine,
nationalism can be defined as an ideology in which a people,
irrespective of religion, race and class, feel they have more in
common with each other than they have with other people and give
their loyalty to a state. No one doubts, therefore, that
nationalism is of great importance to all countries. It is a
miracle force uniting diverse ethnic and tribal groups into a
larger political unit called a state.</p><p>It is common to hear people say proudly "I am Indonesian" or
"I am American" when they are out of their country. In this
context, it may not be an exaggeration to say that a sense of
nationalism has led them to feel dignified when mentioning the
name of their country.</p><p>It is important to note, however, that identifying with a
country does not merely imply a legality. It is not just a
confirmation of legally holding a passport issued by a
government. Of no less significance, it embodies an
anthropological notion, meaning that culturally and socially they
belong to Indonesia or the United States.</p><p>In the context of internationally recognized norms, the
anthropological perception seems more manifest and far stronger
than the legal one. This can be easily seen in the case of
refugees. For instance, it is wrong to say that people from
Myanmar who have illegally crossed the border into India or
Thailand are stateless or people without nationality.</p><p>Irrespective of the fact that they do not possess official
passports issued by the Myanmar government, they still culturally
and socially belong to the Myanmar people. By implication,
although the establishment of the state is a political gesture of
nationalism, it does not necessarily mean that the state itself
is identical with nationalism. It is easy to see why.</p><p>There is always a possibility that those who control the state
have misinterpreted the ideology of nationalism to the point of
causing social, political and economic calamity in their society.</p><p>Let us take an example from Nazi Germany. By equating
nationalism with people's boundless loyalty to the state and by
inculcating the idea that Germans were the super race, Hitler
established a fascist regime through which the state was seen as
more important than the individual.</p><p>It was through such a regime that Hitler turned the ideology
of nationalism into that of chauvinism, and provoked the country
to instigate World War II. This bitter experience, in turn, has
encouraged people not to believe in a political parlance saying
that "right or wrong, my country". The expression, initially
stated by American Admiral Stephen Decatur in 1816, has been
refuted and strongly criticized because it totally disregards the
aspect of morality in international relations.</p><p>If seen from a moral view point, there should be a clear-cut
definition of what kind of behavior is right and wrong, not only
in each government but also in the international community as a
whole. In other words, nationalism should also respect the canons
of internationally recognized norms in which right is right and
wrong is wrong. Otherwise, people could easily be trapped in a
sort of excessive nationalism to the point of seeing outsiders as
inferior, uncivilized and hostile. This does not mean to say that
nationalism has become redundant and superfluous.</p><p>There is no doubt that nationalism is more important for
developing countries than for developed countries. The reason
lies in the fact that their territorial jurisdictions are largely
based on maps drawn up by their former colonial masters. As a
result, most developing countries are diverse societies in terms
of religion, language and ethnicity.</p><p>This diversity makes many countries somewhat vulnerable to
political movements of separatism and irredentism. Since
nationalism derives its legitimacy from the assumption that a
nation is established not on the basis of religion, language or
ethnicity, but on the sense of belonging among a people, the
governments in developing countries should be encouraged to
cultivate a strong sense of nationalism in their citizenry.</p><p>Seen from this point of view, particularly when a state is
being overwhelmed by a crisis, an idea of revitalizing a strong
sense of nationalism seems a persuasive political idea. It could
be used positively by a government as a psychological bulwark
against foreign intervention.</p><p>As a saying goes, a good idea can be ruined by a bad advocate,
so nationalism can also be manipulated by a ruling government for
a hidden political agenda. For developing countries, it is not
difficult to trace the reason why this likelihood cannot be
underestimated. There have been plenty of cases of developing
countries, particularly in Latin American, showing the misuse of
nationalism by ruling elites to obscure their inability to manage
and resolve domestic economic problems.</p><p>Ranging from statements such as "we are a sovereign nation",
and "we do not want to be dictated to", to "our economic problems
have been created by external powers", some governments in Latin
America -- which in the 1980s was beset with an acute problem of
servicing its debts -- on occasions aired these kinds of
statements and blamed the IMF when they defaulted and asked for
moratoriums. There are strong reasons to believe, however, that
what they actually sought to achieve was to distract people's
attention from the real situation.</p><p>It should be noted that in most cases it was not the IMF that
caused the region's acute problems in servicing its debts. The
introduction of IMF economic reforms emphasizing belt-tightening
policies and market economies was largely a consequence of the
region's bad policies and wasteful spending. If the countries in
the region had not strongly believed in indebted
industrialization, the IMF would not have provided its financial
help and bitter economic prescriptions with high social costs.</p><p>Keeping this in mind, it sounds strange if a government which
has relied on indebted industrialization criticizes the IMF over
its economic reform package because of economic nationalism. The
logic, however, is not difficult to explain.</p><p>Indeed, since the very beginning, while implementing indebted
industrialization, such a government puts aside nationalism in
economic development. Moreover, it is not uncommon to find the
elite in developing countries, which have been indulged in the
building of beacon projects, spending part of the debt by taking
a holiday in foreign countries or even buying luxury goods.</p><p>With this situation, it would be fair to say that to criticize
the IMF's economic prescription because of nationalism would be
to formulate a nationalism with a double standard.</p><p>In other words, revitalizing nationalism is valuable but if
government leaders do not match their words with deeds, it could
lose its persuasiveness and become a white elephant. It would
only give birth to a form of pseudo nationalism in which the
supporters would be pseudo nationalists.</p><p> The writer is a teacher of political science at Airlangga
University, Surabaya.</p>