Nationalist specter raises its head in a crisis

By Makmur Keliat

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The writer is a teacher of political science at Airlangga University, Surabaya.