In February 2014, European Boards Meeting took place in Lublin related to the topic of nationalism. This upcoming debate could be considered as a follow-up of the event since it is dealing with the pressing issue of relevance of nationalism in current world. We are all aware of interdependence of today’s economic relations, but that does not automatically mean we are so interdependent in other areas of our society (political, societal, environmental or cultural level). At this point, there is a room for a debate about the purpose of nation-states we live in. So, can they bring benefits to the people or they bring more harm than good? To tackle this question I am glad to welcome two speakers from the ranks of AEGEE – Mariia and Armin.

To start any debate one should define the terms that are key for understanding the debate and its complexion. Both speakers did this step to help their readers to grasp their reasons we can divide into two aspects. Firstly, there are reasons related to the political level. Mariia argues the benefits of nationalism are solidarity shared among vast group of people and dominant control of national territory. Armin shows the harm for current supranational political structures and possibility of civil unrests. Secondly, there are cultural reasons to either support or oppose the motion. Mariia speaks about preserving unique culture of the nation and providing good examples from the past people can follow. On the other hand, Armin argues for dangerous cultural exclusivity and diminishing of various cultures in such a heterogeneous community. Mariia, lastly, puts forward the idea of economic cohesion of the nation that helps the well-being of entire population.

As you can even see from such a short excerpt there are plenty of clashes in the debate you can discuss. I am looking forward to your reactions. Therefore, I wish you interesting reading without due delay. And also do not forget to vote which opinion you favour after the debate.

Affirmation speaker: Mariia Ponomareva (AEGEE-Kyiv)

Opposition speaker: Armin Weckmann (AEGEE-Darmstadt)

Ivan Bielik, Moderator of the debate

Defending the motion

Mariia Ponomareva, HR Responsible of AEGEE-Kyiv 2013/2014, graduated at National University of Theater, Cinema and Television, currently working as film director.

This delicate topic has a long story. But each story has started from the identification of main point – and according to the name – this topic is nation. First of all, I want to clarify what does it mean “nationalism” as for me. Nationalism – movement in society, which is powered by idea that one clarified nation have absolute rights and priority in some area or space. So if we are talking about nationalism we can find the forces of good nowadays and in history.

First of all, I think that nationalism can be a force of good because of effect of fastgathering people with patriotic idea together. During the changings in government, protest movements or demonstrations the nation can loose the way where to go or what to focus on. Especially if it is an idea, which is based on something that was grown with them from their childhood – their language, cultural aspect and so on. One voice, strong idea can gather people and make their eyes to see somewhere together. For sure these people can be aggressive and not polite, but with their power they can save the territory. Talking about our days the Maidan situation in Ukraine can be an example of fast and powerful reaction of the masses, which happened not without ideas of nationalism.

Second point – grounding and saving regional cultural exclusivity and ethnoidentification. Good example for this point is Latvia – small country which small population is mostly Latvian – is having a crisis of migration to Great Britain and Germany. So nationalism can be a force which can start a dialogue about national values, grounding in motherland area and keeping this small nation together.

Third – nationalism can be a way to the economic miracle – when people are ready for everything as revanchists. Germany start of 30^th of XX century. The country wanted revenge. The country was renovated after 1^st WW in very short terms.  And nationalism was the main fuel in the mechanism of economic revival. For sure it is also controversial – because they made something worthier – but if they wouldn’t stopped in time – maybe they will be more strong country than USA now.

Fourth – promoting human skills and special type of character to keep the glory of nation. Example of USA can be good here: the brave and powerful patriot – this stereotype about American man they built long time ago, but nationalism is a power, which keeps it still strong. And lot of people can attach the feeling with the whole nation – which is for sure good. On the other hand – it can be used in building strong future symbols as avoid to splitting the country.

Russian aspect in this situation is also quite controversial. But also nationalism can avoid to the splitting of the Russian Federation. The myth about Russian Man is a gathering symbol in such a multinational country with a huge distances and bad communication and low level of the understanding between national groups. Yes, small nations are assimilating very fast and it is not good, but the joining to the majority and identifying themselves with the national myth for this people is also the way to become stronger.

Fifth – migration control. Nationalism can be a good force to avoid the over-migration and total national mixing. Switzerland – is multicultural country with lot of migrants. And the awareness of overfilling the area is also a way to more clear system of checking people, who wants to live there. Also according to local laws – they try to check the people who will stay and make cultural tests about the country for them, which is also step in education for the majority of them.

All in all, nationalism can be a force of good or be a force of bad things – nobody will not disagree that it is a force. Big force, which people of the Earth have to use carefully.

Opposing the motion

Armin Weckmann, member of AEGEE-Darmstadt, currently doing PhD studies in Plasma Physics in Stockholm, Sweden.

For outlining my arguments I shall begin with distinguishing between two kinds of Nationalism, the “inclusive” and the “exclusive” form. The first one describes a political motion striving for inclusion of all its different peoples and social groups in one political body, the nation. The second one means the elevation of the nation as such above other classifications, accompanied by exclusion of those who either do not or can not fulfil the criteria associated with the nation.

One may identify the first kind as the “good” one and the second as the “bad” one. However, in reality nationalism tends to have characteristics of both kinds, hence fostering nationalism as such may give rise to both good and bad side effects – whatever one defines as “good” or “bad” about nationalism.

Problems specifically accompanied with the inclusive form:

Most nations have a heterogeneous population – some of them do not identify themselves with the nation as such. These may be minorities fearing for their cultural identity getting lost, cosmopolitans not seeing benefits of being associated with one nation or outsiders refusing to fit into society or predefined patterns in general. N.B.: These people do not necessarily need to be hostile against a national identity but rather choose to stand outside it. Including them into a nation against their will may result in resentment and is an act of disrespect.

Another argument is that national thinking can be hindering for supranational politics as we can experience it during the Euro crisis – thinking “out of the box” may be better for the well-being of the European majority (discussing this comprehensively is a matter for another debate). Apart from this, supranational structures may be more reliable for preserving national interests, if acknowledged by or articulated with other nations; structures such as the EU, NAFTA, AU and UNASUR result in this idea (whether they fulfil it adequately is, again, beyond the scope of this debate).

Problems specifically accompanied by the exclusive form:

Forging a nation in a specific shape and disregarding those who either do not obey it or cannot fulfil it will most presumably lead to civil unrest. Examples can be extracted from the history of most nations – just a small collection of recent activities: China (Tibet conflict), Turkey (Gezi protest), Ukraine (Euromaidan). All of them are caused by the clash between national interests introduced from political leaders and visions of a disregarded part of the national society, in cultural, ecological or political manner (often at least two of them are intertwined). It is worth mentioning that the definition of “national interests” can vary greatly between different parts of societies, which in itself already can fuel a conflict before actions even take place. The exclusive form of nationalism thus already bears the seed of conflict.

Furthermore, it may disdain human rights of those who do not agree on a certain definition of a nation, which holds for the three mentioned examples.

Nevertheless nationalism (especially the inclusive form) may have positive effects for the majority of a nation, hence the statement at the very beginning cannot be completely falsified. However, following the arguments given above nationalism is an obstruction for political well-being on the long run and should therefore not be suggested as a guideline for national politics, both for the benefit of national and international interests.