Rights and Nationalism

Individuals have rights, but everywhere they are taken in the name of the nation.

In an era where many major countries are ruled by right-wing nationalists, individual rights have come under significant threat from nationalist groups purporting to act ‘in the best interests of the nation’.

Nationalism being a form of extremism stirs up the passions of the people to the extent that they will willingly give away their rights.

This combined with social pressure from those swayed by nationalism leaves any dissenters stifled in expression.

This has reached an extreme in many nations, where nationalist governments' curbs on civil liberties combined with a strong support base has effectively eliminated all dissent. So the masses are exposed only to a single point of view and increasingly favour it, starting a vicious cycle that gives the government a popular mandate for extreme actions, while opposing viewpoints are eliminated.

So here is a classic example of ‘hidden censorship’. Hidden censorship is when there appears to be freedom of expression but the government uses excuses like national security or sedition to censor content that does not match its view of things. The only prerequisites are sedition, national security or preventive detention laws. Then all the government has to do is whip up some nationalism and begin its nationalistic policies, particularly on foreign relations, disputes or migration policies. Once all the dissent is removed (in the best interests of the nation, of course) the only available viewpoint is government propaganda or content that supports it. There you have it, censorship in its true form but unnoticed by most.

In fact regimes with open curbs and censorship are freer than those with hidden ones. A false illusion of freedom of speech in a country can lead to more nationalism which worsens the above-mentioned cycle. In authoritarian regimes where it is public knowledge that whatever does not go well with the government will be curbed, the people know what they can do or say in public. They know the government gives them distorted information. They know there are little civil liberties to be had.

But in cases where it is hidden there is no limit to what they may ‘reasonably’ restrict in the name of the nation. In a country purporting to be a free democracy, most are of the opinion that there is freedom of speech. Because in a democracy the government is accountable to the people, citizens believe that it cannot misinform the public. Everyone begins to think the government’s propaganda is gospel truth, and the vicious cycle mentioned earlier begins. For similar levels of curbs in a democracy or a non-democracy, which can be said to be more open?

I’d say it is the latter. At least its people know what restrictions there are.

Thus the country becomes deprived of a very crucial viewpoint—the one advocating cooperation, peace and friendship. Nationalism has proved to be a leading cause of war; it has already killed over 200 million in major wars. It comes with a desire to have one’s nation grow in size, power or influence. Anyone advocating peace, cooperation or compromise does not fit in with this idea and their views are not allowed to surface.

When the passions of the people are excited with nationalism, there can be nothing but nationalism.

Countless innocent lives have been lost just because some people got all hyped up about their nation. Many atrocities which are curses on the name of humanity would never have been committed if not for nationalism.

Many countries provide for a state of emergency if the ‘nation’ comes under threat. Such provisions allow for the taking away of the citizens’ rights almost completely, yet they unquestioningly accept them as a necessity. As long as the people themselves are okay with their rights being subverted, there seems to be no problem at all. But history has taught humanity repeatedly that emergencies are a recipe for tyranny and despotism. So many countries claiming to be democracies provide fertile ground for un-democracy, all in the name of the nation.

The fourth problem comes up with sentiments associated with nationalism. Being part of one nation has to involve certain feelings for some other nations. You have a right to be a nationalist, and you have a right to feel any way about any country, but you have no right to punish or insult anyone for their view. How can belonging to one nation be fundamentally inconsistent with supporting another?

Well, to those who curb speech in the name of the nation, I say: It is my right to say what I want as much as it is yours to say what you want. My freedom is absolute, not to be curtailed by you in the name of national security. If you expect me to be proud of the nation I must have the freedom to criticize and insult it as well; a nation that allows you to take away my freedom has nothing to be proud of.

So we arrive at the fifth and the most worrying issue, one that makes nationalism inseparable from tyranny and despotism. When nationalism is used to curb rights, excuses like ‘national security’ and ‘the will of the nation’ are used. But the will of the nation is the will of the government. National security is the ruling government’s security. National interests are the government’s interests. To sum it up, the government is the nation.

And truly enough, at a time when much of the world is ruled by nationalists, many countries have experienced curbs on civil liberties. Nationalism by its very nature is incompatible with rights of freedom; its focus on the imagined and artificial idea of the nation is the greatest threat to individual rights.