Nationalism – A Boon or a Curse

What this session covered

This session was a moderated panel discussion in which three speakers, drawn from military, police and strategic-affairs backgrounds, examined whether nationalism is a boon or a curse. The opening statements framed nationalism in several ways: as both an attitude of attachment to national identity and the actions taken in its name; as a phenomenon bound up with the modern nation-state system; and as an imagined collective identity woven from language, culture, geography, religion and a shared past, which can take a liberal, accommodative form or an illiberal one that treats an "other" — whether a rival state or a minority within the nation — as the enemy.

A central thread of the discussion was the distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism was described as an individual sentiment of love for one's country, while nationalism was presented as a larger collective construct, and speakers warned that a demonstrative "hyper-nationalism" can be artificially whipped up by political actors and used against minorities, dissent or the liberties of others. The panellists explicitly disagreed on one question posed by the moderator: whether the destruction of religious places constitutes nationalism. Two speakers argued that such acts are fundamentalism or a misuse of the term rather than nationalism, while a third disagreed, contending that they represent majoritarian nationalism in action, directed against a religious minority by invoking a narrative of historical wrongs.

The discussion then ranged over related ground: the armed forces were described as mandated to remain apolitical, with their sacrifices not the monopoly of any political party; sport was cited as a benign and unifying expression of national feeling that operates outside the realm of politics; and a shared historical past was identified as a strong bond, though speakers voiced concern about history being rewritten to fit ideological narratives. On the press, speakers argued that it had lost much of its independence and was being used instrumentally. In closing, the panel's broad position was that nationalism is a boon when confined to unity, humanitarian values and the principles of the Constitution, and becomes a curse when hijacked into demonstrative, exclusionary forms for narrow political or sectarian ends.

Key points raised

• The panel distinguished patriotism, framed as an individual's love of country, from nationalism, framed as a collective imagined identity that can be turned to liberal or illiberal ends.
• Panellists explicitly disagreed over whether the destruction of religious places is nationalism: two speakers called it fundamentalism or a misuse of the term, while one argued it was majoritarian nationalism directed against a minority.
• Speakers warned that demonstrative hyper-nationalism can be artificially whipped up by political actors and directed against minorities, dissent or the liberties of others.
• Sport was cited as a benign expression of national feeling that unites the country outside the realm of politics, while the armed forces were described as mandated to remain apolitical.
• Speakers expressed concern that the press had lost much of its independence and that history was being rewritten to serve ideological narratives.
• The closing position was that nationalism is a boon when anchored in unity, humanitarian values and constitutional principles, and a curse when used to divide.