|
Part of the Global Pie: How Nationalist Parties are
Making Use of Globalisation
Traditional thinking holds that nationalism and
globalisation are incompatible. Yet, some nationalist
parties, e.g. the
Parti Québécois and the Scottish Nationalist Party,
are making full use of globalising processes to press
their case for independence.
By Nicolas Levy
Globalisation has arguably been one of the most
transformative political phenomena since the end of the
Cold War. Common usage of this idea typically holds that
economic and social processes will lead to a new
political order, in which nation-states no longer serve
as the main actors in world affairs, and that
nationalism, the political desire to possess a
nation-state, will decline with their diminished
relevance. Yet, nationalism continues to serve as a
primary principle for political organisation; heated
debate in countries such as Canada, the UK, Spain, and
Belgium are visible reminders of that. This begs the
question: how has nationalism managed to remain relevant
at a time when political loyalties are supposed to be
shifting beyond the confines of the nation? The answer
to this question may reveal future nationalist
challenges to the existing world order.
To explore these themes, consideration of two terms that
are notoriously difficult to define – nationalism and
globalisation – must be explicitly delineated. For the
purposes of this article, the examination of nationalism
will be limited to regions and political parties that
desire to secede from a pre-existing state, as this
represents a tangible and significant challenge to the
current order of states. Globalisation, meanwhile, will
be defined as the processes that undermine state
sovereignty on key areas of governance – and states’
increasing reliance on international and supranational
organisations to retain influence in these areas. This
article claims that, far from the assertion that
globalisation is incompatible with political
nationalism, some nationalist parties – including the
Parti Québécois and the Scottish Nationalist Party –
have found a way to embrace globalisation in a way that
supports their nationalist goals.
Nation-less Worlds and Stateless Nations: Theories on
Nationalism and Globalisation
Most of the scholarship to date maintains that
globalisation and nationalism are incompatible, for a
variety of reasons. One school of thought holds that
transnational forces will simply make nationalism
irrelevant. Claiming that not even the most powerful
countries can operate independently in a globalised
economy, the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm argues that
the world is moving toward a new global order: “[The
history of the world] will see ‘nation-states’ and
‘nations’ or ethnic/linguistic groups primarily as
retreating before, resisting, adapting to, being
absorbed or dislocated by the new supranational
restructuring of the globe.”[1] While Hobsbawm does not
go so far as to deny the emotional tug of national
cultures and languages, he asserts that these elements
will no longer serve as an effective “glue” around which
to organise people politically.
A more nuanced line of argument, advanced by the
political scientist Michael Keating, also claims that
nationalists must contend with the reduced autonomy of
the nation-state they hope to create. However, Keating
notes that nationalist movements are turning to existing
state, continental, and global organizations to
accomplish their policy objectives and shifting away
from their traditional goal of independence.[2]
Keating’s assertion, if true, represents a veritable
shift in nationalist politics: partisans of an ideology
that centers on claiming independence for a particular
ethnic group or region are now moderating that claim, if
not entirely abandoning it, in response to the effects
of globalisation. While Keating acknowledges that
hard-line nationalists will always demand full
independence, he argues that they are increasingly
marginalised. Furthermore, to the extent that
globalisation factors into the case for independence, it
does so passively, to argue that the economic costs of
seceding are reduced if the proposed state can join a
regional free market.
Hobsbawm’s and Keating’s arguments share the underlying
assumption that globalisation, in eroding state
sovereignty, eventually will root out nationalism, at
least as it is traditionally defined. Keating differs
from Hobsbawm in claiming that nationalists are
embracing globalised forms of government (Hobsbawm
predicted that nationalists would “retreat” from or
“resist” them, among other things), but still maintains
that in doing so, they effectively renounce their
original demand for independence. Yet, case studies
involving the Parti Québécois and the Scottish
Nationalist Party indicate that not only have they
demonstrated enthusiasm for certain forms of
globalisation, they have also developed strategies that
make use of this enthusiasm to simultaneously pursue
their projects for independence.
Muzzling the Messenger: The Parti Québécois and
UNESCO
The Parti Québécois (PQ), a politically-viable
nationalist party dedicated to ultimately achieving
independence for the Canadian province of Québec,
represents the type of political organisation that
Hobsbawm might predict would resort to isolationism in
an effort to resist globalising processes. In recent
years, however, the PQ has acknowledged the importance
of globalisation in world affairs and asserts that
achieving independence is a necessary response to the
changes it brings. In an electoral manifesto from 2007,
for example, the PQ states that “the acceleration of
globalisation spurs nations to acquire sovereignty in
order to defend their interests and their vision of the
world.”[3] This is an active argument linking
globalisation and nationalism: instead of simply
claiming that globalisation make an independent state
more viable, it states that globalisation increases the
costs of not having an independent state.
In developing this line of reasoning, the PQ has begun
working with international organisations, especially
UNESCO, in order to gain access to a globalising world.
During the time when the PQ held a majority in Québec’s
Assemblée Nationale, its diplomats took a lead
role in helping to negotiate the UNESCO Convention on
the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of
Cultural Expressions, which excludes cultural products
(e.g. films, music, etc.) from free-trade agreements.
Though the PQ welcomed its ratification, it decried the
fact that Québec, not being a nation-state, could not
actively participate in UNESCO’s efforts to implement
the treaty. This became an acute problem in 2003, when
the PQ accused the Canadian government of “muzzling” a
representative of the Québécois government at a UNESCO
meeting in Paris, where a delegation from Québec had
accompanied Canadian diplomats and expected to make a
prepared statement, but instead was prevented from doing
so.[4]
PQ MPs pounced on this issue to demand independent
representation for Québec at UNESCO so that it would no
longer be at the mercy of the Canadian government.
Responding to this pressure, the Canadian government
negotiated an agreement with the Québec Liberal Party,
under which Québécois representatives could express a
dissenting view at future UNESCO meetings, but would
still be part of a Canadian delegation. For the PQ, this
agreement did not go far enough, and it made
representation at UNESCO an issue during the past
election season: “The accession of Québec to
independence will end such limits and will allow Québec
to truly make its voice heard, both at UNESCO and at the
[implementation] Committee to which it will seek to be
elected at the first opportunity.”[5] In this way, the
PQ framed the UNESCO issue as one in which Québec was
being denied access to an international organisation
that dealt with a key competency – cultural policy –
affected by transnational forces. By emphasizing the
need to exert influence at UNESCO to achieve its goals,
the PQ acknowledges that there is a limit to what it can
do at the state (or provincial) level. However, this
does not lessen the PQ’s emphasis on achieving
independence; in fact, independence is seen as a
necessary step to gaining influence in a globalised
world. Nationalism and globalisation in this case are
linked in a mutually-reinforcing relationship.
Fishing for Votes: The SNP and the EU’s Fisheries Policy
Like the PQ, the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) is a
nationalist party that advocates for independence (in
its case, independence from the United Kingdom) and is
politically viable, currently presiding over a minority
government in the Scottish Parliament. The SNP has also
adopted a similar approach to globalisation as its
nationalist counterpart in Québec by advocating for
independence as a key to gaining representation in a
globalised political system, primarily focusing on the
European Union. Adopting a policy of “Independence in
Europe”, SNP campaigns have sought to convince voters
that voting for the SNP, and ultimately for independence
from the U.K., will enable Scottish interests to be
better represented at the EU level. SNP manifestos cite,
among other claims, that an independent Scotland would
be able to double its representatives at the European
Parliament, gain seven votes at the Council of Ministers
(currently it has none), and be able to nominate a
European Commissioner. This would allow Scotland to
focus on issues such as Scottish fishing rights, which
the SNP claims have been neglected by U.K.
representatives in Europe.[6]
In fact, the SNP has sought to exploit its inability to
affect EU fishing regulations in much the same way that
the PQ did with UNESCO and trade policies on cultural
products. Noting that Scotland accounts for
approximately 70 pct of Britain’s fishing industry, SNP
leader Alex Salmond proposed that Scotland take the lead
in developing and representing the U.K.’s position in
the 2007 fisheries negotiations at the European Council
of Ministers. “It is time for Scotland to take more
responsibility in the world we share,” proclaimed
Salmond, “and to offer the insight and leadership of a
nation keen to embrace the possibility that working with
the European Union offers.”[7] When Salmond’s
proposition was refused by the U.K., the SNP raised
Scotland’s relative impotence on a key economic concern
as an election concern, proclaiming it a “red-line
issue” for the party. As a solution, the SNP offered
that “an independent government will be able to give
priority to areas which are currently being neglected by
British representatives in the EU, not least the
Scottish fishing industry.”[8] In this fashion, the SNP
used the issue of representation at the EU to refine its
case for independence, much as the PQ did with UNESCO.
There is another interesting aspect to the SNP rhetoric
on the issue of representation in the EU, which suggests
yet another type of relationship between globalisation
and nationalism. That Salmond couched his rhetoric in
terms of Scotland offering its “insight and leadership”
to the EU is no accident; rather, it represents a wider
effort by the SNP to redefine Scottish identity so that
it includes an internationalist disposition. Consistent
with its social-democratic politics, it declares that:
The SNP wants to see Scotland as an enlightened,
outward-looking country, with its own role to play in
working for increased international co-operation,
particularly in standing up for the rights of the
developing world… this would be another opportunity for
Scotland to act in the wider international good.[9]
By carving an internationalist niche for Scotland and
recognising its responsibilities to other nations, the
SNP appears to be transforming the notion of Scottish
identity to fit a globalised world, and making the case
that independence is necessary to fully assume this
identity. It strikes a path far removed from Hobsbawm’s
prediction of nations retreating from or resisting a new
global order.
A New Nationalist Challenge?
The cases of the PQ and SNP demonstrate that
nationalist parties are reshaping their arguments for
independence in terms of the ability to access to
international and supranational organisations. While
this demand still represents a small part of nationalist
party platforms – which continue to be dominated by
traditional issues such as taxation policies and control
over the education system – it has the potential to grow
in importance as globalisation continues to shift the
administration of key competencies “upwards” such that
states cannot independently govern them. If the state’s
capacity for autonomous action continues to be
challenged by transnational forces, then nationalist
regions can only be expected to grow louder in their
demands for access to the types of organisations that
will allow them to retain influence over these forces.
Rather than retreating into isolationism, as
Hobsbawm predicts, or abandoning their mission of
independence, as Keating claims, the PQ and SNP have
sought to engage globalising processes in a way that
bolsters their respective nationalist claims.
Admittedly, not all nationalist regions are sounding a
renewed alarm for independence via an embrace of
globalisation. Catalonia serves as a notable example in
which the primary nationalist party, Convergència i
Unió, seeks representation at the EU without
demanding independence, often participating in governing
coalitions in the Spanish Cortes – thereby
supporting Keating’s argument. And many
nationalist movements in non-OECD countries, as in the
case of Serbia and Kosovo, seem far removed from
reconciling globalisation with nationalism, providing
fodder for Hobsbawm’s argument (although at least one
interesting study has demonstrated that Hungarian
nationalists are making use of European integration to
bolster its relations with co-ethnics in neighbouring
countries [10]).
Still, the cases in Québec and Scotland demonstrate that
while globalisation has operated at odds with some
nationalist movements, another response exists in which
nationalists wish to participate in globalised forms of
government and use this to further their case for
independence. One potential solution to this growing
challenge may be to create a sort of “participating
government” status for nationalist regions in certain
organisations of special interest to them, much like the
Canadian provinces of Québec and New Brunswick enjoy
independent representation in La Francophonie.[11]
Though this might be used by some nationalists as a
building block for eventual secession, it would at once
satisfy nationalist demands for inclusion in global
discussions without requiring independence from the
federal state. On the whole, the benefit of heading off
a potentially significant and electorally-resonant row
over the desire of nationalist regions to make their
voice heard globally might outweigh concerns of
emboldening nationalists to push for more. In any event,
what is clear is that the outmoded thinking that sees
nationalism and globalisation as antagonistic forces
must be updated to allow for new relationships. For
nationalist parties are increasingly recognising the
wisdom in the comments of Estonian Foreign Minister
Kristiina Ojuland, as cited by an SNP manifesto: “…we
will take every opportunity to influence events because
if we do not we will be just as affected by them, and
have things done to us instead of playing our part in
shaping events and preparing for them.”[12]
References
[1]
E.J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism (Cambridge
University Press, 1990), p. 191.
[2] M. Keating, “Stateless nation-building: Quebec,
Catalonia, and Scotland in the changing state system,”
Nations and Nationalism 3(4), 1997, pp. 694-695.
[3] “Un Québec en marche,” Parti Québécois document,
adopted 20 October 2007.
[4] “Conférence générale de l’UNESCO,” Transcript from
the Assemblée Nationale, 1 December 2003.
[5] D. Turp, M. Malavoy, and P. Curzi, “Le Parti
Québécois et l’entrée en vigeur de la Convention de
l’UNESCO sur la diversité des expressions culturelles,”
PQ Comminqué, 18 March 2007. Available WWW: <http://www.danielturp.org/communiques/mars/
Communique_2007-03-18_a.pdf>. Accessed 16 March 2008.
[6] “Will Scotland get a better deal out of the EU with
Independence?” SNP Communiqué. Available WWW: <http://www.snp.org/independence/questions/europeandtheworld/
betterdeal>. Accessed 18 March 2008.
[7] A. Massie, “Salmond fishing for a bigger prize,” The
(London) Sunday Times, 15 July 2007, Features p. 16.
[8] “Will Scotland get a better deal out of the EU with
Independence?”
[9] “How will Scotland’s place in the world change?” SNP
Communiqué. Available WWW: <http://www.snp.org/independence/questions/europeandtheworld/inworld/>.
Accessed 20 March 2008.
[10] Z. Csergo and J. M. Goldgeier, “Nationalist
Strategies and European Integration,” Perspectives on
Politics 2(1), March 2004: 21-37.
[11] Organisation international de la francophonie,
Available WWW: <http://www.francophonie.org/oif/membres.cfm>.
Accessed 20 March 2008.
[12] “Will Scotland get a better deal out of the EU with
Independence?”
|
