Part of the Global Pie

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’sAssemblée 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

comments