Nationalism has had a complex relation with the discipline of political theory during the 20th century. Political theory has often been deeply uneasy with nationalism in relation to its role in the events leading up to and during the Second World War. Many theorists saw nationalism as an overly narrow and potentially irrationalist doctrine. In essence it embodied a closed vision of the world. This paper focuses on one key contributor to the immediate post-war debate—Karl Popper—who retained deep misgivings about nationalism until the end of his life, and indeed saw the events of the early 1990s (shortly before his death) as a confirmation of this distrust. Popper was one of a number of immediate post war writers, such as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, who shared this unease with nationalism. They all had a powerful effect on social and political thought in the English-speaking world. Popper particularly articulated a deeply influential perspective which fortuitously encapsulated a cold war mentality in the 1950s. In 2005 Popper’s critical views are doubly interesting, since the last decade has seen a renaissance of nationalist interests. The collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989, and the changing political landscape of international and domestic politics, has seen once again a massive growth of interest in nationalism, particularly from liberal political theorists and a growing, and, at times, immensely enthusiastic academic literature, trying to provide a distinctively benign benediction to nationalism.
While the rise of populism in Western Europe over the past three decades has received a great deal of attention in the academic and popular literature, less attention has been paid to the rise of its opposite— anti-populism. This short article examines the discursive and stylistic dimensions of the construction and maintenance of the populism/anti-populism divide in Western Europe, paying particular attention to how anti-populists seek to discredit populist leaders, parties and followers. It argues that this divide is increasingly antagonistic, with both sides of the divide putting forward extremely different conceptions of how democracy should operate in the Western European political landscape: one radical and popular, the other liberal. It closes by suggesting that what is subsumed and feared under the label of the “populist threat” to democracy in Western Europe today is less about populism than nationalism and nativism.
From Consociationalism to Deliberation?
nationalism movement, took control over the state in 1963. Saddam Hussein came to power as president in 1979. Shias, despite being a majority in the country, were politically marginalized from the beginning of the existence of the state of Iraq. They were
Kin: Nationalism, Democracy, and the Boundary Problem .” American Political Science Review 106 ( 4 ): 867 – 882 . 10.1017/S0003055412000421 Beckman , Ludvig . 2009 . The Frontiers of Democracy: the Right to Vote and Its Limits . Palgrave
Vincent’s book Nationalism and Particularity ( 2002: 4 ), where he points out that “the communal and tribal fragmentations of, for example, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Indonesia and Rwanda are not preferable forms of social existence. They are rather
A Letter to Jan Zielonka
; Aamulehti , 25 February 2018). Reporting an incident of this nature certainly represents an act of banal nationalism (with no mechanism of exclusion, though), but it can nonetheless be a force for good: striving for normality, for normal “Finnish” life
that Macdonald is right: this really is the future for a global democracy. It is important to underline just how dramatic Macdonald’s step is, however. Both scholars and politicians, after all, have always underestimated the strength of nationalism
Paul Apostolidis, William E. Connolly, Jodi Dean, Jade Schiff, and Romand Coles
, too, are struggles against racism and xenophobic nationalism, movements to rearticulate human-nonhuman relationships and religious differences, efforts to queer gender and sexuality practices, and more. Generating assemblages of power in this context
Nancy S. Love, Sanford F. Schram, Anthony J. Langlois, Luis Cabrera, and Carol C. Gould
decision processes. REFERENCES Abizadeh , Arash . 2012 . “ On the Demos and Its Kin: Nationalism, Democracy, and the Boundary Problem .” American Political Science Review 106 ( 4 ): 867 – 882 . 10.1017/S0003055412000421 Cabrera , Luis . 2004
Against Functional and Global Solutions to the Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory
Miller , David . 2010 . “ Against Global Democracy .” In After the Nation: Critical Reflections on Post-Nationalism , ed. Keith Breen and Shane O'Neill , 141 – 160 . London : Palgrave Macmillan . 10.1057/9780230293175_8 Näsström , Sofia