Public Address - Club Politique (Home)

Metics Seven | Sep 21, 2005 21:23

As I suggested the other day, this idea of the nation is predicated on some kind of mutual acceptance of belonging, one that reinforces our relationship to one another by recognition that we each share a non-quantifiable 'something' that makes us what we say we are.

It hasn't always been this way of course. The old version of nationalism, the kind that gave rise to National Socialism, or contributed to the tragedies of the Balkans, is centred on a much more narrow imagining of 'the nation'. More often than not, when you hear people talking, or ranting, about the 'evils of nationalism', they're talking about a kind of nationalism based on quite exclusive variables, like family. What really distinguishes old-school nations is this idea of 'blood' as the primary means of determining membership.

So, if you live in a nation-state where citizenship is mostly determined by descent, then not being a citizen is pretty easy to figure out. Was my mum/dad a citizen? No? Then I'm not a citizen.

But modern nations don't work like that, in places like the USA and Australia, both world leaders in inclusive citizenship, pretty much anyone can become a citizen if they meet certain arbitrary requirements. And this is the old melting pot idea.

So there you have two types of nation. One sourced in descent, another in a kind of 'rubber-stamped' citizenship. Both however experience nationalism, and both experience nation-building. Without nation-building, the differences of the myriad persons introduced to migrant nation-states would eventually result in social collapse, and nationalism is the ideology that underpins the process.

In itself, nationalism isn't a problem. But when harnessed to other types of social or political phenomena, such as racism, or authoritarianism, then it becomes something else altogether.

What both types of nation, and any variant of the two you might care to uncover, have in common is this the type of mutual authentication we talked about in Metics Six. Sometimes, in historic periods of stress for example, this mutual authentication is openly exploited by leaders for political or military ends. Appeals to 'real' citizens, or against 'false' or impure citizens, are not unusual in many nation-states.

I'd like to argue that having this type of affiliation between citizens is actually a good thing though, while exploitation of patriotism, racial identity, or nationalityto negative ends is not.

Anyhow, between members of a nation there are more interesting dynamics that occur, and which go will eventually go a long way to explaining why leaders can exploit nationalism to achieve 'bad' things.

It's not enough, it seems, to be able to claim belonging to somewhere. Pretty much anyone can do that. The Briton we spoke of last time may well have lived in New Zealand for twenty years, and although he hasn't lost his accent, has come to feel very much at home here, and it's only the parochialism of New Zealanders that prevents him from being a 'real' Kiwi.

This feeling is called 'homely belonging', and is very different to 'governmental belonging', the idea that your feeling of being at home somewhere can be translated into authentic political power. It's a crucial difference that is often overlooked in the study of nationalism.

When I deny our British friend authentication as a 'real' New Zealander, I am in effect denying him membership in the 'real' nation. Sure, he's a New Zealander, he has citizenship and feels at home here, but he chances are that he'll be denied the right to state what does and doesn't 'go' politically.

Now, I can hear you saying that this is drawing a long bow. There have been many political figures in New Zealand who have also been British, be it English, Scots, Welsh, Irish. And sure, I accept that. But, how many Ethiopians? Samoans? Germans? Chinese? Indians? The list goes on.

The trick in this case is that because of New Zealand's history, Britons almost automatically carry a degree of governmental belonging. Many other groups however do not.

Despite this exception to the rule, the rule does stand. There is a group called 'New Zealanders', who are citizens of New Zealand and therefore nationals. But within this all-encompassing group is another group, one that holds the right to govern, and the right to determine who is, and who is not, a 'real' New Zealander.

Naturally, I can hear conspiracy theories ticking over, but the content of how and why that group is couched there as 'the boss', is another matter, for another day.

Digg this Scoopit!

Tired Old Warhorses | Sep 19, 2005 17:12

Noticing this afternoon that none of the other PA bloggers had gotten in to do an election post-mortem I thought I'd put my hand up. Naturally there's no government yet, but there are still perhaps some lessons to be gleaned from the results as they stand.

Number one is Hide. Personally, I can't stand the guy. His politics are anathema to me, and I sincerely hoped to be dancing a little dance of victory on his grave on Sunday morning.

But Rodney, here's to you mate, full respect for battling it out to the bitter end, whether you won or not. And the fact you did win that seat, despite National doing their best to pull the rug out from under you, deserves admiration. So let's all raise a glass to Rodney, a winner without having to muck-rake his opponent.

Otherwise, National's vault in the polls and their huge increase in public attention from 2002 requires a little thought. So here's No Right Turn doing just that. He has a few good links there too.

Personally though, what interested me on Saturday night was a concern about what the result means for the centre right. The impression I got was this. Imagine your traditional left-right spectrum, red on the left, blue on the right. In its bid for votes, Labour kind of anchored itself out on the left near its own extreme fringe, the Greens, and then stretched inwards to pick up votes in centre/undecideds territory. National on the other hand more or less tried to anchor itself in 'the centre' with a plea to 'mainstream New Zealand', and stretched itself out to also encompass as many votes as possible over on the far right.

The result is obvious of course, the decimation of ACT and the gaining of as many NZ First votes as possible as well. This decimation is obvious in the relative stability of Labour's share of the votes compared to Nationals. Those votes must have come from somewhere after all.

Naturally, there are more explanations for the poor showing of the minor parties of the right, and even of United Future, than just the deliberate cannibalism National conducted, but the type of appeals National used remain pivotal.

What I'm looking forward to seeing is a break-down of what attracted voters back to National. Was it the all the Treaty-bashing? Was it the promise of more money? Was it the appeal to the middle ground, even though this was little more than National deliberately trying to establish that ground itself, and to then drag the entire electorate rightwards to where it felt more comfortable.

I know I'm more or less interviewing my PC here, but the question remains, why?

The right's agenda in this election hasn't really been clear. Other than as a series of more or less naked appeals to at times converse prejudices and attractions, there wasn't really an obvious representation of 'what they stood for'.

Yes, there was a lot of 'we're sick of this government, and so are you' information being pushed onto the electorate, a glimmer of the old neo-right agenda of privatisation, and the big one of 'low taxation', but you have to ask, what purpose did it serve?

There's still the outside chance that National will form a Government of course, the slim majority I alluded to last week, but if they do occupy the Treasury benches there's every chance it won't be for long.

Of course, on the other hand, considering the kind of coalition Labour is going to have to put together, you can guarantee this isn't won't be a term of highly controversial legislation. The kind that got them in this pickle in the first place that is.

Again, I'm looking forward to seeing if it was just the disgruntlement factor of policies involving Treaty-bashing or 'social engineering' that actually drew votes, or whether undecideds actually voted for Nationals more ideological policies like tax cuts, and why they were considered relevant.

And this is because I'm beginning to think that we could just have seen the last roll of the dice for the old neo-right agenda afflicting us during the 80s and 90s. I mean, where the hell else do they have to go? If their remaining idea is to drag us all out towards the lunatic fringe of the right, a set of people with absolutely no idea about society and culture, the things that give a nation-state meaning, then what do they have to offer the centre, the real mainstream?

Like the group Clark spoke to in her victory speech, the mainstream in New Zealand is broader than what the far right wants it to be. If 'social engineering' means recognising New Zealand for what it is, and not what an elite would like it to be, then that's all good.

It should be an interesting few weeks of waiting.

Digg this Scoopit!