The Democratic Nation as the cure for the fascism of the nation-state.
Compiled from the Prison Writings of Abdullah Öcalan
There have been many analyses of fascism, but all the definitions –whether made by the Marxists, liberals, conservatives, or anarchists– have been misleading. None of them had the intention or the power to explain what really happened. The magnificent intellectuals of the Jews, the victims of the Holocaust, also contributed to this misunderstanding. This is because Hitler was the result of everyone’s collective intellectual dirt and political praxis. But, of course, who is to acknowledge this?
Nation-state and fascism are similar in their essence. To define fascism to be an exception that has externally imposed itself on capitalism is the biggest misery of the liberal and socialist intellectuals. Capitalism, in terms of being the civilization and state, is the systematic expression of keeping the nation-state, and therefore fascism, at hand at all times. Fascism is the norm. What is an exception is reaching a compromise with democratic structures.
The Phenomenon of Nation and its Development
It is more meaningful to talk about different types of nations instead of a single type of nation. This will make it possible to talk about nations that have been constructed on different bases. It is instructive to consider a general social phenomenon when trying to render meaning to the category of nations. The paramount question for all clans and communities is one of entity: What kind of society or community am I? It is an inquiry into its own identity. Just as every person has a name and identity, it is possible and necessary to talk about a name and identity for all communities. If there are social phenomena based on differing natures, then it is only natural that they will have an expression of their identity. Name and identity are important for different clan societies to have interaction. Besides, it is absurd to think that all the developments in science and society that have advanced human life and established communication could have happened without naming one’s unique features and not have an epithet.
It is of course possible to be multilingual, multicultural, and to have a plurality of political and legal systems. In this huge network of relations, yet again, a name and an identity are a must. There can be a bilingual and bi-cultural nation, but this does not remove the need for designation and an identity. Multiple identities and diversities require the correct choice of methods of coexistence. Indeed, societies can neither emerge nor be governed in any other way.
The spread of Christianity in the European Middle Ages was intertwined largely with the development of the awareness of being a people. In their previous tribal communities, just as with Arabic and Turkish tribes, the consciousness of being a people from a common background was very weak. Before modernity, Christianity was a factor that objectively raised this awareness. It did not designate these societies to be French or German, but a shared religious consciousness in all these tribes was a huge step towards the development of a people with a common identity. The second step was the political development of the formation of kingdoms. So, after development of a common religion, the formation of the tribes into a mutual kingdom is the final big step into becoming a nation. France is a typical example of this process.
The development of the market results in the increase of social relations; the birth of the nation is near.
Nationhood is therefore the sum of social relations that develop around tribal consciousness, religious consciousness, common political authority, and the market. It may be more meaningful to talk about a nation-society. Becoming a nation is not the same as becoming a state. For example, even though the French kingdom was destroyed, the French nation continued to exist. It may be instructive to describe being a nation as a community that is unified by language and culture. But it is both a narrow and an inadequate definition to say that language and culture alone determine what a nation is. These of course are not the only bases for being a nation; politics, law, revolution, arts-especially literature and music-and market economy all play their role in becoming a nation. Nationhood has no direct relationship with economic and political systems, although they may be mutually influential. It is a very ambiguous matter, and thus any analysis in this regard should be done in a sensitive and balanced way.
The majority of today’s communities have become nations. Although there are marginal groups that have not become nations, the majority now are nation societies. It is almost as if there is no individual without a nation – belonging to a nation may even be considered a natural social state. But in the long history of civilization being a nation has never, before the onset of the capitalist system, acquired such importance. Or, rather, what has been done in the name of nation has prepared the ground for terrible catastrophes.
An excessive emphasis on the elements that constitute a nation has created disaster.
The most important factor in the formation of nationalist ideologies is the link between nation and politics. Nationalist politics will always end in fascist rule (as will nationalism fueled by economy, religion, and literature). The capitalist monopoly has “over-nationalized” the elements contributing to nation forming, such as politics, economy, religion, law, arts, sports, diplomacy, and patriotism in order to attain a systemic unity in the name of resolving the crises. Thus, every nation thinks that it will be the strongest of all by not leaving a single social entity out of the power relations. The results have been terrible with a bloodbath in Europe and eventually two world wars that had historically unprecedented consequences. This is not an act of becoming a nation but one of turning nation into a religion: the religion of nationalism. From a sociological perspective nationalism is a religion.
This society is worse off than a possessed society; it can be administered as the system desires. In fact, the initial experimental society of the spectacle of fascism has not failed – the ringleaders have been eliminated. But during and after the Cold War, the system made the society of the spectacle dominant over all societies via nation-states and global financial firms. The current material and immaterial conquest of societies by capitalism far exceeds that of mighty empires such as those of the Sumerians, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, and Romans. Clearly, the empire phase of capitalism (previous phases being colonialism and imperialism) is the height of its hegemony. Although this phase objectively carries chaotic aspects and show signs that it experiences intense decay, the capitalist system aims to compensate for the effects of decay by deepening the hegemony of the mind.
The Democratic Nation Model
The most beneficial model for a nation is democratic nation. It is very important to understand this: In order to resolve the problems relating to nation, democratic society is the most constructive type of society. Nations can be formed and developed best within the system of democratic society. If they are to mutually support one another instead of using nationhood as a reason for warring and fighting, then the historical stage of the nation of nations, the fiber-nation, may be possible. Only within a democratic system will nationhood not give rise to fighting. Only then is it possible for nationhood to contribute to peace and fraternity in solidarity and cultural plurality.
For societies, the nation-state model is nothing but a pitfall and network of suppression and exploitation.
The democratic nation concept reverses this definition. The definition of a democratic nation that is not bound by rigid political boundaries and a single language, culture, religion and interpretation of history, signifies plurality and communities as well as free and equal citizens existing together and in solidarity. The democratic nation allows the people to become a nation themselves, without relying on power and state – becoming a nation through much-needed politicisation. It aims to prove that in the absence of becoming a state or acquiring power, and without politicisation, a nation can be created with autonomous institutions in the social, diplomatic and cultural spheres as well as in economy, law and self-defence, and thus build itself as a democratic nation.
Democratic society can only be realised through such a nation model. The nation-state society is closed to democracy by its very nature. The nation-state represents neither a universal nor a local reality; on the contrary, it disavows universality and locality. The citizenship of a uniformised society represents the death of the human. On the other hand, the democratic nation makes the reconstruction of universality and locality possible. It enables societal reality to express itself. All other definitions of nation lie between these two main models.
Although there is a wide range of definitions for nation-building models, an all-encompassing definition is also possible; and this is the definition of nation in relation to its mindset, consciousness and belief. In this case, the nation is a community of people who share a common mindset. In such a definition of nation, language, religion, culture, market, history and political borders play not a decisive but a bodily role.
Defining nation essentially as a certain mindset gives it a dynamic character. Whereas in nation-states nationalism leaves its mark on the common mindset, in a democratic nation it is the consciousness of freedom and solidarity. However, defining nations only through their mindset would be incomplete. Just as mindsets cannot exist without bodies, nations too cannot function without a body. The body of nations with a nationalist mindset is the state institution. This is why such nations are called nation-states.
Nations with a mindset based on freedom and solidarity exemplify democratic autonomy. Democratic autonomy essentially denotes the self-governance of communities and individuals who share a similar mindset through their own will. This could also be called democratic governance or authority. It is a definition open to universality. A nation model that can be derived from the concept of a ‘culture nation’, but which kerbs and excludes exploitation and suppression, is a democratic nation model. A democratic nation is the nation closest to freedom and equality. And in accordance with this definition, this is the ideal understanding of nation for communities who strive for freedom and equality.
The democratic nation is not content with a common mindset and culture – it is a nation that unifies and governs all its members in democratic autonomous institutions. This is its defining quality. The democratic autonomous way of governance is the foremost condition of becoming a democratic nation. In this regard, it is the alternative to the nation-state.The democratic nation model, as a constructive solution model, redemocratises those societal relations that have been shattered by nation-statism.
It renders different identities tolerant, peaceful and reconciliatory. The evolution of nation-states into democratic nations will bring about enormous gains. The democratic nation model ameliorates violence-loaded social perceptions through a caring social consciousness and renders them humane (a human being who is intelligent, sensitive and empathetic). It may not completely eliminate social antipathies but it can minimise the violence of exploitation, and help to realise the possibility of a more equal and free society.
It not only fosters internal peace and tolerance, it also transcends suppressive and exploitative approaches to other nations and transforms common interests into synergies through which it realises its mission. Once national and international institutions are reconstructed according to the fundamental mindset and institutions of the democratic nation, it will be understood that this new modernity, democratic modernity, has the attributes of a renaissance not only theoretically but also in its implementation.
The alternative to capitalist modernity is democratic modernity, with the democratic nation at its core, and the economic, ecological and peaceful society it has woven within and outside of the democratic nation.
Abdullah Öcalan
Comments