Home / Reviving Mazzinianism / Democratic Nationality
Democratic Nationality
Democratic nationality is the cornerstone of Mazzinian thought. While concepts like duties, humanity, and democracy are echoed in other political ideas, what makes Mazzinianism unique is the way that it considers nationality. While we are used to thinking about nationality as an arbitrary label in a passport, Mazzini made it into a revolutionary principle toward progress and humanity.
Table of Contents ▼
Introduction to Democratic Nationality
As the world has become more interconnected, nationality has become less and less important. In the West in particular, the idea that there's some random division between equal human beings is at best, strange, and at worst, barbaric. Nationality today is an archaic belief, just a superficial or aesthetic difference that doesn't have any intrinsic value. In many cases, it's purely pragmatic for as long as we can't have a world government.
What is worse is that ideologies based on these national differences have been used to justify some of the worst atrocities. Fascism, Nazism, imperialism, and many other nationalisms have used national feeling to justify ruthless expansionism, domination, and genocide. The experience of the First and Second World Wars sealed the conclusion that any political idea based on the nation was a bad one and should be avoided. The recent surge of populist and vulgarist movements has also made people more wary of national feeling.
But for Mazzinians, nationality has nothing to do with any of these ideologies and is completely opposed to all forms of nationalism.
For Mazzinians, nationality is much more than either a mere label or a permanent claim to superiority. On the one hand, nationality is an organic and spiritual reality that connects individuals to their society, history, and to the rest of humanity. Nationality is an integral part of an individual's essence that permits their creativity and defines their role in the rich tapestry of human progress.
On the other hand, nationality is a principle. It is an ethical action based on the need for association with our fellow individuals toward a common goal of moral and material improvement. It is the surest and most practical way of ensuring that both the I and the we can work in tandem without suppressing the other, so that we all can work for the whole of humanity.
From the Mazzinian perspective, nationality is not an archaic or dead concept, but a vital necessity for our own moral regeneration and continuation of the human story. In a world where political sectarianism is taking advantage of our vast cosmopolitan world, nationality as the equality and dignity for all Peoples is what we believe can save us.
The Mazzinian Dilemma
The best case for understanding the Mazzinian conception of democratic nationality is through the Mazzinian dilemma. The Mazzinian dilemma is derived from the significant political problem that emerged in democratic thought in the 19th century: whether we should focus on individual rights or collective action. For Mazzini, both options would lead to greater problems.
Introducing the Dilemma
The Mazzinian dilemma is best illustrated in Mazzini's 1836 essay Humanity and Country, published in his revolutionary paper Jeune Suisse (Young Switzerland) published during his time in exile. In the essay, he highlights the main issues stemming from the two most important doctrines of the age: cosmopolitan liberalism on one side and socialism on the other.
While both doctrines have the aim of progress towards the universalization of rights, neither adequately presents a practical path forward toward realizing this universalization. On one side, represented by cosmopolitan liberalism, pure individuality is central and is the force that is to bring about this universalization. On the other side, represented by socialism, pure association is the force to bring it about instead.
Both sides continue to argue today which is the better for bringing about moral progress, whether they take the guise of liberalism vs. socialism, capitalism vs. communism, or cosmopolitanism vs. nationalism.
Insufficiency of Individuality or Association Alone
Mazzini viewed this binary choice as choosing between two paths that would both ultimately lead to an unsatisfactory result. If we focus purely on individual rights, granting them to those who already have relatively little means of exercising them would make no difference. However, if we focus only on association, the result would be the repression of individual rights and the rule of a tyrannical system.
So, in ignoring either individuality or association, both cosmopolitanism and socialism would be condemned to achieving only an immoral state. The real question thus for Mazzini, was finding a way to get them to work together:
"The harmonization of these two terms, individuality and association, within each State, is, for us, the true formulation of the problem for which the nineteenth century is seeking the solution. Every political doctrine that strays from this approach, every organization that suppresses one of these two terms (or crushes it for the benefit of the other), will sooner or later necessarily give rise to anarchy or tyranny." [1]
Let us dive a little deeper into the problem.
The Problem of Cosmopolitan Liberalism
Mazzini was not generally opposed to cosmopolitan liberalism in its constitutional or ultimate goals. He himself was a fervent defender of individual rights and strongly defended freedom of speech, association, and the press (which he put into practice in his brief time as triumvir of the Roman Republic). His ideas also had a strong Kantian resonance.
However, cosmopolitanism poses a problem for Mazzinianism for another reason. Given cosmopolitanism's focus on the universalization of human rights and that no other value ought to interfere with that end, the cosmopolitan finds themselves relying on the "isolated individual" to bring about political change:
“Every organization that is to concretely affect reality requires a starting point and a goal. To operate effectively, every lever needs both a pivot on which to rest and an object to be raised or moved. For us, the end is humanity; the pivot, or point of support, is the country. I freely admit that for Cosmopolitans, the end is also humanity; but their pivot or point of support is man, the isolated individual. Therein lies almost all the difference between us and the Cosmopolitans, but it is a major difference.” [2]
While it is true that you may avoid tyranny in making individual rights the focus of your doctrine, it is also true that once these individual rights have been enshrined in a constitution and protected by the state, the purpose of the individual's wider political action is limited to their exercise. In other words, where individual rights have been achieved for you, there is nothing left to fight for.
Mazzini believed this represented an inconsistency in the cosmopolitan liberal doctrine. Standing "alone at the center of an immense circle that extends around him," the cosmopolitan liberal can only rely on his own individual capabilities to bring about progress.
So, while you might argue for the spread of liberty and individual rights around the world, faced with the enormity of the task, the cosmopolitan liberal "can choose between only two paths: inaction or despotism."
The Problem of Socialism
Given the enormity of the task for the individual to transform the world on their own through peaceful means, the natural alternative is to appeal to force. While one might have aims toward a peaceful end, the means in order to bring this about must rely on violence if it is to become practical. This is the path chosen by socialism.
In the desire to bring about social change and with nothing to bridge the distance between the individual and progress for humanity, it opts for a utopian (as opposed to a progressive) vision by which violent suppression becomes a necessity:
"[The Cosmopolitan] endeavours to supply by a borrowed, by a usurped strength, the real power which is wanting. He creates or adopts a Utopia, in which, by the assistance of a system of government and authority deduced and organised by à priori reasoning alone, he would immerse and petrify humanity. It is to such an end—to the violation of the liberty of each in the name of the well-being of all—that Saint Simonianism and Communism have arrived." [3]
Mazzini saw this road to tyranny best reflected in Marx's communism. In the suppression of individual liberties, and particularly on so sectarian a line as class, Mazzini saw no other result of communism other than "inequality and the oppression of the many." He regarded any idea of progress in social thinking to be "spoiled, nullified... by the wrong and tyrannical methods through which they sought to apply them in practice."
Moreover, he argued that, rather than being a case for the progress of mankind, socialism "condemns society to petrification, by depriving it of all mobility and opportunity for progress," which was representative of its utopianism.
Harmonization of Individuality and Association
In response to the dilemma, Mazzinians believe that there ought to be some bridge that connects the individual citizen with the wider goal of moral and material progress. Rather than relying on the individual to act alone or relying on repressive force, Mazzini argued that there ought to be some "starting point." There needs to be a realistic place from which to act, as well as somewhere that embodied a communal feeling of love and duty, that could apply to all humanity.
For Mazzinians, this is achievable only where one can harmonize the principles of individuality and association.
This harmonization does not mean a "blending" of the two concepts or finding some sort of "golden mean" between the two. Neither is it about mixing them together, as in communitarianism. Instead, harmonization requires taking both individuality and association as principles in their own right.
Harmonization, then, means the following: individuals, in their full rights and individuality, participate in association through their own will without the need to suppress anyone else's individual right to do so. They act freely and together and thus recognize that it may require them to act for the common good, thus the principle of association being effectively satisfied.
In order for this harmonization to take place, there needed to be a point where an individual could participate in association and towards humanity, and that would act as a bridge between the two.
This starting point, for Mazzinians, is democratic nationality.
What Is Nationality?
For Mazzinians, nationality is a deeply spiritual concept. On one hand, it is the creative expression of a people through pre-political factors like language, culture, and history. On the other, it is a moral action within a shared pursuit of the realization of humanity. Both aspects, the descriptive and the normative, are distinct yet complementary, and both are necessary to understand the nature of democratic nationality.
Let us first unpack what a nationality is as a descriptive idea.
Herder's Contribution: The Volksgeist
Perhaps the most important contributor to the philosophy of nationality was the German romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. For Herder, nationality was a real, organic concept born of individual creative expression. He viewed nationalities as the manifestation of distinct characters and personalities: peoples with objective spiritual boundaries, rather than arbitrary lines drawn on a map defined by kings. This was his concept of the Volksgeist (national spirit).
Herder identified language as the fundamental driver of this spirit. In his famous Treatise on the Origin of Language (1772), he argued that language is the "medium of thought", shaping both our cognitive processes and our expression. It is through this vehicle that we are able to contribute to the collective spirit.
Consequently, the Volksgeist is essentially the sum of a people's creative output: myth, folklore, poetry, literature, customs, traditions, and culture. Each individual contributes to the formation of this spirit through their own creative expression within their social sphere. This argument was also made by spiritual Zionist thinker Ahad Ha'am, who wrote in his essay, The Spiritual Revival:
"There is not a single nation, alive or dead, of which we can say that it existed before its national language-that whole periods of its recorded history passed away before its national language was known to it... Similarly, a nation has no national language except that which was its own when it stood on the threshold of its history, before its national self-consciousness was fully developed that language which has accompanied it through every period of its career, and is inextricably bound up with all its memories." [4]
Herder's more holistic approach to the nation is quite often interpreted apolitically; however, his philosophy of the Volksgeist and his views on language did shape his political opinions. Given his belief in language as an essential part of individual expression, he strongly favored freedom of expression and civil liberties, providing the Volksgeist with an organic setting to grow and develop. Herder was also critical of multinational states and empires, denying that a ruler could accurately interpret a people's interest if they were of a different nation.
However, Herder focused on the nation and nationality in its pre-political factors and did not advocate for the nation as a good in itself. Instead, Herder offered a profound insight into the way that humanity was constituted with an organic cosmopolitanism that was the same for each individual.
Impermanence of Nationalities
One of the most significant consequences of the Herderian perspective on nationality is the impermanence of nationalities. Unlike in nationalism where the nation is considered to be a permanent and never-changing force, nationality is in fact an impermanent and constantly changing concept.
As human societies have developed, as languages have evolved and peoples have risen and fallen, nationalities have come and gone throughout time, each contributing their part to the cause of human development, and then disappearing. For example, both the Greeks and the Romans emerged as distinct nationalities that contributed great cultural and philosophical feats, but they eventually disappeared.
In essence, a nationality is merely a breath from the slow breathing patterns of humanity through history and into the future.
Nationality and the Individual
These pre-political factors of nationality have profound significance for the individual. An individual is not born with a nationality but acquires it through cultural and social integration into a particular society.
This process facilitates the ability to act in the social sphere rather than merely as an isolated individual. In fact, it is necessary to acquire the most basic element of nationality (language) in order to possess social existence and complete one's individuality; it is through nationality that an individual acquires the means to express that individuality.
Consequently, the acquisition of nationality provides the individual with an immense spiritual heritage and a connection to the wider human tapestry. For example, in acquiring Spanish nationality, one inherits not just the current Spanish culture, but the entire creative legacy that has developed it to that point. This is perhaps most beautifully illustrated by this quote from Herder:
"The breath of our mouths is the picture of the world, the type that exhibits our thoughts and feelings to the mind of another. All that man has ever thought, willed, done, or will do, of human, upon Earth, has depended on the movement of a breath of air: for if this divine breath had not inspired us, and floated like a charm on our lips, we should all have still been wanderers in the woods. The whole history of man, therefore, with all the treasures of tradition and cultivation, is nothing but a consequence of the solution of this divine problem" [5]
In turn, the individual gains the means to contribute to their nationality through their own distinct character. Their linguistic, cultural, and historical contributions add to this long, continuous stream of thought and action, pushing forward its evolution. Much like Darwinian evolution, the nationality changes slowly until it becomes completely different.
But, nationality is not just an inheritance of cultural progress; it is also an indicator of one's role in the history of humanity. This is where Mazzinianism takes the next step from description to a moral imperative.
Mazzini's Conception of Nationality: Introducing the Principle
Mazzini's conception of nationality built on Herder's cosmopolitanism of nations. Mazzini maintained the same egalitarian value between different nations, regarding each as the "individuals of humanity". However, his innovation was taking Herder's sociological description and turning it into an active political force. In other words, Mazzini believed that nations had unique missions they had to pursue for the sake of the rest of humanity.
What Pre-Political Factors Meant to Mazzini
Whereas Herder developed an entire pre-political understanding of nations, Mazzini was less concerned about what material could go into a nationality. He observed that nationalities could often be a mishmash of different ethnicities, cultures, and even languages. He regarded these pre-political factors as just showing where nationalities could be conceived:
"Language, territory, race are nothing more than the indicators of nationality, never fixed unless connected together and in every case requiring confirmation from historical tradition and from the long development of a collective life marked by the same characteristics.” [6]
That being said, Mazzini did consider these factors meaningful. Though they were not fully capable of being nationalities in the way he conceptualized, he still believed them to be organic and independent of political influence:
"...a nation is a larger or smaller aggregate of human beings bound together into an organic whole by agreement in a certain number of real particulars, such as race, language, physiognomy, historic tradition, intellectual peculiarities, or active tendencies. Thus the Russians are a nation—they are a specified mass of human beings agreeing in a certain number of real particulars, the aggregate of which is expressed by the name Russians. So also the French are a nation; the English are a nation; the Spaniards are a nation—these names implying in each case a certain number of real characteristic differences impressed by nature herself on the fragments of the human race to which the names refer." [7]
Followed by:
"A nation is a more permanent thing than a system of rule, and ought to be guaranteed by higher maxims of inviolability. Destroy the system of rule in Russia, Spain, or England, and Russia, Spain, and England will still remain as much realities as before" [8]
However, for Mazzini, the defining characteristic was not just common bonds of language, territory, and culture, but of the shared pursuit of a common goal.
Nationality As a Principle
The fundamental characteristic of a nationality for Mazzini was this joint pursuit of a common goal among a people, otherwise this group of people would just constitute a crowd without any common aim, as he expressed in The Collaborators of Young Italy to Their Fellow Citizen:
"A multitude of wandering men does not constitute a Nation unless it is guided by common principles, bound together by a uniform tendency, and governed by equal laws. Nation is a word that represents Unity. Unity of principles, of purpose, or of right is the only thing that fuses a multitude of human beings into a homogeneous whole. Without that, there is no nation, but only a crowd." [9]
Nationality to Mazzini was defined by free and voluntaristic association of individuals toward a common aim. Rather than just leaving nationalities to rise, develop and fall, he believed that nationalities were assigned roles:
“But nationality comprises something else still. It is the part that God has prescribed for each people in the humanitarian work; the mission, the task that a people must fulfill on earth, so that the divine idea may be realized in the world: the work that gives it the right of citizenship in Humanity; the sign of its personality and of the rank it occupies among the peoples, its brothers” [10]
Therefore, nationality was more than just a group of peoples with a common history. It was a group of individuals who worked together to play their part toward the ultimate good.
"Workshops of Humanity"
In this way, Mazzini regarded each individual nation as the workshops of humanity. All nations, made up of free and equal individuals, were to be a "workshop consecrated to a branch of moral, intellectual, or economic production necessary to the whole". By this, all nations were necessary workers in pursuing moral and material progress.
Moreover, Mazzini viewed this moral and material progress as only possible through different nationalities. As we have already observed above with the Mazzinian dilemma, cosmopolitan liberalism with its means solely concentrated in the individual, is unable to practically bring about this progress in any meaningful way to humanity. Indeed, as he argues in Of the Duties of Man, it is the sole means toward it:
"A Nation, if properly ordered, is a workshop consecrated to a branch of moral, intellectual, or economic production necessary to the whole... In labouring for our own Country on the right principle, we labour for Humanity. Our Country is the fulcrum of the lever we have to wield for the common good. In abandoning that fulcrum, we run the risk of rendering ourselves useless not only to Humanity but to our Country itself. Before men can associate with the nations of which Humanity is composed, they must have a National existence. There is no true association except among equals. It is only through our Country that we can have a recognized collective existence." [11]
In a nutshell, each nation is a specialized workshop. Maybe one is amazing at law, another at art, another at science. The point is all are equal and all are needed. Each nation's entire purpose is to develop its own special genius and contribute that to the great work of human progress.
Democracy As Integral to the Nation
Finally, Mazzini's conception of nationality was a fully democratic one. It was, for him, the only way in which true equality among citizens could be achieved. The principle of nationality would surpass the material forces that drive interests and submit everyone to the same "equality of both rights and duties".
This also extended to the free, democratic coexistence with other nations. Since all nationalities are seen as necessary divisions of labor within the great workshop of humanity, they all are equal in value and differ only in their mission. This was his case for the "Holy Alliance of Peoples".
The Holy Alliance of the Peoples
Free nations acting together in alliance against the dynastic kings was Mazzini's ultimate view when it came to his internationalism. As he saw each nation as a division of labor in the great work of humanity, he argued that they had to aid one another, united in a single principle.
This meant that free peoples, though separate in terms of their own unique role, were all destined to work together toward the same ends. He called this the Holy Alliance of the Peoples to contrast them against the interests of the kings.
In the end, he hoped one day that this Holy Alliance would evolve into the United States of Europe. [12]
Means, Not Ends
Therefore, nationality was to Mazzini the means toward a greater end, that is, his concept of humanity. Each individual had the duty to work with their fellow countrymen because it was the surest way they could achieve some collective consciousness without losing their individuality to tyranny. An individual therefore has to act through their nation, though not make it an end in itself.
The organic reality of the nation was a historical source of material and progress which the individual is endowed with from birth. Their duty was to educate themselves in this material and use it for the progress of their nation and for the progress of the rest of humanity.
This was Mazzini's real conception of democratic nationality.
Democratic Nationality in Modern Mazzinianism
For Mazzinians today, the need for nationality in a highly globalized world seems to be antiquated. However, like Mazzini in his day, we regard nationality as part of the future and not as part of the past. Indeed, as Mazzini argued for the 19th century, true democratic nationality has never yet existed in our modern times.
But democratic nationality in modern Mazzinianism tries to make the conception both modernized and systematic, integrating the ideas surrounding nationality from Mazzini as well as other thinkers.
Nationality and Nation: A Crucial Difference
The first is to tidy up the definitions between nationality and nation that have sometimes been used interchangeably by Mazzini to represent the same concept. For Mazzinians, however, there is a difference that helps take account of our complex situation of today. This is a distinction between nationality as the purely descriptive, organic concept, and nation which is the active principle of a nationality (or multiple).
Nationality: A nationality is primarily a linguistic, cultural, and historical phenomenon that everyone is integrated into when they are born. As explained above in our section on Herder, a nationality allows you to be an individual and represents that historical and spiritual heritage you receive through this integration. A nationality, therefore, is a descriptive part of your existence as an individual and what connects you to others. In Mazzinian terms, your nationality defines the precepts of your mission on earth. An individual can also possess multiple nationalities.
Nation: A nation on the other hand is the action of a free nationality toward that mission. It is where the idea of nationality becomes a creative and moral force. The nation is the actualization of that nationality in accordance with the principle of humanity. A nation doesn't necessarily have to consist of one nationality, but could include multiple nationalities who have decided to act toward a common goal together (though they should share commonalities).
This difference helps in defining what constitutes a nationality and why not all nationalities might constitute their own nations.
Optimal Human Association
Mazzinians regard the nation as the optimal form of human association. As Herder pointed out in his critique of multinational empires, rulers who oversee multiple nationalities that are held together only by force have no way of truly understanding the people they govern. As Mazzini also pointed out, these rulers should give way to democracy in order for the nationality to be truly expressed.
This importance of democracy also comes into the modern Mazzinian view of globalization and multinational institutions. As systems become more complex, the distance between the elected and the people becomes wider until it is no longer democratic.
Attempts at large, multinational political entities such as the European Union, are a good example of this fact, since rather than the bottom-up approach of free nations allied together, it becomes a top-down technocracy.
On the other hand, some nations are formed by this active participation of different nationalities, such as Switzerland or Spain, but because they share fundamental historical links to one another and are often bilingual (or multilingual) democracy can be practiced. To some extent, it is a matter of degree.
In short, nationalities will always be the optimal way to organize ourselves given the cultural, linguistic closeness between all involved. It makes it easier to understand mentality and experience of ordinary life, and devise solutions that are effective. This unfortunately has also been the reason why the European Union has struggled (though not with everything) to replace the nation-state in all realm and is why sovereignty remains crucial.
Self-Determination or Independence?
As indicated above, a nationality does not necessarily constitute a nation if the principle is missing. In this same respect, self-determination of a nationality does not necessarily mean independence of that nationality in their own state. To be clear, independence tends to be the best way of guaranteeing and protecting nationality, but it is not a necessary condition for it.
What is necessary, however, is the free and active will of a nationality to participate in the nation. This free choice is the basis of self-determination and ought to be the decision of the nationality, subject to pragmatic realities.
Foundation for True Internationalism
The Mazzinian conception of nationality provides the framework for a truer internationalism than offered by either socialism or liberalism. In fact, in the very fact that neither of these two doctrines belief in national borders, they cannot be internationalist, only cosmopolitanism. From the Mazzinian perspective, nations must exist in order for there to be solidarity between them.
Mazzinianism provides for a genuine relatedness and sympathy with other nationalities, due to the belief of their equality and belonging to the family of nations. It is easier to sympathize with the plight of a national group if you believe in that sovereignty yourself. It is also easier to sympathize with resistance to undemocratic regimes sitting on top of nationalities.
Mazzinian internationalism, therefore, is based on a powerful sense of dignity that can only be derived from being recognized as being part of a respected national group.
The Role of the State
A nation alone, with state institutions or an active government, cannot fulfill its duty to humanity without becoming totalitarian. Unless all within a nation are perpetual ideological slaves or robots, the existence of a state is necessary for the nation's actualization. This means, however, that the state is subject to the will of that nationality and thus must be democratic, otherwise it would break the principle of equality within the nation.
A government ought to facilitate individuals in fulfilling their duties to the nation by providing the economic background and opportunities for individuals to fully develop their faculties.
Nationality vs. "Narrow and Mean Nationalism"
One of the most important distinctions Mazzini made with his conception of the nation was to reject what he called "dynastic nationalism" or the "nationality of the kings". For him, this form of nationalism was not a political principle based on genuine national feeling, but a propaganda device that was utilized by despotic princes who dominated the continent.
This dynastic nationalism sought to place the interests of the rulers above that of the people and, rather than an exercise of true national expression, had an almost parasitic-like relationship with real nationalities and used patriotic sentiment to push their own agenda with “only their own personal interests in mind”:
"The nation — was to despots their family, their race, their dynasty; their constant end, aggrandisement at the expense of others, encroachment upon the rights of others. Their theory resolved itself into these words — the weakening of all for the ultimate advantage of their own interests. Their treaties were but the concessions of necessity; their peace no more than cessation of hostilities; their balance of power, an attempt at equalisation of strength, always with a view to time of war, always under the inspiration of a mistrusting and hostile idea." [13]
These tyrannical rulers could never be legitimate and could never make decisions in the interests of the people that they repressed.
This form of dynastic nationalism also did not meet Mazzini's criteria for what a true nation could be. A nation, according to dynastic nationalism, was merely defined by the territorial rule of the despotic regimes and was thus “ill-defined” and “could quite easily be dismembered or enlarged” through conquest or marriage.
To Mazzini, this was an arbitrary definition of the nation that relied on cheap patriotism and force in order to keep it in line. This is why an “organic concept of the nation” was still meaningful to Mazzini.
This practice of appropriating national feeling for the interests of a single dictator or regime is still common today.
The Case for Democratic Nationality for Today
The march of globalization has created a new world, and with the emergence of large supranational organizations, such as the European Union, the world seems to have achieved the cosmopolitan dream in spite of Mazzini's warnings. We are now more interconnected by technology, with the whole idea of national borders and divisions seeming entirely risible today.
However, not every community, class, or group has been successfully integrated into this new cosmopolitan world. The points are often made about the global disparities between West and East with the rise of cheap labor and international consumerism; however, there is rarely much focus on the national disparities between those who have benefited from globalization and those who haven't.
In this setting, the Mazzinian nation stands as a middle way between isolationism and homogenizing cosmopolitanism. Democratic nationality provides the dignity for the individual to be seen as an equal before humanity because they too take part in their own historical mission, bringing trade and commerce down to the subordinate level of citizenship, rather than being considered above it.
Unity Over Racial or Class Sectarianism
Beyond offering a middle way in a globalized world, the Mazzinian concept of the nation is critically relevant today as a potential unifying factor against the increasing sectarianism of our societies. With the erosion of nationality due to commercialism, identities based on religion, race, gender, sexuality, etc., are becoming more dominant forms that people increasingly fall into. The issue is that these identities do not possess the same moral or democratic purpose as that of nationality. They are mostly material identities and have no greater ends other than their own vindication.
The Mazzinian nation supplies that spiritual unity and crucial meaningfulness for an individual, allowing them to engage in democratic debate and processes, based on mutual recognition. This does not require the negation of any identity, but the recognition that the shared common language represents something higher and more fundamental to humanity as a whole.
Humanitarian Need in Global Conflicts
The principle of democratic nationality is becoming more and more vital in a world where larger countries are returning to freely repress smaller ones. From the Ukrainian resistance to Russian invaders, to the Taiwanese, to the Kurds, and many other national groups that are being besieged by the forces of reaction and tyranny, the principle of democratic nationality provides those Ukrainians, Taiwanese, and Kurds with their fulcrum to defend themselves and others, and it allows us to stand in solidarity with them.
Democratic Nationality: A Principle of the Future
Democratic nationality is not a thing of the past, but a force of the future. The march of liberalism into both our hearts and minds has created a sad pandemic of solipsism, where individual interests triumph over all other moral action–but that is exactly what is making us turn away from the rest of the world and why we are steadily becoming more depressed.
The principle of nationality is not a negation of individuality. Indeed, individuality is vital for making it work. Only as free, equal individuals are we capable of developing our own faculties, skills, talents, and intellects to their furthest point. But unless we have something tangible to develop ourselves for, there is very little motivation to make us do it and we fall, as Mazzini pointed out, into inaction.
Therefore, nationality is not about domination, flag-waving, or pride. It is instead a solemn, resolved undertaking of our own role in the history of human progress in a way that actually matters.