Pelopor.nl

Give them shelter!

“Nationalismus bedeutet also die Einheit und Geschlossenheit der Bevölkerung eines Landes gegenüber irgenwelchen anderen Mächten drauszen” 1)

I owe the love of my life to Bung Karno, the first president of the Republik Indonesia. That is: apart from the coordinated efforts of sheer coincidence, a couple of misunderstandings and Cupid.
Let me explain.

My 100% Indonesian then future father-in-law and my 100% Caucasian then future mother-in-law were Dutch nationals living in Indonesia in the mid fifties. It was the time when president Sukarno decided on nationalistic & “konfrontasi” politics. So he kicked these former colonial collaborators – and their extensive flock of daughters, really attractive beauties to be- out of his country. Back to the Netherlands. Where I was hungry and laying in wait. The rest is history. So, don’t expect me complaining about nationalism. At any rate not about Sukarno’s variant.

Generally speaking however nationalism has had a rather tricky reputation over the years. At least in Europe where it has brought devastating wars, tens of millions of people killed and ugly ideologies and philosophies about pure blood and holy soil. Nationalism is a reflex of collectivism. To give up individuality and go into hiding in a protective mass to be safe against real or presumed dangers from outside. It may include a call for leadership, a dichotomy of the good “we” and the dangerous “they”. Or it can take shape in triumphant crowds that enjoy some victories perceived as conquered by the own group. The definition of the group or collective is dependent on who can claim to be a member of the nation- which can be bad news for minorities living within the boundaries of the country.

Fortunately often nationalism is quite innocent. I myself have happily been indulging in this emotion in ’88 when our national football squad won the European championship. And one may rank the recent row between the Malaysian and Indonesian media and blogosphere on the authentic nationality of the song Rasa Sayang , in this category as well.

But, here at home, a more worrying kind of nationalism seems to emerge. There’s a sudden quest for national identities – fueled by the political successes of extreme rightwing parties. During the last fifty odd years nobody seemed to care, but now suddenly some of us want to know what our specific “Danishness”, “Swissness”, “Dutchness” etc is. Loud mouthed populists are making the headlines. The presumed values of the old days, the fifties, are very much in demand. Governments ask historians for catchy national canons. And what’s more disturbing, our European societies do not want to be disturbed any more by foreigners who are not willing or able of total assimilation. And there is even less tolerance to have our presumed Hellenic-Christian culture spiced up or watered down by Arab influences. “Fortress Europe” nowadays seems to be about keeping out or even throwing out with sometimes harsh measures, those who come/came from non-western continents and cultures. Especially Islam is considered by a growing number of people to be incompatible with our traditional “Danishness”, “Germaness”, “Frenchness” .
The revival of old fashioned nationalism in countries with obviously very modern societies, is peculiar. Because at the same time we are living the age of globalization. And weren’t we on our way to create a global village without any philistine citizen? Or went something wrong and is it something about globalization itself what is worrying? Is it perhaps the neo-liberal economic content of globalization?.

Actually I think most European citizens deep down are not afraid of some strange religion, nor of some threat to our precious enlightenment. Rather they watch, feel and experience the results of the worldwide brutal capitalism of the Friedmaniacs. The neo-liberals tore our welfare states apart and turned them upside down – and have been doing so over 25 years now. No wonder people in Europe feel more and more insecure. They run and vote for protection. But all the while their main stream political and opinion leaders – almost without any dissenting voice- keep telling them these economic changes are in their own interest, meant to retain the benefits of our own social security system and are inevitable anyhow. Which results in growing frustration and prepares the ground for charismatic populists who help finding scapegoats. In the meantime, governments which are asked for action, are glad to divert attention, by pointing out there’s a war on terror going on. Okay, I’ll admit I have introduced some shortcuts here.

The point is: this new nationalism is doomed. The need is there without doubt, but solution is looked for in the wrong direction.

So far about here. Now about there.

Globalization did also hit the developing countries. The packaging material of the ingredients is different. The content is successfully sold as an entry to the 21st century: modern technology and a USD economy. But the contraband is the same: neo-liberalism in a country which needs some social and protectionist measures in the present phase of development.

So technology is fine, but somehow the results do not feel good. However the ruling elites do not step in spite of lot of fear and loathing. The Indonesian blogosphere indicates that a lot of people loath what they see as the reason of their discontent: western lifestyles that sneakily have been attached to the wonders of technology and are polluting parts of Indonesian society. And they run for cover. For protection against free sex, against same sex marriages, against decadent living. A growing number – but still a minority – even strives for a kind of theocratic nation in which the morals and laws of Islam will guarantee protection. In a way it is a call for a new kind of nationalism – national identity based on religion. Similar, but not quite, to what a lot of Europeans want: a return to utopian old ways. And it is, I’m afraid, as useless. Because what should be done is to offer all those people security – economic security to start with.

So, nationalism will not help. Neither here, nor there. Sound socio-economic policies of a more Keynesian nature could. For heaven’s sake: give them shelter! When that happens, the main message in the very sensible column by Jennie S. Bev I read the other day, may come true. I hope it does, because it’s a sympathetic plea for a nationalism which makes a multicultural society work.
PS: mind you: I did not even mention the likes of “The shock Doctrine” or “Globalization and its Discontents”.

1) Ralf Dahrendorf: Gesellschaft und Freiheit, 1961, page 246; (” So nationalism means a united and serried population towards whatever outside forces”)