Will You Become Your Own Nation?

By Samuel P. Huntington

The nation-state is a rare and recent phenomenon in human affairs. Nation-states emerged in the West with the invention of the printing press and the proliferation of publications in vernacular languages in the 16th and 17th centuries. Slowly people in Western Europe acquired the rudiments of national identity, defined at first largely in religious terms.

In the 19th century, national consciousness spread throughout European societies. In the 20th century, Third World students of Western nationalism returned home to lead national-liberation movements. Meanwhile, the concept of the nation--an ethnic or cultural community--had become linked to that of the state--a purely political organization. No reason exists in logic or experience, however, why sources of identity and authority should coincide, and through most of human history they have not.

But while the nation-state has been the pre-eminent institution of the modern world for several centuries, it is now seen to be in a condition of decay. Throughout the world, people are reconsidering what they have in common and what distinguishes them from others. Modernization, economic development, urbanization and globalization have led people to shrink their identity. People now identify with those who are most like them, those with whom they share a common language, religion, tradition and history. Today Scots, Kosovars, Catalonians, Chechens and others are all affirming their identity and seeking a political voice.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, nationalism was promoted by elites who developed sophisticated appeals to generate a sense of national identity among those whom they saw as their compatriots and to rally them for nationalist causes. Now, however, the emergence of a global economy, plus the arrival of transnational coalitions (on issues such as women's rights or the environment), has led many elites to develop a more cosmopolitan identity. Yet the average citizen in most countries remains strongly nationalistic and often strongly opposes elite views.

Waking up to these developments means a number of things. First, it suggests the need to question the linkage of identity and authority implied by nation-states. No reason exists why--in addition to states--nationalities, diasporas, religious communities and other groups should not be treated as legitimate actors in global affairs.

At the same time, it's worth recognizing that the efforts of the U.S. government and others to get people to live in multinational and multiethnic communities are more often than not exercises in futility. Instead, it is often wise to accommodate those pushing for ethnic separation, segregation and homogenization--even if that means partitioning entire nations to reduce violence.

Global politics is growing more complex. States will remain the principal actors in global politics. But they are being joined by many other actors, including failed states such as Sierra Leone, suprastate organizations like the European Union, interstate organizations like the International Monetary Fund and INGOs (international nongovernment organizations) such as Greenpeace.

Global politics is, in a sense, coming to have the pluralism and diversity typical of politics in democratic countries--with one crucial difference. Democratic societies recognize and accept the people as the ultimate source of sovereignty and some government institutions, usually the legislature and courts, as the ultimate sources of authority. In the emerging global politics, however, state sovereignty and authority are withering, and no alternative, such as some system of world government, is about to fill the vacuum. The result is almost certain to be chaos. The basic issue for the next quarter-century is whether statesmen will have the patience and wisdom to manage this chaos in peaceful rather than violent fashion.

Samuel P. Huntington is a professor at Harvard and author of The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order