Nation-building
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 21:24, 12 August 2009 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| + | '''Nation-building''' is constructing or structuring a [[national identity]] using the power of the [[State (polity)|state]]. It is thus narrower than what [[Paul James (academic)|Paul James]] calls "nation formation", the broad process through which nations come into being. Nation-building aims at the unification of the people within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run. According to [[Harris Mylonas]], "Legitimate authority in modern national states is connected to popular rule, to majorities. Nation-building is the process through which these majorities are constructed." | ||
| - | '''Nation-building''' refers to the process of constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the state. This process aims at the unification of the people or peoples within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run. Nation-building can involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructure development to foster social harmony and economic growth. | + | Nation builders are those members of a state who take the initiative to develop the national community through government programs, including [[Conscription|military conscription]] and national content mass schooling. Nation-building can involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructure development to foster social harmony and economic growth. |
| + | == Overview == | ||
| + | In the modern era, ''nation-building'' referred to the efforts of newly independent nations, notably the nations of [[Africa]] but also in the [[Balkans]], to redefine the populace of territories that had been carved out by [[Colonialism|colonial]] powers or empires without regard to ethnic, religious, or other boundaries. These reformed states would then become viable and coherent national entities. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nation-building includes the creation of [[National symbol|national paraphernalia]] such as [[National flag|flag]]s, [[anthem]]s, [[national day]]s, [[national stadium]]s, [[national airline]]s, [[national language]]s, and [[national myth]]s. At a deeper level, national identity needed to be deliberately constructed by molding different ethnic groups into a nation, especially since in many newly established states colonial practices of [[divide and rule]] had resulted in ethnically heterogeneous populations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | However, many new states were plagued by [[tribalism]]; that is, rivalry between ethnic groups within the nation. This sometimes resulted in their near-disintegration, such as the attempt by [[Biafra]] to [[Nigerian Civil War|secede]] from [[Nigeria]] in 1970, or the continuing demand of the [[Somalis|Somali people]] in the [[Ogaden]] region of [[Ethiopia]] for complete independence. In Asia, the division of [[British Raj|British India]] into [[India]] and [[Pakistan]] was in part due to ethnic differences, which might have been aided by other factors like colonial mismanagement of the situation. The [[Rwandan genocide]] as well as the recurrent problems experienced by the [[Sudan]] can also be related to a lack of ethnic, religious, or racial cohesion within the nation. It has often proved difficult to unite states with similar ethnic but different colonial backgrounds. Whereas some consider [[Cameroon]] to be an example of success, fractures are emerging in the form of the [[Anglophone problem (Cameroon)|Anglophone problem]]. Failures like [[Senegambia Confederation]] demonstrate the problems of uniting [[French language|Francophone]] and [[English-speaking world|Anglophone]] territories. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Terminology: Nation-building ''versus'' state-building == | ||
| + | Traditionally, there has been some confusion between the use of the term ''nation-building'' and that of ''state-building'' (the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in North America). Both have fairly narrow and different definitions in political science, the former referring to national identity, the latter to infrastructure and the institutions of the state. The debate has been clouded further by the existence of two very different schools of thought on state-building. The first (prevalent in the media) portrays state-building as an [[Interventionism (politics)|interventionist]] action by foreign countries. The second (more academic in origin and increasingly accepted by international institutions) sees state-building as an indigenous process. For a discussion of the definitional issues, see [[State-building#Definition|state-building]], Carolyn Stephenson's essay{{citation needed|date=May 2017}}, and the papers by Whaites, CPC/IPA or ODI cited below. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The confusion over terminology has meant that more recently, nation-building has come to be used in a completely different context, with reference to what has been succinctly described by its proponents as "the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy". In this sense nation-building, better referred to as [[state building]], describes deliberate efforts by a foreign power to construct or install the institutions of a national government, according to a model that may be more familiar to the foreign power but is often considered foreign and even destabilizing. In this sense, state-building is typically characterized by [[Fiscal capacity|massive investment]], [[military occupation]], [[transitional government]], and the use of propaganda to communicate governmental policy. | ||
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Current revision
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
Nation-building is constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the state. It is thus narrower than what Paul James calls "nation formation", the broad process through which nations come into being. Nation-building aims at the unification of the people within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run. According to Harris Mylonas, "Legitimate authority in modern national states is connected to popular rule, to majorities. Nation-building is the process through which these majorities are constructed."
Nation builders are those members of a state who take the initiative to develop the national community through government programs, including military conscription and national content mass schooling. Nation-building can involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructure development to foster social harmony and economic growth.
Overview
In the modern era, nation-building referred to the efforts of newly independent nations, notably the nations of Africa but also in the Balkans, to redefine the populace of territories that had been carved out by colonial powers or empires without regard to ethnic, religious, or other boundaries. These reformed states would then become viable and coherent national entities.
Nation-building includes the creation of national paraphernalia such as flags, anthems, national days, national stadiums, national airlines, national languages, and national myths. At a deeper level, national identity needed to be deliberately constructed by molding different ethnic groups into a nation, especially since in many newly established states colonial practices of divide and rule had resulted in ethnically heterogeneous populations.
However, many new states were plagued by tribalism; that is, rivalry between ethnic groups within the nation. This sometimes resulted in their near-disintegration, such as the attempt by Biafra to secede from Nigeria in 1970, or the continuing demand of the Somali people in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia for complete independence. In Asia, the division of British India into India and Pakistan was in part due to ethnic differences, which might have been aided by other factors like colonial mismanagement of the situation. The Rwandan genocide as well as the recurrent problems experienced by the Sudan can also be related to a lack of ethnic, religious, or racial cohesion within the nation. It has often proved difficult to unite states with similar ethnic but different colonial backgrounds. Whereas some consider Cameroon to be an example of success, fractures are emerging in the form of the Anglophone problem. Failures like Senegambia Confederation demonstrate the problems of uniting Francophone and Anglophone territories.
Terminology: Nation-building versus state-building
Traditionally, there has been some confusion between the use of the term nation-building and that of state-building (the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in North America). Both have fairly narrow and different definitions in political science, the former referring to national identity, the latter to infrastructure and the institutions of the state. The debate has been clouded further by the existence of two very different schools of thought on state-building. The first (prevalent in the media) portrays state-building as an interventionist action by foreign countries. The second (more academic in origin and increasingly accepted by international institutions) sees state-building as an indigenous process. For a discussion of the definitional issues, see state-building, Carolyn Stephenson's essayTemplate:Citation needed, and the papers by Whaites, CPC/IPA or ODI cited below.
The confusion over terminology has meant that more recently, nation-building has come to be used in a completely different context, with reference to what has been succinctly described by its proponents as "the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy". In this sense nation-building, better referred to as state building, describes deliberate efforts by a foreign power to construct or install the institutions of a national government, according to a model that may be more familiar to the foreign power but is often considered foreign and even destabilizing. In this sense, state-building is typically characterized by massive investment, military occupation, transitional government, and the use of propaganda to communicate governmental policy.
