|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
172045
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article analyzes the changing nature and substance of Indian nationalism since independence in 1947. India provides insights into how state and majority nationalism manifests itself in a democratic post-colonial society. It also draws attention to how state-making and nation-building reflect the dominant political position of the majority nation in a specific state. In India, the state actively sought to accommodate ethnic and linguistic demands through a consensual federal system. In this form, the majority nationalism did not always imply majoritarianism. The outcome was complex asymmetrical federalism that sought accommodation but also actively opposed secessionist demands by nationalist movements. This accommodationist form of majority nationalism has in recent decades been replaced by an ethnoreligious nationalism based on majoritarian and exclusivist principles. The political success of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has weakened India’s asymmetrical federalism. The trend is away from pluralistic possibilities to a unitary nation-state model. This majoritarian nationalism is characterized by an insistence on Hindutva or Hindu nationalism, intolerance of difference and an insistence that all those who live in India share a common culture, Identity and historic past. The decision to repeal Article 370 of the Constitution, which provides a special status for Jammu and Kashmir, is discussed in this context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
172048
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this contribution, Alain-G Gagnon reflects on existing scholarship on majority and state nationalism, arguing that minority and majority nationalism are broadly similar in their intent. Both seek to promote a set of values, myths and meaning systems within a given political community which exists on a specific territory, shares a common language and a history. As a result, there are several promising avenues for research on state and majority nationalism, outlined in this piece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
172044
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Drawing from the literatures on strategic identity shift and on signaling, this article examines the strategies used by Beijing to impose its monist brand of state nationalism on Hong Kong. Given the nominally high degree of autonomy granted to Hong Kong, Beijing has been unable to impose its nationalism directly from above. Instead, it has made use of cooptation strategies so as to cultivate increasingly vocal and influential loyalist circles among local elites, who have promoted state nationalism from within. This logic, this article argues, has led many among Hong Kong’s political elite to compete in expressing an increasingly overt Chinese nationalistic posture as a way to signal loyalty to Beijing. These strategies have however backfired, raising doubts as to the actual extent of Hong Kong’s autonomy and triggering an existential crisis that led to the emergence of a reactive form of popular Hong Kong sub-state nationalism. In this context, state and popular sub-state nationalisms have fed on each other and grown increasingly irreconcilable, echoing the intensifying radicalization and polarization between the authoritarian establishment and the democratic opposition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
172047
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In the growing literature on the management of differences in multinational states, institutions (such as territorial autonomy or power-sharing) are typically understood as means through which various stakeholders achieve their goals. This scholarship is largely silent on the expressive and symbolic dimensions of those institutions. This is a major oversight, limiting our understanding of the politics of multinational states. I demonstrate the importance of institutional meaning by exploring the politics of federal a/symmetry in Canada, particularly in response to Quebec’s demands for greater recognition. The article’s central argument is that formal federal symmetry expresses and symbolically reproduces Canadian state nationalism. Attention to the symbolic dimension of state institutions—including federal ones—has the potential to open up new avenues of understanding of both the politics of institutional change in multinational states and the impact such change might have on the stability and inclusiveness of those states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
172043
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While calls for self-determination and independence make headlines worldwide, an often more subtle state nationalism remains an endemic condition of the modern world. In the introductory article for this Special Issue, we define state and majority nationalism we identify three challenges in the study of these phenomena, we suggest that a focus on plurinational states helps to overcome them, and we set out the conceptual, ideational and strategic dimensions of the Special Issue. We hope that this edited collection as a whole contributes to refine our understanding of state and majority nationalism and encourages scholars to engage more actively in their study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
172046
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper examines the way party elites in the UK and Spain discursively construct the nation and justify state integrity in the face of resurgent Catalan and Scottish demands for self-determination and independence. While in each case there is a plurality of conceptions of the state, in Spain the demos is predominantly defined as a single, indivisible nation of equal citizens while in the UK the focus is typically on a plurinational Union. This, we contend, shapes the arguments made in favor of state unity. The dominant case for state integrity in Spain is more negative, focused primarily on the unconstitutionality of independence and delegitimizing the independence agenda. In the UK, the predominant appeal to the Union is more positive and instrumental: as the country is perceived as a partnership entered into willingly, a case must be made for its continuation. This paper seeks to contribute to the understanding of state nationalism and political dynamics in plurinational states by shedding light on the ways in which party elites understand and legitimize the state at moments of profound internal challenge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|