At the end of the 19th century, most of Europe was dominated by multi-national empires. These empires typically included a dominant ethno-national group (e.g., Russians, Austro-Germans, Turks, mainland British) that exercised control over smaller, subjugated nations. For centuries, this arrangement seemed to function without significant conflict. Sovereign states, in the modern sense, had not yet fully emerged, and ruling dynasties or classes could leave their subjects relatively undisturbed as long as they paid taxes and refrained from rebellion. As a result, a Czech peasant in Bohemia or an Irish peasant in Connacht could live traditional lives, preserving their unique languages, customs, and religions.
However, the late 18th century saw the rise of modernization and industrialization, which prompted ruling classes across Europe to pursue increased centralization. The French Revolution serves as a critical example of this trend. The revolution ushered in a modern state bureaucracy and a standing army composed of conscripts from all social classes. To achieve these goals, the French government adopted a policy of cultural uniformity, assimilating diverse regional identities into the dominant northern and Parisian related culture. A notable consequence of this process was the suppression of the Occitan language in southern France and the Breton language in the northwest. Similarly, in Britain, the cultural distinctiveness of the Scottish Highlands was significantly eroded, with the Gaelic dialects of the region largely disappearing.
Despite these efforts, not all ethnic groups accepted assimilation. The more distinct a group was from the ruling class, the more resistant it tended to be. For example, Czarist Russia failed in its assimilation attempts of Ukrainians and Belarusians, and its attempt to conscript Jewish children to the army to force them to accept Russian culture and even religion gained little ground. Russia remained a multi ethnic and multi religious empire where only 40% spoke the Russian language as a mother tongue.
By the early 20th century, many unassimilated nationalities lived within the borders of modernizing empires. Centralization efforts brought these empires into conflict with the educated classes of their minority groups. Historians like Eric Hobsbawm and Ernest Gellner argue that this tension contributed significantly to the outbreak of World War I. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist, aiming to “free the Serbs” and other Slavic peoples from Habsburg rule, exemplifies how nationalism ignited conflict. These historians also criticize the nationalistic ideologies of major powers (France, Britain, Germany, Russia, etc.), which they argue led millions to die.
While Hobsbawm acknowledged the importance of national identity in modern politics, he viewed nationalism as largely negative and predicted its decline due to increased cultural and economic globalization. Yet, this prediction has proven inaccurate. Nationalism remains a potent force in Europe and beyond. Separatist movements like those in Catalonia and Flanders continue to gain traction, while right-wing “sovereigntists” in countries like Hungary, Poland, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, France, and the UK (through Brexit) resist EU centralization, viewing it as an elitist effort by Brussels to erase national cultures and traditions.
This reality challenges the notion—popular in academic circles—that nationalism is an artificial social construct. If nationalism is here to stay, we must grapple with how a European confederation, like the EU, or a potential European federation could accommodate diverse ethno-national groups. How can nations maintain their cultural, religious, and national identities while fostering the trans-European solidarity essential in crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine? To address this question, it is helpful to examine early 20th-century Europe. Before World War I, many nationalist movements sought not independence but greater autonomy within their empires. Even when greater sovereignty was desired, it often coexisted with a desire for some connection to the larger state. These movements aimed to reform empires into partnerships of equal nations, united by shared values but respectful of each other’s distinctions.
Ireland offers a compelling example. Before World War I, the Irish national movement primarily demanded “home rule” rather than full independence. Even Arthur Griffith, founder of the would-be radical Sinn Féin, initially advocated for separation from “English rule” by adopting the dual monarchy model of Austria-Hungary, which itself was experiencing its own ideas and debates regarding the forms of a multinational ethno-federation.
Although Ireland radicalized during the war, leading to the War of Independence, the eventual settlement established the Irish Free State as a Dominion within the British Commonwealth. Until 1937, Irish leaders voluntarily participated in Imperial Council meetings alongside representatives from other Commonwealth Dominions like Canada and Australia.
This model was not unique. As stated, in the Habsburg monarchy of Austria-Hungary (where Hungarians already enjoyed limited sovereignty) thinkers of both Liberal and Marxist background thought of ideas of implementing a United Austrian ethno-federal module that can reconcile national distinction with loyalty to the Habsburg crown. Ironically even Archduke Franz Ferdinand expressed his sympathies to such plans prior to his assassination.
In 1917, Russia’s provisional democratic government proposed a constitution granting significant autonomy to ethnic minorities. Although the Bolsheviks ultimately seized power and undermined these promises, they maintained the façade of minority self-determination throughout their rule. In 1990, under Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika, the Soviet Union made genuine attempts to implement federalism. However, reactionary forces staged a coup, ultimately leading to the dissolution of the union and the independence of its constituent republics. In conclusion, both European federalists and confederalists must acknowledge nationalism as a persistent and powerful force. Rather than dismissing it as artificial, they should accept national identities as fundamental and reconcile them with the broader goals of European integration. Only by embracing the principle of “unity in diversity” can the European project hope to thrive.
Follow the comments:
|
