by NADEEM F. PARACHA
‘Donald Trump and the Rise of Christian Nationalists’ was the title of an essay published in August this year on the academic website The Conversation. The term ‘Christian nationalism’ is not as frequently used in media (outside of the US) as are terms such as Islamic nationalism or Hindu nationalism.
Till the mid-20th century, political scientists viewed nationalism as a secular idea that undermined the moral and political authority of religious forces by replacing religious symbols, myths, mindsets and practices with secular ones. Nationalism was expected to function as a substitute for religion, fulfilling individual needs and consolidating group identities.
In part, nationalism was the product of brutal wars between Christian sects in Europe. This triggered the need to organise what were clubbed as ‘nations’ in a more rational manner, by furnishing a new understanding of relations between a nation and the state. Thus was born the idea of the nation-state.
But nation-states borrowed heavily from organised religions to add a sacred dimension to secular nationalism (a process called ‘sacralisation’, which frames nationalism as a ‘civic religion’). Consequently, by the mid-20th century, in many regions, religion increasingly became an important component of nationalism. The result was the eventual emergence of religious nationalism, which looks to overcome nationalism’s inherent secular disposition by placing politicised religion at its core.
From the 1970s onwards, religious nationalism in the shape of Islamic nationalism began to replace the more secular/sacralised manifestations of nationalism in many Muslim-majority countries. By the latter half of the 20th century and in the early 2000s, Hindu nationalism in India, Buddhist nationalism in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, Jewish nationalism in Israel, and Christian nationalism in Hungary, Poland, Russia and the US, began to attract mainstream approval and support.
Religious nationalism agrees that nations exist (in a nation-state) but posits that they can only be kept together through a ‘divine’ purpose, which should inform all of their economic, political and social actions. Therefore, the nation becomes one which was ‘chosen by God’, or is in the best position to serve Him. To religious nationalism, the latter can only be achieved by basing the nation-state’s policies and national purpose on the doctrines of the majority religion.
So why has religious nationalism witnessed a surge in the last 50 years or so? From the 18th century onwards, advancements in science, and political and economic modernity, succeeded in propelling societies forward, improving the quality of life. But these advancements also produced larger populations and complex political, social and economic issues. These created unprecedented tensions that seemed tough to resolve by nation-states, thus instilling a sense of insecurity and dread in people.
As a response, nation-states began to sacralise their nationalisms to offer some ‘spiritual’ solace, because conventional religion was viewed as existing outside the nationalist paradigm and thus a threat to the idea of the nation-state. Then, nation-states/nationalism decided to co-exist with conventional religion, before co-opting it so it could be regulated and controlled according to nationalist needs. Religious nationalism was the result.
Critics of religious nationalism warn that, instead of safeguarding nationalism from completely falling in the hands of those operating from outside the nationalist paradigm, it actually strengthens theocratic forces whose ultimate goal is to establish a totalitarian theocracy. In other words, religious nationalism is a launching pad for theocrats.
Dawn for more