Nationalism is a very complex theory. It has the ability to unite a nation and stresses unity and equality among its citizens, however, in the same breath we can assert that the term can also involve less desirable outcomes - these include excluding human rights to non citizens and culturally different individuals and at its harshest operation stripping such or similar people of recognition by the state (Eriksen, 1991; 265). It then becomes evident that the theory should be studied further and analyzed closer to see instances which provide the desirable outcome of equality and granting of human rights to each citizen, and which times it presents the outrageous xenophobic outcome which seems to ostracize foreigners, but also other culturally different native people. A concept that has the power to destroy a country at its inception or build it up to become a leading country in the world deserves the upmost respect and deserves to be critically analyzed - especially in the Third World case where most countries where emancipated due to their countries employment of the concept of Nationalism. The Third World is large and for the purpose of the essay, it will focus on Nationalism in Africa particularly, the reasons being that most if not all African countries identified Nationalism as the preferred vehicle of receiving independence from their colonial masters and hoped that with the implementation of the theory they would succeed not only in gaining their independence but manage to unite their countries at the same time. The following essay in the light of the previously mentioned statements will critically analyze the pitfalls of Nationalism especially for the new nation and discuss the ways in which the concept of Nationalism negatively affects the country. The greatest obstacle for African states is that they do not hold the same a common culture like the European states had when they went through a nationalistic phase (Rotberg, 1966; 39). Moreover, the essay will identify the positives which Nationalism is supposed to bring to a country and suggest that the African country of Zimbabwe during the 1980s was not ready for nationalism to bring these positive aspects yet because of the way in which the country employed Nationalism - a narrow version of the theory resulting in a country which had to suffer from its inception. The main assumption of the essay being that the country started off with the wrong view of Nationalism and had no ideology to bring it forward post independence thus its failure to employ or maintain peace and security in the country.
Before the case study of Zimbabwe can be delved into - it is prudent to first get a definition of the concept of Nationalism. Nationalism obviously has as Rotberg puts it a metaphoric tree which produces its fruits of which few African states have enjoyed from this nationalism tree (Rotberg, 1966; 33). However, the African people might not be clear on - what it takes to grow this tree and then be able to enjoy the fruits it will inevitably produce in the future. The most accepted notion or definition of nationalism is presented by Palumbo when he asserts the following about nationalism, "trust in and love of country and distrust and fear of "the enemy" - that is, of another nation or of other nations" this definition already poses important obstacles for African countries which will be discussed at a further stage (Palumbo, 1981; 3). The previous definition which provides us with a mammoth problem for the African states is a more Eurocentric one; the African authors have identified a problem with having a single notion of nationalism and have thus provided us with two different types of nationalisms; one which frees the African states from colonialism or "anticolonial nationalism" and the other which brings devastation to the African continent - "postcolonial nationalism" (Falola, 2008; 21). The problem with having two definitions of nationalism - means that it makes the concept unstable and untrustworthy especially In the African case. It is easier seen as trying to have two different answers two a question with one answer. Granted having two different definitions of nationalism means that it gives African countries more of a chance to be understood but it then contradicts the very notion of nationalism - the love of one's country. In effect the two types of nationalism entail the same thing - the love of one's country, so why then the need for two different analyses? This is a question for later on in the paper, but brings us to the next section with an interesting question in mind.
As mentioned above there is a Eurocentric view of nationalism and an African one. Both of these notions inevitably don't agree. The reason for this is because Europe and Africa are extremely different to one another. The African continent has problems Europe cannot even fathom. The main difference or problem for Africa and Europe is that of culture and cultural difference/skisms. However, as McEwan states, the importance of the concept of nationalism to Africa proves the, "importance of external factors in the growth of African "nationalism'" (McEwan, 1968; 438).
The European approach to the term is that the state is at war with other states or people which are not from within their borders. This would definitely not work in African states because the need for the two definitions of nationalism which Mazrui produces is essentially for this problem the African state's borders where not made by themselves, thus making it unfeasible for the people in the borders to share the same cultural practices - which then brings a problem for the state - that of who is then considered a native. This problem increases exponentially when nationalism is brought to the fold - the reason being the Eurocentric definition is wary of people who are not the "same as them" - so in the African project there are people who are from the same land or state but are culturally different - and loving their country for them would be extremely hard if they are being considered outsiders in their own country. Moreover, in the European sense democratic practices are favored than a single party or dictatorship. This then brings another unsolvable problem for the African states which after independence resorted to military rule or single party systems - which themselves were going against the Eurocentric view of nationalism. It then becomes clear to see that everything that happened post independence in the African continent was opposed to a flourishing nationalistic identity for any state. They were going against the very values of the concept. Is this then why a myriad of countries failed in the successful transition between anti colonial nationalism and postcolonial nationalism?
The main problem for the African continent and its employment of Nationalism is that for the concept to be employed it requires that some people be left out - meaning that since nationalism is based on raising the people's consciousness about the country, it also means that there must be a ethnic base which is to be considered the "nation" which mean the other ethnicities are ostracized and then left out of the national project (Bascom, 1962; 29). The problem of ethnicity does not stop here in Africa the countries have carved themselves up with what has come to be known as Tribalism - which itself was a construct of the past colonial masters. The problem to nationalism that tribalism presents is that - by continuing to see themselves as tribes after colonialism had been destroyed would then make it extremely hard for the state to unite and become a homogenous base (Lowrie, 1991; 268). The problem with tribalism comes when we think of pre colonial times when the neighboring tribes, "were formerly divided into suspicious or hostile groups" (Bascom, 1962; 29). How then is it possible for a country post independence to come together and get along with people only 50 years ago thought to be their worst enemies? The question is a puzzling one and is one of the many reasons nationalism has failed the people of Africa.
The use of nationalism as a mechanism for change definitely worked at the outset which we now identify as "anticolonial colonialism" but then what should have happened next? (Falola, 2008; 21). The countries that chose to use nationalism as the preferred mode of change, did ultimately receive their independence but as Fanon argues the way in which they chose nationalism was arbitrary and unclear to them. He states that the African countries which chose nationalism as the mode of change did so but had no clear ideology to follow after they had been emancipated thus - he says they started off in their new state on the path of false nationalism (Fanon, 1963; 177). The problem with starting off on this "false nationalistic" road is that, the people in power have no knowledge of the road ahead - because it is obvious that the love of one's country alone will not provide for a country and will definitely not sustain the economy once the old colonialist leave. The problem for the new elite now was that they started off with the ideology that colonialism was bad and had to be banished but they stopped there and did not think far enough ahead and the problems they would then face - which now are numerous. This for Fanon then means that the new elite will just replace the old order and change nothing failing to bring to life the revolution nationalism entails (Fanon, 1963; 170). Other arguments about how nationalism was supposed to take five distinct phases is also flawed the argument is made by Mkandawire when he says that African nationalism has five humanistic tasks which are, "decolonization, nation-building, development, democracy and regional integration" this analysis cannot be taken seriously in the short term because out of the five tasks only one can be said to be completed throughout most of Africa and three for the seriously lucky or committed countries (Mkandawire, 2005; 50). The problem of putting this much pressure on nationalism is simple - the theory cannot do all five and if it could then we would be enjoying the "United States of Africa" at this moment in time - and the simple fact is that we are not. It can be said that nationalism in Africa failed miserably in attaining anything other than decolonization. Granted decolonization is an extremely important time for the African continent however, the problems nationalism brought are exceedingly more intricate to solve.
At this point it is wise that we identify the case study of Zimbabwe and the time period after independence. The problem with the nationalism that Zimbabwe employed is that they also did not look to the future they expected economic success to come to them and went into post independence without any viable ideology. The factionalism that is evident in Zimbabwe is because to this day the country is split between two different main ethnic groups and if you are not part of the right one you cannot make it far politically or business wise. Moreover, in the Zimbabwean case the split that occurred between ZANU and ZAPU was because of the elitist nature of ZANU which was lead by the new elite which were educated abroad and the ZAPU which was ruled by the working class - this split was one which could lead to a positive revolution as envisioned by Marx however, this did not happen because of the power that ZANU amassed (Sithole, 1984; 118). This was all prior to independence when the nationalism was as we now know anticolonial nationalism - which would allow Zimbabwe to become independent. It is however, hard to imagine that the independence would allow democracy if at this point in the 1960s there was already a split in the most powerful alignment (Sithole, 1984; 117).The factionalism within the Zimbabwean politics was because as Sithole remarks, "ideological bankruptcy" which brings us back to the flawed start the new independent nations would have to start with (Sithole, 1984; 118). The problems which are to come from the nationalistic movement Zimbabwe took are clear to see nowadays. The fact that the white settlers are seen as illegitimate natives of the Zimbabwean land - this is because nationalism requires there to be some people left out of and in this case it was the white people of Zimbabwe.
In conclusion nationalism was an extremely valuable tool for the decolonization of Africa. But that is where the positives of the theory end - it brought more harm than good for the African continent. It is what fuels the civil wars of Africa, the horrendous genocides we witness are a result of this "narrow nationalism" that most elites who were to win independence with this tool wished for. It is however, easy to find fault with hindsight - however, we can all agree that if the African continent is to find peace we have to embrace the differences of each and every individual residing within the African borders. No matter how different our cultures are doesn't allow us to ostracize one another for our differences but we should have a common goal which should be - the development of the African continent.
Bibliography:
William R Bascom (1962) Tribalism, Nationalism, and Pan-Africanism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences: Sage Publications. Vol. 342, No. 1. Pp. 21-29
Paul R Brass (1991) Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory of Comparison. (New Delhi: Sage Publications)
Thomas Hylland Eriksen (1991) Ethnicity versus Nationalism. Journal of Peace Research: Sage Publications. Vol. 28, No. 3. Pp. 263-278
Gale Lowrie (1930) Nationalism. International Journal of Ethics: The University of Chicago Press. Vol. 41, No. 1. Pp. 35-49
PJM McEwan (1968) Twentieth Century Africa. (London: Oxford University Press)
Robert I Rotberg (1966) African Nationalism: Concept or Confusion? The Journal of Modern African Studies: Cambridge University Press. Vol. 4, No. 1. Pp. 33-46
Masipula Sithole (1984) Class and Factionalism in the Zimbabwe Nationalistic Movement. African Studies Review: African Studies Association. Vol. 27, No. 1. Pp. 117-125
Falola Toyin and Hassan Salah (2005) Power and Nationalism in Modern Africa. (Durham Carolina Academic Press)
Frantz Fanon (1963) The Pitfalls of National Consciousness. In Frantz Fanon The Wretched of the Earth. (New York: Grove Press)