A VERY POWERFUL INVENTION: THE "NATION STATE"

 In Teaching guide 1 we spoke of the “political use of nationalism”, referring to how 19th and 20th century historians considered the “Germanic Nations” as the origin of European nations.  The real entrance in politics of the word “nation” nevertheless does not begin as you already know in the 5th century but in the 18th century with the Enlightenment, when Absolute monarchies fell in the name of the “Nation”, as the divine origin of the concept of sovereignty vested in the person of the king was transferred to the joint body of the inhabitants of a kingdom. 

 This idea had appeared a century earlier with the concept of “Social Pact”, referring toa new explanation of why political power had to be obeyed by citizens. In the Middle Ages the pope, the emperor and the kings were sovereigns because God had created the world this way (Theocentrism). But the religious crisis of the 16th and 17th centuries that brought the dreadful wars of religion obliged political thinkers to develop a laic approach to the justification of Power. It was then when Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) horrified by the long English civil war and the execution of Charles I came up with the idea that sovereignty was vested in a political monster called Leviathan, integrated by the ensemble of citizens that gave up forever all their rights to Him in order to get His protection and avoid chaos.  

This harsh vision of the Social Pact was tempered by John Locke (1632-1704) and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) as they considered that the Social Pact could not be irreversible and irrevocable. Citizens accept to obey the Government but only if it works for the “Common wealth”. If not they could consider that those in power break the social pact and this legitimate them to disobey and bring along a new pact. On top of that the Social pact had some “special clauses” because some of the original rights of citizens could not be given up under any circumstance, as they were considered “fundamental”. This is the origin of the theory of the “Fundamental Rights and Liberties”

First edition (1762) of the "Social Contract" of Jean Jacques Rousseau

The result of this mildest vision of the social pact empowered citizens as they became the “owners” of sovereignty and not the kings, as they were the “protagonists” of the Social pact. A body of people that had in common that they were born in the same territory. This is why they were called its “nationals”, and the ensemble of them a “Nation” with capital N. Remember the French celebration of the "Fête de la Fëdération" on the 18 of July of 1790, the origin of French National Day.  

The other consequence of the religious conflicts of the 16th and 17th centuries was the disappearance of Universalism as we saw in Teaching Guide 3. The “official” sanction of the death of the conception that there was one universal ruler was a result of the Westphalia Peace of 1648 that reorganized Europe after the Thirty Years War. 

                                        The signing of the Westphalia Peace (1648)

The decadence of the Universal model was the direct consequence of the strengthening of the State. We have already seen in Teaching guide 2 that once kings turned into monarchs they could organize better their realms creating administrative bodies that enabled them to collect taxes for paying the maintain a permanent army. They could impose a protectionist economic policy aiming at augmenting the wealth of the state by the way of increasing as much as possible the reserves of gold and silver. Something that could be reached by the way of establishing a favorable balance of trade, exporting more than importing and monopolizing as many trades as possible.  This economic policy was called “mercantilism”. The aim of it was having the highest quantity of precious metals, namely gold. 

Every monarch started competing with other monarchs in order to accumulate wealth and therefore power.  Part of the wealth was of course the result of having as many territories as possible and as many subjects that could pay taxes and join their armies. For this the kings developed step by step a “proto-national feeling.” Starting may be with Jeanne d’Arc (1412-1431) that helped his king Charles VII to get rid of the English soldiers that occupied a substantial part of French soil during the Hundred Years War (1337-1453). Napoleon considered her the symbol of France. Beatified in 1909 ans canonized in 1920, Saint Joan of Arc became one of the patrons of France. 

Royal states during the absolutist period did not disdain to foment patriotic sentiments amongst their subjects during political and military conflicts. We cannot speak of proto-nationalism, as in Tudor England, Bourbon France and Habsburg Spain these feeling did not emanate from a loyal people who felt invested in, and identified with, their land and its institutions. In fact, according to Anderson (Lineages of Absolutist State, London: Verso, 2013) these “national passions” under absolutism, though they may have appeared to be significant, were in reality highly contingent and volatile, as power and political legitimacy were of a dynastic nature, constantly vulnerable to manipulation by grandees and sovereigns. (see pages 44 and 45 of your Materials).

But regardless of the abovementioned debate, it is quite clear that after the Peace of Westphalia (1648) the idea of a universal Christian Empire was replaced by an international order based on the struggle between different secular “national monarchies” that would struggle to impose their hegemony through successive wars during the next three centuries.   

Unity was replaced by diversity. There was not a common pope or a common emperor anymore, but a reunion of kings that were heads of independent “states”. The problem was, as you know, that the "state" was just an organization, a way of setting the government and the administration of a territory. And this political and administrative body needed a soul, and that soul was nationalism. The result was the appearance of a new political : the Nation-State. 

But one thing was to have the idea of replacing the "Monarch" by the “Nation” and another very different to put it into practice. It was not going to be an easy transition. In fact it required a revolutionary movement followed by dramatic wars steered by the “nationalistic narrative”. First in North America, since 1776, and secondly in France since 1789. This is what we are going to study today.  

                            Signing the US Declaration of Independence on 4th of July 1776. 

This changed in America for the first time when colons rebelled against the British Crown and declared their independence on July 4, 1776, starting a Revolutionary War of 7 years (until 1783). Patriotism was at the stake in George Washington’s Camp. British soldiers fought essentially for money, but American soldiers fought to have a country of their own. Of course not all of the Americans were for rebellion. Some wanted to keep on being British subjects: they were called Loyalists. If you want to really feel what was it like I strongly recommend the US TV Serie “Turn. Washington Spies” (2014) and of course the classic Mel Gibson’s Movie The Patriot (2000). You will enjoy them very much. 

Mel Gibson in The Patriot

 Fighting for your own country and not for your king was a powerful narrative that lead you to be willing to die by patriotism. That was very clear under another Revolution: the French one. The French Revolution was such a mess that would have disappeared if the Revolutionary Constituant Assembly had not had the brilliant idea of declaring the war to the kings of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria on the 20 of April 1792. 

                                             The Battle of Jemappes (6 November 1792)

 The conflict of the newborn United States of America with the UK between 1776 and 1783, and the conflict of Revolutionary France against Absolutist European kings of the Ancien Régime created a new type of State. The Nation-State in which sovereignty was not vested on the Monarch, but on the People, considered as Nation, that is a Political Body that govern themselves through the representatives elected (Representative democracy).

The crucial point is that “nationalism” became a very powerful narrative that consolidated the state and dissolved any rest of “universalism”. The Law for instance became “national” and the result was “codification”. Every State created its own ordered set of national laws. Including the Law that declared who was “national” of the state. 

The main problem that the European Union has is that its 27 Members are still heavily rooted "Nation-States", and that usually their nationals do not feel closer to their country than to the abstract idea of a United Europe. European narrative is still far less powerful. In contrast with what happens in the United States, where you 50 Member States but only "one nation". Their integration process was difficult and had to go through a terrible Civil war, but today they are one of the most powerful countries because despite their diversity they have a common strong narrative.         

The first US flag: 13 stripes representing the colonies and 13 stars representing the new states. 

(Today it has 50 stars but still 13 stripes)

                 

 In this Teaching Guide 4 we will see the origins of the “Nation State” idea through the American and French Revolution. And in the next Teaching Guide 5 we will see the apogee of the Nation-States during the period starting with Napoleon and leading to the Era of great colonialism that ended for European States with the holocaust of World War I. 

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 54 to 78), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 74 to 75) the crucial dates are the following: 

a) For the American Revolution: 1607, 1620, 1754-1763, 1773, 17775, 1776, 1777, 1783 and 1787

b) For the French Revolution: the periods of Constituant Assembly (June 1789 to September 1791); the Legislative Assembly (October 1791 to August 1792); the Convention (September 1792 to October 1795) and the Directory (October 1795 to November 1799). 

Crucial dates are : 1789 (17 June, 20 June, 27 June, 14 July), 1790 (July 14),  1792 (April 20; 10 August, 20 and 22 September); 1793 (21 January); 1794 (January until July: Robespierre). 1799, 9 November. 

 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: How important is your country for you? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Are you proud of being “national” from your country? 

2. Do you think your country is an arbitrary invention that does not make sense today?

3. Do you think that separatist nationalist in European statestoday should be independent Nation-States? Give reasons for and against. 

4. Do you feel more “national” or more European?

5. What moves you more: your local soccer team or your National team?

                                        The "Nation-State" an extremely powerful fiction.

THE MYTH OF A UNIVERSAL POWER

             

Most of Europeans in the 21st century are trying to get over the concepts of “nation” and “state”, in order to be able to cooperate together in the frame of the much larger frame of the European Union. Apparently it seems this is something new. In fact in the past our ancestors have lived during long periods of our history in one single political and legal unit.  Concretely since the appearance of the first Western Empire: The Roman Empire. 

Its history is really interesting because despite the fact that it disappeared more than 1500 years ago, we still live to a large extent from its legacy. 

The Roman Empire is not the oldest one. In Teaching Guide 2 we spoke about how Sargon created the oldest Empire the Akkadian, 4.300 years ago. But it was an Oriental Empire. In the West the pioneers were the Romans. Because the Greeks were far more disorganized in political terms.  The first power who aimed at becoming “Universal” was the Roman Empire. And it did not appear overnight. 

The origins of Western Political “Universalism”

The first organized Western society were the Greek Polis, limited to the area of the different Greek cities: Athens, Sparta, Thebes, etc…Greeks were only united for participating in the Olympic Games founded in 776 BC, for fighting the Persians in the medic Wars at the beginning of the 5th century, and under the ephemeral rule of Alexander the Great (336-323). But the Greek Polis were for the rest of the time independent city-states that fought each other when the had the occasion as they demonstrated during the Peloponnesian Wars that first destroyed Athens, then Sparta and finally Thebes. The regime of the Polis could not conceive government away from the city walls. It is significant that when there was an excess of population in a Polis, the surplus of citizens were sent abroad in order to create a new colony that immediately became an independent Polis. This is why Greece was so easily conquered by Rome and became a Roman Province in 146 B.C. Half a century after Spain became a Roman Province (Well in fact two: Hispania Citerior and Ulterior in 197 B.C.).

Why Rome became an Empire? It started as a polis at the end of the 6th century B.C. but 500 years later it was a great power that controlled the whole Mediterranean area. What did the Romans do right? Why they succeeded where Greek Polis failed? First because they were far more organized and they soon developed the idea that they could govern and administrate territories far away from the City of Rome itself. Greek founded independent colonies, Romans founded also colonies (that is cities integrated by Roman citizens) in distant lands, but these Roman colonies were not independent, they were controlled by Roman central Power. First the Republic and after Augustus (27 B.C. – 14 A.D.).

Napoleon Imperial Eagle

                                                              Hitler's Third Reich Eagles

 Roman extraordinary territorial expansion provoked a brutal crisis of the Republican regime and brought half a century of dreadful civil wars (86-31 B.C), that only ended with the victory of Octavius Caesar Augustus who was a fine politician that convinced that the only way of preserving the peace was to give the power to one man (monarchy). It was first the Prince (First citizen), then the Emperor (as he had full “imperium”) and finally at the end of the 3d century BC the Dominate, because the emperor had become the owner and master of the empire (Dominus).    

The Roman empire was a universal empire because it reigned all over the known antique world. Since 212 AD all inhabitants of the empire became overnight Roman citizens, subject to the same political leader and under the same Law. And it was so until in the year 476 the Western Roman Empire disappears and its territory –more or less today’s Europe- is occupied by different Germanic Nations that create independent kingdoms. But was this the end of “Universalism”? No because during the 4th century the Roman Empire was penetrated by a new religion Cristianism, that started being prosecuted by the Roman emperors, before being first tolerated, and finally being declared the Official cult of the Empire.   

From political to religious universalism:  Cristianism vs. Catholicism

When Rome became a great Empire, the Romans grew rich and powerful, making them disbelieving materialists. They could not really give a damn about religious diversity, as long as it did not affect the integrity of the Empire. In fact, the Roman emperors tolerated all kinds of faiths; apart from the traditional veneration of ancestors, the only genuinely Roman religion was emperor worship, a political cult pragmatically aimed at glorifying the public authority wielding power over all the inhabitants of the Empire. But it went no further than that. 

 This milieu of worldliness and spiritual disinterest was, undoubtedly, what fuelled the rise of Christianity, a faith rooted in Judaic monotheism and based on an alluring and effective narrative, among other things, because it upheld equality between all people, and argued that the wealthy were spiritually bankrupt, and likely doomed to damnation. In a sceptical Roman Empire, one sustained by hordes of slaves, Christianity spread like wildfire in the years after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which occurred under the rule of Augustus's successor, Tiberius. Although, historically, the emperors couldn't care less about their subjects' religious beliefs, Christianity was different because it posed a threat to power by placing man's relationship with God above loyalty to the emperor. This menace spurred Rome's leaders, beginning with Nero (54-68), who detected the danger the Christians constituted, to persecute and even martyrize them. By doing so, however, they only fanned the flames of the new religion and fomented its spread throughout the Empire. 

Despite its repression –or, perhaps because of it– Christianity grew so strong that the emperors had no choice but to, first, tolerate the new religion, and then legalize it, through the Edict of Serdica, in 311, issued by Emperor Galerius; and the Edict of Milan, promulgated by Constantine, just two years later.

Christianity proved a powerful social movement, so unstoppable that emperor Theodosius I, in 380, made it the official religion of the Empire, with the momentous consequence that all other religions were rendered illegal. As a result, Christianity became a religion as "universal" as the imperial power itself, which is why its name changed, and it came to be called "Catholicism", from the Greek katholikós; meaning "universal" or "general".  Does the word “universal” seems familiar to you?                                          

The secret to Catholicism's stunning success was that the Christians were very well organized, managing to develop, in a short period of time, a powerful structure, the Church, effectively established thanks to a highly hierarchical territorial network starting at the local level of the parish, and extending all the way up to the Pope in Rome, after passing through the heads of the "ecclesiastical provinces": the bishops.

                                            Percentage of catholics by country in the world

As a result, the Church, initially a clandestine group of ragtag rebels, became, after its officialization, a veritable "state" within the Roman state. Over time the emperors began to lock horns with the bishops who, soon wielding great power themselves, often proved unruly. And this is where the stormy history of relations between Church and State begins, which received the name "Caesaropapism", as the conflict involved the heads of these two "states": the Caesars (emperors) and the popes. Today, two millennia after its appearance, the Catholic Church continues to be headquartered in an independent state: the Vatican, which rules over an impressive territorial network spanning the entire world. Its institutional longevity and effectiveness are truly impressive.  

                             

                              The Pope Francisco. The actual head of the "Universal" Church

The Church, thus, became a very powerful force, one that would prove able to exert pressure not only on the Roman emperors, but also on their successors, the Germanic kings, whose subjects, mostly "Roman", shared a common creed, Christianity, which placed them under the bishops' authority. Thus, the German monarchs converted to Catholicism, embracing the old adage that "if you can't beat them, join them". In fact, not only did they become Catholics, but they also reached an agreement with the bishops of their kingdom whereby the Church consecrated the king, rendering him a sacred and indisputable figure. In return, the ecclesiastical structure was integrated into the kingdom's government.

The important thing for you to understand is that in the Europe of the High Middle Ages (8th to 11th centuries) Catholicism had been established as a universal religion extending throughout all of "Christendom". Thus, even though there was no longer an emperor in Rome, there did rule in the Eternal City a pope, who served as the head of the Catholic, apostolic (because its objectives included spreading the faith, through "evangelization" among non-believers, or pagans) and "Roman" church. When the feudal system spread across Europe its people were, then, already devout Christians, not only fully integrated into the structure of the Church, but also entirely convinced that the world ought to be governed by the Law of God. They were no longer united by a common political structure, since the old Western Empire had crumbled into a diverse set of kingdoms, but they did share a "theocratic" conception of the world and of society. Everyone firmly believed that the only legitimate power was that granted by God, "Creator of heaven and earth", and, of course, the legal order.

                                                  Pantocrator of Sant Climent de Taüll

A two head universalism: Popes and Emperors

Then the Popes became heads of a real State, since the creation in 754 of the Papal States, thanks to the alliance with the Frankish Monarchy of Pepin the Short  (751-768). In return of the favour the popes helped Pepin’s son “Charlemagne” (the Great Charles) to become the first Western Medieval emperor on December 24 of the year 800. It would be renewed by Otto I who became in 962 the first head of the Holy Roman Empire that would last nominally until 1806. 

The Universal model had therefore not disappeared with the fall of Western Roman Empire in 476. Though now in its medieval version it had two heads: a pope and an emperor. In a Catholic society were all men were equal under the eyes of God (Theocracy). Popes and emperors were therefore the most important figures in politics at least until the beginning of the 14th century. 

The power of popes and emperors nevertheless was not enduring or strong as the Late medieval European kings had became more and more important since the 14th century, and during the Absolutist period (16th and 17th centuries) the European Monarchies would became fully independent from Popes and Emperors. Especially after the Westphalia Peace (1648). 

Then the decadence of the papacy was more and more obvious because of the Avignon’s Captivity and the Western Schism, that brought a severe coup to papal prestige. Universalism of the Catholic church was done when Luther started the Protestant reform in 1520, and Henry the VIII of England created in 1534 his own Anglican church and became the head of it displacing the pope. 

 Of course the disappearance of Universalism obliged political thinkers to find a new narrative to justify the power of these independent kings. As the reference to traditional legitimacy of Imperial Rome disappeared required a new approach for convincing people they should blindly obey their monarchs. And thanks to Machiavel, Bodin and Hobbes, among others, the narrative of the absolute state and the full sovereignty of the king was found: the prevention of anarchy and chaos.  

The persistency of the Imperial idea

 The triumph of the idea of a Europe of independent States did not abolished completely the myth of an Emperor. The Imperial idea lasted a little longer after the signing of the Westphalia Peace in 1648. 

 Despite the fact that Charles V (1519-1558) was the last Universal emperor in the medieval way, the emperors did not disappeared from European politics. Essentially because they were ambitious leaders who wanted to become emperors. 

The Holy Roman Empire

                                          

                                                                      Hitler's Third Reich

                                                        Member States of the European Union

There was the French Empire -with Napoleon I (1804-1815), and Napoleon III (1851-1870)- and the German Empire of Bismarck (1871-1918). And even Queen Victoria (1837-1901) was formally named “Empress of India”. The last European emperor would be Adolf Hitler (1933-1945) head of the Third Reich -the First being the Holy Roman Empire (962-1806) and the Second Bismarck’s German Empire (1871-1918).   

Was Adolf Hitler really the last emperor? Well some consider the US President as the head of a the “De facto” World imperial power. And despite the fact that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jiping are doing everything they can to jeopardize American superiority the White House is still a reference in the world. 

HOW TO STUDY TEACHIG GUIDE 3 

First read the text included in your Materials (pages 31 to 45), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 46 to 48) the crucial dates are the following: 590-604, 754, 800, 962, 1054, 1075, 1198-1216, 1303, 1378-1417, 1527, 1534, 1618-1648, 1804-1815, 1806, 1852-1870, 1871-1918, 1929, 1933-1945. 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Is globalization a de facto return to an Universal Model, as States cannot act anymore on their own, isolated, in the World context?

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Why Rome became a great Power and Greek Polis disappeared. 

2. How did Octavius Cesar Augustus solved the Crisis of the Roman Civil wars?

3. Why after 476 AD the idea of “Universalism” did not disappear in the West?

4. Why Universalism failed after Charles V (1519-1556) in Europe? What conflict provoked the disappearance of the idea that all westerners were under a supreme unique authority. 

5. What was the main feature of European Political History after 1648?

6. How was organized Europe under the Napoleonic Empire (1804-1815)?

7. How was Europe organized under Hitler’s Third Reich (1933-1945)?

8. Why the World was so relatively stable during the period 1948-1989?

9. Are States in our global world really as independent as they appear? 

10. Is the accelerated "urbanisation" of the planet (by 2050 very much likely 2/3 of the inhabitants of the Planet will live in cities) contributing to globalisation as big cities are beginning to be more important than the States? 

WHY AND HOW DID APPEAR THE STATE?

Front page of Leviathan's first edition from Hobbes (1651). By Abraham Bosse. The best visual representation of what the State represents. 

 Last week we dealt with the origin of a concept as complex as "nation" that since the 5th century AD has been constantly a part of our European culture. The reality and significance of the term "nation" has changed over history. But it is still a fiction that people believe and that enable "nationals" to cooperate together. The question is how to articulate practically this cooperation of a large number of people believing they are part of the same "nation". 

  Jericho, the oldest city in Human history in the Biblical Times

Historically groups have been united in tribes, then -after the Agricultural Revolution- in cities and empires. Jericho was the first city founded 11.000 years ago. 

                              The Akkadian Empire. The oldest Empire in Human History

An Sargon created the oldest Empire the Akkadian, 4.300 years ago. A great idea that was used by the Romans for 500 years (27 B.C to 476) if we just consider the Western Part of the Roman Empire and 1500 years if we take into account the Byzantine Empire, as it only disappeared in 1453.

The Roman Empire at its height

 And in another part of the World by the Chinese between the Reign of Emperor Qin (221-210 BC) to the Reign of Emperor Puyi (1908-1912). 2.133 years.

                                                                    The Chinese Empire

Today the most common organization for humans to cooperate is the State.  A pure Western invention. Another "fiction", like the nation. A very abstract fiction that only Abraham Bosse has represented  in a very expressive iconic way in the front page of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan first edition of 1651.

Th thing that despite that it is an abstract fiction, it is a very popular fiction as  this form of organizing a political community has been adopted by almost everyone. 

 Today there are concretely 193 member states of the United Nations Organization, to which must be added others that do not enjoy full recognition. South Korea and North Korea do not recognize each other. The People's Republic of China remains unrecognized by 19 countries that, nevertheless, recognize the ROC (Republic of China) of Taiwan. The State of Israel is not recognized by 32 countries, and the Republic of Palestine is only recognized by 136. Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus, which is, nevertheless, a member of the European Union, but it does recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is not recognized by any other state. Pakistan does not recognize the Republic of Armenia. The Republic of Abkhazia has, so far, only been recognized by 6 countries. The Republic of Kosovo has only been recognized by 104 of the 193 UN countries. Other territories are struggling to become members of the UN, such as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, South Ossetia, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, aka Transnistria. The most unique case is that of Somaliland, which remains unrecognized by any state despite having declared itself an independent state and functioning as one.

The latest addition to the Officially UN's recognized States happened in 2011, when the state of South Sudan broke away from the Republic of Sudan after years of a bloody civil war. 

Only the ISIS wants to get back to the Islamic original Religious community known as the Caliphate. But with not a lot of success, as Syria and Iraq are still full states and their respective governments are not willing to give up at all on this. 

ISIS flag carried by a Faith Warrior

States, then, seem to remain inevitable, although one has to wonder why. Are they imposed on us, or do we really crave them? 

Why do we humans like so much the State as a way of organizing our cooperation? Well, the fact that states have multiplied all over the planet is due to the fact that they are, undeniably, highly operative instruments for social organisation. The state is such an effective apparatus of power that, centuries after they were created, they not only continue to exist, but have thrived and spread all over the world. Basically, this is because it is a form of organisation that makes it possible to pool large amounts of human and material resources to jointly achieve specific objectives. Human beings organised into states are simply more powerful. 

Of course the State organization did not appear overnight. This European invention  required centuries of development, going through different steps: the Greek polis, the Roman empire, the Medieval European Kingdoms, the Absolute Monarchies, and the contemporary Nation-States that appeared since the last third of the 18th century in the United States of America or in France. 

Today we will look into the origins of the organization that we call today "State" in the European tradition. Starting with how the Germanic "kings", became "monarchs", and how the feudal concept of "suzerainty" turned into the one of "sovereignty". How the principle of personality of the Law, according to which in the Germanic kingdoms every "nation" had its own "national law," was replaced by the principle of one single law for the whole kingdom (Territoriality of the Law). The example of Philip II of France, who started his reigns as "king of Francs" and ended it as "King of France" is self-explanatory.  

The Crowning of Philip II, the first king of "France" 

Thank to this medieval "monarchs", the European Kingdoms expanded and got organized not only politically but from an administrative and legal perspective. This monarchs became really powerful when in the 16th and 17th centuries they became Absolutist kings that could create their own laws through "legislation", besides being the supreme judicial authorities of the kingdom. Their absolute power, justified by the lawyers formed in Medieval Universities that studied Roman Imperial law and considered the kings as "emperors" in their own realms, and by political thinkers as Nicholas Machiavel (1469-1527) and Jean Bodin (1530-1596), consolidated the idea of the State and Sovereignty. 

In fact the term "State" was used for the first time to refer to our political and administrative organization by Machiavel in his capital work The Prince (1532). This is the sense he gives to the expression in the following texts extracted from Chapter 18th:  

 - "And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to fidelity,[4] friendship, humanity, and religion [...]"

- "Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result [...]".

- "For that reason, let a prince have the credit of conquering and holding his state, the means will always be considered honest, and he will be praised by everybody; because the vulgar are always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it; and in the world there are only the vulgar, for the few find a place there only when the many have no ground to rest on [...]".

                                                     Portrait of Nicholas Machiavel (1469-1527)

Lets get started in understanding where our "States" come from along European Constitutional History. 

HOW TO STUDY TEACHING GUIDE 2

First read the text included in your Materials (pages 18 to 25). And then proceed to answer the Concrete questions, Concepts and General Questions. Do not hesitate to ask in class if anything is confusing or you do not understand it. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 26-27) the crucial dates, the ones you have to remember, are the following: 1188, 1215, 1223, 1302, 1348, 1390, 1513, 1547, 1576, 1624, 1651 and 1661.   

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Be prepared to comment the following quote of Henry Kissinger (1923) : “If I had to choose between justice and disorder, on the one hand, and injustice and order, on the other, I would always choose the latter.” based on a quote from Goethe ("I prefer to commit an injustice than tolerate disorder").

Though as Michel Houellebeq precise, these words "[...] were said during the French Revolution in front of the city of Mainz, which had been recovered by the Prussians. He said it only minutes after personally intervening to prevent the lynching of a French soldier who had been evacuated by the troops of the Duke of Weimar. In the context, the "injustice" consists of sparing an enemy soldier who may be a great criminal. The "disorder" is that of the unleashed, bloodthisrty rabble, ready to tear a man to shreds. Thus, in his mouth the phrase really means the opposite, exactly the opposite of what you say he meant. Indeed, since Barrès he has allways been misinterpreted." (Extracted from Michel Houellebeq and Bernard Henry Levy (2011) Public Ennemies London: Atlantic Books). 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. The contrats between the Greek Classical Polis and the Roman Empire. Why Rome became a big power and not the Athenian democracy?

2. How traditional kings, issued from a concrete family (dinasty) became "monarchs" (From the Greek "monos" one and "arcos" power). 

3. The difference between the concepts "Suzerainty" (within the frame of a feudal society) and "Sovereignty" (framed in the late medieval period, and in the Absolutist era by Jean Bodin). 

4. What means that the Medieval monarchies turn "territorial"? What are the consequences of this territorialisation? 

5. Bear in mind the "Technical advantages" of Absolutism (pages 22-24) over a theocentric and feudal society where the kings shared their power with the "Assemblies of Estates". 

6. Please consider that the growth and development of the idea of "State" relies on the expansion and growth of European Monarchies demanding a significant bolstering of royal power. 

7. Consider also why after World War I, the European liberal "laissez faire" regimes gave  way to totalitarian models of state like in the Soviet Union, the Fascist Italy or the Nazi Germany. Think of the conditions that enabled the bolstering of State power and the dissolution of democracy and the Rule of law. 

8. Do you think that the actual Pandemic situation justifies a bolstering of the Government powers, restricting individual liberties and fundamental rights, as for instance proclaiming the "state of alarm" for 6 months, in clear violation of the 1978's Spanish constitution which clearly requires its renewal every two weeks.  

 

                                                   The symbols of the French State

The Official Portrait of the actual French Head of State: President Emmanuel Macron

ON NATIONS AND NATIONALISMS

 

 The word "nation" comes from the Latin natio-nationis, which refers to one's place of birth. In the same way that the term "native" designates those sharing the same geographical origin, "nationals" are those born in the territory of a given state, or born from parents that are “nationals” of this state. 

A Weird fiction

In European history, the term "nation" initially designated the Germanic peoples who settled in territories of the ancient Western Roman Empire from the 5th century on, and the groups of students of the same geographical origins who studied at medieval universities. The term was revived with a political meaning in the American and French Enlightenment-era revolutions to designate the inhabitants of a state who had deprived kings of "sovereignty" and transferred it to the people. Thus, the French Revolution was not officially consummated until July 14, 1790, when delegations from all over France met in Paris to celebrate the fact that they then formed one "nation".

Paris, July 14, 1790 

But it is one thing for the state to define the rules by which it applies its law to people, and quite another for being a native or national of a state to become a determinant of one’s identity, on a level with ethnicity, gender or physical or intellectual characteristics. Again, we must bear in mind that "nationality", "nation" and "nationalism" are all mere inventions. Thus, it is not enough to be, legally, the "national" of a state. One also has to believe in it, as articulated by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) when he argued that:

“A portion of mankind may be said to constitute a nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others –which make them cooperate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves, or a portion of themselves, exclusively”. (John Stuart Mill (1861) Considerations on Representative Government. Beginning of Chapter XVI).

Along this same line, the French thinker Ernest Renan (1823-1892), at a speech he gave in Paris on March 11, 1882, advanced the idea that the nation is a "daily plebiscite" - a popular consultation, in short, a referendum - on whether or not the heritage of a long history of joint efforts should be preserved, and that if that plebiscite is rejected at some point, the nation ceases to exist.  This is because he thinks that: 

 “A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things which, properly speaking, are really one and the same constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One is the past, the other is the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present consent, the desire to live together, the desire to continue to invest in the heritage that we have jointly received.” (Ernest Renan, (1882) What Is a Nation? ). 

The idea of the nation is a fluctuating and indeterminate one, as it appeals more to our emotions than to our reason. George Orwell, as early as 1945, was extremely critical of "nationalism", which, in his view, consisted of "the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labeled "good" or "bad." But secondly -- and this is much more important -- I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests". (ORWELL, Georges (2007) “Notes on Nationalism” in G. Orwell The Collected Essays: Journalism and Letters of George Orwell 4 vols. Boston MA: David R. Godine. Vol. 3, p. 361).

When the national narrative of a state falters, other, alternative narratives often emerge. In fact, some people are not comfortable as nationals of the state they live in, considering themselves members of a different "nation". These sentiments and struggles can range from mere grumbling, to massive demonstrations and activism, to outright violence and revolt. These nationalists (aka separatists, secessionists, regionalists) aspire to a "divorce" from their states, but invariably harbour plans to establish new states, which, ironically, are bound to be vulnerable to future movements to found, in turn, new ones.

A dangerous fiction

Tensions and disconnects between states and nations are as old as the hills, and have been at the root of many wars. Most recently, the 20th century saw two devastating world wars triggered by disgruntled nationalists, taking a gruesome toll of millions dead and many more crippled for life. 

                Exhumation of a Mass grave of the Srebrenica Massacre

  

                           Cemetery and Memorial in Srebrenica

Some might suggest these wars fuelled by nationalisms are a thing of the past. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Without going any further, a clash between states and nationalisms triggered the horrific Balkans War between 1991 and 1995, just yesterday in historical terms. Let’s just remember how Serbs, Croats and Bosnians did not hesitate to engage in horrendous processes of ethnic cleansing, resulting in massive population displacements and, in some cases, genuine massacres, such as the horrific genocide in Srebrenica, where between July 13 and 22, 1995 the Serbian Colonel Bosnian Ratko Mladic, encouraged by the President of the Serbian minority of the Republika Srpska of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Radovan Karazic, coldly ordered the shooting of 8,327 Muslim men, women and children.  

                                                 Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karazic

The example of Yugoslavia's disintegration continues to constitute a point of reference and touchstone for certain nationalist movements. Such is the case of Catalonia, whose president, the separatist Quim Torra, in December 2018  endorsed a declaration of war on Spain to achieve independence via the "Slovenian route".

                

                                                    Berlin 1936

     

                                                     Barcelona Airport in 2019

Drawing parallels between Catalonian and Slovenian nationalism is problematic, however, to say the least. First, because in the second decade of the 21st century the entire European historical scenario has radically changed. The fall of the Berlin Wall, German unification, and the collapse of Europe's communist regimes favoured, in the early 1990s, an eastward expansion of the European Community, which at the start of the decade consisted of 12 members. Today things have changed substantially for European nationalisms struggling for their own states, as the prevailing sentiment is that the European Union has grown too much too fast, and that too many member states imperil its survival. Thus, some are floating the idea of a "two-speed Europe"; that is, one in which the countries of the South would be subject to a different regime than those of the North. 

 This why Brussels does not look favourably on a "Balkanization" of the EU, which would exacerbate the already serious difficulties involved in managing common affairs between 27 states without a strong European federal power. Under these conditions the EU is in no mood to endorse the independence of Catalonia, considering that Catalonian public opinion is, in fact, almost evenly divided, giving rise to a prickly stalemate that has been a thorn in the side of Catalonian, Spanish and European politics for years. Fortunately, the conflict has not been violent, but it is generating increasing tensions and fanaticism on both sides. Although one might concede that peaceful movements for independence are absolutely legitimate, the narrative underlying the Catalonian campaign has been shamelessly specious, as at no time in its history has Catalonia been an independent nation-state, as independence activists have often claimed. Despite this, it might become independent, for the first time, if separatists manage to articulate the argument for independence in a compelling and persuasive way, offering an alternative to the narrative in which Catalonia forms, and ought to form, part of Spain, which, for the time being, has prevailed. Renan's permanent plebiscite (see above) is being won, for now, by those supporting the unity of the Spanish state. In these cases, in order to win, one must first convince.

     

        Zaragoza, December 11, 1987 (ETA killed that day 5 children among the victims)

  

                    

                        Irene Villa: the Symbol of ETA's barbarism    

 Nationalist feelings caused much more pain in the Basque Country, as Basque separatism spawned a terrorist war led by the terrorist organization ETA (1961-2011), which killed 829, wounded 3,000, and deeply scarred Spanish society, as ably described by Fernando Aramburu in Patria (2016). 

   

 After the assassination of Miguel Angel Blanco.   

        

                            His assassin Txapote

                                                 

Catalonian separatism has split the region's society into two bitterly divided camps, with this discord coming to a head in October 2017, when a failed Unilateral Declaration of Independence sparked great controversy and turmoil throughout Spain, being largely responsible for  the emergence of Vox, the first right-wing populist party after Franco's death. 

It is more than understandable that the EU does not want to open a Pandora's Box, encouraging other regions with strong identities to move towards secession. Belgium, for example, could very well be divided into two states: one Walloon and the other Flemish. In Italy, the Northern League would separate Padania from the country if it could, and South Tyrol could end up forming part of Austria again. Brittany and Corsica, emboldened by such secessions, might begin a struggle to break off from the République Française. Scotland, and perhaps Northern Ireland, could abandon from the United Kingdom, particularly in light of the fact that most of their people opposed Brexit. Then there is mighty Germany, where many inhabitants of the former East Germany still feel nostalgia for the communist-era GDR (1949-1990). In summary, in a Europe marked by such weak integration, "Balkanization" would most likely dynamite the European project. 

Sarajevo Killing in June 28, 1914. The cause of 16 million dead in WW1

It is no wonder, then, that the European Parliament, on November 26, 2020, rejected a proposal to recognize the right to self-determination within the European Union by an overwhelming majority. The motion was rejected by 487 votes against, 170 in favour and 37 abstentions.

HOW TO STUDY TEACHING GUIDE 1

Teaching Guide nr. 1 deals with "The Origin of European Nations", pages 7  to 16 of your Materials. Please read carefully the text (pages 8 to 13) and then proceed to answer the Concrete questions, understand the Concepts, and answer the General questions. If you have any doubts about any of these, please ask in class. 

As you see you have some dates (Basic Chronology in page 14). The crucial ones are the following: 378, 395, 476, 496, 568, 573, Pope Gregory's Papacy (590-604) and 654. You should learn them by heart as the first part of the exam consist on remembering crucial dates. 

Topic for discussion in class: 

- Do you think that the concept of "nation" is still valid in our today's Global world? Is it compatible with European integration? Is the EU a problem or a solution for nationalistic conflicts within Europe?

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. What was the sense of the word nation during the period of the Germanic kingdoms. 

2. What were the "national legal bodies" in the Germanic kingdoms. You have to distinguish between the principle of personality of the Law and undertsand the meaning of Territorial Law. Consider what happened in the Roman Empire in 212 AD with Roman citizenship and what was the situation after 476 AD. 

3. What was the meaning of the term "nation" in Medieval European Universities (FN 11 and 14). 

4. How the term nation changed in the 19th century according to authors like John Stuart Mill (FN 7) and Ernest Renan (FN 8). 

5. Look at George Orwell distinction between "Nationalism" and "Patriotism" (FN 10). 

6. Consider Geary's position  in the last paragraph (pages 12 and 13) abouth the political use of the past to justify the "rethoric of nationalist leaders". 

7. Consider if they are any links between "racism" and "nationalism". 

Be prepared to discuss in class about the Catalan and Basq issues in contemporary Spain. You can also think of Nationalist issues in the UK (After Brexit) or in Belgium.   And of course the Yugoslav Wars from 1991 to 2001. 

French "Gueules Cassées". The Aftermath of a Nationalist War (WW1)