Nationalism and Democracy

Is nationalism the same as democracy or are there fundamental differences between these two terms?
Scholars have raised the question about states’ transition from authoritarian regimes to democracy. The question has been debated whether a successful transition from authoritarian regimes to democracy involves a strong element of nationalism in facilitating a smooth transition. Some political scientists have argued that nationalism is compatible with and even the same as democracy.
This question has been examined in the context of Central Asian states and their transition from the Soviet Communist system to liberal democracy. Yilmaz Bingol (2004) argues that while there is a “significant degree of trade-off between nationalism and democracy,” in the case of Central Asian states, it is “nationalism, not liberal democracy that is the real successor to communism.”
There is also a considerable debate regarding the Central Asian states’ failure to achieve democracy after declaring independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Scholars of the region have argued that Central Asian states’ failure to achieve democracy is tied to many factors that include low levels of economic development, traditional culture, weak civil societies, the leading-role of the old nomenklatura, and ethnic cleavages, Paul Kubicek (1998).
Some scholars have expressed doubts about Central Asian states to achieve liberal democracy. They have raised the question whether democracy will ever be attained in this region. The debates revolve around the historical developments of Central Asian states before the influence of the Soviet Union and the existence of a clan-based, regional and tribal affiliation and the absence of nationalism in the region.
Ella Akerman (2002) argues that the Central Asia nations were historically divided into clans and tribes that form large territorial factions and until the twentieth century. Despite the Soviets’ efforts to dilute tribal consciousness and to impose new national identities, tribal and regional identities among the populations in the region of Central Asia remained intact. These elements played a significant factor in social and political relations.
References
Akerman, Ella (2002) Democratization in Central Asia: Communism to clanism, Conflict, Security & Development, 2:01, 133-144.
Bingol, Yilmaz (2004) Nationalism and Democracy in Post-communism Central Asia, Asian Ethnicity, 5:01, 46-60.
Kubicek, Paul (1998) Authoritarianism in Central Asia: Cures or Cure?, Third World Quarterly, 19:01, 29-43.
Further reading
Akerman, Ella (2002) Democratization in Central Asia: Communism to clanism, Conflict, Security & Development. 2:01, 133-144.
Bingol, Yilmaz (2004) Nationalism and Democracy in Post-communism Central Asia, Asian Ethnicity, 5:01, 46-60.
Kubicek, Paul (1998) Authoritarianism in Central Asia: Cures or Cure?, Third World Quarterly, 19:01, 29-43.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu