The Middle East: Changing the Meaning of “Nationalism”

By Samantha Riley

As protests continue to sweep across the Middle East, including namely countries such as Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, Iran, and up to fifteen others, questions regarding civil wars and political repercussions are stirring all around the globe. Even though it is impossible to predict what these protests will do to the world’s borders and national resource supply, the effects these have on world ideologies regarding nationalism can already be seen.

These protests have changed what it means to be a nationalist.

Gunman in Tripoli Demand Liberation From Their Own Leader. Photo credit: AP

Previously, nationalism was formulaic around empirical rule and suppression from outside powers within a “subordinate” country’s borders. “There was empire, the people gained their strength, kicked out empirical forces, and kicked them out,” explains David Ludden, professor of Empire and Globalizations at New York University. This can be seen in examples all through out history, especially in examples of British rule, like India and the United States. Empire highlighted what it meant to be an outsider, and nationalism emerged as a result of wanting to keep what was “pure” within a country’s borders.

Now, there is still what New York Times writer, David Brooks calls “a universal hunger for liberty,” but the difference is that with the latest protests, nationalism has shifted from the outside, in.  Rather than defending their countries against exterior threats, the source of discontent comes from within. “In the past, people have said, ‘this is our country and we deserve to rule our own country’,” said Ludden, “but now they’re saying it to their own leaders.”

This is significant, especially considering where the protests are occurring. Previously, Samuel Huntington classified religion as being the basic formation of national ideologies, specifically in this region. The events that have occurred within the past few months, however, have proved this wrong. “In some circumstances, one set of identities manifests itself,” Brooks continues, “but when those circumstances change, other equally authentic identities and desires get activated.” A desire for democracy, for representation, for abolishment of corruption has replaced religious ties, to a degree.

This shift could be the result of numerous events. First, empirical control is arguably less influential currently. Citizens may always need someone to blame for their discontents and whoever has the strongest hand in a country is the easiest outlet. Next, the internet and social media have created a new sort of connectivity and awareness that has previously not existed. This makes the wrongdoings within government easier to broadcast and creates a more aware citizenry. It could, finally, be a result of an actual decline in the attachment to religion in the face of political suppression.

For now, the world can only watch as these factors play out into the fate of the Middle East and the world’s unrest.