Just like the "Nationalist" has many forms,there are also many varieties of democracy.
In general, democracy is often understood to be the same as liberal democracy. This contemporary understanding of democracy to a large degree differs from how the term was originally defined and used by the ancient Greeks in the Athenian democracy political regime.
The word democracy originates from the Greek wrods that means "rule by the people." The term is also sometimes used as a measurement of how much influence a people has over their government, as in how much democracy exists. Anarchism and communism are social systems that employ a form of direct democracy, and have no state independent of the people themselves.
Liberal democracy is sometimes the de facto form of government, while other forms are technically the case. For example, Canada has a monarchy, but is in fact ruled by a democratically elected Parliament.
Although democracy implies only a system of government defined and legitimized by elections, modern democracy can be characterized more fully by the following institutions: (Quote from Wikipedia)
1. A constitution which limits the powers and controls the formal operation of government, whether written, unwritten or a combination of the two.
2. Election of public officials, conducted in a free and just manner.
3. The right to vote and to stand for election (also Universal suffrage),
4. Freedom of expression (speech, assembly, etc.)
5. Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources Freedom of association
6. Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law
7. Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities
There is another definition of democracy. In which the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a "republic".
We have heard about the "democratization" of a nation:xxxxxx. Democratization is the transition from authoritarian or semi-authoritarian systems to democratic political systems, that have essentials of a democratic system: universal suffrage, regular elections, a civil society, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary.
It is interesting to think about what factors affect democratization. I thnk the followings are very relevant to the process of democratization.
1. Wealth. We learned from all those elections that no money means no campaign acivities, and no publicity.
2. Economic system. Fortunately, a true democracy can only be achieved if the the economy is controlled by the people as a whole rather than by private individuals.
3. A large middle class. This is a typical Gaussian Theorem. Majority of middle class acts as a buffer between the upper classes who want political power and the lower classes may want power to lift themselves up.
4. Civil society. A healthy civil society (NGOs, unions, academia, human rights organisations) are considered by some theorists to be important for democratization, as they give people a unity and a common purpose.
5. Homogeneous population. Some believe that a country which is deeply divided, whether by ethnic group, religion, or language, cannot establish a working democracy. The basis of this theory is that the different components of the country will be more interested in advancing their own position than in sharing power with each other. (This is an important factor in Taiwan)
6. Culture. It is claimed by some that certain cultures are simply more conductive to democratic values than others. Typically, it is Western culture which is cited as "best suited" to democracy, with other cultures portrayed as containing values which make democracy difficult or undesirable. This factor may play important role in countries of Asian.
7. A tradition of democracy. Democracy must evolve gradually. This argument is linked with the argument about cultural values. A country with extensive contact with Western countries will absorbing cultural values and ideals faster.
Finally, some like to use foreign intervention. They believe that foreign involvement can actively promote and foster by those countries which have democracy already. I, however, take the opposite stance, and say that democratization must come "from the bottom up", and that attempts to impose democracy from the outside are doomed to failure regardless of other factors --- Raping a woman can produce baby too but we all condem the raping.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Scholarly Temperament
Have you heard of "Scholarly Temperament" [學者氣質]? I found Dr. Bolliger is right on the money in this commentary on recent controversies happened in US university campuses. ~~ BigEagle ~~
COMMENTARY (Los Angeles Times, April 17, 2005, M5)
Teach Ideas, Not Ideology
By Lee C. Bollinger, (Lee C. Bollinger is president of Columbia University.)
This is a time of enormous stress for American colleges and universities.
Conflict and controversy have been roiling many of our nation's campuses. Columbia, where I am the president, is one of them. Over the last several months, an intense, often angry debate has arisen over the manner in which some professors have addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and whether those professors have been intimidating students who express opposing viewpoints in the classroom.
Elsewhere, there's been a national media campaign to stop University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill from speaking at Hamilton College and widespread criticism of Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers for his comments on women in math and science. Conservative activist David Horowitz and Students for Academic Freedom continue to pressure colleges and universities around the country over what they say is a left-wing bias in university classrooms.
Of course, it is hardly unprecedented for universities to make news, or for a professor to provoke a political firestorm. But today, that process is accelerated and intensified by forces outside the university's gates — by special interest groups, the media and increasingly strident voices on the Internet. In the week after a professor at our university called for "a million Mogadishus" to stop what he saw as America's colonizing hubris, I received more than 20,000 e-mails and the phone lines in my office became inoperable. The professor had to be moved to an undisclosed new apartment because of threats.
Turbulent times pose enormous challenges to the teaching profession. Professors, like most Americans, have strong views about politically charged subjects. Anyone who has been a teacher knows how easy it is to be pulled into the fray — to use the podium as an ideological platform, to indoctrinate a captive audience of students, to play favorites with the like-minded and silence the others.
In times like these, some question whether universities should even be teaching sensitive subjects like the Middle East or 9/11. But universities, as institutions committed to free inquiry, have a responsibility to examine all issues. Still, when discussing matters of great controversy, it is especially important that we resist the temptation to take a hard ideological line in the classroom; instead, we must embrace what I call the "scholarly temperament."
Of all the qualities that define an academic community, the scholarly temperament is perhaps the most vital to our mission. It requires us to acknowledge the difficulty and complexity of things, to set aside our preexisting beliefs, to hold simultaneously in our minds multiple angles of seeing things, to allow ourselves seemingly to believe another view as we consider it. Because it runs counter to many of our natural impulses, this kind of extreme openness of intellect requires both daily exercise and a community of people dedicated to keeping it alive.
Cultivating this scholarly temperament is among the highest aims of any university. It means professors should use the classroom as a sanctuary to explore ideas and to teach critical thinking, rather than inculcate a particular ideology.
Of course, like everyone else, professors have the right to believe whatever they believe, and to say so in the public sphere. The classroom, however, is not Hyde Park Corner. Nor are our universities merely a paymaster to a collection of independent contractors who play entirely by their own rules. Rather, we as faculty members are part of a community of scholars governed by rigorous and time-tested standards of intellectual quality.
In 1915, the founding document of the American Association of University Presidents described the professor as one who is steeped in "prolonged and specialized technical training," and who is "shaped or restricted by the judgment … of professional scholars..."
As such, professors are subject to certain professional expectations. Just as doctors must act ethically in the care of their patients, and judges must give both sides a fair hearing in the courtroom, so must professors approach teaching with a particular scholarly disposition. On the rare occasion that a faculty member fails to meet that obligation, we should count on the community of scholars — not external actors — to formulate an appropriate response. That is the foundational principle of academic freedom. That principle has been tested in the past — during World War I and again during the McCarthy era, among other times. One of the best-known invasions of academic freedom occurred at Columbia in March 1917, when the Board of Trustees, reacting to a wave of fanatic nationalism around the country, essentially imposed a loyalty oath on the entire university. Many faculty members responded with disgust, calling the loyalty resolution "unjust and injurious" in a petition to the trustees. But President Nicholas Murray Butler accepted the authority that the resolution gave him and enforced it. "What had been folly," he said in his Commencement Day address, "was now treason." A rash of firings followed.
Today, few would deny that robustly engaging with difficult ideas is the basic purpose of a university education. This is, moreover, a moment in American and world history when painful, sensitive issues need the clear-eyed attention of all citizens — and college students and faculty have important perspectives to add to this discussion.
Despite the pressures to choose sides and join the fight, the scholarly temperament is alive and well in our nation's universities. A handful of instances of inappropriate behavior have not endangered our basic mission. Our principles are still strong, our unique sense of purpose is still well placed, and the value that our universities continue to provide is not exceeded by any other institution.
Note by BigEagle: I would expect members of NATPA will remember the "schlarly temperament" when they address to community as official NATPA representative.
COMMENTARY (Los Angeles Times, April 17, 2005, M5)
Teach Ideas, Not Ideology
By Lee C. Bollinger, (Lee C. Bollinger is president of Columbia University.)
This is a time of enormous stress for American colleges and universities.
Conflict and controversy have been roiling many of our nation's campuses. Columbia, where I am the president, is one of them. Over the last several months, an intense, often angry debate has arisen over the manner in which some professors have addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and whether those professors have been intimidating students who express opposing viewpoints in the classroom.
Elsewhere, there's been a national media campaign to stop University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill from speaking at Hamilton College and widespread criticism of Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers for his comments on women in math and science. Conservative activist David Horowitz and Students for Academic Freedom continue to pressure colleges and universities around the country over what they say is a left-wing bias in university classrooms.
Of course, it is hardly unprecedented for universities to make news, or for a professor to provoke a political firestorm. But today, that process is accelerated and intensified by forces outside the university's gates — by special interest groups, the media and increasingly strident voices on the Internet. In the week after a professor at our university called for "a million Mogadishus" to stop what he saw as America's colonizing hubris, I received more than 20,000 e-mails and the phone lines in my office became inoperable. The professor had to be moved to an undisclosed new apartment because of threats.
Turbulent times pose enormous challenges to the teaching profession. Professors, like most Americans, have strong views about politically charged subjects. Anyone who has been a teacher knows how easy it is to be pulled into the fray — to use the podium as an ideological platform, to indoctrinate a captive audience of students, to play favorites with the like-minded and silence the others.
In times like these, some question whether universities should even be teaching sensitive subjects like the Middle East or 9/11. But universities, as institutions committed to free inquiry, have a responsibility to examine all issues. Still, when discussing matters of great controversy, it is especially important that we resist the temptation to take a hard ideological line in the classroom; instead, we must embrace what I call the "scholarly temperament."
Of all the qualities that define an academic community, the scholarly temperament is perhaps the most vital to our mission. It requires us to acknowledge the difficulty and complexity of things, to set aside our preexisting beliefs, to hold simultaneously in our minds multiple angles of seeing things, to allow ourselves seemingly to believe another view as we consider it. Because it runs counter to many of our natural impulses, this kind of extreme openness of intellect requires both daily exercise and a community of people dedicated to keeping it alive.
Cultivating this scholarly temperament is among the highest aims of any university. It means professors should use the classroom as a sanctuary to explore ideas and to teach critical thinking, rather than inculcate a particular ideology.
Of course, like everyone else, professors have the right to believe whatever they believe, and to say so in the public sphere. The classroom, however, is not Hyde Park Corner. Nor are our universities merely a paymaster to a collection of independent contractors who play entirely by their own rules. Rather, we as faculty members are part of a community of scholars governed by rigorous and time-tested standards of intellectual quality.
In 1915, the founding document of the American Association of University Presidents described the professor as one who is steeped in "prolonged and specialized technical training," and who is "shaped or restricted by the judgment … of professional scholars..."
As such, professors are subject to certain professional expectations. Just as doctors must act ethically in the care of their patients, and judges must give both sides a fair hearing in the courtroom, so must professors approach teaching with a particular scholarly disposition. On the rare occasion that a faculty member fails to meet that obligation, we should count on the community of scholars — not external actors — to formulate an appropriate response. That is the foundational principle of academic freedom. That principle has been tested in the past — during World War I and again during the McCarthy era, among other times. One of the best-known invasions of academic freedom occurred at Columbia in March 1917, when the Board of Trustees, reacting to a wave of fanatic nationalism around the country, essentially imposed a loyalty oath on the entire university. Many faculty members responded with disgust, calling the loyalty resolution "unjust and injurious" in a petition to the trustees. But President Nicholas Murray Butler accepted the authority that the resolution gave him and enforced it. "What had been folly," he said in his Commencement Day address, "was now treason." A rash of firings followed.
Today, few would deny that robustly engaging with difficult ideas is the basic purpose of a university education. This is, moreover, a moment in American and world history when painful, sensitive issues need the clear-eyed attention of all citizens — and college students and faculty have important perspectives to add to this discussion.
Despite the pressures to choose sides and join the fight, the scholarly temperament is alive and well in our nation's universities. A handful of instances of inappropriate behavior have not endangered our basic mission. Our principles are still strong, our unique sense of purpose is still well placed, and the value that our universities continue to provide is not exceeded by any other institution.
Note by BigEagle: I would expect members of NATPA will remember the "schlarly temperament" when they address to community as official NATPA representative.
Nationalism and Decomcracy
Just in about ten days, the tension between China and Japan jumped from initial diplomatic complains to the large-scale demonstrations in both countries. Many news reports used "Nationalism" to describe the root of this conflict. BigEagle thinks that there must have many people who have only a vague idea of the true meaning of Nationalism - even myself is not 100% sure I know the meaning. So it is time to do some research on this subject. I hope that we can also find out what is the relationship between the nationalism and democracy.
Nationalism is, according to Wikipedia (note: many definitions here were taken from it), an ideology that creates and sustains a nation as a concept of a common identity for groups of humans. According to some theories of nationalism, the preservation of identity features, the independence in all subjects, the wellbeing, and the glory of one's own nation are fundamental values.
Nationalism is a controversial term, as its most general definition is broad and has been controversial throughout history, and specific examples of nationalism are extremely diverse. Often the most negative consequences of the clash of nationalisms, ethnic tension, war, and political conflicts within states, are taken for nationalism itself, leading some to view the general concept of nationalism negatively and others to argue that viewing nationalism through its most negative consequences distorts the meaning of the term.
Nationalism may manifest itself as part of official state ideology or as a popular (non-state) movement and may be expressed along civic, ethnic, cultural, religious or ideological lines. However such categories are not mutually exclusive and many nationalist theories combine some or all of these elements to varying degrees.
Types of Nationalism:
Civic nationalism (also civil nationalism) is the form of nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry, the "will of the people"; "political representation". This theory was first developed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and put down in various writings, particularly On the Social Contract. Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism. It is the theory behind representative democracies such as the United States and France.
Ethnic nationalism is the form of nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy from historical cultural or hereditary groupings (ethnicities). This was developed by Johann Gottfried von Herder, who introduced the concept of the Volk.
Romantic nationalism (also organic nationalism, identity nationalism) is the form of ethnic nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy as a natural ("organic") consequence of race; in the spirit of Romanticism and opposed to Enlightenment rationalism. Romantic nationalism relies upon the existence of a historical ethnic culture which meets the Romantic Ideal; folklore developed as a Romantic nationalist concept.
Cultural nationalism is a form of nationalism where only culture and not any hereditary features (such as skin pigmentation) becomes the central aspect of what constitues the nation. The best example for cultural nationalists are the Chinese who consider their nation to be based on culture. Race is being played down by these nationalists as they consider Manchus and other national minorities as part of the Chinese nation. The Qing dynasty's willingness to adapt to Chinese customs shows the supremacy of the mainstream Chinese culture. Many Chinese on Taiwan consider themselves Chinese nationalists because of their cultural background but they reject the Chinese Communist government.
State nationalism is a variant on civic nationalism, very often combined with ethnic nationalism. The nationalistic feelings are that strong that they often get priority over the universal rights and liberties. The success of the state often contrasts and conflicts with the principles of a democratic society. The maintenance of the national state is a superior argument, as if it brings better government on its own. Typical examples are Nazism, but also the contemporary Turkish nationalism, and in a lesser form the right-wing Franquism in Spain, and the Jacobin attitude towards the unitary and centralist French state, as well as Belgian nationalism, fiercely opposed towards equal rights and more autonomy for the Flemings, and the Basque or Corsican nationalists. Systematically, wherever state nationalism is strong, there are conflicting appeals to both the loyalty of the people, and on territories, as the Turkish nationalism and its brutal repression of Kurdish nationalism, the opposition between strong central governement in Spain and France with Basque, Catalan, and Corsican nationalism.
Religious nationalism is the form of nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy as a consequence of shared religion. Zionism is an example, though many, if not most, forms of ethnic nationalism are in some ways religious nationalism as well. For example, Irish nationalism is associated with Catholicism; Indian nationalism is associated with Hinduism. In modern India, a contempary form of Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva has been prominent among many followers of the Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. In general, religious nationalism is viewed as a form of ethnic nationalism.
Sometimes however religion is more of a marker of a group than the motivation for their nationalism. For example although most Irish nationalist leaders of the last 100 years are Catholic, in the 19th century and especially in the 18th century many nationalistic leaders were Protestant. Irish nationalists are not fighting for theological distinctions like transubstantiation, the status of the Virgin Mary, or the primacy of the Pope. Rather they are fighting for an ideology that identifies the geographical island of Ireland with a particular view of Irish culture, which for some nationalists does include Catholicism but has as a more dominant element other elements of culture. For many nations that had to struggle against the consequences of the imperialism of another nation, nationalism was linked to the pursuit of an ideal of freedom.
Islam is nominally opposed to any notion of Nationalism, Tribalism, Racism, or any other categorization of people not based on one's beliefs. Instead of nationalism, Islam advocates a strong feeling of community between all muslims, which is called the Ummah. This feeling of communal consciousness is emphasised by the awareness that a Muslim's daily prayers are shared with others as the sun sweeps across the globe, and during the holy month of Ramadan when worldwide Muslims fast and give charity together, and culminates in the sacred Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in which muslim men and women of all cultures, colours, and backgrounds come together. The word ummah is often incorrectly translated into English as the Islamic "nation" (not to be confused with the "Nation of Islam" which differs altogether from the teachings of Islam and is disapproved of by most Muslims).
Banal nationalism is a concept put forward by Michael Billig (Prof. Social sciences, University of Loughborough) whereby the everyday, less visible forms of nationalism exist, that remind and shape the minds of the nations on a day to day basis.
After we came abroad and received Western education, we naturally have "Western Political Thinking" which believes --
1. Nationalism is an alternative to democracy;
2. Liberal democratic tradition is formed by an idea of universal freedom, individual rigts, equal and individual fulfillment;
3. Nationalism is the ideology of commual existence, collective rights.
Therefore, Democracy is good, civilized, progressive and national. Wheresas, Nationalism is backward,immature, barbaric, irrational, mythological way of thinking. However, democracy is based on Nationalism, in fact, it is mutually needed for starting a democractic enterprise. As we can see from the definitions listed above, Civil Nationalism is democratic because it vests sovereignty in all the people (remember "We the people"... in US Constitution?), but Ethnic Nationalism is not.
My next question: "Which type of Nationalism can evolve to Democracy faster?"
Nationalism is, according to Wikipedia (note: many definitions here were taken from it), an ideology that creates and sustains a nation as a concept of a common identity for groups of humans. According to some theories of nationalism, the preservation of identity features, the independence in all subjects, the wellbeing, and the glory of one's own nation are fundamental values.
Nationalism is a controversial term, as its most general definition is broad and has been controversial throughout history, and specific examples of nationalism are extremely diverse. Often the most negative consequences of the clash of nationalisms, ethnic tension, war, and political conflicts within states, are taken for nationalism itself, leading some to view the general concept of nationalism negatively and others to argue that viewing nationalism through its most negative consequences distorts the meaning of the term.
Nationalism may manifest itself as part of official state ideology or as a popular (non-state) movement and may be expressed along civic, ethnic, cultural, religious or ideological lines. However such categories are not mutually exclusive and many nationalist theories combine some or all of these elements to varying degrees.
Types of Nationalism:
Civic nationalism (also civil nationalism) is the form of nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry, the "will of the people"; "political representation". This theory was first developed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and put down in various writings, particularly On the Social Contract. Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism. It is the theory behind representative democracies such as the United States and France.
Ethnic nationalism is the form of nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy from historical cultural or hereditary groupings (ethnicities). This was developed by Johann Gottfried von Herder, who introduced the concept of the Volk.
Romantic nationalism (also organic nationalism, identity nationalism) is the form of ethnic nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy as a natural ("organic") consequence of race; in the spirit of Romanticism and opposed to Enlightenment rationalism. Romantic nationalism relies upon the existence of a historical ethnic culture which meets the Romantic Ideal; folklore developed as a Romantic nationalist concept.
Cultural nationalism is a form of nationalism where only culture and not any hereditary features (such as skin pigmentation) becomes the central aspect of what constitues the nation. The best example for cultural nationalists are the Chinese who consider their nation to be based on culture. Race is being played down by these nationalists as they consider Manchus and other national minorities as part of the Chinese nation. The Qing dynasty's willingness to adapt to Chinese customs shows the supremacy of the mainstream Chinese culture. Many Chinese on Taiwan consider themselves Chinese nationalists because of their cultural background but they reject the Chinese Communist government.
State nationalism is a variant on civic nationalism, very often combined with ethnic nationalism. The nationalistic feelings are that strong that they often get priority over the universal rights and liberties. The success of the state often contrasts and conflicts with the principles of a democratic society. The maintenance of the national state is a superior argument, as if it brings better government on its own. Typical examples are Nazism, but also the contemporary Turkish nationalism, and in a lesser form the right-wing Franquism in Spain, and the Jacobin attitude towards the unitary and centralist French state, as well as Belgian nationalism, fiercely opposed towards equal rights and more autonomy for the Flemings, and the Basque or Corsican nationalists. Systematically, wherever state nationalism is strong, there are conflicting appeals to both the loyalty of the people, and on territories, as the Turkish nationalism and its brutal repression of Kurdish nationalism, the opposition between strong central governement in Spain and France with Basque, Catalan, and Corsican nationalism.
Religious nationalism is the form of nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy as a consequence of shared religion. Zionism is an example, though many, if not most, forms of ethnic nationalism are in some ways religious nationalism as well. For example, Irish nationalism is associated with Catholicism; Indian nationalism is associated with Hinduism. In modern India, a contempary form of Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva has been prominent among many followers of the Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. In general, religious nationalism is viewed as a form of ethnic nationalism.
Sometimes however religion is more of a marker of a group than the motivation for their nationalism. For example although most Irish nationalist leaders of the last 100 years are Catholic, in the 19th century and especially in the 18th century many nationalistic leaders were Protestant. Irish nationalists are not fighting for theological distinctions like transubstantiation, the status of the Virgin Mary, or the primacy of the Pope. Rather they are fighting for an ideology that identifies the geographical island of Ireland with a particular view of Irish culture, which for some nationalists does include Catholicism but has as a more dominant element other elements of culture. For many nations that had to struggle against the consequences of the imperialism of another nation, nationalism was linked to the pursuit of an ideal of freedom.
Islam is nominally opposed to any notion of Nationalism, Tribalism, Racism, or any other categorization of people not based on one's beliefs. Instead of nationalism, Islam advocates a strong feeling of community between all muslims, which is called the Ummah. This feeling of communal consciousness is emphasised by the awareness that a Muslim's daily prayers are shared with others as the sun sweeps across the globe, and during the holy month of Ramadan when worldwide Muslims fast and give charity together, and culminates in the sacred Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in which muslim men and women of all cultures, colours, and backgrounds come together. The word ummah is often incorrectly translated into English as the Islamic "nation" (not to be confused with the "Nation of Islam" which differs altogether from the teachings of Islam and is disapproved of by most Muslims).
Banal nationalism is a concept put forward by Michael Billig (Prof. Social sciences, University of Loughborough) whereby the everyday, less visible forms of nationalism exist, that remind and shape the minds of the nations on a day to day basis.
After we came abroad and received Western education, we naturally have "Western Political Thinking" which believes --
1. Nationalism is an alternative to democracy;
2. Liberal democratic tradition is formed by an idea of universal freedom, individual rigts, equal and individual fulfillment;
3. Nationalism is the ideology of commual existence, collective rights.
Therefore, Democracy is good, civilized, progressive and national. Wheresas, Nationalism is backward,immature, barbaric, irrational, mythological way of thinking. However, democracy is based on Nationalism, in fact, it is mutually needed for starting a democractic enterprise. As we can see from the definitions listed above, Civil Nationalism is democratic because it vests sovereignty in all the people (remember "We the people"... in US Constitution?), but Ethnic Nationalism is not.
My next question: "Which type of Nationalism can evolve to Democracy faster?"
More on Nation
Excerpt from Peri Pamir's
"NATIONALISM, ETHNICITY AND DEMOCRACY: CONTEMPORARY MANIFESTATIONS"
Nations and Nation States
It would appear then that the drive for self determination, which has acted as the principal inspiration for many modern day nationalist movements, challenges the legitimacy of the state by placing in question its claim to represent the popular will of the nation. We will now turn to the dynamic between the nation and the state as a means of understanding the basis for what is broadly known as ethno-nationalism.
Part of the confusion concerning the nature of the relationship between nation and state arises from the different (sometimes overlapping) meanings ascribed to the former concept depending on the particular context, which are briefly enumerated below:
(1) Nation as synonymous with state.
(2) Nation as encompassing the state plus other political entities, such as trusts and non-self governing territories, as defined in the UN Charter.
(3) Nation as representing a people (not a population) belonging to the same ethno-linguistic group, not necessarily inhabiting the same political and territorial space, but possessing the political will or ambition to form a unitary state (e.g., the Kurds).
(4) Nation as representing a culturally homogenized population living in an existing state (e.g., as in the case of the French nation).3
(5) Nation as a community of peoples composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a defined territory and government (e.g., USA, Switzerland).
Given these definitions, a "nation (or multi-national nation) state" can connote:
(i) A form of political organization under which a relatively homogenized people inhabit a sovereign state; or
(ii) A political territory where different minority and majority nations formally possessing the same rights live together.
The nationalist belief, as expressed by Guiseppe Mazzini in the 19th century, maintained that every nation (each particular ethno-linguistic group) had the right to form its own state, and that there should be only one state for each nation. This claim has been historically impractical since, by current accounting, there exist practically no ethno-linguistically homogeneous nations.
The territorial distribution of the human race is older than the idea of ethnic-linguistic nation-states and therefore does not correspond to it. Development in the modern world economy, because it generates vast population movements, constantly undermines ethnic-linguistic homogeneity. Multi-ethnicity and plurilinguality are quite unavoidable, except temporarily by mass exclusion, forcible assimilation, mass expulsion or genocide - in short, by coercion (Hobsbawm, 1991).
In reality, therefore, the definitions are not so clear cut as states are generally multinational (and hence, rarely homogeneous) and nations are quite often polyethnic. Although the 'political nation' corresponds to the territorial boundaries of the nation state, an 'ethnic nation' may spill over several state boundaries (e.g., the Kurds) and therefore, in that sense, is not synonymous with state.
"NATIONALISM, ETHNICITY AND DEMOCRACY: CONTEMPORARY MANIFESTATIONS"
Nations and Nation States
It would appear then that the drive for self determination, which has acted as the principal inspiration for many modern day nationalist movements, challenges the legitimacy of the state by placing in question its claim to represent the popular will of the nation. We will now turn to the dynamic between the nation and the state as a means of understanding the basis for what is broadly known as ethno-nationalism.
Part of the confusion concerning the nature of the relationship between nation and state arises from the different (sometimes overlapping) meanings ascribed to the former concept depending on the particular context, which are briefly enumerated below:
(1) Nation as synonymous with state.
(2) Nation as encompassing the state plus other political entities, such as trusts and non-self governing territories, as defined in the UN Charter.
(3) Nation as representing a people (not a population) belonging to the same ethno-linguistic group, not necessarily inhabiting the same political and territorial space, but possessing the political will or ambition to form a unitary state (e.g., the Kurds).
(4) Nation as representing a culturally homogenized population living in an existing state (e.g., as in the case of the French nation).3
(5) Nation as a community of peoples composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a defined territory and government (e.g., USA, Switzerland).
Given these definitions, a "nation (or multi-national nation) state" can connote:
(i) A form of political organization under which a relatively homogenized people inhabit a sovereign state; or
(ii) A political territory where different minority and majority nations formally possessing the same rights live together.
The nationalist belief, as expressed by Guiseppe Mazzini in the 19th century, maintained that every nation (each particular ethno-linguistic group) had the right to form its own state, and that there should be only one state for each nation. This claim has been historically impractical since, by current accounting, there exist practically no ethno-linguistically homogeneous nations.
The territorial distribution of the human race is older than the idea of ethnic-linguistic nation-states and therefore does not correspond to it. Development in the modern world economy, because it generates vast population movements, constantly undermines ethnic-linguistic homogeneity. Multi-ethnicity and plurilinguality are quite unavoidable, except temporarily by mass exclusion, forcible assimilation, mass expulsion or genocide - in short, by coercion (Hobsbawm, 1991).
In reality, therefore, the definitions are not so clear cut as states are generally multinational (and hence, rarely homogeneous) and nations are quite often polyethnic. Although the 'political nation' corresponds to the territorial boundaries of the nation state, an 'ethnic nation' may spill over several state boundaries (e.g., the Kurds) and therefore, in that sense, is not synonymous with state.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
25 Useful Mottos
This posting may not relevant to the subject of democracy, but during the course of pursuing our goals, we might encounter many crossroads or face the difficulty of making a choice. I found these 25 mottos could help people who are facing those difficult situations, and I post here to remind myself and also to share with you.
Here are the 25 mottos:
1‧記住能記住的，忘記該忘記的。改變能改變的，接受不能接受的。
2‧能冲刷一切的除了眼淚，就是時間。以時間來推移感情，時間越久，沖洗越淡，仿佛不斷稀疏的茶。
3‧怨言是上天得自人類最大的供物，也是人類禱告中最真誠的部分。
4‧智慧的代價是矛盾。這是人生對人生觀開的玩笑。
5‧世上的姑娘總以為自己是高傲的公主（除了少数極醜和少数極聰明的姑娘例外）。
6‧如果敵人讓你生氣，那證明你還没有勝他的把握。
7‧如果朋友讓你生氣，那證明你仍然在意他的友情。
8‧令狐冲說: : “有些事情本身我們無法控制，只好控制自己。”
9‧我不知道我現在做的那些是對的，那些是錯的。而當我終於老死的時候我才知道這些。所以我現在所能做的就是盡力做好再等待著老死。
10‧也許有些人很可惡，有些人很卑鄙。而當我設身為他想像的時候，我才知道：他比我還可憐。所以請原諒所有你見過的人，好人或者壞人。
11‧魚對水說你看不到我的眼淚，因為我在水裡。水說我能感覺到你的眼淚，因為你在我心裡。
12‧快樂應要有悲傷作陪，雨過應該就有天晴。如果雨後還是雨，如果憂傷之後還是憂傷，請讓我們從容面對離别之後的離别，微笑地去尋找一個不可能出現的你！
13‧死亡教懂了人的一切，如同考試之後公佈的結果——雖然令人恍然大悟，但為時已晚矣！
14‧你出生的時候，你哭著，周圍的人笑著；你逝去的時，你笑著，而周圍的人在哭！一切都是輪迴!! 我們都在輪迴中!!
15‧男人在結婚前覺得適合自己的女人很少，結婚後覺得適合自己的女人很多。
16‧於千萬人之中，遇到你所遇到的人；於千萬年之中，在時間的無涯荒野裡，没有早一步，也没有晚一步，只是碰巧趕上了 。
17‧每個人都有潛在的能量，只是很容易被習慣所掩蓋，被時間所迷離，被惰性所消磨。
18‧人生短短幾十年，不要給自己留下了什麼遺憾，想笑就笑，想哭就哭，該愛的時候就去愛，不用壓抑自己。
19‧《和平年代》裡的話：當幻想和事實面對時，總是很痛苦的。要嘛你被痛苦擊倒，要嘛你把痛苦踩在脚下。
20‧真正的愛情是不講究熱鬧，不講究排場，不講究繁華，更不講究噱頭的。
21‧生命中，不斷地有人離開或加入。於是，看見的，看不見了；記住的，遺忘了。生命中，不斷地有收穫和失落。於是，看不見的，看見了；遺忘的，記住了。然而，看不見的，是不是就等於不存在？記住的，是不是永遠不會消失？
22‧我們確實活得很困難，一要承受種種外面的壓力，更要面對自己内心的困惑。在苦苦掙扎中，如果有人向你投以理解的目光，你會感到一種生命的暖意。即使只是短暫的一瞥，就足以使我感奮不已。
23‧我不去想是否能够成功，既然選擇了遠方，便只顧風雨兼程；我不去想身後會不會受到寒風冷雨，既然目的是地平線，留給世界的只能是背影。
24‧後悔是一種耗費精神的情緒。後悔是比損失更大的損失，比錯誤更大的錯誤，所以不要後悔 。
25‧日出東海而落西山，愁也一天，喜也一天；遇事不鑽牛角尖，人也舒坦，心也舒坦。
Here are the 25 mottos:
1‧記住能記住的，忘記該忘記的。改變能改變的，接受不能接受的。
2‧能冲刷一切的除了眼淚，就是時間。以時間來推移感情，時間越久，沖洗越淡，仿佛不斷稀疏的茶。
3‧怨言是上天得自人類最大的供物，也是人類禱告中最真誠的部分。
4‧智慧的代價是矛盾。這是人生對人生觀開的玩笑。
5‧世上的姑娘總以為自己是高傲的公主（除了少数極醜和少数極聰明的姑娘例外）。
6‧如果敵人讓你生氣，那證明你還没有勝他的把握。
7‧如果朋友讓你生氣，那證明你仍然在意他的友情。
8‧令狐冲說: : “有些事情本身我們無法控制，只好控制自己。”
9‧我不知道我現在做的那些是對的，那些是錯的。而當我終於老死的時候我才知道這些。所以我現在所能做的就是盡力做好再等待著老死。
10‧也許有些人很可惡，有些人很卑鄙。而當我設身為他想像的時候，我才知道：他比我還可憐。所以請原諒所有你見過的人，好人或者壞人。
11‧魚對水說你看不到我的眼淚，因為我在水裡。水說我能感覺到你的眼淚，因為你在我心裡。
12‧快樂應要有悲傷作陪，雨過應該就有天晴。如果雨後還是雨，如果憂傷之後還是憂傷，請讓我們從容面對離别之後的離别，微笑地去尋找一個不可能出現的你！
13‧死亡教懂了人的一切，如同考試之後公佈的結果——雖然令人恍然大悟，但為時已晚矣！
14‧你出生的時候，你哭著，周圍的人笑著；你逝去的時，你笑著，而周圍的人在哭！一切都是輪迴!! 我們都在輪迴中!!
15‧男人在結婚前覺得適合自己的女人很少，結婚後覺得適合自己的女人很多。
16‧於千萬人之中，遇到你所遇到的人；於千萬年之中，在時間的無涯荒野裡，没有早一步，也没有晚一步，只是碰巧趕上了 。
17‧每個人都有潛在的能量，只是很容易被習慣所掩蓋，被時間所迷離，被惰性所消磨。
18‧人生短短幾十年，不要給自己留下了什麼遺憾，想笑就笑，想哭就哭，該愛的時候就去愛，不用壓抑自己。
19‧《和平年代》裡的話：當幻想和事實面對時，總是很痛苦的。要嘛你被痛苦擊倒，要嘛你把痛苦踩在脚下。
20‧真正的愛情是不講究熱鬧，不講究排場，不講究繁華，更不講究噱頭的。
21‧生命中，不斷地有人離開或加入。於是，看見的，看不見了；記住的，遺忘了。生命中，不斷地有收穫和失落。於是，看不見的，看見了；遺忘的，記住了。然而，看不見的，是不是就等於不存在？記住的，是不是永遠不會消失？
22‧我們確實活得很困難，一要承受種種外面的壓力，更要面對自己内心的困惑。在苦苦掙扎中，如果有人向你投以理解的目光，你會感到一種生命的暖意。即使只是短暫的一瞥，就足以使我感奮不已。
23‧我不去想是否能够成功，既然選擇了遠方，便只顧風雨兼程；我不去想身後會不會受到寒風冷雨，既然目的是地平線，留給世界的只能是背影。
24‧後悔是一種耗費精神的情緒。後悔是比損失更大的損失，比錯誤更大的錯誤，所以不要後悔 。
25‧日出東海而落西山，愁也一天，喜也一天；遇事不鑽牛角尖，人也舒坦，心也舒坦。
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Good Bye, Pope John Paul II
Pope John Paul II died on 4/02/2005, 2:37 PM (Eastern Time). He is a man for human dignity and peace. We should remember his teaching .....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
