Democracy and Collective Identity: In Defence of Constitutional Patriotism

Abstract

The heightened concern of liberal political theory over the past decade with issues of identity and culture has raised the question of whether particularistic identities are compatible with commitment to universal values such as freedom and equality and, more specifically, what forms of patriotic attachment are still possible in pluralistic liberal democracies. Liberals sympathetic to nationalism have argued that nationality is a central component of individual identity for modern subjects and that access to one's national culture is essential for realizing important liberal democratic values such as individual autonomy and social equality. 1 Some thinkers sympathetic to the republican tradition, by contrast, hold that self-governing political communities, or the constitutional principles on which they are based, can provide sufficient focus for forms of loyalty and patriotism that do not presuppose prior cultural commonalities. 2 Among prominent defenders of the latter view, Jü rgen Habermas has proposed a model of loyalty to the principles and institutions of constitutional democracy, Verfassungspatriotismus or 'constitutional patriotism', as a viable democratic alternative to nationalism.However, critics have questioned whether the idea of patriotism based on loyalty to the constitution is really coherent or, assuming it is, whether it could inspire sufficiently strong attachment to preserve the unity and stability of a democratic state. In one form or another these objections turn on whether constitutional patriotism strikes an appropriate balance between the universalism of principles and the particularism of identity and attachment. Anticipating this problem, Habermas has emphasized that he is not thinking of constitutional principles as disembodied abstractions but as embedded in particular democratic political and legal cultures, since only thus can they shape citizens' identities and loyalties. Yet this does little to resolve the apparent tension between nationalist particularism and democratic universalism, for stable democratic cultures have flourished exclusively within nation-states, which suggests that the fate of democracy may be tied inextricably with that of nationalism, at least under modern social conditions. The tension is exacerbated by the fact that Habermas seems to be in two minds over whether constitutional patriotism is supposed to supersede nationality as a form of political identification or whether constitutional patriotism can flourish within nationally differentiated political cultures.In this paper I will argue that constitutional patriotism provides a coherent model of political identification for culturally pluralistic democracies once it is

Hegel and global politics: Communitarianism or cosmopolitanism?

“…What is required here, Habermas argues, is a new form of 'civic solidarity,' which might also be termed 'cosmopolitan solidarity,' and which will be based on 'the moral universalism of human rights alone' (Habermas, 2001a: 108). Habermas develops these ideas by invoking the notion of 'constitutional patriotism' (Habermas, 1996b: 465-66;Habermas, 1996c: 500-07;Habermas, 1998a: 118;Habermas, 2001b: 74;Habermas, 2007a: 53;Habermas, 2007b: 78; see also Cronin, 2003;Ingram, 1996;Moland, 2011: fn8202-03;Muller, 2007). associated with Kant, cosmopolitanism and modernity (Habermas, 1990: 206;Habermas, 1993a: 1-10;Habermas, 1993b: 21;Habermas, 1993c: 117;Habermas, 1996a: 108;Habermas, 1996b: 492;Habermas, 1998: 215-15;Habermas, 2007a: 151-54).…”

Constitutional patriotism, migration and the post-national dilemma

“…There are a number of internal differences between accounts of constitutional patriotism offered by different theorists (Ingram 1996, Markell 2000, Michelman 2001, Lacroix 2002, Cronin 2003, Nanz 2006, Hayward 2007; however, I mainly focus here on one of the most influential and robust recent accounts of constitutional patriotism and the one that contains the most sustained consideration of issues surrounding migration, that developed by Müller (2007).…”

“…While some accounts of liberalism seek to balance liberal principles with the recognition of binding sentiment stemming from national identity (Miller 1995, Kymlicka 2001, others have sought to question the defensibility of depending on such pre-existing forms of group membership (Cole 2000, Benhabib 2004. Within this latter set of arguments, constitutional patriotism has emerged as a postnational alternative, aiming to re-conceptualise group membership based on a shared commitment to appropriately configured principles, rather than national identity or other shared sentiment (Habermas 1995, 1998, Ingram 1996, Lacroix 2002, Cronin 2003, Müller 2007. Universal principles, interpreted in a particular context into a constitution, are seen as providing the most defensible source of allegiance for diverse individuals.…”

Post‐Nationalism and Western Modernity: Beyond the Limits of the “European‐Wide Public Sphere”

“…While a constitution and democratic procedures serve as central features of constitutional patriotism, these authors contend that Habermas by no means ignores the ways in which political principles are concretely grounded within traditions and practices that are not (in any strict sense) chosen, and which call upon affective dimensions of politics and culture. 2 Another body of secondary literature interrogates how Europe and the EU are framed in Habermas's reflections on constitutional patriotism. These commentators largely focus on a call by Habermas (co-signed by Jacques Derrida) to look upon the mass demonstrations against the Iraq War in February 2003 across Europe as an indication of a nascent European public sphere that ought to underwrite constitutional patriotism and the EU project more broadly.…”