India's Nationalism in Historical Perspective: The Democratic Dangers of Ascendant Nativism

Tudor, Maya

doi:10.18278/inpp.1.1.6

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…31–35). Social stratification based on non‐voluntarist criteria and requirements for belonging to a religious category violates the principles of intrinsic equality and respect for diversity to which democracies should be committed (Blitz & Sawyer, 2011; Tudor, 2018, pp. 120–126).…”

Section: The Relationship Between National Identity and Democracymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study is limited to national attachment and normative national identity. The normative conceptions have been labelled using different distinctions: civic versus ethnic (Kohn, 1944), primordialism versus instrumentalism (Bac ˇová, 1998), ascriptive/objectivist versus civic/ voluntarist (Jones & Smith, 2001), inclusive versus exclusive (Tudor, 2018), etc. What these distinctions have in common is that they raise the question of whether an individual's membership in a nation should be regarded as voluntary or non-voluntary (for an overview, see Miscevic, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

National identity and democracy: Effects of non‐voluntarism on formal democracy

Gabrielsson

2021

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I explore whether, and if so how, national identity affects the level of formal democracy in a country. I theorize and then investigate four assumptions: (i) classical nationalist stances hold that national membership depends on the accident of origin and cultural markers learned by early socialization. This non‐voluntary identity gives human beings a natural sense of belonging in society and fosters solidarity and trust that lead to better democracy; (ii) drawing on ideas about core values of ideal democracy the non‐voluntarist national identity exhibits an inherent contradiction between in‐group bias and intrinsic equality, which leads to lower levels of democracy; (iii) homogeneity in belief about what constitutes national belonging eases the dynamics between majority and minority, which benefits democracy; (iv) the presence of an in‐group identity, understood as a shared fellow‐feeling, boosts trust and solidarity and thereby benefits democracy. Individual‐level data about national identity comes from International Social Survey Programme (ISSP, 2013). Data about democracy comes from Varieties of Democracy (Coppedge et al., 2021; Pemstein et al., 2021). Results indicate that higher levels of non‐voluntarist features of national identity are strongly negatively correlated with levels of democracy and heterogeneity in beliefs about what constitutes national belonging relating to a higher level of liberal democracy.

show abstract

Section: The Relationship Between National Identity and Democracymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National identity and democracy: Effects of non‐voluntarism on formal democracy

Gabrielsson

2021

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Pakistan's founding nationalism, elitist and exclusivist as it was, has consistently been used to undermine democratic politics through minority exclusion. The core nationalist cry for Pakistan was "Islam in danger," marrying religion with nation from its inception (Tudor 2013). To generate support for creating Pakistan in preindependence regional elections, religious, landed elites known as pirs were mobilized to deliver votes.…”

Section: South and Southeast Asia More Widelymentioning

confidence: 99%

Nationalism, Authoritarianism, and Democracy: Historical Lessons from South and Southeast Asia

Tudor¹,

Slater²

2020

Perspect. polit.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Divided societies have long been seen as terrible terrain for democracy. Yet some countries in South and Southeast Asia have managed to overcome ethnic and religious rifts and establish lasting democracy, as in India, while other countries in these regions have seen such deep divisions underpin durable authoritarianism, as in Malaysia. We trace these differences to divergent definitions of the nation that prevailed in struggles for independence and that continue to provide a political resource in ongoing political struggles. Where the national community was defined as inclusive in both ethnoreligious and popular terms, democracy has proven stronger. Alternatively, where the foundational national bargain was more exclusive with respect to salient identity cleavages and popular classes, authoritarianism has been reinforced. Founding types of nationalism not only help explain regime types in India and Malaysia but in countries across southern Asia, offering novel insight into how to understand ongoing battles to shape the nation and the people’s political position within it. In an era of rising nationalist fervor and eroding support for democracy, understanding the conditions under which nationalism either promotes democracy or bolsters authoritarianism is of critical importance to political scientists, activists, and policymakers alike.

show abstract

“…But many newly ascendant nationalisms legitimate internal racial, religious, and ethnic hierarchies among citizens of their own countries. Examples include Donald Trump dog-whistling a white nationalism that ranks nonwhites as second-class citizens (Bonikowski & Zhang 2020), Narendra Modi trumpeting a Hindu nationalism that ranks Muslims as second-class citizens (Tudor 2018), and Xi heralding a Han nationalism that ranks Tibetans, Mongols, and Uighurs as second-class citizens (Zhao 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nationalism: What We Know and What We Still Need to Know

Mylonas

Tudor

2021

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Amid the global resurgence of nationalist governments, what do we know about nationalism? This review takes stock of political science debates on nationalism to critically assess what we already know and what we still need to know. We begin by synthesizing classic debates and tracing the origins of the current consensus that nations are historically contingent and socially constructed. We then highlight three trends in contemporary nationalism scholarship: ( a) comparative historical research that treats nationalism as a macropolitical force and excavates the relationships between nations, states, constitutive stories, and political conflict; ( b) behavioral research that uses survey data and experiments to gauge the causes and effects of attachment to nations; and ( c) ethnographic scholarship that illuminates the everyday processes and practices that perpetuate national belonging. The penultimate section briefly summarizes relevant insights from philosophy, history, and social psychology and identifies knowledge gaps that political scientists are well-positioned to address. A final section calls for more comparative, cross-disciplinary, cross-regional research on nationalism.

show abstract

India's Nationalism in Historical Perspective: The Democratic Dangers of Ascendant Nativism

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

National identity and democracy: Effects of non‐voluntarism on formal democracy

National identity and democracy: Effects of non‐voluntarism on formal democracy

Nationalism, Authoritarianism, and Democracy: Historical Lessons from South and Southeast Asia

Nationalism: What We Know and What We Still Need to Know

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About