Post-colonial liberation movement vs. Post-soviet resurgent nationalism - Essay Example

Post Colonial liberation movements vs. post-soviet resurgent nationalism Introduction The early part of 2009 witnessed the end of one of the bloodiest liberation campaigns that had claimed more than 70000 lives. The Sri Lankan Defence forces succeeded in quelling the Tamil Nationalist movement of the LTTE, which had waged a bloody war for an independent Tamil homeland for over 3 decades. This, along with similar movements in several parts of the world has been viewed as a weapon of the weak. These movements of liberation are often born out of periods of oppression at the hands of nation states that betray the aspirations and opportunities to the common man and work towards providing the hope of resisting injustice and gaining respect and identity. Liberation movements have nevertheless seemed as struggles against impossible odds and are fought at an immense cost to everyone involved (Bill Ashcroft, 2006). The post second world war led to the rise of the developed west and the backward third world, where the problems of the population have often remained unattended to and are often accompanied with the coercive attitudes of the ruling governments. These are the initial seeds for armed struggle. On the other hand, the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1990 was one of the most resounding events of the 20th century. Since then, the once assumed notion of fading nationalism has once again gained ground and has become one of the most powerful as well as an important decisive force towards nationalism. Nationalism has most often been based on ethnicity and can be witnessed most prominently in the former Soviet Satellite states apart from Russia and its neighbors. Nationalism and the new era politics based on ethnicity have gained momentum over the issue of rights for minorities, which are often victims of national politics. In this context, it is also interesting to compare this aspect with the western approach towards including minorities into the political equation, which could serve as useful models for nations that have recently emerged out of the Soviet grip. The current paper aims at highlighting a few important points that aim to differentiate between liberation movements and nationalism, both of which are recent trends in the modern world. Liberation movements the usage of ‘liberation movements’ has always led to political ramifications, especially when such movements are termed separatist, and their largely violent methods of opposition over a period of time work towards gets the organizations involved to be branded as ‘terrorists’. Sections of the people, critical of the tactics used in these movements do not consider these to be liberation as such initiatives are meant to create a positive value not only for the target population, but also the nation from which independence is being demanded. Over the past few years, such movements are often termed as ‘armed separatist movements’, from a perspective of neutral observation (David Slater, 2004). One of the primary aspects to note about national liberation movements is that they arise out of a volatility in the present constitution of states. Political theory contends that the concept of a ‘nation’ is relatively new in the history of civilization, wherein almost 98% of the human history comprised people living in tribes or under a monarchic framework. For a majority of the half million years of our conscious existence, the drive towards existence was based on the establishment of a means of survival, whereby the concept of wealth or power did not exist given the absence of any organized human settlement that required moderation. People did not associate themselves in groups and there was nothing like a group identity (Joshua Castellino, 2003). As such, nationality and statehood have been inventions that are just 8000 years old, a rising consequence of growing numbers in population and an increased concentration of people in common areas. The modern era after the 19th century began witnessing the rise of states, which have in a way been unable to satisfy the needs of all peoples and have been equally incapable of quelling any revolts from unappeased corners. It must be pointed here that liberation movements do not symbolize the activities of a few isolated individuals, although this is the most common way of projecting them as part of a wider state propaganda (David Slater, 2004). In contrast, they are defined as the struggle of rebellious nations against the ruling classes of the society, where the effort is to invert the power equations and replace the existing status quo with another that is believed to be more just. Liberation movements are thus patriotic in nature and play a central role although this is opposed by popular governments and members of the media. Post Soviet resurgence in nationalism As has been mentioned before, the breakup of the Soviet Union was one of the most cataclysmic events in modern history. The roots of nationalism in Russia can be broken into three phases – prior to Soviet, Soviet and the post Soviet period. Russian nationalism has nevertheless been one of the most important components of Soviet ideology and many of the ideas are an import from the west (Rawi Abdelal, 2005). Modern resurgence in Russian nationalism can be attributed to the pattern of teaching in Soviet schools and universities where there is a sharp distinction between ‘us’ or ‘them’, which are evident from the stereotypes that exist towards the United States from the times of the glasnost. One of the major contributors to this surge in nationalism during recent times has been as a result of the sea change in the attitude of the Kremlin, which believes that concept can be used to rearrange political discourse across the nation. As such, the Kremlin argues that the government under Putin is not competing against alternative parties including entities such as the Socialists or the liberalists. Instead, the desire is to fight for United Russia against separatist threats such as the Chechen issue, Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine and most importantly against the so called conspiracies of the west in a bid to prevent further disintegration of Russia (Ray Hudson, 2007). As such, nationalism can be considered as a counter approach against liberation movements. The advantage of the state here lies in its ability to generate an atmosphere of paranios wherein anyone acknowledged as having separatist outlooks is considered non legitimate or opposing the political writ of the land. There are differences over the perception of nationalism between the west and Russia. In the case of the former, the political mainstream distances itself from the strong nationalist movement. While the Russian method begins by condemning any form of racism or secessionism, its approach is more ambivalent whereby the mainstream condemns any attacks or abuse while it internal forces resort to brutal tactics of suppression. Ultra nationalists such as Prokhanov or Dugin would have been considered to have crossed the permissible barriers of discourse in the west (Hilary Pilkington, 2008). Conclusion From the above discussions, it is clear that liberation movements and nationalism are two opposite frameworks that guide the notion of statehood and political identity. Both are driven by demands, methods of achieving objectives are often brutal and the fight is directed towards gaining control over people on the basis of a popular ideology. The collective fight against any kind of violent movements by a majority of governments in the world goes to show that liberation is not an easy thing to achieve and violence can certainly not make things easier let alone create a positive mobilization in the people and the political establishment. Rising nationalism in post-soviet Russia can be extrapolated to the emergence of another cold war, with the Russian Federation cruising towards the next apartheid state. Its brutal tactics in suppressing any separatist activity across its vast expanses goes on to show that Russian Society is a long way from achieving any level of tolerance. References 1. Bill Ashcroft (2006), Post-colonial studies: the key concepts. London: Routledge. 2. David Slater (2004), Geopolitics and the post-colonial: rethinking North-South relations. New York: Wiley. 3. Joshua Castellino (2003), International law and self-determination: the interplay of the politics of territorial possession with formulations of post-colonial national identity. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff. 4. Rawi Abdelal (2005), National purpose in the world economy: post-Soviet states in comparative perspective. Cornell University Press. 5. Ray Hudson (2007), Divided Europe: society and territory. New York: SAGE. 6. Hilary Pilkington (2008), Migration, displacement, and identity in post-Soviet Russia. London: Routledge. Read More