Political Science - Nations vs States vs Nation-States - Essay Example

Nations versus s versus Nation s Nations versus s versus Nation s The terms, nation and state, are sometimes used interchangeably. The ‘One Nation, One State’ principle by the 28th U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and its widespread implementation after the First World War made both the notion of nation and state identical. On the other hand, the hypothetical differentiation involving the two is of vital consideration (Sarmah 3). State people are law-structured in a specific territory. There are four elements that constitute a state: populace, territory, government and sovereignty.

However, the merge of all these elements do not constitute a nation (Sarmah 3). People in a nation share common beliefs and religion, and are unified in common descent and language. “Nations occupy a self-constituting public space characterized by specific identities and ways of life” (Segesvary 22). Unity among its people is important to a nation. Prior to the First World War, Austria-Hungary was considered as a state but not as a nation. People of Austria and Hungary were politically united; separated by any affinity; individually diverse; and unwilling to live in unity.

A state must be sovereign; however, a nation will remain being a nation even if it loses sovereignty. There is no division between a state and a nation in a single-nation state. A state can have a number of nationalities to make a nation. It is when a nation loses its statehood that the distinction between the two becomes evident. Germany and Japan lost their statehood in the post-World War II because they lost sovereignty, however they maintained their nationhood because of their people’s aspiration to live in unity and affinity.

Later, these countries were able to regain statehood (Sarmah 3). Inhabitants of a nation are racially harmonized with shared universal language, faith, traditions, and history. A nation-state exists if a nation has its own state (Rosenberg) or if a nation’s government becomes autonomous or self-ruling (Murali, et al 19). Egypt, France, Germany, and Japan are nation-states. States, such as Belgium and Canada consist of two nations. The multi-cultural United States of America with its mutual American culture is a nation-state.

On the other hand, there are also stateless nations, such as the Kurdish nations (Rosenberg). Today, the racial significance of a nation has diminished. The migration of foreigners in some states has created a mixture of races. Nonetheless, the state people still share the sentiment of national harmony and form diverse nations. Consequentially, this trend has caused deterioration in a nation’s integrity of race and culture (Sarmah 1). Psychological and religious aspects are vital in bonding the people of a nation. Dr. Garner stated, “A nation is a culturally homogeneous social group which is at once conscious and tenacious of its unity of psychic life and expression” (quoted in Sarmah 1).

The foundation of a nation is however not mainly rooted in “the community or race, language or religion,” but in the “the sentiment of common consciousness or likemindedness” (Sarmah 1). It is correct that common race, language and religion create a unified people, however without such elements, a nation can still develop. Nowadays, religion is not as crucial in building a nation as in the past (Sarmah 1). A multinational state is a politically self-governing state comprising of two or more nations.

Majority of the world’s states during the pre-World War I were multinational states. Territories, such as Austro-Hungary, Germany, Russia, and Turkey, have multi-nationalities eager of political independence; however their aspiration to live autonomously was cruelly stifled by the supremacy of all states (Sarmah 3-4). Many theorists were not supportive of the employment of ‘one nation, one state’ principle as it may cause increase in state figures and the likelihood of global peace violation.

For instance, Lord Acton discourses that a blend of diverse nations and diverse individuals is essential in a civilization to create an effectual society (Sarmah 4). Multinational Canada is comprised of two internal nations: Quebec nation and Aboriginal nation. For years, political theorists have been creating dynamic hypothesis and accommodations in Canadian multinationalism. However, the political empire has become extremely opposing to such philosophy. State nationalism has dislocated dualism, which is the chief historical accommodation of the multination.

Consequentially, this dislocation has created a territorial justification for federalism and has made multiculturalism the only legal base for cultural multiplicity accommodation. The nationalism of nations within Canada created a resistance between the two nations, Quebec and Aboriginals, thus, instead of forming a post-modern state that rises above nationalism, Canada is indeed torn between the nationalisms of both the Canadian state and its internal nations (McRoberts 685). Works Cited McRoberts, Kenneth.

“Canada and the Multinational State.” Canadian Journal of Political Science. (December 2001): 683-713. Murali, Mantrala, et al. “The State and its Elements.” Political Science, Directorate of School Education, Government of Tamilnadu. 2 (2005): 13-24. Rosenberg, Matt. “Country, State, and Nation.” About.com Geography. 2011. 31 January 2011. Sarmah, Durga K. “Nation and Nationality.” Political Science (+2 Stage), Volume 2, New Delhi, India: New Age Publishers, 1 (2007): 1-8. Segesvary, Victor.

“The Nation-State and Citizenship.” World State, Nation States, or Non- Centralized Institutions?: A Vision of the Future in Politics, Hague, Holland: Mikes International, 2 (2003): 16-29.