THURSDAY COLUMN

Too often I hear Iraqi Kurds criticized for advancing an ethnic nationalist agenda.  It seems that “ethnic nationalism” has fallen out of vogue, and should not be invoked when in polite company.  Especially in the West, in the towers of academia, the corridors of state and the swank cocktails of the rich and powerful (not that I’m invited to these very often...), one must advocate “civic patriotism” and scorn destructive “ethnic nationalism.”  Ethnic nationalism, you see, brought us the fascism of the 1930s, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, genocide in Rwanda, and all manner of the worst ills of the 20^th century.  Civic nationalism (a.k.a. “patriotism”), on the other hand, brought us all the wondrous collective efforts of the modern, benign state – heroic resistance against the fascist regimes of World War Two, transcontinental railroads in the Americas and prosperity and opportunity that our grandparents could only dream of.

Unfortunately the difference between civic and ethnic nationalism exists more in theory than in practice -- an illusion that the comfortable, safe, progressive and smugly self-righteous classes of the world can indulge in to dangerous lengths as they judge and advise the poor, misguided and dangerous barbarians of the lesser regions of the world.

On one hand, we have ethnic groups defined by, depending on the context, a belief in common origins, a shared history, a common language or religion, a geographic homeland and a distinctive culture.  If this “imagined community” demands a state for their nation, where they can be a majority and hence “masters in their own home”, they are ethnic nationalist.  Civic nationalists, on the other hand, see everyone from the same territorial state as equal citizens, regardless of their origins, history, mother tongue, religion or skin color.  Sharing the same state and society, whether by birth or immigration, unites disparate people into a new civic nation with equality for all. 

In the real world, of course, each and every one of the United Nations’ 192 member states was founded by a dominant ethnic group, or in some cases, a few dominant ethnic groups.  These ethnic groups built states that reflect their respective histories, languages, symbols, culture and beliefs, all the while excluding or downplaying other groups’ ethnic markers.  This much seems obvious for states such as France, as Breton, Basque, Languedoc, Occitanian and other groups disappeared under the Frankish yoke.  The Welsh, Scottish and Irish fared better under English domination, but even today struggle to revive their languages and culture after centuries of domination and exclusion.  Even in the immigrant countries of the “new world,” states such as Australia, Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, New Zealand, the United States and Canada elevated and represented the ethnic identity of their dominant settlers.  When other “out groups” rose up to challenge the dominant ethnic groups, they were typically labeled as separatists, reactionaries, primitives and ethnic nationalists.

Only fairly recently has the “new” world begun to emerge from this past. Peru elected a non-Hispanic (Alberto Fujimori) in the 1990s and more recently, a few other non-European-descent leaders came to power elsewhere in “Latin” America.  The United States, of course, elected Barack Obama, although some Americans, still attached to the idea of an English, white and Christian ethnic nation, have trouble accepting this.  New Zealand’s leaders now bend over backwards to incorporate Maori culture, identity and language, as does Canada with its French speaking minority (although the “First Nations” like the Iroquois and Cree rarely get more than token attention). 

As for Europe, it still seems very difficult to imagine a Pakistani British citizen leading that country, or a Jewish Italian Prime Minister, or a German chancellor of Chinese descent.  Much of Europe is, in fact, in the throes of a heated debate about how to “preserve its culture” in the face of large-scale immigration from the Middle East and Asia.  In practice, you see, the dividing line between “ethnic” and “civic” states gets fuzzy.  Yet these are all safe countries, where no one need fear for their lives because they belong to this or that ethnic or religious group.

The Middle East, however, is a much more dangerous neighborhood.  So perhaps everyone should be a little more understanding when Iraqi Kurds seek what the polite chatterers of the West already enjoy – safety and freedom in their own majority, with civic equality for everyone within Kurdistan.  Halabja and the Anfal genocide did not occur so long ago. 

Yes, the Kurdistan Regional Government elevates Kurdish ethnicity, language, history, culture and symbols, but it is the Kurdistan regional government rather than a Kurdish government.  Assyrians, Turkmen, Chaldeans, Yazidis, Arabs and the handful of Jews that previous Iraqi governments did not expel all enjoy civic equality and cultural freedom under Kurdistan’s regional authority (if only the minorities of neighboring states enjoyed the same cultural rights and respect).  The Iraqi Constitution of 2005, if it survives, tried to establish something similar for all of Iraq, based on an Arab-Kurdish-Sunni-Shiite dominant partnership that also offers civic equality to others. 

If these kinds of arrangements are ethnic nationalist while the West is civic nationalist, someone needs to explain the whole distinction to me again.

 

David Romano is a Rudaw columnist. He is also the Thomas G. Strong Professor of Middle East Politics at Missouri State University and author of The Kurdish Nationalist Movement (2006, Cambridge University Press).