Salman Taseer, the Punjabi governor known for his opposition to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, was assassinated earlier th is year. While his murderer has become something of a hero at home, the West lamented the death of this prominent Islamic moderate. Yet in a WSJ column titled “Why My Father Hated India,” Taseer’s son Aatish explained that: “[t]o understand the Pakistani obsession with India…it is necessary to understand the rejection of India, its culture and past, that lies at the heart of the idea of Pakistan.” Both the headline and that sentence are jarring. How could this paragon of Islamic tolerance still seethe with such rejection and hatred?
The answer resonates far beyond Pakistan. Negativity and rejection form the heart of national identity throughout the Islamic world. Pakistan was born as the anti-India. Most Arab states arose as expressions of anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, and/or anti-Westernism, reaching an extreme with a Palestinian nation born of a “Nakba,” or catastrophe. The Arab spring–rejecting status quo but lacking positive vision for the future–cannot succeed because negativity is no basis for nationhood.
A functioning nation-state requires a positive raison d’être. The two most successful post-colonial states–India and Israel–both embodied the dreams of pre-existing nations. But while the Islamic world can boast more than fifty states, it contains few if any functioning nations. And nation states without nations tend to become failed states–dangers to their citizens, their neighbors, and the world at large.
“Nation states” are hybrids. States are geographical divisions with recognized borders. A map, a pen, a handshake, and a military can create a state. But nations are collections of people that can arise only if some authority convinces those people that they belong to a single distinct unit. Coercion, bribery, and a promise of protection are all helpful, but they pale in comparison to institutional development. Nations arise when people share myths, goals, aspirations, and values. The much-maligned art of “nation building” blazes paths towards cultural consensus.
Those of us who live in proud nations often take our forefathers’ hard work for granted. Moses turned twelve tribes into an Israelite nation only after forty years of wandering in the desert. Britain conquered numerous clans seeking to retain their own identities against the nation emanating from London. Burgundy and France were long enemies, as were Florence and Sienna; only concerted institution building knit their residents into today’s French and Italian nations. The convergence of the squabbling Duchies of the Holy Roman Empire into a German nation was almost too painful to recount.
No one can doubt that nation building–anywhere and everywhere–is hard work. In every successful case, however, a positive vision has preceded the emergence of a nation. After all, who would want to belong to a nation that did not begin with a positive promise? Who would willingly relinquish tribal, regional, religious or other identities in exchange for anything other than a positive vision?
The greatest tragedy pervading today’s Islamic states is the role of negativity in their national self-images. It is easy enough for the “global community” to create states named Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or even Palestine. It cannot, however, create the eponymous nations. Those states will remain dangers both to themselves and to others until their leaders can articulate a positive vision. Until then, brave leaders like Salman Taseer will continue to fall prey to their own negativity.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.