
Nationalist ideology and the slippery slide into fascism
Nationalism is typically seen as the preserve of right-wing politics, and it has long been a cornerstone of authoritarian and fascist governments around the world. In democratic countries the term 'nationalism' is linked to national chauvinism – a belief in the inherent superiority of one's own nation and its citizens – but the picture is more complex than it first seems.
For starters, there is little to differentiate patriotism from nationalism except for degree of intensity. Most of us, however, can recognise the difference between love for one's own homeland and the harsher, often exclusive or xenophobic tenets of extreme nationalism. Patriotism is a low degree nationalism, but radical nationalism often turns into xenophobia.
The picture is further complicated by substate or minority nationalism, an entirely different beast often associated more with left-wing and progressive ideals. Many political parties and ideologies – in Europe, the Americas and elsewhere – use the term 'nationalist' without any connotations of far-right beliefs. Instead, they present the nation as an emancipatory force that strives to achieve self-determination for a particular territory.
Examples include the National Party in Suriname (founded in 1946), the Basque Nationalist Party (1895), the Scottish National Party (1934) and the Galician Nationalist Bloc (1982). Some of Europe's prominent left-wing movements, such as Irish party Sinn Féin, are fervently nationalist, while others, such as the Welsh Plaid Cymru, embrace eco-socialist principles.
This does not mean that minority or substate nationalisms are immune to the influence of the radical right. Belgian party Vlaams Belang and the Catalan Alliance are two contemporary examples of far-right minority nationalism. Looking further back, the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Flemish National Union occupied similar political space during the interwar period.
Despite these nuances, nationalist ideology can often slide easily into fascism. The resurgence of ethnic nationalism in the late 20th century has also reinforced this association, often channelled through the concepts of nativism and populism to bring about movements as diverse as Trump's 'Make America Great Again', Putin's irredentism and Hindutva nationalism in India.
Few would question fascism's emphasis on the nation, or that nationalism is a pillar of any fascist worldview. However, the relationship between nationalism and fascism remains underexplored. My research aims to remedy this by looking closely at the link between the various conceptions of nation and the ideological contents of fascism.
Ethnic nationalism
Fascist ideology has often been regarded as the inevitable outcome of 19th-century forms of ethnic nationalism. Spurred by European imperialism and the Great War, the principle of the nation became increasingly chauvinistic, racist and xenophobic.
This ethnic turn of nationalism would be decisive in making it an instrument of fascism, as well as a core argument of the diverse versions of the radical right, from 'fascistised' conservatism to more blatant forms of authoritarian government.
In most theories of fascism, nationalism is implicitly linked to a single-issue expression that conceives the nation as an organic reality, one where the criteria for inclusion are based on 'objective' truths such as language, blood and soil, history and tradition.
However, elements such as ancestry, history and territory are certainly not exclusive to fascist or authoritarian concepts of the nation. Many of those ingredients can also be found in liberal and Republican definitions of the nation, which usually take for granted the 'cultural community' within whose ethnic and territorial borders the community of citizens would be built.
Indeed, many of Europe's rising progressive political forces – such as Sinn Féin in Ireland – can trace back their origins to radical nationalism in the early 20th century but promote a tolerant, open view of society that is the antithesis of fascism.
It is therefore true that every fascist is a nationalist, but not every nationalist is, even potentially, a fascist. This raises the question of exactly how fascism harnesses nationalism to achieve its aims. In my view, there is a specifically fascist concept, and usage, of nationalism.
Fascist nationalism
Fascists see the nation as a single organic entity binding people together, not just by their ancestry but also by the triumph of will. As such, it is the driving, unifying force that mobilises the masses towards a shared goal. But fascists also have to appropriate nationalism for their own ends.
In order to serve fascism, the concept of nation has to be coherent with the main tenets of fascist ideology: the idea of revolution, the corporatist imagination of social order, the purity of race (defined in either biological or cultural terms) and the social relevance of irrational values. The diversity of nationalist traditions also accounts for much of fascism's geographical heterogeneity.
Although the components provided by nationalism are old, fascism combined them to create something new. This created what is known as the 'generic' fascist concept of the nation, which can be broken down into at least five specific characteristics:
A paramilitary view of social ties and the national character: The nation exists in a permanent state of military readiness, meaning the martial values of discipline, unity of command and sacrifice are placed above all individual rights. The whole social order and the nature of its bonds are cast in a paramilitary mould, meaning society itself becomes a barracks.
This also accounts for fascism's strong tendency towards territorial expansionism, the pursuit of empire and war – these all provide a common cause to keep the nation permanently united and mobilised.
A Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' view of national and international society: This leads to the exclusion of others (defined variously by traits such as race, culture, language, and so on), the belief in the limitless sovereignty of one's own nation, and the justification of violence against its enemies, both internal and external. This leads to imperialism as a natural consequence of the affirmative character of the nation.
The nation above all else, including religion: Fascist governments have always been, in theory, independent from religion. Wherever they seized power, most fascist movements arrived at some sort of agreement with the Church, but fascism ascribes God and religion a subordinate place (either explicitly or implicitly) within its hierarchy of principles. The nation is always at the top.
Unity of state, culture and nation: As far as the relationship between the nation and the state is concerned, the fascist nation is neither above nor beneath the state. It is both identified with the state, and transcends it: a 'national-statism'.
Blind belief in a charismatic leader: The idea of the fascist nation requires absolute trust in a singular, all-powerful leader. In Nazi Germany this was known as the Führerprinzip, the idea that the word of the Führer transcended any written law.
This transforms the 19th-century figure of the national hero or founding father into something far more transcendent. The fascist leader assimilates and embodies the qualities of all the national heroes who came before.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Abuse of power': Trump admin slaps sanctions on ICC judges over Netanyahu arrest warrant
In a major move, the Trump administration slapped sanctions on four International Criminal Court judges involved in cases tied to Israel and the United States. The judges, Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza (Peru), Reine Alapini Gansou (Benin), and Beti Hohler (Slovenia), will face US entry bans and asset freezes under new measures announced by the State Department. Marco Rubio defended the move, calling the ICC actions 'illegitimate' and warning of overreach in prosecuting US and Israeli officials for alleged war crimes. Show more Show less
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
16 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Mediation between two unequals not possible: Tharoor on Trump's claims
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor has said that to suggest one can mediate between two unequals is not possible because there is no equivalence between terrorists and their victims, amid repeated claims by US President Donald Trump that he "helped settle" the tensions between India and Pakistan. Tharoor, currently in the US leading a multi-party delegation on Operation Sindoor, made the comments in response to a question during a conversation at the Council on Foreign Relations here Thursday. "Mediation is not a term that we are particularly willing to entertain. I'll tell you why not. The fact is that this implies, even when you say things like broker or whatever, you're implying an equivalence which simply doesn't exist," Tharoor said. He said there is no equivalence between terrorists and their victims. "There is no equivalence between a country that provides safe haven to terrorism, and a country that's a flourishing multi-party democracy that's trying to get on with its business," he said. "There is no equivalence between a state that is a status quo power that just wants to be left alone by its neighbours, where the neighbours don't agree with us, and a revisionist power that wants to upset the geopolitical arrangements that have existed for the last three-quarters of a century. There is no equivalence possible in these cases, and in these circumstances, to suggest that you can mediate between two unequals is not possible, Tharoor added. Since May 10, when Trump announced on social media that India and Pakistan had agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire after a long night of talks mediated by Washington, he has repeated his claim over a dozen times that he helped settle the tensions between India and Pakistan. He has also claimed that he told the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours that America would do a lot of trade with them if they stopped the conflict. On being asked how he would characterize the American role in the conflict, Tharoor said he is "guessing to some degree that the American role would have been first of all to keep themselves informed, conversations on both sides, and certainly my government received a number of calls at high levels from the US government, and we appreciated their concern and their interest. He said that at the same time, the US must have been making similar calls at the highest levels to the Pakistan side, and our assumption is that's where, because that's the side that needed persuading to stop this process, that may well have been where their messages really had the greatest effect. But that's guesswork on my part. I don't know what they said to the Pakistanis. Trump repeated the claim as recently as Thursday when during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office, the US President said that he is very proud" that he was able to stop the conflict between nuclear powers India and Pakistan. I spoke to some very talented people on both sides, very good people on both sides and said that Washington will not do any trade deals with either if you are going to go shooting each other and whipping out nuclear weapons that may be even affect us. Because you know that nuclear dust blows across oceans very quickly, it affects us," Trump said. You know what, I got that war am I going to get credit? I'm not going to get credit for anything. They don't give me credit for anything. But nobody else could have done it. I stopped it. I was very proud of that, Trump added. About two weeks after the horrific April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir in which 26 civilians were killed, India launched Operation Sindoor targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7. India and Pakistan reached an understanding on May 10 to end the conflict after four days of intense cross-border drone and missile strikes. India has been maintaining that the understanding on cessation of hostilities with Pakistan was reached following direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two militaries. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
24 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump's campus crackdown an opportunity for India to create its own Ivy League but it has a rival
With Trump's stricter US immigration policies, experts see India as a potential global education hub. Top universities are improving but face challenges like low funding and limited academic freedom read more As US President Donald Trump intensifies his tough stance on international students, experts say India has a unique opportunity to position itself as a global education hub—though it faces stiff competition from China. According to The Economist, India is home to nearly half of the world's college-age population. Its top universities are improving and gaining recognition, even as the country struggles with low public spending on education and limited academic freedom. Trump's immigration and education policies have made the US a less welcoming destination for foreign students. This shift has opened the door for countries like India to attract global talent—students and researchers who may now be reconsidering their academic futures in the United States. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's top colleges have a lot working in their favour. In fact, admission rates at the country's most prestigious institutions can dip as low as 0.2%, compared to Ivy League acceptance rates of 3–9%. English language proficiency, a deeply ingrained culture of academic ambition, and a vast youth population give India a competitive edge. Half of the world's university-age population resides in India. Parents instill a strong sense of ambition in their children, and India has an advantage due to its broad English language competence. However, India is currently not listed in the top 100 worldwide league rankings. China, on the other hand, now holds the top spot in numerous polls despite only making it into the worldwide top 100 in the 2010s. China is already actively working to recruit global talent as part of a years-long strategy. To entice Chinese scholars back from the West, China has lavished money on one-time incentives and large research grants during the last decade. When the Trump administration said it would work to 'aggressively revoke' the visas of Chinese students in 'critical fields', Chinese institutions have moved quickly to capitalise. Universities in Hong Kong and Xi'an have announced that they will simplify admissions for Harvard transfer students. An ad from a body affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Sciences welcomed 'talents who have been dismissed by the U.S. NIH,' or National Institutes of Health. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India, by contrast, has the demographic advantage and a growing higher education sector. If it can address key issues in its education system, it has the potential to build its own Ivy League and compete globally in higher education. Money has a significant role in the issue. India has allocated 4.1% to 4.6% of its GDP on education over the last decade. China's spending as a percentage of GDP may be comparable, but its GDP per person is five times that of India. China's intellectual charm offensive is outmatched by India's shortage of rupees. In recent years, more scientists have returned to China, driven in part by government recruiting schemes that promise millions of dollars in financing, as well as housing subsidies and other benefits. China's spending on R&D is currently second only to the United States. Chinese schools such as Tsinghua and Zhejiang University are now consistently ranked among the top in the world for science and technology. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Another concern is intellectual freedom. Indian academics teach from a government-mandated syllabus and are overseen by the University Grants Commission. When planning a conference with overseas colleagues, researchers must obtain authorisation from central ministries, as well as government permission to travel abroad for work. Hiring at public colleges is subject to the whims of the ruling party, as the government monitors top-level selections. India's best shot at building a globally competitive higher education system may lie in the rise of private universities. Two decades ago, fewer than 20 private universities existed; today, there are more than 400, accounting for around a quarter of total enrolment. Many of these are backed by major industrial houses, boast world-class campuses, and are increasingly attracting international faculty. Experts believe these private institutions are poised to outperform their public counterparts, largely due to their greater autonomy. Freed from extensive affirmative action mandates and political interference in faculty appointments, private universities can hire top talent more freely and respond faster to global academic trends. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If the Indian government can find a way to support private universities without overstepping, India may finally be able to create its own Ivy League, and emerge as a serious player in global higher education.