Is Liberal Nationalism Incompatible with Global Democracy?

Abstract

To respond to globalization-related challenges, many contemporary political theorists have argued for forms of democracy beyond the level of the nation-state. Since the early 1990s, however, political theory has also witnessed a renewed normative defense of nationhood. Liberal nationalists have been influential in claiming that the state should protect and promote national identities, and that it is desirable that the boundaries of national and political units coincide. At first glance, both positionsFglobal democracy and nationalismFseem to contradict each other. We do not share this oppositional picture. Developing a more harmonic picture of nationalist ideals and cosmopolitan visions is the aim of this essay.

Diversity and cosmopolitan democracy: Avoiding global democratic relativism

“…From this premise, Kok-Chor Tan (2008) has gone perhaps farthest in exploring the suprastate dimension. He proposes a global ‘democracy of national democracies’ (see also De Schutter and Tinnevelt 2010). 12 The emphasis would be first on promoting liberal democratic transitions and consolidation in all nation-states, and then on promoting fairer and more democratic representation for those states in such multilateral institutions as the World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund (Tan 2008: 172–73).…”

“…This is done generally on grounds of respecting global societal diversity. The second approach, grounded in theories of liberal nationalism (Tan 20082012; see also De Schutter and Tinnevelt 2010), would grant significant leeway to states within an ‘international, not cosmopolitan’ view of global democracy, where delegates of states negotiate in suprastate fora but there is no extension of individual participation. The third approach would advocate a partial extension of Rawlsian political liberalism, citing reasonable disagreement amongst competing world views as reason to grant a wide rights leeway to states (Nussbaum 2008; see Caney 2006b).…”