By Cyril Anderson

The problem of nationalistic pride has become an extreme a serious stumbling block to the cause of Muslim unity.  Some within the Muslim world, however, react to this by going to the other extreme, calling this situation an inevitable result of what they see as the “evil” of the concept of nation states.  Instead, they call for some the abolition of nation states, to be replaced by some sort of world government.  However, this is an overreaction.  One wonders when hearing people speak so simplistically and so absolutely how they think such a world government would realistically come about anytime in the near future without some sort of cataclysmic, extraordinary circumstance, whether through Divine intervention or some sort of imperial push by a global superpower through military or economic means. 

 It is hard to imagine, without huge changes in the people of the earth, how people would willingly give themselves over to such a government, without the most extraordinary sort of leader.  Only a Divinely appointed imam, perhaps, could make such a system work.  And even at that, we must remember from history that even an imam is, despite his wisdom and nearness to God, still only a human being.  Any system of government depends for its survival in the long term on the support of the people.  Even the governments of Imam Ali and Imam Hassan suffered when the people in their fickleness turned away from them.  One has to ask what would be the basis for some sort of world government today?  What would be the common tie to bring people together?  And who would lead them?  Even the Europeans, who share such close proximity to each other, who share similar levels of economic development, who have so much integration and interaction economically, and who share so many centuries of history, have balked as they have felt themselves losing control over what they feel are crucial matters of national interest to the European Union. 

 There is no fundamental Islamic problem with having different nations.  Indeed, a system of truly sovereign nation states offers a useful practical solution to the complexity of different global geographical regions and different languages.  Nation states group together people together based on common characteristics and a shared vision and shared needs as a practical political solution.  People sharing a common land and language or languages tend to have more cohesion as a nation.  People speaking a common language tend to be able to communicate more effectively and efficiently with each other with more complex ideas.  The concept of the nation state is built on this idea, to work on a base of shared culture, territory, and interest to build in the best interests of the people of that territory.  A strong nation state with a republican form of government can be a good thing, because a government for the people can help to protect public interest against the dangers of unfettered private power. 

 The loss of power by nation states in globalization is a good example of this principle, with the power being taken instead by huge trans-national corporations answerable to nothing but raw, private interest.  In this way the power of sovereign nation states is undermined.  There is no problem with the idea of separate and sovereign nation states as long as a framework exists for these nations to interact and pursue their legitimate interests freely without interference from others, to develop their people.  And there is no problem as long as the nations respect the similar rights of all the other nations and consider them as equals as human beings if not in terms of levels of development.  There is no conflict between such an attitude and right religion. 

 The problem only comes when one nation's people develop excessive pride over their particular nation and its people and ways and looks down on others as inferior, or worse, as some lower form of human, so that rather than a healthy confidence and happiness about ones nation and its accomplishments, it becomes pig-headed chauvinism and prejudice.  This is where nationalism rears its ugly head, and becomes a barrier to nation states respecting each other and working together in a mutually beneficial way to help each other.

On the other side of the scale from the proponents of world government are the victims of tribalism, who miss the mark by focusing too much on small differences.  They draw the dividing line too small, taking too much of a microscopic view, emphasizing small differences rather than greater commonalities.  There is benefit to a certain extent in separate nations based on shared characteristics, but once this trend goes too much beyond a certain limit, it becomes a destructive rather than an enabling influence.  Whereas a sovereign nation state can be a force of stability, tribalism often becomes a force of instability and turmoil through the work of those who stoke movements of secession.  The idea of the nation state tries to steer a sane middle ground in between the two extremes.