Nationalist Exclusion and Ethnic Conflict

1. Modernity's Shadow: Exclusion is Intrinsic to Nation-State Inclusion

The main promises of modernity – political participation, equal treatment before the law and protection from the arbitrariness of state power, dignity for the weak and poor, and social justice and security – were fully realised only for those who came to be regarded as true members of the nation.

A radical reinterpretation. Traditional theories often view nationalism and ethnicity as pre-modern relics or temporary by-products of state formation. However, this perspective argues that modernity itself is fundamentally structured by ethnic and nationalist principles. Democratic participation, legal equality, and national self-determination are not universal ideals but privileges extended selectively to the "state-embodying nation."

New forms of exclusion. While pre-modern empires integrated diverse groups under hierarchical, universalistic orders, modern nation-states replaced this mosaic with new, often unacknowledged, forms of exclusion. These exclusions are based on ethnic or national criteria, denying full participation to those deemed "outsiders." This dynamic is not a flaw but an inherent "shadow side" of political modernity.

Historical constants. What is now termed "ethnic cleansing" or "ethnocide" in regions like the Balkans or Africa has, in fact, been a recurring feature of European nation-building and state formation. From the expulsion of Gypsies under Henry VIII to the "people's exchange" after the Treaty of Lausanne, such practices are constants, often forgotten for successful nation-building.

2. The Nation-State: A Triple Fusion of People, Citizenry, and Ethnos

The people as a sovereign entity, which exercises power by means of some sort of democratic procedure; the people as citizens of a state, holding equal rights before the law; and the people as an ethnic community undifferentiated by distinctions of honour and prestige, but held together by common political destiny and shared cultural features: these three notions of peoplehood were fused into one single people writ large.

The indivisible trinity. The modern nation-state is built upon the fusion of three distinct concepts of "peoplehood":

• Sovereign entity: The source of democratic power.
• Citizens: Holders of equal rights before the law.
• Ethnic community: United by shared culture and destiny.
  This fusion replaced divine right as the central legitimizing principle, creating a powerful, yet inherently exclusive, framework for political discourse and organization.

Variations in emphasis. The exact relationship between these three principles varies historically and geographically. Some states, like France and Switzerland, emphasize democracy, deriving nationhood and citizenship from it. Others, such as Germany, Greece, and Israel, prioritize nationality, from which citizenship and democratic inclusion flow. These variations lead to "sectarian fighting" over the definition of who truly belongs to the nation.

Politicization of ethnicity. As belonging to the sovereign body and being a citizen became synonymous with membership in a particular ethnic community, the definition of this community and its boundaries gained paramount political importance. This transformation broke the pyramidal mosaic of pre-modern empires, where ethnic differences were integrated under a non-ethnic political order, making ethnic membership central to political loyalty.

3. Culture as Compromise: How Societies Negotiate Meaning and Boundaries

A cultural compromise emerges when the actors sharing a communicative space can agree that certain values are valuable and that certain modes of classifying the social world make sense.

Negotiating meaning. Culture is understood as an ongoing, often unstable, process of negotiating meaning among strategically competent individuals with diverse interests. This negotiation leads to a "cultural compromise"—a set of collective norms, social classifications, and world-views that all involved actors can recognize as congruent with their long-term interests, even if for different reasons.

Habitus and strategic action. Individuals internalize their social position through a "habitus"—a system of routinized predispositions for action, perception, and interpretation. This modified concept of habitus allows for critical assessment and strategic actions that can diverge from established cultural patterns, mediating between rational decision-making and the power of discourse.

Social closure and boundary marking. The negotiation of a cultural compromise is intrinsically linked to "social closure," a process of defining and maintaining boundaries between "us" and "them." This involves controlling access to the group and marking its borders with "diacritic elements" like dress styles or modes of speaking. Social closure can lead to the formation of various groups, including:

• Ethnic groups
• Nations
• Social classes
• Village communities

4. National Closure: Modernity's Four Institutional Pillars of Exclusion

Nation-states are the product of four closely interconnected processes of institutional closure: a political one (democracy tied to national self-determination), a legal one (citizenship tied to nationality), a military one (universal conscription tied to national citizenship) and a social one (the institutions of the welfare state linked to the control of the immigration of foreigners).

Interlocking systems. The national idea has become the central organizing principle for inclusion and exclusion across multiple societal domains. These four forms of institutional closure reinforce each other, making the nationalist worldview appear natural and self-evident.

Dimensions of closure:

• Legal closure: Equality before the law becomes a privilege reserved for nationals, replacing pre-modern hierarchical legal systems with discrimination between citizens and aliens. Citizenship, initially territorial, fused with nationality (e.g., ius sanguinis elements).
• Political closure: Access to state power is reserved for those representing the national community, replacing rulers based on divine right or class with those who "rule over like." Democracy becomes tied to national self-determination.
• Military closure: Universal conscription links democratic participation and legal equality to the duty of defending the state's territory, viewing foreign rule as the "worst of all evils." Loyalty becomes a matter of national background, not fidelity to a lord or pay.
• Social closure: The welfare state, inspired by national solidarity, collectivizes risks and provides security, but simultaneously necessitates control over who enters this "national home of solidarity," leading to restrictions on immigration.

The price of inclusion. Each step towards integrating the national community reinforces the political importance of ethno-national categories, creating new categories of "aliens" or "ethnic minorities." This process transforms the complex, criss-crossing definitions of belonging in pre-modern polities into a bundled system centered on national membership.

5. Two Paths to Modernity: Nationalization or Ethnicization of the State

If the state’s elites are unable to provide these collective goods to the whole population of the national state, we expect similar processes of social closure to develop on a subnational, ethnic basis.

Elite-society compromise. The success of nationalizing inclusion and exclusion depends on a successful compromise between state elites and various societal groups. Elites gain expanded power by acting "for the benefit of the people," while the population gains participation, security, and dignity. If this exchange of loyalty for collective goods fails, an overarching national identity is unlikely to emerge.

Ethnicization of the state. In "weak states" lacking resources for non-discriminatory treatment or a robust civil society, state elites may resort to ethnic favoritism. This leads to the "ethnicization of bureaucracy," where collective goods are distributed via ethnic clientelist networks. The polity becomes fragmented into politicized ethnic groups, each perceiving itself as a community of shared destiny.

Conditions for ethnicization:

• Weak state capacity: Inability to distribute collective goods uniformly across the population.
• Absence of civil society: Lack of established trans-ethnic networks (parties, associations) forces elites to rely on existing ethnic or religious groupings for political mobilization.
  This transforms pre-modern "mosaic pieces" (millets, tribes) into categories directly linked to state power, solidifying ethnic boundaries and making ethnic membership a central political criterion.

6. Mexico's Evolving Identity: From Creole Dominance to Mestizo Nation and Indigenous Resistance

The liberal project of nation-building thus did not aim at integrating the large Indian majority of the country in the national sovereign, but at overcoming the ‘Indian problem’ by eradicating these remnants of the odious colonial past.

Colonial mosaic. Spanish colonial Mexico was a hierarchical, universalist system based on indirect rule and ethno-racial strata (Spaniards, Creoles, Mestizos, Indians, Blacks). Legal segregation and unequal rights were the norm, with Indians protected by special laws but subjected to a "habitus of hostile subservience."

Creole nationalism and exclusion. After independence (1821), a Creole elite, influenced by Enlightenment and republican ideals, monopolized the nascent state. They identified the "Mexican nation" with themselves, viewing Indians as a "backward race" to be assimilated or eradicated. This led to:

• Expulsion of Spanish-born residents.
• Abolition of Indian communal land rights and legal protections.
• "Caste wars" against Indian rebellions, often framed as racial conflicts.
• Military conscription for all citizens, but political exclusion of Indians.

Mestizo nationalism and assimilation. The Mexican Revolution (1910) brought a radical shift, establishing a more inclusive "mestizo nationalism." The state, now representing the "masses of the mestizo population," pursued:

• Land reform (ejidos) for Indian communities.
• Clientelist integration through the ruling party (PRI).
• Cultural assimilation policies (e.g., bilingual education) to integrate "ethnic minorities" into the mestizo nation.
  This project, while inclusive of the majority, still classified Indians as remnants of the past, subject to political subordination and cultural homogenization.

Indigenous counter-movements. The assimilation policies paradoxically fostered the rise of an educated Indian middle class. Frustrated by limited social mobility and continued exclusion, this elite developed an "Indian ethno-nationalism," challenging the mestizo-nation equation. Movements like the Zapatistas, initially peasant-based, adopted this discourse, demanding:

• Political autonomy and cultural rights for "Indian peoples."
• Recognition of indigenous languages.
• Self-government based on "Indian" traditions.
  This represents a "counter-nationalism," mirroring the dominant nationalist principles to assert a distinct identity and claim a place in a multicultural Mexico.

7. Iraq's Ethno-Political Fragmentation: From Ottoman Pluralism to Sunni Arab Hegemony

The newly founded state of Iraq, composed of the former Osmanian provinces of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, owes its existence almost entirely to the constellation of forces among the European imperialist powers at the end of the war.

Ottoman mosaic. The Ottoman Empire, a multicultural and multi-religious polity, governed through indirect rule, respecting diverse religious communities (millets), guilds, and tribal leaders. Ethnic or linguistic background was secondary to religious and social status, with a diverse ruling elite. Reforms in the 19th century aimed at centralization and modernization, introducing citizenship and a unified administration, which first politicized ethnic issues.

Sunni Arab ethnocracy. Post-WWI Iraq, an ethnically heterogeneous state, was created by British imperial interests. Lacking a strong civil society, the new Sunni Arab elite, largely ex-Sharifian officers, established a Pan-Arab nationalist ideology. This led to:

• Arabization of state institutions: Army, administration, and education were systematically Arabized, marginalizing non-Sunni Arabs and Kurds.
• Suppression of dissent: Shii rebellions against central authority and conscription were brutally crushed. The 1933 massacre of Assyrians, who sought autonomy, was celebrated as a national victory.
• Clientelism and purges: Pan-Arabism became radicalized, culminating in the Baath regime's ethnocracy, where power was concentrated within a small circle of Sunni Arabs, eventually a single family clan from Takrit.

Kurdish statelessness. Kurdish leaders, initially Ottoman decentralists, gradually embraced nationalism, seeking autonomy or independence. Urban intellectuals and officers formed nationalist parties (e.g., KDP), later allying with tribal leaders like Mullah Mustafa Barzani. The Iraqi state responded with:

• Military repression: Wars against Kurdish forces, often with external (Iranian) support.
• Forced Arabization: Policies to depopulate Kurdish areas, resettle Arab families, and suppress Kurdish culture.
• Genocidal campaigns: The Anfal campaign (1988) involved chemical attacks and mass killings, leading to widespread displacement and reinforcing Kurdish alienation from the Iraqi state.
  The ongoing fragmentation and internal conflicts among Kurdish factions in the autonomous region highlight the persistent challenge of building a unified state in a deeply ethnicized political landscape, leaving Kurds as a "stateless group."

8. Xenophobia and Racism: The Radical Edge of Nationalized Exclusion

Xenophobia and racism are enfants naturels of the world order of nation-states, an extreme form of nationalism, revealing in its exaggeration the very principles of communal solidarity on which modern societies are based.

Beyond superficial explanations. Conventional theories often fail to adequately explain xenophobia and racism.

• Rational choice: Economic competition for jobs/housing is often disproven by empirical data showing xenophobia during economic growth or targeting groups not in direct competition.
• Functionalism/socio-biology: "Cultural incompatibility" or "racial distinctiveness" is challenged by historical examples of successful assimilation across significant cultural and racial divides (e.g., Dutch-Indonesians, Chinese in the US South).
• Discourse theory: While acknowledging the power of discourse, it often overestimates elite influence and overlooks grassroots xenophobic movements.
• Phenomenology: Societal crises and identity reassurance don't explain why specific groups are targeted or why xenophobia is unevenly distributed across populations.

An integral part of modernity. Xenophobia and racism are not pathological deviations but are fundamentally linked to the institutional order of the nation-state. They arise from the fusion of collective identities, participatory rights, and state institutions around the idea of a national community. The state, and its collective goods (rights, security, welfare), are perceived as "owned" by the national people.

Crisis and radicalization. When the nationalist cultural compromise faces a crisis, threatening the prestige and socio-economic standing of certain groups (e.g., downwardly mobile, less educated), a radicalized interpretation of nationalism emerges. This leads to:

• Moral panic: Fear of social breakdown caused by "invading" foreigners.
• Zero-sum game: Perception that collective goods are finite and must be defended against "others."
• Manichean view: A struggle between morally superior "nations" or "races" and barbarian intruders, justifying segregation, discrimination, and violence.
  This radicalization targets those with the shortest or most marginalized history of participation in the nation-state, such as immigrants or ethnic minorities, who are seen as threats to national solidarity.

9. Switzerland's Multi-Ethnic Paradox: Unity Forged, Immigrants Excluded

The Swiss case is of special interest because there was no absolutist kingdom that could have enforced religious and/or linguistic homogeneity, as in France, Spain or England.

A unique path to nationhood. Switzerland, a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, and multi-religious country, presents a paradox to theories linking nation-state formation with cultural homogeneity. Its pre-modern ancien régime was a fragmented mosaic of cantons, guilds, and rural communities, characterized by hierarchical social stratification and religious divisions, but with high literacy rates.

Trans-ethnic civil society as a foundation. Unlike Mexico or Iraq, Switzerland's nation-building process (1798-1848) was profoundly shaped by a dense network of trans-ethnic civil society organizations (associations, societies, clubs) that emerged before the modern state. These groups:

• Fostered republican patriotism: Promoted ideals of liberty, equality, and citizenship, transcending cantonal, religious, and linguistic barriers.
• Provided political infrastructure: Enabled elites from diverse backgrounds to mobilize support and negotiate the 1848 constitution, which established a modern federal state with pragmatic multilingualism.
• Ensured balanced representation: Informal mechanisms ensured proportional representation of language groups in federal institutions, preventing the politicization of ethnic differences.

From patriotism to ethnicized nationalism. While initially a "nation by will" based on republican ideals, Swiss nationalism evolved, especially from the 1880s, in response to surrounding European nationalisms and the integration of Catholic and working-class populations. This led to:

• "Spiritual defense" (1930s-40s): An ethnicized nationalism that portrayed Switzerland as a unique, divinely willed nation, fusing its diverse cultures into a distinct "Swiss spirit" against external threats (e.g., Nazism).
• Dialect as identity marker: Speaking Swiss German dialects became a sign of national belonging, distinguishing "authentic" Swiss from "arrogant" Germans.
  Despite these shifts, the core trans-ethnic political compromise held, preventing the linguistic trench from becoming a permanent political divide, unlike in other multi-ethnic states.

10. The Welfare State's Irony: Domestic Solidarity Fuels External Exclusion

The more sections of the national population were integrated into the ideological, juridical, political and social order of the modern state, the more the status of immigrants and aliens seems to have deteriorated.

The paradox of inclusion. Switzerland's "success story" of integrating diverse internal groups into a national compromise had a dark side: the systematic, institutionalized exclusion of non-national immigrants. This process, often overlooked, developed gradually from the 19th century to the mid-1970s.

Liberal era (1848-1914): Initially, Switzerland had open borders and minimal legal discrimination against foreigners, who enjoyed near-equal rights (except voting/military service). The "foreigners question" focused on political loyalty, with proposals for ius soli to assimilate immigrants into citizenship. Mass immigration was not seen as an economic or cultural threat.

Welfare state and migration control (1914-1970): The First World War marked a turning point, leading to:

• Centralized migration control: Martial law introduced federal control over immigration, replacing free movement with discretionary permits.
• Labour market closure: Legal distinctions between citizens and aliens in employment, restricting immigrants' professional and geographical mobility.
• Rise of the welfare state: Gradual establishment of national social security (unemployment, retirement, health insurance) from the 1920s, culminating in the postwar era. This integrated the working class into the national solidarity pact.

The guest-worker model and its demise. Post-WWII, Switzerland adopted a guest-worker system, integrating immigrants into the labour market but largely excluding them from welfare benefits and permanent settlement. This model, a compromise with trade unions, aimed to use immigrants as an economic buffer. However, growing xenophobic movements, fueled by fears of "overforeignisation" and strain on housing/welfare, pressured the government.

Strict quotas and "denizenship": The 1963 treaty with Italy partially integrated immigrants into the welfare system and offered paths to permanent residence. This partial inclusion, however, was immediately met with stricter immigration quotas and the "Regulation on the Limitation of the Number of Aliens" (1970). The more rights immigrants gained, the more restrictive the entry regime became, creating a class of "denizens" with limited rights, excluded from the full promises of modernity.

Last updated: March 8, 2026