Strategic Political Thinking

1. Are modern nationalist politicians a new groups of conservatives?

2. Assessing Trump and his G20 Summit/Korean Peninsula Visit Outcomes

Are modern nationalist politicians a new group of conservatives?

I was skeptical of the claims that nationalists in democracies were a new group of Nazis threatening democracies.

I have been involved in the anti-racist movement since my youth in the UK - at national level occupying executive positions in different roles for over a decade at least. I followed the rise of the far right in Europe. I also read modern European history in my college and studied Nazism and Fascism in Europe. I also read modern British history - including the history of the Conservative and Liberal Party in the UK. As part of my undergraduate degree in politics, I studied British and European politics as well as international politics. As a policy adviser and expert on Asian Affairs to the Mayor of London, I interacted with nationalist governments in Asia like the BJP-led NDA in India meeting its Cabinet Ministers and even Prime Ministers. More than this, there was my instinct based on a rapid reading of strategic trends based on a sharp political perception.

Today, we have experience of nationalist governments in power across many countries ( see Table below ). We can make judgments about their periods in power. Many of the nationalist movements came to power in Asia ahead of the Western nationalists.

But today, we have a large number of nationalist governments in democracies. My chart gives a list. This is neither comprehensive nor is it beyond debate. African nationalist governments are excluded because they are specifically anti-colonial parties and not new nationalism - like ANC.

• Most of the biggest economies and democracies in the world have elected nationalist governments in the last decade. The top ten economies have a majority of democracies with nationalist governments - USA, Italy, Japan, India, Brazil. China is not a democracy. Germany, France, UK and Canada do not have nationalist government. This is truly a very significant political development.
• Asia and the West have nationalist governments on a significant scale.
• Right wing nationalism is still a new phenomenon in Israel. But Israel has had nationalist Labour governments due to the importance of existential security issues in Israel.
• Some of the nationalist leaders and parties have been elected for more than one term like Netanyahu and Abe.
• However, most of the leaders and governments have been elected in the last five years. The phenomenon is definitely new.
• Kurz may not be considered a nationalist, but he is definitely part of such a coalition and some of his policies are clearly nationalist on issues like Immigration and Islamism.
• Immigration is a central issue in the West. Trump got elected on this issue by his promise to build a wall on the Southern Border. Salvini in Italy got elected on this platform. Eastern Europe nationalists are very strong on this issue. But even in Asia, Israel and Brazil this has become a major issue.
• Religious nationalism is a feature is most places. So Christian nationalism features in the West and even in Brazil. Jewish nationalism is an important issue in Israel. India's BJP is an explicit Hindu/Dharmic indigenous religions - nationalist political party. Even the Japanese Abe has shown a form of Shinto tradition of honouring of nationalist ancestors in his politics.
• Law and order is also a general feature. For instance, Philippines Duterte got elected on this basis. Rule of law (in the form of tackling institutional corruption and the lack of responsiveness of the criminal justice system) is a major issue in India. The erosion of law and order is a concern in the rise of the Western nationalist governments especially in terms of illegal immigration. The issue may not be important in Japan.
• Security is an issue in many places. So there is an external threat paradigm involved. For instance, Japan and India with a concern about Chinese military power in Asia, the existential security threat seen by Israel from Iran, the traditional Russian threat felt in Poland/Eastern Europe and the USA concern about challenges to its military power.
• Opposition to globalisation is not necessary the primary feature in all such governments. For instance, India and Japan generally favour a pro-globalisation trade policy, but this is not true on a cultural and religious level. However, in the West opposition to globalisation is a major issue. President Trump made an explicit global policy speech on this subject emphasising the need to reject globalism in favour of nationalism to the UN.

It can be argued that nationalism is an opposition to globalisation on a cultural and ideological level. There is also a strong security paradigm against military and terrorist threats. At the same, there is a new populist economics.

It may be worth exploring current nationalism by comparing it to historical conservatism. Disraeli was the founder of the modern Conservative Party in the UK. In the post-WW2 we have had Margaret Thatcher as a new assertive Conservative Party Prime Minister. I want to compare their political philosophy to those of modern nationalist governments to show similarities and common ideas.

Disraeli defined modern conservatism. His Manchester and Crystal Palace speeches of 1872 set out the main features of the philosophy of British Conservative Party.

In the Crystal Palace he outlined three areas for this. The first was preserving the national institutions of the country like the Monarchy, established Church, House of Lords etc. The second was upholding "the empire of India" (which I hasten to add is no longer relevant). The third was "the elevation of the condition of the people".

In the Manchester speech, he spoke of the "Constitution of the country" as the programme of the Conservative Party. This is a reference to the Constitutional institutions of the UK at the time referred to above. But he also spoke of the need to " increase the well-being of the working class of this country". His emphasis was on sanitary conditions in his famous phrase, "Santitas sanitatutm, omnia sanitas", because life in Victorian England was literally filthy and polluted in every way with an impact in decreasing life expectancy (echoing some of the policy priorities of the Modi government today in India in this respect). So he had a very explicit populist appeal to the working class in his Conservative philosophy. Trump echoes Disraeli in this respect of the emphasis on the need to address working class issues and concerns - maybe without knowing it. He also contrasted this to the outdated notion of the Conservative Party as "a confederacy of nobles". A modern Conservative Party must be formed from "all the numerous classes in the realm -classes alike and equal before the law, but whose different conditions and different aims give vigour and variety to our national life".

The Conservative Party was a national party of all the classes, he argued. His economic policy previews that of Trump: " That capital was never accumulated so quickly, that wages were never higher, that employment of the people were never greater, and the country never wealthier". He drew a sharp distinction between a national party and a cosmopolitan one. His view of liberalism again previews the debates of today between globalisation and nationalism. He said: "England will have to decide between national and cosmopolitan principles".

Margaret Thatcher was UK Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990. she was the first woman Prime Minister of the UK. Her reputation was of a tough woman - the "Iron Lady" - a phrase used as an insult against her by Russians but which she adopted as a compliment. She was not politically correct. She made a speech about UK culture being "swamped" by other outside cultures. Her policies were not politically correct like Section 28 banning the teaching of homosexuality as a normal in schools. She was a Christian and saw herself and the West as part of the Christian civilisation. She was an ardent free marketeer with a reliance on the "monetary policy" to manage the economy with a giant wave of privatisations. But she also introduced the idea of popular home and share ownership to appeal to the working class. This was part of her populist policy. she also had "a common touch" appealing to ordinary people - by knowledge of the prices of ordinary goods or by speaking to them. On the global stage, she was very strong on nuclear arming and military strength of the West against the Communist threat from the Soviet Union. She contributed in a major way to the downfall of Communism in the Soviet bloc by this policy.

Her Bruges Speech in 1988 outlined her opposition to European federalism and her vision of a European of independent sovereign nations:

"My [first] guiding principle is this: willing and active cooperation between independent sovereign states is the best way to build a successful European Community. To try to suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the centre of a European conglomerate would be highly damaging and would jeopardise the objectives we seek to achieve."

"But working more closely together does not require power to be centralised in Brussels or decisions to be taken by an appointed bureaucracy. Indeed, it is ironic that just when those countries such as the Soviet Union, which have tried to run everything from the centre, are learning that success depends on dispersing power and decisions away from the centre, there are some in the Community who seem to want to move in the opposite direction. We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels."

So Margaret Thatcher had a preference for nation-states against EU federalism. This previews modern themes of nationalist governments in the West against globalism.

Populism and nationalism has played a major role in conservative thinking. This does not make it Nazi. My criticism of political correctness is that it equates nationalism with Nazism at a philosophical and policy level. Even issues of cultural identity are seen as proving Nazism when they show a traditional view of society and a status quo policy. In my view supporting the status quo cannot be equated with Nazism, but it can be associated with conservatism. For instance, the policy on immigration control has been the policy adopted by left, centre and right governments in the past few decades. So the continuation of those policies however strict they were does not equate to Nazism. This is properly a conservative policy - which commanded consensus in the last few decades in the West. So it can hardly be a Nazi policy. open border policies and acceptance of mass illegal immigration is the new policy break with the past. Appealing to the working class on issues - and even mobilising their prejudices has been part of the conservative and even left and centre traditions. For instance, mobilising working class against immigrants on the basis of immigrants lowering wage levels has been part of previous left, centre and right politics. This is not to argue that it was justified. Immigration was needed at certain times when there were employment shortages. How this immigration is structured (temporary work visas versus permanent immigration) can be legitimately debated. The old arguments centred on LEGAL immigration. But the current nationalist are taking measures to stop uncontrolled ILLEGAL immigration and deporting illegal immigrants as a policy. They do argue on wages issue and there is factual basis to this argument. They also point out the criminal activities carried out by these illegal immigrants. These are all very reasonable positions. They have argued for only legal immigration - which has been the historic position of all parties in democracies until recently. So again this does not equate to Nazism. The rule of law applies to the immigration system in democracies. To make it an exception to the rule of law is the really unjustifiable view. Large scale illegal immigration impacts on the very negative perception of the application of the rule of law in democracies. That is truly unhealthy. The use of nationalist language again does not equate to Nazism. The use of PC incorrect "racist" language does not remotely equate to Nazism. There is a loose use of the term Nazi to equate it with populist nationalist conservative politics today. They are not remotely the same in my view. The traditional status quo ante view of immigration - keeping the old balance in favour of indigenous national cultures and controls on immigration - maybe a conservative view, but it is perfectly legitimate one.

I would argue that the presence of genocidal intention, advocacy or actions are a necessary part of Nazism. It has been argued that industrial-scale genocide has to be involved for it to be described as Nazi. This may be accurate in terms of describing a phenomenon of a specific type of genocide. But this is not to make a moral judgement to say that other genocides are lesser evils. For instance, Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia or the genocide of the Armenian people by Turkey at the beginning of the C20th. To describe a movement or political party as Nazi is a very serious issue. I feel that it is treated as a game and trivialised in the modern political usage of the "Nazi" terms and equations in politics.

My argument of the experience of nationalist governments is that they are a reaction against the move towards the extreme left of the centre on several policies. The adoption of political correctness as a new ideology in the West by the left and liberals with its ban on divergent thinking has created a backlash. Nationalist governments are occupying the old ground of traditional conservatives on nationalism and populism. They are managing this process through democracy and elections. For instance, Trump was elected by the Republican grassroots to replace the old nobility of Republican Party elites represented by the likes of the Bush family. BJP in India lost an election and then returned to the opposition without questioning the process. They won again. Even the new nationalists have shown their participation in local and regional elections. On this critical issue, they abide by the elections results.

In fact, they argue that globalisation is an undemocratic process with unelected global bureaucracies and institutions having excessive power over nation-states - in an argument similar to the one put forward by Margaret Thatcher. They argue that the concerns of ordinary citizens should be taken into account by elected governments on issues such as immigration and national cultural identity issues. So they put forward the cosmopolitan versus national argument of Disraeli in a modern form.

Secondly, nationalist governments are strongly in favour of political freedom as they argue that political correctness suppresses freedom of speech. This is valid argument. For instance, the European Court of Justice ruled that freedom of speech on Islam was not absolute in a break from 'the Charlie Hebdo view of freedom of speech in Europe'. In the USA, President Trump signed a freedom of speech order on campuses because freedom of speech is being curtailed by political correctness views to stop conservatives speaking on campuses. Even political incorrectness is a freedom of speech issue in my view.

I favour the traditional view of the First Amendment USA Constitution in favour of absolute freedom of speech for different political views and broader artistic expression in democracies - which was championed by the civil liberties movement in USA only a decade ago. I am not the heretic. Those advocating censorship need scrutiny and proving their case beyond any doubt. The biggest irony is that the liberals have ceded ground to the extreme left on freedom of speech, whilst the conservatives favour it. I started my blog with John Stuart Mill on this issue. The old conservatives in favour of censorship and liberals in favour of freedom of speech position seems to have reversed.

My view is that modern nationalism in democracies is a reaction against globalisation at a cultural and religious level as well as at the level of economics, national sovereignty and democracy. There are genuine concerns about military security threats, terrorism and crime. It is a defensive and conservative phenomenon.

But it is seen as insurgency because the prevailing cosmopolitan culture and globalisation policies are seen as inevitable and "undoubtedly" progressive. So to question it is seen as an act of rebellion. Furthermore, traditional elite conservative, liberal and left parties have become "a confederacy of nobles" or in modern terms elites out of touch and even snobbish about the views of ordinary people. So the idea of representation of working class or religious views in national politics is seen as a heresy by them.

In the past two hundred years, the idea of the conservatives representing working class views and concerns does exist. I have given the examples of Disraeli and Thatcher in different eras - and within different philosophy and policy mix of Victorian and C20th context. The preservation of national culture or religions is not a remotely controversial idea. But globalisation is the loser by making it out to be. The rise of nationalist parties can stop even necessary globalisation - by mistake. Only a reasoned dialogue with nationalist parties and governments can lessen such mistakes.

On a strategic level, my view is that democracy has a national location in the nation-state. This is a critical analysis to grasp by modern policy makers. Getting this wrong in democracies leads them to break the organic link with the electorate in the pursuit of globalisation. It is globalisation which has to be redesigned as a policy framework to take into account the centrality of the nation-state as the locus of democracy and freedom in the modern world. The nationalists are right on this issue in my view. The globalisation project is in danger to disconnecting democracy from capitalism. This has proved to be a disaster so far. The democratic deficit of globalisation is a very serious issue. Global institutions cannot replace the nation-state without destroying democracy in my view.

The views of The Economist and many other liberal financial publications show the dangers of liberals dropping democracy as an issue when discussing globalisation. One consequence of this was the automatic dropping of a critical view of China as a Communist Party state with no political freedom in global fora and publications. Instead, the replacement of America by China was celebrated as a positive event.

At another level, there is a blind adoption of Islamism and Islam as a religion acceptable to liberal elites whilst every other religion especially in states with a majority of the religion ( like USA with Christianity, India with Hinduism, Israel with Judaism, etc) is seen as problematic and even reprehensible. This increases the mechanisms of a defence against globalisation culture as a threat to religious diversity at the level of nation-states. Secularist liberals espousing the cause of Islam does not diminish this at all. Banning freedom of speech under the umbrella term of outlawing "Islamophobia" alarms the traditionalists of all religions across the world against globalisation. East Europe shows a very Christian alarm at this globalisation trend with a strong rise of nationalist parties - which the "secular" EU elites find distasteful.

Immigration has created a gigantic backlash against globalisation in the West. The left and liberals decided to lift immigration controls and allow open border policies. The status quo of firm immigration controls described as "Fortress Europe" at one time vanished almost overnight. Across Europe millions of new immigrants came - with millions of them breaking immigration laws. USA also witnessed this from its Southern Border. My view is that this was a policy management failure on a giant scale. It created the backlash from working class people and ordinary citizens. This resentment increased when they were labelled as racist or far right for objecting to this immigration policy. So nationalist politicians and political parties grew on this issue. Populism and nationalism joined hands.

In conclusion, my view is that modern nationalist governments in democracies are more like conservative politics than not. They are wrongly perceived (by malign opponents as well as serious critics) as Nazi or authoritarian. In fact, the argument on democracy rests with the nationalist governments and their populism accounts for their ability to win elections. The people's voices have a right to be represented in democracies. Patriotism and populism are traditional conservative instincts. My view would yield a better perspective on nationalism in modern democracies and it has better predictive powers.

For instance, I argued that nationalist governments were likely to back Israel. Nearly all the nationalist governments above have backed Israel in different ways. They are willing to stand with a small and the only Jewish nation against bullying on a global stage and by engaging in commerce with it. Most of these nationalist leaders have visited Israel such as Trump, Modi, Bolsanaro, Abe, Orban, Duterte. That is not the behaviour of a Nazi global movement. Hitler and the Nazis trampled upon small nations and committed the Holocaust as a genocide of gigantic proportions against a minority religion. I rest my discussion on this point.