Nationalism and Democracy: Competing or Complementary Logics?

Upon initial consideration, the logics of nationalism and democracy seem to be contradictory. Nationalism appears to be predicated upon a doctrine of exclusivity, whereas democracy appears to be based on an inclusivist one. Upon careful contemplation, however, one notices that, historically, these two phenomena have frequently coexisted; even today, democratic regimes seem to exist and thrive (almost exclusively) within nation-states. The aim of this review is to bring together and discuss those works that have addressed the question of whether nationalism and democracy constitute complementary or competing logics.The debate operates on both a theoretical/normative level, and an empirical level. For a first group of scholars, democracy cannot exist without nationalism; it is thought that a certain degree of (cultural) homogeneity is needed for a political system to work. These scholars argue that a common national identity fosters solidarity and trust and gives human beings a sense of belonging. Empirical studies have revealed that (cultural) heterogeneity leads to the deterioration of trust, political participation, and the overall solvency of the welfare state. Those who emphasize the contradictory logics of these two concepts have not found such correlations in their empirical findings - revealing that multicultural states are also prone to success. Hence, for them, there is no reason to exclude people from democratic decision-making processes on grounds of their nationality, something that undermines the very principles of democracy. Even worse, it is argued that the fusion of nationalistic and democratic principles has led to some of the deadliest conflicts in modern history.