The nation-state is a rare and recent phenomenon in humanaffairs. Nation-states emerged in the West with the invention ofthe printing press and the proliferation of publications invernacular languages in the 16th and 17th centuries. Slowlypeople in Western Europe acquired the rudiments of nationalidentity, defined at first largely in religious terms.

In the 19th century, national consciousness spread throughoutEuropean societies. In the 20th century, Third World students ofWestern nationalism returned home to lead national-liberationmovements. Meanwhile, the concept of the nation—an ethnic orcultural community—had become linked to that of the state—apurely political organization. No reason exists in logic orexperience, however, why sources of identity and authority shouldcoincide, and through most of human history they have not.

But while the nation-state has been the pre-eminent institutionof the modern world for several centuries, it is now seen to bein a condition of decay. Throughout the world, people arereconsidering what they have in common and what distinguishesthem from others. Modernization, economic development,urbanization and globalization have led people to shrink theiridentity. People now identify with those who are most like them,those with whom they share a common language, religion, traditionand history. Today Scots, Kosovars, Catalonians, Chechens andothers are all affirming their identity and seeking a politicalvoice.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, nationalism was promoted byélites who developed sophisticated appeals to generate a sense ofnational identity among those whom they saw as their compatriotsand to rally them for nationalist causes. Now, however, theemergence of a global economy, plus the arrival of transnationalcoalitions (on issues such as women's rights or the environment),has led many elites to develop a more cosmopolitan identity. Yetthe average citizen in most countries remains stronglynationalistic and often strongly opposes élite views.

Waking up to these developments means a number of things. First,it suggests the need to question the linkage of identity andauthority implied by nation-states. No reason exists why—inaddition to states—nationalities, diasporas, religiouscommunities and other groups should not be treated as legitimateactors in global affairs.

At the same time, it's worth recognizing that the efforts of theU.S. government and others to get people to live in multinationaland multiethnic communities are more often than not exercises infutility. Instead, it is often wise to accommodate those pushingfor ethnic separation, segregation and homogenization—even ifthat means partitioning entire nations to reduce violence.

Global politics is growing more complex. States will remain theprincipal actors in global politics. But they are being joined bymany other actors, including failed states such as Sierra Leone,suprastate organizations like the European Union, interstateorganizations like the International Monetary Fund and ingos(international nongovernment organizations) such as Greenpeace.

Global politics is, in a sense, coming to have the pluralism anddiversity typical of politics in democratic countries—with onecrucial difference. Democratic societies recognize and accept thepeople as the ultimate source of sovereignty and some governmentinstitutions, usually the legislature and courts, as the ultimatesources of authority. In the emerging global politics, however,state sovereignty and authority are withering, and noalternative, such as some system of world government, is about tofill the vacuum. The result is almost certain to be chaos. Thebasic issue for the next quarter-century is whether statesmenwill have the patience and wisdom to manage this chaos inpeaceful rather than violent fashion.

PRIVACY POLICY