THE STATES-NATIONS CIRCUS; RACE TO THE BOTTOM

 

 

 

There are contested conceptualizations of a state and a nation. Scholarly however, they are very different. The state possesses its basic attributes, most important to this article being a legitimate government. Nations on the contrary, are groupings that have an identical history, traditions, linguistic features and ideological prospects. Nations can therefore go beyond states and in certain circumstances a nation could be a state for example Japan.

World over, there is a mounting problem to states from the nations. Secessions have become a trend and particular nations want to rise to states. Clamour for political power is basically the end goal. On the contrary, some states are setting the foundations for the strong features of a nation by appealing to shared values. The Catalans want to leave Spain, The Kurds are reading from the script of independence and this tone has found its way in Kenya. States still face a survival battle from the globalization phenomena that keeps usurping their sovereignty and ability to call the shots, but my focus is on the internal shoves.

Civilizations as clearly spelt out by Samuel Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order have lined up shared identities and conspicuous differences that enrich an us versus them analogy. “In conflicts between civilizations, the question is what are you?” He posits. The Kenyan state has many nations that have assumed particular labels. The pastoralist have their emblem, another nation is credited for its business-orientation and many more. Politics has a way of drawing the lines that interfere with the Peace, Love and Unity values that the state is cultivating by appealing to the particular nation or rather civilizational versions.

The similarities and differences above are exploited by the elites to settle their scores! This justifies that the threat to the existence of the state are interest groups that have mastered the sharp edges of differences between each nation. Propagation of the “Hate Dynamic” is executed and secession is achieved.

The strength of the United States is in the integration of units that form its government, which the civil rights activists like Martin Luther King Junior sowed the seeds of freedom but without coupling with “political divorce”. The United Kingdom enjoyed hegemony for a long time, and in world politics is still an important player owing to its cohesiveness. Closer home to Kenya, the secession of South Sudan from the North has not borne stability. The Soviets experienced an implosion that is ever argued as the ultimate subtraction to its great power status. The few examples reiterate the dangers of splitting states; fragility, isolation and fragmentation.

Nations exist but their formulation is greatly complex. Within the same nations, specifications abound. Sub-tribes and clans have greater meaning and arouse emotional discord. An example is the Maasai nation, which has sub-tribes numbering to above ten and classification into two major clans and five sub-clans. Grievances could therefore differ, hence the incessant “us versus them” aspects of social manipulations. This trickle-down clash has structured the devolved-units’ conflicts. In all these crises the state has to assert its power and authority.

Ultimately, separating Kenya would not solve the impasse but would play to the cards of the elites who might be skilled enough to proceed seceding from the “fair share” of the acquired territory. Deep down, nations are fragmented and yielding to their demands, strengthens the continuous manipulation of the smallest exclusivities!

Nevertheless, it is not enough to have a just system. Because of the hunger for power in humans, a strong military that can extensively discredit any separatists is key. A stronger economy could jeopardize the establishment of a competitor. Flushing out such ideals can only be facilitated by “big-stick” diplomacy.

Finally, the phrase United Nations is a pair of improper semantics. Let states be!