Crafting State-Nations

1. The "State-Nation" Model: An Alternative to the "Nation-State" for Diverse Democracies

We are convinced that in some circumstances, especially if a polity is ‘‘robustly multinational,’’ a politics of nation-state-building is in conflict with a politics of inclusionary democracy and societal peace.

Rethinking state models. The traditional "nation-state" model, which assumes a single, culturally homogeneous nation within a state, is often ill-suited for the world's diverse polities. This model, exemplified by 19th-century France, relies on homogenizing policies that can lead to conflict in societies with deep cultural and linguistic differences. The authors propose the "state-nation" as a coherent alternative, designed for polities with "bounded plurality" or "robustly multinational" dimensions.

Defining state-nation. A state-nation actively recognizes and supports multiple but complementary sociocultural identities, fostering a shared "we-feeling" for the statewide political community while safeguarding diverse groups. Unlike the nation-state's "unity in oneness," the state-nation strives for "unity in diversity." This approach is crucial in contexts where several significant, territorially concentrated groups identify as nations, making a homogenizing nation-state project conflictual and undemocratic.

Empirical validation. The state-nation model is empirically testable, predicting high positive identification with the state, multiple but complementary political identities, high trust in state institutions, and strong support for democracy across diverse groups. Initial data from the World Values Survey supports this, showing that "state-nations" (like Switzerland, Canada, Belgium, Spain, and India) actually score higher on institutional trust and national pride than countries closer to the "nation-state" ideal type.

2. India's Pioneering State-Nation: Unity Amidst Unprecedented Diversity and Poverty

India would appear to be one of the most difficult cases for our argument that multiple but complementary identities and democratic state-nation loyalties are possible even in a polity with significant ‘‘robust multinational’’ dimensions as well as intense linguistic and religious differences.

A unique democratic experiment. India stands as an extraordinary case study for the state-nation model, navigating unparalleled diversity in language, religion, and caste, alongside profound poverty. With over a billion people, dozens of major languages, and the world's third-largest Muslim population, India defies conventional wisdom that links democracy to socioeconomic development or cultural homogeneity. Its success challenges the notion that state-nation norms are a luxury reserved for wealthy countries.

Foundational vision. India's founders, including Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, consciously rejected a monolithic, European-style nation-state. They envisioned an "idea of India" that embraced its pluralism, translating this vision into an inclusionary constitutional design. This framework provided for a parliamentary system and asymmetrical federalism, allowing for both individual rights and collective recognition of diverse communities.

Robust democratic support. Despite its complexities, India exhibits remarkably high levels of national pride, institutional trust, and support for democracy across all major religious communities and socioeconomic strata.

• 71% of Hindus and 71% of Muslims believe democracy is the best government.
• Religiosity positively correlates with support for democracy across all four major religions.
• Marginalized groups (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, the very poor) show increasing political efficacy and commitment to democracy.
  This widespread acceptance underscores the viability of a state-nation even in the most challenging contexts.

3. Strategic Policies for Crafting State-Nations: A "Nested Grammar" Approach

We . . . believe some conceptual, political, and normative attention should be given to the possibility of state nations.

Beyond nation-state limitations. For polities with significant, territorially concentrated sociocultural diversity, the traditional nation-state model often leads to conflict. The state-nation model offers a coherent alternative, built on a "nested policy grammar" of seven interconnected elements designed to foster inclusionary democracy and societal peace. These policies are mutually reinforcing, with the success of one often facilitating the implementation of the next.

Key policy components:

• Asymmetrical federalism: Allows special constitutional prerogatives for diverse units, accommodating unique linguistic or cultural aspirations (e.g., India's Mizoram).
• Individual rights and collective recognition: Protects universal individual rights while granting specific group rights for cultural flourishing (e.g., language rights, affirmative action).
• Parliamentary system: Creates a "sharable good" in the executive, enabling coalition governments that include diverse parties and nationalities, fostering power-sharing.
• Polity-wide and "centric-regional" parties: Encourages regional parties to participate in central coalitions, integrating them into the broader political system rather than pushing for secession.
• Politically integrated but not culturally assimilated populations: Allows distinct cultural groups to maintain their identity while participating fully in the state's political and economic life.
• Cultural nationalists versus secessionist nationalists: Empowers cultural nationalists who seek autonomy within the state, thereby marginalizing violent secessionist movements.
• Multiple but complementary identities: Cultivates loyalty to both the sub-unit and the overarching state, recognizing that identities are not mutually exclusive.

Deliberate design. The state-nation is not a natural outcome but a deliberate "crafting" through these policies. This framework provides a roadmap for leaders in diverse societies to build stable, democratic polities by accommodating, rather than repressing, their inherent pluralism.

4. India's Success in Tamil Nadu: From Separatism to Integration Through State-Nation Policies

The creation of a Tamil-speaking state in a context where cultural nationalism was very strong gave the two Tamil nationalist political organizations, the DMK and the DK, an opportunity to win control of the state by waging cultural-nationalist campaigns.

Defusing secessionist potential. Tamil Nadu, with its distinct Dravidian language, anti-Brahmin caste movements, and historical calls for an independent "Dravidistan," presented a significant challenge to India's unity at independence. However, through a series of strategic state-nation policies, what was once a robustly multinational problem with secessionist potential transformed into a politically integrated, albeit culturally distinct, part of the Indian federation.

Key policy interventions:

• Linguistic reorganization: The creation of Tamil Nadu as a Tamil-speaking state in the 1950s legitimized Tamil cultural nationalism within the Indian federal framework.
• Language policy flexibility: The central government's decision in 1965 to retain English as a "link language" alongside Hindi, rather than imposing Hindi-only policies, was crucial. This preserved polity-wide career opportunities for Tamils, mitigating a major source of alienation.
• "Centric-regional" parties: The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), initially a cultural nationalist party with separatist leanings, became deeply integrated into Indian federal politics. Through electoral alliances with national parties, the DMK gained significant power at both the state and central levels, transforming it into a "centric-regional" force.

Enduring complementary identities. Despite a strong "only Tamil" self-identification among its citizens, Tamil Nadu exhibits high trust in the central government and the Indian Army, and high satisfaction with Indian democracy. This demonstrates that political integration can occur without cultural assimilation, fostering multiple but complementary identities. The shared recognition of national icons like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru further solidifies this integration.

5. Sri Lanka's Descent into Conflict: The Perils of Aggressive Nation-State Building

Aggressive nation-state-building policies in Sri Lanka put the multinational society on the ‘‘slippery slope’’ of state erosion and democratic decay.

A tragic reversal. Sri Lanka, a peaceful, prosperous, and highly literate multicultural democracy at independence in 1948, tragically descended into a brutal civil war by the 1980s. This stark contrast to India's experience highlights the dangers of pursuing aggressive nation-state policies in a multinational society, demonstrating a "slippery slope toward violence and secession."

Five steps to fragmentation:

• Disenfranchisement of Up-Country Tamils (1947-48): Stripped citizenship from a significant Tamil population, eliminating their electoral influence and alienating a key minority.
• "Sinhalese Only" language policy (1956): Made Sinhala the sole official language, marginalizing Tamil speakers in public service and education, and eroding their polity-wide career prospects.
• Mobilization of religious differences: The 1978 constitution declared Buddhism the "foremost place," deepening Sinhala-Buddhist majoritarianism and further alienating Tamil Hindus.
• Erosion of state neutrality: Pacts for devolution were undermined by Sinhala nationalist pressure, and state security forces became increasingly partisan against Tamils. The shift to a semi-presidential system created an "unsharable" executive, hindering power-sharing.
• Exclusion of Tamil political parties (1983): A constitutional amendment forced Tamil MPs to swear an anti-secession oath, leading to their walkout from parliament and empowering the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) guerrillas.

Polarized and conflictual identities. By 2005, surveys revealed profound Sinhala majoritarianism and deep Tamil distrust in state institutions, with religiosity correlating negatively with support for democracy among Buddhists. This outcome, culminating in a bloody civil war that killed over 100,000 people, serves as a cautionary tale against imposing a monolithic national identity on a diverse populace.

6. Federacy: A Flexible Solution for Unitary States with Concentrated Minorities

A federacy is a political-administrative unit in an independent unitary state with exclusive power in certain areas, including some legislative power, constitutionally or quasi-constitutionally embedded, that cannot be changed unilaterally and whose inhabitants have full citizenship rights in the otherwise unitary state.

Bridging the gap. When a unitary state faces a territorially concentrated cultural minority with nationalist aspirations, but neither full federalism nor outright independence is feasible, a "federacy" offers a viable democratic solution. This ideal-type arrangement grants significant, entrenched autonomy to the minority unit while maintaining the state's unitary character and ensuring full citizenship rights for the minority population.

Defining characteristics of a federacy:

• Federal-like division of functions: Explicit allocation of exclusive powers to the federacy (e.g., language, education, local development), while core state functions (e.g., foreign affairs, defense) remain central.
• Quasi-constitutionally embedded autonomy: Autonomy agreements are protected by supermajority requirements, preventing unilateral changes by the central government.
• Dispute resolution procedures: Mechanisms for resolving conflicts between the federacy and the state, often involving consultation and consent.
• Reciprocal representation: Citizens of the federacy have representatives in the state's parliament and participate in state-wide elections, while the state has a representative in the federacy.
• Part of an internationally recognized independent state: The federacy operates within the sovereignty of the unitary state.
  Additionally, federacies can benefit from international guarantors and the ability to negotiate "opt-out" provisions from international treaties.

Global applicability. The concept of federacy has proven effective in diverse contexts beyond small Scandinavian democracies.

• Italy (post-WWII): "Regions of special statute" (de facto federacies) defused secessionist movements in South Tyrol, Valle d'Aosta, Sicily, and Sardinia, aiding democratic transition.
• Portugal (1974): Federacy for the Azores (and Madeira) mitigated secessionist threats during the Carnation Revolution.
• Indonesia (Aceh): The 2005 Helsinki Agreement, inspired by the Åland Islands model, transformed a civil war into peace by granting Aceh extensive self-government within Indonesia.
  These cases demonstrate federacy's utility in managing multinational challenges, even in post-conflict or non-Western settings.

7. Ukraine's Unitary State-Nation: Navigating Geopolitics and Diversity Without Federalism

The goal of our book has not been to extol state-nations over nation-states but rather to expand our collective political imaginations about what is feasible, and unfeasible, in different contexts.

A unique balancing act. Ukraine, a unitary state with a significant Russophone population and a complex religious landscape, faced the challenge of building a democratic political community while bordering a militarily powerful and irredentist Russia. Aggressive nation-state policies, as seen in Moldova or Georgia, risked fragmentation and conflict. However, a full state-nation strategy involving federalism was deemed too risky due to geopolitical vulnerabilities.

State-nation policies in a unitary framework: Ukraine adopted a pragmatic approach, blending "soft" nation-state policies with state-nation principles.

• Inclusive citizenship: The "zero option" citizenship law granted automatic citizenship to nearly all residents at independence, fostering loyalty among ethnic Russians.
• Language compromise: While Ukrainian is the state language, Russian is protected, and widespread bilingualism (Surzhyk) facilitates communication. Policies aim to improve Ukrainian fluency without coercing Russophones.
• Shared symbols: Common historical narratives (Kyivan Rus, Khmelnytskyi) and shared negative experiences (Stalin's famine, Chernobyl) foster a sense of collective identity.
• Elite cooperation: Strategic alliances between Ukrainian nationalists and former communists prioritized state-building over ethnic maximalism.

Democratic resilience, ongoing challenges. Ukraine has maintained internal peace and territorial integrity, avoiding the fate of neighbors like Moldova and Georgia. It has also shown democratic progress, with multiple electoral alternations and a significant rise in "confident democrats." However, challenges remain, including high corruption, low trust in police and courts, and persistent political infighting over presidential powers. The ongoing debate over "parliamentarized semi-presidentialism" reflects the struggle to create a more stable and shared executive, crucial for deepening state-nation qualities.

8. The US Federal Model: A Potentially Harmful Blueprint for Multinational Democracies

For many theorists and political leaders, the U.S. model of federalism is held up as not only the first, but also the most authentic—indeed, the best—model of federalism.

Challenging the ideal. While often lauded as the quintessential federal system, the U.S. model presents significant drawbacks for robustly multinational societies aiming for inclusive democracy and social welfare. Its unique constitutional features, when considered as a complete package, are ill-suited for managing deep cultural and linguistic diversity, potentially exacerbating rather than mitigating conflict.

Seven problematic features:

• Extreme malapportionment in the Senate: Each state receives equal representation regardless of population, massively overrepresenting small states and underrepresenting large ones.
• Powerful upper chamber: The Senate holds absolute veto power over all legislation and unique prerogatives (treaty ratification, appointments), amplifying the impact of malapportionment.
• Symmetrical federalism: All states have identical rights, precluding the asymmetrical arrangements crucial for recognizing distinct cultural prerogatives of multinational groups (e.g., language rights, special land laws).
• Residual powers to states: Powers not explicitly granted to the federal government default to the states, potentially hindering national-level responses to diverse needs.
• Rigid amendment process: The U.S. Constitution is exceptionally difficult to amend, requiring supermajorities in both the Senate and states, entrenching existing power imbalances.
• Strong judicial review: The Supreme Court's extensive power to declare legislation unconstitutional can further constrain policy innovation and adaptation to diverse societal demands.
• "Unsharable" presidential executive: A directly elected president with a fixed term is an "indivisible good," making power-sharing difficult for multinational coalitions, unlike parliamentary systems.

Implications for multinational polities. This combination of features creates a system with a high number of "electorally based veto players" (four in the U.S. compared to a maximum of two in other multinational democracies). This institutional rigidity makes it exceptionally difficult to pass legislation, particularly those aimed at reducing inequality or accommodating diverse group needs. The U.S. consistently ranks poorly on measures of inequality and social welfare among advanced democracies, suggesting that its federal model is a highly constraining, and potentially detrimental, blueprint for robustly multinational societies.