Nationalism and Human Rights

Date01 March 2019
DOI10.1177/1065912918781187
Published date01 March 2019
AuthorEmir Yazici
Subject MatterArticles
/tmp/tmp-18NTXM9g1ay0J5/input 781187PRQXXX10.1177/1065912918781187Political Research QuarterlyYazici
research-article2018
Article
Political Research Quarterly
2019, Vol. 72(1) 147 –161
Nationalism and Human Rights
© 2018 University of Utah
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918781187
DOI: 10.1177/1065912918781187
journals.sagepub.com/home/prq
Emir Yazici1
Abstract
Do nationalist political parties violate human rights more than others or are they the protectors of their people’s
rights when they are in power? I argue that nationalist political actors have the duty of protecting national unity at any
cost and prioritizing national interests over any other concerns. These goals jeopardize certain types of human rights.
In contrast to the view that civic nationalism can be more benign compared with ethnic nationalism, I argue that they
both have similar effects on human rights. However, democratic institutions can tame nationalism and limit its effects
on human rights. I test my theory by using a large-N sample including forty-nine countries between 1981 and 2011, and
supplement my findings with a short case study. The findings show that nationalism has negative effects on certain types
of human rights only in partial democracies. This article contributes to the literature by presenting a causal mechanism
relating the core elements of nationalism to human rights practices and providing the first large-N empirical test of
this relationship. The findings of this article can help scholars, politicians, and citizens better understand a potentially
dangerous consequence of the rise of nationalism around the world.
Keywords
nationalism, chief executives, human rights, democracy
Introduction
civic nationalism can be more benign compared with eth-
nic nationalism, I argue that these two goals are shared by
It is ironic that nationalism emerged as an ideology prom-
any type of nationalism and likely to have similar effects
ising protection of citizens’ rights against the monarchs
on human rights. However, democratic institutions limit-
and then turned into an ideology that has been used by
ing the chief executive’s power can tame nationalism and
political actors to justify human rights violations. This
diminish its effects on human rights. In full democracies
ironic history of the relationship between nationalism and
with strong institutions, nationalist governments should
human rights engendered a long-standing debate regard-
not be able to reach the means of repression, whereas in
ing the effects of nationalism on human rights. Particularly,
partial democracies, there will be less constraints on
the recent rise of nationalist political parties across the
them. Hence, this article contributes to the literature by
world makes the following question more important: do
presenting a causal mechanism relating the core elements
nationalist political parties violate human rights more
of nationalism to human rights practices. I also challenge
when they are in power?
the existing literature about civic versus ethnic national-
I argue that nationalism is inherently contradictory to
ism and argue that it is not the type of nationalism but the
human rights. It requires a specific preference ordering
democratic institutions that influence the relationship
different from other ideologies such as liberalism or
between nationalism and human rights. I test my theory
socialism. According to this preference ordering, nation-
by using a large-N sample including forty-nine countries
alist political actors have the duty of achieving, and then
between 1981 and 2011, and supplement my findings
protecting, national unity at any cost and prioritizing
with a short case study. As the first large-N empirical test
national interests over any other concerns. These goals
of the relationship between nationalism and human rights,
jeopardize certain types of human rights, such as freedom
my results allow me to reach some generalizable conclu-
of assembly and association, freedom of speech, and free-
sions, the foremost being that nationalism does indeed
dom of electoral self-determination, because these rights
can be used to challenge the national unity. Moreover,
nationalist governments are more reckless about using
1University of Missouri, Columbia, USA
torture, extrajudicial killing, disappearance, or political
Corresponding Author:
imprisonment for the sake of national security given the
Emir Yazici, Department of Political Science, University of Missouri,
belief that such “liberal concerns” can be ignored if
113 Professional Building, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.
national interests are at stake. In contrast to the view that
Email: eyvwf@mail.missouri.edu

148
Political Research Quarterly 72(1)
have a negative effect on certain types of human rights, at
(and preserving) nation’s autonomy, unity, and identity
least in partial democracies. The findings of this article
(A. D. Smith 2010). Based on these overlapping themes,
can help scholars, politicians, and citizens better under-
A. D. Smith (2010, 9) presents a basic definition of
stand a potentially dangerous consequence of the rise of
nationalism: “an ideological movement for attaining and
nationalism around the world.
maintaining autonomy, unity and identity for a popula-
In the following section, I start with a definition of
tion which some of its members deem to constitute an
nationalism, which is followed by a brief discussion of
actual or potential nation.” There are two important com-
the literature. Next, I present my theory explaining which
ponents of nationalism that should be underlined in light
elements of nationalism affect human rights and how the
of these definitions. First, a nation is strong and legiti-
level of democracy can alter this relationship. The
mate as long as it remains homogeneous. In this sense,
“Theory” section is followed by the quantitative analysis
one of the primary objectives of a nationalist leader is to
of a large-N sample and a short case study. I conclude the
achieve and preserve the unity of nation. Second, national
article with the theoretical and empirical implications of
interests are always superior to the interests of the indi-
my findings for the literature.
vidual members of that nation. If a leader frames an issue
as being in the best interest of the nation, the interests of
What Is Nationalism?
the few can be sacrificed for the supposed betterment of
the many. These two components of nationalism consti-
Nationalism is defined as “a political principle which
tute my theoretical framework.
holds that the political and national unit should be con-
gruent” by Gellner (1983, 5). In other words, members of
How Does Nationalism Affect Human Rights?
a nation are meant to live together in a bounded territory
ruled by their national authority. Nationalism arises from
In the literature, there are two approaches regarding the
either the satisfaction or violation of this principle. It is
relationship between nationalism and human rights
violated when all the members of a nation are not included
(Cheng 2012). One approach underlines that they are
or when there are foreigners within the political bound-
inherently contradictory as nationalism always tends to
ary. Hobsbawm (1990) adds that nationalism is a product
prioritize collective interests over individual rights
of invented traditions by political elite to protect their
(Afshari 2007; Eagleton 1990), whereas the other
own interests. Nationalism, as a principle,
approach underlines the emancipatory characteristics of
nationalism and how it serves as the protector of human
implies that the political duty of the Ruritanians [refers to a
rights (Cardus 2000). The primary negative effect of
fictional Central European country] to the polity which
nationalism on human rights is major violent events such
encompasses and represents the Ruritanian nation, overrides
as ethnic conflicts and genocides. Freeman (2000) argues
all other public obligations, and in extreme cases (such as
that leaders of ethnic groups, who know that conflict
wars) all other obligations of whatever kind. (Hobsbawm
increases the solidarity among members, may instigate
1990, 9)
ethnic conflicts. One example is the ethnic conflict
between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots. Although the
Hence, he points out the superiority of national interests
colonial history of Cyprus and policies of foreign powers
over individuals’ interest according to nationalism. institutionalized the ethnic hostility between these groups,
Because national interest is not always equal to the indi-
it was ethnic nationalism that engendered remarkable
viduals’ interests, nationalism makes it clear which one
human right violations in Cyprus (Pollis 1979). Similarly,
should be the priority of the decision makers. Similar to
religious and ethnic Serbian nationalism inflamed by
this conception, Tilly (1994, 133) states that nationalism
Milosevic culminated in the ethnic cleaning campaign
refers to the principle that
against the Muslim-Bosniak minority in Sandzak (Lyon
2008). Ethnic nationalism, therefore, is associated with
states should correspond to homogeneous peoples, that
homogeneous peoples had distinctive political interests, that
the most violent forms of human rights violations.
members of homogeneous peoples owed strong loyalties to
In contrast to ethnic...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT