======================================================================
= Constitutional patriotism =
======================================================================
Introduction
======================================================================
Constitutional patriotism () is the idea that people should form a
political attachment to the norms and values of a pluralistic liberal
democratic constitution rather than a national culture or cosmopolitan
society. It is associated with post-nationalist identity, because it
is seen as a similar concept to nationalism, but as an attachment
based on values of the constitution rather than a national culture. In
essence, it is an attempt to re-conceptualise group identity with a
focus on the interpretation of citizenship as a loyalty that goes
beyond individuals' ethnocultural identification. Theorists believe
this to be more defensible than other forms of shared commitment in a
diverse modern state with multiple languages and group identities. It
is particularly relevant in post-national democratic states in which
multiple cultural and ethnic groups coexist. It was influential in the
development of the European Union and a key to Europeanism as a basis
for multiple countries belonging to a supranational union.
Theoretical origins
======================================================================
Constitutional patriotism has been interpreted in a variety of ways,
providing a range of positions. On one end, there is the vision that
the concept is a new means of identification to a supranational
entity; while on the other end, there is a focus on understanding the
attachment in terms of freedom over ethnicity. It is largely contested
whether constitutional patriotism is supposed to be read as a
replacement for nationality or traditional identity; or as a balance
between the two, allowing for the "transient account of identity
consistent with the diversity, hybridity, and pluralism of our modern
world." There are also multiple opinions as to whether a prior group
identity is necessary before a moral, political one is achieved.
The concept of constitutional patriotism originates from Post-World
War Two West Germany: "a 'half-nation' with a sense of deeply
compromised nationality on account of their Nazi past." In this
context, constitutional patriotism was a protective and state-centered
means of dealing with the memory of the Holocaust and militancy of the
Third Reich. The concept can be traced to the liberal philosopher Karl
Jaspers, who advocated the idea of dealing with German political guilt
after the war with 'collective responsibility'. His student, Dolf
Sternberger explicitly introduced the concept on the thirtieth
birthday of the Federal Republic (1979). However, it is strongly
associated with the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas.
Sternberger
=============
Sternberger saw constitutional patriotism as a protective means to
ensure political stability to maintain peace in Germany in the
aftermath of the Second World War. He framed the concept as a way for
citizens to identify with the democratic state in order that it could
defend itself against internal and external threats. Thus, with the
emphasis on state defense and protection, Sternberger linked
constitutional patriotism to the concept of militant democracy. He
drew on Aristotelianism, arguing that patriotism had traditionally not
been linked to sentiments towards the nation. Constitutional
patriotism is a development of Sternberger's earlier notion of
'Staatsfreundschaft' (friendship towards the state).
Habermas
==========
Habermas played a key role in developing, contextualizing and
spreading the idea of constitutional patriotism to English-speaking
countries. Like Sternberger, Habermas viewed constitutional patriotism
as a conscious strengthening of political principles, however, "where
Sternberger's patriotism had centred on democratic institutions worth
defending, Habermas focused on the public sphere as providing a space
for public reasoning among citizens."
Post-war West Germany provided the context for Habermas's theories.
During the historian's dispute of the late 1980s, Habermas fought
against the normalization of "exceptional historical events" (the rise
of Nazism and the events of the Holocaust). Constitutional patriotism
was Habermas's suggestion as a way to unify West Germans. As he was
concerned by the shaping of German identity through attempts to return
to traditional national pride, he argued for Germans to "move away
from the notion of ethnically homogeneous nation-states." Thus it
became an "inner counterpart to the bond of the Federal Republic to
the West; it was not only an advance in respect to traditional German
nationalism, but also a step toward overcoming it." To Habermas,
post-national German identity was dependent on understanding and
overcoming its past, subjecting traditions to criticism. This
historical memory was essential to constitutional patriotism.
Habermas believed a nationalistic collective identity was no longer
feasible in a globalized modern world and scorned ethnic cohesion as a
part of nineteenth century nationalism irrelevant in a new age of
international migration. His theory was therefore grounded in the idea
that "the symbolic unity of the person that is produced and maintained
through self-identification depends... on belonging to the symbolic
reality of a group, on the possibility of localizing oneself in the
world of this group. A group identity that transcends the life
histories of individuals is thus a precondition of the identity of the
individual." In a disenchanted world, individual and collective
identities were no longer formed by internalizing nationalist values
but by becoming aware of "what they want and what others expect from
them in the light of moral concerns" from an impartial position.
He argued that the European nation-state was successful because "it
made possible a new mode of legitimation based on a new, more abstract
form of social integration." Rather than a consensus on just values,
Habermas believed the intricacies of modern societies must rely on "a
consensus on the procedure for the legitimate enactment of laws and
the legitimate exercise of power.�
Current discussion
======================================================================
Constitutional patriotism is still a widely debated topic, which
various theorists are expanding on and arguing about. Jan-Werner
Müller follows in Habermas's footsteps, but works to broaden
constitutional patriotism to be a framework which can be universally
applied. Calhoun offers a competing framework to Müller, which
emphasizes its connection to cosmopolitanism. Fossum discusses the
differences in the two conceptions of constitutional patriotism which
have emerged.
Müller
========
Jan-Werner Müller is one of the leading theorists of constitutional
patriotism, having written more than 10 publications in two languages
on the topic. Building upon his predecessors, Müller advocates for
constitutional patriotism as a unification option, especially in
diverse, liberal democracies. His ideas center on political
attachment, democratic legitimacy and citizenship in a context that
rejects nationalism, and addresses multicultural states, such as the
European Union. He provides some of the only extensive analysis on
Sternberger and Habermas' original theories, and has developed and
improved accessibility of the idea to the English-speaking world. He
is known for "liberating it from Habermas's specific conception and
opening up a more general discussion about constitutional patriotism,"
so it can be universally applied. Müller offers some of the only
modern and extensive responses to criticism of constitutional
patriotism. Müller's ideas place constitutional patriotism in a
broader context, and have expanded its potential to be applied in
places outside of Germany and the European Union.
Müller grounds his arguments for constitutional patriotism in the idea
that political theory should supply citizens with the tools to rethink
their commonalities, or unifying features. He argues that, while
constitutional patriotism is distinct from liberal nationalism and
cosmopolitanism, the best moral attributes of these theories can be
combined to form a plausible and appealing style of political
allegiance. However, where liberal nationalism and cosmopolitanism
fall short, constitutional patriotism "theorizes the civic bond in a
way that is more plausible sociologically and that leads to more
liberal political outcomes." Similarly, it is a theory "oriented both
toward stability and civic empowerment."
Calhoun
=========
Craig Calhoun sees constitutional patriotism as the solidifying of a
more general cosmopolitanism. He notices that democracy is composed of
more than political culture and suggests that a democracy has many
more externalities. Habermas acknowledges this and questions whether
or not "there exists a functional equivalent for the fusion of the
nation of citizens with the ethnic nation." However, Calhoun argues
that Habermas falsely assumes that ethnic nationalism and nationalism
are interchangeable. Calhoun says constitutional patriotism is a
common project shared amongst all citizens which is molded by a
state's public discourse and culture. Consequently, he proposes a
revision to the constitutional patriotism theory and suggests that
"the notion of constitution as legal framework needs to be
complemented by the notion of 'constitution as the creation of
concrete social relationships': of bonds of mutual commitment forged
in shared action, of institutions, and of shared modalities of
practical action."
Fossum
========
John Erik Fossum, working off Habermas's definition and ideas, argues
that two opposing ideas are inherent in constitutional patriotism-
particularism and universalism- which affect allegiance. The pull of
these two ideas is referred to as thickness. Theorists such as
Sternberger, Habermas, Müller, and Calhoun each have their own degree
of thickness. In order to measure the thickness of allegiance in a
type of constitutional patriotism, Fossum examines three factors:
exit, voice and loyalty. Exit is evaluated on how easy it is for a
person to enter or exit the group and therefore has strong bearings on
diversity. Fossum believes it is crucial to pay attention to exit -and
a nation's historical memory- in order to understand the thickness.
This is because historical memory helps unite communities and preserve
their sense of identity. In nationalism, exit is ignored because this
shared history and/or ethnicity binds people together. In
constitutional patriotism, there is some room for exit; how much
depends on the conception. Voice is defined as each citizens relation
and conceptualization of the theory. Finally, loyalty is defined as
the allegiance to the state's culture and constitution.
|Fossum's Two Conceptions of Constitutional Patriotism |'Numbers
denote decreasing importance'
!! Constitutional Patriotism 1 !! Constitutional Patriotism 2
Exit - Moderate 'cosmopolitan openness' for persons and arguments.
- Exit provisions only from communicative community, not available to
territorial entities (3). - High 'cosmopolitan openness' for pers
ons
and arguments. - Provisions for sub-unit exit from the polity, in
compliance with democratic norms (2).
Voice - Rights to ensure individual autonomy. - Communication
aimed
at fostering agreement on common norms: pragmatic, ethical and moral.
- Communication to foster solidarity and sense of community (2).
-
Rights to ensure individual autonomy. - Communication aimed at
reaching working agreements. - Communication to foster trust in
procedures and rights: 'negative voice' (1).
Loyalty - Positive endorsement of culturally embedded
constitutional norms. - Positive identification with the polity (1).
- Ambivalence toward any form of positive allegiance. - Systemic
endorsement through critique (3).
Examples
======================================================================
The following are commonly used as examples of applied constitutional
patriotism.
Spain
=======
Constitutional Patriotism emerged in Spain following the creation of
the 1978 constitution as a way to unify the country while overcoming
ethnic and nationalist tendencies. This identity would be based on
"broadly inclusive concept[s] of citizenship" and "a sense of
identification with a political system that delivered freedom and
equality to every citizen" as established in the 1978 constitution.
Although the concept of constitutional patriotism has been used by
both the [[Spanish Socialist Workers' Party|Spanish Socialist Workers'
Party (Partido Socialista Obrero Español [PSOE])]] and the [[People's
Party (Spain)|People's Party (Partido Popular [PP])]], it is most
predominant among the Socialist left. During the last 2 decades of the
20th century, 'patriotism' replaced the term 'nationalism,' as the
latter was used only among 'substate nationalists,' who meant the term
in an ethnically, rather than civically, based sense. José Luis
Rodr�guez Zapatero advocated for constitutional patriotism in his bid
for Prime Minister in 2000 and in his election in 2004. However, in
the latter half of the 2000s, even the left has begun to abandon its
defense of constitutional patriotism.
One theoretical difference between Habermas's ideas of constitutional
patriotism and the constitutional patriotism expressed in Spain, is a
lack of memory. While Habermas believed that facing the state's past
and opening it to criticism was crucial, Spain has lacked this
analysis of historical memory and still faces national questions
regarding the Civil War and Francoism.
Switzerland
=============
Switzerland was among the countries originally cited by Sternberger as
an example of constitutional patriotism. The country has never been a
nation-state, but rather has always been a confederacy, which is today
populated by four main ethnic groups. The heterogeny of Switzerland
stems from its historical position in Europe and its need to defend
against its neighbors. Its identity is "driven by a process of
demarcation from others, triggered,among others, by the experience of
defence against superior enemies." This leads theorists such as
Habermas, to put it forth as a "prototypical political nation." The
cornerstones of Swiss national identity are prescribed to the
political values of direct democracy, neutrality and federalism. These
cornerstones show themselves in the country's policies and
institutions which reinforce and are reinforced by the Swiss people,
creating the common identity. This has been critiqued by scholars who
suggest that "nationally specific interpretations of constitutional
principles do not predispose a common national culture." Eugster
writes about Swiss' multi-cultural identity and cultural diversity as
an integral part of Swiss identity, not superseding the national
political identity, but at least as a factor standing alongside it.
This argument counters the prevalent discussion of Switzerland as a
fundamental example of constitutional patriotism.
United States of America
==========================
In the United States of America, constitutional patriotism is
primarily based on two documents: The Constitution and the Declaration
of Independence. Expectations of political behavior are outlined in
the Constitution and the ideals embodied by them both have encouraged
civic empowerment. The United States demonstrates the ideas of
constitutional patriotism in that Americans find a source of unity in
their constitution which is able to supersede other cultural
influences, forming a broader American identity. The principles of the
Declaration of Independence contribute to the basis of constitutional
patriotism in America because, as William Kristol and Robert Kagan
say, they are "not merely the choices of a particular culture but are
universal, enduring, and self-evident truths." These documents have
both validated government action and citizen response.
Many of the values which contributed to the Founding Father's thinking
come from ideas of the Enlightenment and over time have transformed
into ideas of American exceptionalism and Manifest destiny. Throughout
the country's early history the Constitution was used as the basis for
establishing foreign policy and determining the government's ability
to acquire land from other nations. In the country's inception,
government officials broadly interpreted the Constitution in order to
establish an archetypical model for foreign policy.
The battles, political and physical, over slavery are also
demonstrations of constitutional patriotism in the United States, as
they demonstrate the alteration of norms and values. In the mid 1780s.
hundreds of thousands of slaves served as the cornerstone of American
production. The constitution's defense of the rights of slave owners
created a rift in the values of America:half of the country adhered to
the Declaration of Independence's belief that 'all men are created
equal' while the other half adhered to the constitution's ruling which
allowed slavery. The rhetoric of many anti-slavery protesters appealed
to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in order to
resolve this split in interpretation. Frederick Douglass stated that
"the Constitution of the United States, standing alone, and construed
only in the light of its letter, without reference to the opinions of
the men who framed and adopted it, or to the uniform, universal and
undeviating practice of the nation under it, from the time of its
adoption until now, is not a pro-slavery instrument." Similar rhetoric
led to the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution and a
universal anti-slavery constitutional patriotic view, changing the
norms and values of society, which were then reified in the
Constitution.
McCarthyism brings to light one critique of constitutional patriotism,
which is that it, in the critics eyes, can lead to political
witch-hunts of those traitorous to the political system In the 1950s,
thousands of Americans including government officials, members of the
armed forces, cultural stars, and ordinary citizens had to stand
before a congressional board to prove they had no communist relations.
This strict adherence to the constitution's declarations and fear of
communism led to the removal of civil liberties of many citizens and
the suspension or inversion of the law. However, after numerous
televised hearings and irrational accusations, Senator Joseph McCarthy
was deemed no longer legitimate by the American people, and the
communist concern regarding constitutional patriotism was relatively
abandoned. This confirms Müller's argument that, while instances like
McCarthyism are possible in countries which adhere to constitutional
patriotism, these societies often have values which eventually contest
intolerance.
The Civil Rights Movement in the 20th century often referred to the
constitution in order to gain popularity and legitimacy with the
American people. In W. E. B. Du Bois's 1905 Niagara Movement Speech,
he pleaded for equal voting rights and said, "We want the Constitution
enforced." This style was repeated throughout the movement by leaders
such as Malcolm X, Ralph Abernathy, and Martin Luther King, Jr.. Using
the Constitution, Martin Luther King Jr. justified the movement's
message in his address during his Montgomery Improvement Association
address stating, "If we are wrong, then the Supreme Court of this
nation is wrong. If we are wrong then the Constitution of the United
States is wrong." Later in 1968, King employed the Constitution once
again to challenge the US government's civil rights legislature and
stated "Be true to what you say on paper."
Recent US administrations have handled the idea of constitutional
patriotism differently. The Clinton administration instituted a policy
which allowed the US government to determine what the Constitution
needed. Ultimately foreign policy required that sovereignty be
safeguarded so that the Constitution itself can be secure. This
resulted in rejections of the Land Mines Convention, the Rome Treaty,
and the Kyoto Protocol. Constitutional patriotism's effects shifted
during the Bush Administration. After the attacks on September 11th,
the Bush Administration released the National Strategy for Homeland
Security (NSHS) and the National Security Strategy of the United
States of America (NSSUSA) which defined the American people as a
culture with shared liberal and democratic principles. The NSHS
specifically defined the American way of life as a "democratic
political system... anchored by the Constitution." This version of
constitutional patriotism continues to be prevalent in US government
and citizen action.
The European Union
====================
Constitutional patriotism in the European Union is extremely important
because it is one of the only supranational case studies. While the
theory can be observed in various instances throughout the world, most
are observed in cases specific to the constitution of a single
country.
Constitutional patriotism is especially applicable in the European
Union because there is no single shared history or culture. It is not
rooted in pride in a culture, race or ethnicity, but rather, in a
political order. The European Union makes multinational claims in its
constitution, and this makes political allegiance a complicated
question to address. Creating a unified European identity is a
difficult task, but constitutional patriotism has offered a liberal
alternative to other forms of nationalism. It allows people to remain
attached to a unique culture, potentially to their individual
countries, but still share a common patriotic identity with other
Europeans. It also encourages Europeans to distance themselves from
"ethnic public self-definitions, ethnic definitions of citizenship and
ethnic-priority immigration."
Constitutional patriotism holds a political order accountable because
people have the choice to be constitutionally patriotic. People will
only feel pride in a political order they feel warrants the emotion.
The diversity of states in the European Union also makes a
constitutional bond an appealing style of unity. Similarly, in the
context of a history of wars, persecutions, genocide, and ethnic
cleansing, states may choose to gather behind a constitution at the
supranational level.
Today, constitutional patriotism plays a role in distancing the
current European Union from its past totalitarian experiences with
Nazism and Stalinism. This is because it focuses on the acceptance of
human rights, but also "multicultural and multireligious tolerance."
While Müller argues that the European Union has yet to fully
acknowledge and embrace constitutional patriotism as an identity,
countries do seem to be converging on "political ideals, civic
expectations, and policy tools" that fall under the umbrella of
constitutional patriotism. Other skeptics note institutional features,
such as a lack of focus on meaningful electoral politics, as reasons
for why it has not fully been embraced at the supranational level in
the European Union. Many see their own national governments as their
only hope of electoral accountability. The European Union also faces a
question different from a lot of individual countries. While most
countries are working "within the framework" of a constitution, the
European Union must decide how strongly it will commit to a future of
"constitutionalization". As trust in the public institutions continues
to decrease, the future of its constitution could also come into
question.
Criticisms
======================================================================
Critics have argued that loyalty to democratic values is too weak to
preserve a deep bond to unify a state. This is because it is missing a
key feature of individual identity for modern subjects - nationality,
which in turn provides national identity; "essential for realizing
important important liberal democratic values such as individual
autonomy and social equality." They believe national identity is the
base on which political morality can be achieved. In response to this,
it has been questioned whether or not the nation should be responsible
for the unity of a state.
Vito Breda argued that Religious pluralism curtails reason in
constitutional patriotism. Specifically, two issues arise: 1. that
some may not be able to accept a secular and rational morality and 2.
that some may prioritize religious beliefs. "By inserting the
protection of pluralism, perhaps modeled on the liberal safeguard of
freedom of faith, constitution patriotism might gain much cognitive
strength."
Critics have also argued that the theory focuses too much on a
"domestic German agenda," or is "too specifically German."
Essentially, its principles are only applicable in its original
context: post-war West Germany. Especially when talking about
Habermas' original theory, too much is attributed to a domestic German
agenda and Habermas' concept of the public sphere to be applied in
other, nonspecific situations. However, while it is argued that
constitutional patriotism is too German, it is also criticized from
the another, almost opposite direction. Political theorists have
called the constitutional patriotism too abstract. It is argued that
the concept lacks specificity on a global scale, and has not been
thought out enough to be applied to actual cases. This parallels
Müller's acknowledgements that "there have been relatively few
attempts to define the concept clearly," and "there has been
significant disagreement as to whether [it] is a political value in
itself or a means to ensure other values".
Müller's responses to criticisms
======================================================================
In response to many of the discussed criticisms, Müller responded with
articles in 2006 and 2009, discussing ways in which he feels
constitutional patriotism has been misunderstood or objected.
*"Too universalist"- Critics often claim that constitutional
patriotism is neither specific enough in providing a reason as to why
citizens should follow their own constitution over someone elses, nor
does it provide motivation. Müller argues instead that constitutional
patriotism is not about individuals questioning where they belong, but
rather that it is about how they think about their political
allegiances within the existing regime.
*Any trace of particularism invalidates universalist aspirations-
Critics claim that constitutional patriotism is indistinct from
liberal nationalism. However this criticism assumes that pure
universalism is possible. As it is not, political allegiances do
matter. Additionally, liberal nationalists gravitate toward
assimilationist and exclusionary policies to reinforce a sense of
national culture, which is against the idea of constitutional
patriotism.
*Too particular- Critics state that the theory is bound to its
contextual origins in post-war West Germany. However, all universal
norms must have an origin, pointing to these origins is not the same
as disproving an argument which is normative.
*Reification- Critics claim that for constitutional patriotism to
exist, there must be a concrete constitution, otherwise they will turn
to liberal nationalism. In response, Müller claims that the written
existence of a constitution is not as important as a "constitutional
culture" which has liberal democratic values and norms which are
stabilizing to society, yet which also can be contested.
*Juridification of politics- Critics state that this theory leads to
the understanding that politics is ideally the deliberation of judges.
Müller responds that protest groups or civil society can influence
governments directly rather than going straight to the courts.
*Constitutional patriotism as a civil religion- Critics argue that
constitutional patriotism generates chauvinism and can lead to
missions similar to McCarthyism, in which traitors to the constitution
are persecuted. While these claims are valid, Charles Taylor admits it
is "the least dangerous social-political cohesion." More importantly,
the norms and values on which constitutional patriotism is based
should contain the resources to defend against intolerance.
*Dependence on a particular social theory- Critics argue that the
theory is too attached to Jürgen Habermas's political thought.
However, Müller makes the point that it is important to think of
constitutional patriotism as a normatively dependent concept which is
dependent on a broad theory of justice. As these broad theories do not
always need to be the same �they may change depending on what meaning
for constitution patriotism is desired in a specific context�,
Habermas does not own the sole view of constitutional patriotism.
*Constitutional patriotism as a form of statist nationalism- Critics
state that constitutional patriotism is a form of statist nationalism.
Thus, it creates the same problems associated with nationalism, such
as political manipulation and irrational loyalty. However, Müller
counters this with the argument that constitutional patriotism is best
understood as "a set of normative beliefs and commitments."
Constitutional patriotism does not advocate for a specific type of
government or motivate people to behave a certain way, but rather, is
a normative idea based on "sharing political space on fair terms."
*Too "modernist"- Thomas Meyer explains this criticism by stating that
constitutional patriotism relies too heavily on existing institutions,
and is not universally applicable. Müller argues that constitutional
patriotism actually allows for a "distancing" from these existing
institutions, and nothing about constitutional patriotism is
intrinsically 'modernist'.
License
=========
All content on Gopherpedia comes from Wikipedia, and is licensed under CC-BY-SA
License URL:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Original Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_patriotism
