Changing Political communities: and extended perspective of Andrew LinkLater

Changing Political communities: and extended perspective of Andrew LinkLater

Arun teja .P,  Le trios.Octobre.2017

Nations are not naturally created, but are fundamental formations of states with their special tools such as education at least. Another aspect which turned territorial states into nation-states is war – Andrew LinkLater

According to Linklater, territorial state is one entity which has undefined boundaries. The concept of nation-state and the corresponding political community has evolved from the territorial state securitizing from external threats. From French revolution, the phrase- arms for the nation- has become famous and thus begun the growth of nationalism with defined boundaries. Nationalism helped states to expand their scope of influence by using the identity and people who bear the latter. In the world where technology dwindled the gaps between the established nation-states, has extended the idea of nation beyondbthe political borders. Today,  People anywhere in the world can emotionally identify themselves with other communities. This is called as imagined communities and is emerging in this gen y world. A person taking birth in India can lay out his loyalty to Bhutan as he prefers the way of life in Bhutan. Now the very concept of nationalism which is essential in the building of political communities of states comes into debate. Traditionally it is defined as psychological affinity towards a land because of common history, shared interests, shared society and values. The same psychological concept today, can be extended to the virtual affinities towards other lands where he/she has no connection practically. Thus, the redefined nationalism is the perceptional affinity of a person towards any community based in any region withheld by an obligatory social contract recognized by other communities. This may also may be assisted if the Mcdonaldisation takes over the world with political liberalism moving in parallel. The change would be in individual giving up his national identity and pledge his identity towards some MNCs oroin a broad sense a smaller community. 

According to Andrew Linklater, in the modern age the loyalties of political communities are conditional. But this seems to be very narrow observation. The definition of nation is assumed by him as created by state and will assume pledging a kind of loyalty to the state. Due to modernization and expanding economic liberalism, ones’ loyalty does not lay with the state but with his identity. Here the identity is not with the nation but with smaller communities which are built on common interest. Thus the relationship between the citizens and aliens in the modern world can be said to be changing. We may in future, one can see the world in which individual loyalty will be vested with an NGO or some MNC rather than state.
Even democracy which is still associated with nation-states and considered as the best among the worst may also change in the future, and if everything goes global, then it is fair to imagine there would be a cosmopolitan democracy rather than the one propounded by liberal scholars. In such situations, Benjamin Barber’s idea of sharing the power between the states and mayors would be ideal for the interdependent world and would actually re-instate the concept of city states. Even according to neo-medievalism theorists, the world order must be designed in such a way the people are under multiple levels of authority. Local level where the culture is secured, sate level and transnational level being the three levels put forth by them.  In this aspect, Linklater's imagined communities can be compared to Benjamin Barber in understanding the concept of withering away of the central authority of state due to fragmentation and globalization or because of Jihad (fightfto create Muslim ummah) or Mcdonaldisation.

But when fear of survival comes into picture, immediate security provider will be state with sufficient military power at its disposal. The support for global war on terror is an example to show that nation-states can still be influential concept in international politics.

But, the argument that globalization and fragmentation would bring global communities towards cosmopolitanism, communitarianism or post-modernism thought of global political communities is interesting to think about.  Cosmopolitanism is about global identity and post-modern thought about change in the political communities is the expansion of knowledge from restricted communities to global communities expanding the power. One the other hand, Communitarianism criticizes cosmopolitanism saying that it excludes the role of separate communities which are already in existence in the world.
Now the question is whether the imagined communities concept is possible in the near future or is yet to wait.