Is this the end, my friend?

Depending on your point of view, either we are witnessing the end of a dream of global equality and opportunity, a world without borders, without hate. Or, we are witnessing the great rebirth of nationalism, my country first. I put myself firmly in the first camp and there are good reasons.

A quick review of human history.

Nationalism has been the default approach of human civilisation for thousands of years. Villages (or clans or other terms meaning a localised community) band together to form alliances, which grow bigger, the initial purpose usually being to defend against attacks by other alliances, but as they expand other benefits such as trade and access to resources become relevant. Always, when two groups butt up against each other, there will be tensions and conflict.

Underlying this process of expansion and conflict is something utterly critical to human nature – identity. We all have a deep seated need to know which group we belong to. In some cases, this sense of identity can be a powerful force even in a small group. Celtic clans for example, but also in modern gangs, to name just two. In the general case, the identity is slower to coalesce. It builds progressively as the group expands.

I’m not an expert in this field, but it seems to me that there comes a point when the sense of group identity crystallises into a ‘national identity’. That’s going to be driven not just by the expansion of the group to some ill-defined critical size, but by repeated conflict with other nearby groups that does not result in your group either assimilating another, or being assimilated. It keeps on reinforcing the ‘them and us’ discourse. The result is that nations emerge, having a moderately stable border and an ever strengthening sense in their people of who they are.

Now, instead of assimilating other nations, the objective is domination. Instead of nation A and nation B becoming nation AB (or C if you like), if A beats B then A owns B, but remains distinct from it. This is the age of empire. However, empires don’t last either. Inevitably the subject nations begin to reassert themselves as the governing nation weakens. So went the British empire and later the Soviet union.

One startling exception is the United States of America. In 1776, an effective union of nation states was created, driven together by the desire to throw off British control (and greatly aided in this by the French, but let’s not complicate things). The USA created a template for how nations could combine into larger groups. The federation. It allowed everyone to have two identities; both as a citizen of a particular state and as an American, without the two being in conflict with each other.

The twentieth century saw more conflict between nations. In Europe a bully nation sought to create a new empire but was pushed back by a coalition of other nations. This happened twice as we all know. The desire to avoid it happening again and the external threat of the emerging Soviet union combined with the discovery of the value of national alliances to create a new mood. We saw the birth of NATO, a mutual defence pact. Then non-military multinational organisations emerged such as the Commonwealth, born from the ashes of the fading British empire. Then later, the European Union and the Russian Federation, another post empire alliance.

The lesson of the twentieth century is that the way to avoid conflicts between nations is to create non-military alliances, super-national groupings that support the national identities of each member, but provide the advantages of shared resources, faster and cheaper movement of goods and people, plus political and military power.

From this realisation was born the dream. It is rarely invoked outside of Eurovision songs, but there it is, shimmering in our imagination. The dream runs like this. If we continue softening borders and building every larger peaceful alliances of nations, we can as a species achieve a common identity – the world citizen.

It has huge merit. Constrained within a network of overlapping alliances, it is very hard for any one nation to try the old empire game again. Russia and China would still like to, but in Russia’s case it smells like the last throw of the dice for a worn out old bear. I suspect China wants to play the alliance game with the rest of us, but only once it’s got enough cards in its hand to ensure it has a very big seat at the table.

Here we are in 2017. Humans have once more demonstrated our immeasurable talent for a cock-up. To be fair, it is largely a case of good old 20/20 hindsight, but nevertheless in our rush to break down borders, to further the cause of globalisation, we made some big mistakes. People got left out, left behind. In time that would have been rectified, but it was taking too much time. We were flying high, absorbed in ‘the dream’ and failed to realise just how many people were not enjoying the dream because for them there were only downsides. Lost industries, eviscerated neighbourhoods, people arriving who didn’t share their identity. It is easy to love your neighbour when your own life is good, much less so when you feel your life has been stolen from you. Then another human trait emerges; the desire to blame.

Those people, the ones we left behind, have found their voice. And it is angry.

Nationalism is back on the rise, across the world. If you blame globalisation for your life getting worse, rightly or wrongly, then you want to push back against that, to re-assert your national identity. It’s driven by fear and a sense of betrayal. Brexit, then the election of Donald Trump in the USA are the first consequences. Politics in Europe is becoming ever more fractured and we can expect further shocks from this surge of anti-globalisation.

Now I can loop back to my opening sentence.

Those who are celebrating what is happening are the disenfranchised. Those who feel they have lost out to globalisation. As I’ve explained, there is a case to be answered. These people have a genuine reason for their anger.

This does not mean they are right.

Re-igniting nationalism will take us backwards to a world of conflict, every player attempting to build their own ‘sphere of influence’, that being the acceptable face of empire these days. We will see war again. It is absolutely inevitable. As soon as countries focus inwards, they will butt up against each other whenever their interests collide. We know all this. We saw it happening in Europe in particular for hundreds of years. Ultimately it led to two world wars and millions upon millions of innocent people died. That is where we are headed.

So yes, we must find the answer for the disenfranchised. They must get their share of the spoils of globalisation. But if we allow the political movement that is preying on them to dominate the world, we are lost. Everyone will pay the price for that folly.

Is this the end, my friend? Only if we let it.

We are warned of the perils of ‘confirmation bias’, whereby we accept data that reinforces our view and ignore data that doesn’t. It is an important warning. We need to find our way back to something like a shared world view if we are going to heal the divisions in society. Overcoming confirmation bias is a part of that.

But that doesn’t mean you’re wrong if you want to avoid the dystopian world we’re heading for right now. Don’t doubt your instincts. Improve your understanding of the other side’s perspective, address the wrongs that have occurred, but don’t let go of the dream.

For me, the most important reason for keeping alive the dream of the global village is simple.

Anything else is a nightmare.