TUNAY AKOĞLU Freelance Consultant, Brussels
End Of The ‘Nation-State’?
	“One’s country should be where one feels secure and knows liberty’’, Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
In the last few years the debate on ‘’Nation-State’’ (1) has been increasingly growing. It has now reached a stage whereby prominent political philosophers and researchers have developed various pertinent approaches and opinions on this subject and concept. (2) At the present setting, the future of the nation-state seems to be characterized by the following main views: 1. Nation-states in classical terms, generally based on ethnicity, are abandoning their respective features thus gradually becoming “civic nation-states” that fully accept and implement the principles of democracy, freedom and universal human rights. 2. The concept of government authority or power does no longer exist at the national level only, but it is global as well, mainly due to the loss of control by nation-states over macro-economics, political, environmental, inter-cultural, etc. issues. In fact, the challenges of globalization geared towards international, multinational collectivities dictate this new situation. 3. Genuine democracy should basically occur within national boundaries. However, international organizations or institutions such as the United Nations System, the OECD, the EU, etc., International NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), global civil society at large are becoming major decision and policy-makers in the field of international relations, the economic sphere, social re-structuring, environmental concerns, democratization process, governance as well as regulatory and legal frames. 4. Nowadays, the main concern of nationalist movements is multi-culturalism, balanced tolerance, multi-racial society, well-defined respective rights and duties of the minorities (3) and of the central government, inclusion as a national minority (or entity) into a larger national group (State, Country, etc.). 5. Administrative and territorial federalism can -in an optimum and flexible manner-accommodate ethno cultural groups; the end result being a possible multinational federation emanating from devolution and decentralization of the central authority. Federalism could be the best possible, feasible answer to move from nation-state (exclusive) to civic-nation (inclusive). Federalism could easily lead to “multicultural citizenship’’ as well. It is obvious that, the shifting of the nation-state towards a multi-ethnic civic nation-state pre-suppose total absence of terrorism committed by minorities. Indeed, any terrorist act should be fought and eliminated by all legitimate forces and means. All of the above may contribute to solutions Turkey would seek in order to handle “Minority rights” issues which become more and more urgent particularly within the framework of Turkish adhesion to the European Union. (1) By definition, Nation-State is a relatively homogeneous group of people belonging to a common nationality that lives within the defined boundaries of an independent and sovereign state. (2) R. Dworkin : Deux conceptions de la démocratie, in Lenoble and Dewandre, 1992. L.Greenfield: Nationalism, Harvard University Press, 1992. M. Ignatieff: Blood and Belongings, Ed. Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 1993. W. Pfaff: The Wrath of Nations, Simon and Schuster, 1993. Y. Tamir: Liberal Nationalism, Princeton University Press, 1993. A-M. Thiesse : La création des idendités nationalles, Ed. Poche, 2001. W. Kymlicka: Politics in the Vernacular, Oxford University Press, 2001. R. Cooper: The Breaking of Nations, Atlantic Books, 2004. X. Crettiez : Violence et nationalisme, Ed. Odile Jacob, 2006. ( This is article is largely inspired by W. Kymlicka’s work and quotes from him). (3) Specific minorities, composed of immigrants, have other priorities, needs and aspirations vis-à-vis the receiving / host country. These are not considered within the framework of the present essay.