Nationalism:

Nationalism, or rather, nationalisms are one of the most complex political phenomena to analyze,
the diversity of interpretations from the angle of the same nationalisms as of the different
sciences, in this case, from sociology they prevent a totalizing explanation of these phenomena.

It is difficult to define nationalism either as an ideology or as a social and political movement,

because it is not possible to delimit a reality that has been puliform throughout history.

So we have unifying nationalism like Italy and Germany, and disintegrating nationalism such as the
Austro-Hungarian Empire and even the former USSR; secessionist nationalism on a part of the
territory that does not seem to lead to the disappearance of the pre-existing state (Scotland,
Milan, Flanders, Catalonia, the Basque Country, Quebec etc.) and internal nationalisms that
destroy the existing state (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia): nationalisms of reincorporation (Ulster,
East Germany, Moldocia etc), and ultimately, reforming nationalisms that arise in moments of
deep crisis of the state apparatus, like the Italian fascism and the Nazi, but also the Francoism.

Andrés de Blas, noted in a recent work Encyclopedia of Nationalism that "nationalism", as an

ideology and as a political movement, it is a difficult reality to grasp within the framework of an
explanatory theory of a global nature.

The definition that I consider most accurate about nationalism is: a political ideology that claims
the constitution of communities and states of a national character, because of the historical,
ethnic, linguistic, cultural, geographic, economic, etc. Links, that unite the individuals that live in a
territory by extension, it is understood the political, cultural behavior, that puts the emphasis on
the interests of the community or state in front of others of equal or similar nature; I think that
from here you can understand nationalist phenomena, its historical evolution and the different
contexts in which it occurs.

To understand nationalism, one must start from the evidence that the idea of nation and nation-
state is a political-ideological phenomenon that takes place at a certain moment in the evolution
of the world and more specifically in the West, where the idea of State-Nation develops during the
eighteenth century.

Over time, historians have established a classification of nationalisms, after the French Revolution,
based on objective and subjective criteria used in the construction of the State: Liberal root
nationalism, essential nationalism of Germanic origin; political nationalism or cultural nationalism;
but we must have in mind that nationalist social actors act using objectified elements such as
language, religion, etc. depending on a social project or an economic program.

In general, we can point out that:

1. The nation is a project built historically in certain political or social conditions. The nation
is a product of the state, the three historical waves of nationalism, the nation-states, the
colonial nationalisms and the nationalisms directed against the nation-state, have as a
reference to the state.
2. The creation of nations implies the existence of a voluntarist project with the capacity for
social mobilization and collective framework in a nationalist sense.
 This unifying or separatist project usually has the leadership of an elite that coordinates
and mobilizes public opinion, around a symbolic world that recreates a model of nation,
peculiar and differentiated from the others.
The creation of the symbolic elements of nationalist identification and their diffusion are a
prominent part in the triumph or failure of the nationalist effort.
These symbols that aim to homogenize the community can be based on ethnic-historical
considerations or cultural forms, that is, an apparatus of verbal and linguistic
communication that creates symbolic constructions of reality.
3. National consciousness is important in the construction of the nation. That is, the ability
of the citizen to be able to voluntarily assume this symbolic world and a model of a nation,
Therefore, the creation of elements of socialization, under the formula of micro societies
and networks of solidarity, it is an important strategy in nationalist political action.
4. 4. Nationalism of ethnic content is the most important nationalist construction at the end
of the 20th century. The collapse of saving ideologies can help to understand the success
of the ethnic nationalist model and its enormous consequences (ethnic cleansing, increase
of racism and xenophobia etc.) This nationalism does not only occur in plurinational states
in decomposition, subjected to political tensions and economic crises, for example, the
growth of a xenophobic nationalism in Germany or France.

In general, we can affirm that ethnic nationalisms cultivate social dualization and the forced
assimilation of minorities on times of social crisis, which can lead to episodes of ethnic
cleansing with their unassimilated minorities.

Liberal thinking:

Liberalism appears in political history constituting a new version of society, the liberal society, on
which the political is constructed and whose pictures can be enclosed in the basic notions of
individualism and freedom.

Liberalism emerges as the synthesis of several elements: the immobility of the medieval economy,
Renaissance anthropocentrism, rationalism and utilitarianism, Protestantism, which were
conjugating and adapting each other for several centuries.

But the factors that act as catalysts of heterogeneous and divergent realities and ideologies will be
the individualistic anthropological conception and that of an absolute and all-embracing freedom.

The word liberalism is multivocal and conceals a series of contents of a political, social and
economic nature, which often brings together men who are in totally different positions.

LOCKE is one who is generally considered the father of liberalism.

Liberalism is one of the most advanced currents of our society; promoted and made changes of
enormous proportions: From colonial society rigidly stable to today's society, a change of great
magnitude, depth and transcendence.

Our vision of the 19th century is one of struggle and controversy over the fundamental issues:
State-Church relations; the forms of political organization and the nationalist or interventionist
expressions of intellectuals, military men and politicians. The protagonists used all forms of
persuasion, from the rostrum to the battlefield. As many authors claim, it was a contradictory
process in which partial freedoms were admitted and total powers were demanded

Liberal thought has been extensively revised a source for the analysis of this period corresponds to
constitutions, since they reflect the points of view of the majority and there are also aspects in
which there was consensus and that from them the liberal vision of society and the State was
consolidated.

The confrontations, the search for power control rather than participation on it, They fostered an
intransigent ideological political attitude that led to constant processes of exclusion and a culture
of distrust in those who exercised the ownership of the public function. But between mistrust and
intransigence, fundamental ideas were opened up in life and evolutionary stages of the State and
society were given. From different doctrinal perspectives different ways of organizing power were
encouraged, but they also built basic concepts about which there could be no discrepancy.

Another important aspect of this century is the participation of intellectuals in the construction of
the nation. Most liberal writers participated with ideas and actions. Those who at different times
occupied government positions. Its purpose was to build nationalism, to transform a society out of
the Colony into a community guided by the ideas of progress and civilization. Although the
concept "national culture" does not appear in their writings, they understand it as "Patria".

Democracy:

Democracy is a lie, It has never been finished, it has never been legitimate nor will it be since the
power relations that are exercised within the political, economic and social field will end up
deciding and to what extent they will always use democracy in favor of the political class. There is
much that could be said about democracy there are many approaches, many authors who talk
about democracy, the masses themselves know that democracy does not exist, not at least in
countries like Mexico, where there is too much populism, where there are electoral frauds, a past
full of authoritarianism and other factors that prevent citizens from choosing their rulers, there
will always be unfair elections and above all manipulated by powerful groups.

I would like to talk a bit about democracy in political sociology: Someone like Schumpeter, on the
borders between economics and sociology, would define his finally elitist traits. Democracy will be
a technique, an institutional method for making political decisions in which power is acquired
through the competitive struggle of politicians for the popular vote. Nothing remains of the classic
definition of democracy, as an institutional agreement for political decision making in which the
common good is obtained by having the people themselves execute their will through
representatives.

It seems that through democracy, sociology can no longer respond to its original question about
the social order; threatened by ungovernability, there would be no other destination than
authoritarianism.