When Civility Declines, Nationalism Suffers

Sameer Rekhi

rekhi7sameer@gmail.com

Nationalism is often discussed in terms of identity, pride and national purpose. Less attention is paid to the condition that sustains it: civility.

Civility is not mere politeness. It is the ability of citizens to disagree without questioning one another's stand. It is the recognition that political opponents remain fellow citizens. It is the discipline that prevents disagreement from degenerating into hostility.

This distinction matters.

A nation can accommodate differences of opinion. Democracies are designed for precisely that purpose. What they struggle to accommodate is the gradual erosion of civic conduct. Once citizens begin viewing one another through lenses of suspicion and contempt, public discourse changes character. Arguments become accusations. Dissent is mistaken for disloyalty. The objective shifts from persuasion to denunciation.

Individually, these developments may seem manageable. Seen together, they form a pattern. This is a vicious circle of erosion of civility which leads to gradual weakening of the civic compact that binds citizens to one another.

A former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir often remarked that "democracy is a battle of ideas." The observation remains as relevant today as when it was first made. Democracies are not designed to eliminate differences; they are designed to accommodate them. The challenge is not disagreement but preventing it from hardening into hostility. Once ideas cease to compete and identities begin to collide, democratic coherence risks giving way to social fragmentation.

Recent experience in a number of democracies has shown how quickly civic confidence can erode when political competition begins to overwhelm civic restraint. The issue has rarely been nationalism itself. The issue has been the declining ability to manage disagreement without mutual suspicion.

History also offers a different lesson. South Africa's transition from apartheid remains remarkable not because differences disappeared, but because leaders such as Nelson Mandela consciously placed reconciliation above retribution. India's freedom movement similarly drew strength not only from patriotic conviction but also from restraint, dialogue and respect for human dignity.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar understood this challenge well. His idea of constitutional morality rested on a simple proposition: democratic institutions cannot function in isolation from democratic conduct. Constitutions can create frameworks. They cannot create the confidence that citizens must repose in one another and in public institutions.

National integration is strengthened not by coercion or rhetoric alone, but by the cultivation of civic trust. A nation becomes truly integrated when its citizens remain confident that, despite their differences, they share a common destiny. Such confidence cannot be legislated into existence, nor can it be commanded by slogans. It is earned through fairness, nurtured by civility and sustained by mutual respect.

Where civic trust flourishes, unity follows naturally.

Where it erodes, even the most stirring appeals to nationalism begin to ring hollow.

The implications extend much beyond politics into the domains of peace, order, internal/external security and international relations.

Every experienced security professional understands that lasting peace is not secured by force alone. Security institutions can contain threats, prevent violence and maintain order. What they cannot do is manufacture social cohesion.

That task belongs to society itself.

Communities marked by trust and civic confidence are generally more resilient. They are often better equipped to withstand extremism, communal tensions, misinformation and external manipulation. Differences remain, but mechanisms exist to manage them peacefully. Conversely, where mistrust becomes entrenched, every dispute acquires the potential to become something larger than itself. Rumour travels faster than fact. Identity begins to overshadow patriotism.

Security agencies then find themselves addressing symptoms rather than causes.

Vaclav Havel observed that democracy ultimately depends upon citizens willing to assume responsibility for the health of their public life. Laws can regulate conduct, but they cannot substitute for trust. Governments can enforce order, but they cannot compel mutual respect.

Like most civic declines, the erosion of civility is gradual. A lowering of standards. An acceptance of conduct once considered unacceptable. A growing tolerance for contempt masquerading as conviction.

That persistence is the real warning.

For nations are held together not only by constitutions, institutions, economies or military strength. They are held together by habits of restraint, reciprocity and respect. These habits rarely make headlines, but they often determine whether differences become a source of strength or a source of division.

The health of a nation, therefore, is measured not by the intensity of its nationalism, but by the civility with which its citizens disagree.

The former CM's astute observation that "democracy is a battle of ideas" carries an important corollary:

Ideas can and must compete; citizens cannot.

The moment a society forgets that distinction, civility declines and nationalism begins to lose its unifying purpose.

For civility is the conscience of nationalism.

When it flourishes, nationalism unites.

When it dies, nationalism begins to poison.

(The author is a Retired IPS officer. )