[Steve,]

Actually, I think nationalism, tribalism (the principal actually at work in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia), and fascism are all species of republicanism. I do not think social Darwinism played too great a role in the first world war, though it may have done some work rationalizing the progress of the second. There was (and is) nothing new in the appearance of nationalistic chauvinism. With the dawn of the 20th century we witnessed the final collapse of one form of sovereign power-base (located in princes and kings, where democracies pretended to be just like kingdoms from the "outside" by having presidential control over foreign affairs), and the rise of a radically new form of sovereign power (located in the population itself, where even kings are legitimate only to the extent that they pursue the good of the people). No longer could foreign affairs be thought of in terms of the private intrigues of sovereign princes. The growing middle class, and the propagation of a landless working class in the great cities, meant that power was shifting away from real property, and toward control of the means of production. England was a global power, and across Europe states were scrambling to build comparable prestige under the new and strange set of rules.

The first world war can be seen as the last gasp of kingship; the last hurrah for landed wealth and gentlemen. By its end, it was all too clear that industrialization and republican ideology had swept these ancient gods from the field. The world would never look the same. The second world war can be seen as Europe's effort to figure out what republicanism really means. Does it mean, as Germany contended, that government speaks for a "people" (historically unified by language, tradition, and myth), but must speak through a single voice-piece? Does it mean, as Italy contended, that government speaks for a territory, but once again must speak through a single voice-piece? Or does it mean, as England and France contended, that government speaks for a territory, but only through a representative body? The differences are more subtle than we may like to admit. The dictatorships of Germany and Italy still insisted that a government is only legitimate to the extent that it serves the Good of the people. They simply did not believe democracy had the staying power to truly, or coherently, serve the public interest.

The parochial tribalism of Rwanda is an ever-present danger in a country guided by republican principles. Nationalism is a like danger, though written in broader brush strokes across a much larger canvas. How can we answer these dangers? I am not sure we can. Republican ideology does not help us individuate the "people" to whom a government owes its service, except by the brute counting of citizenship. But any reliance on citizenship is hopelessly circular. The "citizens" of Athens were the male children of its land-owning families. The "citizens" of Germany were its "ethnic" Germans. The "citizens" of California apparently do not include the children of illegal immigrants (whether or not born in the United States).

[David Robert Foss]