The Notion Of Nation

The nation is no longer the space for the realization of the principle of sovereignty, if it ever was. To put it plainly, the nation no longer exists.

Among the tools I learned to use as a child, there is an irreplaceable one: the dictionary. Later on, I learned that local practices turn any word into a highly cautious polysemic mess. Thus, a "guagua" is a nursing infant boy or girl in Chile, while in Cuba or in the Canary archipelago it refers to a bus, the kind we call "micro" in Chile. What our Argentine neighbors call "curda", in Spain is "estar en pedo" [being drunk], and in Chile a "tranca", which the RAE defines as a Thick stick that is placed for greater security, as a prop or crossbar behind a closed door or window.

Worse still, the same thing is designated in different ways and comprehension becomes difficult. An example among others: for Cubans, papaya is not the fruit one thinks of. One believes they master the language but goes back to the dictionary to eliminate doubts, clarify a meaning, or learn new words. Inconvenient: sometimes the dictionary itself misleads you, confuses you, leads you into dead ends.

I consulted the RAE dictionary to examine the notion of "nation" and look at what I found: the word receives three definitions,

1. f. The collective body of inhabitants of a country governed by the same Government.
2. f. Territory of a nation.
3. f. A group of people of the same origin who generally speak the same language and have a common tradition.

Ireland, a nation, has three governments: one in Dublin, another in Belfast, and a third one in London. The former Yugoslavia —a country— is now separated into no fewer than twelve "countries" with just as many governments, including one created by bombings by the US and NATO. Scotland seeks its independence from Great Britain and meanwhile is governed by a government in London and another in Edinburgh.

Next, that nation is defined as the "territory of a nation" is something like a recursion: the definition of a word using the same word. Bread is bread...

As for the group of people of the same origin who generally speak the same language and have a common tradition... how can one not think of countries that shelter inhabitants that are dissimilar in language, culture, territory, traditions, customs, gastronomy, anthropological characteristics, skin color, religion, etc.? France is a good example. Or Belgium. Or Spain, not to mention India or even China and Russia. Or even Chile, in whose territory we still find Aymaras, Quechuas, Diaguitas, Mapuches, Onas, Alacalufes, and even other peoples despite the strenuous efforts of the conquistadors and their unworthy successors to liquidate them all.

Exit then the RAE and its definitions. Hence, I have resorted to a concept by the French economist and researcher Frédéric Lordon. Here it is:

I am not saying that this definition makes the job any easier: the European Union, for example, and the countries that comprise it, would face great difficulties in proving that it constitutes, or they constitute, the space for the realization of the principle of sovereignty.

That ectoplasm named Ursula von der Leyen, for instance, was elected by nobody, yet she bosses everyone around as if she were the incarnation of the popular vote. The same can be said about that hitman-clown named Josep Borrell, a mutant who went from the left wing of the PSOE to becoming the guardian of the European neo-fascist inheritance. Franco must be dancing a muiñeira in his grave.

Add to that the fact that Europe is nothing but a Protectorate of the US, and there you have a real mess. I am not the one saying it; Charles de Gaulle said it when, in his capacity as president of France, he denounced that ministry of colonies called NATO. Mon Général had—as he himself used to say—"a certain idea of France": a great, strong, independent, and sovereign nation... A nation that succumbed along with him. Once again, I am not the one saying it; Pierre de Gaulle says it, grandson of the great Charles, who maintains that the French political class betrayed his grandfather's ideals by surrendering to the domination of the empire.

If it is a matter of governing for their own people, the leaders have a tough time every time they make decisions that counter the interests of the oligarchies and the financial markets. Or those of the empire... which is more or less the same thing.

To resist, one must have convictions, skill, a brain, and some balls. Otherwise, you end up appointing Jaime de Aguirre as minister of... Culture!

Currently, in economic matters, nothing can be debated, nor can the doxa be discarded or the revealed truth denied. Neoliberalism is the insuperable destiny of Humanity. The fact that today the US practices a hypocritical protectionism, finances companies that decide to abandon Europe to set up operations in the empire, and that once again important banks go bankrupt, leaving the bill to public funds... does not even stimulate the desire to think there, where nobody thinks about these things

If it is not possible to debate... where does sovereignty stand? If citizens do not even have the right to express an opinion on matters that directly concern them, such as their laws—starting with the first one: the Constitution—where does the notion of nation stand? If it is not possible to define any priorities or objectives other than a high level of profit for foreign capital accompanied by a ridiculous tax rate... what is the use of voting?

The nation is no longer the space for the realization of the principle of sovereignty, if it ever was. To put it plainly, the nation no longer exists.

These days, Macron attempts to govern by decree in France, and that is how it is going for him. The immoderate use of Article 49.3 of the French Constitution, which imposes laws that nobody has voted for, could bring down the government, force new parliamentary elections, and inevitably weakens the fragile legitimacy of an elected-by-default leader.

In other places, the Constitution must be the result of an extremely private masturbation among onanism experts at the service of big capital. You can call it whatever you want: committee of experts, citizens' council, technical committee... What does not appear anywhere is the nation. That space for the realization of the principle of sovereignty that disappeared on an 11th of September, 1973, almost 50 years ago.

How we miss you, Salvador...!