The liberal humanitarian approach to nationalism emphasizes on cultural and humanitarian aspect, the natural right of man to belong to a nationality and was opposed to domination of one nation by another.
Liberal nationalism can be seen as the classic form of nationalism which laid the foundations for European liberalism. Liberal nationalism believes that nations are natural entities which share cultural unity linguistic homogeneity, historical traditions, and system of education, literature, arts, education and mannerisms. It asserts that the self actualization of an individual and the realization of the particular genius of himself and his nation are possible only in such a setup.
Liberal humanitarian nationalism was put forward by Giuseppe Mazzini, Woodrow Wilson, Fichte, Heder, Rousseau, etc. Liberal nationalists had an inclination to support liberty and democracy. Since there were many autocratic oppressive regimes they didn’t allow the national unity which they conceived. For example, the 1848 revolutions combined the struggle for national independence and unification with that of limited constitutional government. Such emotion was clearly visible in the ‘Risorgimento’ (rebirth) nationalism of the Italian nationalist movement.
Liberal nationalists have integrated nationalism with popular sovereignty (derived from Rousseau). Mazzini did not only wish to unite the Italian states, but also to shake off the influence of autocratic Austria. The theme to this form of nationalism is national self-determination.
One of the clearest elucidation of liberal nationalism could be witnessed in the ‘Fourteen Points’ put forward by US president Woodrow Wilson. They formed the basis for reconstruction of Europe and made sweeping territorial changes by the Treaty of Versailles (1919). He advanced the principle of self-determination not only because it served US interests, but also because he believed that Poles, Czechs, Yugoslavs and Hungarians all had the same right to political independence like the Americans.
Liberal nationalism, like all kinds of nationalism theories believes that humans are divided into natural collection of nations, each having a separate identity. They conceive the world to be a collection of such sovereign nations. They believe that such national organization of people would further the cause of peace, prosperity, development and cooperation. It would be irrational for one nation to seek dominance over another nation which does not share its national identity. They believe this organization of people into genuine or organic communities would benefit humanity as a whole.
The presence of cultural and political unity in democratic nation states would make war irrational and subjugation of one nation by another impractical. They perceive nationalism as a source of mutual respect, brotherhood, trust and friendship. It does not fuel suspicion and rivalry.
Liberal nationalism is a principled form of nationalism. It does not hold the interests of one nation over the other. Instead, it proclaims that each and every nation has the right to freedom and self-determination. All nations are equal in that way. In concurrence to such a philosophy, Mazzini had formed Young Italy to promote the idea of unified Italy, but he also founded Young Europe to spread the idea of nationalism across European continent.
Liberal Nationalism has given the attributes of individualism and independence to a nation. Mazzini held that the highest obligation of man was to serve humanity, which he could do only by truly serving his country.
Liberal humanitarian nationalism looks beyond nations. Their commitment to individualism has made them to place their faith of humans. Their value system has caused them to respect human beings intrinsically and treat all of them as equals. They assign everyone equal moral worth and subscribe to universalism, where all individuals have the same rights, status and freedom.
Just like unlimited rights of one individual could infringe on that of others, they believe nations should be also bound by some international law or order. International bodies such as League of Nations, United Nations, and European Union have been conceived as supranational bodies to preserve and supervise the global order. They fear that unfettered sovereignty of nations would result in expansionist tendencies. The global world order would degenerate into an international ‘state of nature’.
Critics of liberal nationalists have accused them of being naïve and romantic. They believe that while observing the progressive and liberating face of nationalism they have neglected the irrational bonds that can arise out of it. Nationalism has become the religion of 19th and 20th century. It has subjugated religion, ideology and emerged as the sole authority enjoying individual’s loyalty. Nations during war can persuade to fight and kill irrespective of right or wrong by invoking this loyalty.
Critics have also pointed out that the fundamental assumption of natural homogeneity by liberal nationalists is misguided. In practice, regions have overlapping and cross-cutting differences of language ethnicity, religion and culture. They point to the mistake of Wilsonian nationalism which considered Europe as a group of nations with distinct discrete geographical areas. Yugoslavia, which the Treaty of Versailles considered as ‘land of Slavs’ disintegrated notwithstanding the patchwork of ethnicities, religions, languages and regions sharing different history. As the Nazis and Bosnian Serbs later recognized, the only certain way to achieve a politically and culturally homogenous nation-state is through ethnic cleansing.
Despite its shortcomings, liberal humanitarian nationalism with its positive vision and optimistic outlook has guided the global world order under the aegis of United Nations and prevented Third World War. The recognition of Right to protect individuals from genocide, ethnic cleansing and war crimes has opened up a new chapter in World peace. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which recognizes individuals as morally equivalents irrespective of ethnicity, religion, language, etc and certain minimum basic rights has allowed for global intervention based on ‘Responsibility to Protect’. Sovereign liberal nationalistic states have formed the building block of current global order, with individuals at its core.