Liberalism, nationalism, Europe - reflections about Timothy Ashton Gash's "civic patriotism"
In my writings about liberalism and liberal ideas, I often read older articles to gain a better understanding of current developments. Timothy Garton Ash is one of the intellectuals and thinkers I’ve been reading over the last years. He has also been featured several times in liberal newspapers and magazines in Sweden. Ash has been focusing on a topic that reminds me of other thinkers, like Ivan Krastev: the interactions and conflicts between liberalism and nationalism.
I have several opinions and arguments opposing Ash’s arguments and views because I think he belongs to a group of intellectuals, including Francis Fukuyama, who argue that liberalism has long been associated with supranational processes such as European integration and globalization and that such processes have resulted in backlash and criticism from political parties and networks often labeled as far-right populists or extremists. Their solution is to advocate for more liberalism at the national level, often in combination with certain nationalist politics, using phrases like “civic patriotism”, “responsible nationalism”, “liberal nationalism,” or “civic nationalism.”
“Reclaim the nation?”
In his 2018 article in The Guardian about identity politics, Europe, liberalism, and far-right populism, Ash argues that liberals need to “reclaim the nation from the nationalists.” Ash mainly argues that:
The far-right political actors are stronger and more popular today
Nationalism is a powerful force and has not been replaced by (European) supranational identity
The nation needs to be reclaimed from the nationalists
Liberals need to create a new form of civic “patriotism” (nationalism)
Such solutions can be found in the politics of, for example, Emanuel Macron in France
When it comes to “reclaiming the nation,” I find such reasoning and opinions not only unconvincing but also unnecessary and strange. The phrase implies that the nation—as a political entity—has already been “captured” by those who politically identify as nationalists, and now liberals must fight to “take it back”. This interpretation of social reality is very flawed and leads to wrong conclusions.
One reason is that far-right populist and nationalist political parties typically receive the highest level of voting support, around 20-25%, following representative parliamentary elections in most parts of Europe. That means they are still less popular when combined with other political parties. Therefore, in most cases, nationalist actors do not govern or control nations, even though they can have a large impact and effect on policies regarding migration and crime.
Another problem with “reclaiming the nation” thought is that it seems based on the perception and views that there was a time when the nation was somehow more liberal, and that we now need to return to that state.
Liberalism is, among other things, a forward-looking, change-seeking, and dynamic ideology. Therefore, the focus is on continuously improving, changing, and reforming societies, humans, and institutions. That also means the nation, in principle, cannot function efficiently today as it did 20, 30, or 40 years ago, because global political and social realities have changed.
Several global topics, including climate change, artificial intelligence, and migration, must be addressed at every level, from global to local. These issues demand better integration among institutions, cooperation between governments, legislation that reflects global priorities, and civic engagement from individuals. Therefore, "reclaiming the nation " is not only insufficient and limited, but those who support liberalism must work toward creating a more globally coordinated, multi-level world through institutional frameworks and active civic participation.
Civic patriotism is the opposite of and different from civic nationalism
Another issue I noticed in Ash’s argument is his use of the term “civic patriotism.” He likely chose this term instead of “nationalism” because the latter is more controversial, associated with collectivist and discriminatory behaviours, and politically charged.
However, in academic research and definitions, a well-established distinction exists between “civic patriotism” and “civic (liberal) nationalism.” While they are often used interchangeably, they differ significantly regarding among other things when it comes to politics and policies as regarding how individuals relate to citizenship and how institutions should function at various levels.
I usually say that the difference between patriotism and nationalism comes down to levels of identification. For example, you can be a “local patriot”. Let’s say you live in London and identify as a citizen of London. At the same time, you understand that London doesn’t have national sovereignty or the authority to make all decisions unilaterally, especially when considering the needs of the broader UK or Europe, or even globally. You can also be a global patriot, meaning you view yourself as a citizen of the world.
But being a “local nationalist” or even a global nationalist would be impossible in practice because nationalism is about exclusive loyalty and solidarity toward a specific nation, regardless of other levels of governance and cooperation. While nationalism can unite people within a nation, it also divides and discriminates against people across nations. No nationalism, regardless of whether it is more civic or not, can create global-level solidarity, empathy, and unity.
That’s why even civic nationalists—regardless of how inclusive they claim to be—cannot create a global level of solidarity, democracy, or citizenship. Indeed, there are differences between civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism. However, civic nationalism still imagines a world where people are primarily citizens of one of the 193 UN-recognized nations.
On the other hand, civic patriotism promotes a universal and cosmopolitan worldview, where people are equal citizens, both locally and globally, with the same rights, freedoms, and responsibilities, regardless of their geographical location.
It’s essential to recall that Jürgen Habermas, renowned for his writings on “constitutional patriotism” did not use the term to advocate for civic nationalism, but rather to advocate beyond it, specifically concerning European integration. Habermas has argued that people should show civic commitments and loyalty to universal values across all levels—local, national, European, and even global.
One large difference is that while civic nationalism focuses on preserving and maintaining the current state of development in terms of laws, institutions, and citizenship within nations - civic patriotism emphasizes changing, reforming, and improving laws, institutions, and citizenship to foster active citizens at all levels, from local to global.
Habermas argues that democratic values, such as freedom, rights, and engagement, should form the basis of our political loyalty and identification, rather than nation, country, nationality or geography. In contrast to nationalism, which demands a special loyalty and focus on a nation regardless of the values it upholds, constitutional patriotism prioritizes commitment to shared democratic principles, regardless of one's place of residence.
Mixing liberalism with nationalism makes freedoms and rights into group privileges.
Intellectuals who advocate civic nationalism often claim their version of nationalism is more inclusive, tolerant, and simply better than ethnic or far-right nationalist ideologies. This is true, but at the same time, even this version of nationalism contains major problems in relation to global-level problems and reality.
For example, civic nationalism still demands loyalty to the nation as a condition for inclusion. It doesn’t recognize people as equal global citizens or aim to build a democratically governed, federated world. This creates space for even liberal nationalists to support illiberal, exclusionary, or restrictive policies, especially around issues like immigration.
Clara Sandelind, a former member of the Liberal party youth wing in Sweden, opinion-maker and current researcher regarding interactions between migration, liberalism, and nationalism, has also written about similar issues as Ash. However, Sandelind offers a more critical and cautious perspective on whether liberalism can or should be “nationalised”.
While Ash argues that liberals must "reclaim the nation" and construct inclusive forms of civic nationalism to counter the far right, Sandelind warns that even civic forms of national identity risk exclusion, discrimination, repression and cultural essentialism. Drawing on research from Sweden and Denmark, she demonstrates how liberal values, when framed as “national values” or “Swedish values,” can reinforce us-versus-them boundaries and portray immigrants as inherently illiberal or undesirable.
Sandelind highlights the coercive nature of many civic integration policies, questioning whether they truly foster liberal democratic commitment or instead stigmatise newcomers. Where Ash sees national identity as a tool to mobilise support for liberal democracy, Sandelind argues that such strategies often fail to reach immigrants and may only resonate with those who already strongly identify with the nation. In her view, tying liberalism too tightly to national identity risks both undermining liberal values and deepening social division.
Inclusion without nationalism
If one genuinely believes in equality, freedom, and the rule of law, why limit those values to national borders? Why not believe they should apply to all human beings, regardless of origin? Another flaw in civic nationalism is its assumption that people must be included through nationalism, rather than civic participation or humanist recognition. Why not include people by acknowledging their humanity and recognizing them as equals in a shared global community?
This becomes especially clear within Europe. If I move from Sweden to Italy, I don’t need to become an “Italian citizen” to feel included. I’m already a citizen of the European Union. What matters more to me is becoming part of the local context, the city or community I live in, rather than adhering to a national identity, at least during the first few years until I have gained more experience and understanding. The point is that local and regional belonging can matter more than national belonging in today’s world.
Therefore, modern liberalism needs new stories, ideas, and models that are more aligned with global development and the concept of world federalism, including the notion that nations should function more like provinces or states within a federation.
Take California as an example. California is not a sovereign nation, but it is one of the world’s largest economies and a state with a population exceeding 50 million people. It has its own civic identity, institutions, and even a statehood holiday. It exercises considerable sovereignty within the American federal system but doesn’t rely on nationalism to affirm its legitimacy. For example, Californians can celebrate many things because they have a sense of regional pride and civic engagement. The same is true for states in India, provinces in Canada, and other subnational regions.
Thereby, humans can celebrate their connection to a place without needing to invoke nationalism. This shows that the rituals and emotions we associate with the nation are not exclusive to it. People can feel a sense of belonging and pride without nationalism. That’s a very important point, because it challenges the idea that national identity is essential for emotional connection or civic commitment.
That’s why arguments that “good nationalism” is about celebrating national holidays or flags are weak. People celebrate state holidays in India, the U.S., and Canada, as well as city-specific events, without perceiving them as nationalist symbols. These are civic or cultural rituals at sub-national, regional, and local levels, not expressions of nationalism.
European federalism is a better alternative to nationalism
Another aspect reflected in Garton Ash's article is his argument that, although he supports the idea of a supranational identity, specifically, a European identity, he believes nationalism remains a powerful force. He argues that, at least in the short term, nationalism won’t disappear. Therefore, he argues that liberals should offer their form of nationalism as a counter to the far right.
However, even this approach has several significant drawbacks and problems. Additionally, there is also a slippery slope with Ash’s wishes. When he thinks about “good nationalism,” he thinks of the UK, not Scotland, England, or Wales, which are separate from the UK. One paradox of nationalism is that most people can be in favor of and against nationalism at the same time, depending on social constructs such as regions, countries, and nations.
For example, a believer in Spanish nationalism dislikes Catalan nationalism, while a supporter of Scottish nationalism dislikes British nationalism. Ash’s ambitions could, for example, be used to advocate for Scotland's separation from the UK by referring to “Scottish civic patriotism.” For example, a person who believes in European patriotism can oppose even British nationalism by rejecting Brexit and supporting the UK’s reintegration into the union.
Yes, nationalism is indeed a powerful idea, and yes, humans emotionally and primitively act on “national sentiments” through symbols and rhetoric. There has been extensive research since the 1990s confirming that, when it comes to moral psychology and authoritarian values. But that doesn’t mean the solution lies in simply creating multiple competing nationalisms.
Global issues, including climate change, security concerns, and migration, also influence far-right politics. These are not confined within national borders. The same applies to the situation in Europe, particularly in the EU, regarding problems and challenges. Therefore, it’s insufficient to present counter-arguments to the far right at the national level alone. Liberals and others also need to challenge them at the global and transnational levels, in addition to local, regional, and national levels.
Ash also misses something important about European citizenship. His article was written about the 2016 refugee crisis and the rise of new debates on identity. But even then, European citizenship was growing stronger. More Europeans began identifying with the EU institutions, and the EU has since become even more integrated, with areas such as military and security cooperation becoming increasingly central to the European agenda.
Instead of focusing on “reclaiming the nation” or winning a debate within national frameworks, the focus should be multi-level and on “co-creating the world.” Because it’s no longer sufficient to be a citizen of only one country, say, Sweden. In the current situation, it is also necessary and important to collaborate with people from Africa, Southeast Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, and beyond on critical issues such as energy, climate change, and migration. In other words, global cooperation is not just a noble idea because it’s a practical necessity.
Reimagine the nation through decentralisation
Other important topics need to be considered in this debate, especially when it comes to reimagining what a nation should be in the 21st century. Thinkers like Ash and Fukuyama often assume and express in practice that the nation should still function as it did in the 1990s or 2000s. However, that assumption is profoundly flawed and inefficient when it comes to problem-solving. The nation cannot function effectively today if it remains locked in 20th-century concepts of sovereignty, identity, and governance.
One of the reasons is that in certain areas, such as climate, AI, and transnational crime, there is no national sovereignity. Even when it comes to migration, national sovereignty cannot solve the root causes and manage migration as a global issue. That evolving reality needs to be part of any serious liberal analysis regarding centrist politicians like Macron in France or Mette Frederiksen in Denmark.
One can say that, to varying degrees, such politicians are trying to adapt the world to their nation, rather than adapting their nation to the world. They still treat the nation as if it should always be in control, the central actor making the final decisions. But this framework is outdated. The world has undergone dramatic changes, and national-centric politics no longer accurately reflect the reality of our interconnected systems. Today’s politics must be global and multilayered, asking what humans need worldwide, not just what’s best for our nations.
That’s why I find the advice from intellectuals as Ash unsatisfying, limited, and restrictive. Many of the same liberals who spent decades supporting globalization, internationalism, and regional integration now seem to be pulling back. After helping to create the conditions that led to today’s crises, they suddenly claim we need to preserve the nation as the primary unit of politics. That’s both intellectually inconsistent and politically ineffective.
In substance, what’s happening is that some liberals are trying to become conservatives of the political system they helped create. After 30 years of promoting globalization and liberal politics at the regional and international levels, they now argue for stability and preservation of the nation-state.
The irony is striking: you can’t advocate for a globalized, integrated world for decades, then reverse course and say, “Now we must stop and protect what we have.” That position is both politically confusing and ethically questionable. It implies that liberals can ignore or downplay the consequences of the very processes they supported. But in reality, humans can’t afford to halt progress. We need to continue pushing forward by adapting and changing systems, rather than freezing them in place.
And that’s where Ash’s proposals fall short. No matter how much you combine liberalism with nationalism, it will not provide the solutions we need for today’s challenges. The problems humans face as climate change, migration, and global inequality, require cooperation on a planetary scale, not containment within national borders.
The bottom line is this: if civic values are important, then they must apply to everyone, not just citizens of one's own country, but to all people across all borders. A liberalism that refuses to embrace that vision is no longer liberal in any meaningful sense. Because humans need democratic and liberal institutions, frameworks, and civic cultures that foster inclusive participation at all levels, from local to regional and global - rethinking not just what liberalism is but also where and how it operates.
Therefore, liberalism must leave behind the old nation-centric model and begin to imagine itself as a transnational and planetary project. It must become more about values—freedom, dignity, human rights—and less about borders, flags, or nationhood because the far right doesn’t gain power just by talking about the nation. They gain power by exploiting real global concerns, such as immigration, economic precarity, climate anxiety, and cultural change, which are transnational challenges. Creating and developing an alternative vision centers on the decentralization of democracy, the development of a global identity, and the construction of a decentralized, green market economy.
Decentralized democracy begins with empowering civic assemblies and participatory initiatives at the local level. These are not merely consultative bodies, but real mechanisms for decision-making and problem-solving. Citizens can come together to address urgent issues, such as housing, education, and climate resilience, in ways that are more responsive, inclusive, and deliberative than centralized governments often allow. But decentralization should not mean only localism. These local structures must also be capable of connecting across borders to address shared challenges, such as climate change, migration, and technological regulation through global civic initiatives.
To achieve this, we must envision a multi-layered democratic architecture where local, regional, and global levels of governance operate in tandem. A key step is to begin co-creating a global parliamentary structure, inspired by the European Parliament. This would involve directly elected representatives, transnational political parties, and legislative authority over issues that no single nation can manage alone, such as carbon regulation, digital rights, and transnational inequality. Such a world parliament would not replace national governments, but complement them by addressing global interdependence democratically rather than bureaucratically or autocratically.
In parallel, we need a new concept of global identity, rooted in the idea of self-sovereign identity (SSI). SSI utilizes blockchain or decentralized technologies to enable individuals to control their data and obtain legal recognition across jurisdictions. This could become the foundation for a global citizenship system, enabling individuals, especially displaced persons and migrants, to access rights and services regardless of their national status. SSI could support humanitarian migration, portable social rights, and a truly universal recognition of personhood.
Finally, an emerging frontier for post-national liberalism lies in the decentralized green economy. Cryptocurrencies and decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms offer tools to create global economic networks that are not bound by any single state’s currency or monetary policy. When designed with ecological priorities in mind, such as rewarding carbon-negative behaviors or facilitating global climate investments, these technologies can help build a green, transnational, accountable, and ecologically responsible market economy.
Together, these ideas form a coherent and ambitious response to nationalism: a world of co-created, participatory governance, self-managed identities, and ecological cooperation beyond borders. Rather than retreat into nostalgic visions of national sovereignty, liberalism must now commit to designing the institutions, identities, and economies that match the realities of the 21st century. The future of freedom, equality, and democracy lies not in reclaiming the nation but in reinventing politics from the ground up, all the way to the planetary level.
So, simply offering an alternative nationalism isn’t enough. If liberals only fight populism within the nation-state framework, they’ve already conceded by addressing global realities. Liberalism should be about creating inclusive, value-based communities, not just national ones. That is the future liberalism should aim for. Not reclaiming the nation, but reinventing our political imagination from local to global levels.
Thanks for reading. Please follow my blog, write your feedback, and support my writing.