Predicted Paper 2 · Q7(b) · Nationalism · 24-mark essay

Nationalists divided on the state

"To what extent do nationalists disagree over the role of the state? (24 marks)"

1. Spec hook and what the question wants

This is a 24-mark Paper 2 Section B ideology essay, marked AO1 (8), AO2 (8), AO3 (8). It tests how far the four nationalist strands agree on what the state should be and do.

Spec hook. NA.1.b self-determination; NA.1.c the nation-state - which "while supported by most nationalists, is not universally supported". NA.2 the four types; NA.3 the five named thinkers. Key concepts: civic nationalism, integral nationalism, liberal and socialist internationalism.

The mark scheme rewards strand and thinker analysis. Real-world examples (Italian unification, decolonisation) are illustration; the marks come from the thinkers and strands.

The strongest line of argument is YES, TO A LARGE EXTENT - nationalists disagree over the role of the state. They share the principle of self-determination, but on what kind of state delivers it they range from the liberal democratic nation-state, through the conservative cohesion-state, to the integral all-consuming militarist state, to anti-colonial scepticism of the existing state altogether.

2. The five thinkers on the state

The 9PL0 specification names five nationalist thinkers. Each carries a distinct view of the state.

Thinker	Strand	View of the state
Jean-Jacques Rousseau	Liberal / civic	The state is legitimate only when it rests on the general will and the active participation of its citizens - a civic, popular, self-governing state.
Johann Gottfried von Herder	Cultural	The state should express the nation's unique cultural character (Volksgeist). The emphasis is on cultural nationhood more than on a particular form of state.
Giuseppe Mazzini	Liberal	Every nation should have its own nation-state; human freedom rests on the creation of one's own nation-state. A world of independent democratic states.
Charles Maurras	Expansionist / integral	Integral nationalism: a powerful, supreme state with a strong military ethos, into which individuals submerge themselves.
Marcus Garvey	Anti-colonial	The colonial state must be rejected; Pan-Africanism unites African people across borders and partly transcends the individual nation-state.

Use this table for AO2. From Rousseau's minimal civic state to Maurras's all-consuming integral state to Garvey's pan-national project, the five thinkers describe very different roles for the state.

3. Liberal nationalism: the democratic nation-state

Liberal nationalism gives the state a clear and limited shape: it should be the autonomous, democratic nation-state.

Rousseau grounds state legitimacy in civic nationalism - the state is legitimate because it is based on the active participation of its citizens and expresses the general will. Mazzini argued that every nation should have its own nation-state and that human freedom depends on it; he imagined a world of independent, constitutional, democratic states living in harmony.

The liberal-nationalist state is therefore the servant of the people: representative, constitutional, and outward-facing rather than dominating. It carries an internationalist hope - liberal internationalism - that free nation-states will cooperate.

AO3 line. For liberal nationalism the state has a defined and modest role: give the nation a democratic home. That is a long way from what conservative or integral nationalism asks of the state.

4. Conservative and integral nationalism: the strong state

Conservative nationalism

Conservative nationalism gives the state a different job: not to express the general will but to forge cohesion and unity within society. The state is the guardian of a shared national identity, binding citizens together around tradition and a common culture. It is more concerned with order and belonging than with democratic participation.

Expansionist and integral nationalism

Maurras's integral nationalism asks the most of the state. The state is supreme; individuals are expected to submerge themselves into it; and it carries a strong militarist ethos. Expansionist nationalism rejects the right of all nations to self-determination - the state exists to dominate, not merely to govern. This is the maximal state, the opposite of Rousseau's civic, participatory model.

Contrast for AO2. Liberal nationalism wants the state to serve the citizen; integral nationalism wants the citizen to serve the state. Same ideology, opposite relationship between person and state.

5. Anti-colonial nationalism: rejecting the existing state

Anti-colonial nationalism complicates the picture further, because it is sceptical of the state nationalists are supposed to defend.

Garvey's anti-colonial nationalism rejects the colonial state outright and seeks to have governance returned to the indigenous population. But Garvey's Pan-Africanism goes further: it holds that African people everywhere are one people and should unite across the borders of existing states. This is a project that partly transcends the nation-state rather than simply building one.

This is why the specification notes that the nation-state, "while supported by most nationalists, is not universally supported". Anti-colonial and pan-national nationalism, and the internationalist strands, show that not every nationalist treats the single nation-state as the goal at all.

AO3 discriminator. If liberal nationalism centres the nation-state and anti-colonial Pan-Africanism partly transcends it, then nationalists disagree not just on how strong the state should be, but on whether the nation-state is the right unit at all.

6. What nationalists share about the state

Identify the genuine common ground before concluding. All nationalists share two things about the state.

Self-determination. Every strand accepts that the nation should decide how it is governed - the nation, not an empire or an outside power, should be the source of political authority.
The nation as the basis of legitimacy. For all strands, a state is legitimate to the extent that it belongs to and expresses a nation.

But these are thin. Self-determination tells you the nation should rule itself; it does not tell you whether the resulting state should be a democratic republic (Rousseau, Mazzini), a cohesion-building guardian of tradition (conservative nationalism), an all-consuming military power (Maurras) or a pan-national federation (Garvey). On every substantive question about the state, the strands diverge.

7. Overall judgement

The line of argument is YES, TO A LARGE EXTENT. Nationalists disagree over the role of the state.

Strongest single argument. The four strands describe four different states: Rousseau and Mazzini's civic democratic nation-state, conservative nationalism's guardian of cohesion, Maurras's supreme militarist integral state, and Garvey's anti-colonial and pan-national project that partly transcends the nation-state. The specification's own note that the nation-state "is not universally supported" confirms the disagreement runs to the heart of the matter.

The fair concession is that all nationalists share self-determination and treat the nation as the basis of legitimacy. But that shared core is thin: it fixes who should rule (the nation) without fixing what the state should be or do. Commit to: nationalists are united on self-determination but divided, to a large extent, on the role of the state.