civic nationalism

The English Independence Party is an ethnic nationalist party set up after, or possibly during, the fall of the civic nationalist Free England Party. It joins the growing ranks* of other ethno-nationalist groups ranging from the England First Party, white nationalists; The BNP, British but in favour of an English 'Volk parliament'; United England Patriots and English Shieldwall, Anglo-Saxon revivalists, and; Steadfast and the English Lobby, both supporters of majority rights for the ethnic English.

There is overlap between these groups but ideologically speaking they are a somewhat disparate collection of ethno-nationalists. Some might be more correctly termed white-nationalists and others cultural-nationalists, but even the more culturally orientated delve into areas of race. The English Lobby, for example, has recently launched a petition to "preserve the White English ethnic group identity".

The other common link that these ethnic nationalists share is a dislike of, or lack of trust for, civic nationalists. So it's perhaps no surprise that new English Independence Party launched into an attack on English civic nationalism with one of the first posts to the English Independence Party blog (originally publically available but now hidden from view).

There's little point fisking this, it doesn't need it. But as a civic nationalist I do feel the need to reply and hopefully inject a bit of reason. I have some insight into ethnic nationalist insecurities through discussions with them on this blog, when they have come to inform me that I am an idiot and to tell me that only the ethnic English can be English. Ethnic nationalists understand 'civic nationalism' to be code for multiculturalism, and they feel that a civic, plural and inclusive English national identity will render Englishness as meaningless as they feel British identity has become. I don't share that insecurity. I want people from other races, religions and cultures that make England their home to feel a sense of belonging, to feel English. In my speech to the Convention on Modern Liberty I asked the audience to ask themselves three questions:

1. What is my ethnic identity?
2. What is my national identity?
3. What is my state identity, my citizenship?

Given England's constitutional status it is perfectly possible, and unfortunately probable, that second, third or fourth generation immigrants will not answer "English" to any of those three questions. That's bad for England. My civic nationalism is about allowing people who are not ethnically English to feel English by national identity, which I hope will help instill a sense of pride in England's cultural heritage and collective national identity, despite the fact - or even because of the fact - that they are not ethnically English. I want to bring us together as a nation, not by being prescriptive, but by providing a gateway into a feeling for England through civic and democratic means. By railing against English civic nationalism as "stupid" the ethnic nationalists are not only a reaction to the multiculturalism they despise, they are an integral part of it. We have arrived at the position whereby each and every ethnic group competes for their 'rights', the logical endpoint of multiculturalism as described by Paul Kingsnorth:

Britain now is a ‘cosmopolitan’ society in which no one cultural identity has pre-eminence, and in which Englishness, Polishness and Bangladeshiness must compete on equal terms. The nation’s many ‘minorities’ are not to be integrated into mainstream society (‘integrated’ is such a problematic word; and anyway, what is the mainstream?) but fenced off, theoretically if not physically: defined as ‘BMEs’, afforded ‘protection’, treated as victims, spoken for. Descended from Pakistani immigrants but born in England? Sorry, you’re still ‘Pakistani’, or ‘Asian’ or’ ‘minority ethnic’. You can be British, if you like, because Britishness has been stripped of meaning and is therefore ‘inclusive’ – but you can never be English (or, presumably, Scottish or Welsh, though this gets less attention) because Englishness is ‘racially coded’. Attempts to define it are thus potentially racist; it’s best if the English just shut up about it and get on with ‘celebrating diversity’ instead.

Is a more inclusive English national identity a threat to the cultural identity of the ethnic English? I don't think so. It may undermine the racial coding of Englishness, but that would be no bad thing, and those ethnic nationalists who are more interested in protecting the cultural inheritance of England should think about the positive benefits of an immigrant population who respect - respect not tolerate - the ethnic English on the basis of a mutual respect and a shared national identity.

* To the starting list you might also add The English Defence League, but their ideology is somewhat unclear.

Steadfast:

Those who claim to be English civic-nationalists have some explaining to do since there is no English state and no English civic identity. Their claim to favour civic-nationalism is often a means of seeking approval from the political establishment – just as the Scottish National Party has done. It is a way of saying, I am not one of those nasty ‘ethnic-nationalists’ of whom you disapprove.

And those who claim to be communists have some explaining to do because there is no communism in England. Those "who claim to be" English civic nationalists favour the creation of an English state, or aspects of a state, in order to help create an English civic identity, to promote and foster a sense of belonging to England and, importantly, of England belonging to us. This claim does not find favour with the Establishment because the Establishment are Anglo-Brits who see English interests and British interests as indivisible; these are people for whom, Britain is "greater England".

Ethnic nationalists, like Steadfast, exist to protect and further the interests of their ethnic group. Most civic nationalists recognise that civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism are not mutually exclusive positions, but they see civic nationalism as the only platform on which to build a modern nation state because it works on the basis of individual rights and national solidarity, rather than group rights and ethnic solidarity (multiculturalism/communalism).

If civic-nationalists have 'some explaining to do', then the question arises - do ethnic nationalists have some explaining to do? Do ethnic nationalists not want England to possess the constitutional apparatus of statehood; and if not why not, does it diminish their England?

A recent article in the New Statesman highlights the identity crisis that English civic nationalists wish to correct:

Loyalty itself has different meanings in different parts of Britain. Asians in Scotland, particularly those born in Scotland, describe themselves as Scots and tend to be more loyal to Scotland than Britain. The bulk of the Muslims in Scotland now support the SNP and back the demand for an independent Scotland. Asians in Wales also describe themselves as Welsh Asians and appear comfortable with their Welsh identity. In contrast, Asians in England tend to describe themselves as British Asians; and see Englishness as an exclusive identity that is closed to them. Their local loyalty belongs to Britain as a whole and many regard the demands of their Scottish Asian brothers and sisters across the border for an independent Scotland as treason.

Ethnic nationalism has a strong cultural component, and it may be that a self-assertive and confident cultural nationalism in England can help foster a more inclusive sense of belonging in England, a pride and interest in its heritage, politics and direction. Unfortunately, although there is nothing intrinsically 'nasty' about ethnic nationalism, it's doubtful that a bunch of anglo-saxon revivalists agitating for group rights are the most suitable vehicle to deliver either a cultural or political renaissance of England. But since the UK Government won't step into the vacuum, it's not at all surprising to see the English taking things into their own hands.

In addition to Steadfast and its spin off the Steadfast Trust, there is now a relaunched "English Lobby" promising to fight discrimination against the English people:

Non English minorities, (whilst often heard in the press/BBC deriding England and the English on most fronts,) are content to seek to live in England and gain the benefits of an English education, commerce and quality of life, yet at the same time denigrate the very nation that has made them who they are. England and the English have been far too patient for far too long and are now being unfairly treated within the Union and this anti-English discrimination must cease....

The people of England have worked hard and suffered much to attain a decent level of living, and politicians appear only too ready to hand these hard won achievements to anyone “other” than the people of England themselves. This is a travesty of politics and democracy and must be brought to an end.

The English should be put FIRST in their own country – charity begins at home.

And then there's The Centre for English Policy Studies (like the English Lobby, registered to former English Democrat Christine Constable), seeking to develop "a range of targeted initiatives to the young people of England, irrespective of their race or religion".

The tentative beginnings of a majority fight-back against the race-relations industry. An understandable but regrettable development in my opinion.

It was with Helen's recent post on British values in mind that I sat on my flight back to England reading the CRE's paper 'Citizenship and Belonging: What is Britishness?' (pdf).

It has long been my view that the British identity politics preached by the British government are a hamper to successful integration in England. The CRE's paper reinforced that view; following are some selected extracts:

In England, white English participants perceived themselves as English first and British second, while ethnic minority participants perceived themselves as British; none identified as English, which they saw as meaning exclusively white people. Thus, the participants who identified most strongly with Britishness were those from ethnic minority backgrounds resident in England.

There is a difference between being British and being English. English is being indigenous, being white and from this country. But being British, the primary thing that comes to mind is that you have a British passport. The second thing is that you live here and you function here, in this society [...] I am British. I am not English (Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, London)

For many ethnic minority participants, in particular, maintaining the difference between the English and the British was crucial, because this provided them with some space to belong.

This seemed to be more important for ethnic minority participants who lived in England than for those who lived in Scotland or Wales, where they were happy to take on those national identities.

At the most basic level, all British passport holders know they are British citizens. However, not everyone attaches any value significance to being British. In Scotland and Wales - and this is true among both white and ethnic minority participants - there was a much stronger identification with each country than with Britain.

We therefore found that most black Caribbean participants identified as black British in England, as black Scottish in Scotland and as black Welsh in Wales.

...it may be that partial devolution in Scotland and Wales means that Scottish, Welsh or even European identies become more attractive than a British identity.

Those extracts seem to suggest that the British government is failing in its aim to integrate immigrants in England, whilst the Scottish and Welsh governments are having some success in fostering a civic, rather than ethnic, nationalism in those countries. Immigrants to England feel distanced from the indigenous population; they largely regard themselves solely as British, certainly in a legal sense; they rarely regard themselves as English, which they see as a ethnic or racial identity.

Why is England failing where Scotland and Wales are succeeding? Well, a quote from Helen's article may help shed some light:

...the government has announced that “All secondary school pupils could be taught about "core British values" such as freedom, fairness and respect under new plans unveiled today.

That British government directive applies only in England; in Scotland and Wales it is the concern of the Scottish and Welsh governments. Why does the British government feel the need to foster a sense of Britishness in an English population that feels palpably more English (and increasingly so) than British, and, conversely, why reinforce a sense of Britishness in an immigrant population that feels palpably more British than English, in defiance of the indigenous population's views? Isn't it all a bit arse about face!

The main drive towards this New Britishness comes from Gordon Brown who has his own selfish reasons for moving against the swelling tide of English self-awareness. It's a mad, bad and dangerous policy - he is playing fast and loose with identity politics for political gain - and the net result may not be a happy one. I forewarned of this in my article English Civic Nationalism which was first published on the Campaign for an English Parliament website in November. I hope it will find an interested readership here.

English Civic Nationalism