In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

There are relatively few studies putting Basque nationalism in a comparative perspective with other nationalist movements in the West such the Quebecois, the Flemish, and the Scottish.1 The literature on Basque nationalism tends to highlight its exceptionalism.2 Basque nationalism is, after all, one of the only nationalist movements in the West to have had a violent stream in recent years.3 It could therefore be assumed that the Basque Country is not a “comparable case” when it comes to studying nationalism in Western societies. This assumption is wrong. Basque nationalism is not fundamentally deviant. Its structure and dynamics are not unlike those of other nationalist movements in Europe and North America. There is, therefore, no methodological or theoretical reason for treating Basque nationalism as an exceptional case. Political violence needs to be considered as an important analytical variable for understanding nationalism in the Basque Country; it does not, however, invalidate comparisons with movements that were always nonviolent. Perhaps there is also a normative issue that explains the relative absence of comparisons with substate nationalism in Canada, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. Scholars in Quebec, Flanders, and Scotland, many of whom are not unsympathetic toward the aspirations of their nationalist movements, might have found it bothersome to compare Quebecois, Flemish, or Scottish nationalism with Basque nationalism. From this normative and political perspective, Cataluña, with its moderate and nonviolent nationalism, is a more attractive case than the Basque Country, which tends to be associated with the violence of eta. This chapter places Basque nationalism in a comparative perspective with four other nationalist movements in Western societies that are profoundly shaping politics in their respective countries: Quebecois, Flemish, Scottish, and Catalan.4 Quebecois nationalism presents a continuous challenge to the structures of the Canadian federation, specifically through the Parti Québécois(pq) that favors independence . Flemish nationalism has transformed the Belgian unitary state into a decentralized federation, and many Flemish parties envision further constitutional change, perhaps leading to a confederal model. Scottish nationalism, for its part, has forced a renegotiation of the terms of Scotland’s involvement in the United Chapter Seven Basque Nationalism in Comparative Perspective 157 Basque Nationalism in Comparative Perspective 158 Kingdom. The outcome of this renegotiation was devolution, or home rule, which has provided a new institutional dimension to Scottish nationalism that could eventually complicate Scotland’s relationship with Westminster. Catalan nationalism has spearheaded, along with Basque nationalism, the federalization of Spain. Catalan nationalism is a major issue in Spanish politics. Not only is Cataluña’s population one-fifth of Spain’s, but it is less polarized than the Basque Country and its position toward Spain more moderate.5 The primary objective of this chapter is to demystify Basque nationalism by showing that its internal workings and many of its features are very similar to those of other nationalist movements in the West. Of course, this does not mean that Basque nationalism is perfectly similar to Catalan, Scottish, Flemish, or Quebecois nationalism. Most importantly, the impact of political violence on the structure of Basque nationalism since the transition cannot be underestimated. Basque nationalism also features a definition of the nation that involves issues of international borders not typically encountered in other cases.6 This chapter will bring these differences to light within a comparative framework without exaggerating the supposed exceptionalism of Basque nationalism. Substate Nationalism as a Modern Phenomenon The resurgence or emergence of substate nationalism in Western societies during the 1960s and 1970s was a surprising development. Strongly influenced by modernist narratives predicting the homogenization of national societies, both scholars and political practitioners saw Western states as being on a unidirectional track toward the full “integration” of their “peripheries” through the process of state centralization. This view was best embodied by the so-called diffusionist theory, which held that political centers would necessarily project their culture on peripheral territories in order to facilitate the functioning of an advanced industrialized society.7 These processes of assimilation correspond to what James C. Scott calls “high modernist” projects insofar as they are designed to render societies more intelligible through standardization, or “normalization.”8 Diffusionist theory represented an ahistorical perspective on the politics of Western states because it did not allow for alternate outcomes to the complete homogenization of their societies. Diffusionists wrongly assumed that integration and cohesion could only come by the way of homogenization and centralization. They ignored, for example, the federalist perspective on integration with its ideas of self-rule and shared-rule, and...

Share