By: Peter Truden
We spoke with the Editor-in-Chief of Demokracija, Dr Metod Berlec, about his scientific monograph Nation-States Under the Impact of Globalisation – The Importance and Role of the Nation-State in a Globalised World.
Metod Berlec was born in 1970 in Ljubljana. He grew up in the centre of Kamnik. He studied history and geography at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana and became a professor of history and geography. After completing his studies, he taught for some time at a primary school near Ljubljana. For several months, he led visitors through the permanent exhibition Slovenians in the 20th Century at the Museum of Contemporary History of Slovenia. Together with friends (and later professionally), he travelled across much of Europe and North America. In 2001, he began his journalism career at the magazine Mag, where Danilo Slivnik gave him an opportunity, and later at the editorial office of the magazine Demokracija, where he soon became the deputy editor and, in 2002, the editor-in-chief. For two years, he was also the director of the publishing company Nova Obzorja, which publishes Demokracija. He is the host of the show Beremo on the television channel Nova24TV. In 2022, he earned his doctorate from the Faculty of Applied Social Studies (FUDŠ). Since 2023, he has been a contract lecturer and assistant for communication studies at this faculty. He is a member of the Association for the Values of Slovenian Independence (VSO), the Association of Journalists and Publicists (ZNP), the Slovenian Association of Patriotic Journalists (SZDN), and the council of the Jože Pučnik Institute. Since December 2022, he has been the recipient of the Borut Meško Honorary Award for special achievements in journalism.
Dr Berlec, it took some time to persuade you to give an interview for the magazine Demokracija about your scientific monograph Nation-States Under the Impact of Globalisation. Why were you hesitant about this?
Because as the host of the show Beremo on Nova24TV, I am happy to present other people’s books with my guests. When it comes to my own, I feel somewhat embarrassed. I am not the type of person who likes to heavily promote themselves and their work. Maybe that is a mistake on my part. I find it easier to present the work and books of others. It is similar with editing the magazine Demokracija. Moreover, the editorial, hosting, and teaching work takes a lot of time, so other things have to wait.
As seen in the introduction to your book, it is the result of your doctoral studies in sociology.
That is correct. At the end of August 2016, Prof. Dr Matevž Tomšič invited me to pursue doctoral studies in sociology at the Faculty of Applied Social Studies in Nova Gorica. I had never considered it before. With the support of my family, I reluctantly decided to take on this great challenge because it is not easy to manage alongside a regular job in journalism and editing, as well as hosting the show Beremo. All my free time and vacations were dedicated to studying and writing my doctoral dissertation, which I successfully defended in May 2022. This spring, a slightly revised version was also published in book form by the London publisher Vega Press LTD, for which I thank the dean of FUDŠ, Prof. Dr Borut Rončević.
Who was on the committee for your dissertation defence?
In addition to my mentor, Prof. Dr Matevž Tomšič, there was Prof. Dr Matej Makarovič as the chairman and Prof. Dr Bogomil Ferfila as a member. I am grateful to all three of them for guiding me with their advice and comments during my research work. I would also like to thank Dr Božo Cerar, Dr Bogomil Ferfila, Dr Andrej Fink, Dr Ernest Petrič, Dr Dimitrij Rupel, Dr Igor Senčar, Dr Tomislav (Tom) Sunić, and Dr Milan Zver, who in 2019 were willing to give in-depth interviews on the topics of the nation, the state, and globalisation for my doctoral dissertation. Their expert insights, knowledge of the subject, and practical experience were of great help to me.
On the back cover of your monograph, it states that it “significantly enriches the Slovenian social science space with a political and sociological perspective on the formation of nations, states, and the influences of globalisation on modern nation-states.”
Well, I hope I have contributed to this at least somewhat, as in the first phase, I summarised numerous definitions, reflections, and findings from domestic and foreign experts on the topics of the formation of nations, states, and globalisation. I specifically focused on nation-states and the challenges they face. In the second phase, I built upon some aspects based on the explanations from my previously mentioned interviewees and my own research. Of course, I do not claim to have “discovered America”, but rather that I have highlighted certain things that are relevant in the current turbulent times for events in Slovenia, Europe, and the world.
What kind of challenges are nation-states facing, then?
The concept of the nation-state in the 21st century is confronted with numerous global and non-global factors that influence its functioning: from the economy and the free market, the technological (digital) revolution, international cooperation, transnational integration, universalisation and standardisation, geopolitics and the associated struggle for influence and power, the global (civil) community, cultural globalisation, demography and (legal and illegal) migration, to multiculturalism, identity politics, and religious extremism.
I assume this affects the sovereignty of nation-states?
Certainly. All the factors I just mentioned affect the sovereignty of states. Sovereignty is political independence, meaning original authority that does not recognise any higher authority above itself. Today, the sovereignty of individual nation-states is limited by international cooperation, international institutions, the development of science and new technologies, the flow of people, goods, and capital. We are currently facing so-called neo-medievalism (new medievalism), a state in which political authority is dispersed among local, national, and supranational institutions, with the state still holding the highest authority for the people.
So, does globalisation undermine nation-states?
To a certain extent, it certainly does, as I just mentioned. I discuss this in detail in the book. However, it is important to realise that there is an exaggeration in viewing globalisation as something that undermines the nation-state and in perceiving globalisation primarily as an actor and the nation-state as a subject, rather than the other way around. In fact, nation-states are among the key institutions (actors) that have created globalisation and are its integral elements.
What do you mean by that?
Nation-states often co-shape globalisation or global political forums to maintain or expand their power and protect their national interests. They were key players in previous periods of globalised politics, such as empires, colonisation, world trade, warfare, and diplomacy. They are the building blocks of modern global society, or they act as hegemons and dominant forces in the form that it takes. From an economic perspective, states are those that have regulated the global economy and enabled many aspects of its development, such as the globalisation of corporations and, consequently, the globalisation of production, trade, and consumption.
You also write about the “globalised nation-state”?
Correct. Let me quote part of the definition I formulated on this topic: “A globalised nation-state is one that is internally sovereign but simultaneously transfers part of its competencies to a supranational level, such as the European Union, to shape various policies at a transnational level. At the same time, it is heavily involved in the functioning of various international organisations and recognises the authority and legitimacy of such institutions, such as various international courts… A globalised nation-state can maintain social cohesion despite increased diversity, which is still dictated by the dominant ethnic or national community. It is, therefore, a state that can function normally within the interconnected networks that link the modern world.”
You point out that multiculturalism policies, population migrations, and especially demographics impact nation-states more than any other aspect of globalisation.
That is right. This was also highlighted by my state-centric/ethnocentric taxonomy for the years 2001 and 2011, which enhanced Gunnar P. Nielsson’s state-centric/ethnocentric taxonomy from 1981. With the collected data on the ethnic composition of the populations of individual (national) states, I clearly found that in recent decades, the number of entirely homogeneous (“ideal”) nation-states has slightly decreased globally, while the number of less homogeneous nation-states has significantly increased. Additionally, the number of intermediate non-national states has declined, and the number of “multinational” or so-called multicultural states has increased. Particularly affected (with the emergence of parallel societies) are the most developed European countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, the Benelux countries, and Scandinavian countries, where the national and racial composition of the population is changing the fastest. Other Western-civilisation countries, such as the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and oil-rich Persian Gulf states with a significant foreign workforce, are also affected. We are also witnessing “classic” changes through demographics.
Do you have any specific example in mind?
In the previous century, Albanians on the territory of the former Yugoslavia gradually solidified their dominant position in Kosovo through high birth rates, which even the repressive authorities of the Serbian state could not prevent. As a result, the Albanians, as the majority population in the region, achieved secession from the Republic of Serbia and the formation of the independent Republic of Kosovo with the help of the international community. The well-known German journalist and publicist Viktor Meier wrote in his book Why Yugoslavia Fell Apart that in 1939, “the ratio between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo was 40:60. According to the 1981 census, the Albanians, with 1.23 million people, already made up 77.5 percent of Kosovo’s population.” Today, 95 percent of Kosovo’s population is of Albanian ethnic origin. A similar yet somewhat different case is that of the Crimean Peninsula and Eastern Ukraine. If the population on Crimea and in Eastern Ukraine (Donbas) had not been predominantly Russian or Russified, Putin’s Russia would not have been able to annex Crimea to the Russian Federation, nor would there have been the creation of the puppet pro-Russian independent republics of Luhansk and Donetsk. These would probably not have come into existence without Russian interference…
You point out that traditional Western European countries, such as the United Kingdom, Spain, and France, are also facing revived regional nationalisms and demands from the Scots, Catalans, Basques, Bretons, Corsicans, and others to live in their independent states within the EU.
This has become quite evident in recent years. The well-known Dutch political scientist and sociologist Jan Aart Scholte wrote over two decades ago that there are two explanations for how globalisation contributes to the rise of ethnic and national movements. The first suggests that globalisation has reduced the relative power of states, making it more difficult for them to suppress the demands of ethnic and national movements within their borders. On the other hand, ethnic and national movements (more or less) successfully exploit transnational networks to achieve their goals, using their influence to pressure individual states.
There are similar cases elsewhere…
That is right. Not only in Europe but also on other continents, with the difference that in many places, the formation of nations is still underway. Undoubtedly, the Kurds in the Middle East will continue to strive for their own state. Whether they will succeed is hard to predict at this moment, as they are divided among different countries. However, in 1993, Eritreans succeeded in separating from Ethiopia in North Africa, and South Sudan seceded from Sudan in 2011. But almost immediately after that, a civil war followed within this newly established state, between the two main ethnic groups vying for dominance in the country. This further confirms that tribally, nationally, and religiously heterogeneous countries (such as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.) are generally more unstable than nationally homogeneous states.
The United States has long been considered an example of a successful multi-ethnic society. It remains the world’s leading superpower.
That is certainly true. However, the social cohesion of American society, the American melting pot, is becoming less successful because the dominant Anglo-American Protestant culture is weakening due to strong immigration from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. This was already pointed out in 2004 by the renowned American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington in his book Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s Identity. The events of the past decades, especially in recent years, indicate this as well.
And what is the lesson here? That is, the lesson of your doctoral dissertation or the book National States Under the Impact of Globalisation?
First and foremost, individual national states, and here I am primarily referring to European countries, need to ensure that their governmental powers keep migration under control and adapted to the national states’ capacities for integration, socialisation, and gradual assimilation of foreign immigrants. The “emptied” European space is daily “invaded” by foreign peoples from Africa and Asia through (legal and illegal) migrations. Secondly, only a higher birth rate will preserve the current system of European nation-states and thus their stability. Europeans already have enough problems of their own; we do not need to import additional foreign problems and conflicts.
Well, given the events of recent years, including the current situation in Western European countries and the unrest in Great Britain, leftist governments are not taking this into account at all, quite the opposite. In this specific case, they are even suppressing English patriots who are pointing out the murders, crime, and chaos that have occurred due to excessive migration and the so-called replacement of the population.
Therefore, a policy of controlled immigration, which must not exceed the absorption capacities of individual national states, is extremely important. Dutch political scientist and sociologist Paul Scheffer writes in detail about this in his books, such as The Open Society and its Immigrants, published in 2010, or in his books Immigrant Nations (2011) and Freedom of the Border (2021). Otherwise, it can lead to chaos, anarchy, conflicts, the emergence of religious radicalism and terrorism (recently predominantly Islamic), and consequently the rise of various forms of nationalism, and ultimately even the disintegration or collapse of individual (European) nation-states.
You wrote that if the European political elites fail to heed these findings, Europe will undoubtedly face dire consequences, with Western Europe and its large cities being especially at risk.
That is correct. We could face a “Lebanisation” scenario, which former French diplomat Jean-Marie Guéhenno wrote about in his book The End of the Nation-State three decades ago. In the chapter “The Lebanisation of the World?”, Guéhenno highlights the example of Lebanon and its capital, Beirut. After World War II, following the establishment of Israel, Lebanon welcomed Palestinian refugees, who were mostly of Islamic faith, with open arms. This altered the delicate balance in Lebanese society in favour of Muslims, making Christians a minority. A fifteen-year civil war followed, lasting from 1975 to 1990, with various ethnic and religious communities, each forming their own militia or army, fighting for power. The central authority practically collapsed. Beirut, which once resembled a thriving Middle Eastern Nice, was largely destroyed and divided into hostile quarters. More than three decades later, Lebanon is not noticeably more stable—quite the opposite. The current situation in England and the suburbs of many large Western European cities already shows signs pointing in this direction…
On the other hand, you write that in modern times, national states are becoming increasingly effective with their administrative apparatus. That despite noticeable challenges, the nation-state will continue to be the centre of political power and authority in the world…
That is correct. With the help of modern technologies, information systems, and security-intelligence structures, they monitor their national borders, the territory of their country, and society as a whole better and more efficiently. Furthermore, it is still valid to agree with those who say that the nation-state provides the individual with a broader socio-political, cultural-identity environment and psychological security, where one is part of this large “domestic” community. It seems that, now, no supranational initiative threatens the dominance of the nation-state—not even the European Union, which operates primarily as a strategic alliance and has not developed a collective identity that could displace the national identities of its member states. Therefore, I believe that despite noticeable challenges, the nation-state will remain the primary model of political-territorial organisation and the centre of political power and authority in the world in the near future. This is also indicated by the realistic events during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 and 2021 when people first turned to (national) states for help rather than to any international or supranational organisations, which largely proved to be some kind of “toothless tigers”.
We are approaching the end of the conversation. You also deal with scenarios for the development of the state system in the future…
That is correct. I have anticipated six different scenarios for the future development of states and their associated possibilities: the realistic, nationalist, civilisational, megalopolitan, destructivist, and cosmopolitan models. Among these, I find the “realistic scenario” to be the most probable, as it takes into account various factors affecting people, nations, and states, and does not exclusively highlight just one factor, as is the case with the nationalist or civilisational scenarios, where the dominant role is played solely by the nationalist or civilisational component. Readers of Demokracija can read more about this in my book National States Under Globalisation: The Importance and Role of the Nation-State in a Globalised World.
And what about Slovenia, for Slovenian political elites and the Slovenian population?
We must be aware that the struggle for influence and power is ongoing in the world. That is why it is extremely important for Slovenia to be led by politically and stately competent people who understand this, and are able to face the challenges posed by a highly globalised world.
And finally, where can one order or purchase your book National States Under Globalisation: The Importance and Role of the Nation-State in a Globalised World?
The book can be ordered via email at legimusmb@gmail.com or info@vseknjige.si, or by phone at 080 34 77. It is also available for purchase at our publishing house’s bookstore, Nova Obzorja vseKNJIGE.si, located in Ljubljana’s BTC (Hall A, Entrance A2).
(This interview was originally published in the print edition of Demokracija.)
