Nationalism. King Mikhail the good?

Georgia's leader may succeed as a nationalist who believes in law

CAN there be such a thing as a good nationalist, in regions where violent chauvinism - asserting the interests of one nation, ethnic group or faith at the expense of all others - has already taken a terrible toll in blood? In the wilder bits of the ex-communist world, that is something more than just a brain-teaser for political scientists.

Mikhail Saakashvili, the charismatic young president of Georgia, is trying to persuade the world that this question has an affirmative answer. Since taking power half a year ago, he has tugged hard on his people's patriotic heart-strings. He has devised new state symbols and displayed them prominently; and he can deliver thumping nationalist speeches when the occasion demands.

But in fairness, Mr Saakashvili has also been quite careful to tell the world, and his compatriots, what his gestures do and do not mean. He does want to extend the writ of Georgian government to the whole of its territory, including the breakaway South Ossetia region; but he has pledged to deal generously and inclusively with non-Georgian minorities, amounting to at least 30% of the population. That is in healthy contrast to the early years of Georgian independence.

Boris Tadic, the new Serbian president, is another pro-western politician who knows how to beat the patriotic drum. At his inauguration this month, he caused a sensation by playing Serbia's monarchist anthem, “God of Justice ” - -not heard in official places for many decades - and pointedly kissing the Serbian flag. Nobody suspects Mr Tadic of being an ultra-nationalist, but he clearly feels he must assuage his compatriots who do lean in that direction.

For the western institutions that have spent billions of dollars trying to exorcise the demon of chauvinism from the Balkans and the Caucasus - and to promote the idea that nations and ethnic groups must co-operate to solve their post-communist problems - the persistence of nationalism is a puzzle and a disappointment. Bosnia's protectors are frustrated by the fact that after eight years of foreign tutelage, politics there is still dominated by parties which assert the interests of one ethnic group - Muslim, Serb or Croat - rather than the whole country. Meanwhile, Kosovo's protectors would rejoice if Albanians and Serbs merely stopped killing each other; a wave of anti-Serb violence in March was a severe setback. In the Caucasus, years of international mediation have brought the conflict between Armenians and Azeris no closer to a solution, and there is a powerful lobby in Azerbaijan which favours going back to war.

With the law, or against it?

Given that nationalism shows no sign of disappearing, can there be a meaningful distinction between the “good” and “bad” varieties? Here is one possible litmus test: is nationalism being used to promote the rule of law, or to defy it?

At its mildest, nationalism can be a galvanising force, and perhaps a necessary device, for any leader who is struggling to construct a law-based state in places where government of any kind has all but collapsed. That is what Mr Saakashvili says he wants: if he can turn his ramshackle polity into a minimally efficient machine for collecting tax, providing services and guarding its citizens, then it should automatically earn people's loyalty - whatever their ethnic background.

At the other extreme, nationalism has often been a cover for exactly the opposite: policies which stir up hatred both inside and outside a country's borders, and use the resulting conflict as a smokescreen for behaviour which mocks the rule of law - stealing from the public purse, robbing the victims of war and maintaining irregular armies which live off larceny. In the chaos, and above all uncertainty over property rights, which followed the collapse of communism, the anti-law variety of nationalism was an irresistible temptation for politicians who wanted to play on people's fears and grab a share of the loot. Serbia's strongman, Slobodan Milosevic, was perhaps the prime exponent of this tactic - but by no means the only one. From the Adriatic to Central Asia, the politics of the ex-communist world have been marred by warlords who steal or smuggle while exercising authority in the name of tribal, national or ethnic sentiment.

If Mr Saakashvili can prove that his nationalism is of the law-promoting, rather than the law-scoffing kind, then he will have performed a valuable service - not just for his own country, but for all the hard-pressed policymakers who are wondering how to put conflict zones together again.

Editorial says that Georgia's President, Mikhail Saakashvili, may succeed as a nationalist who believes in law.