By Deiniol Brown
Dr Zlatko Hadžidedić is the Director of the Centre for Nationalism Studies in Sarajevo, and an academic focusing on nationalism in international relations. He has previously held academic positions as associate professor at the American University in the Emirates, in Dubai, and assistant professor at the Sarajevo School of Science and Technology. Dr Hadžidedić also served as political adviser to Gavrilo Grahovac, the vice Prime Minister of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Safet Halilović during his tenure as Minister of Civil Affairs and Minister of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Dr Hadžidedić has written on the topic of nationalism from a variety of perspectives, focusing on its relationship with capitalism, liberalism and international relations. His 2022 book ‘Nations and Capital: The Missing Link in Global Expansion’ looks at the development of nationalism as a structural necessity of capitalism. In this interview, we discussed Dr Hadžidedić’s theory of nationalism, and its effect on international relations.
Can you explain your theory of identity as derived from the concept of property under capitalism?
In my article ‘Supremacy or Property, at the Roots of Identity?’ I specifically refer to the United States in the period of its creation, where the notion of property was crucial to building social relations and society as a whole. With the onset of capitalism in England and the Netherlands in the seventeenth century, the concept of property became central to the definition of the individual’s social position, so as to be a main determinant of identity in these early capitalist societies.
Colonisers from these European states introduced the idea of property into North America. One can clearly see the contrast between European settlers’ and native American peoples’ approaches to land. Unlike the settlers, native Americans did not possess the concept of land as property. On the other hand, the foundational slogan used by the settlers was ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of property’, showing the centrality of property in the early American society. Thus, the state system and society in the U.S. can be seen as a direct result of the ideology built around property. I think the central aspect of national identity in the U.S. is property, which eventually demonstrates the congruence of society, and the state itself, with the system of capitalism. In other words, the U.S. didn’t merely adopt capitalism — it was conceived as a capitalist project, with private property as its DNA.
How does this centrality of property to identity affect modern politics in democracies?
It definitely affects politics since it exposes the fundamental weakness of the concept of democracy, which is rather to be seen as an oligarchic system, with the built-in domination of the propertied. If we go back to the U.S. example, we can understand it as a form of oligarchy of the landed gentry who formed their own state through the war of independence. The leaders of the independence movement were mostly owners of vast amounts of land, and they understood this to mean that they themselves had sovereignty over that land and did not owe taxes or any form of fealty to the king. In creating their own state, they designed a pseudo-democratic system, which had land ownership as a basis for participation. Full democracy, as we understand it, was only instituted in the U.S. in the 20th century, in the 1960s, when everyone got the right to vote. But, before that, property was the fundamental basis for political inclusion. Therefore, this ‘popular sovereignty’, in the form of property, constitutes the basis for American national identity.
In an article I am yet to publish I propose a definition of the nation which is the briefest definition to date, that the nation is constituted by a myth of the inherent right to sovereignty. The imagined right to possess sovereignty is the sole constitutive force of any national ‘community’. Going back to the U.S., when it was formed, those who owned land property were counted as citizens, as members of the sovereign unit called ‘the nation’ who were supposed to pay taxes to their own state. For, this ownership of land was counted as the right to sovereignty, and this logic was demonstrated in the slogan ‘no taxation without representation’ as the basis for the American nationhood. The definition of citizenship has changed subsequently, but is still a contentious issue that is being debated. However, I would still argue that, essentially, citizens are those who own property protected by the state and therefore pay taxes to it. From this perspective, then, property is still central to participation in society, political life, and the ‘nation’ itself.
Is nationalism instituted consciously by elites and leaders in reaction to the divisiveness of capitalism, or does it develop structurally from capitalism without deliberate action?
I believe it is employed intentionally by elites, which separates my theory of nationalism from those of others, such as Ernest Gellner or Benedict Anderson, who see nationalism as a sort of historical coincidence with capitalism or structural development within capitalism. Ernest Gellner stated it most clearly, that industrial capitalism in the nineteenth century needed social homogenisation to function more effectively, and that nationalism emerged to fill that gap. However, I disagree with Gellner’s idea that industrial capitalism developed nationalism as part of its own quest for growth. I don’t think that capitalism seeks collective growth, only individual profit. Capitalism is very individualistic, and the need for individual profit is the primary mover of the entire capitalist system.
Both Anderson and Gellner also don’t fully conceptualise capitalism in their theories; Gellner refers to industrial capitalism and Anderson refers to ‘print capitalism’. Without a central emphasis on capitalism itself, we can’t fully understand its relation to nationalism. The quest for perpetual profit is at the heart of capitalism, which inevitably creates a divisive social system between those who profit and those who don’t, which results in an unsustainable social system that encourages revolution. Therefore, the need arises for an ideology which encourages the ‘masses’ to support the social status quo. Nationalism arises as a way to glue the two societies together, creating a more cohesive community. I call this a ‘simulated community’, in contrast to Anderson’s ‘imagined community’ which I find is too vague, and doesn’t recognise the deliberate creation and implementation of nationalism.
Nationalism creates an illusion of sovereignty, where the masses believe that they have a right to citizenship and political participation, when in reality it is always the elites who possess political power. The masses act in the belief that they are then separated from the other masses, and are ‘put in cages’, not interacting or communicating with other societies, in the belief that they are inherently opposed in their interests. At the same time, the elites across the different nations have always communicated and have never been separated by these national identities, which gives them an additional comparative advantage to the masses in the capitalist system. This reality only gives me more reason to believe that nationalism was instituted deliberately.
There are additional aspects to this; conflict can be generated through the creation of nations and the idea of competing national interests, which further subjects the masses to violence, whilst often benefiting transnational elites through the extraction of profit. There are many more aspects of nationalism as a deliberate imposition, but I believe these are the main indicators.
More broadly, how does nationalism as a product of capitalism affect the systems of international relations that we have today, and specifically the current state of global politics?
As I just mentioned, I think the creation of conflict is the most prominent way that nationalism has impacted the system of international relations that we have now. Today we are witnessing how all conflicts are based on nationalist narratives. In the background we can have Trump and Putin cooperating whilst the peoples of those states believe the U.S. and Russia are mortal enemies, and that they should pay the state to fight their wars. Many Russians even believe that they need to eliminate the Ukrainian state or the Ukrainian people in order to expel the Western influence from Russian borders.
At the same time, Putin and Trump’s relationship demonstrates the unified interests of the transnational elite. Transnational elites communicate well with each other, and the creation of conflict, or political manipulation of conflict, can be useful to them as in the case of Ukraine now for political and economic interests. The list of impacts of this system is endless, but they are always fundamentally based on the hostility created between individual states in the name of national interest, and the ability of transnational elites to manipulate this for their own ends.
How do regional or subnational governments interact with the nation? Do they challenge the nation or can they facilitate the nation?
This all depends on local governments’ political ambitions, which are largely affected by the geopolitical contexts of these states. For example, secessionist or independence movements can be fomented by external powers in order to destabilise states. There is nothing inherent about nationalisms outside of the nation state, local or regional, and their relationship with the nation state they are within. In my experience, their relevance is mainly dictated by the decisions of world powers on whether they want to stabilise or destabilise a region or state, and can use local actors for these purposes.
Maybe my own country Bosnia-Herzegovina is the best example. I haven’t written about it specifically in recent years because I wanted to focus more on theoretical research. But what we can see in Bosnia-Herzegovina is that we have three ethno-religious groups within the state, two of them supported by the neighbouring states. Furthermore, the creation of the state was fractured due to external involvement, from the European Community and especially the British. The U.K. specifically advocated at the 1992 Lisbon Conference for an ethno-religiously segregated country, despite the fact that we had been living together door to door for centuries. They introduced the idea of tripartite partition, and this concept then led into the following war, which was largely fought along the lines set out at the Lisbon Conference. The creation of these distinct subnational sections was imposed by external powers, leading to a very destabilised state.
How do you interpret supranational organisations, such as the EU, within the context of the relationship between nationalism and capitalism?
I see supranational organisations, such as the EU, as instruments of the major Western powers, serving their geopolitical interests. Take the UN for example, it was clearly instituted to align with the values and interests of the U.S. and U.K. at the time, which is a major reason why its power has waned in the present day. The idea of supranational organisations so far has not been based on the goal of transcending national identities and interests. On the contrary, they are instrumentalised by particular geopolitical interests. Dr Zlatko Hadžidedić is the Director of the Centre for Nationalism Studies in Sarajevo, and an academic focusing on nationalism in international relations. He has previously held academic positions as associate professor at the American University in the Emirates, in Dubai, and assistant professor at the Sarajevo School of Science and Technology. Dr Hadžidedić also served as political adviser to Gavrilo Grahovac, the vice Prime Minister of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Safet Halilović during his tenure as Minister of Civil Affairs and Minister of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Dr Hadžidedić has written on the topic of nationalism from a variety of perspectives, focusing on its relationship with capitalism, liberalism and international relations. His 2022 book ‘Nations and Capital: The Missing Link in Global Expansion’ looks at the development of nationalism as a structural necessity of capitalism. In this interview, we discussed Dr Hadžidedić’s theory of nationalism, and its effect on international relations.
Can you explain your theory of identity as derived from the concept of property under capitalism?
In my article ‘Supremacy or Property, at the Roots of Identity?’ I specifically refer to the United States in the period of its creation, where the notion of property was crucial to building social relations and society as a whole. With the onset of capitalism in England and the Netherlands in the seventeenth century, the concept of property became central to the definition of the individual’s social position, so as to be a main determinant of identity in these early capitalist societies.
Colonisers from these European states introduced the idea of property into North America. One can clearly see the contrast between European settlers’ and native American peoples’ approaches to land. Unlike the settlers, native Americans did not possess the concept of land as property. On the other hand, the foundational slogan used by the settlers was ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of property’, showing the centrality of property in the early American society. Thus, the state system and society in the U.S. can be seen as a direct result of the ideology built around property. I think the central aspect of national identity in the U.S. is property, which eventually demonstrates the congruence of society, and the state itself, with the system of capitalism. In other words, the U.S. didn’t merely adopt capitalism — it was conceived as a capitalist project, with private property as its DNA.
How does this centrality of property to identity affect modern politics in democracies?
It definitely affects politics since it exposes the fundamental weakness of the concept of democracy, which is rather to be seen as an oligarchic system, with the built-in domination of the propertied. If we go back to the U.S. example, we can understand it as a form of oligarchy of the landed gentry who formed their own state through the war of independence. The leaders of the independence movement were mostly owners of vast amounts of land, and they understood this to mean that they themselves had sovereignty over that land and did not owe taxes or any form of fealty to the king. In creating their own state, they designed a pseudo-democratic system, which had land ownership as a basis for participation. Full democracy, as we understand it, was only instituted in the U.S. in the 20th century, in the 1960s, when everyone got the right to vote. But, before that, property was the fundamental basis for political inclusion. Therefore, this ‘popular sovereignty’, in the form of property, constitutes the basis for American national identity.
In an article I am yet to publish I propose a definition of the nation which is the briefest definition to date, that the nation is constituted by a myth of the inherent right to sovereignty. The imagined right to possess sovereignty is the sole constitutive force of any national ‘community’. Going back to the U.S., when it was formed, those who owned land property were counted as citizens, as members of the sovereign unit called ‘the nation’ who were supposed to pay taxes to their own state. For, this ownership of land was counted as the right to sovereignty, and this logic was demonstrated in the slogan ‘no taxation without representation’ as the basis for the American nationhood. The definition of citizenship has changed subsequently, but is still a contentious issue that is being debated. However, I would still argue that, essentially, citizens are those who own property protected by the state and therefore pay taxes to it. From this perspective, then, property is still central to participation in society, political life, and the ‘nation’ itself.
Is nationalism instituted consciously by elites and leaders in reaction to the divisiveness of capitalism, or does it develop structurally from capitalism without deliberate action?
I believe it is employed intentionally by elites, which separates my theory of nationalism from those of others, such as Ernest Gellner or Benedict Anderson, who see nationalism as a sort of historical coincidence with capitalism or structural development within capitalism. Ernest Gellner stated it most clearly, that industrial capitalism in the nineteenth century needed social homogenisation to function more effectively, and that nationalism emerged to fill that gap. However, I disagree with Gellner’s idea that industrial capitalism developed nationalism as part of its own quest for growth. I don’t think that capitalism seeks collective growth, only individual profit. Capitalism is very individualistic, and the need for individual profit is the primary mover of the entire capitalist system.
Both Anderson and Gellner also don’t fully conceptualise capitalism in their theories; Gellner refers to industrial capitalism and Anderson refers to ‘print capitalism’. Without a central emphasis on capitalism itself, we can’t fully understand its relation to nationalism. The quest for perpetual profit is at the heart of capitalism, which inevitably creates a divisive social system between those who profit and those who don’t, which results in an unsustainable social system that encourages revolution. Therefore, the need arises for an ideology which encourages the ‘masses’ to support the social status quo. Nationalism arises as a way to glue the two societies together, creating a more cohesive community. I call this a ‘simulated community’, in contrast to Anderson’s ‘imagined community’ which I find is too vague, and doesn’t recognise the deliberate creation and implementation of nationalism.
Nationalism creates an illusion of sovereignty, where the masses believe that they have a right to citizenship and political participation, when in reality it is always the elites who possess political power. The masses act in the belief that they are then separated from the other masses, and are ‘put in cages’, not interacting or communicating with other societies, in the belief that they are inherently opposed in their interests. At the same time, the elites across the different nations have always communicated and have never been separated by these national identities, which gives them an additional comparative advantage to the masses in the capitalist system. This reality only gives me more reason to believe that nationalism was instituted deliberately.
There are additional aspects to this; conflict can be generated through the creation of nations and the idea of competing national interests, which further subjects the masses to violence, whilst often benefiting transnational elites through the extraction of profit. There are many more aspects of nationalism as a deliberate imposition, but I believe these are the main indicators.
More broadly, how does nationalism as a product of capitalism affect the systems of international relations that we have today, and specifically the current state of global politics?
As I just mentioned, I think the creation of conflict is the most prominent way that nationalism has impacted the system of international relations that we have now. Today we are witnessing how all conflicts are based on nationalist narratives. In the background we can have Trump and Putin cooperating whilst the peoples of those states believe the U.S. and Russia are mortal enemies, and that they should pay the state to fight their wars. Many Russians even believe that they need to eliminate the Ukrainian state or the Ukrainian people in order to expel the Western influence from Russian borders.
At the same time, Putin and Trump’s relationship demonstrates the unified interests of the transnational elite. Transnational elites communicate well with each other, and the creation of conflict, or political manipulation of conflict, can be useful to them as in the case of Ukraine now for political and economic interests. The list of impacts of this system is endless, but they are always fundamentally based on the hostility created between individual states in the name of national interest, and the ability of transnational elites to manipulate this for their own ends.
How do regional or subnational governments interact with the nation? Do they challenge the nation or can they facilitate the nation?
This all depends on local governments’ political ambitions, which are largely affected by the geopolitical contexts of these states. For example, secessionist or independence movements can be fomented by external powers in order to destabilise states. There is nothing inherent about nationalisms outside of the nation state, local or regional, and their relationship with the nation state they are within. In my experience, their relevance is mainly dictated by the decisions of world powers on whether they want to stabilise or destabilise a region or state, and can use local actors for these purposes.
Maybe my own country Bosnia-Herzegovina is the best example. I haven’t written about it specifically in recent years because I wanted to focus more on theoretical research. But what we can see in Bosnia-Herzegovina is that we have three ethno-religious groups within the state, two of them supported by the neighbouring states. Furthermore, the creation of the state was fractured due to external involvement, from the European Community and especially the British. The U.K. specifically advocated at the 1992 Lisbon Conference for an ethno-religiously segregated country, despite the fact that we had been living together door to door for centuries. They introduced the idea of tripartite partition, and this concept then led into the following war, which was largely fought along the lines set out at the Lisbon Conference. The creation of these distinct subnational sections was imposed by external powers, leading to a very destabilised state.
How do you interpret supranational organisations, such as the EU, within the context of the relationship between nationalism and capitalism?
I see supranational organisations, such as the EU, as instruments of the major Western powers, serving their geopolitical interests. Take the UN for example, it was clearly instituted to align with the values and interests of the U.S. and U.K. at the time, which is a major reason why its power has waned in the present day. The idea of supranational organisations so far has not been based on the goal of transcending national identities and interests. On the contrary, they are instrumentalised by particular geopolitical interests.
UK Forum on a Multipolar World 
Leave a comment