National identity and political trust

European publics are very divided on the fundamental question of what constitutes national identity, with significant implications for how they view politics and its institutions

There is a persistent, robust relationship between concerns about immigration and political trust. Concerns about immigration may be contributing to the lack of political trust in two ways. First, by weakening the perceived cultural connections between the governed and government. Second, by being a key source of policy dissatisfaction for citizens of European democracies. Ipsos MORI results reveal persistent concern about immigration in the UK, and my research points to the conclusion that such concerns have consequences for how individuals perceive the political system. This seems to be the case in other European countries as well, particularly those with longer histories of post-World War II immigration.

Part of my argument revolves around the construction of the nation-state and national identity, and the difficulty of many such constructions to incorporate newcomers, particularly those perceived as having very different values and ways of life. In this essay, I describe some recent survey results from the Eurobarometer 71.3, June-July 2009, which allow exploration of the extent to which national identity itself is related to perceptions of political systems. The survey results allow us to explore whether the different aspects of national identity that people emphasise have implications for their perception of the political system. My findings indicate that whether the individual emphasises acquired or ascriptive characteristics are indeed connected with perceptions of political systems, but in some cases the effects depend on the government’s official policies towards newcomers.

National community and perceptions of the political system

Does national identity help to provide a reservoir of good will that carries over into positive feelings about political systems? Some might contend that there are reasons to expect that national identity will not, in fact, be related to perceptions of the political system in modern society. It could be argued, for instance, that globalisation has weakened the importance of the nation-state by homogenising culture and lifestyle.1  That is, national identity is meaningless in the modern day and in the absence of any core meaning, there is no reason to expect it to be related to other things, such as attitudes towards the political system.

In addition, the weakening of group ties that used to serve to connect individuals to the state has been well-documented, also implying an increased disconnect between perceptions of the nation-state and the institutions and individuals who run it.2 Finally, there are a wide range of potential reasons for differing perceptions of political systems, including the actual performance of that political system, both politically and economically, media reports on scandals, the individual’s own position in life, and so on.3 This raises the question of whether there is any scope for national identity and perceptions of the nation-state to affect perceptions of the political system.

And yet, despite the above-mentioned systemic and structural changes, national identity and perceptions of national distinctiveness are thought to be just as important in the modern day as they ever were, perhaps more so.4  In the face of vast social change resulting from forces like globalisation and large-scale immigration, identities appear to continue to be important to individuals as they try to understand their own place in the modern world.5 I argue that these identities may also continue to help connect citizens to the state, with a positive sense of national identity producing positive perceptions of the political system.

Types of national identity

Existing literature on national identity in Europe and citizenship policy has generally pointed to the conclusion that some societies emphasise the ascriptive and cultural characteristics of being a country national. In some countries, this has meant a connection by blood, or ethnicity. This type of national identity may be seen in terms of whether individuals who do not share the cultural heritage of the nation or have not been brought up in the country are perceived to be able to become true country nationals.6

The other main model of national identity and citizenship is one that emphasises a more civic approach: after a short period of time, those who were not raised in the country or who did not share in the country’s traditions can, in fact, become true country nationals, by feeling themselves to be part of the nation and, importantly, participating in the political system by voting and engaging in other civic activities.

At first glance, it might be expected that emphasis on both of these aspects of national identity should be important for perceptions of the political system. That is, perceiving the national community to consist of individuals who are connected by cultural heritage, ethnicity, etc. or by shared participation in the political process ought to carry over into positive feelings about the political system. The problem with this possible theoretical expectation, however, is that it fails to take into account the current situation of most European countries. Specifically, because of large-scale post-World War II migration to western and then southern Europe, the reality of many European nation-states is that they consist of some individuals who do share in the country’s customs and traditions, who were raised in the country, etc. and a significant portion of individuals who do not necessarily share in these same traditions but are in the process (slower in some countries than others) of becoming (or have become) country nationals or who will always remain immigrants (i.e., residents without citizenship). Thus, in the context of large-scale immigration and the subsequent creation of a minority population that is often seen as culturally very different from the majority,7  the emphasis on ascriptive versus non-ascriptive characteristics takes on new meaning vis-à-vis perceptions of the political system.

My findings indicate that in countries where people tend to see their national identities in terms of factors that can be acquired—particularly learning the language and exercising citizenship rights—general perceptions of the political system are more positive. This may be because individuals in these countries are more likely to perceive the political system as coping very easily with newcomers, as these newcomers and their children can eventually acquire these key aspects of nationality. On the other hand, where individuals emphasize the ascriptive nature of national identity, particularly that one must be born and/or raised in the country or have shared ancestry to be truly national, political trust, on average, appears to be lower.

Why might this be the case? As noted above, all European political systems are now more or less open to newcomers and their descendents eventually taking part in the political system regardless of whether they have, in fact, been born and raised in the country. That is, in reality the political system is no longer exclusively for ethnic co-nationals or those with shared heritage, and the conflict between this reality and the perceived notion of what it means to be a country national implies that those who emphasise ascriptive characteristics may, on average, be less trusting of the political system than those who do not emphasise these characteristics precisely because the system is no longer for co-ethnics only. In addition, the negative relationship may be a result of perceiving that it was the political system that made it possible for this situation to occur (i.e., allowed large-scale immigration to the country).

The importance of government policy towards newcomers

The effect of national identity on perceptions of the political system is, however, mediated by official government policy toward newcomers.8  Particularly important is the degree of consistency between what the individual emphasises in terms of what it means to be a country-national, and what government policy emphasises. Where government policy emphasises ascriptive characteristics and makes it difficult for those who do not share these characteristics to become fully functioning members of the political and economic systems and the individual also emphasises ascriptive characteristics, this produces more positive perceptions of the political system than when the individual emphasises ascriptive characteristics but government policy makes it easier for newcomers to become part of the political and economic systems (i.e., implying that ascriptive characteristics are not all that important).

Likewise, if the individual emphasises acquired or civic aspects of national identity but government policy emphasises ascriptive characteristics, perceptions of the political system are more negative than when both the individual and government policy emphasise civic aspects of being a country national. In short, the degree of consistency between the individual’s own perception of what it means to be a country-national and the official policy regarding how to become a country national matters for whether people feel positively about their political institutions or not.

The cultural divide in Europe?

These findings highlight how very divisive the issue of immigration is in Europe. Immigration has provided the lens by which individuals view national identities and European publics are very divided on the fundamental question of what constitutes national identity. Within the same country, some individuals emphasise learning the language, exercising voting rights and so on, while others emphasise being born and raised in the country, sharing cultural traditions and so on. This raises important questions about divisions within countries regarding the meaning of national identity.

As importantly, how they see their own identities appears to have significant implications for how they view the political institutions designed to represent the national community. The cultural divide is clearly reflected in the impact that government policy towards newcomers has on the relationship between national identity and perceptions of the political system. When people think being born and raised in the country is an important component of national identity but official government policy makes it easy for those who were not born and raised in the country to acquire citizenship, people are less trusting of their political system, presumably because of this disconnect between perceptions of what should constitute national identity and the reality of government policy. Conversely, there are people living in countries where factors like birth, parentage, ancestry and the like are emphasised in government policies towards the integration of newcomers but who themselves think the exercise of voting rights or learning the language are important; these individuals also have more negative perceptions of the political system. That is, these substantial divides in Europe over what it means to be a national have significant implications for how individuals view their governments, in part because of government failure to reflect the individual’s own approach to nationality.

For instance, Finnish migrant integration policy is fairly migrant-friendly and yet the vast majority in Finland say that being Finnish means being born or raised in Finland or having Finnish parents. People seem to think that it should be harder for migrants to become Finnish. Similar results can be seen for Belgium (although not as extreme). On the other hand, in Denmark, there is significant emphasis by citizens on feeling national, language skills and voting or other participation, with being born and raised in the country and sharing Danish cultural traditions emphasised by a minority, while current migrant integration policy makes it very difficult for newcomers to become part of Danish society. Divergence occurs between some of the country’s citizens’ views and actual policy in most countries, but it is in contexts like these in particular that disconnect between public preferences and government policy is likely to produce dissatisfaction with the political system.