How Ethno- and Theo-Nationalism Pave Way for Fascism

Pandering, propagandising, and dividing along the lines of religious and ethnocultural characteristics, which are fundamental to most voters’ political identities, is a common and effective tactic to mobilise voter support.

Ethno-nationalism and theo-nationalism both create fertile ground for the rise of fascist ideologies. Fascists know that gaining absolute power will be met with opposition so they have to get the majority on their side by appealing to their sensitivities.

There’s no better bonding than mutually hating someone. The textbook “us versus them” rhetoric creates an exclusionary mindset marginalising individuals who do not belong to the dominant ethnic or religious group. Media propaganda nourishes seeds of ideological superiority and hatred of the other and may flower into violence.

Radio Rwanda, calling the Tutsi minority “cockroaches,” encouraged Hutus to “exterminate” them, contributing to the deaths of ~800k Tutsis in 100 days. The state-controlled media in Myanmar propagated hate speech against the Rohingya Muslim minority, fuelling communal tensions gradually resulting in their mass-exodus to Bangladesh.

Ethno-nationalism, iconically exemplified by the Nazis, focuses on the idea that a nation should be defined by a shared ethnicity or race. The populist often uses minorities as scapegoats to blame societal problems on. The blaming, however fallacious, galvanises support, partially in credit to the propaganda and majority-backing.

Theo-nationalism is based on the belief that a nation should be defined by a particular religious identity. It often involves the fusion of religious and political authority, leading to the imposition of religious laws and suppression of religious minorities or dissenting voices.

Theo-nationalist movements may promote a narrow and exclusionary interpretation of religious doctrine, demonising those who do not adhere to it. This can create a fertile breeding ground for authoritarianism and the suppression of individual freedom, which is characteristic of fascism.

This is exemplified well by the Muslim conservatives’ simmering dissent of the Shah that bubbled into theofundamentalists upstaging the existing autocrat, only to replace him with a more controlling Islamist supreme leader, whose and whose successor have retained absolute power since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Fascist movements exploit divisions, promoting a supremacist ideology that seeks to dominate or eliminate perceived “inferior” groups.

Getting majority support is important particularly for authoritarian figures in democratic states. Once they’re in, authoritarians try their best to subvert democratic procedures in order to not relinquish power.

Such contemporary political leaders as Trump in USA, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Erdoğan in Turkey, Modi in India, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Rodrigo Duterte in Philippines have gained, largely in credit to the populous’ support, and retained power as closer-to-fascist leaders of state operating in “democratic” countries.

When the majority gets overlooked, like the poor and middle-class whites in USA, their dissatisfaction is ripe for pandering and shrewd, aspiring fascistish figures like Trump take advantage of their ethno/theo-nationalist sentiment to gain and maintain power.

They intertwine their personal brand with the ideology they promote constructing ties based on shared sociopolitical identity (like being a working-class, white, Christian conservative in Trump’s case) or affiliation with a political group appealing to ideals of nationalism, patriotism, and identity politics.

Sometimes these nationalistic ideologies don’t necessarily lead to formal dictatorships but to pseudo-fascist regimes like China that have a thin, “official” veneer of democracy but are obviously veered by a strongman like Xi.

Individual rights, particularly of the minority groups being rallied against, gradually erode as populist ideology takes grip of the political sentiment.

Authoritarians take advantage of the disadvantaged. They speak to the poor and naive tapping into deep-seeded sentiments of dissatisfaction and galvanise support among disaffected demos.

Leaders often portray themselves as defenders of national sovereignty, cultural heritage, or religious values — shiny ideals to unify native collectivists in the population over.

Non-cultural, situational identitial characteristics such as mutual sufferings of political or economic instability also serve as unifying sentiments appealed to.

Populists employ media-driven propaganda, sometimes false and misleading, to shape public opinion and construct rosy narratives they’re effective leaders and their side’s better than ones opposing.

In a society where people are increasingly disillusioned by the rich, powerful, and foreign, ethno/theo-nationalists give people something bigger than themselves to believe in.

Looking for someone different who aligns with their values to believe in and lead, they welcome strongmen who would take control and finally make changes that benefit them.