There is No nationalism without Charisma? True or Otherwise? In the last two centuries, we have seen many nations evolve from a nation under colonial powers into nations that are independent. We have seen numerous revolutions made possible by nationalism. Revolutions such as the American civil war, The French revolution, and the 1986 EDSA revolution in Philippines embody the newfound nationalism in the hearts of the common person. Other nations achieved independence mainly because of charismatic leaders that opened the eyes of the nation. Leaders like Garibaldi of Italy, who made the unification Italy possible and Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi who worked contentiously help India gain Independence from The British are charismatic leaders who made unification and Independence for their countries possible. Through the years, we have seen numerous nations emerged because of Charismatic leaders. People like Mao Tse-Tsung of China, Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam, and Sukarno of Indonesia lead their and inspired their nations in their fight for independence. Nationalism is awakened in the sleeping hearts of many because the of charismatic leaders. A statement is commonly said about this, “There is no nationalism without charisma”. This essay aims to argue this statement by looking at Gandhi’s role in Indian Nationalism Ho Chi Minh’s role in Vietnamese nationalism. This essay will also look at the negative effects of charisma in the Philippines and how a charismatic leader is not vital in the emergence of nationalism in the Philippines. India has always been divided because of religion. Hinduism and Islam are the two main religions in Indiax Hinduism also divided India because of the class division in the religion itself. The background of the nation is of mutual hostility. However, India was united for a common cause, Independence. At the end of the First World War, India found that it had been awarded a full nation status in the League of Nations. At the peace conferences, a great stress was laid on the principle of ‘self determination’ for national groups. The Indians believed that these factors increased their chances of being independent of the British rule. This unity in diversity of religions and class was mainly because of the efforts of the man affectionately known as “Mahatma” (great soul), Mohandas Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi was able to unite India in protests against the British rule. He also embodied India’s Nationalism. “Gandhi became the international symbol of free India. He lived a spiritual and ascetic life of prayer, fasting and meditation. His union with his wife became, as he himself stated that of brother and sister. Refusing earthly possessions, he wore loin cloth and shawl of the lowliest Indian and subsisted on vegetables, fruit juices, and goat’s milk.” (Appendix) Gandhi has been a friend to the British. He helped recruit men to join the British against their foes in the First World War. However, When the Rowlatt Acts of 1919 was passed in India giving the British emergency powers to deal with revolutionary activities he called on Indians to support a satyagraha (firmness in truth, civil disobedience) against the British. He also asked them to use ahimsa (non-injury) of protesting, Most Indians followed and another fraction did not and protested violently. Over 400 Indians were killed because of violent protests. Instead of loosing supporters, Gandhi gained more of them and by 1920 he was extremely influential among Indians. More non-violent protests were started by Gandhi. In 1920, he revived the old Indian National Congress into a newer more serious organization. With the backing of the Congress, he called a huge boycott of British Goods and services this included schools. This symbolised his campaign for home rule. “With a leader like Ghandi, the Indian people were no longer afraid of their foreign rulers”. (The fight for Indian Independence-see appendix) Indians began to join Gandhi’s protests and as a result were arrested by the British. This caused small arguments between the Muslim and Hindu protestors. Small struggles still took place in the villages. Gandhi fasted for three weeks in order for peace and unity to come back among the protestors. And indeed Gandhi’s fast again united the Indians. In 1930, another satyagraha against the salt tax in 1930 was called by Gandhi. Instead of buying salt from the British, He lead several thousand Indians to march to the Arabian Sea and made their own salt by evaporating sea water. Many Indians were again arrested including Gandhi. However, this did not weaken the Indians protests which in turn gave representation to the INC in a conference in London through Gandhi. Gandhi again started fasting upon his return from useless participation in the conference in London. The new constitution made by the government would discriminate the “untouchable” caste by placing them in a different electorate. However this was quickly changed when Gandhi started to fast. “ The Government knew they had to change the constitution quickly for if Gandhi were to die, revolution would be imminent” ( The fight for Indian Independence-see appendix) After the Second World War, The British gave India Independence. Gandhi was still vital in the start of India’s nationhood process as he performed great feats by fasting to stop the riots in Calcutta in 1947 and causing a truce in Delhi in January of 1948. Without Gandhi, modern India would not experience Independence. His role in India’s nationalism suggests that there is no nationalism without charisma. Another example that also suggest the same point of view is the leader that united Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh. Vietnam like India, was under a colonial power, the French. There was no nationalist movements and revolutionary groups in Vietnam because they were tamed by the French rulers. However in 1941, Nguyen Sinh Cuong more popularly known as Ho Chi Minh, worked tirelessly to create the nationalist movement known as the Viet Minh. Ho Chi Minh was a man, educated in France and received lengthy training in revolutionary techniques from the Soviet Union and China. After the second World War ended the French tried to again seize the former Indo-China they used to rule. However since there was a clearly established nationalist movement which has drawn inspiration from many failed rebellions ad the potent ideology of communism and the Leadership of Ho, The Viet Minh was able to eventually defeat the French. Although some sectors of Vietnam opposed communism, They saw Ho as a nationalist leader rather than a communist. “ In Ho Chi Minh, they had a leader who soon came to symbolize the struggle from Independent Vietnam”. ( Wood p.14) Ho preached about nationalism and he was able to appeal with all the sectors of Vietnam. His words were strong and sensible in their fight for Independence. “Fellow-countrymen throughout the land! Impelled by love of peace, we have made concessions. But the more we make, the more the French colonialists take advantage of them in order to trample on our rights... ... Even if we should have to endure the hardest privatisations and the worst sufferings, let us be ready to make every sacrifice. We shall be victorious!” (Ho Chi Minh- Selected Works) When the agreed unification of North and South Vietnam in the Geneva conference was not honoured by South Vietnam in the year the elections were set, Another nationalist movement was born. Ho was still the inspiration of the movement-The Viet Cong. Again, Ho united all sectors of Vietnam in their fight against the Diem regime and the American intervention in the south. “By the end of 1958, those of us who felt this way decided to form an extra-legal political organisation, complete with a program and plan of action... Among us we also had people with close-ties to the sects. the legal political parties, the Buddhists... ...our endeavour was meshed into an ongoing historical movement for independence that had already developed its own philosophy. Of this movement, Ho Chi Minh was the spritual father, in the South as well as in the North, and we looked naturally to him and to his government for guidance and aid.” (Truong Nhu Trang, A Viet Cong Memoir, 1985) Even after Ho’ death his legacy continued. This legacy helped the Vietnamese fight against all the poisoning and massacres the Americans did. The Vietnamese emerged as winners in the Vietnam war and the Americans pulled out of Vietnam. “Even after his death in 1969, Ho Chi Minh was to inspire the ultimate victory over the Americans and the unity of Vietnam.” (Wood p. 15) Gandhi and Ho Chi Minh are indeed two charismatic leaders who were able to unite their respective countries and were able to awaken nationalism in the hearts of their people. However Charisma is not the only reason for nationalism. Charisma can also manipulate a nation into believing that a government is nationalistic but is the opposite. Also nationalism can come from the united stand of the people, without a leader. Ferdinand Marcos, The tenth president (later dictator) of the Philippines was a Charismatic leader who manipulated his country. Macros was a young congressman from the north of the Islands who rose up the ranks and later became president. He and his wife Imelda, gained the support of the Filipino people because of their appeal as a couple and Marcos’ intellect. When he was first elected as president in 1965 and in his second term in 1969, he had projects that were implemented that gave the nation benefit. He always said the phrase “This nation will be great again”. “In his first tenure as president, he was a brilliant and intelligent president” (Roderdo Tulio 2001) After he declared martial law in 1972 he launched a campaign for a “new society” which aimed to improve the country’s status as a nation. His charisma was really strong that the military backed his dictatorship for twenty years. From 1972 until the early 1980’s, the economy of the Philippines slumped because of the greed of Marcos and his family. He stashed away from the country funds and deposited them into fictitious bank accounts overseas. Until the present, 15 years after his overthrow and death, the money he stashed away is yet to be found. This goes to show that charismatic leaders can manipulate the nation using their charisma to make people think that they as leaders are doing the right thing for the country when they are doing otherwise. Nationalism is bastardised by people like this. Nationalism does not need charisma for it to come out. An event that recently happened in the Philippines suggest that there is nationalism with out Charisma. In the recent overthrow of Former President Joseph Estrada in the Philippines last January suggests this. Estrada himself was a charismatic figure. The Philippine massed loved him, he was against all forms of terrorism. In fact he was the first president two win and election with the majority of votes in 1998. The people of Metro Manila and later the people from the provinces gathered in EDSA (Efifno De Los Santos Avenue) A major highway in Metro Manila. Without any charismatic leader telling them to gather. They rallied for the president’s resignation. “ Maraming nagsasabi na sa pagkakataong ito, walang pangunahing charismatuc figure na naghatak sa taumbayan upamang pumunta at makilahok sa EDSA” ( A lot of people are saying that this time, There is no one charismatic figure who pulled the people into gathering in EDSA) - (Sison, 24/01/01-Appendix) The people gathered first before any political figure came and rallied. They gathered after the Impeachment court hearing Estrada’s Impeachment case composed of the 21 Philippine Senators as judges did not allow the opening of the second envelope which contains evidences that will directly link the president into fictitious bank accounts discovered to be his, containing money coming from illegal gambling and the tobacco taxes. This happened after the senators had a vote for the opening of the said envelope. “People converged at the Edsa shrine, as if driven by there by an Invisible Hand, ready to pay the price for their conviction. Never had mobile telephony been deployed for so noble cause and to what effect. Edsa II is now confirmed that the Philippine polity has discovered a partial answer to the eternal conundrum: “Who guards the guardians of the law?’ It is people power.”-(Fabella, 28/01/01-appendix) After four days of continuos protesting in EDSA, the president stepped down since he can no longer control the whole nation as all military and political allies he is with are all protesting for his resignation. Their support was prompted by the people. Indeed this is an evidence that proves that nationalism does exist without a charismatic leader. Based on the case studies that were looked at in this essay, Nationalism can be helped brought out by Charismatic leaders. They inspire people to protest and fight against unwanted rule. However, charismatic leaders can only help as much as they can manipulate nationalism. Former President Marcos of the Philippines manipulated nation into believing that they are leading the nation into the right path and that they are nationalistic in doing so. However they are doing the exact opposite of what they are trying to project. Nationalism can also exist without a charismatic leader, such in the case again of the Philippines successful overthrow of Estrada. Nationalism cannot exist without unity. The charismatic figures might be able to help with ideologies of nationalism however, it is up to the majority of the people whether or not they will fight for their country’s rights. I therefore conclude that, Nationalism exists without charisma because unity is the main ingredient of effective nationalism. |