Eric Storm: "If Spain had been communist... who knows what would have happened to Catalonia?"

Ultraconservative nationalism is on the rise. We can quickly see it by mentioning a few names: Trump, Orbán, Milei... It is in this context that historian Eric Storm (Netherlands, 1966) published Nationalisms, a world history (Crítica), a book that doesn't focus on a single country or continent, but rather, as its name suggests, examines the history of nationalism worldwide in an exhaustive work that allows us to draw the similarities that exist between regions and understand why it is advancing worldwide.

He is interested in nationalism since Don Quixote.

— When I studied the events that took place in 1905, on the third centenary of the publication, I thought: "My goodness, all this for a book!" Spain was coming off the disaster of '98, and I began to take an interest in nationalism.

Nationalism is a modern invention.

— It was born in the age of revolutions. The most obvious is the French Revolution. Sovereignty no longer resides in the king, but in the nation, and the nation is a community of citizens who should be treated equally. It is a model that spread rapidly. Later, in the 19th century, a romantic nationalism emerged, defending the idea that peoples have their own personality, language, and culture.

And this is very useful.

— It serves to unite divided territories, being important for Italy and Germany, for example. But it also paints a fictitious picture. If the nation-state is a collection of people united by language and culture, why are there 7,000 languages in the world and only about 200 states?

Today nationalism is on the rise.

— There are two types of nationalism. The one most represented by the French Revolution, which represents a diverse group of citizens with equal rights, and the other that defends the nation based on language, culture, and even ethnic roots. It's the latter that's on the rise.

How do you explain it?

— I address this in the final chapter of the book. I had initially started with the fall of the Berlin Wall, but I saw that it wasn't working. Because I believe the key, the decisive change, is Thatcher's election as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Because?

— Neoliberalism emerged in Europe, and there was also the Islamic Revolution in Iran—which is one of the symbols of the rise of identity politics connected to religion—and it changed what until then had been the political debate, which revolved around debates between left and right.

I mean…

— Politics spoke of how to divide wealth and organize the country's economy. But neoliberalism shifts the debate and says: we must leave the economy to market forces. And a vast field has been left for identity and religious politics.

For example?

— With the election of John Paul II in 1978, debates about abortion and the family gained prominence in Catholicism. In the United States, in 1979, the Moral Majority was founded, an evangelical group that ultimately played a significant role in Donald Trump's victory. The same thing happened in India with Hinduism. It all began in the 1970s.

Do today's ultra movements serve "romantic nationalism"?

— Yes, that fictional idea of a culturally and linguistically homogeneous group. And banal nationalism plays to their advantage. Everything is nationalized. When the news talks about governments, they don't need to tell us it's ours; we already know. Maps have colors that separate us. But banal nationalism also includes the Olympic Games, cars—we can distinguish a Japanese car from a Spanish one—or traditional food, a concept that also emerged in the late 19th century. In fact, it's the book's main argument: nationalism hasn't always existed naturally, but it's increasingly invading more areas of our lives.

The media is talking about the Catalan and Basque nationalist parties. Isn't Pedro Sánchez a nationalist?

— All parties are nationalist. The difference today is that some defend the nation as a "demos," as a people, and focus on equality, while others focus on ethnic and cultural factors, sometimes to the exclusion of others.

He asserts that independence processes depend not so much on internal support as on the international situation.

— Yes, it has been studied with big data How independent nation-states have emerged in different waves. For example, the revolutions in Latin America, then in Eastern Europe after the First World War, and the one that occurred after the fall of the Soviet Union. In other words, a favorable geopolitical context is necessary to achieve independence. If Spain had been a communist country... perhaps Catalonia would have had the opportunity to begin a new era.

And at a time like this, do you think it's possible to have more countries?

— Ten years ago, many thought so: Catalonia, Scotland, the Kurds, some regions in Asia… But the power of the strongest is beginning to reign in current geopolitics. Russia has attacked Ukraine, China is seizing maritime space from the Philippines, the United States wants Panama and Greenland… Right now, being an independent state without strong allies isn't very advisable.

How do you see the future?

— I think we're in a new era. I'm not sure when the turning point will be: whether it's the 2007 crisis, the pandemic, or Trump's new election. But Pandora's box has been opened, and all those who are ultranationalist and racist should no longer remain silent. It seems that the era in which nation-states were theoretically equal is coming to an end, and the law of the strongest prevails, with the great powers dividing the world into spheres of influence. It's like a new era of imperialism.