this nationalistic fervor is a rebalancing act, a reminiscent of nations’ failures

talks and acts of nationalistic blend are a common scene today. proponents are construing this as a valid and belated response to violation of interests of nation’s inhabitants and its sovereignty, while criticisers condemn this by categorizing it as infringement of right to trans-border movements.

did this happen all of a sudden? did the unexpected rise of politicians favouring inward policies was the sole factor that resulted in general populace connecting with nationalism?

let’s talk some rationales.

nations are separated by borders that are internationally recognized and respected, except a few territorial conflicts. why did countries form, why did people gather in settings that differentiated them from inhabitants of other nations?

borders bring with them many pluses. they allow a government to rule over a defined region without interferences from external forces, this promotes making laws and rules for fair conduct in the society.

most of the countries are endowed with resources that are enough for peaceful and thriving existence of citizens; those lacking resources turned into being singapore and switzerland, all backed by judicious decision-making of domestic leaders.

the rest was accomplished by globalization which enabled easy and fast movement of goods, services, capital and labour. this globalization, however, has now breached its justifiable threshold.

it is then upon individual nations to cater to the needs of their inhabitants, to exploit the resources available for the common good of all and to develop an environment of social and economic well-being.

it is this duty, when left unheeded and undelivered, that forced movement of citizens to other nations, in an exceedingly unjustified number that was counter-productive to rights of original inhabitants. similar to how we care for aboriginals and their rights over the land they have lived on and resources that they have used.

it is then not the newly elected president of the united states, donald trump, who stands liable for the present state of affairs in geopolitical landscape. he was elected democratically, on people’s will.

it is rather the failed governments of underdeveloped and developing countries that did not fulfil their task of assuring economic wellbeing of their citizens. had they been responsive to the needs of their people, migration would have been restricted to rational numbers.

the nationalistic fervor prevalent today is thus a rebalancing of past and present mistakes. this will not end with the outgoing of trump or anyone else, it will only recede post-correction of flaws.

individual nations have to start accepting liability to ably serve their citizens.