Nation-Building Challenges of the Post-Independence State of Eritrea and Its Regional Domino Effect

1. Conceptual FrameworkThere are contending arguments on challenges of current Eritrean national selfdetermination and nation-building process. These debates look at foundations of Eritrean nationalism and where it converges and diverges with traditional European nationalism and with African nationalist principles. This paper looks into origin, evolution, and impacts of Eritrean nationalism on post-independence State of Eritrea and subsequent challenges that new state is facing in institutionalizing smooth nation-building process and viable multi-ethnic state.In an attempt to find root of Eritrean nationalism, it is worth identifying convergences and divergences of Eritrean nationalism to traditional nationalism, in which nation is prerequisite for statehood (Gellner 1983), and African nationalism which lays its pillars on common oppression and colonialization by European colonizers, and territorial feature of national struggle against colonialism.The philosophical and political features in discussions of nation-building are basically centered on concept of nation, mainly in Europe (Smith 2005). But there is no consensus on very concept of nation and its constitutive elements. According to Levine (2007,155),nation refers to a community of people joined together by common descent and common culture. It represents homogeneous people sharing common language, religion, historical myths, and common (155). Joseph Stalin (1929) also defined nation as a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on basis of common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in common culture.The organizing ideology of nation is nationalism. Nationalism in Europe was rooted in idea that every nation has right to government (Lawrence 2005). It was based on idea that a state should be founded in nation and nation should be constituted as state, i.e., nation and state should be congruent (34). It is theory of political legitimacy which requires that ethnic boundaries should not cut across political ones, and in particular, that ethnic boundaries within given state...should not separate power-holders from rest (Gellner 1983,1). Moreover, its appeal was and democratic, and proclaimed sovereign right of people to determine their own destinies, in states of their own, if that was what they desired (Smith 1998,1).Giuseppe Mazzini, in his book A Cosmopolitanism of Nations as translated by Stefano Recchia (2009, 50), defined nation and nation-building in terms of political equality and popular consent expressed in form of equality, liberty, and association. He underlined that only these three elements together can constitute genuine nation. By nation he meant the entirety of citizens who speak same language and are associated, under equal enjoyment of civil and political rights, for common purpose of developing and progressively perfecting all social forces and their activity (50). He further argued that language, territory, and ethnicity are pre-political factors - probably necessary but not sufficient for emergence of selfdetermining political units, and certainly unable in and of themselves to legitimate national independence. The nation is not simply territory that ought to be strengthened by enlarging its size nor is it just collection of men who speak same language and follow initiative of single leader. It is instead an organic whole held together by unity of goals and common efforts. Therefore, nation is concept that stands for Unity: Unity of principles, of purpose, and of rights that is only kind of unity able to associate multitude of men and transform them into homogenous whole. Without it, there is no nation, but only crowd (14). Mazzini gave nation an essentially political meaning as commonwealth or government by people, based on written constitution (14). …