Introduction
Nation building in Europe was an object peculiar to each country.
In order to understand the idea of nation building and its history in European States, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of a nation. Some scholars define a state as a community with the monopoly of legitimate use of force in a specific territory. In view of this definition, nation building may be defined as the process of integrating the efforts of citizens within the state. Additionally, it can be viewed as the process of expanding citizenry and giving them a right to participate in the political decisions of the day. There are other modern definitions of nation building, however, this particular essay will focus on the former mentioned definition as this is particularly relevant to the European revolutions. The similarities and differences of three European nations; UK, France and Russia, will be analyzed and a conclusion made. (Mason, 2004)
Similarities between the UK, France and Russia’s nation building efforts
After the 1707 Union, Britain had to deal with several uprisings. In the mid eighteenth century, the American colonists refused to pay taxes to the British. They garnered support from the French and began the American Revolution in 1775. This led to the independence of the Americans and marked Britain’s interests in Africa and Asia. The French were also interested in colonialism, however, their reasons behind these interests were quite different. The Britain were mostly interested in the colonies for trade while the French wanted to expand their cultural supremacy. This latter issue was the reason why the French wanted to convert the ways of life of their respective citizens.
Britain began dominating most territories of the world and France tried to the same but was not able to reach Britain’s level. France became a force to reckon with under Napoleon’s rule. The French empire had threatened to take over British colonies and also to attack the British empire directly.
Similarly, Russian were also under threat from foreign intervention. However, their case was different because the UK was able to overcome French forces yet Russia could not overcome the Bolsheviks. The Russians formed a coalition of two different factions; these were the moderate socialists and the liberals. Due to the differences in ideologies between these two groups, their polices failed to work. This left Russia susceptible to foreign attack thus facilitating the seizure of power by a communist group known as the Bolsheviks in the year 1917.
Besides this challenge, Britain was also undergoing a lot of religious and political tensions within its borders. Great Britain was in the process of integrating Ireland as part of its citizenry. However, this merger was based on religious standings. The British monarch and his parliament were largely Protestants and they did not want the Irish to send Catholic representatives to parliament. This was quite unfair because almost ninety percent of the population in Ireland was Roman Catholic. These religious tensions affected the Union of Great Britain and Ireland after 1800. Similarly, Russia was facing it own internal problems. Many peasants in the mid eighteenth century were opposed to abolition of serfdom that had occurred during the year 1861. Consequently, many citizens felt the need for a revolution in order to show their increasing discontent with the polices of the Russian government. (Bardhan, 2005)
The French were also undergoing their own share of religious conflicts. Perhaps their depiction of religious tensions was the worst among these three European countries. In the sixteenth century, the French wars of Religion were some of the worst in the continent. These tensions were mostly between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants with the latter managing to garner support from other countries such as the German and the Spanish.
In the beginning of the nineteenth century, the French under Napoleon Bonaparte grew to become the most influential army in Europe. However, the UK still dominated the economic sector. Consequently, France wanted to introduce the continental system in order to exclude the UK from this union and also in order to achieve dominance in Europe. However, this arrangement did not work. This battle for supremacy was an issue that determined the latter two country’s expansion strategies.
There were still some rising tensions between the people if Ireland and Great Britain in the early twentieth century this eventually saw the birth of the Unionists and the nationalists. These tensions continued even several years later. At that same time, the UK decided to let go of most of its colonies such as India and New Zealand. However, these nations were still part of the common wealth nations. The latter organization gave Britain a chance to voice their complaints to former colonies and the same privilege was also granted to these respective colonies.
The French also underwent a similar experience within their colonies, they had to surrender to the colonies thus giving them authority to govern themselves. (Tilly, 1993)
It should be noted that the UK lost its positions as a major super power after the second world war. This war drained its economy and the UK was required to get loans from the US in order to survive. Consequently, the country could no longer control the colonies in the mid twentieth century. This was the reason why the country gave most of them up and granted them independence. The same thing can be said about the Soviet Union (encompasses Russia). They had participated in the Second World War but the repercussion on their economy was too heavy to bear. These were some of the problems plaguing the Russia after the war
deaths of close to twenty seven million citizens
destruction of about one thousand seven hundred towns
Ravages form the Germans
Destruction of Jews in areas occupied by Germans
All these issues led to the subsequent crumbling of the Soviet’s economy and social institutions.
The process of nation building for Britain continued in the 1960s and 70s where the country began building numerous infrastructural facilities. The country began modernizing and eventually established. However, in the nineteen eighties, Britain was again faced with an economic downturn. Most of the issues that had made the country strong in the past began falling apart; these included industrialization and employment. But in the nineteen eighties, it was back on its feet again. (Francisco, 2000)
All the latter three countries had one thing in common during their nation building strategies; they all participated in the first world war and they were on one team. During the First world war, Britain was not well prepared militarily, consequently, their role as French allies was not very beneficial to the latter state. However, the Soviet Union was crucial in the war against the Germans and their allies. There were numerous battles fought in France and this led to the death and destruction of many. However, after the war, both France and Britain shared the spoils after defeating Germany. Germany was forced to acknowledge that it was fully responsible for the war and had to denounce their colonies to France and Britain. Consequently, these two countries benefited from the First World War.
Differences between Russia, the UK and France’s nation building efforts
The United Kingdom of Britain and Scotland came into force at the beginning of the eighteenth century (1707). At that time, England wanted to include Scotland as part of its citizenry for a number of reasons. They needed an ally against other opponents in Europe, they also needed more Protestants under their government. Scotland on the other hand agreed to sign a Union treaty so as to salvage their poor economic situation. Additionally, the Scots had been politically challenged since they had not established their own empire.
In contrast, Russia was not formed as result of a Union between two sovereign states. The country was largely characterized with a number of expansions with one dominating force; Moscow through the Grand Duchy Empire. This occurred during the eighteenth century. Most of the decisions made at that time were largely based on the fact that Russia was separated from other parts of Europe. (Parker, 2000)
The Russians were essentially different from the UK due to the fact the Russia experienced a revolution in the year 1917. The following reasons caused this war
Discontent with autocratic rule
Weariness of the world war
Poor economic performance
Formation of certain factions within their country
The country had been involved in the world war, this had taken up a large portion of their resources, and they were economically drained. The tsars had taken over power and none of them wanted to relinquish it. This autocratic rule only served to aggravate the people of Russia. They wanted to participate in government and contribute towards some of the decisions made within their government. Additionally, some of the reforms made by the government were not acceptable to the common man such as the 1906 constitutional reform and the Stolypin reforms. Even some of the positive changes made by the government of the day were not fully accepted by the people. The issue of a revulsion was unique to Russia as the same did not occur in Britain.
Another issue that was peculiar to Russia was the fact that they were swallowed up by the Soviet Union between 1922 to 1991. This empire was largely founded on the socialism ideology. This principle was manifested in a large number of ways i.e. through their economy and also through their cultural expressions. (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2005)
France also underwent a French Revolution. This occurred in the eighteenth century and was caused by a number of political reasons that were quite different from Russia. At that time, the nation was under severe financial distress. Its ruler, King Louis the sixteenth wanted to tax some nobles. This did not go down well with them and marked a series of separations between the government. There were some insurgencies that followed in subsequent years due to differences between these two differing groups. Such events were largely unique to the French.
While the United Kingdom’s politics were largely governed by the monarch, Russia on the other hand was ruled by Communist dictators. This went on for a whooping sixty years and it repressed society in general. The Soviet Union had a one party system that disallowed any form of opposition. Additionally, the country had to tackle bad leadership from individuals such as Stalin. Stalin had established a rule in which all peasants had to surrender their crops to the government. This caused serious economic decline and the death of many. On the other hand, it also caused an increase in urban population. This dictator tried to suppress the voices of his people by executions on false accounts of crimes. No such atrocities were recorded in the United Kingdom or even in the republic of France. (Almond, 2004)
Conclusion
National building pathways in UK, France and Russia were totally unique to those specific countries. However, there were some similarities. For instance both Britain and France had colonies, also all the three countries took part in the first world war and benefited from it. Besides these, there were prevailing internal conflicts in Russia and France that caused revolutions. There were also distinct differences between these three countries in national building. For instance, Russia recorded more dictatorships than any of the other countries due to its communist ideals. Additionally, Britain was formed after signing a treaty between England and Scotland. On the other hand, Russia or the Soviet Union were formed as a result of foreign invasions.
Reference
Almond, G. et al. (2004): European Politics Today; Blackwell publishers
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. (2005): Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Cambridge University Press
Bardhan, P. (2005): Scarcity, Conflicts, and Cooperation, MA: MIT Press
Francisco, R. (2000): The Politics of Regime Transitions. Boulder, CO: Westview
Mason, D. (2004): Caught in the Crossfire: Revolution, Repression and the Rational Peasant, MD: Rowman and Littlefired
Parker, D. (2000): Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West, 1560-1991. New York: Routledge, 2000.
Tilly, C. (1993): European Revolutions, 1492-1992, MA: Blackwell
