Nationalism is often considered an inherent feature of political life, but the concept of “nation-state” only took root as a political idea during the French Revolution. Prior to 1789, loyalty had always been owed to monarchs, feudal lords, and religious authorities. The idea of a collective of equals, bound together by common interests, language and culture was new—and deeply revolutionary. As Maximilien Robespierre famously declared, “Louis must die because the Patrie must live.” This sentiment defined the urgency and fervour of the revolutionary cause: the creation of the nation-state required the sacrifice of the old regime.

As revolutionaries took power, they faced immediate challenges. France was economically unstable, embroiled in foreign conflicts, and fractured by internal differences. The creation of a cohesive national identity would not be easy.  Many French people identified more strongly with their localities than the broader concept of France. The peasantry’s world and identity were defined by their village, not abstract notions of a nation-state.

France’s linguistic diversity complicated matters further. Most people spoke a regional language and dialect; the use of standard French was limited to a metropolitan elite. The vision of a unified France seemed almost unattainable. How do you build a nation when those you seek to unite don’t see themselves as part of one?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose ideas heavily influenced the revolutionaries, recognized this problem well before the revolution. In his treatise on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, he observed a disorganized, internally divided state was doomed to be weak and easily conquered. To survive, Rousseau argued, Poland needed to be infused with a sense of national spirit—a collective identity transcending regional and cultural differences. He believed education was the key. In Rousseau’s vision, national institutions would instil pride in the nation’s history, culture and people, transforming subjects into true citizens.

The revolutionaries took Rousseau’s ideas to heart, recognizing they needed to create a sense of collective identity grounded in the idea of the nation-state for France as a political entity to survive. They embarked on a project of nationalization, aiming to forge a common identity transcending local loyalties and regional languages. They turned to education, national holidays and state-sponsored art to build a unified national consciousness.

The creation of a national education system was among the revolutionaries’ most significant achievements. They established schools to teach children the values of the revolution and the importance of the nation-state. Arts and culture were brought into service of the national cause. The Louvre royal palace was transformed into a national museum, symbolizing the French people's cultural pride and heritage. Metropolitan French became the official language of instruction, and efforts were made to suppress regional dialects. The Marseillaise national anthem, composed in 1792, calls on the French people to rise up and fight for the nation, casting enemies as impure blood that must be spilled for its glory.

Nationalism Beyond France

Although it largely failed to bring about a stable, unified nation-state, French revolutionary ideas reverberated across the globe. The notion of a nation-state influenced both colonial independence movements and European national unification efforts. The word “nationalism” itself was coined in the 1790s to describe the emerging political movement.

The idea surged across Latin America, beginning in Haiti and flowing through the Brazilian colony and wars of liberation led by Simón Bolívar, who mobilized armies of indigenous and mixed-race populations to forge new nations from the remnants of Spanish provinces: Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. Similar upheavals birthed Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay. These revolutions were not purely nationalist, but drew from the principle of popular sovereignty—a vision blending liberal ideals with national aspirations bearing the unmistakable imprint of the French Revolution.

In Europe, nationalism gained a foothold in Greece and Italy, where unification movements underscored the power of this idea. Italian nationalists, driven by a desire to consolidate the fragmented Italian states, found their most vocal advocate in Giuseppe Mazzini, who envisioned nations not only as distinct entities but as rational actors capable of forming coalitions—such as his imagined "United States of Europe"—that could foster international peace.

This vision required a foundational shift in allegiance. "Your first duties are to humanity,” Mazzini told Italians. “You are men before you are citizens." Yet, he argued, achieving global unity required building strong, cohesive nations. Similar political philosophies found echoes in the ideas of Woodrow Wilson and the creation of institutions like Nato, the UN and EU.

But optimism for peaceful internationalism clashed with the realities of nationalism’s divisive tendencies. Territorial disputes and cultural heterogeneity within borders often sparked conflict. Rousseau's earlier prescriptions for Poland highlighted these challenges. What of those within Poland's borders who did not identify as Poles, who spoke other languages, or who lived in culturally distinct regions? Should they accept Polish language and culture, or fight for independence? Similarly, should Poles living outside the nation's borders—such as those in Prussia—advocate for annexation to unite their people?

These dilemmas played out across Europe and beyond as nationalism spread, often turning idealistic aspirations for unity into conflicts over territory, identity and sovereignty. Such disputes revealed nationalism’s paradoxical nature: while it could inspire solidarity within, it frequently bred animosity without. The hope of nationalism achieving international peace seemed increasingly naïve.

This dynamic gave rise to what could be termed "the nationalism of persecuted peoples", Zionism being perhaps the outstanding example. Theodor Herzl linked the plight of Jewish people to their lack of a nation. While persecution of those perceived as foreign is as old as history, Herzl argued such discrimination had taken on a national dimension. "Every nation in which Jews live is either covertly or openly anti-Semitic," he wrote. His solution was the establishment of a Jewish nation, ultimately culminating in the creation of Israel.

As nationalism entrenched itself further during the 19th and early 20th centuries, many nations sought to solidify their identity through “Rousseauian” programs. These initiatives aimed to instil a sense of belonging, pride, and solidarity among citizens. By the late 19th century, the US had implemented a national Pledge of Allegiance in schools to cultivate loyalty to the nation. Across the globe, similar measures were adopted to unify diverse populations under the banner of the nation-state, reinforcing both its power and challenges in a rapidly modernizing world.

As nationalism spread through Europe, it became increasingly tied to Romanticism, a movement that emphasized emotion over reason, intuition over logic. Nowhere did Romantic nationalism take root more powerfully than in Germany where it was transformed into something almost mystical, linking it to notions of cultural destiny and the Volk (the people). This fervour would evolve into the ideological foundation for Fascism—an extreme, destructive form of nationalism whose focus on an idealized, unified nation subordinated all else to the myth of national greatness.

Technology and its key role on nation building

The emergence of the modern nation-state would be unthinkable without transformative technological revolutions. In the 15^th century, Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press brought about an unprecedented democratization of knowledge, enabling ideas to spread widely and rapidly. The ideas of the Enlightenment, serving as the intellectual foundation for the concept of the nation, would have remained confined to small circles of scholars and elites but for the power of the printing press. Nationalist propaganda, circulated through pamphlets, newspapers and books, helped cultivate a sense of shared identity. Moreover, standardization of language—a critical factor in creating cohesive national cultures—became achievable as printed materials reached broader audiences.

The Industrial Revolution ushered in new forms of connectivity and state control in the 19^th century. Railways, steamships and telegraphy enabled governments to project authority over vast territories. Centralized administrations emerged, bolstered by their newfound ability to govern effectively across sprawling domains. Sovereignty, once an abstract concept, became a practical reality as national leaders gained tools to enforce borders and maintain order.

Urbanization was another factor in nation-building. Rural populations migrated to cities, where they encountered people from diverse regions within the same state. This convergence fostered a sense of belonging to a larger entity—a nation with shared goals and aspirations. Historian Benedict Anderson referred to nations as "imagined communities", where shared symbols and narratives, made possible through technological innovation, allowed millions to feel connected to one another despite never meeting face-to-face.

The Arab World and Nationalism

The concept of the Umma—the global community of Muslims as the sole legitimate collective identity—presented a significant obstacle to the rise of the nation-state in the Arab World. For centuries, Muslims had perceived themselves as belonging to a unified spiritual and social body that transcended geography and politics. The emergence of nation-states, with their artificial borders and fragmented loyalties, clashed profoundly with this deeply ingrained sense of unity and shared destiny.

The emergence of Arab nation-states coincided with the wave of independence movements sweeping across the Global South in the latter half of the 20th century. The modern idea of the nation-state with defined borders and institutional permanence had been virtually absent before that. Only Egypt and Morocco bore some semblance of political continuity, yet these were far from modern states. Both were governed by dynastic rulers that exercised power over loosely defined territories. Their authority rested on the legitimacy of their rule rather than the cohesion of the land or its people. When these dynasties weakened or fell, so too did their political structures.

Independence from colonial rule brought self-governance but also exposed the region to a host of challenges. New state borders arbitrarily drawn by colonial powers ignored intricate webs of ethnic, tribal, and sectarian allegiance that had long defined the region. Agreements like the infamous 1916 Franco-British Sykes-Picot Accord created artificial boundaries without regard to historical realities. New national identities were imposed on populations with little in common, leading to a volatile mix of resentment and division.

The post-colonial state of Iraq put Sunni and Shia Arabs, Kurds and other minorities under one national banner. Similar divisions were evident in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, where diverse ethnic and religious groups were bound into single political entities. In North Africa, borders drawn by colonial administrators sliced through tribal lands, disrupting historic alliances and setting the stage for future conflict.

The repercussions of these borders are felt to this day. Some Arab nations struggle to foster a unified sense of identity, while others have collapsed or teeter on the brink of collapse. Iraq, beset by sectarian violence, has seen Kurdish aspirations for autonomy threaten its unity. Libya, destabilized by the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, devolved into a fractured state ruled by competing factions. Syria faces similar entropic forces following the fall of the Assad government. Yemen’s civil war highlights how tribal, religious and regional divides can undermine efforts to build a cohesive state.

The challenges of uniting disparate populations within borders drawn by foreign powers are daunting. “The Middle East’s state system, imposed by colonial fiat, has always struggled to reconcile the aspirations and identities of its people,” observed historian Rashid Khalidi. The colonial legacy of arbitrary boundaries, coupled with the absence of strong national institutions, continues to haunt the Arab world, leaving behind a patchwork of states grappling with instability, fragmented identities, and, in many cases, open conflict.