> Or are you trying to argue that nationalism is necessary for a country to transition into a democracy? I'd argue that nationalism is a requisite step for a d

> Or are you trying to argue that nationalism is necessary for a country to transition into a democracy? I'd argue that nationalism is a requisite step for a diverse country, including multiple ethnic or cultural groups within its borders, to become a democracy. (And I'm sure I'm cribbing an old idea in the field here) It seems like there's little basis for common action without a supergroup which includes, binds, and restrains all otherwise oppositional parties inside a legal framework. I'd argue that's why uni-party "democracies" tend to be so fragile. When the party becomes the state, then opponents of the party can only be opponents of the state.