The nations of today are divided geographically by a variety of different boundaries, real or imaginary, physical, political, religious, or even arbitrary. But, how did nations appear originally? One important first step seems to have been the transition from families of hunter-gatherers to families of agrarians. A popular view was that this occurred when primitive people had acquired enough knowledge of plants to be able to grow them under control in a fixed locale. More recent research suggests another mechanism.

Apparently so-called primitive nomads were much more knowledgeable about plants than were the later settlers. Nomads wandered because there was no need to stay in one place. There was room for all, a virtual garden of Eden. The Romanies, and some native Americans, still take the view that this earth was made for walking, not owning. There was room for all, until the population of particular areas expanded to such an extent that, on cresting the next hill, the wanderers could find others coming from the other direction. Alternatively, on returning seasonally to a particular place, expecting to harvest an unattended crop, they found that others had beaten them to it.

There was then little choice but to lay claim to some territory. The settlers lost much of their knowledge of nature and how to survive in the wild. Survival now needed a switch from technique to technology. These new-born nations were first obliged to work to survive, then as adjacent populations expanded, to fight to survive. The continuing pressure of population growth is even now causing nations to evolve. The People’s Republic of China has been taking drastic steps to control its population. The USA once cried, "Give us your poor...."; not today. What about the Vietnam boat people, or refugees from the former Yugoslavia, or the Hutus and Tutsis? There is no room at the inn! This Christian allusion offers no help. No deity is about to solve the problem by allowing Armageddon, the supposed final struggle between good and evil. It is for the governments of nations of the world collectively to address such problems. Pontius Pilate was a saintly visionary by comparison with the blind eyes turned by many governments today. Before we speculate on the rôle of government, however, it would be as well to decide what a nation should be.

Today’s nations have largely been formed as a hierarchy of competing factions. Family members competed among themselves for status and property, but co-operated when competing against other families. Ties of blood, this is appropriately called. It usually involved letting a lot of blood. Groups of families joined forces to compete with other similar groups. Eventually some natural boundary led these ever expanding families, tribes, or groups, to call themselves a nation. A central government was formed which took on the task of controlling the competition with other such nations, letting its own inhabitants get on with their internal squabbling "in peace!". The history of the British Isles over the past 2000 years fits this model only too well.

I would prefer to redevelop the concept of Nationhood from a co-operative, rather than a competitive start. Let us begin, as before, with the family. Both technique and technology allow prospective parents today to decide whether to try to have children. Every child, therefore, when born, should be a wanted child, a respected human being. If that could be achieved, families would be focuses of respect and co-operation. Sets of internally co-operative families would find it easy to co-operate with other families, and sets of families, and sets of sets of families, and so on until some natural boundary were reached.

The boundary might be a physical boundary, or a communications boundary because of language differences, or a cultural boundary, for historical reasons. It might even be a flexible notional boundary, of which more later. Nevertheless, wherever the line is drawn, there would be no fundamental need to regard other such nations as competitors. A nation, therefore, would be a collection of people, each of which believes of themselves, and each other: "I’m OK, you’re OK".

If you are puzzled by the term "notional boundary", let me elaborate. Two thousand years ago around the Mediterranean there developed the concept "Civus Romanus Sum". You did not have to live in Rome to be a Roman citizen. More recently there have been European Empires where similar concepts were extant. To a considerable degree, however, there was still a territorial element. Territory far from the notional citizenship had been conquered or annexed. Its citizens then may have become citizens of the Empire.

The world is changing fast. Even my concept of the evolution of a co-operating nation may be obsolescent before it has ever begun. Businesses are multinational. Communications are world-wide and instant. The Internet is growing like Topsy. Because of deep seated national rivalries, it may not yet be practicable, but I foresee the day when anyone anywhere could be a citizen of any "nation", which may or may not have a territorial base.

This would make a major contribution to resolving such currently intractable problems as those in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Israel, Palestine, the former Yugoslavia, Kashmir, Kurdistan, and such like. The list seems to grow daily. Take the Irish problem, for example. People could remain living exactly where there are but could choose to which nation they belong. They would then hold the corresponding passport, and pay their "national" taxes to the corresponding government, for such things as pensions, allowances, and benefits, and would have a "right of abode" and pay their "locale" taxes for local services to the region where they actually live.

In practice today, some wealthy people achieve something similar, although they may have been seeking a tax haven rather than a new nationality. Why not let all who wish to seek a new citizenship apply to a nation of their choice. Each nation would need acceptance criteria. They would become more akin to mutual corporations with shareholders. New nations may even appear. No territory need be permanently involved at all. Several "nations’ governments" might even share the same capital city. There may be diplomatic verbal arguments amongst them, but it would take fighting of the streets. There would be no territory to fight for. Wouldn’t that be worth fighting for?!

View my guestbook