Katana VentraIP

Constitutional patriotism

Constitutional patriotism (German: Verfassungspatriotismus) is the idea that people should form a political attachment to the norms and values of a pluralistic liberal democratic constitution rather than to a national culture or cosmopolitan society.[1][2][3][4] It is associated with post-nationalist identity because, while it is seen as a similar concept to nationalism, the attachment is based on the constitution rather than on a national culture. In essence, it is an attempt to re-conceptualize group identity with a focus on the interpretation of citizenship as a loyalty that goes beyond individuals' ethnocultural identification. Theorists believe this to be more defensible than other forms of shared commitment in a diverse modern state with multiple languages and group identities.[5] It is particularly relevant in post-national democratic states in which multiple cultural and ethnic groups coexist.[4] It was influential in the development of the European Union and a key to Europeanism as a basis for multiple countries belonging to a supranational union.[6]

Not to be confused with Civic nationalism.

Criticisms[edit]

Critics have argued that loyalty to democratic values is too weak to preserve a deep bond to unify a state.[64][65] This is because it is missing a key feature of individual identity for modern subjects—nationality, which in turn provides national identity "essential for realizing important liberal democratic values such as individual autonomy and social equality."[66] They believe national identity is the base on which political morality can be achieved.[67] In response to this, it has been questioned whether or not the nation should be responsible for the unity of a state.[4]


Vito Breda argued that Religious pluralism curtails reason in constitutional patriotism.[68] Specifically, two issues arise: that some may not be able to accept a secular and rational morality and that some may prioritize religious beliefs.[68] "By inserting the protection of pluralism, perhaps modeled on the liberal safeguard of freedom of faith, constitution patriotism might gain much cognitive strength."[68]


Critics have also argued that the theory focuses too much on a "domestic German agenda", or is "too specifically German".[12][69][70][71] Essentially, its principles are only applicable in its original context: post-war West Germany. Especially when talking about Habermas's original theory, too much is attributed to a domestic German agenda and Habermas's concept of the public sphere to be applied in other, nonspecific situations.[12][69] However, while it is argued that constitutional patriotism is too German, it is also criticized from the other, almost opposite, direction. Political theorists deem constitutional patriotism to be too abstract.[1][12] It is argued that the concept lacks specificity on a global scale and has not been thought out enough to be applied to actual cases. This parallels Müller's acknowledgements that "there have been relatively few attempts to define the concept clearly" and "there has been significant disagreement as to whether [it] is a political value in itself or a means to ensure other values."[22]

"Too universalist": Critics often claim that constitutional patriotism is neither specific enough in providing a reason as to why citizens should follow their own constitution over someone else's nor does it provide motivation.[14] Müller argues instead that constitutional patriotism is not about individuals questioning where they belong, but rather that it is about how they think about their political allegiances within the existing regime.[2]

[4]

Any trace of particularism invalidates universalist aspirations: Critics claim that constitutional patriotism is indistinct from . However, this criticism assumes that pure universalism is possible. As it is not, political allegiances do matter. Additionally, liberal nationalists gravitate toward assimilationist and exclusionary policies to reinforce a sense of national culture, which is against the idea of constitutional patriotism.[2]

liberal nationalism

Too particular: Critics state that the theory is bound to its contextual origins in post-war West Germany.[14] However, all universal norms must have an origin; pointing to these origins is not the same as disproving an argument which is normative.[2]

[4]

Reification: Critics claim that for constitutional patriotism to exist, there must be a concrete constitution, otherwise they will turn to liberal nationalism. In response, Müller claims that the written existence of a constitution is not as important as a "constitutional culture", which has liberal democratic values and norms which are stabilizing to society, yet also can be contested.

[2]

Juridification of politics: Critics state that this theory leads to the understanding that politics is ideally the deliberation of judges. Müller responds that protest groups or civil society can influence governments directly rather than going straight to the courts.

[2]

Constitutional patriotism as a civil religion: Critics argue that constitutional patriotism generates chauvinism and can lead to missions similar to in which traitors to the constitution are persecuted. While these claims are valid, Charles Taylor admits it is "the least dangerous social-political cohesion". More importantly, the norms and values on which constitutional patriotism is based should contain the resources to defend against intolerance.[2][23]

McCarthyism

Dependence on a particular social theory: Critics argue that the theory is too attached to Jürgen Habermas's political thought. However, Müller makes the point that it is important to think of constitutional patriotism as a normatively dependent concept, which is dependent on a broad theory of justice. As these broad theories do not always need to be the same, they may change depending on what meaning for constitution patriotism is desired in a specific context; Habermas does not own the sole view of constitutional patriotism.

[2]

Constitutional patriotism as a form of statist nationalism: Critics state that constitutional patriotism is a form of statist nationalism. Thus, it creates the same problems associated with nationalism, such as political manipulation and irrational loyalty.[73] However, Müller counters this with the argument that constitutional patriotism is best understood as "a set of normative beliefs and commitments." Constitutional patriotism does not advocate for a specific type of government or motivate people to behave a certain way, but rather, is a normative idea based on "sharing political space on fair terms."[23]

[72]

Too "modernist": explains this criticism by stating that constitutional patriotism relies too heavily on existing institutions and is not universally applicable. Müller argues that constitutional patriotism actually allows for a "distancing" from these existing institutions, and nothing about constitutional patriotism is intrinsically "modernist".[23][74]

Thomas Meyer

In response to many of the discussed criticisms, Müller responded with articles in 2006 and 2009, discussing ways in which he feels constitutional patriotism has been misunderstood or objected.

Civic nationalism