Nodia, Ghia. "The Impact of Nationalism". Journal of Democracy, Vol.12, No.4 (2001): 27-34.

Nodia, Ghia. "The Impact of Nationalism". Journal of Democracy, Vol.12, No.4 (2001): 27-34.

• To scholars belonging to constructivist and institutionalist schools of political thought the discrepancies of regime types between post-Soviet states is abnormal and troubling. Despite sharing the same institutions of government and being exposed to the state social and geopolitical trends following independence, there are massive differences between the former Soviet republics (28).
• The author briefly considers alternative suggestions that the economic situation and the proximity to the West determine a country's democratic trajectory, but quickly dismisses this without analysis or inspection of the arguments made on the basis that neither makes the institutionalist flaws less pervasive (28-29).
• The author also examines a cultural argument, that something about being culturally 'Western', which the author, entirely without basis, assumes to mean a state that has a Western form of Christianity as its majority faith, makes a country more prone to democracy. Some evidence exists, as the Baltic States are most democratic, and the Islamic countries of Central Asia and Azerbaijan are the least (29).
• Despite citing from extremely racist sources in the article, the author holds that culture must play a role in determining the role of democracy. While the radical implication of a cultural argument would be that only Western Christians are fit for true democracy, Dr. Nodia asserts that Western traditions are stronger in the West and that Western states would be more likely to adopt such values (30-31).
• Dr. Nodia does reject that idea that some states are culturally fixed as democratic or undemocratic, but suggests that states may only decide to democratize if they feel cultural similarities with other democratic states. The author suggests that Spanish and Portuguese democracy makes the concept less foreign in the Latin world, and Turkish democracy may make democracy seem less foreign to Islam (31).
• Since nationalism, often tinged with feels of cultural superiority, is common in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the author suggests that it can be used to promote application of Western norms. When a nationalism is antagonistic to a non-Western state, that country will democratize and modernize to prove its superiority. Dr. Nodia says that this will not happen if a nation is antagonistic towards a Western country, upon which Western ideas are seen as foreign (32).
• The author asserts that the role of this forms of nationalism in shaping elite attitudes towards their nation's future and their perception of the West and institutions often associated with the West are important factors which then determines the paths of development these elites will pursue (33).
• I cannot stress how weak and shitty this article is. Reading anything close to cultural fundamentalism is distressing enough, but this piece depended entirely upon cultural differences made on broad generalizations. All of the differences in elite attitudes between nations can also be better explained by other factors that do not rely on cultural stereotypes. I would never cite from this article for the opinions therein.