Constitutional patriotism () 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. 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. It is particularly relevant in post-national democratic states in which multiple cultural and ethnic groups coexist. The concept was influential in the development of the European Union, serving as a foundational principle for Europeanism as a basis for multiple countries belonging to a supranational union.
Theoretical origins Constitutional patriotism has been interpreted in a variety of ways, providing a range of positions. On one end, there is the vision that the concept is a new means of identification to a supranational entity; as cited in Ingram (1996). while on the other end, there is a focus on understanding the attachment in terms of freedom over ethnicity. It is largely contested whether constitutional patriotism is supposed to be read as a replacement for nationality or traditional identity (or as a balance between the two), allowing for the "transient account of identity consistent with the diversity, hybridity, and pluralism of our modern world." There are also multiple opinions as to whether a prior group identity is necessary before a moral, political one is achieved.
The concept of constitutional patriotism originates from Post-World War II West Germany, which has been described as "a 'half-nation' with a sense of deeply compromised nationality on account of their Nazi past." In this context, constitutional patriotism was a protective and state-centered means of dealing with the memory of the Holocaust and militancy of the Third Reich. The concept can be traced to the liberal philosopher Karl Jaspers, who advocated the idea of dealing with German political guilt after the war with "collective responsibility". His student, Dolf Sternberger explicitly introduced the concept on the thirtieth birthday of the Federal Republic (1979). However, it is strongly associated with the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas.
Sternberger Sternberger saw constitutional patriotism as a protective means to ensure political stability to maintain peace in Germany in the aftermath of the Second World War. He framed the concept as a way for citizens to identify with the democratic state in order to defend itself against internal and external threats. Thus, with the emphasis on state defense and protection, Sternberger linked constitutional patriotism to the concept of militant democracy. He drew on Aristotelianism, arguing that patriotism had traditionally not been linked to sentiments towards the nation. Constitutional patriotism is a development of Sternberger's earlier notion of Staatsfreundschaft (friendship towards the state).
Habermas
Habermas played a key role in developing, contextualizing, and spreading the idea of constitutional patriotism to English-speaking countries. Like Sternberger, Habermas viewed constitutional patriotism as a conscious strengthening of political principles, however, "where Sternberger's patriotism had centered on democratic institutions worth defending, Habermas focused on the public sphere as providing a space for public reasoning among citizens."
Post-war West Germany provided the context for Habermas's theories. During the historian's dispute of the late 1980s, Habermas fought against the normalization of "exceptional historical events" (the rise of Nazism and the events of the Holocaust). Constitutional patriotism was Habermas's suggestion as a way to unify West Germans. As he was concerned by the shaping of German identity through attempts to return to traditional national pride, he argued for Germans to "move away from the notion of ethnically homogeneous nation-states." Thus, it became an "inner counterpart to the bond of the Federal Republic to the West; it was not only an advance in respect to traditional German nationalism, but also a step toward overcoming it." To Habermas, post-national German identity was dependent on understanding and overcoming its past, subjecting traditions to criticism. This historical memory was essential to constitutional patriotism.
Habermas believed that a nationalistic collective identity was no longer feasible in a globalized modern world. He also believed scorned ethnic cohesion as part of nineteenth-century nationalism to be irrelevant in a new age of international migration. His theory was therefore grounded in the idea that "the symbolic unity of the person that is produced and maintained through self-identification depends... on belonging to the symbolic reality of a group, on the possibility of localizing oneself in the world of this group. A group identity that transcends the life histories of individuals is thus a precondition of the identity of the individual." as cited in Cronin (2003) In a disenchanted world, individual and collective identities were no longer formed by internalizing nationalist values but by becoming aware of "what they want and what others expect from them in the light of moral concerns" from an impartial position.
He argued that the European nation-state was successful because "it made possible a new mode of legitimation based on a new, more abstract form of social integration." Rather than a consensus on just values, Habermas believed the intricacies of modern societies must rely on "a consensus on the procedure for the legitimate enactment of laws and the legitimate exercise of power." as cited in Müller 2007
Current discussion The theory of constitutional patriotism today focuses on multiple potential outcomes. Jan-Werner Müller follows in Habermas's footsteps but works to broaden constitutional patriotism within a universal framework. Craig Calhoun offers a competing framework that reflects the ideas of cosmopolitanism. Jon Erik Fossum proposes that the dynamic between these two opposing ideas are inherent to constitutional patriotism.
Müller
Jan-Werner Müller is one of the leading theorists of constitutional patriotism, having written more than 10 publications in two languages on the topic. Building upon his predecessors, Müller advocates for constitutional patriotism as a unification option, especially in diverse, liberal democracies. His ideas center on political attachment, democratic legitimacy, and citizenship in a context that rejects nationalism and addresses multicultural states, such as the European Union. He provides some of the only extensive analysis on Sternberger and Habermas's original theories and has developed and improved accessibility of the idea to the English-speaking world. He is known for "liberating it from Habermas's specific conception and opening up a more general discussion about constitutional patriotism," so it can be universally applied. Müller offers some of the only modern and extensive responses to criticism of constitutional patriotism. Müller's ideas place constitutional patriotism in a broader context and have expanded its potential to be applied in places outside of Germany and the European Union.
Müller grounds his arguments for constitutional patriotism in the idea that political theory should supply citizens with the tools to rethink their commonalities or unifying features. He argues that, while constitutional patriotism is distinct from liberal nationalism and cosmopolitanism, the best moral attributes of these theories can be combined to form a plausible and appealing style of political allegiance. However, where liberal nationalism and cosmopolitanism fall short, constitutional patriotism "theorizes the civic bond in a way that is more plausible sociologically and that leads to more liberal political outcomes." Similarly, it is a theory "oriented both toward stability and civic empowerment."
Calhoun Craig Calhoun sees constitutional patriotism as the solidifying of a more general cosmopolitanism. He notices that democracy is composed of more than political culture and suggests that a democracy has many more externalities. Habermas acknowledges this and questions whether or not "there exists a functional equivalent for the fusion of the nation of citizens with the ethnic nation." However, Calhoun argues that Habermas falsely assumes ethnic nationalism and nationalism to be interchangeable. Calhoun says constitutional patriotism is a common project shared among all citizens, which is molded by a state's public discourse and culture. Consequently, he proposes a revision to the constitutional patriotism theory and suggests that "the notion of constitution as legal framework needs to be complemented by the notion of constitution as the creation of concrete social relationships: of bonds of mutual commitment forged in shared action, of institutions, and of shared modalities of practical action."
Fossum John Erik Fossum, working off Habermas's definition and ideas, argues that two opposing ideas, particularism and universalism, are inherent in constitutional patriotism and affect allegiance. The pull of these two ideas is referred to as thickness. Theorists such as Sternberger, Habermas, Müller, and Calhoun each have their own degree of thickness. In order to measure the thickness of allegiance in a type of constitutional patriotism, Fossum examines three factors: exit, voice, and loyalty. Exit is evaluated on how easy it is for a person to enter or exit the group and therefore has strong bearings on diversity. Fossum believes that it is crucial to pay attention to exit and to a nation's historical memory in order to understand thickness. This is because historical memory helps to unite communities and to preserve their sense of identity. In nationalism, exit is ignored because either shared history, ethnicity, or both bind people together. In constitutional patriotism, there is some room for exit, the extent of which depends on the conception. Voice is defined as each citizens' relation and conceptualization of the theory. Finally, loyalty is defined as the allegiance to the state's culture and constitution.
Fossum's Two Conceptions of Constitutional PatriotismNumbers denote decreasing importance Constitutional Patriotism 1 Constitutional Patriotism 2 ExitModerate "cosmopolitan openness" for persons and arguments. Exit provisions only from communicative community, not available to territorial entities. (3)High "cosmopolitan openness" for persons and arguments. Provisions for sub-unit exit from the polity, in compliance with democratic norms. (2) VoiceRights to ensure individual autonomy. Communication aimed at fostering agreement on common norms: pragmatic, ethical, and moral. Communication to foster solidarity and sense of community. (2)Rights to ensure individual autonomy. Communication aimed at reaching working agreements. Communication to foster trust in procedures and rights: "negative voice". (1) Loyalty Positive endorsement of culturally embedded constitutional norms. Positive identification with the polity. (1)Ambivalence toward any form of positive allegiance. Systemic endorsement through critique. (3)
Examples The following are commonly used as examples of applied constitutional patriotism.
Country examples Spain