National Nationalism

It is peculiarly poignant that the National Day celebration (technically not a parade – there was not much of a procession to speak of) be held in a stadium (also peculiar that we, unlike many other, albeit older, countries to have a centrally organised and executed concerted celebratory effort) - a place which normally is the site of divisive influence and conflicting interests - since such an event is no doubt one that very dearly holds unity of purpose and co-operation. Perhaps it is to embody a triumph over such discordant courses, but it is probably because a stadium is the only structure that can accommodate so many people in relative (dis)comfort. Though one might be able to read much more into the significance of the stadium as the venue for an event of such great consequence and with such heavy overtones, for example, the closed construction of the stadium as a metaphor for the insular and close-knit attitude with which citizens celebrate the continued existence of the nation together, against 'the others' that could be taken to be everything outside of the stadium, the very essence of National Day to most is the patriotic, even nationalist spirit.

The manifest nature of such a temper would be evident to any spectator at the event; the colours, the cascade of noise and a collective eagerness to rival any (foreign) professional football match. Manifest patriotism, the tendency to overtly display one's patriotic fervour, which, it seems, is most cathartically dispensed during days arbitrarily marked out for that particular purpose because of curious historical coincidence, has always been infectious. It only takes one flag waving to get the rest to start, and only one adventurous voice to begin a chorus to a patriotic song, such that people have no qualms about what they would normally perceive as making a fool of themselves in the spirit of exuberantly expressing the undying commitment that they have to their country, be it whether they actually feel it in their hearts or not. It would be cruel to draw a line from it to drunkenness, but the parallels are already in plain sight. In the litter carpeting the stadium grounds it was difficult to spot even a scrap of a flag amongst the miscellaneous debris, precious as they were, to be brought home and given a treasured spot, having stirred up some unknown feeling that nevertheless was something to be proud of.

Swollen with meaning as the word 'patriotism' is, it could not have only been the sort evoked, and represented by enormous brass bands, beguiling songs and shouting oneself hoarse on catchy slogans. Having at least one essay being written about it every this time of the year, inconspicuous patriotism is one of those things that everyone laments about not having enough of despite it being almost everywhere, so much so that we are convinced that it is what most things are made of. It is no more new to say that saving water is a form of patriotism, and that so is picking up litter, or performing community service and anything else that could be perceived to be in some way or another benefiting the nation. Which would bring us back, unthinkably, to the very roots of what definition we could attempt to peg to patriotism; men have gone to great literary lengths to expound about it, some never returning. Is it love of one's birthplace, the place of childhood's recollections and hopes, dreams and aspirations? Or the place where we would sit and read, enraptured by wonderful tales of great deeds and conquests? Is it love for the carefully bounded, demarcated spot in which a peoples with a collective interest enforced by geographical coincidence happened to reside when historical circumstance corralled them together and bestowed upon a common outlook? Inevitably so, which also leads to the irrevocable linkage of patriotism and militarism, for the love of such boundaries has to mean intent to maintain them as such, and perhaps even to widen them, and by the nature of things, to use martial means to achieve that aim. From then on, the name of patriotism can only be smeared, sometimes with good reason. It is "the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better equipment for the exercise of man-killing than the making of such necessities of life as shoes, clothing, and houses, " as Tolstoy remarked. The senseless fighting over what sometimes cannot even be seen seems terribly futile to most.

Patriotism, as with militarism, makes rather anachronistic an assumption, that the world is divided into various fenced-in areas. Those who have had the fortune of being born on the same particular spot consider themselves better, nobler, grander, and more intelligent than others inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others. Perhaps that is a little anachronistic in itself, because locally, if I were to make that remark, it would be heavily retorted, as our own brand of militarism is only one that seeks to ensure the bottom line of self-defence, and certainly not one of conquest. Indeed, our own brand of patriotism has always been geared towards the guarantee of survival. Still, given that the Law of Natural Selection applies to civilisations and nations, it is difficult to ensure survival without first ensuring superiority.

Accusations fly which allege that patriotism is a mere toy of a government, and the louder its colours, the more gorgeous it is, the better it will appeal to those at who it is targeted at, to turn them into loyal subjects. Such accusations can only be reinforced by the fact that a uni-party parliamentary system here blurs the line between country and government, because through the smoky windows they can only seem as one. Therefore it stokes the cynicism that any fervour that one is encouraged to feel for the country is merely a veiled, sinister attempt to encourage mindless support for the government, a partisan approach for it to remain in power, without due consideration for the good of the nation (though that is thankfully not exactly applicable here), which leads to the probably conclusion that the wealthy and the powerful of a country are not patriots, only skilful manipulators of it, drugging the masses (and what a heady drug it is) for self-interest. So then it would seem like it is an exercise in oppression even, that "last resort of scoundrels."

Leftist as this is, it would only work if, one people were actually more 'patriotic' and two if it was more of the manifest variety. But we here are insulated against such a potential corruptive influence, because patriotism is a lot more our 'weapon' than it is of the governments, in the sense implied above. Calls to cultivate some love for the country and some form of identity commonality are more at the fundamental level than they are at the fundamentalist level, youthful as our country is, with deference to the fact that one cannot even maintain the boundaries of the spot on the earth that we have if we do not somehow believe in them. The level of manifest patriotism is also proportional to the prevailing zeitgeist of the approval rating of the government (or country, as some people see it); the number of flags fluttering on the front of a block of flats rises and falls with the unemployment rate. Manifestly patriotic acts such as flag waving, singing, face-painting and so on are more related to having a good time, a form of entertainment while throwing a few tokens the way of 'patriotism', that necessary thing that would seem elusive otherwise.

This hullaboo, this 'tug-of-war', does seem a little contrived, because is it not in good faith to have some fun once in a while, and is it not easy, even pleasurable, to have one more thing to love?