Nationality and democracy: Thinking with and against Marilena Chaui

Abstract

By dint of a critical engagement with Marilena Chaui’s writings on democracy and nationality, the article claims that nationality is conducive to democracy to the extent it upholds a minimum degree of union among citizens which allows them to negotiate the many conflicts that divide them without putting into question their participatory parity and equal belonging to the same demos. After reviewing Chaui’s criticism of “nationality,” the article dwells upon a passage where Chaui herself redefines nationality in a way that makes it compatible with democracy. Nationality is compatible with democracy when, far from positing a homogeneous and static representation of the people that smothers conflict and denies participatory parity, it works as a dynamic referent that permits citizens to equally participate in politics and negotiate their conflicts without appealing to violence, thus avoiding the different political groups of the demos from disintegrating into different demoi. Endorsing Chaui’s definition of democracy, the article builds upon the articulation between nationality and democracy made by modern and contemporary political thinkers and surmises it is precisely because conflict is an inevitable element of democratic coexistence that the maintenance of a minimum degree of union and equality among citizens is indispensable to the stability of democracy. By satisfying such demand, nationality can be considered to be conducive to the consolidation of democracy over time.