General solidarity appraisals for internal and external community or intercommunity realities, bring up several discussion postulates on how mutually comprehensive relationships between human groupings can be achieved within such a liberalist world. Given that communities are composed of human beings who need to be under certain guidance rules. Also, given that liberalists humane concepts such as the human rights, allow huge allowances for human freedom and choices over certain community binding rules. There arises a problematic with respect to the possibility of achieving a major solidarity focus within a large community perception such as ‘the nation’, which has several other communities within its territorial boundaries.
As a major imagined community, the nation-State possesses a variety of divergent communities under its jurisdictional control and protection. As such, it follows that, an attempt to appease or unite one, two or more communities within the nation, may just be another major opportunity to disrupt or separate other ones. The nation here is thus faced with a very great task to bring all its smaller and divergent political, cultural, economic, social and scientific communities within its territory, under the same canopy goal of peace and development. The achievement of such a national solidarity purpose can only be possible if the nation should, in partnership and guidance lead collaboration with its intranational as well as the international communities, plan and implement joint development ventures.
The perception of nationalism as an imagined community unifying phenomenon is frequently criticized by several writers because of its inconsistency in scope and applied context. As well, the refined conception of citizenship and other national unity symbols including the national flag and emblems gives the nation-State a venerated and autonomous mother community overview. This means that, the nation holds due overall responsibility to ensure its role in fostering peaceful solidarity amongst the communities under its territorial jurisdiction, but:
1. Is this always the case?
2. If not, should that be the reason why the international community should interfere in the protector privileges that ought to be solely, an autonomous issue for the imagined nation-State community?
3. Can nations within the true practical conception and implementation of their bestowed autonomies and sovereignties be trusted with the safety of their intranational communities?
What do you suggest?
Your comments are highly solicited.
Currently, MAHSRA is undergoing a series of research works on community conflicts’ intervention schemes and best ways for integrating pragmatic peace policy development and direct peace activity growth within local, national, intergovernmental, and international frameworks. Your support and or Partnership will be highly appreciated.
Support MAHSRA’s Community Peace Projects and Still Gained a Special and Detailed Copy via: MAIL
Subject of mail should be: Nations and Community Solidarity Partnership
You may obtain a copy through: Amazons
Preview Author’s Profile at: Kelly NGYAH
Note: By obtaining a copy of this document through the support link or email, you are directly partnering as one of the supporters/donors of MAHSRA’s Peace Initiatives. As such, you may confirm in writing to us to let us know if your name should be included and/or published within the organization’s funders’ bulletin. This list may become periodically published on the website as soon as necessary.
Enter Discussion Forums of this work at: MAHSRA FORUMSPlease You can also show support by using the sharing tools below to extend on facebook, google and more.