The Nature of Political Theory

176 The Nature of Political Theory

any part of their sense of their own identity’. Thus, MacCormick concludes, ‘I
assert it as a principle that there ought to be respect for national differences,
and that there ought to be an adoption of forms of government appropriate to
such differences’ (MacCormick 1982: 261–2). Autonomy does not necessarily con-
flict with national context—‘Autonomy is...a fundamental good, and thus it is a
great social value to uphold societies which facilitate it’. A free society and free
nation can be linked. If autonomous individuals require a context of freedom-
enabling, ‘then the collective autonomy of society itself seems a part of the necessary
context’ (MacCormick 1991: 14–15). In other words, self-determination by the
nations is linked to the self-determining individuals within them (see MacCormick
1990: 16).
The third component of liberal nationalist argument, which follows closely
upon the previous points, entails specific recommendations for political arrange-
ments. Nationalism can underpin liberal individuality and democracy, although
MacCormick and Tamir add that nations are not necessarily coincidental with states.
National communities should have the ‘political conditions hospitable to their con-
tinuance and free development...the whole idea of the desirability of creating
the conditions for autonomous self-determination both of individuals—contextual
individuals—and of the groups and collectivities constitutive of them leads back to
the claim of self-determination as quite properly a claim on behalf of each nation on
similar terms to any and every other’ (MacCormick 1991: 17).^5 MacCormick sug-
gests that ‘any tendency toward a greater democratization of government, a greater
re-inclusion of the nation in the state, would surely be welcome, and that on simply
democratic grounds’ (MacCormick 1991: 11).^6 However, he does express distaste for
the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty and statehood are part of what MacCormick
calls the ‘inept model’ of nationalism derived from 1789. Yet, he still thinks that ‘The
mode of consciousness which constitutes a national identity includes a conscious-
ness of the need for a form of common governance which recognizes and allows
for the continued flourishing of the cultural and historical community in question’
(MacCormick 1982: 262). MacCormick sees more hopeful signs in the European com-
munity, subsidiarity, and the development of regionalism rather than in statehood or
sovereignty.
For Miller, though, state boundaries should as far as possible coincide with national
boundaries (Miller 1994: 143). National self-determination is valuable because it
corresponds to the idea of nations as active communities. Self-determination follows
from the identity argument. If people share substantive beliefs, which are reflected in
their acting representatives, then the nation can be said to act and determine itself.
Miller also suggests that nationalism and democracy might be linked (Miller 1994:
144). The particular notion that he has of democracy is deliberative. Citizens actively
participate, shaping society through public discussion. For Miller, the state is ‘likely to
be better able to achieve its goals where its subjects form an encompassing community
and conversely national communities are better able to preserve their culture and fulfil
their aspirations where they have control of the political machinery in the relevant
area’ (Miller 1994: 145).^7