The “national interest” is a term commonly thrown around in political debates and policy discussions but very rarely defined. This is partly for political reasons, because no politician or activist would ever claim to be against the national interest (it’s easy to be for it when you don’t define it) and partly for practical reasons, because the national interest is a very hard thing to define.
What do YOU mean by national interest?
Many of the most seemingly intractable debates in ethics, public policy, and other areas of great importance stem from lack of clarity about terms – if my opponent and I both use the term “equality” but he means equality of result whereas I mean equality of opportunity we’re going to talk past each other. Worse, the lack of clarity hinders clear thinking about necessary compromises, turning conflicts about means into conflicts about values when they do not need to be.
Debates that invoke the national interest are a prime example: If we could agree on a definition, we could have more intelligent and useful debates about policy.
It’s problems like these that philosophers gravitate towards – the chance to shed light on a debate by defining terms and elaborating on the arguments used by conflicting sides. It doesn’t often yield complete agreement, but by exposing the real issues at stake or presenting a powerful articulation of a set of ideas it can help the public make up their mind and choose more intelligently between proposed policies. Being a philosopher, I thought I’d tackle the question of just what is a national interest, and what India’s might be.
Let’s assume that the issue of what a ‘nation’ is has been settled. I’ll assume what we often do – that people who live within a territory with sovereignty over themselves, obeying common laws and a single government, are a nation. So Indians form a nation, Americans another, and so forth. This doesn’t take into account groups like the Kurds who do not have a recognized state, but for clarity I’m willing to sacrifice inclusiveness.
A national interest is an ultimate end, the purpose which states serve by existing and from which they claim their legitimacy. Everything a state does can be judged in terms of how it promotes or does not promote the national interest. Many states in history, like the Papal States or the Soviet Union, existed to promote the spread of a belief system across the planet (Catholicism and Communism, respectively). The wahhabists monarchy of Saudi Arabia, which have spent billions promoting salafist Islam in mosques around the world, are a clear example of this goal-directed kind of state.
Is India a goal directed state? Does all of our politics and government action exist to promote some grand vision as an example to the world?
Many idealists would like our country to serve some grand vision like equality of result or democracy. The problem with such a national interest is that, plainly, not every member of the nation wants to promote it. I may think India should strive to be a beacon of inclusive secularism, with high progressive taxation and lots of social programs, but you may prefer our country to become more theocratic, with strong influence from religious groups in policy selection and law making. Clearly, we both can’t have our way when it comes to the direction of the country.
I propose that a national interest should be defined by the minimal common interest, the least that it takes to bind together the people of a country. We Indians differ in our opinions about morality, legality, and social policy, but we have common interests: being allowed to live our lives peacefully and work together with other Indians as we please to pursue our own purposes. It’s admirably summed up in the stated goal of the Preamble to our Constitution as adopted by the constituent assembly to focus on the core objectives of JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity.
Rather than conscript society for some grand purpose, like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Iran, we believe that people create the most good looking after their own interests. Whether people want to live a religious life in a small, insular community, make vast amounts of money in venture capital, or pursue the arts, it’s easy to define a minimal system that makes that possible: we need strong institutions to pass necessary laws, keep law and order and guard against abuses of power, a strategy for national defense consistent with retaining sovereignty through alliances, and a strong economy that can provide the wealth to fund both.
This is a very schematic national interest, but it’s a place to start. It’s the foundation of many liberal representative democracies, of which India is one. Referring our political debates back to some idea of what our national interest is can help to clarify what is really at stake.
Conclusion
The above is not intended as an argument for or against Theocracy for or against environmental defense and investment in alternative energy. It is just an example of how a defined national interest can help clarify our thinking about our priorities and more intelligently debate policy. (Adapted)
