Country vs. Nation: When Power and Meaning Diverge

 

Just some outlandish thoughts...

I always contend that there is a difference between “country” and “nation.” Many countries are not nations per se, and nations are not countries or states. This is a conceptual mismatch at the heart of how we commonly understand political identity today. 

By definition, a country (or state) is a political and legal entity. It is sovereign, with defined borders, a government, and recognition under international law. A nation is a large group of who share a common culture, language, history, ethnicity, or even a shared narrative about themselves, inhabiting a specific territory.

By the above definitions, some countries contain multiple nations. The United Kingdom, for example, includes the English in England, the Scottish in Scotland, the Welsh in Wales, and the Irish in Northern Ireland. In Canada, indigenous people there identify themselves as First Nations. This narrow definition means that the Kurdish people, who live across Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria can also say that they are a nation. And historically, it is also said that the Jewish identity existed as a nation long before the modern state of Israel. 

Some would also define China this way, but I do not believe the Chinese government tolerates this line of thinking, which I agree. I will return to this later.

When a country and a nation roughly coincide, the most appropriate term to apply, in my opinion, is "nation-state". Japan is considered close to this model, as its population is almost homogeneous.

In essence, a country is something you can map; a nation is something people feel. And a nation-state encompasses both.

That is why nationalism can be so powerful. It is not just about borders or governments, but about identity, belonging, and sometimes grievance. This distinction lies behind many major global tensions:

• Independence movements (when a nation wants its own country)
• Disputes over minorities
• Competing national narratives within the same state

China: Civilisation-State vs. Modern Country
China officially presents itself as a unified nation-state, but in reality, it is closer to what some scholars call a civilisation-state.

• The state (country) is the People's Republic of China.
• The “nation” is framed as Zhonghua minzu (the Chinese nation) – a constructed, broad civilisational identity.

Internally, there are 56 distinct ethnic groups (e.g., Han, Tibetan, Uyghur), which complicates the idea of a single nation. The Chinese government tries to align nation with country - to make cultural identity and political loyalty converge - engineering a nation to match its country. Despite scepticism, it is nearly succeeding. The dilution of ethnic patriotism and the promotion of a common identity - Zhōng-Huá Rén-mín [中华人民]. 

The US: White Supremacy from the Very Beginning

The United States is almost the reverse case. The country was founded primarily on a written constitution and political principles, rather than on a pre-existing ethnic or cultural nation. Nationhood came later, built around ideals rather than ethnicity.

American “national” identity is premised on civic ideals – liberty, democracy, the “American Dream” – not on a single ethnicity or ancient culture. But in reality, this identity has long been hijacked. White people dominated from the outset; slavery was introduced; Indigenous peoples were excluded; citizenship was effectively limited to white men. From the beginning, there was a gap between ideals and practice.

White supremacy played a major role in shaping American identity – through laws like segregation, immigration restrictions favouring Europeans, and cultural narratives of a “White” America.

Structurally, the US is constitutionally secular, but Christianity has largely shaped American identity. Public life has long been influenced by Christianity (e.g., political rhetoric, social norms). There is also a strong historical presence of Judaism, particularly in intellectual, legal, and cultural spheres.

Although these civic ideals were later used to challenge white supremacy, non-Whites have never felt they are equal. The American nation is built on universal ideals, but those ideals have been selectively interpreted, restricted, and fought over – particularly by forces like racial hierarchy and religious influence. Donald Trump champions this today. The US now looks more like a broken country, let alone a nation.

The Case of Australia

Australia is especially interesting. It has three overlapping “nations”:

1. Indigenous nations – Hundreds of distinct Aboriginal nations existed long before the modern state.
2. British-derived national identity – The original political and cultural foundation of the country.
3. Modern multicultural nation – Built through immigration, especially post-WWII and recent Asian migration.

The “country” exists clearly (borders, institutions), but the nation is still a work in progress, especially regarding what “Australian values” really mean. Fortunately, Australia remains a stable country.

As for Israel

The Jewish “nation” existed for millennia without a state. Modern Israel was created to realise that nation, but the country was originally Palestine’s. Thus, two nations compete within the same territory. In essence, the country of Israel is still contested.

What about India?

Using the earlier dictionary distinction of country/state equals political entity, and nation is shaped by shared identity, a description of India as a “multinational state” does hold water. India contains dozens of major linguistic-cultural blocs: Tamil, Bengali, Punjabi, Marathi, Gujarati, etc., many with long historical identities. Some of these have had strong regional nationalisms (e.g., Tamil nationalism in the south, Sikh nationalism in Punjab, Kashmiri identity in the north). The federal structure—states largely organized along linguistic lines—implicitly acknowledges these distinctions.

However, since independence in 1947, India has also cultivated a pan-Indian civic identity: constitution, democracy, shared institutions, national symbols. Unlike places that fractured (e.g., Yugoslavia), India has largely held together despite diversity. Therefore, civically, India itself functions as a single nation with internal diversity.

Bottom of Form

And the “tribal” states?
In parts of Africa and the Gulf, pre-modern social organization (tribes, clans, lineages) still shapes politics in visible ways. Colonial borders in much of Africa (formalized after the Berlin Conference) grouped together very different communities into single states.

In countries like Nigeria or Kenya, electoral politics often align with ethnic or regional blocs. And in fragile states such as Somalia or Libya, clan or tribal affiliations can outweigh central authority.

And in the Gulf, states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates have ruling families whose legitimacy is historically rooted in tribal alliances. Social networks, patronage, and even aspects of governance can still reflect tribal lineage structures.

“Tribe” was heavily used in colonial anthropology to imply “pre-modern” or “less developed” societies. Even “modern” states have similar dynamics. Voting blocs based on ethnicity, religion, or region exist in places like the US, India, or Europe too—just described in different language.

But calling them “tribal states” risks being seen as condescending. Many are modern states. They are all internationally recognized sovereign entities, members of the United Nations. They have bureaucracies, constitutions (formal or informal), and national institutions.

Then, is the United Nations a misnomer?

The name United Nations reflects the 1945 worldview, not a precise theoretical definition. It was coined during World War II by Franklin D. Roosevelt to refer to the Allied “nations” fighting the Axis. Membership is made up of sovereign states, not nations in the cultural sense. Strictly speaking, it’s closer to a “United States (of the world)” than a union of nations. But ironically, it is hardly “united” in any meaningful way.

In my opinion, it should be named “World Order Organisation” – if it is what the fair world wants it to function.  

Three Paradoxes

1. Taiwan

Taiwan is part of China; the majority of its population is Han Chinese. But separatists there see Taiwan as a separate country; some even see themselves as a distinct nation – a Taiwanese identity rather than a Chinese one.

2. Ukraine
Ukraine versus Russia is another clear example. Russians and Ukrainians are “one people.” Yet Ukraine asserts a distinct national identity - language, history, political orientation. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the issue was politically and geographically settled. Unfortunately, with NATO’s instigation, Ukraine chose to abandon neutrality and pursue NATO membership – hence the war.

3. Palestine
The conflict involving Israel and the Palestinian territories is perhaps the most emotionally and historically layered. Jews have realised their nation-statehood but deny Palestinians the right to seek their own. Essentially, two nations claim the same territory as their country. This conflict is intractable. It is not just a border dispute but a collision of national narratives, histories, and identities.

Conclusion
A country is a structure of power; a nation is a structure of meaning. When both align, the result is stability. When they diverge, tensions arise and conflicts prevail. Unfortunately, the US is always undermining things! 

End