Civic-Oriented National Identity

In principle, the civic-oriented nationalism recognizes the Mongolness of non-Khalkh ethnic Mongols and the Mongolness of ethnic Mongols who are not citizens of Mongolia. However, it does project a concrete image of a Mongolian nation that is smaller than the world’s population of ethnic Mongols but larger than the Khalkh majority of Mongolia. The boundaries of this imagined community are unambiguous – they are the political borders of independent Mongolia. This version of national identity is defined on the basis of formal citizenship, regardless of people’s ethnic, linguistic, or gender identities and is, compared to pan-Mongolism and conservative/xenophobic nationalism (or Khalkh-centrism), fairly new as it originates from Mongolia’s democratization that started a decade ago. This version of Mongolian national identity is perhaps best expressed by Baabar, a prominent political leader and a publicist:

“Today, almost eighty per cent of Mongolian people [38] are Khalkh. That means, the absolute majority of the population. Buryads, Torguts and Bayauds – they all rely on Khalkh support. But the Khalkh try to ostracize them. If we talk about our roots, we are all Mongols. If we talk about local dialects and distinctive customs and traditions, the Khalkh, by virtue of their greater number, are overpowering and threatening the Durvuds, Uulds, Darigangats and not the other way around. Not only do they have the right to establish their associations to protect their unique customs and traditions from the Khalkh predominance but they should do so. It is shameful for the Khalkh to respond to these efforts by accusations and counter-associations. The Khalkh do not have the right to monopolize the name Mongol. If it comes to that, the Oirats may speak a dialect much closer to the Mongolian script than do the Khalkh! The name Mongolian national refers to any of the Khalkh, Oirat, Durvud, Inner Mongols, Moguls, Kalmyks, Tagna Urianghai, and Buryads. The name Mongolia [39] refers to every CITIZEN of this country, be they half-Chinese or quarter-Russians, Khalkh or Durvud, Zahchin or Uzemchin. Mongolia will not classify her sons and daughters by the composition of their blood…” [40]

Civic-oriented nationalism derives its claim to status and recognition from democratic uniqueness of Mongolia, contrasted to the failures of the democratic transition in the Russian Federation and the still authoritarian/communist China as well as other autocratic Asian states. Civic-oriented nationalists take pride in the democratic successes that Mongolia has made in the last against despite highly unfavorable geopolitical and economic conditions (being squeezed between two troubled and powerful neighbors, having outdated industries, being relatively isolated from the rest of the ‘civilized’ world). To be sure, this discourse maintains ethnic characteristics and, just as the other two versions of national identity, subscribes to the powerful heroic image of Chingghis Khaan and the unique and, therefore, valuable nomadic heritage. However, their interpretations of Mongolian historical and cultural attributes stress the commonalities (real or imagined) between Mongolia and western liberal states and differences between Mongolia and other Asian states. [41] Consider a quote from an interview with Jama, a former advisor to President Ochirbat:

“…we are, I should say, very liberal. We put humans above the State. The sun revolves around the human being. We stand for human rights, for freedoms. And this, you must understand, is very non-Asian. It conflicts with Asian traditions.

What makes this country different from other Asian countries is its nomadic heritage. The State existed but never interfered much in people’s lives. Levels of personal freedom here and in the United States are very comparable.” [42]

Jama’s statement makes several points simultaneously. First, by rooting Mongolia’s democratic qualities in the nomadic culture, she not only legitimates the new democratic order in Mongolia but also implies that the socialist period was an artificial imposition of alien authoritarianism onto naturally democratic Mongolians. [43] Second, she emphasizes the ‘civilized Europeanness’ of Mongolians in stark contradistinction to ‘pre-modern and authoritarian Asia (often a shortcut for China).’ Third, both previous points demonstrate the fact that the civic-oriented nationalist discourse is west-oriented and express the desire of Mongolians to become legitimate members of the global community (achieving this status is, however, (seen as) dependent on the acceptance of Mongolia by the Western clique). Finally, despite maintaining that socialism was a foreign imposition, the stress on the ‘Europeanness’ is indicative of the acceptance of the developments during the socialist period including Russification (both in terms of the European-style behavior of Mongolians (clothes, holidays, foods, for example) and the command of Russian as a European language and a language that served as a bridge to other European cultures and languages [44] ) [45] and the improvement of Mongolian women’s socio-economic standing.

In fact, the formal illegality of gender-based discrimination and the actual high socio-economic status of Mongolian women are an important source of national pride. For civic nationalists, the portrayal of Mongolian women as highly educated, professional, and independent is a way of marking Mongolia’s difference from ‘backwards and authoritarian’ Asian states and, by extension, similarity to ‘progressive and democratic’ Western states: [46]

“...in those times [the Hunnu or Khuns period], [47] if the Chinese woman had no other powers but to give birth to a child and sit at home looking after the child, the nomadic woman did all the housework, maintained her household (family economy), due to which she enjoyed incredible economic power.” [48]

In this statement, Baabar is not only reinforcing the differences between Mongolia and China [49] but also ‘naturalizes’ and legitimates the independence (real or imagined) of Mongolian women as part of the Mongolian national identity through the linkage to the nomadic tradition. By implication, on the issue of women, socialism simply built on the existing traditions rather than imposing a new and alien gender structure.

Institutionally, civic-oriented nationalism is manifested at at least two levels: through political parties such as the Mongolian National Democratic Party (MNDP) and the Mongolian Socialist Democratic Party (MSDP) at the level of political society [50] and policy-making, and through non-governmental organizations such as the Liberal Women’s Brain Pool, the Women for Social Progress movement, and the National Center Against Violence, at the level of civil society. The relatively women-friendly stance of civic-oriented nationalism is exemplified by the support the MSDP and MNDP showed for women candidates in the 1996 parliamentary elections (6 out of 7 women who got elected into the parliament were from the MNDP and MSDP Democratic Union Coalition) and the close ties between these parties and the women’s NGO activists who stress women’s political participation. The fact that the MNDP and MSDP were able to win the 1996 elections gaining the right to form the executive government and ability to guide the national policy-making and, most importantly, the firm commitment of Mongolia to individual rights and freedoms enshrined in every government document (the Constitution, the Concept of National Security, the Population Policy, and pursuant laws) testify to the strength of the civic-oriented nationalist position.

However, the effectiveness of civic nationalists in improving the democratic quality of the Mongolian society and supporting the liberation of women from the patriarchal confines, in particular, is constrained by several internal and external factors. First of all, the civic-oriented nationalist discourse is severely constrained by the xenophobic/conservative nationalist discourse: for instance, the same documents that stress Mongolia’s firm commitment to democracy and universal human rights contain clauses on preserving the quality of the Mongolian gene pool [51] or the need to define equal rights of men and women within specific traditions of Mongolian families. [52] Second, the notions of democratic principles promoted by the civic nationalists are based on their uncritical acceptance and incomplete understanding of the American-type liberal democracy and market economy. Third, despite their formally civic definition of the nation and their frequent accusations of the conservative/xenophobic nationalist stance as undemocratic and backwards, civic nationalists often implicitly share the latter’s chauvinist tendencies and the essentialized notions of culture. Fourth, because civic nationalists project the Mongolian society as already ‘enlightened and progressive’ and Mongolian women as already independent, they are unable to undertake a more critical examination of the subtle (and not so subtle) forms of patriarchal oppression (particularly, the discursive forms of it) that Mongolian women are subject to.

Finally, whether for the lack of a critical understanding of the shortcomings of Mongolian culture as it impacts Mongolian women or for an awareness that their active support for the feminist project may undermine their legitimacy and be used to question their commitment to Mongolia’s national security and Mongolia’s traditions, civic nationalists do not actively counter the issue of denying women their control over their bodies and sexuality, limitations to women’s political rights, and the subordination of women’s interests to national interests.

More fu-king ignorant foreign topics! Will you PLEASE start proof-reading your own fu-king articles that you decide to post?! Geez

So many fu-king female leaders we had in our history and great ones, PROUD I would have been to serve, to fight, and to work under their rule. fu-king idiots - WE NOMADS INVENTED EQUALITY amongst sexes. fu-king cunts.

Discussion needed here

Do you know where democracy comes from? It comes from a land of HOMOSEXUALS!

You know what happened to homosexuals? Chingghis Khaan sentenced homosexuals to DEATH!

fu-k democracy

Greece is land of magic people

Otherwise known as faggots

OMG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyAtWKgvJAI...feature=related