Introduction
Many countries around the world are faced with growing individualism, as against collective action that enhances national cohesion and the collective well-being of the state. In Africa, national cohesion has suffered in the face of corruption, civil wars, and in recent times, the fight for political power during election campaigns. Individual benefits have often triumphed over the collective interest, undermining patriotism.
Samuel Johnson once said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” This frequently quoted statement highlights the significant impact of patriotism on national security and societal conduct, even as it criticises its abuse. Patriotism may strengthen resilience, bring people together during emergencies, and even act as a buffer against the spread of instability across nations or regions, the phenomenon called security contagion.
Patriotism comprises a sense of allegiance and love for one’s country, which is frequently demonstrated by a readiness to support its defence and well-being (Smith, 2004). Patriotism is more inclusive and based on civic involvement than nationalism, which may emphasise aggressive and exclusionary principles (Nussbaum, 1996). This distinction is critical in understanding its potential as a stabilising force in the face of modern security threats.
Security contagion used in geopolitical and security studies refers to the transnational spread of insecurity across interconnected networks, exemplified by terrorism, political unrest, and financial instability, highlighting the vulnerabilities of a globalized world (Buzan, 2003).
Patriotism can act as a mitigating factor in security contagion by fostering national resilience and cohesion. During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, countries with high levels of civic patriotism demonstrated greater compliance with public health measures and mutual aid efforts (Zhai, Lu &Wu, 2023). On the other hand, where patriotism was conflated with xenophobia or distrust in institutions, the challenges of combating the crisis were magnified.
This article explores the nuanced relationship between patriotism and security contagion, arguing that patriotism, when inclusive and responsibly cultivated, can serve as a “spare key” to unlocking national stability and resilience. At the same time, its overuse or misuse can exacerbate divisions, amplify insecurity, and hinder international cooperation.
Patroitism as a bulwark and its modern relevance
By inspiring people to take action in defense of their country, patriotism has long been a vital factor in promoting national security. During World War II, for instance, propaganda campaigns across the Allied nations encouraged citizens to contribute to the war effort, whether by enlisting, rationing goods, or working in factories.
This collective sense of duty and sacrifice was underpinned by patriotic fervor, which transformed individual efforts into a coordinated national defense mechanism (Creel, 1920). Similarly, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the United States witnessed a surge in patriotism that united citizens across political lines, enabling swift governmental action to enhance domestic security and counterterrorism measures (Huddy & Khatib, 2007).
Patriotism is still an essential feature of national security in the twenty-first century, particularly when addressing non-traditional threats like pandemics, misinformation operations, and cyberattacks. Patriotism may be a driving element behind citizen participation in resilience and defense initiatives.
For instance, nations like Estonia have prioritized digital literacy and patriotic education as means of strengthening cybersecurity in response to persistent cyberthreats from state actors. Driven by a common sense of national identity, Estonians actively engage in initiatives such as the Cyber Defense League, a volunteer group dedicated to safeguarding vital infrastructure (Pernik &Tuohy, 2014).
A Delicate Balance: Patriotism vs. Nationalism
Although patriotism can enhance national security, it is essential to distinguish between inclusive patriotism and exclusionary nationalism. Patriotism, as Cohen &Nussbaum (1996) argues, is rooted in love for one’s country and commitment to its improvement, while nationalism often entails a sense of superiority over others. When patriotism morphs into nationalism, it can exacerbate insecurity by alienating minority groups and fostering regional tensions. Examples include the rise of ultranationalism in pre-World War II Europe, which contributed to aggressive militarism and ultimately led to global conflict (Smith, 2004).
The promotion of civic duty is one of the profound ways patriotism supports national security. Patriotic citizens are more inclined to engage in elections, trust institutions, and hold leaders responsible in democracies. A key component of security is public trust in institutions, which guards against the deterioration of public trust that enemies may take advantage of through misinformation or propaganda efforts (Putnam, 2000).
Another critical dimension of patriotism’s role in national security is its impact on civil-military relations. When citizens view their armed forces not as a separate entity but as a reflection of their patriotic values, this fosters mutual respect and collaboration. Countries like Finland have successfully cultivated such relationships by implementing universal conscription combined with civic education, ensuring that military service is seen as a shared national duty (Hadar & Häkkinen, 2020).
The Role of Patriotism in Combating Security Contagion
Patriotism promotes unity and shared purpose among citizens, enhancing national resilience during crises. This collective identity mitigates societal fragmentation risks, as seen in New Zealand’s higher compliance with health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic (Baker et al., 2020). This unity, rooted in shared duty, counteracts security contagion.
Patriotism also boosts public trust in governance and institutions, enabling governments to act decisively and implement policies that might otherwise face resistance (Putnam, 2000).
A powerful initial line of defense against security contagion is established when patriotism motivates people to actively engage in national defense plans. Israel’s military service and Estonia’s Cyber Defense League serve as examples of how patriotism may bring together civilian competence to fight cyber dangers and guarantee that the public is ready for external attacks (Pernik &Tuohy, 2014).
One of the most insidious forms of security contagion in the modern era is the spread of disinformation, often propagated by state and non-state actors to destabilise societies. Patriotism can act as a countermeasure by fostering critical media literacy and a sense of responsibility toward discerning truth from falsehood.
Research indicates that individuals with a strong sense of civic patriotism are less likely to fall prey to divisive propaganda, as their loyalty to democratic values compels them to seek verifiable information (Guess et al., 2020).
Patriotism, despite focusing on national well-being, can also foster international collaboration. Countries with a global reputation often participate in multilateral initiatives to address transnational threats. Scandinavian nations, for example, actively participate in global peacekeeping missions to curb insecurity in conflict zones (Ingebritsen, 2006). This demonstrates how patriotism, when inclusive and outward-facing, can align national interests with global stability.
Patriotism can also encourage individuals to prioritise long-term societal well-being over immediate personal gains. This principle is evident in environmental security, where patriotic campaigns have been used to combat climate change, a driver of regional instability. Countries like Japan have successfully utilized patriotic messaging to encourage energy conservation and reduce carbon emissions, contributing to greater environmental stability and reducing the risk of resource-driven conflicts (Imura & Schreurs, 2005).
Potential Pitfalls of Overreliance on Patriotism
Overreliance on patriotism can strain international relations by encouraging adversarial stances against other nations. This aggressive nationalism often leads to zero-sum thinking, causing mutual distrust and competition. This was evident in World War I, where European powers’ nationalistic patriotism created a volatile environment (Hobsbawm, 1992). Contemporary disputes over territorial sovereignty, like those in the South China Sea, are often fueled by patriotic rhetoric, exacerbating tensions and complicating diplomatic resolutions (Dutta, 2005).
Patriotism can unify people but can also lead to divisions when it becomes exclusionary or marginalizes certain groups. Overzealous expressions can “other” minority communities, fostering societal rifts instead of cohesion (Gellner, 1983). Post-9/11 America experienced increased patriotism but also increased Islamophobia, weakening the inclusive social fabric needed to counter security contagion and weakening collective resilience (Cainkar, 2009).
Patriotism can hinder global collaboration and multilateral solutions to global challenges like climate change, pandemics, and cybersecurity threats. Overly patriotic policies prioritise short-term national interests over long-term global stability, as seen with the “America First” policies during the Trump administration, which reduced U.S. participation in international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord (Jotzo et al., 2018).
Patriotism can also be used to suppress legitimate dissent and critical voices within a society. In many cases, governments have employed patriotic rhetoric to delegitimise protests and stifle opposition movements (Nathan & Link, 2001).
Excessive reliance on patriotic mobilization can place undue strain on citizens and institutions. During prolonged crises, the expectation for continuous sacrifice in the name of patriotism can lead to fatigue and disillusionment. For example, in Venezuela, patriotic rhetoric has been used to demand unwavering support for government policies amidst severe economic and political crises, leaving many citizens feeling betrayed and disenfranchised (Corrales & Penfold, 2015). This erosion of trust further destabilizes the country and feeds into regional insecurity contagion.
Recommendations for developing Patriotism as a bulwark against Contagion
The nature of the social structures across West Africa, the instability in some regions, porous borders and the migratory trends have tendered to spread insecurity in one region to others. This naturally exacerbates insecurity with expedition and challenges structures established to ensure peace, security and national cohesion. To overcome this challenge, recommendations are being proposed for consideration.
Inclusive patriotism
Inclusive patriotism , centered on civic values rather than ethnic or cultural exclusivity, should be encouraged to counteract the divisive effects of hyper-nationalism. Governments should promote patriotic narratives that emphasise shared responsibilities, democratic principles, and respect for diversity. Education systems should also incorporate curricula that focus on inclusive patriotism to instill a sense of collective identity rooted in mutual respect and equality (Nussbaum, 1996).
Patriotism should not be excessively linked to military activities, as this risks normalising aggression and undermining international cooperation. While acknowledging the importance of national defense, governments should balance military readiness with investments in soft power tools such as diplomacy, cultural exchange, and humanitarian efforts. As Nye (2004) argues, soft power fosters goodwill and mitigates the risks of adversarial nationalism, creating an environment conducive to peace and stability.
Local communities are the backbone of national resilience. Governments should support community-based initiatives that empower citizens to address local challenges. For example, Japan’s machizukuri (community-building) movement has successfully utilised patriotic values to mobilize citizens in disaster response efforts, reducing vulnerability to environmental and social disruptions (Imura & Schreurs, 2005). Such initiatives can be adapted to other contexts to bolster national security from the ground up.
Governments and civil society organisations must actively monitor the misuse of patriotic rhetoric by political actors to prevent it from being used as a tool for exclusion or authoritarianism (Cortright et al., 2008). Independent watchdogs and media platforms play a critical role in holding leaders accountable for promoting divisive nationalism under the guise of patriotism. Studies indicate that robust media oversight can reduce the incidence of such practices (Wani &Bole, 2024).
Patriotism should not hinder international collaboration, as governments should frame participation in multilateral initiatives as an extension of national pride. Scandinavian countries have successfully aligned their patriotism with global peacekeeping missions, demonstrating that patriotism and global cooperation are not mutually exclusive (Ingebritsen, 2006). Cross-border patriotism approaches can be explored in regions like Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa to mitigate tensions.
To combat security contagion in the digital age, technology should be leveraged to counter disinformation campaigns while promoting civic patriotism.
Public-private partnerships with tech companies can enhance the detection and removal of harmful content, as demonstrated by collaborations between Facebook and election monitoring organisations (Guess et al., 2020). At the same time, patriotic campaigns emphasising truth and transparency can encourage citizens to critically evaluate digital content.
Conclusion
Patriotism, when cultivated inclusively and responsibly, serves as a powerful force for enhancing national security and mitigating the risks of security contagion. Its ability to unite citizens around shared values, foster trust in institutions, and promote resilience during crises underscores its relevance in addressing both traditional and non-traditional security threats.
However, the potential pitfalls of overreliance on patriotism, such as fostering exclusionary nationalism, suppressing dissent, or prioritizing short-term national gains over long-term global stability, must be carefully navigated.
As nations confront an increasingly interconnected and uncertain world, patriotism can indeed act as a “spare key” to unlocking stability and resilience.
References
Bajwa, A. (2021). Information disorder, the Triumvirate, and COVID-19: How media outlets, foreign state intrusion, and the far-right diaspora drive the COVID-19 anti-vaccination movement. The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare, 4(2), 16-45.
Baker, M. G., Wilson, N., & Anglemyer, A. (2020). Successful elimination of Covid-19 transmission in New Zealand. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(8), e56.
Buzan, B. (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Vol. 226). Cambridge University Press.
Cainkar, L. A. (2009). Homeland insecurity: the Arab American and Muslim American experience after 9/11. Russell Sage Foundation.
Cohen, J., & Nussbaum, M. C. (1996). For love of country: Debating the limits of patriotism. Beacon Press.
Corrales, J., & Penfold, M. (2015). Dragon in the tropics: Venezuela and the legacy of Hugo Chávez. Brookings Institution Press.
Cortright, D., Lopez, G. A., Millar, A., & Stellingwerf, L. G. (2008). Friend not foe: Civil society and the struggle against violent extremism.
Creel, G. (1920). How we advertised America: The first telling of the amazing story of the Committee on Public Information that carried the gospel of Americanism to every corner of the globe. Harper & brothers.
Dutta, S. (2005). Securing the sea frontier: China’s pursuit of sovereignty claims in the South China Sea. Strategic Analysis, 29(2), 269-294.
Gellner, E. (1983). Theories of Nationalism.
Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2020). Exposure to untrustworthy websites in the 2016 US election. Nature human behaviour, 4(5), 472-480.
Hadar, M., & Häkkinen, T. (2020). Conscription and willingness to defend as cornerstones of national defense in Israel and Finland. Journal of Political & Military Sociology, 47(2), 188-218.
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1992). Nations and nationalism since 1780: Programme, myth, reality. Cambridge university press.
Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American journal of political science, 51(1), 63-77.
Imura, H., & Schreurs, M. A. (Eds.). (2005). Environmental policy in Japan. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ingebritsen, C. (2006). Scandinavia in world politics. Rowman & Littlefield.
Jotzo, F., Depledge, J., & Winkler, H. (2018). US and international climate policy under President Trump. Climate Policy, 18(7), 813-817.
Nathan, A. J., & Link, P. (2001). The Tiananmen Papers: The Chinese Leadership’s Decision to Use Force Against their own People–in their Own Words. New York: Public Affairs.
Nussbaum, M. C., & Cohen, J. (1996). For love of country: Debating the limits of patriotism. (No Title).
Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public affairs.
Pernik, P., & Tuohy, E. (2014). Interagency cooperation on cyber security: The Estonian Model. In Effective Inter-Agency Interactions and Governance in Comprehensive Approaches to Operations, NATO STO Symposium Proceedings AC/323 (HFM-236) TP/579.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon Schuster.
Smith, A. D. (2004). History and national destiny: responses and clarifications. Nations & Nationalism, 10.
Wani, S. A., & Bole, D. (2024). A Politico-Media Nexus in the Globalizing World: A Comparative Study on Compromised Agenda-Driven Media. In Comparative Law: Unraveling Global Legal Systems (pp. 351-369). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
Zhai, Y., Lu, Y., & Wu, Q. (2023). Patriotism, nationalism, and evaluations of the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1016435.
