Abstract
This paper shows how nationalism is a significant influence on post-colonial development. The differences in Zimbabwe’s and South Africa’s national identities can be explained through an analysis of the political rhetoric, actions, and ideologies of their respective nationalist leadership. A state’s conception of an ethnic national identity is the more exclusive type of nationalism in terms of membership and subsequent liberties. Ethnic nationalism, like Zimbabwe’s, tends to spawn more authoritarian governments. These states tend to be more conflict prone, have stagnant or declining economies, and a poor human rights record. A civic national identity is the more open type of nationalism in terms of membership and subsequent liberties. Civic nationalism, like South Africa’s, tends to lead to more democratic governance, more political stability, regular elections, and greater economic success.