Nationalist populists like Donald Trump argue that nationalism is the key to ensuring the nation-state’s success for years to come. Yet, early evidence suggests otherwise. Take the tragic events of New Year’s Eve in New Orleans: 15 people were killed and 35 injured when Shamsud-Din Jabbar drove a bakkie into a large crowd. Despite being Texas-born and raised, Jabbar was waving a black Isis flag and had posted videos supporting the group shortly before the attack.
While the Isis connection has shaped discussions around the incident, it is part of a broader trend of radicalisation within America. Jabbar’s life reflects the familiar profile of a lone wolf terrorist — isolated, angry, and trapped in personal turmoil. Following two divorces and the loss of custody of his children, he struggled financially and fell into despair. An online extremist group provided him with a sense of purpose and a focus for his resentment. Had he been white and Christian instead of brown and Muslim, his path might have led to ideologies like QAnon or white supremacy.
Predictably, Trump’s response to the attack was rooted in nationalist rhetoric. On Truth Social, he declared: “This is what happens when you have OPEN BORDERS, with weak, ineffective, and virtually nonexistent leadership.” However, such reactions misdiagnose the problem.
The US is a fragmented society, lacking the social and financial safety nets found in many other wealthy democracies. Under Trump’s leadership, these issues are likely to worsen. The once-thriving networks of voluntary associations that gave Americans a sense of community have eroded. As Edward Luce writes in the Financial Times, many Americans are not just “bowling alone”, as Robert Putnam described in his 2000 book of the same name — they are also radicalising alone.
This reflects a deeper failure of the state to meet its responsibilities. Episodes like the New Orleans attack highlight not only threats to public safety, but also doubts about the nation-state’s ability to fulfil its fundamental role. In a Weberian sense, a nation-state exists to organise and manage societies, impart opportunity, and foster social inclusion. Without these, individuals are increasingly drawn toward radicalism.
The nation-state in 2025
Benedict Anderson’s seminal work “Imagined Communities” reminds us that nations are “imagined” constructs. The stability of a nation-state is not maintained by centralised authority alone, but by the willingness of its citizens to align with its vision. The greatest threat lies at the peripheries, among those like Jabbar, who no longer feel connected to society.
This dynamic extends beyond the US to nations such as South Africa. President Cyril Ramaphosa, basking in the glow of his G20 coronation, would do well to revisit Anderson. While South Africa has come through a torrid last five years and is seemingly at its most stable for a decade, economic data is not improving. This year and 2026 will be a litmus test for the economy, and therefore for Ramaphosa.
If his government cannot make tangible progress in improving unemployment, inequality and growth, societal fragmentation will be the likely outcome. Failure to do so risks exacerbating internal divisions and straining the social fabric. Without a cohesive national nationalism, the path South Africa may take in this event would be one of competing domestic nationalisms.
Michel Foucault described the state as “a composite reality and a mythicised abstraction”, neither strong nor weak, but ever present. This is a warning to soothsayer economist forecasters who urge us into “scenario planning” for strong states and weak states in South Africa. Rather, the resilience and relevance of a nation-state depends on its ability to adapt and respond to societal needs.
In 2025, the increasingly desperate nationalist calls around the world are not evidence of the relevance and resilience of the nation-state. Rather they are the complete opposite; a primal and instinctive response to the global capitalist system’s failure to distribute the benefits of economic growth and asset price inflation equitably over the past four decades. Rarely has the nation-state, as an institution, seemed more jaundiced.
Instead of addressing systemic issues, nationalism encourages societies to turn inward. This inward retreat manifests in both economic protectionism, anti-immigrant fervour and increasing societal alienation, as tragically demonstrated in New Orleans. Such episodes are only likely to become more frequent.
Nationalism as a cure-all for the challenges facing nation-states is paradoxically not only misguided — it is actively undermining the stability it seeks to preserve. DM