Hey true blue: Civic patriotism, civic nationalism, national security and the challenges of great power competition

This was largely forged and tempered in the crucible of war, particularly in the nation’s founding creation myth of Gallipoli, giving rise to the Anzac mythos and the prevailing national narrative around the importance of resilience, Australian tenacity and above all, mateship.

In many ways, this served as a binding agent, a social and cultural glue, which helped guide Australia’s development through the turbulent interwar years, and would only reinforce the nation’s mobilisation of patriotism and nationalism during the Second World War which hit close to home.

It was into this environment and against the backdrop of the great power competition-driven nature of the Cold War that the poster children for Australia’s unofficial policy of multiculturalism came to the nation, largely from the remains of a war-torn Europe seeking to build a new life for them and their families in the “Lucky Country”.

Since then, successive waves of migrants have come to our shores, some seeking to call Australia home, others to benefit from its opportunities and return, taking the skills, experience and knowledge they have developed home to improve their own homelands.

However, it hasn’t been entirely smooth sailing, as with all major movements of people and introduction to new cultural norms there is friction, which continues to serve as a major catalyst for social cohesion, economic and political issues across many Western nations, Australia included.

Throughout this period, Australia, like many of its Western contemporaries, has grappled with patriotism, nationalism and a misguided and often self-flagellating view of our history, our culture and what some would argue is the “poison” of nationalism, all factors that have only become more prominent in recent years.

VIEW ALL

Now that may seem like an interesting way to begin a conversation about patriotism, nationalism and their role in building national resilience in an era of renewed great power competition and multipolarity, but I assure you, it will all make sense in the end.

Bringing me to thoughtful and stimulating analysis conducted by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s John Coyne, in a piece titled Civic patriotism strengthens our democracy, in which he set the scene for broader debate and consideration around the seemingly controversial subjects, saying: “Strategic competition now extends far beyond military capability and economic strength. Liberal democracies therefore have a strategic interest in cultivating a confident civic patriotism that strengthens social cohesion, reinforces institutional legitimacy and supports national resilience.”

However, I would like to challenge some of the presuppositions and assumptions made by Coyne in his analysis of just where we currently stand as a nation.

Strength in common purpose, common identity

It is no secret to say that many Western nations are facing their own variation of these challenges, whether it is the fallout from the racially motivated murders in Southport of young English girls at a Taylor Swift dance class, the “summer of love” during the first Trump administration, or France’s almost daily “refugee”-driven riots turning Paris into a war zone, all serving to undermine the resilience of these nations.

On the political front, Europe, in particular, has seen the meteoric rise of sectarian politics across the spectrum, with competing ethnic groups jockeying for power and influence within the confines of their respective political systems, often lobbying for fringe foreign issues, like the “Gaza MPs” in the United Kingdom, Team Fouad Ahidar in Belgium, or the various Khalistani separatist and Hindutva movements rising in the United Kingdom and Canada in particular.

While Australia is still behind the trend curve in many ways, in other ways we’re not, as events like the Bondi terror attack and pro-Gaza marches demonstrations that shut down CBDs across the country, it appears as though we may not be as united as what we would widely believe and herein lies significant strategic challenges to our national security.

Responding to these challenges requires significant nuance, particularly around the concepts of patriotism, nationalism and concerns around the potential further radicalisation of contemporary Australian society.

Coyne articulated this reality by establishing easy-to-understand definitions of “patriotism” and “nationalism” and the differences between each, beginning with patriotism, articulating: “Patriotism begins with a simple idea: love of country. Mature patriotism recognises both achievement and failure in the national story. Civic patriotism values the democratic institutions, freedoms and civic traditions that make a country worth improving.”

Unpacking the concept of nationalism, Coyne added: “Political theory distinguishes patriotism from nationalism. Nationalism often demands unquestioning loyalty and frequently defines belonging in terms of ethnicity or exclusion. Civic patriotism rests on different foundations: it centres on commitment to democratic institutions, the rule of law and the shared political community that maintains them.”

However, it is worth saying that both of these concepts, including the evolution of “civic patriotism”, fail to fully account for the broader changes transforming Australian society and culture and raise more questions then they answer, particularly if the precedent established by our European contemporaries is to play out here.

Ultimately, this all has direct impacts on national cohesion and, by extension, national security, something often overlooked by commentators and policymakers alike.

This only becomes more relevant as “grey zone” campaigns, particularly through powerful mediums like the internet and social media, continue to not only stoke division, often capitalising on targeted narratives surrounding domestic policy challenges like the cost of living, employment opportunities and life prospects, along other sources of individual atomisation or disconnection.

However, it is worth highlighting and stressing a key point, the way governments and policymakers respond to these assaults serves to impact the level of social and national cohesion, as well as serving to undermine trust in authorities and institutions, effectively creating a doom loop of negative feedback placing increased pressure on an already fracturing system.

As Coyne stressed: “Public confidence in democratic institutions carries strategic importance. Research by organisations such as the Lowy Institute and the Edelman Trust Barometer shows that institutional trust influences how societies respond to crises, misinformation and political shocks. Societies with higher levels of trust demonstrate stronger resilience during emergencies and greater capacity to sustain democratic governance under pressure.”

Going further, and rather definitively, Coyne stated: “National cohesion, therefore, is a strategic asset.”

This should ultimately come as no surprise, but for whatever reason, it does seem like we need to spell it out for some people.

National cohesion, unity is downstream from the people

One of the central themes of Coyne’s analysis is the concept of civic patriotism, a rather nebulous concept, almost as equally nebulous as the concept of “Australian values”, raising significant issues about how policymakers should seek to strengthen social and national cohesion.

Ultimately, this fails to accept a single but uncomfortable reality, that ultimately, national cohesion is downstream from the people who make up the nation, and, importantly, like a culture, their shared cultural norms. Uncomfortably, this also raises questions about the strength provided by multiculturalism, regardless of how well we think it may be doing.

It is impossible to escape the reality that people make up nations, their cultures shape it and make it what it is. This culture guarantees its success or its failure and while as Coyne stated: “Australia possesses strong reasons for national confidence. The country remains one of the world’s most stable democracies. Millions of migrants have chosen to build their lives in Australia because our institutions offer opportunity, stability and freedom.” The reality is, after all of this, diversity, by its very definition, may not in fact be our strength.

So what does that mean for Australia’s national security and resilience in an era of mounting competition and geopolitical tensions? Well, it requires a shift in our thinking, it requires that, as Coyne stated: “Public policy should reinforce democratic confidence. Civic education should explain how democratic institutions developed and why they protect individual rights. Governments should strengthen democratic literacy so citizens can recognise disinformation and foreign information operations.”

Coyne went on to add: “Democratic resilience ultimately depends on citizens believing their political community is worth defending and improving. Citizens who believe their country has value invest effort in strengthening it. Citizens who are convinced their country is irredeemably flawed disengage from that responsibility.”

But we must be clear-eyed about the challenges we face, false equivalences that sow the seeds of our own defeat and demise, and for that matter, our way of life.

Final thoughts

Australia has spent decades believing geography, prosperity and powerful allies would shield us from the harsher realities of history. That era is ending.

The world is returning to hard power, strategic competition and transactional geopolitics. In that environment, economic resilience, military credibility and social cohesion are no longer optional; they are essential to national survival.

If Australia wants to remain secure and genuinely sovereign in the decades ahead, we need to move beyond the habits of a comfortable middle power and start acting like a nation prepared to take responsibility for its own future and its own region.

For too long, we have lived within a strategic contradiction: tying our prosperity to China’s economic rise while anchoring our security to an increasingly inward-looking and politically fractured United States. Across Europe and Canada, we are also seeing growing social fragmentation, sectarian politics, identity-based polarisation and declining trust in institutions.

Australia is not immune to these pressures.

We are increasingly importing the same culture wars and ideological tribalism that have weakened social cohesion across much of the West.

Public debate is becoming less about shared national interests and more about competing political identities and grievance politics.

That is a dangerous path for a country like Australia.

A resilient Australia cannot be built on ethnic nationalism, imported sectarianism or the fragmentation of society into hostile political camps. What we need instead is a renewed sense of civic patriotism: the belief that Australians, regardless of background, are bound together by shared institutions, democratic values, mutual obligations and a common stake in the nation’s future.

Civic patriotism strengthens social trust, resilience and national confidence. Without it, neither economic prosperity nor military capability will be enough.

The decades ahead are likely to be less stable, less predictable and more contested than the world Australia grew used to after the Cold War. We did not create those conditions, but we do have a choice in how we respond.

We can continue hoping larger powers preserve a fading order for us, or we can begin the difficult but necessary task of becoming more self-reliant, more cohesive, and more serious about our place in the world.

That conversation cannot remain trapped within Canberra or the political class. Australians deserve an honest national discussion about who we are what we value, and what kind of country we intend to be in a far more uncertain century.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below or get in touch at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Stephen Kuper

Steve has an extensive career across government, defence industry and advocacy, having previously worked for cabinet ministers at both Federal and State levels.