Centralism and the Myth of a Homogenous Nation
In contemporary debates surrounding identity and statehood, few issues are as contentious as the question of what constitutes a nation. Our understanding diverges fundamentally from the centralist view, especially in contexts marked by deep ethnic and cultural diversity. While we recognize that identity is a multilayered construct shaped by class, gender, religion, and other sociopolitical dimensions, the crux of our divergence with centralists lies in how we approach ethnic identity—the most overt and persistent site of tension in any discourse on nationhood.
Centralists often conceptualize the nation as a primordial, almost mythic community. Their emphasis lies not on the horizontal solidarity among individuals or groups, but on vertical, hierarchical structures that reinforce the state’s authority. From this perspective, legitimacy flows downward from a centralized power, which in turn derives its strength from its ability to enforce a singular national identity across a wide geographic and cultural landscape.
At a superficial level, this vision may appear pragmatic or even unifying. However, the actual mechanisms through which such unity is achieved reveal its exclusionary core: the imposition of Persian monolingualism, the suppression of mother tongue education, the political centralization of power, and the economic marginalization of peripheral regions. Far from fostering genuine national cohesion, this model seeks to erase diversity and impose cultural uniformity in the name of national unity.
An Alternative Understanding of Nationhood
We propose a different framework—one that acknowledges the role of ethnic identity not as a threat to national unity but as a foundational element of nationhood itself. In our view, a nation is typically composed of a relatively homogenous group that shares linguistic, cultural, and territorial commonalities. Yet beyond these surface features lies something more crucial: a collective sense of belonging and a shared vision for the future.
This collective sentiment is not a given; it must be cultivated. It is precisely this dynamism—the ability to envision and sustain a shared future—that gives a nation its vitality. Importantly, this sentiment can persist even when demographic homogeneity fades, as long as the underlying bonds of mutual recognition and cultural legitimacy remain intact.
Applying this framework to a context like Iran, with its rich and diverse cultural-linguistic mosaic, reveals a critical insight: marginalized and ethnically distinct groups are structurally excluded from the dominant national identity. Whether by coercion or choice, these communities often find it impossible to generate the collective sense of belonging necessary for true nationhood—at least as defined by the centralist state.
The centralist project has consistently undermined the political, cultural, and economic life of non-central ethnic groups. In doing so, it has destroyed the very conditions required for these communities to see themselves as part of a shared national fabric. For this reason, our political orientation must shift from imposed cross-group affiliations toward the revival and strengthening of intra-group commonalities and self-determination.
Reviving Suppressed Tendencies
What we seek is not separation for its own sake, nor antagonism toward the idea of unity. Rather, we aim to recover long-suppressed tendencies of cultural self-expression, local autonomy, and linguistic pluralism—tendencies that have been deliberately muted by a centralist system fearful of any deviation from its homogenizing ideal.
Our call is not just for recognition, but for a redefinition: of nationhood, of legitimacy, and of the structures through which diverse communities may coexist without being forced into false uniformity. It is only through this redefinition that a truly inclusive, pluralistic, and just political order can emerge.