“patriotism is a healthy thing,” South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas said in late March, arguing that Australians should feel comfortable displaying their national symbols with pride.
Peter Malinauskas and public expression of patriotism
Malinauskas’s remark, cited in the source, frames patriotism as a public sentiment that can be openly expressed without shrinking from critique. The source argues this expression need not be jingoistic or unreflective: instead, it can sit alongside robust public debate and institutional scrutiny. That balance — pride in national symbols and institutions, coupled with openness to criticism — is presented as a foundation for a confident, cohesive civic culture.
Civic patriotism versus nationalism
The source draws a clear conceptual line between civic patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is defined as a “love of country” that can be mature enough to “recognis[e] both achievement and failure in the national story.” Civic patriotism, specifically, “centres on commitment to democratic institutions, the rule of law and the shared political community that maintains them.”
By contrast, the source describes nationalism as often demanding “unquestioning loyalty” and framing belonging in terms of ethnicity or exclusion. The distinction matters because civic patriotism, as described, encourages citizens to use democratic channels — courts, elections, independent media — to hold power to account while preserving the institutions that enable such dissent.
Foreign information operations: Russian and Chinese messaging
The source places civic patriotism in the context of strategic competition in the information environment. It asserts that “Russian and Chinese information operations regularly promote narratives portraying liberal democracies as hypocritical, corrupt or irreparably divided.” Specifically, Russian state media is described as “frequently fram[ing] Western political debate as evidence of societal collapse,” while Chinese state messaging “often highlights democratic dysfunction while presenting authoritarian governance as stable and effective.”
Those adversarial narratives, the source says, are purposive: they seek to “weaken democratic societies by amplifying internal distrust and undermining confidence in institutions,” making divided societies “easier to influence, intimidate or coerce.”
Institutional trust: findings from the Lowy Institute and the Edelman Trust Barometer
The source cites research from the Lowy Institute and the Edelman Trust Barometer to argue that public confidence in institutions carries strategic importance. That research, as reported, shows institutional trust affects how societies respond to crises, misinformation and political shocks. Societies with higher trust, the source says, “demonstrate stronger resilience during emergencies and greater capacity to sustain democratic governance under pressure.”
Put simply in the source’s terms: national cohesion is a strategic asset. Where trust is higher, democratic systems are better able to withstand external pressure and internal stress; where trust erodes, vulnerabilities multiply.
What this means for governments, educators, and the public
- Governments: The source recommends that public policy should “reinforce democratic confidence.” It calls on political leaders to “clearly defend democratic institutions when adversarial narratives seek to portray liberal democracy as inherently illegitimate.”
- Educators and civic institutions: The source urges stronger civic education to “explain how democratic institutions developed and why they protect individual rights,” and to strengthen “democratic literacy so citizens can recognise disinformation and foreign information operations.”
- The public: The source frames civic engagement as consequential. “Citizens who believe their political community is worth defending and improving” are more likely to invest effort in strengthening it, while those convinced their country is “irredeemably flawed” may disengage — a dynamic the source presents as dangerous in the face of external influence campaigns.
The central claim of the source is straightforward: healthy civic patriotism supports accountability rather than suppressing dissent. It permits — indeed, encourages — candid public criticism of policy and history while maintaining confidence in the democratic framework that makes such critique possible. The policy prescriptions offered are similarly direct: defend institutions publicly, teach democratic literacy, and balance honest historical scrutiny with recognition of institutional achievements. Whether those prescriptions will be taken up in practice is the next, very practical question the source leaves for public leaders and civic institutions to answer.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/civic-patriotism-makes-strengthens-our-democracy/
