AHC: A world without nation-states

Wikipedia said:
The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit... the concept and actuality of the nation state can be compared and contrasted with that of the multinational state, city state, empire, confederation, and other state forms with which it may overlap. The key distinction from the other forms is the identification of a people with a polity.
Most of the world is divided into sovereign nation-states of some sort, usually based around a common language and ethnic identity. There are some federations like the USA and India, and some unstable or failed states, but geopolitics in Europe and west Asia is dominated by nation-states.

That's not been the case for all history, though. Tribes are considered the earliest form of organisation, but they still have sway in a few places. Greece was famous for its city-states and the alliances between them. Europe was once ruled by the Roman Empire. Dynasties have held power in multiple countries. Many nations made colonies of some sort, which could be kept. There has been wishful speculation about Pan-Aryan, Pan-Muslim, Pan-Arab, etc. superstates. Blocs like NATO and the EU have a degree of power, and federated blocs are common in AH. Anarchists tried to establish communes in Spain and Ukraine. So there's a lot more ways to run a territory than a sovereign state. The challenge is making them win over the nation-state in the modern age, and in as many different forms as possible.

What would it take for a world where you can boat between the confederate city-states encircling the Mediterranean (or the Atlantic!), walk the streets of anarchic frontier towns in the New World, or walk the sprawling multi-ethnic grandeur of a modern empire from end to end? Can it be done without a nuclear war? How is territory protected, trade conducted, war waged in these forms of states? Would there be an equivalent to the UN without the idea of national sovereignty?
 
I think more important than external organization (i.e. between the political entities) is internal organization.

The nation state as a model has been really, really successful in propagating itself, at the expense of other forms of political organization. In order for alternatives to survive, they must be able to resist the nation-state, and they must have perks that allow their constituent parts to want to keep the status quo. This requires internal organization in a way that is different from the nation-state, but allows them to resist either the force of the nation-state or the desire to become a nation-state.

So why should federated city-states stay that way, instead of centralizing? Why should the constituent nations of an empire not decide to make their own states and keep themselves subservient to the imperial center?

Maybe free trade-wealth gained by the movement of goods within the federation/empire could keep people interested. Maybe rights-an imperial crown that defends corporate rights and privilege of the different locales/classes/ethnicities under its jurisdiction could keep its crown.

It's a very interesting idea. My own timeline has a pre-nation state POD, and I want to explore alternatives to the nation-state, but it's very hard to wrap one's head around an alternate concept, so deeply is the idea engrained.
 
Top