CRACKING DOWN ON INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENTS IS A BAD IDEA
When Catalonia declared
independence from Spain in October, it was the first time an elected government
in Western Europe had declared independence from an unwilling host state since
Ireland's 1919 declaration of independence from Great Britain. Civil war did
not follow Catalonia's declaration as it did Ireland's.
Deposed Catalan President Carles Puigdemont says he backed down from
making the declaration effective because he wanted to avoid violence. As a
result, Spain has reasserted its authority and imprisoned key figures in the
independence movement, but polls show Catalans' support for independence has
only risen.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, the Kurdistan Regional Government held a referendum
on independence, which had a high turnout and passed overwhelmingly; the Iraqi
government responded quickly with military force, defeating Kurdish forces and
driving them back from disputed territory.
When central governments crack down on independence movements, political and economic instability and even violence are the usual outcome, writes Sorens [Reuters] |
How should central governments treat independence movements? My own
research shows that central governments can limit the uncertainty and violence
over secession campaigns when they provide a legal path to independence. The
most recent scenes in Catalonia and Iraqi Kurdistan only serve to further
confirm this finding. When central governments crack down on independence
movements, political and economic instability and even violence are the usual
outcomes.
There are two major reasons why suppressing secession attempts by force
is no solution to the issue. First, it is impossible to efface the dream of
independence from people's minds. Repression raises latent support for
independence, even if it removes all public expression of that support. If the
state eventually faces a moment of weakness or crisis, that latent support
could quickly break out into a mass movement, as happened in various parts of
Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union in the 1990s.
Spanish Prime Minister & independence supporter |
Second, when governments try to eliminate the possibility of
independence, they give themselves a freer hand to mistreat their ethnic
minorities. My research shows that democracies that define themselves as
"indivisible" in their constitutions are less likely to decentralize
power to their regions and give more rights to local communities to govern
themselves.
If minorities around the world enjoyed a right to independence, few would exercise it.
In many countries, even democracies, the ethnic majority opposes the
autonomy aspirations of minorities. Therefore, governments are tempted to recentralize
power as a way of winning votes. The recent growth of Spanish nationalist parties
such Citizens (Ciudadanos) is just another example of this familiar phenomenon.
The most effective way to restrain central governments' centralising temptation
is to give minorities an exit option.
If minorities around the world enjoyed a right to independence, few
would exercise it. In most places with secession movements, evidence suggests
only a minority of the population supports their aims.
Moreover, contrary to conventional wisdom, secessionism generally does
not spread across borders. Some evidence suggests that self-determination
claims are more likely to arise when there are more such claims in nearby
countries, but no one has yet found that the success of independence movements
in one country causes independence movements to become more successful in
nearby countries.
Even within countries, independence claims often do not spread. If
Catalonia were allowed to become independent, there is little chance that the
Basque Country or Galicia would follow in the near future. Unlike Catalonia,
the Basque provinces enjoy tax autonomy and are not heavily taxed for the
benefit of the rest of Spain.
If governments permitted independence, they could negotiate the terms.
Moreover, Basque nationalists do not want to gain independence until
all Basque territories support it, and the Basque region of Navarre has always
shown weak support for independence. Galicia is politically conservative and
enjoys net subsidies from the rest of Spain; independence is not a live option
there.
If governments permitted independence, they could negotiate the terms.
If Iraq had been willing to negotiate the terms of Kurdish independence, they
likely could have won territorial concessions without the use of military
force. If Spain had been willing to negotiate a binding referendum with the
Catalan government similar to the British government's deal with the Scottish
government in 2014, they could have worked out a threshold of success (say, 55
percent) that would have made success unlikely.
A failed referendum could have ended the independence threat for a
generation. Instead, by sending in thousands of riot police, jailing
politicians and taking their assets, banning websites, pressuring and raiding
private newspapers, print shops, and hotels, and prosecuting political
expression by private citizens, they have alienated moderate Catalans, lost
face internationally, and ensured that independence and related issues like "political
prisoners" will remain on the agenda for the indefinite future.
Supporting a negotiated, democratic solution to independence
controversies does not mean supporting independence. It simply means taking
away some of the risks and costs of these disputes and allowing a normal debate
on the merits of the issue to take place. Governments will treat all their
citizens better when they know they cannot forever trap them into political
subjection against their will.
What next :
What next :
Source : Al Jazeera web
BY -Jason Sorens
Jason Sorens is lecturer in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College.
No comments