What's so bad about secession, in general?

Great Debates
1

Separatists around the world feel out-of-place or disconnected in their home nations, and feel that their regions deserve autonomy. These movements range from fairly mundane political ideas with little practical support (Hawaii) to violent uprisings (Chechnya) to dangerous terrorist organizations (the ETA).

Now, in a case such as the Confederacy’s secession from the Union, the separation granted legitimacy to one of history’s more memorable and haunting human rights disasters, and it was undoubtedly right (and good for the world) for the Union to take the land back by force. Some would argue that they should’ve gone farther than that, and sooner, and they may well have a point, but that’s outside the scope of this thread.

For this thread, assume that a hypothetical group of people from, say, Belgium, wants to secede and its new national government pledges to uphold the high human rights standards of the region, and to be a peaceful neighbor, etc. What would be so wrong with that group seceding?

2

It’s generally seen as bad by the mother country, because secession means a loss of people, land, resources, and economic and political power by the mother country. Whether it’s good or bad to the rest of the world probably depends on a case by case basis.

3

Fair enough, but if the choice is between losing a little political power and subjecting your citizens to the instability and (in some cases) violence of a separatist movement, why would you choose the latter?

4

The question hinges on the impact of the secession.

When Slovenia split, they took one of the more economically advantaged portions of the country.

The region of Belgium that wants to split has a higher per-capita GDP I believe.

Scotland would like to split, but they want to take the North Sea oil with them (as it sits off their shore, and they can’t afford to maintain their current level of government services without it).

The Confederacy leaving would not have had as much of an economic impact on the North - the war was for other reasons (IMHO).

Small groups of rich folks will happily secede rather than pay taxes to support the poor - that would be the primary risk IMHO. If you split up too much, sooner or later you will end up with economic balkanization - to complement the racial/ethnic/religious balkanization that is already going on.

5

As I understand it, the Flemish and the francophones each have separatist movements with decent political clout, and would have little trouble agreeing on a dividing line. AIUI, the alternative there seems to be one divided nation without any real unified system of national government.

6

If you allow secession where does it stop? On what grounds does one say it makes sense or it doesn’t?

I could be wrong but in the case of Scotland I’d argue they have far more in common with the rest of Great Britain than they have differences. A better course would be to try and work out whatever issues they may have. Some may be accommodated, some not but such compromise is part of living in a society.

If a particular group was wholly at odds with the controlling government perhaps there is a case for secession but even then it is dicey. What if Americans of Mexican descent decided they are different enough they want their own country and want to secede with, say, Texas and New Mexico. They should be allowed?

I could see something like Puerto Rico going its own way and in fact I think the US would let it. Just they themselves cannot seem to make up their own minds about that.

7

If you thought a minority group in your country would ever consider succession, why would the majority ever vote to build any infrastructure in their territory?

8

I’m disturbed by the way you frame this question. Should no one ever fight for independence? Should empires never be broken up?

Do you object to the various secessions from the USSR (which were legal under Soviet law)?

9

Lincoln noted that succession is anathema to democracy. Why would the minority try to work with the majority where there’s a disagreement when they can just leave?

This was probably a bigger issue when representative democracy was so young and unproven and before the outcome of the Civil War established the precedent that one doesn’t just leave a sovereign nation.

10

I think secession needs to be very carefully considered and not lightly embarked upon. In the case of Russia many of those countries used to be distinct countries and were under Soviet sway. These countries however were distinct ethnic populations with distinct languages, culture, religion, you name it. To me they were reasserting their original independence.

If you are part of a group who is being actively oppressed and with no way to rectify the situation (e.g. the government is a dictatorship) I think they have much more reason to fight for independence. In a democracy there should be avenues for compromise that are far simpler than seceding.

But Scotland? Quebec? That just seems crazy and to me more likely a case of a few craving power and stirring the pot for their own benefit.

11

It is a historical evidence that national borders are continually changing. It is reasonable, in my view, to accept that they will continue changing in the future.

Historically, territorial issues are one of the major causes of violent conflict, from conquests to wars of independence. I would venture to say that territorial issues play a central role in a majority of historical conflicts.

Wars, in themselves, are bad and are a form of collective human failure.

Social and geographical change being unavoidable, flexible political structures are necessary if we are to seek to avert violent conflict.

If a group can freely join a political union, it should also be able to leave.

Now, it might not be a good idea for a particular group to leave a particular union and a particular time, but there ought to be a mechanism to achieve separation peacefully. Furthermore, this mechanism does not need to be simple due to the consequences of going through with it.

There is nothing silly about some Quebecers wanting independence from Canada. “Canada” is an arbitrary political structure and if Newfoundland can join, Quebec can leave. By the same token, there is nothing wrong in principle with Westmount leaving Quebec.

12

Related to this is the fact that allowing secesion makes it hell on future planning.

13

There is nothing wrong about secession, per se. In fact, in many cases it is the best solution when two or more different peoples living in the same country have very divergent goals, and especially when one is the victim of repression. But of course, as Captain Amazing mentions, the country that is internationally recognized will almost always oppose secession, since it causes them to lose territory and resources. (The only exception I’m aware of is Singapore, which became independent as the result of being expelled from Malaysia.) As well, it is frequent that one or more of the new entities will suffer economically as a result of secession, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a reason not to attempt it.

Some people in this thread have suggested that if we allow secession, we get on a slippery slope that will allow any group, up to the individual, to secede. I disagree. In almost every case, the entity that wants to secede from an independent country forms a sociological nation. (Now, I’m sure there are cases where, say, an American municipality wants to secede from its country to join the neighbouring one, but I won’t consider this as it is solely an interior matter.) A nation, basically, is a group of people sharing a culture and a sense of belonging together. They may or may not be defined in terms of ethnic group of common language. I must admit that nations are a rather “fuzzy” concept, in the sense that it’s difficult to understand why some group forms a nation and some other doesn’t. But when they exist, they are recognizable. I’ve heard them described as “imagined communities”, but what is clear is that here, imagined emphatically does not mean imaginary.

In the current case of Belgium, to discuss fetus’s example, it is quite clear that Flems and Walloons are two different nations. They speak different languages and have a different view of their history, and don’t necessarily have much contact with each other. Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that they should form two different countries. But they appear to have different views about the future of their country. Their political disagreements (Flems tend to favour liberals while Walloons tend to favour socialists) are making the country very difficult to govern. As well, Flems are tired of the perceived arrogance of the Walloons towards them. Most Flems speak Dutch (Flemish) as well as French, English and possibly other languages, while Walloons rarely speak Dutch. So they feel that they are stuck in a country with a neighbour that doesn’t care about them, and that prevents them from reaching their potential. This is why many of them are starting to think about secession. (Unlike fetus, I’ve never heard of secessionist Walloon groups.)

Now, secession of Flanders from Belgium isn’t necessarily the best idea. In fact, in this case, it seems to me that a more decentralized federation might be a better idea. But I don’t get to decide, this is something Flems and Walloons will have to decide. But I want to respond to Whack-a-Mole’s comment about secession being the thing of “a few craving power”. This is emphatically not the case. In the secessionist movements I know about, the members hold the ideas they do because they think that membership in their country hinders their nation’s progress. The power they get to wield doesn’t have anything to do about it (at least, not more than any other politically active person or politician).

14

This is a big issue. If secession was a likely option, how could any country function? Each region would try to ensure that it got the biggest share of national resources while putting the least into the common pot. Regions that came up short would want to get out of a losing situation and regions that were ahead would want to get out before the balance could turn against them. Regions with natural resources would see their assets being exploited as quickly as possible so they couldn’t secede with them. And of course as each region seceded and became an independant nation, it would face the same problems between its own local regions. Eventually you’d end up with a world full of little tribes, each living in its own little fortified village.

15

Secession need not be a likely option, merely one for which a legal mechanism exists. I believe it is safe to make the following prediction: in the future some region, somewhere, will seek to secede from its parent state, whether it is legal for it to do so or not. I would rather this attempt be peaceful.

16

As in so much of any art, politics is knowing where to draw the line.

Where does secession end? Can Blacks not bear to live in the same nation as Whites? Francophones must be free from Anglophones? Does everyone with a lisp and a pet name for God need their own nation? What would the world be like if we all went off on our own and had no sense of community?

No, separatism is mostly a last gasp of nationalism, in an age where we can only hope to build worldwide communities.

17

Where do you draw the line? The easier you make the process the more you increase the likelihood of it occurring. I’m not saying I’d only like to see places secede through armed means. But I would like the process to be somewhat difficult - secessionists should be required to jump through a few hoops.

18

Actually, I agree with this. The same holds true for joining a country, also. My position is merely that secession is historically inevitable, and hence we need tools to make it work for the best when it does happen.

19

The very idea that somebody else should be able to define lines on the ground and tell me that I’m not allowed to cross them and that my legal status depends on which side of those lines I was born on is so bizarre that, if it hadn’t always been that way, I’d never have believed it.

Many posters have noted useful things about nations but have left out the critical element of geography. Nations are motivated by the people in them, but they are defined in terms of the ground. In cases where people are geographically clustered by some kinds of common interests such as sociological continuity, nations tend to form. But in cases where fairly distinct clusters of interest are represented by people whose locations are mixed together, nations don’t.

20

In some cases secession may make a world of sense. In the case of Quebec it is absurd and I do think it is some few craving power stirring up the pot to no good end.

What is SO different between the French and non-French in Quebec? A language. Anything else? Are they even a distinct ethnic group in this day and age? How has Canada been repressive to the francophones? If anything they have been accommodating and it has been the French who have been repressive to the non-French (in 1977 they passed a law where education in English-language schools was greatly restricted). In 1987 Canada worked on the Meech Lake accords. In 1992 Canada again worked on new constitutional changes which, among other things, would recognize Quebec as a distinct society.

And what good would come of secession? The closest it came was a roughly 49.5% referendum to secede. Imagine they had got 50.1%. They then secede? The other very nearly equal in size group is just SOL? This would likely cause people to leave the area. Their economy would be adversely affected. Businesses may well leave. You then would be left with a country smaller in population that of the Chicagoland area smack in the middle of Canada. Of course Canada would be in the unique position of defending Quebec with its military without the advantage of its tax base. What of all the money Canada has already sunk into development of Quebec? Should Quebec pay that back?

California’s population is 41% of Mexican origin per the 2000 census (cite PDF. Likely even more today. If they hit 50.1% then California should be allowed to secede from the United States and form its own country?