Reshaping the State to Avoid Secession

Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal-Pioneer

If you can’t reshape a country politically, you may have to resize it.

That, simply put, is the theory posited by Ian Lustick, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, in his co-edited anthology Right-Sizing the State: The Politics of Moving Borders.

What he means is that states unwilling to accommodate demands by ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities, and therefore unable to contain secessionism, may end up smaller than they once were.

In the past few decades, we have observed a number of nations acceding to sub-nationalist or regionalist demands, usually by reshaping themselves into federations or granting the units involved more autonomy.

In Europe, for instance, Spain, Italy and Great Britain are no longer unitary states.

The Spanish constitution, ratified in 1978, granted both Catalonia and Euskadi (the Basque region) their own instruments of self-government. The autonomous communities – more have been added since -- constitute a highly decentralized form of territorial organization, and Madrid hopes this arrangement will help dampen secessionist feelings in the country.

Italy, to counter centrifugal forces, now has 15 regions with limited autonomy and another five with “special” self-rule. They all acquired more powers following a constitutional reform in 2001.

In the United Kingdom, Tony Blair’s Labour government was elected in 1997 with a promise of creating devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales; both now have their own assemblies.

Northern Ireland has even been granted the theoretical right to join the Republic of Ireland, should a majority vote that way in a future referendum. The 1998 Belfast Agreement states that any future change in its status can be brought about by “a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.”

Even France, the epitome of a centralized state, has allowed a measure of autonomy for the Mediterranean island of Corsica, which is now termed a territorial collectivity.

India has reshaped itself numerous times, in order to contain the vast and diverse population within its borders. In 1956, there was a wholesale reorganization of the Indian states along linguistic lines. Since then, many new states have been carved out of existing ones, to satisfy tribal groups and other minorities. The country now has 28 states, along with seven union territories.

African states, largely artificial constructs, have been less successful in meeting demands by regional or ethnic groups, perhaps because there are simply too many such groups to satisfy. Many countries have become failed states as a result and so face eventual downsizing. This has already happened to Ethiopia and the Sudan, as well as to Somalia, which has effectively ceased to exist. Others, such as the Congo and Nigeria, may follow and break apart.

Canada, too, has faced the issue of nationalist discontent, centred in Quebec. The wholesale reshaping of the country under Pierre Trudeau, which gave us official bilingualism and multiculturalism, went far in meeting the demands of francophone Canadians.

However, many Quebec nationalists wanted more autonomy and legislative powers for the province. Attempts to satisfy them through asymmetrical federalism, in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, failed, and as a result separatists almost managed to pull the province out of Canada in 1995.

Since then, parliament passed the Clarity Act in 2000, setting out the terms by which any future referendum will be deemed legitimate, and Stephen Harper’s government recognized the Québécois as a nation in 2006. Will this suffice, or is resizing the country, through the departure of Quebec, still in Canada’s future?