Lecture 6 Flashcards
How do secessionist movements formulate strategy and choose tactics?
Secessionist movements attempt to compel and make normative appeals in different combinations depending on local conditions such as regime type, the strength of the state, and the degree to which the region is already de facto independent. These efforts are aimed at not only the home state, but also the international community that can apply pressure on the home state to negotiate with the secessionists
six kinds of Secessionist movements:
- Democratized
- Indigenous legal
3 + 4 . combative/strong state + combative/weak state - decolonial
- de facto
Democratic movement
These take place in highly institutionalized/democratic polities. Their main tactic of compelence is electoral capture—that is, using the democratic institutions of the state to pursue independence. Their primary normative appeal is that an identifiable nation should be able to choose its political fate via a democratic process
indigenous legal movement
They represent a variation on the democratized movement insofar as they also maneuver in, and perhaps depend on, a highly institutionalized and democratic environment in which they can compete electorally. The key difference is that they can appeal to historical injustices regarding the fate of indigenous peoples in settler societies
combative/strong state + combative/weak state movements
Given their interconnectivity and potential for friction with the state and their weakly or noninstitutionalized settings, they are often the location of violence and suppression
their chief normative argument will focus on the right to secession in the face of human rights abuses by the state
I posit that secessionist movements are more likely to choose violence when they face weaker states
Decolonial movement
defining feature of these movements is their ability to appeal to the norms surrounding decolonization. Relative to the other normative arguments discussed in this article, decolonization is usually a winning hand, one that is recognized by UN resolution
de facto
These are the least institutionally integrated. They are functional, breakaway regions that are denied international recognition
The secessionists have prevailed and established a state in empirical terms, but, as a result, reduced or minimized their points of contact with the home state.
Instead of a complex situation of dual and overlapping sovereignty, the two sides are clearly separated by linear boundaries
I. Nationalist demands
- Rokkan and Urwin (1983): “pathways to autonomy”— peripheral protest, regional autonomy, federalism, confederal and secession
- Dewinter and Tursan: protectionist, autonomist, federalist and independentist
- Dandoy (2010): from soft to radical demands — protectionist, decentralist, secessionist
Levels of Nationalist Demands
- Protectionist — preservationist or participationist
o For example SSW in Schleswig-Holstein
Not only do you want to preserve (protect) your identity but you also want more participation (more power, autonomy) - Autonomy within the state structures: autonomist, federalist, confederal
o For example UK Labor’s support for 1997 devolution referendum
Accommodating demands by kind of giving the governments somewhat independence
Sometimes federalism is being sought in the hope of independence - Secessionist — independence, joining neighboring state, independence with neighboring territories in other states.
o For example South Tyrolean irredentism
Other categories of secessionist strategies
- Dandoy (2014): governmental, tribunitial (based on political speeches and discourse), out-system (non-conventional) strategies
- Griffiths and Wasser (2019): institutional and extra-institutional routes
- Strategy often determined by whether movement is consensual or contested (Muro 2020)
- Strategies may be targeted at a domestic national audience, at the state, or at the international audience—and these audiences needs may be conflicting
