Should Large Nations Split into Small Nations?

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/world/should-large-nations-split-small-nations

Since 1945 the number of nations has soared from about 60 to more than 180. The first wave of new sovereign states came with the decolonization movement of the 1960s and 1970s; the second in the early 1990s with the break-up of the Soviet Union. If Scotland votes for independence it may ignite a third wave. Dozens of would-be nations are waiting in the wings: Wales, Catalonia, Flanders, Breton, the list is long.

In 1957 in his classic book The Breakdown of Nations economist and political scientist Leopold Kohr persuasively and rigorously argued that small nations are the natural order having been throughout history the engines for enlightenment, innovation, mutual aid and the arts. The large nation state, he argued is not a reflection of improved efficiency but of superior force.

“It is the great powers which lack the real basis of existence and are without autochthonous, self-sustaining sources of strength. It is they that are the artificial structures, holding together a medley of more or less unwilling little tribes. There is no Great British' nation in Great Britain. What we find are the English, Scots, Irish, Cornish, Welsh, and the islanders of Man. In Italy, we find the Lombards, Tyroleans, Venetians, Sicilians, or Romans. In Germany we find Bavarians, Saxons, Hessians, Rhinelanders, or Brandenburgers. And in France, we find Normans, Catalans, Alsatians, Basques, or Burgundians. These little nations came into existence by themselves, while the great powers had to be created by force and a series of bloodily unifying wars. Not a single component part joined them voluntarily. They all had to be forced into them, and could be retained by them only by means of their division into counties, Gaue, or departments. . . .”

With a population of 5.2 million, a sovereign Scotland would rank just below the median size of the world’s nations. It could rest assured that nations of its size can thrive. Think Finland, Costa Rica, Ireland, Norway. Small nations are easier to administer, more nimble in policy and their governments are more accountable to and reflective of their communities. Indeed, it is the divergence between the values of the Scottish culture and those of the Conservative government in Whitehall that has been a major impetus for independence. That divergence is reflected in the fact that today only one Tory holds a seat from Scotland in the British Parliament.

[merrily]

1. The PTB want to divide and conquer, except when they don't.

[PATRICK]

2. That says it better

than this typical debate piece that blithely mixes throwback tribalism, ethnic divisions as an ideal even though most the small nations except maybe Iceland still contain dissatisfied minorities. The US has no such easy sectoring based on tribalism except the diffuse bundle of native American tribes. A good thin in one case is a bad in another. The final argument in breaking up and down unfair and non-working states would be enlightened anarchy. The other end would be sensibly pooling for the largest cooperative collectives. This argument, presumably tailored for Scotland, falls into some historical morass in between.

Somehow the article seems a paean to the misery that is human governance, sort of off point or blinkered.

[merrily]

3. I think the US does have tribalism. Not literally tribes, except, of course,

for First Nations, as you specified. But, it does have groups that behave similarly to tribes, sometimes as to all issues, sometimes as to specific issues. Red v. Blue is one. Theocrats vs. secularists is another. South v. North. Certainly WASP and WASP male vs. everyone else. American born v. immigrants (documented and undocumented). And so on.

Easy sectoring? Depends on how well you tolerate stragglers. I imagine, though, even a cave dweller or two straggled, saying "Fuck it. I'm not killing anymore people over who lives in the next cave over."

[cali]

4. It's an interesting thought exercise but there's a substantial slice of pie in the sky

wishful thinking imbedded in it.

For instance:

Perhaps after it gains political sovereignty and attends to its internal affairs, Scotland could engage the global rules that prevent governments from expressing the will of their citizens. As historian Arthur Herman has noted in his book How the Scots Invented the World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It, Scotland has once before had an outsized impact on the world. In the 18th century Scotland’s appreciation for democracy and its strong emphasis on universal literacy made Edinburgh and Glasgow epicenters of intellectual thought. All of us are aware of one of Scotland’s most famous sons, Adam Smith. But very few of us are aware that before he wrote The Wealth of Nations he wrote the 1759 best seller. A Theory of Moral Sentiments. Building on the ideas of Francis Hutcheson, one of the founders of the Scottish Enlightenment, Smith argued that sympathy and empathy could be the twin foundations of a just economy.

In reality, there is little an independent Scotland could do to "engage global rules that prevent governments from expressing the will of their citizens". What does that even really mean?

Ending with this:

Is it too much to ask a tiny nation to again re-invent the modern world?

Why yes, it entirely unrealistic to believe a nation of less than 6 million people can re-invent the modern world- and it never did so before. Influencing the modern world and re-inventing it are too entirely different things.

Furthermore, what Kohr argues for is nations based on common ethnicity and religion- and it was written in 1957 which means it pre-dates most of the immigration to Europe that has changed that continent.

. In Italy, we find the Lombards, Tyroleans, Venetians, Sicilians, or Romans. In Germany we find Bavarians, Saxons, Hessians, Rhinelanders, or Brandenburgers. And in France, we find Normans, Catalans, Alsatians, Basques, or Burgundians. These little nations came into existence by themselves, while the great powers had to be created by force and a series of bloodily unifying wars. Not a single component part joined them voluntarily. They all had to be forced into them, and could be retained by them only by means of their division into counties, Gaue, or departments. . . .”

I like small. I agree that small nations are easier to administer and more responsive to its citizens but the idea that Roman and Tyroleans and Venetians should form there own nations, is rooted in supposed ethnic and cultural differences. It's an outdated concept.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. And ironically, that 18th century Scotland he admires so much was the first century of Great Britain

It can just as easily be used to argue that being combined with England allowed the Scottish intellectuals to flourish.

[randome]

6. With immigration and the Internet, most national boundaries exist in concept only.

You could say that even the U.S. is a collective of 50 'nations' that have entered into numerous treaties with the national government to regulate trade, travel, etc.

To ease global conflict and resource wars, we need to reduce our overall population. But no one seems to care about that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Shankapotomus]

7. I think all nations

should provide a non-violent way for states, provinces, prefects, or whatever name they have for different areas, to secede or form a separate nation. You give them a vote and if the votes say they want to break off you let them go on a friendly basis. That way both sides can still trade and have economic and social exchanges with each other and you don't have to worry about festering animosity and war.

I think denying groups the opportunity to break off and experiment with their own government is the chief driver of extremism. Groups become extremist after being denied the opportunity to govern themselves for too long.

There should be a peaceful way groups can experiment with governing themselves. Even if it's the creation of an artificial island somewhere. Let people try what they want. They are not worth keeping if they are going to fight you over it.

The policy should be: "We just want populations and areas that want to be a part of this nation. And if you don't, you are free to go."