McGarry, J. (1998) ‘Orphans of Secession: National Pluralism in Secessionist Regions and Post-Secessionist States’

McGarry, J. (1998) ‘Orphans of Secession: National Pluralism in Secessionist Regions and Post-Secessionist States’, in M. Moore, ed., National Self-Determination and Secession, Oxford, OUP, 216-28.

1. National pluralism problem: many states, even while respecting individual rights, do not treat all national groups with equal respect.
2. ‘New liberalism’ school attempts to remedy this, but do not extend their analysis to debate on self-determination and secession: still offer a restrictive view of right to secession (eg. A. Buchanan: only if group is victim of injustice). They do not consider the nationalist basis of most secession movements (216)
3. Neither do they think adequately about national pluralism in post-secession states, even when they recognize a broader right to self-determination (eg. D. Philpott: right to self-determination, including secession, grounded in expression of autonomy).
4. Not helpful to elaborate theoretical principles that make abstraction from national diversity, diversity of seceding area, majority – minority relations, type of existent group identities, which are all critical to each specific secession case.
5. Problems involved in governing in post-secession states rooted in fact that these regions were seriously divided on the secession project. The new states are probably just as heterogenous as predecessors and just as likely to abuse their own minorities and engage in conflict.
6. Solution: move away from nation-state model and towards that of a ‘multinational state’ in which all groups are treated equally. “[T]he principle of equal treatment involves moving away from idea of independent states and embracing transborder or supra-state political institutions” (217).
7. Secessionism is usually highly contested not just by remainder state but also within secessionist region, by local ethnic minorities, against the largest regional ethnic group that achieved secession.
8. Secessions usually occur along administrative rather than national lines; therefore, national heterogeneity continues. Administrative boundaries did not create homogenous subunits on purpose, to better “control minority passions” (219).
9. Sometimes ethnic minorities do support secession (eg. Baltic Countries and Ukraine in former USSR). In other cases opposition can come even from large sections of local ethnic majority against the elite driving the project.
10. Conclusion: “demands of these groups for autonomy can be satisfied short of secession, and that if secession is to occur, it is unlikely that there will be a consensus behind it”. This is because “[o]utside of polarized conflict zones, individuals frequently have nestled identities, and feel part of several communities simultaneously” (220).
11. In many cases, “secession does not solve the problem of national diversity: it merely places it in a different state context.”
12. New states are often ‘nationalizing states’ seeking to promote interests of national majorities (language, culture, symbols) at the expense of their own minorities (Brubaker).
13. Most new minorities do not revolt; many migrate back to the rump state where they are in the majority. Those who remain mobilize to secure their individual and group rights.
14. Members with dual identities accept the new state but “regret the passing of the old” (222).
15. Two key issues arise out of attempt to reconcile nationally-defined self-determination with liberal values of equal respect and individual autonomy:
    1. Do these dynamics, present especially in Eastern Europe, apply to Western Europe and North America as well? There is no clear East-West dichotomy: cases are rather on a continuum, depending on their specific circumstances (eg. Quebec has its own minorities opposed to secession that are highly mobilized).
    2. Is the focus on the pre-and post-secession periods an unfair context for theorizing, rather than taking a longer-term approach to allow identities to adjust to the new state? Conditions which produce conflict during state formation may be durable (eg. Northern Ireland, Israel, Romania). Triadic Nexus will continue to evolve in a vicious circle of conflict (new states worry about minority revols and frontiers security; minorities continue to withhold their loyalty; neighboring states continue irredentist claims).
16. Similar problems may continue in rump states as well, where remaining minorities may be subjected to ‘nationalizing projects’ of remaining majority (eg. Catholics in Northern Ireland).
17. Need to address causes of minority discontent before support for secession reaches a tipping point because the original state continues behaving like a nation-state with only one nation. Timely and genuine decentralization often effectively addresses the causes of such grievances. Extensive decentralization is consistent with state unity.
18. Arrangements should be also made for minorities to be represented in central governments, through partnership strategies resulting in power-sharing regimes.
19. Nationalizing states and even liberal nation-states are not suitable frameworks for this: need to develop institutions based on accommodating all national groups.
20. Breakaway states should seem to win support from their own minorities by adopting similar decentralist and consociationalist strategies.
21. “The appropriate way to address these problems of parallel and overlapping national loyalties is to move beyond the notion of traditional ‘Westphalian-style’ independent states and construct supra-state partnerships and institutions” (227).
22. “Such accommodation of minority nations is, however, very much the ideal, and rarely the practice” (228).