[EL] Rights to secession: Does size matter?

Tue Nov 27 21:49:26 PST 2012

I was fairly sure that Singapore seceded from Malaysia, with the Singaporeans blocking the causeway and declaring their independence. But it seems that I may have been mistaken;  most of the references I could find in a quick online search characterize the split as an expulsion of Singapore from Malaysia. The truth may be somewhere in between, as suggested in The Ashgate Research Companion to Secession (Pavkovic and Radan, eds. 2011) , Case Study 6: Singapore: Expulsion or Negotiated Secession? (Bill K.P. Chou). See http://books.google.com/books?id=AiR8hyE8jXMC&lpg=PA480&ots=XaErsXjPYC&dq=singapore%20expelled%20or%20seceded&pg=PR4#v=onepage&q=singapore%20expelled%20or%20seceded&f=false.  (I’ve only seen the excerpt you can access free via Google Books; even in e-book form it costs $123.96, according to Google Books).

Here is another description of what happened, from an Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies paper (Anthony L. Smith, 2004), which refers to the split as a secession:

“Malaysia and Singapore, separated by a causeway only a kilometer long, have a laundry list of bilateral problems as do, typically, any two neighbors. However, this is complicated by the fact that Singapore seceded from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965 leaving a number of entanglements and lingering suspicions that remain till today. The issue that caused the split between Malaysia and Singapore was Malaysia’s insistence on political favoritism for indigenous Malays. Singapore, which has remained just under 80 percent ethnic Chinese since independence, rejected this notion arguing that only a merit-based system could underscore economic and social development. The then-leader of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, had argued for a ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ which is used as a short-hand term for the removal of favoritism for ethnic Malays ….” http://www.apcss.org/Publications/SAS/AsiaBilateralRelations/Malaysia-SingaporeRelationsSmith.pdf.

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of David Lublin
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:33 PM
To: Mark Rush
Cc: polcan at listes.ulaval.ca; law-election at uci.edu; David Lublin; LAWCOURT-L at listserv.tulane.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Rights to secession: Does size matter?

Like marriages, few political unions are crafted with the divorce planned or even permitted.  Maybe it would be better if they were, but they aren't.

As I'm sure you're aware, it would be hard for the rest of Spain to throw out Catalonia on the "Survivor" model since the Spanish government's contention is that secession is not a right and that it would violate the Spanish constitution.  The post-Franco Spanish constitution allowed the provinces to come together to form "autonomous communities."  At its foundation, Spain was relatively decentralized when formed through the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella, though I don't think anyone thought the consent of the regions was at all relevant at the time.

Only a minority of federations were crafted by separate states explicitly coming together voluntarily into a union: Australia, Canada, and the U.S. are the clearest examples, though I'd also add probably Argentina, Brazil and Switzerland.  So the "consent" model of federation doesn't really apply everywhere.

Singapore is the major case of expulsion that comes to mind--on ethnic grounds.  They seem to have done alright.

Best,
David

-----law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:-----law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> wrote: -----
To: David Lublin <lublinau at gmail.com<mailto:lublinau at gmail.com>>
From: Mark Rush
Sent by: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
Date: 11/27/2012 10:53PM
Cc: "polcan at listes.ulaval.ca<mailto:polcan at listes.ulaval.ca>" <polcan at listes.ulaval.ca<mailto:polcan at listes.ulaval.ca>>, "LAWCOURT-L at listserv.tulane.edu<mailto:LAWCOURT-L at listserv.tulane.edu>" <LAWCOURT-L at listserv.tulane.edu<mailto:LAWCOURT-L at listserv.tulane.edu>>, "law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] Rights to secession: Does size matter?
I guess that's one way to look at it.

Yes, Russia seceded from the Soviet Union.  But, were the rest of Spain to have said "enough" and sought to throw Catalonia out or were the Albertans finally to saddle up and lead the rest of Canada in a charge to expel Quebec (sans Hydro Quebec, western Montreal, etc. of course), there would be recriminations and, perhaps, claims of ethnic cleansing--especially if those being expelled were poor, less monied, etc..

I think the Canadian Supreme Court put it well (but not as elegantly as it might have) in the Secession reference.  SCOTUS was more blunt about an indestructible union of indestructible states in Texas v. White, (I believe).  Either way, it seems that secession from a union--as with entrance into it--requires consent of both parties, no?
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:20 AM, David Lublin <lublinau at gmail.com<mailto:lublinau at gmail.com>> wrote:
This is a question in search of a problem.  Let's think about cases:

Russia did secede from the Soviet Union to the ultimate relief of several other republics.

Czechoslovakia's dissolution was complicated.  Though initiated by Slovakia, the Czech Republic's leadership was willing to see it go so it could pursue it's own agenda of market reform.

There is a major secessionist movement in Flanders--the larger unit in Belgium.  The largest party in Flanders is now the N-VA (New Flemish Alliance).  Belgium's party system is completely divided along ethnic lines but the major secessionist party is Flemish.

In the UK, England doesn't have an autonomous regional government to initiate secession.  Many other countries follow the UK format with no autonomy for the larger unit but for the ethnoregional minority (Nevis in St. Kitts and Nevis, Barbuda in Antigua and Barbuda, Rodrigues in Mauritius, Aland in Finland).  Nevis has an explicit right to secession--2/3 vote of the people (it failed in the low 60s once) after a vote in favor by the Nevis Island Assembly.  The others do not--Aland's autonomy arrangements were crafted explicitly to preclude secession and avoid war between Finland and Sweden.

In Spain, there is no larger unit to demand secession in the sense that there is no majority unit.  The Castillian areas are broken among many different autonomous communities--the regional units in Spain.  The same would be true in India--another federation organized on linguistic lines but with multiple Hindi (largest, though not majority, language) units.  Canada has multiple Anglophone majority provinces.  Similarly, Malaysia has multiple Malay-majority regions and only two (Sabah and Sarawak) without Malay majorities since the expulsion of Singapore.

In Switzerland, the German cantons are broken down into many units and have very strong regional identities, often based on local dialects.  Francophones are also broken into multiple units.  Most Italian Swiss live in Ticino--the only canton with a regional party, the extreme right/right populist Ticino League, but Italian Swiss also live in Graubunden/Grigioni.

In South Africa, there is no dominant linguistic group.  There is one province (Western Cape) without a black majority but the black majority is divided among the remaining provinces.

Most other multinational federations that come to mind are not democratic.  The UAE is not divided by nationality (Mark, you still there?)  Ethiopia is complicated; though its leadership is perceived as Tigrayan, the Oromo and Amhara are by far larger groups.  Nigeria is now divided into states far smaller than any national group.

If you're interested in the impact of decentralization on ethnic and regional parties, you can read more in my recent article in the Journal of Politics:

David Lublin, "Dispersing Authority or Deepening Divisions? Decentralization and Ethnoregional Party Success," Journal of Politics 74: 4(October).

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 27, 2012, at 8:36 PM, Mark Rush <markrush7983 at gmail.com<mailto:markrush7983 at gmail.com>> wrote:
Question for observers of the Catalonia (Quebec, Scotland, etc.) secession movement:  What if the tables were turned and the larger part of a nation, decided to “secede” from the smaller part?  My guess is that this would not be deemed “secession” but, instead, would gain no sympathy.

Just 2 uncaffeinated bits of thought.  Offline comments welcome

cheers

--
Mark Rush
_______________________________________________

Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

--
Mark Rush
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121127/acdcb5fa/attachment.html>