Michael Jewkes – KU Leuven
Nations and States
“To put it in the simplest possible terms: there is a
very large number of potential nations on earth.
Our planet also contains room for a certain
number of independent or autonomous political
units. On any reasonable calculation, the former
number (of potential nations) is probably much,
much larger than that of possible viable states.”
Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (1983)
Nations and States
1) A universal right to statehood for all national groups
(full/external self-determination) is not viable, and
potentially very dangerous.
“It follows that a territorial political unit can only
become ethnically homogeneous, in such cases
[where the population is intermixed], if it either
kills, or expels, or assimilates all non-nationals”
Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (1983)
Nations and States
2) But…doesn’t rule out statehood in any particular case,
provided that both new, and ‘rump’, states are viable, and
likely to respect rights of newly-created minorities.
3) Need to think through other forms of selfdetermination (internal self-determination) short of
statehood.
Forms of Self-Determination
 Are all forms of institutional self-determination ‘born
equal’, or is there are hierarchy of forms of selfdetermination?
 Is it fair that some groups are restricted to second-rate
self-determination; and is self-determination a
principle of first-come, first-served and tough luck for
the rest?
The Goals of Self Determination
1)
Protect and promote national
cultures…Provide national groups with tools to
protect own language/culture.
2)
Democratically determine one’s own
fate…Allow nation to take democratic decisions
determining its future direction and prospects of
group/members.
The Goals of Self-Determination
3)
Recognition and a parity of esteem…allow
nations to interact on roughly equal terms.
Internal and external elements
(intra-state/international community)
Institutional Models
 Non-Territorial Autonomy (NTA) – Consociationalism
 Personality not territoriality principle
 Most applicable for intermingled populations



Devolution (UK, Spain?, Puerto Rico)
 Lots of autonomy/self-rule
 Minimal institutional/constitutional change at centre.
Federalism
 Constitutionally entrenched division of power
 Non-proportional representation in central institutions
Independent Statehood
Cultural and Linguistic Protection
 All models create institutions/public sphere where
language/culture of minority is predominant.
 Devolution/Federalism/Statehood superior –
provide territory upon which that language/culture is
‘King’.
 NTA provides some linguistic/cultural protection: but
large parts of public sphere shared…unavoidable
cultural interaction and competition.
Determine Own Destiny
 NTA – Not good! Territorial element of politics: Roads,
environment, policing, defence etc. Can’t decide one’s
own destiny alone!
 Devolution – Improvement - within own territory
decide alone issues which affect you exclusively.
 But many important issues remain at centre where
majoritarianism threatens minorities. (Macroeconomics, foreign affairs, defence etc.)
Determine Own Destiny Cont’d
 Federalism – Guarantees of representation at centre
 But dependent upon will of others…not independent
exercise of self-determination.
 Statehood – Ideal of Self-determination?
 Undermined by economic/political weakness and
dependency upon other states/institutions
 In interconnected/interdependent world not complete
 Federalism’s regulated balance of power can be
superior in some cases? E.g. Puerto Rico.
Internal and External Recognition
 NTA – Part of what being self-determining nation
means is controlling own territory (homeland, patria)
 Devolution – No Constitutional recognition of right
to self-determination. Autonomy at benevolence of
state-wide majority.
 Federalism – (potentially) recognition of equal status
of constituent units and right to self-determine.
 But bad on external element of recognition…no place
in UN, UNESCO, NATO, EU, FIFA, Eurovision Song
Contest!
Summary
Cultural
Protection
Determine
Destiny
Internal
Recognition
External
Recognition
NTA
Vulnerable to
inter-group
interaction
Only on a few
non-territorial
issues.
Yes
No
Devolution
Yes
Self-rule yes,
Shared-rule no
Incomplete
Limited
Federalism
Yes
Not alone but
voice
guaranteed
Yes (in wellstructured
federation)
Limited
Statehood
Yes
Yes, but not
Total
always/entirely.
Member of
international
community
Conclusions
 NTA – always substandard…sometimes best we can do
but no more.
 Devolution – flawed in shared-rule and recognition
elements…worse than NTA because conditions exist for
more (territorial distinctiveness) but lack political will.
 Federalism – Good option, but lacks international
recognition and doesn’t allow for self-determination
alone.
 Statehood – Remains gold standard, but not as good as
some sub-state nations think. May not offer best hope of
controlling group’s own destiny.
Conclusions Cont’d
 Given impossibility of world of 1 nation = 1 state may
be best to direct energy to improving alternatives….
 E.g. Improving international recognition of sub-state
federal entities.
 External self-determination – double meaning
1) International recognition,
2) Independent statehood
Taken to be synonymous…Need to be separated, provide
nations with (1) without needing (2).