A crucial premise of the world political order is that it is normatively justified. Otherwise, it makes little sense to defend an unjust system with the might of the state and the international community. Secessionists challenge this premise.
A system, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. For secessionists, what they see in the states whose legitimacy they challenge does not measure up to their standard of justice. Hence the grave decision to confront a vicious Leviathan even when doing so risks a certain danger of deadly civil war, and an uncertain outcome that includes ignoble defeat.
Surely, in this, as in other spheres of activities, the advice to keep trying until you succeed at your chosen task is a sound one. One cannot justifiably blame a group that persists against all odds based on the perceived justice of its cause. The commitment of politically aware and morally concerned activists in pursuit of their dream of a just ordering of the world political order is worth paying attention to.
Therefore, today, I choose to look at three such efforts out of a plethora of cases that have emerged in recent times. The focus of each group with its justification for its position and the reaction of its larger political community, a.k.a. the state, provides a powerful insight not only to the sociology of the different states, but also their normative credentials.
Scotland has been an integral part of the United Kingdom since 1707 when the Act of the Union ratified the treaty of 1706. The treaty had unified the kingdoms of England and Scotland under one Kingdom of Great Britain. Before then, there had been cultural and blood ties. James VI of Scotland who was the great grandson of James IV, King of Scotland, and Margaret Tudor, daughter of the King of England, became the acceptable successor to Elizabeth I, Queen of England. That was around 1603 and the prospect for a common crown and a common parliament was bright.
A common crown did not occur because of ingrained cultural differences and resentment. This was what the treaty of 1706 accomplished. Or did it? Even before the recent resurgence of nationalistic sentiment in Scotland, the treaty and act of unification were not a shoe-in but for the dire financial situation in which Scotland found itself. Ever since, the Union has only alienated many Scots, fuelling the demand for independence, a demand which Brexit has only just intensified.
What has been the reaction of Westminster? With gentle persuasion, a strategy of divide and rule, and a dose of concessions, including devolution, the secession movement has been managed. In the 2014 referendum, 55 per cent voted against independence, while 44 per cent voted in favour. The Scottish National Party has now demanded another referendum vote over the decision of the English people to exit the EU. Time will tell.
Significantly, government response does not include arrests, detention, or jail time for the leaders of the movement for Scottish independence.
An unusual secessionist movement out of California in the United States just disappeared without the United States government lifting a finger. California and Texas, two of the biggest states that couldn’t be more disparate in outlook and political leaning, have shared a common interest in moving for secession whenever they do not like the result of a presidential election. Between 2008 and 2016, it was Texas that wanted an exit. Since January until this week, it is California.
Based on its assets in population and financial muscle as the sixth-largest economy in the world, California can undeniably prosper as a nation-state. This plus the resentment of a federal government that is completely under the control of a conservative ideology which negates everything that many Californians espouse have driven the Golden State to the edge. Interestingly, the state itself is ideologically divided between the north and the south and as soon as it succeeds, if it does, California Republic will confront a new reality of assuaging a minority within the new nation.
We may ask: what has been the reaction of the United States government to the threat of secession by one of its states? Silence!
This is understandable. There is a constitutional provision for dealing with such cases. The movement leaders know they must cross a threshold. They must secure requisite signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. To organise signatures, they must raise funds. More than six months after they floated the idea, the California secessionists had not raised up to one quarter of what they need to put the question on the ballot for 2018. Amidst this, there was the bad press about the link of one of the leaders of the movement with Russia where he teaches English! The initiative was expectedly called off this week.
Back home, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) declared a new Republic of Biafra a couple of years ago. This was after the election of 2015, but it was not altogether a completely new movement. Years earlier, the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) had taken the nation by storm. Both movements boast of massive support from Ndigbo, especially the young generation, and both Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and Chief Ralph Uwazuruike became instant celebrities.
The reason for the support that the two gentlemen receive from youths and adults alike is not far-fetched. Biafra war-experience shocked the conscience of many people around the world mainly because of the effective propaganda machine of the seceding region. The troubling pictures of malnourished children, the famished figures of the elderly, and the account of genocidal activities against the Igbo before the secession move were too gruesome for many.
But hostilities had ceased for more than 40 years and normalcy had been restored. Yet, emotions still run high and a new generation of Igbo, including many who were not born at the time of hostilities, now lead the new movement.
Alas, the last paragraph is only half-true! Hostilities only ceased on the battle field. For many Igbo, there is still a feeling of alienation from the larger society. Though, they have participated at the highest levels of governance, including the presidency, they have only served as Number 2 while the Number 1 position has still eluded them. They feel short-changed in the allocation of states per zone. And with an impressive record of educational achievements, they feel that their potentials have not been and cannot be fully realised in the Nigerian landscape with its contradictions.
Furthermore, it is also the case that the movement attracts, not just a new generation, but also the old and well-established political and intellectual figures. Only recently, the prestigious Eastern Consultative Assembly elected Mazi Kanu as its new President. If that is not an endorsement of his position by the Igbo establishment, what can qualify as such? The governors of the Southeast and the business and professional class have also called for Kanu’s release.
This raises the question: what was the reason for Kanu’s detention in the first place? Per government, he led a movement for secession and this is a crime against the Nigerian state. But for Kanu, the legitimacy of the state is the issue.
A further question is raised: Can this crisis be effectively resolved through the legal system or through a thoughtful process, which takes account of the political context in which the crime is committed and addresses the fundamental issues it raises?
That was why Great Britain tried to deal with the Scottish movement with devolution before the English ventured again into Brexit crisis. On the other hand, the California and Texas movements are largely ignored by the government because they have no oxygen to sustain them.
It is instructive to note that the Eastern Consultative Assembly has restated one more time the grievances that occasioned the agitation for secession. The group identified the perceived injustice of “oppressive census figures”, “asphyxiation through state and local government creation, and “opposition of the Nigerian government to peaceful restructuring.
The implication is that once these grievances are addressed, the agitation will cease. Can we give political solution a chance?
Follow me on Twitter:
@SegunGbadeg2002
@HarvestDayPubs
