In the modern era, most cases of secession underpinned by popular votes of some sort.
But just who should have a vote in independence referendums?
In this video I'm going to explore this question
and challenge at least one major, and commonly held, assumption.
[MUSIC]
Hello. My name is James Ker-Lindsay.
Welcome to Independent Thinking.
A channel dedicated to international relations, statehood and the origins of countries.
We live in an age of democracy.
There's a general presumption that political processes are underpinned - at least nominally - by
democratic procedures, however flawed these may be in real terms.
Even authoritarian regimes seek to legitimize their rule and actions by some form of democratic process.
This expectation of democratic legitimacy applies as much to independent processes
as to other forms of political activity.
It's therefore pretty much taken for granted that any territory seeking independence will at some point or
another confirm its choice by popular vote - often also known as a sovereignty referendum or plebiscite.
While there are a whole range of issues relating to independence referendums, and I hope to come back
to some of these in other videos, one of the most frequent misconceptions about such votes
is the question of who should have a right to take part.
As I'll show, this is in fact a far more complex question than many realize.
Before going any further, it's worth noting that while there is now a general presumption that the territory
seeking to become independence will confirm this choice through a vote, this isn't always the case.
For example, the peaceful breakup of Czechoslovakia in 1992, the so-called 'Velvet Divorce',
occurred without a popular vote.
Indeed, polling at the time suggested that most Czechs and Slovaks opposed the dissolution of the state.
Instead, the decision was reached by the political leaders and approved by the Federal Assembly.
Another case is Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia, in 2008.
Again, this occurred without a formal referendum - although many will point out that an internationally
unrecognized vote on independence had been held 16 years earlier, in 1991.
Notwithstanding the rare exceptions, in the vast majority of cases there is still an expectation that independence
will only occur after a referendum has taken place to confirm that independence is truly the will of the people.
The problem is that there's still a lot of confusion about who actually constitutes "the people" in such cases.
The first, and most contentious issue to tackle is whether an independence referendum should include
the entire country - both the parent state and the territory seeking independence - or should it be
limited just to the territory seeking to break away.
There's a frequent assumption that any vote should naturally include the entire country.
After all, as this is a decision that will affect everyone, it would seem only right and logical
to ensure that the entire population has a say.
In fact, this isn't the case.
It's a generally accepted principle that decisions on self-determination should be in the hands of what we
call the self-determination unit - namely, the people seeking independence.
It's not in fact regarded as a decision that should be dependent on the will of the entire population.
This has been shown in many recent cases.
Just look at all the recent major independence votes.
For example, take Scotland's 2014 referendum on independence from the United Kingdom;
South Sudan's 2011 referendum on independence from Sudan; Montenegro's 2006 referendum on whether to
break the State Union with Serbia, and Quebec's referendum on independence from Canada.
Similarly, this principle applied to the 2019 independence referendum in Bougainville
on independence from Papua New Guinea.
In each of these cases, it was fully understood that the decision lay with the territory breaking away
and not the country as a whole.
Therefore it's incorrect when people argue that any independence referendum
must include the entire state in question.
Recent votes clearly show that this isn't the case.
Indeed, as the British Government put it at the time of the Scottish referendum,
when the question of whether the vote should be held across the entire United Kingdom was explicitly raised,
the government stated, "whether or not Scotland should leave the United Kingdom is a matter for Scotland."
Crucially, though, this emphasis on the right of a territory breaking away to decide on whether this is actually
what it wants does not mean that that territory then has the right to secede unilaterally.
This is a separate and a very different issue.
As I've discussed elsewhere, the right of self-determination leading to independence is
very narrowly understood to apply mainly to situations of decolonization or military occupation.
However, every country naturally has a sovereign right to grant independence to a part of its territory.
But it's understood that this must be done as part of an agreed and negotiated process.
Simply put, while the actual decision on whether a territory should pursue independence should lie with the
people of that territory, the final decision on whether that independence occurs is understood
to be dependent on mutual agreement.
But even if independence referendums are usually understood to apply only to the self-determination unit,
the question of who gets to vote can still be very contentious.
There are two key groups to consider:
those living in the territory and those members of the territory who live elsewhere.
In terms of the first group, the residents of the territory, there is in fact a very broad spectrum of positions on
which inhabitants should be allowed to take part in any independent vote.
One of the great fears that exists in independence referendums is that the parent state may try to artificially
alter the territory's demographic balance to shape the outcome of the vote.
Likewise, those pressing for independence may try to limit voting rights to those considered to be natives
of the territory by birth and descent in the attempt to shape the vote in their favour.
For this reason, the decision on who gets to vote is often subject to considerable bargaining.
Indeed, it may even involve external adjudication.
In reality, what tends to happen is that the wider voter base is eventually accepted
but some sort of minimum residency period is established.
This is enough to stop manipulation the voter base, but not harshly exclusionary to non-natives who are
nevertheless understood to have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the decision.
That said, sometimes the country may be particular inclusive in terms of who gets to vote.
Scotland was particularly interesting in this regard.
When it held its independence referendum, in 2014, the right to vote not only included all British citizens living
in Scotland, it also included all Commonwealth and EU citizens living there
by virtue of their right to vote in local elections.
Looking ahead, this raises an interesting question as what will happen
if another referendum takes place in Scotland.
Now that the UK has left the EU, he right of European Union citizens to vote in local elections
could well be removed.
This may make them ineligible to vote in another poll on independence
- whenever that might take place.
However, sometimes the decision on who should be eligible to vote can be particularly tricky
and become a deep source of contention.
For example, one of the reasons why Western Sahara has been unable to hold a referendum on independence
is, at least in part, due to Morocco's deliberate objections on who should qualify to vote.
The second question relates the involvement of diaspora communities.
There tends to be rather different opinions on whether national communities living abroad
should be included in such votes.
Often, the parent state will argue against this - believing that such groups will often favor independence.
However, those seeking independence will argue that such groups should be included as they have often left
the territory due to the factors driving support for independence in the first place;
such as discrimination or conflict.
Here again, there's a broad difference of opinion.
The independence referendums in Eritrea in 1993 and East Timor in 1999 both permitted diaspora voting.
However, in the case of the Scottish referendum, voting was restricted solely to those living in Scotland.
Sometimes, the inclusion of diaspora communities can lead to seemingly
unfair and discriminatory contradictions.
For example, in the case of Montenegro's 2006 independence referendum,
Montenegrins living in Serbia were prohibited from voting
- presumably because they would have voted to retain the State Union.
However, the Montenegrins living elsewhere, including other Former Yugoslav Republics, were permitted a say.
Ultimately, while independence can occur without a referendum of some sort, in most cases
any move towards statehood will be underpinned by some sort of popular vote.
However, the question of who should vote can be highly contentious.
One thing that can be said is that it's now generally accepted
that such a vote is for the people pursuing independence.
Contrary to widespread and popular belief, independence referendums
should not be based on a vote across the entire country.
However beyond that there are questions relating to who should be included.
While some territories will take an inclusive approach, and open it to all people living there,
others are far more exclusive.
The same applies to diaspora communities.
In truth, both the parent state and the secessionist leaders will be seeking to maximize their advantages.
For these reasons, selecting the voter base can often be a crucial part of any independence process.
I hope you found the video useful.
If so, I have put links to some other videos that you might find interesting.
And do please like and share.
And also consider subscribing. I post new content every Friday.
Thanks for watching and see you again next time.
[MUSIC]