Search

A comparison is presented on two different paths to democratization, self-determination, or the splitting of a unified country into several separate countries such as the former Soviet Union, and unification, or the bringing together of separate but similar countries, such as Germany. The author also examines internal divisiveness, such as Canada, and evaluates win-win, win-lose and zero-sum typologies for assessing levels of democratization.

This paper argues in favour of a conception of self-determination which involves the equal recognition of different national identities. It proceeds by, first, criticizing the dominant territorial (in contrast to national) conception of self-determination. It then addresses three main criticisms of a principle of national self-determination. These are (1) the argument from indeterminacy; (2) the argument from instability; (3) the problem of overlapping nationalities.

The right to self-determination is a potent and paradoxical political concept. It is associated with democracy, xenophobia and anarchy. Its explosive potential was more or less held in check during the Cold War by an international consensus that restricted it to the context of decolonization. The unravelling of the Soviet Union and the break-up of Yugoslavia have demonstrated the inadequacy of the available theory and practice. Various recent approaches to self-determination are reviewed. These may be roughly classified as realist, liberal and communitarian. Although no approach is wholly satisfactory, the key issues can now be more clearly stated, an emerging consensus identified, and the agenda for further theoretical work proposed.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union has resulted into the formation of new sovereign states either through secession or unification. National unity became a major political issue in the German unification process and this was intensified by its rapidity. Korea faces a similar situation and may draw lessons from Germany. However, the perception of similarity must be informed by two major points. First, the starting points of unification are disparate and, second, cultural differences impact the concept of how the national state relates to democracy.

Tension between critical mentality and affinity for democracy influence critics to differ on the ways to define nationalism. Rosa Luxemburg's effort to define nationalism in the light of Marxist theory of class and unity of modern nation-state is politically paralyzing as it offers nationalism and modernity as the two opposing forces. Tom Nairn, Benedict Anderson and Ernest Gellner feel that the national idea fails to correspond to the reality of the nation. Gellner discusses nationalism in terms of industrialization, Nairn as a global capitalist development and Anderson as a new idea of community.

The civil war in the former Yugoslavia is the outcome of centuries-old enmity between Serbs and Croats. Each of these groups believes that they must assert their right of national self-determination, which ultimately means the disintegration of Yugoslavia. In the absence of a communist ideology that will hold the country together, ultranationalism incites war between the two dominant ethnic groups.

The legacy of mass labour migration to Europe in the 1960s is a considerable permanent 'foreign' population. Now recession and industrial restructuring have cast doubt on that population's economic, social and political legitimacy; simultaneously, the nation state is under pressure from both above and below. Despite historically very different approaches to the role of immigration in Britain, France and Germany, there has emerged a common problem of national identity. Across Europe there remains strong popular attachment to the national cultural identities, and it is this inertia which denies the logic of adaptation and change., Since the end of World War II, different peoples have migrated to the democracies of Western Europe: refugees and people displaced after the war, such as the Poles in Great [...]

The different factors which contribute to the creation of new nation states in Europe are evaluated. Contrary to popular belief, the birth of new nations cannot be solely attributed to an upsurge in nationalistic ideals. The process of modern nation building is primarily the result of dissatisfaction over previously established regimes and institutional authorities. Resulting economic distress and widespread social decline then aggravates the development of movements designed to radically alter the status quo.

THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL FORCE The simple idea that every nation should have its own state - accompanied by the corollary that one ethnic or cultural group should not collectively [...]

Issues are discussed regarding the rights of European union states to intervene in Austria's government, even when the government is headed by someone with Nazi sympathies such as Jorg Haider. The EU cannot expel a member state but can try a mixture of low-level sanctions to ensure that Austria behaves in conformity with European norms.

The dispute over Western Sahara, a sparsely-populated territory along the Atlantic coast between Morocco and Mauritania, is as much a struggle over the potency of international law as it is [...]

During the last half of the twentieth century, there has been a trend toward more and smaller states. Three-quarters of the flags woven into military uniforms, painted on planes, and [...]

Efforts to understand the relationship between sovereignty, nationalism and self-determination cannot lead to any final or determinant answer. This is because the meaning of the notions themselves is debated, thus resulting in a constantly shifting relationship between these concepts. This indeterminacy notwithstanding, a conventional understanding of the relationship between these concepts has emerged after 1945, and this understanding appears more stable than what revisionists believe.

The victory in Quebec's Sept 12 provincial election of the Parti quebecois leaves party leader Jacques Parizeau facing the 10-month deadline he himself set for a vote on secession from Canada. While the prospects for that are not good, 10 months may be long enough for him to drum up enough votes. The federal govt will probably promise to give provinces more control over social services, both to weaken the hand of secessionists and to reduce its own deficit.

South Ossetian Supreme Soviet Chairman Torez Kulumbegov stated that despite its problems, the republic will maintain its independence. However, South Ossetia preferred to be under Russia instead of Georgia. Kulumbegov claimed that Georgia was facing similar problems with Abkhazia and Adzharia because it could not cope with ethnic differences among its people. Georgians have implemented policies that discriminate against minority groups. These policies include restrictions on admission to higher educational institutions and personnel placement. The South Ossetian leader said that the conflict will be resolved eventually, but the enmity will continue.