The New Federalist, webzine of the Young European Federalist

Last month the opinion polls showed that more then 50% of the Scottish were in favour of independence. With the Scottish elections coming up in spring 2007, and with the Scottish National Party (SNP) taking the lead in opinion polls, this vision does not seem totally unrealistic. Earlier it was argued that independence of different regions across Europe was unthinkable as the polities were simply too small to be efficient and often too poor or too rich to abandon their old states without welfare implications. But a Europe functioning as a federation that could take on the competence where economies/politics of scale is relevant, like defence and foreign policy as well as regional wealth redistribution, surely makes the discussion of regionalization of Europe more realistic.

A challenge to the sovereign monarch – and rightly so!

But the question of breaking up Europe has bigger implications then the mere redrafting of maps, something that has been done so often in Europe and elsewhere. Looking at these independence movements in an international context of European integration and globalization, we can see that they challenge not only the state they are trying to break free form, but also the very concept of the sovereign nation state. First of all, the independence movements are signs of how artificially and randomly states are often constructed, and how this gives rise to unhealthy tensions (that can of course be slightly reduced by federal structures). Outside Europe we don’t even have to go into the artificial shape of old colonies that were often the result of a ruler and a pen! How easy is it then to defend the shining sovereignty crown of the state ?

Moreover, in the last decades globalization has put the sovereign nation state into question as it is not anymore the state that is able to decide everything for itself. Rather the decisions of the state are subjected to everything from environmental and economical globalization to US big brother ambitions. The strengthening of international institutions like the EU and international law has also weakened the sovereignty of the state and its position as the decisive decision maker.

Is the state then really the organ that can represent and decide on behalf of its citizens on the issues that affect their lives? And what is the rationale for sub-state nations, or even citizens, to belong to an all mighty state that still cannot represent them properly?

It rather seems like we have to move to both smaller and to larger polity units to guarantee maximum influence of the citizens in their own lives.

Last but not the least the illegitimate actions of states have put the states sovereignty crown into question. We don’t even have to go as far as Rwanda to questions a states absolute sovereignty and start thinking about the importance of protecting individual’s sovereignty before anything else. Also the distrust in many governments ability to act on behalf of their electors has given rise to a weakening of the legitimacy of the state and its sovereignty, and here clearly large differences of regions within a state are of no help.

Will Scotland be prepared to put nationalist rhetoric behind to promote a federal Europe?

So do then the independence movements contribute towards a more federal world order moving away from an outdated state sovereignty concept or not? Looking at it bluntly you could say that these independence movements are fighting a nationalistic goal, which aims at reinforcing the nation state – as this seems to be exactly what they want to become through independence. But if the strive for independence happens within the framework of Europeanization and the building of a world governed by international law, it gives us reason for hope that these movements will rather lead to a very new concept of state and state sovereignty. And having the negative experience they have, we should be able to demand from these emerging states to avoid destructive nationalist rhetoric and promote a Europe where sovereignty and borders are weak.

A federal structure like this would mean that the diversity of Europe is promoted by power being decentralized as much as possible.

At the same time common action in areas where the nations/regions are simply too small to be efficient would be organized by Europe – in this way making borders less sharp and old-fashioned state sovereignty severely weakened.

Conclusion

Building a federal Europe goes further then setting up a system where states take joint decision in certain competences. It consist of moving towards a world order where borders are weak, international law is strong and where citizens rather then states are put in the centre. But to achieve this we must be prepared to put the nationalist rhetoric together with the monarch’s sovereignty crown to the history books.

Is Scotland prepared to take the lead?

CC by-nd

Reply to this article

2 comments

• 

  1 - Expel the nation state to the history books!

  24 December 2006 10:27, by Valéry
  

  Excellent article !

  Reply to this message

• 

  2 - Expel the nation state to the history books!

  24 December 2006 11:58, by Emmanuel Vallens
  

  A very naive and dogmatic article, if you ask me. Let’s take it point by point.

  First, there is total lack of precision as to what the word sovereignty actually means in this article. Is it a political concept, or is it a legal one? the sovereignty of citizens, of a people, of a nation, is a political concept. The international sovereignty of a State can be both political and legal. The domestic sovereignty of a State is a purely legal concept (who has the ultimate power to decide on the rule of recognition (Kelsen’s Kompetenz-Kompetenz).

  Now saying that Europe’s independence movements challenge the concept of nation-state is slightly over-stated. If you look at what happened with the break-up of the former Soviet Union, all those countries who recently got their independance have proved very reluctant to move towards any federalisation of the EU. Their presence in it is probably one of the main obstacles that federalists will have to confront with (but certainly not the only one). I do not see why any other secessionist groupings would be any different (Vlaams Belang isn’t exactly demanding a federal Europe, is it?).

  Saying the contrary seems to me at best naive because it overlooks the reality of Human nature, its selfishness, its parochialism and its short-sightedness. I do not think you can ever unite Mankind by splitting it up in loads of small nations first. And supporting secessionist movements in the hope that they may turn up to be nice-looking and federalist is being as gullible as those who supported the euro without a federal government in the hope that national governments would be sensible and realise that you can’t have the euro without being a federation, or as those who believed that we could enlarge the EU and deepen it at the same time. I certainly was one of them, but at least, I learn of my errors.

  Of course, States are, by definition, artificial, i.e. Man-made. So what? Are you suggesting that “nations” are not ? To start with, any serious analysis of the situation would clearly consider separately the two Ideal-Types, namely Will-based nations (Willensnationen such as France and the UK) and ethnic nations (Kulturnationen such as those of most of Central and Eastern Europe). In the first case, the nation is a political construction, that evolved from the State that pre-existed, and that created the institutionnal and political structure in which a sense of common belonging and a common culture could develop. It developped in parallell with the claim for democratic institutions, and the need to break free of the rule of the absolute monarch. On the other hand, the second model was developped later, in the wake of nationalist movements in countries occupied by one of the big empires: France, Austria-Hungary, or the UK (as far as Scotland is concerned). Here, the construction goes the other way: nationalist movements try to find out national myths, heroes, cultures and roots that could serve as a justification of their claim to have a State of their own. And very often, these roots can be fake or embroided to fit the political objective. So, nations are in many ways as fake as States, the only difference being that they do not acknowledge it. And the fact that a State is artificial is in no way an argument for not being sovereign, provided it is legitimate (democratic and respectful of human rights).

  Besides, your article takes for granted that small is beautiful, and that traditional nations-States are too big or too small for their task. It therefore tacks a general ideological consideration on all Nation-States without considering their variety, their differences, as if “the nation-State” was a monolithic concept entailing the same thing all over Europe. Here again, Europe’s diversity if vastly overlooked and I think that it is precisely this type of standpoint that put people off when we talk about federalism.

  Reply to this message