Breaking Away - 1

When Donald Trump became the US President, lots of Americans said they were considering moving to Canada. Of course, nothing of the sort happened, but it does raise a related (but much bigger in scope) question: if things are bad, is that grounds for seceding? I don’t ask that in the context of the US, but world-over. Scotland from Britain? Calatan from Spain? Quebec from Canada? Kashmir from India? Kurds from Iraq and Turkey?

Tyler Cowen tried to come up with a valid “criteria” for exactly that question. While not perfect, it still made for interesting reading. Cowen starts with this:

“Secession is a check against potential tyranny. If the rule of a centralized authority becomes too oppressive, part of the larger unit can break away and move toward freer and more democratic policies.”

He cites Estonia breaking away from the Soviet Union in 1991 as an example. Estonia didn’t just secede, they now have a better form of governance.

How about leaving because of “differences of ethnicity, religion, language or background culture”? Like Scotland or Catalan or Kashmir? In these cases, Cowen is bang on target when he says that “it’s not obvious whether a unified or a newly independent government would result in greater liberty and prosperity”.

For better or for worse, it’s a no-brainer if all parties agree to a secession. Like when the Czech Republic and Slovakia were formed from the erstwhile Czechoslovakia. But that is rarely the case. One side usually opposes any split, and it can lead to the suppression of rights and even war (Cowen cites the American Civil War as an example).

Another interesting criteria is distance, as in when the parts are separated by an ocean. Like America from England. I can also think of East and West Pakistan separated by India. In such cases, Cowen’s argument is that a union is so impractical that it might as well be abandoned. Then again, Alaska is very much a part of the US…

Ultimately though, Cowen feels there is usually a third option on the table:

“The real choice isn’t secede vs. don’t secede, but rather secede vs. wait and see if things get better. When you add in the value of the wait-and-see option, the correct choice is usually not to secede, unless one is living under unacceptable tyranny.”

To all of the above, I’d add another criteria: do those in favour of secession feel confident that they could thrive as a separate nation? Because, by that criteria, an independent Kashmir (if it were a possibility) would either get consumed by one of its nuclear armed neighbors or become a buffer state and a proxy battleground for those very neighbors. Buy hey, are the Kashmiris thinking long term?