Selfish independence movements

Vicenç Villatoro
3 min
Independentisme insolidari

An unfounded, caricatured and economically-oriented explanation is circulating according to which independence movements are the expression of uncooperative selfishness by rich communities who, tired of helping poor communities -which is their obligation- want to fly solo and leave the less-favored to their own devices.

This caricature is applied to the Catalan case, as well as to the supposed independence movement of Italy's Padania region. It has been applied retroactively to the Baltic Republics and to Slovenia. It also might just apply to Scotland, rich or with prospects of being so since oil was found in the North Sea. It's a stretch to apply it to Slovakia or Quebec. In any case, it doesn't seem to be an explanation that works well for the whole set of cases, nor even for any one of them in particular.

Without addressing for the moment the matter of identity, and staying for now with this caricatured explanation based on economic interests, I have to say that I don't believe that independence movements can be explained away by saying that the rich want to shake off the poor. There have been solid independence proposals in communities both rich and poor within their respective states. I think that the pulse of an independence movement starts when in a community, be it rich or poor, there is a general and justified feeling that the policies of the state to which it belongs do not favor the interests of that community, but favor other interests instead. When you have the sensation that the state that should protect you leaves you exposed to the elements, and that the tools of the state that should be used to help you do not help, and even harm you. It starts when you have the sensation that the state to which you belong is not yours, because it doesn't act as such, as protector and guardian of your interests.

In the jungle that is the world, an economy -let's begin with the economy- cannot survive without a state that legislates, acts, and constructs in favor of its specific and singular needs. It's clear that the state is a necessary accomplice for an economy, creating the infrastructures that it needs, the laws that suit it and the actions that promote and favor it. Of course, within each community there is a range of divergent interests, as there are different social classes. But there is also an important element of convergent interests, a common good. When is an independence movement born? When a community has the feeling that the state does not act in favor of its common good but, rather, for someone else's benefit, different from its own and sometimes even opposed to it. For example, in Catalonia people have the perception that Spain's policies on infrastructures (highways, toll roads, airports, trains) are not designed catering to the needs of the Catalan economy, but in favor of the economic promotion of Madrid, sometimes in competition with Catalonia. The actions of the state, the bills passed in Madrid's parliament, do not protect, promote, or defend the shared interests of Catalans, but different interests altogether. The Slovaks felt that way. The Scottish think the same today.

An economy with different and specific interests needs a partner state. When the state is not your partner, but the accomplice of some other that has different interests, you have to create one of your own. But that which applies to the economy is just as valid for culture. For the language. For identity. For sports. For many things. One hundred years ago a community could preserve its culture, its language, and even its economy without the cooperation of a state, through the strength of its civil society. Catalonia did this throughout the 20th century. Nowadays, however, that's no longer possible. And if you have the feeling that a state refuses to protect your cultural and linguistic interests and your specific identity, and that it is and wants to be the state of another culture, another language and another identity, the same thing happens as with the economy: you end up wanting to create a state that meets your needs, rather than support and finance a state designed to the cut of very respectable, but alien, interests. And this is true regardless of whether you are rich or poor. The state can work in your favor whether you are rich or poor. Or it can go against you, whether rich or poor, as a person or as a community. It seems quite understandable to me that everyone, rich or poor, would want a state that acts in their favor. Because they need one.

stats