If Democracy is king, why not secession?

[Aphex_Twin]

In other words, is the idea of centralized state compatible with Democracy?

Say the citizens of a city or region decide they would be better off with their own government. If they are being opresses, hindered, over-taxed, would it be legitimate, in the world today, to secede from the mother state?

 

[Turner]

I'm tempted to go with the smart-ass answer and say "Yes, it's okay if they end up winning the war."

 

[IglooDame]

Secession is a lot like suicide, under the law: you only get punished if you are unsuccessful in your attempt.

But as to the real question, secession is not an option because it is in a democracy. Under other forms of government, with no option to convince the rest of the population (or 51% of it anyway), you have no other options. With democracy, you can convince others of the errors of the govt's ways. To allow secession is legally granting the minority too great a power. And how low can it go? Can my town secede? My county? My state?

The Constitution has the Second Amendment that in theory enables citizens to fight a government that becomes tyrranical, but there is nothing in the Constitution that allows citizens to shoot at federal troops. So it is with secession: by definition you're trying to throw out the existing laws anyway, so why legalize it?

 

[Zarn]

In a democracy, the citizens have the right to succeed and pass laws allowing people to murder others. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of Democracy.

Give me a Federalized Republic, where it is illegal for states/ local government to succeed. Oh wait, I live in one.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Well, democracy is not king, that would be monarchy. I believe a Democratic Republic is the best form of government and no secession is one of the checks and balances to prevent chaos, just like the Presidential veto.

 

[Che Guava]

Secession is a lot like suicide, under the law: you only get punished if you are unsuccessful in your attempt.

Oy, if only that were true in the great white north!

As someone who spent a good 19 years living across the river from a province that has had 3 attempts at succession (depending on how it's defined!), I can tell you that it's a messy process. I think few democracies ever expect to be divided up, so there's often no consitutional provisions for any kind of succesion. The last referendum (or 'neverendum', as they are sometimes affectionally called here!) in Quebec was not actually if Quebec wanted to separate, but if Quebec had the right to separate. Funnily enough, the Premier of the province at the time has since revealed that if he had won the referendum, he would had unilaterally declared independance anyways (masterguy, if you're out there you can correct me on any of this!).

Everytime one comes along, there's always some questions to be answered:

-Does separation mean complete separation, or just a autonomous region within Canada (think bavaria)

-Should Quebec incur it's portion of the Canadian debt? How could that be calculated?

-Could Quebecers keep a canadian passport?

-Could sections of Quebec vote to stay in Canada? (this is particularly contentious in the english side of Montreal, as well as in Northern Quebec, where aboriginal groups have treaties with Canada, and not Quebec)

I remember a visitor from the US government visiting Canada during one of the referenda commenting in the paper that if anything like this were tried in the states, they'd shoot first and try them for treason second....

 

[silver 2039]

Might is right. If you can secede and defend yourself go ahead. In the words of someone I forget

"Those who are not willing to fight for their freedom do not deserve it"

And thats how it works in the world.

 

[Che Guava]

Might is right. If you can secede and defend yourself go ahead.

Who is 'you' though? what happens when the people you are trying to 'liberate' and split 50-50 on staying or leaving?

 

[Paradigne]

In the US, Texas is the only state that can legally secede from the union.

 

[Masquerouge]

My opinion about democracy is that true democracy is not possible in anything bigger than a small-sized city.

As soon as you have representatives, it's no longer a democracy but a republic.

And that's not saying one is better than the other, simply that the idea of centralized state is to me NOT compatible with Democracy, per se.

 

[JohnRM]

Democracy does not exist, in America.

 

[blackheart]

In the US, Texas is the only state that can legally secede from the union.

That's a misconception. Texas has built-in provisions that allow it to break into smaller states, but it can't secede from the union. Federal law doesn't allow it, and federal law takes precedence over state law.

 

[Akka]

In other words, is the idea of centralized state compatible with Democracy?

Say the citizens of a city or region decide they would be better off with their own government. If they are being opresses, hindered, over-taxed, would it be legitimate, in the world today, to secede from the mother state?

If they can convince 51 % of the people in the country that they should secede, then they can.

My opinion about democracy is that true democracy is not possible in anything bigger than a small-sized city.

As soon as you have representatives, it's no longer a democracy but a republic.

Wrong.

 

[Masquerouge]

Wrong.

Oh my. Actually I'm not referring to the modern notions, but to the governments that created the concepts, the Greek city and the Roman political body.

In the Greek city, you don't have reprentatives because everybody (excluding slaves, women, kids, workers, of course) directly has a say on everything. Of course this is not possible in a country with dozens of millions inhabitant. That's what I meant by current democracies not being true democracies.
In Roman times, the particularity of the Republic was its "elected" bodies giving authority to the decisions of the consuls. That's more like our current governments.

 

[Akka]

Oh my. Actually I'm not referring to the modern notions, but to the governments that created the concepts, the Greek city and the Roman political body.

In the Greek city, you don't have reprentatives because everybody (excluding slaves, women, kids, workers, of course) directly has a say on everything. Of course this is not possible in a country with dozens of millions inhabitant. That's what I meant by current democracies not being true democracies.
In Roman times, the particularity of the Republic was its "elected" bodies giving authority to the decisions of the consuls. That's more like our current governments.

Democracy comes from demokratia, which strictly means "power of the people". The particular example of the Greek Cities is the one of direct democracy, but there is nothing in the definition that prevent representation.

The republic of Rome was actually a good example of a quite undemocratic republic, as the Senators and the electors were only from the wealthy, and the man of the street had no say in government except through insurrection.

 

[I am the Future]

all of the states should be set free. since the federal goerment is increaseing the number of people per representative everyday. If their arnt more added the people should return to a primarily state goverment or if need be turn into there own nation. The needs of people in californi are much different then those in oklahoma.

 

[IglooDame]

all of the states should be set free. since the federal goerment is increaseing the number of people per representative everyday. If their arnt more added the people should return to a primarily state goverment or if need be turn into there own nation. The needs of people in californi are much different then those in oklahoma.

Please elaborate on the differences between the needs of people in California and Oklahoma, and when you're done I'll give you some similarities.

 

[cgannon64]

Secession must be illegal in the interest of stability.

 

[SonicX]

Secession must be illegal in the interest of stability.

IN the interest of stability, terms in power need to be extended to 10 years. Having a different policy and lots of populistic measurements every 4 years is NOT efficient on the long term.

 

[Perfection]

Seccession is undemocratic! Democracy's cornerstone is getting a majority opinion by all those in the democracy. Secession asks for minority power. While seccession may not be democratic though, it may still be justifiable.