NationStates Jolt Archive

In modern liberal democracies, the people are sovereign throught elections, and their wishes must be respected by the one they elect to govern them.

In the other hand, territorial integrity is a key stone in the cohesion of a state and of a nation, democracies included.

So, assuming that some people in a country wish their part of the country to secede, should the democratic leaders allow such secession in behalf of the rule of the people, or should they rebuff it, in order to defend the state and the nation?

There are many examples were both decisions were taken, throught the ages and the world, but is there any "universal" rule, or logical argument that can make one of the arguments more valid than the other?

So, assuming that some people in a country wish their part of the country to secede, should the democratic leaders allow such secession in behalf of the rule of the people, or should they rebuff it, in order to defend the state and the nation?

depends on how much they value that 'democratic' label, i suppose. of course, i don't think leaders should have any more say than the next guy anyway.

I'd let them leave, and then proceed to fake an attack against our country and declare war on the breakaways, implicate some neighboring countries and go on a conquering spree. But that's just me.

...

There are many examples were both decisions were taken, throught the ages and the world, but is there any "universal" rule, or logical argument that can make one of the arguments more valid than the other?
No. It is a conflict of two principles, the right to self-determination and the concept of territorial integrity. In theory neither principle is superior to the other.

With all the wars curently going on in the world, it's inevitable. Revolution here, revolution there, independence here, independence there. Just give everyone a piece of land they can rule over. Everyone can then be a King or Queen of their realm of one. Seceed!