From tribes to city states to states, humans have always sought security, and used familial ties (constantly redefined) as the links to achieve that. Similarly, humans have an innate need to differentiate themselves whether by family, race, region, culture, religion etc. Globalization is confronting people with more and more differences (other countries, cultures, civilizations, religions and more) at an unparalleled pace. This is leading to individuals worldwide to redefine their identity and their loyalty creating both upward and downward trends. This recent telegraph article on an independence party for Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium, has a quote by a party spokesman on exactly this trend:
“The EU makes it possible for countries such as this one to split up. We believe we are experiencing both globalisation and localisation. Some problems are global, like defence or the environment, and these need to be dealt with by the EU. But at the same time democracy needs to be closer to the people, and that is why we are a regionalist party. The two trends go hand in hand.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. More on this topic within the next week or so.
Comments to this entry
dj
July 3, 2009
5:58 pm
I see the trend as being peoples desires for the benefits of Globalization in a Economic sense. However they don't want the associated Social consequences that comes with open borders and free trade. So they seek a more autonomous and localized political situation within the framework of a continental economic organization (the EU).
This way they can, on the local level, protect their culture and way of life without having to make the compromises associated with a larger nation state. An autonomous region that has an economy not based on migrant labor can separate itself from regions that do.
Michael
July 4, 2009
11:28 pm
Chirol
July 4, 2009
11:38 pm
Interestingly, in my conversations with a French friend, she noted that France would NOT be interested in the French speaking part of Belgium. Again, this is just one person talking, but I was surprised.
Hans
July 5, 2009
10:24 am
The main drivers for Flemish independence are a different culture (Germanic vs Romance) and different economic policies (right-wing free markets vs a rigid socialist welfare state). For example, there's a Flemish consensus to cap the length of time that the unemployed are eligible for welfare benefits (currently, it's indefinite) but this is blocked by the Francophone parties. Belgium's ridiculous hard-line Anti-American stance in the run-up to the Iraq War was similarly supported only by the Francophone south as a way to suck up to France.
Also, the current political system makes for many centrifugal forces: there are no federal parties and no federal elections. Both regions elect their own federal representatives, there's no "presidential election" like in the US where candidates compete nationally. So politicians pander only to their constituents in their own region, which means they're free to take a radical stance against the other region. This has polarized the political debate; nothing gets done on a federal level because of the constant bickering between the regions.
As for the argument that Belgium is too small to split up into two countries, this is irrelevant in the European framework of an ever-expanding EU. If the most liberal parts of Massachusetts were to form a country with the most redneck counties in, say, Tennessee, without the shared American culture, that country would not survive for long either, no matter how small it was.
Chirol
July 5, 2009
3:20 pm
Erik van Luxzenburg
July 6, 2009
2:10 pm
But independence becomes more and more a reality
Death of Nation-States « Samuel J. Scott
July 22, 2009
8:58 am