[zozbot234]

> The question is if a democracy can be called democratic if it's impossible/unlawful for minorities to secede.

Well, as both Americans and Spanish might say, "we had a war to settle that issue." The U.S. have been a republic (what you call a "democracy") for the entirety of their history as a nation, and yet unilateral secession is clearly forbidden.

[AsyncAwait]

I think OP is asking whether such countries, including the US, are indeed democratic, or just called that like Congo is called democratic, (not to the same degree obviously, but the same principle).

[wang_li]

Can a country be called democratic if me and six friends are not allowed to draw a random border around a house and then vote to murder the residents with only our votes counting because only those inside the arbitrary border we drew are allowed to vote?

[AsyncAwait]

Ugh. By your logic once India was conquered by the British, all attempts at independence were six friends drawing a random border around their house.

[vidarh]

Unless the residents you vote to murder are also given the same freedom to secede and draw a border that excludes you because they do not consider your rule legitimate, this certainly would not be democratic.

Your analogy illustrates why a right to secede matters: It is the ultimate peaceful (if the right is protected) tool for those who feel disenfranchised, whether by being robbed off the chance to vote or because they are a persistent minority, to ensure that either their rights are protected because the government do not want them to leave, or that they have an escape hatch against a majority abusing their power.

It is saying "we no longer accept that this government legitimately represents us," and the right and ability to do that seems to me to be the most fundamental concept of democracy - but only if it is extended to everyone, which takes away the problems of your example; you and your six friends would have no rights to draw a new border that includes other residents without they too having a say, including the right to themselves secede if you do not offer them something they are willing to see as legitimate.

As such it provides an important incentive against over-reach and towards negotiated settlements that does not exist when there is no realistic mechanism for a minority to vote for their region to leave.

You can mitigate the need for a right to secede by giving sufficient protections for minorities against the choices of the majority; but whenever secession gains substantial support, that is evidence that whatever mechanisms are in place are insufficient.

To me, a government that feels a need to deploy police to stop a region from demanding independence is inherently illegitimate.

At the same time, I am all four having secessionists be made to understand the consequences, in that if you a house and decides your house should secede, then fine, but you e.g. have no inherent right to then be allowed to cross the border, or expect your new neighbouring state to provide you with any services, and you can expect them to act with force to protect the interests of any of their citizens resident on "your territory" who do not want to secede and who are not offered sufficient protections - including their own right to secede from "your state" and rejoin their preferred state.

In practice I think that taking such a right to secede to it's full consequence would minimize actual uses - anyone wanting to do it would need to take into account the problems of whether or not they'd e.g. end up with enclaves, eroded borders, exclaves, and whether they'd even end up with a contiguous territory of significance at all if they have majority support in a region but also lot of resistance, and would be forced to actually negotiate to solve such issues in a way that is not inherently detrimental to both sides. At the same time this would also apply to the state you seek to leave.

[pvaldes]

> To me, a government that feels a need to deploy police to stop a region from demanding independence is inherently illegitimate.

And to the rest of the planet is totally legit

Deploying police when there are serious disturbs by groups of organised people that are purposely preventing people from leading a normal life, ravaging and creating really dangerous situations for everybody is: NORMAL.

Name a country in the planet. Whichever country. This is exactly what the government of that country will do in the same situation.

Maybe for a few people is a videogame and lots of fun, but for the rest of us is a rock put in the path of the train when we or our loved ones are travelling. You will eat this rock if I would see you doing that.

For the rest is their small shop set in flames or ravaged. Is huge bills in damages and healthcare that they will have to pay. Is, undoubtely and crystal clear, Terrorism.

And deliberately sending your minions to disturb the peace and convivence of the society, unless you agree to "talk with me" accept my new twisted concept of "democracy" and gave me something for telling my people to stop and go home. Well, this has a name also in any part of this planet and the name is blackmail.

[vidarh]

You are arguing a strawman. I never suggested the behaviour you are describing is legitimate either.

[pvaldes]

So we both agree that could be some legitimate reasons to send police to stop a region for demanding independence. It depends on how is demanded.

And if you are trying to suggest that the police is sent to stop the region each time the people demands peacefully independence because, duh, "Spain, evil people", let me inform you that this only happens in your imagination.

The main festivity in the region has been replaced by groups of people showing flags and asking for indepencence, year after year, after year. Everybody can find decens of videos on internet. Do you know what? As everybody can confirm easily, the number of people detained for asking independence peacefully in this kind of events is: zero.

Every independentist is crying slogans, singing and walking with banners and flags. No police is sent to stop any of their performances or demand silence, we are a society proud of granting an extensive freedom of speach

...with some limits of course. Like in many democracies, there are laws pursuing libel and protecting right to honour. You can't claim anything you want from other people without showing proofs, and this is not a bad thing

[JCharante]

Wouldn't the analogy be better if you lived in a dorm building, and your friends voted to draw the border around the dorm?

[maxwell]

Perhaps the American Republic ended in 1869 with Texas v. White, succeeded by the American Empire.

[EthanHeilman]

I do not buy the argument that unilateral secession is clearly forbidden in the US and I don't think the American Civil War settled that point. The Confederates stood a decent legal chance to secede from the Union. It was a constitution crisis. Instead the Confederates choose to throw constitutional avenues away and engage in a war of aggression against the North. The South didn't need to raise armies and launch an attack on Fort Sumter. However personally I'm grateful for their gross incompetence both in starting the war and their conduct throughout the war because it brought about the end of Chattel Slavery in North America.

Furthermore I would argue there is a large legal and ethical difference between:

1/ a largely peaceful movement for secession which is suppressed and then responds with riots

2. and a landed gentry rising up in open war and invasion because they lost an presidential election and they want to preserve their right to strip freedom from their countrymen.

[billiam]

I'm sorry but your misreading of American history is substantial. Texas v. White in 1869 made official that which Shay's Rebellion, the annexation of the Texas Republic, and the Civil War had established by actions--that secession in the US is illegal.

[EthanHeilman]

Illegal and forbidden are not synonyms. Political actions especially with respect to territorial integrity can both be illegal and allowed to happen i.e. not forbidden.

>Well, as both Americans and Spanish might say, "we had a war to settle that issue."

My main point was reacting to your statement above. A particular set of wars does not settle those issues.

What prevents a secessionist legal action to be heard by the Supreme court and for them to overturn the Texas v. White decision?

[squiggleblaz]

> Well, as both Americans and Spanish might say, "we had a war to settle that issue." The U.S. have been a republic (what you call a "democracy") for the entirety of their history as a nation, and yet unilateral secession is clearly forbidden.

That's not a fair analogy. If Texas decided, tomorrow, that they wanted to pursue independence, I'm reasonably confident that at no point would the federal government dismiss the state government, arrest their members and throw them in prison. They might say, "We're incapable of having any discussion on the matter until a bill passes the US Congress permitting us to negotiate" or "We'll negotiate, but terms cannot be settled and finally agreed to by us; we will need a constitutional amendment" or "Sure why not". (The US President is, after all, the president of the United States, and so their agreement is tantamount to the consent of the states. Moreover, if US federal power is withdrawn from Texas by the order of the US president, legal or not, such that it takes a revolution to regain it, it's fair to say it's happened, whether it's legal or not.)