Secession is a nasty business. A century and a half ago, America fought a
civil war to prevent it. So it is not surprising that Spain, which has
bad memories of its own civil war, should oppose independence for
Catalonia.
Spain’s refusal to allow a referendum on the issue is, however, matched by Catalonia’s determination to hold one—hence the vote the regional government held on November 9th, in which 80% of those who participated voted for independence (see article). The government in Madrid called the vote illegal, and a failure because turnout was only 37%; the Catalan one said that it demonstrated the case for Catalonia’s independence.
Yet there are both principled and pragmatic reasons why the government should permit a vote. On the first, it is right to be cautious about breaking up countries, but when a region is a recognisable cultural, ethnic or linguistic entity, outright refusal to allow a vote is perverse. It would have been wrong to force Slovakia to remain in Czechoslovakia or Kosovo in Serbia, just as it was wrong for Britain to fight Irish independence. It would be just as wrong to make Flanders remain Belgian, Quebec stay Canadian or Scotland continue to be British, if a clear majority of voters preferred independence.
The pragmatic case for a referendum is that, until recently, polls suggested that fewer than half of Catalans wanted independence, but a huge majority believed they should have the right to choose. The evidence is that, by rejecting the second demand, Madrid is helping the separatists.
Read more: Catalonia’s future: Let them vote | The Economist
Spain’s refusal to allow a referendum on the issue is, however, matched by Catalonia’s determination to hold one—hence the vote the regional government held on November 9th, in which 80% of those who participated voted for independence (see article). The government in Madrid called the vote illegal, and a failure because turnout was only 37%; the Catalan one said that it demonstrated the case for Catalonia’s independence.
Yet there are both principled and pragmatic reasons why the government should permit a vote. On the first, it is right to be cautious about breaking up countries, but when a region is a recognisable cultural, ethnic or linguistic entity, outright refusal to allow a vote is perverse. It would have been wrong to force Slovakia to remain in Czechoslovakia or Kosovo in Serbia, just as it was wrong for Britain to fight Irish independence. It would be just as wrong to make Flanders remain Belgian, Quebec stay Canadian or Scotland continue to be British, if a clear majority of voters preferred independence.
The pragmatic case for a referendum is that, until recently, polls suggested that fewer than half of Catalans wanted independence, but a huge majority believed they should have the right to choose. The evidence is that, by rejecting the second demand, Madrid is helping the separatists.
Read more: Catalonia’s future: Let them vote | The Economist
No comments:
Post a Comment