Secessionist Strategies
by Carol Moore
<blockquote>
<p>"...Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
those Ends (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness), it
is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such
Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness..."</p>
<p><div align="right">-- Declaration of Independence, 1776.</div></p>
</blockquote>
TIME FOR A NEW EXPERIMENT
Those who signed the Declaration of Independence
clearly stated that people have the right to "alter or
abolish" any government which does not suit them and create
another form of government. In effect, they held that any
governmental form is merely an experiment.
Today, increasing numbers of Americans and peoples of
other nations are questioning the legitimacy of their
governments. They are fed up with taxes and budget deficits
and burdensome regulations.
Many are racial, religious, tribal or regional groups
seeking greater autonomy or complete independence from a
centralized state. More than 5000 tribal and national
groups are subsumed into 190 states--and most of them want
more freedom. In fact, most of today's shooting wars are
attempts by the leaders of centralized states to destroy
dissident regional and tribal movements!
In the last few years we have seen the dissolution of
the Soviet Union and growing secessionist threats from many
members of the Russian Federation. Yugoslavia and
Czechoslovakia have been divided. Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan,
Ethiopia and other African nations are beginning to split
into their constituent racial, religious and tribal
communities. Indian leaders have warned it could split into
hundreds of mini-states. And Canada may yet be divided.
The United States' rising welfare/warfare debt and
increasing economic stagnation have prompted rumblings of
secession from tax-burdened counties and states. The fact
that by the year 2050 half the U.S. population will be
Native, African, Asian and Latino Americans suggests ethnic
separatism will become increasingly popular.
The breakdown of large nation states presents great
opportunities for anti-authoritarian/pro-freedom activists:
anarchists, bioregionalists, communalists, decentralists,
greens, libertarians, separatists, social ecologists, etc.
These challenges to centralized nation states have
legitimatized movements for self-determination,
decentralization and secession in the eyes of many
politically aware people. Clearly growing numbers of humans
worldwide--including millions of Americans--are ready for a
new experiment. Increasing numbers of political theorists
and activists are offering decentralist political
alternatives, called variously decentralized canton system,
confederated communities, libertarian municipalism,
libertarian decentralism, communitarianism, human scale
politics, new age politics.
However, existing separatist movements present
responsibilities as well as opportunities. As we know, in
places like Yugoslavia, Somalia, Nigeria, the Russian
Caucuses, those who seek to gain or maintain power are
twisting healthy human desires for independence and autonomy
into the ugliness and brutality of religious, racial and
tribal bigotry and conflict. They urge their brethren to
"cleanse" their communities and regions of people who are
different. We must expose this perversion of human
aspiration and promote humane and tolerant forms of--and
strategies for--political decentralization.
FOUR SECESSIONIST STRATEGIES
In this piece I stress secession, the strategy,
instead of political decentralization, the alternative, for
several reasons. I am an action-oriented person. I want to
appeal to those already contemplating or organizing
secession. I want to counter the efforts of statists who
try to co-opt decentralization by emphasizing
"decentralization from above." Finally, I want to remind us
all that secession is more than just a strategy, but an
inherent part of decentralist principles and alternatives.
Below I describe four broad strategies: consense on
common principles, raise consciousness to critical mass,
create community and alternative institutions, and organize
non-violent resistance and secession.
I. CONSENSE ON COMMON PRINCIPLES
We must define certain principles which will allow both
ideologically disparate anti-authoritarians and ethnic,
religious and regional separatists to work together.
However, should our humane principles turn off oppressive
individuals and movements who want to force their ideology,
religion or nationalist ambitions on others, we should not
consider it a loss. For there are hundreds of millions of
individuals of good will who might be persuaded to organize
around the three principles below: individual liberty,
community autonomy and non-violence.
Individual Liberty
The concept of liberty is simple: individuals should be
free to do whatever they please as long as they don't harm
(or use force or fraud against) others. Libertarians and
many "New Agers" use such expressions. Most pagans
subscribe to the tenet: "An ye harm none, do what thou
wilt." A typical Taoist observation is "Those who flow as
life flows know they need no other force."
These are similar in intent to the Christian "golden
rule": "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
and to the Muslim saying "Who does not want for his brother
what he wants for himself?" (As one Muslim explained it, "Do
not do unto others what you would not want done to
yourself.") I'm sure we could find Buddhist and Hindu
variations on these themes.
The institution of monopolized law and violence known
as the "state" has it's own "golden rule": "be willing to
sacrifice all for the glory of the state or the `public
good'." States claim they protect citizens against crimes
like assault, slavery, murder, pollution, theft and
destruction of property, and fraud and misrepresentation.
In truth, states consistently engage in just such acts
against citizens.
To insure individual liberty, we must remove the
state's monopoly on law and legal systems. Legal systems
existed before the state in the form of customary or common
law administered by community elders and in some mercantile
legal systems which served far flung trading areas. And
they have always existed in the legal and constitutional
systems of private organizations and associations.
As the "state" rose to prominence it usurped control of
common and mercantile law and added upon them first the fiat
law of kings or dictators and later the constitutional,
legislative and administrative law of republics, democracies
and even military regimes. Yet today failures in the
statist legal system have given rise to non-state
alternatives like the hundreds of private mediation,
arbitration, and court services which have arisen in the
United States in the last two decades.
We would replace the monopolized legal system with a
"polycentric" legal system. Diverse, multiple "centers"--
individuals, groups, corporations--create law. Studies of
existing customary and mercantile law suggest 5 features of
polycentric law systems:
<ul>
<li>Reciprocity: Law is not imposed by the state, but
created by the agreement of individuals to cooperate in
anticipation that others will do the same.
<li>Crimes are Torts: All crimes against individuals
(violence, pollution, theft, fraud, etc.) are treated as
"torts" or wrongs against individuals, not as state crimes.
<li>Individuals Enforce Law: Individuals, not the state,
bring action to enforce contracts and file claims when
crimes are committed against them.
<li>Restitution: Monetary awards to the harmed individual
instead of punishment by the state.
<li>Non-violent sanctions: Negative publicity, boycotts,
and ostracism for those who do not comply with contracts or
make proper restitution.
</ul>
How would a non-state, polycentric legal system work?
Individuals and businesses could choose from "legal service"
and "protection" providers not much different from today's
lawyers and private security services. Some providers would
offer full-spectrum legal and security services, others
would specialize in certain fields, like entertainment law
or computer security.
Individuals and businesses in dispute, or those
charging others had defrauded or injured them, would have
their legal service provider demand the other party enter
into mediation or arbitration. The sanctions for refusing
to enter into some form of dispute resolution--or to pay any
agreed upon restitution--would be non-violent. The primary
one would be a negative entry in one's "legal credit
rating," something readily accessible through various
"legal credit rating services." (Current privacy laws
outlaw such legal credit rating services, but do permit
financial credit rating services.)
Harm to an individual's "legal credit rating" would be
a serious threat. Individuals proved to have repeatedly
harmed or defrauded others would face the harshest sanction
of all: ostracism by law abiding people and communities.
People would refuse to associate with them, to sell to or
buy from them, to rent to or hire them. They would have no
choice but to live in communities with people as
irresponsible and untrustworthy as themselves!
Since everyone--from low income individuals to the
biggest corporation--could hire a legal service provider
(or, in a free market, form one), it might seem that
polycentric law could degenerate into warfare among
competing criminal gangs. However, societies run like this
self-destruct, as Somalia did when warring gangs looted the
farmers and caused mass starvation.
Most societies are survival-oriented and therefore
legal service providers (both profit and non-profit) would
want to keep the cost of providing services down. They
would avoid violence, which only would drive costs up. Both
the claimant's and the defendant's legal service providers
would be eager to persuade their clients to find a mutually
satisfactory solution to their dispute.
Community Autonomy
Crucial to individual liberty is the freedom to join
communities which themselves are autonomous and
self-governing. This means that a community's contract or
constitution can set rules and policies governing who is
allowed to become a member or visit and what activities they
may or may not engage in within the community. Individuals
would join the community only if they agreed to these
limitations.
For example, a residential, family-oriented community
might ban prostitution, nude dancing and distribution of
psychoactive drugs; a hedonist commerce-oriented community
might encourage these and ban children; and an industrial
park (one form of community) might ban all of the above!
In a truly free society, individuals would be free to
form communities of interest which cater to their own
ethnic, religious, ideological, cultural, lifestyle, or
economic preferences--as long as these communities do not
aggress upon other individuals or communities.
Geographically-based communities would be created by buying
land and property, not by driving off unwanted people in the
horror of "ethnic cleansing."
Many communities would be much like those we see today:
traditional small towns, farming communities, suburban
enclaves, distinct ethnic and religious neighborhoods in
larger cities, university or artists communities, industrial
parks, shopping/ apartment/entertainment complexes, etc.
Others would be more exotic. Environmentalists could
buy and protect old growth forest, coastal wetlands or other
wilderness areas. Social workers could form rehabilitation
communities for outlaws committed to cleaning up their
"legal credit rating" so they can rejoin law-abiding
communities!
How can we ensure communities will not degenerate into
mini-despotisms that enslave and abuse their members --
especially women and children--or aggress against other
communities? A community's contract or constitution should
contain the following safeguards:
<ul>
<li>Bill of Rights - A written guarantee of (a) freedom of
association and of movement in and out of the community; (b)
equal political rights to participate in community decision-
making, to vote, to access to community-related
information, and © procedural rights--right to trial and
due process, right to counsel, right of appeal, no cruel and
unusual means of interrogation or punishment.
Geographically based communities also would have to set
procedures and guidelines by which landowners could secede
from the community.
<li>Consensus-oriented Decision-making - Contracts and
consensus democracy are both examples of consensus-oriented
decision-making. In contractual communities individuals
agree to abide by established policies and to settle any
disputes with the management or other members through
arbitration (rather like the tenants of a large apartment
complex). Democratic communities might also spell out some
basic terms in a membership contract. However, later
decisions would be made through seeking consensus of all
members.
<br>
Working to ensuring that all members--or at least 95%
of all members--consent to any decision about rules and
policies avoids the deal-making and defacto "minority rule"
which characterizes most majority rule decision-making.
Consensus ensures community harmony because members adopt
only rules and policies that enjoy overwhelming support.
Even communities with thousands of members can use modified
forms of consensus.
<br>
Provisions allowing only 10-15% of all members to
rescind a rule is extra insurance that ones found to be
onerous are quickly dropped. Additionally, there should be
"fair exit provisions" that ensure individuals disagreeing
with a near-consensus rule or policy are given sufficient
time to settle affairs and leave a community.
<li>Non-violent Sanctions - Using only non-violent sanctions
to enforce rules and policies is another check on possible
abuse of community members. Such sanctions against rule
breakers would range from private talks to public criticism
to fines to denial of services and trade to ostracism to
(non-violent) expulsion. In any community, violence should
only be permissible in self-defense against physical
aggression.
<li>Community Membership in Networks or Confederations of
Communities - This protects individuals because such
confederations could boycott or expel communities that abuse
members. Communities would form regional networks or
confederations to facilitate conflict-resolution, to address
common problems and issues, and to defend against
potentially aggressive communities or criminal gangs.
How can we prevent confederations from becoming new
nation states? Individuals and communities should also
expect networks and confederations abide by bills of rights
(for both individuals and communities), 100% consensus
decision-making by representatives of all communities, and
non-violent sanctions. Confederation agreements would
necessarily include the right to secession.
</ul>
|