ABSTRACT

Whenever an existing state implodes or finds itself in a process of slow disintegration along ethno-national lines there is a high expectation that this process will involve violence. And indeed for much of modern human history secessionism was regularly identified with mass bloodshed: many attempts to set up an independent sovereign polity or to unite one ethno-national collectivity under a single political roof were accompanied by wars, revolutions, terrorism or insurgency. From the American Civil War, Biafra, Katanga and Kurdistan to the Yugoslav wars of succession, Chechnya and Sri Lanka, the 19th and 20th centuries were marked by the hostile and aggressive actions of separatist movements, the host state governments or both (see Chapters 5, 6 and 8 and Part VI). This historical experience might suggest that there is an inherent link between secession and violence and that an increase in separatist demands will automatically translate into coercive behaviour. However, this is rarely the case. Not only is most secessionist activity resolutely non-violent but in addition, instances of separatist violence are statistically quite rare despite journalistic clichés that suggest the ubiquity of such violence (Fearon and Laitin 2000; Brubaker 2004; Laitin 2007) and the two processes can be inversely proportional. For example, the Québecois and Catalan separatist movements have acquired large-scale popular support in a distinctly non-violent context: rare instances of violent insurgency (mostly in the early 1960s and 1970s) were instantly denounced and the decrease in violent activity was followed by a widening increase in support for the separatist cause (Conversi 1997; Rocher 2002). Hence the central questions are: why and when do organized attempts to promote the establishment of an independent polity become violent? More specifically, why and under which circumstances do some secessionist movements adopt violent tactics while others never do? Why do some governments respond violently to secessionist activities while other state authorities do not?