The Politics of Autonomy

 

by Andrew Thomson

 

Autonomy is a political concept that cannot be summarized by a simple definition.  Etymologically, it is derived from the Greek words auto, meaning self, and nomos, meaning law or rule.  The post-Cold War era has seen resurgence in both the amount and force of autonomy and independence movements around the world.  Quite often those who have minority status within a state, and wish to claim political sovereignty and self-determination over an area of land lead these campaigns.  The motives for these conflicts can vary from feelings of historical wrongdoing to an attitude of isolation or alienation (Quebec).  Whatever the rationale, certain nations and/or geographical areas have had success with their secessionist movements, to varying degrees.

            The key factor in determining this realization is the level of tolerance that exists within a state; this is dependent on what type of government is in power. Today there are three situations that accurately reflect this.  Under the liberal democratic tradition of the United Kingdom, the Scottish nation has always enjoyed a relative degree of autonomy,
especially since devolution and the return of a parliament to Scotland after a three hundred-year absence.  But in overall terms of autonomy movements around the world, this should be considered a success story.  There are two obvious examples of ethnic groups/nations that have seen their dreams of statehood repeatedly quelled by authoritarian regimes: Tibet and Kurdistan. 

 

The Chinese government has repeatedly refused to grant autonomy to Tibetans, despite nonviolent resistance to their rule and widespread cultural oppression.  The Kurds are a special case, as they are not a nation confined within an individual state; instead they are dispersed through at least four: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.  Due to a lack of democratic traditions in the area, they too have experienced severe repression over the years, and their hopes for a Kurdish state seem slimmer then ever.  These three situations clearly demonstrate the wide gap that currently exists between independence movements around the world.  The success of a nation in its quest for autonomy is based on the style of government it is facing and how tolerant it is towards their wishes.

SCOTLAND

Scotland's independence has been one of the most highly debated over the years, due to the fact that the United Kingdom is a leading world power and one of the most visible nations on Earth.  Since the Union of 1707, it has seemed that their English "partners" have politically overpowered the Scots.  The word "partner" is an important one to consider because when modest proposals for self-government were being proposed in the 1950's, Scottish Labour M.P.'s objected to the fact that Scotland's issues would be removed from the agenda of the main Parliament at Westminster, relegating its status within the Union.  This proposed Scottish Assembly came into reality in 1999, along with it power over education, health, housing, road-building and local government.  The central government in Westminster retained absolute control of foreign affairs, defense, finance and policing, not to mention the income generated by oil drilling in the North Sea.  The end result of this is that power has been transferred to the Scots in a non-violent manner.

This can be attributed to the fact that the United Kingdom is a stable, developed country with a long democratic tradition.  The central government did not try to control Scottish culture after 1707, which allowed for a distinct nation to remain, avoiding assimilation. 

Since the eighteenth century, Scotland has actually been able to retain what could be called "autonomous powers": their legal and education systems, as well as the right to practice the Presbyterian faith.  In terms of the law, Roman and continental European influences originally influenced Scotland quite heavily but now only the institutions of the court are independent from Britain, and its education system has always produced a distinctly Scottish intellectual style that has endured through the centuries. 

As previously mentioned, autonomy can take on many different forms.  Some have argued that in the nineteenth century Scotland had as much independence as partially independent European states such as Norway, Finland, and Hungary.  A striking example of how the British state dealt with its Scottish minority compared to less democratic governments was the creation of the Scottish Office in the late 1800's in order to give more attention to Scottish matters.  The result of this was that throughout the twentieth century this office acted as the main defender of Scottish interests, becoming somewhat of a "mouthpiece for Scottish civil society". 

 

But even with this power, the issue of devolution and political sovereignty for Scotland has always been simmering beneath the surface.  The Scottish National Party (SNP) saw its support rise during the 1960's as Scotland suffered through economic stagnation, but the turning point in the debate over devolution came in the 1980's when Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative Party set out to attack the British welfare state. Those institutions that had been vital to the maintenance of Scottish autonomy such as education and welfare were now under attack from a government that had little representation in Scotland, leading many to believe that the only way to protect their national interests would be through a Scottish assembly.  The election of the Labour party under Tony Blair in 1997 signaled a new chapter in the story, as a referendum held that same year saw 74.3% of Scottish voters support devolution of powers to a new Parliament.  Therefore, under the Scotland Act of 1998, a devolved assembly with limited powers was created and its roles were defined, including those regarding taxation. 

 

This was not done without opposition, as some critics argued that this would the "first step on a long slippery slope to independence for Scotland and the ultimate break-up of the United Kingdom.  This may eventually be the case, as the SNP has seen its popularity rise in recent years, culminating in it forming the official opposition in the new Scottish Parliament.  The autonomy that Scotland has enjoyed within the United Kingdom could not have existed unless there were democratic institutions firmly entrenched into the state that permitted a high level of tolerance, especially in the areas of religion and culture. Accordingly, it can be argued that in an atmosphere of liberal thought and democratic traditions, self-determination and/or independence movements will achieve greater success.

TIBET

Tibet is the next case that must be examined when considering autonomy movements around the world and their success vis-à-vis the state to which they belong.  China has ruled the Tibetan people since the early 1950's, and since then it has become obvious that their authoritarian Communist regime would not allow the issue of autonomy or independence to be debated in the same manner that it was in Scotland's case.  The result has been decades of cultural and physical oppression, including degradation of the Tibetan's Buddhist faith through violence; according to the Tibetan Government-in-Exile, 173,221 people had died in Chinese prisons and labour camps in Tibet by 1984.  But even though many believe that China is becoming more open to the world through globalization and increased trade, the fact remains that it is still an authoritarian state that refuses to permit any meaningful displays of individual freedom.  The recent international furor over their crackdown on the Falun Gong only serves to reinforce this fact. 

Ever since the Chinese conquest of independent Tibet in 1951, the Tibetan nation has struggled to achieve political goals on par with those of Scotland or any other minority group that exists within an economically developed, liberal democracy.  The original justification that the People's Liberation Army gave for invading Tibet in 1950 was that they had come to help the people and would leave as soon as the area "improved" and was capable of self-government. Almost fifty years later, the official government stance has changed little.  In 1997 a Chinese official stated, "China wants to help civilize Tibet, and that is its top political goal in the region."  The historical perspective of Tibet's relationship with China is interesting to note.  In 1965 the Chinese government created the "Tibet Autonomous Region" in an attempt to give off some semblance of self-government for the Tibetan people, but in reality it was an apparatus that simply acted as a puppet; the Chinese continued to exhibit all real political power in the region.  Another example of Chinese political oppression that relates to autonomy is the status of the Dalai Lama, spiritual and religious leader of the Tibet nation, who was forced to flee to India in 1959.   Since that time he has traveled around the world, especially in the developed world (i.e. United Kingdom, United States), preaching the case for Tibetan independence. 

 

            Related to this, in another shining example of Chinese intolerance towards the distinctiveness of Tibetan religious customs and practices: his choice for the number two position in the Tibetan Buddhist faith, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, was rejected by the government and replaced with their own candidate, in all probability a person who is more inclined to be loyal to the central government.   During the 1980's and 1990's, it seemed that Tibetan nationalism was beginning to gain strength as China attempted to improve its foreign relations and "open itself up to the world."  In response to this, the government took aim at those threatening to upset the power structure that the Chinese Communist Party possessed.  The most famous of these incidents was the June 1989 Tianamen Square massacre, however Tibet has had its share of recent military and police crackdowns.  Two dates worth noting are December 10, 1988, when Chinese troops fired on unarmed monks who were marching to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (2 were killed), and March 5, 1989, when police fired on monks marching in a ceremony remembering those killed the previous year, setting off three days of riots in the capital of Lhasa that killed between 80-150 people. 

To recap the Tibet situation, although it has been taken up as a popular cause internationally and has gained exposure through the Dalai Lama, there is little chance for progress under the current political situation in China.  Even though other countries have criticized China's abysmal human rights record, they remain eager to conduct business with a market of one billion people.  And contrary to the case of the Scots, there is no democratic tradition in China from which to build from, as they have never known things such liberal political thought and representative government.  This is an example of a nation that wishes to possess greater autonomy over its own affairs, but has not succeeded due to the low level of tolerance that an authoritarian state such as China enforces, even though the Tibetans have tried to achieve their goals through non-violent means.

KURDISTAN

 

The Kurds are another example of a people whose attempts to gain autonomy have gone unfulfilled, as they have been oppressed for almost as long as they have existed.  What also must be considered is that the Kurds are not confined to one state.  The area that they inhabit, referred to as Kurdistan, extends across many borders, but the people are many focused within four countries: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Of the four, only Turkey has a claim to being democratic, and they also have the most Kurds within their borders, over 12 million.  There are 6 million in Iran, 4 million in Iraq, and 1 million in Syria. 

 

It was the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne that created the borders of these states, borders that served to separate the Kurdish people.  Therefore they have never had enough power within one state to force long-lasting change, even though there have been cases where Kurdish uprisings have produced results, only to be ruthlessly crushed by the state.  In Turkey, there were revolts in 1925, 1930, and 1937 that were fiercely repressed by Mustafa Kemal in methods that "the sort of a fledgling regime that was not fully established would resort to in order to achieve security".  In Iran, Kurds pronounced the Mahabad Republic in 1935, but it only lasted for one year after the Shah's troops restored Iranian rule and executed the movement's leaders.  In both cases one saw the use of extreme violence by young totalitarian regimes that were trying to consolidate their power, and how their division by imperial powers had reduced the Kurds influence to that of an oppressed minority. Perhaps the most famous recent incident occurred in Halabja, Iraq in March 1988, when five thousand Kurds were killed in a chemical attack of mustard gas from the air.  Iraq and Iran, then at war with each other, blamed the other for the incident. 

The single greatest factor in determining why the Kurds have experienced so many hardships in their quest for statehood is that these governments have never had any tolerance for uprisings.  Although Iran is steadily becoming more democratic, it has been under dictatorial rule for most of its existence. Iraq is under the autocratic rule of Saddam Hussein, while Syria's ruling Baath Party has in the past carried out oppressive practices similar to those in the other countries.  As for Turkey, there is somewhat of a democratic political culture that exists, but in terms of their treatment of the Kurds, whom the government refers to as "mountain Turks", one can conclude that there is no similar political culture of tolerance and liberal attitudes.  They have also never allowed the Kurds to develop into a society that is capable of challenging for independence and/or greater autonomy: in Turkey they have an illiteracy rate of 72%, it is illegal to publish books or magazines in the Kurdish language, and education is in Turkish. Compare these facts to the philosophy of the United Kingdom in dealing with Scotland, which was to stay away from regulating culture and society in general. 

For states that are run by dictatorships or have only recently become democratic, there are no peaceful institutions within which to work towards a peaceful solution of autonomy.  This is especially true in the Middle East, where imperialist borders have resulted in a situation such as Kurdistan where a comparatively large nation of Muslims have been separated and are now exposed to oppression by states that practice what is referred to as "poor people's colonialism."  It does not seem likely that the Kurds situation will improve anytime soon.  None of the four above-mentioned states are economically sound, especially Iraq, and the political stability of the region is never a sure thing.  Past attempts by the Kurds to gain autonomy have all been crushed with extreme violence and been followed by degrading cultural oppression, especially with regards to language.  Thus, under political systems that are undemocratic and totalitarian in nature, movements for self-government and independence are less likely to succeed peacefully, if at all.

COMPARISONS

 

Three cases of autonomy movements have been examined: Scotland, Tibet, and Kurdistan.  In each instance there is a desire by a nation or group of people to possess more control and decision-making power over their own affairs, whether it be through full independence or through a federal system of shared responsibility.  What has made the difference between the results of these three situations is the fact that autonomy is virtually dependent on the type of government and political structure within the parent state, and its resulting ideology towards religious, political, and individual freedoms. 

The United Kingdom was one of the world's first liberal democracies and was for a time its most powerful empire.  The British approach under the Labour government of Tony Blair towards the Scottish question was to devolve power to a locally elected assembly while allowing Scotland's distinct culture and society to remain in place unhindered.  China, which has never been a true democracy, has taken a much more different approach to dealing with Tibet's appeals for independence, which in recent years have been mostly non-violent.  The Chinese government has cracked down hard on their religion, culture, and political systems, which is no surprise considering that the area has always been under authoritarian rule and consequently has never experienced democratic rule and full individual freedoms.  And finally, the Kurdish nation has been forced to survive under the tight-fisted rule of four governments that have been totalitarian in nature for all, if not most of their existence as states.  As is the case with China, there is no democratic tradition in the area with the exception of Turkey, and this has led to a long history of oppression and violence. 

Although autonomy can be a tricky term to comprehend and clearly define, its implementation and success can be gauged by what type of regime the state has in place: democratic, authoritarian, or totalitarian.