Well now, whether or not it happened depends on how you define a state. If it includes colonies, there are plenty of states that became independent after world war II. Also in Scotland there will be a referendum to decide about secession from the UK. In Liechtenstein - that very large country between Switzerland and Austria - it is written in the constitution that every municipality can decide to secede from Liechtenstein.

Whether or not it is a threat to a democracy, depends partly on political views and partly on who you talk to. Where you stand is where you sit or the other way round. there is the treaty on self determination, allowing people to decide where they want to belong to.

So in my opinion, if it is decided by a majority of the region that wants to secede, I don't see it as a problem for democracy, but as the ultimate consequence of democracy

I submit that there is going to be increased demands for secession, particularly in democracies. Most countries are ethnically heterogenous. The difference today is that large groups of people make up diasporas of various ethnic groups in the West. These groups are finding that it is easier today to influence their country´s foreign policy and find sympathetic ears in their new homes. They are also able to collect large amounts of funds to either use violence or influence political parties in their homelands. All of this means that Western-based, large diasporas will agitate to secede from the countries of origin, usually demanding autonomy as redress for discrimination. The new-home countries will generally like the idea of secession because they see it as a viable way to stop the flow of immigrants/refugees (South Sudan solution). Of course, the creation of new countries have not done anyone any good in recent years because the policy impetus is driven by wrong incentives and for all the wrong reasons.

To my knowledge the literature does not deal specifically with the question you posed, probably because as you stated, there haven't been any secessions from established democracies. But to answer your question succinctly, even if a secession were to take place within an established democracy, it is likely to take place through democratic practices, therefore, it is highly unlikely that it will have a destabilizing effect.

But more importantly, there is no empirical evidence (as you stated) to analyze the effects of secession in stabilized democracies, therefore your question cannot be tested.

Eltion makes an interesting observation, but I am afraid that democracies are not immune to secessionist violence. Take Spain, India, Sri Lanka, Corsica, and even the Ukraine currently etc for example. Even countries such as Canada and Scotland face secessionist movements, which have remained peaceful due to the opportunity costs of organizing violence there. This is not because these states are democratic but because they are rich and have strong states. Moreover, my original point was that these movements are driven from outside with its own logic, not a democratic logic based on domestic concerns.

Dr. Soya, I think that Kanteera needs to define what she means by "significant threat" and "established democracies". If significant means the potential of a democratic breakdown, then the question becomes more qualified because it deals with a very limited number of cases, if any. Furthermore, by established demcoracies Kanteera means those states "with at least ten consecutive years of universal suffrage." Although thats an important qualifying factor of democracies, it is a very minimalist definition, one which without other qualifying factors hardly qualifies a democracy as established.

Dear people,

There is literature on secession, also in democracies. Might I remind you of Margaret Moore's "National self-determination and secession"but especially of the very nice book "Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession" by Aleksandar Pavković? He addresses the secession of peaceful as well as violent secessions. Norway from Sweden, Iceland from Denmark, Slovakia from the Czech Republic. Bangladesh from Pakistan, Lithuania from the Soviet Union, and Croatia and Slovenia from Yugoslavia.

Of course secessions are not always peaceful, but this is a different question, than asking whether it is a threat to democracy. At least most of the countries mentioned that seceded became real democracies.

Nowadays there are secessionist movements in well established European countries, such as Scotland, Spain, Belgium et cetera. It would be utterly wrong to see such movements as a threat to democracy.

Of course, one can discuss whether all countries mentioned are all qualified democracies in the way Eltion Meka would like to describe them, but I wonder whether there ever have been or even are qualified democracies, which would fulfill all the criteria for a democracy completely. In such a case the criterion of regular elections may well be used.

As to Indra Soysa, I think it is somewhat demeaning to see all secesionist movements as driven from outside instead of by domestic concerns. Some people really do have nationalist feelings and do feel the need to become a separate nation. For those people the right of selfdetermination was established. Help from the outside helps and recognition as a sovereign state is of real help, but this does not imply that the causes for secessionist movements are always driven from outside and lack a democratic logic. The other way round, if democracy is really mature, it would also allow a vote on selfdetermination and secession.

Thank you everyone especially Michiel very much for your opinion and explanation. To tell you the truth, I'm still not clear and struggling to find the way to write the essay about it.

Since my book has been mentioned, perhaps I should add a comment. In liberal democratic states, secessions are not perceived as a 'threat' to the territorial integrity of the state, provided that the state legitimation ideology is not based on one nation-one state doctrine. The most recent secession of Montenegro (2006) from the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro shows this clearly: that state was formed of at least two nations, so if one separates it is not, necessarily, a threat to the other. In contrast, the Kingdom of Spain is perceived, at least by many Spaniards, to have been founded and maintained by one nation. This of course is not a view shared (at least in this form) by many Catalunians, Basques and others....

One secession from Spain can have a demonstration effect: if Catalunia goes, so does the Basque country, and then Galicia and then....so the Kingdom is reduced or dissolved. Not the prospect that many Spaniards cherish, I suppose. But then some states have dissolved recently - and although that in some cases led to war, in others the process was peaceful. So the threat of dissolution may not be all that threatening? If so, will there be more secessions from liberal democratic states?

Well I think that Dr de Vries is on point about your question, but if you are looking for measurements, on how to answer the question of "To what extent is secession a significant threat in established democracies?

You can use the extent of;

1) The nature of the secession: Is it violent, does/did it lead to a breakdown of law and order, did it inspire fear and diminish citizens faith in political institutions

2) legitimacy: Does the secession undermine the prevailing constitution agreed by all? Is the secession constitutional?

3) Who are the secessionists? Military leaders, power business leaders, majority of people from a certain ethnic or racial group.

I think these three above can give a rough idea as to the extent secession can be a significant threat to established democracy.