Lit Why didn't the Old Republic simply "let go" of systems which wanted independence?

I think so, yes. Even with the flaws and corruption in the Republic, with time these could have been fixed were it not for the machinations of the Sith. Even if conflict did break out, I think the Jedi could have kept a lid on things, limited its spread and destruction, and eventually mediated a resolution. It was the Sith that took a bad situation and broke it beyond repair.

 

Honestly I got the impression the Ruusan Declaration de-centralized the republic a lot from what came before. If nothing else, the lack of a centralized military really reduced the ability of the senate to actually enforce any of its laws that a planetary government might chose to ignore.

Yes there are a jedi, though as repeatedly state in both episodes 1 and 2, and shown very conclusively in the first part of the battle of Geonosis where hundreds of jedi including many of their best masters are overwhelmed and nearly wiped out by a small fraction of the droid forces, jedi might be great special forces, but they are not capable of fighting wars alone

 

I don't mean the official reason for war, I mean the official reason Palpatine wouldn't let them secede.

Worth pointing out that even if the Republic didn't have a millitary it certainly had a "police" aka the Judicial Forces, and Episode I heavily implies if they actually wanted the Republic could have made mince meat of the Trade Federation.

 

My assumption is because Palpatine wanted a war. Maybe the loyalists felt they would lose to much money/safety to allow so many systems to leave? A few might be ok, but a lot? too much.

 

Why does any country not let go of provinces or cities that want to be free?

All political communities are at some level held together by coercion. Else they aren’t really solid political communities.

The NR was not nearly strong enough to actually force the issue. In LOTF it clearly felt otherwise.

if everyone can leave, then the government inevitably collapses as taxes aren’t paid, wars break out and the belief that sustains said political community-that being its government is legitimate and thus must be preserved dies.

You might as well ask why governments don’t just let people break laws if they sincerely disagree. States and societies are at some level bound by shared belief and implicit threats of violence. When the belief collapses and the stick no longer coerces, anarchy reigns.

No government wants to dissolve itself. The Jedi have always supported the republic, and a galaxy where half of said galaxy is under corporate domination or fighting a billion brushfire interplanetary wars is hardly conducive to the Jedi’s stated mandate.

 

Have we ever had this tested in real-life? What if the Quebec, Catalonia or Scotland independence referendums had succeeded?

 

It should be noted all of these referendums were not only opposed by the government they were seceding from, but also the broader international community(meaning the United States) was not supportive. The US IIRc breathed “a sigh of relief” when Quebec’s referendum failed in the nineties. Scotland becoming independent would have been an absolute headache to re negotiate the nuclear triad and the like. Would Ottawa or London go to war over Scotland or Quebec achieving independence? Probably not if only because doing so would be far more disastrous. (They would have to accept it given international law on the subject would be binding and enforced). (There would be a lot of back room negotiating, threats and inducements to keep an independent Catalonia or Quebec in alignment with NATO or the EU even if the secession was officially recognized).

States as a given historical rule have never tolerated secession. This is true in every continent with every culture and society. They only accept it when the costs of fighting it are substantially higher than letting it happen. There have been thousands of rebellions and insurgencies throughout history, for the independence of a given region or people.

I would hazard to say the overwhelming majority of the time, the central government has reacted with force. Especially if said separatists conducted terrorist actions and armed themselves before hand.

The state does not wish its jurisdictional monopoly on violence to be ended. This is true in RL as it is in SW. In the case of SW, the galactic republic is an ancient multi species society that survives pretty much only because its constituents believe in it. It does not have centralized administration or military force to get compliance. Which is precisely why secession would be so devastating. One system leaves, ten thousand follow, then ten million and soon the entire project is shattered like glass hit by a hammer.

The Jedi and the republic government are absolutely right to fear the consequences of this, Sith meddling entirely ignored.

 

As far as I know, most secessions weren't democratic...so I guess you could raise the argument about what gives these self-appointed leaders the right to grab a chunk of a state and rule it for themselves? But then, what happens if there is majority support for secession? We ended up dodging that issue in those three real-life cases because the referenda failed...but does anyone have any idea what would've happened if they succeeded?

 

WE THE PEOPLE...

 

Come to think of it, we had this very problem in the U.S. didn't we? Virginia decided to secede from the Union, then West Virginia decided to secede from Virginia and go back to the Union. If that's allowed, then why not individual counties, cities, or neighborhoods?

 

Are you asking if anyone has ever "separated"...or separated "successfully"?

If you just want to talk about succession and the reactions/results...the US Civil War is a great example.

Now in the case of successful succession...it really comes down to "for how long".

History is littered with elements of nations splintering off, realigning with another, splintering off again, rejoining.

Some of Putin's apologist would tell you that is what is happening in Ukraine.

Off the top of my head, perhaps the most contemporary instance of a breakup of a nation that has not retracted back to form is Sudan/South Sudan...and neither of those countries is what you would call peaceful or thriving since.

------------

Another great example (at least in terms of economics) is Brexit. The EU did permit the UK to leave...but the fight has come in the consequences.

Often with these expressions of independence, there are a few key positions which they are arguing. Many others, however, are glossed over, if they are even considered. Things to be worked out later, as the important thing is separation on THE points of difference. The right to decide some point on your own, probably because you were not winning the argument in the context of the government at large. But once that bit is settled, getting back to normal commerce, trade, mutual defense/alliance etc...none of that they would consider being affected...except that it is.

You don't get to leave the group to change something you don't like, and then get to enjoy the benefits of everything else that is the group. If so, everyone would run away the first time they lost a vote, and any power a government has would be lost.

Another great example of this was the Nullification Crisis in the US. If you can simply ignore something all agreed to abide by, then all rules can be broken, and any faith in government is impossible because the ability for the government to establish it's rules for all is obstructed.

If you decide you cannot work within the system, and must leave...ok...but it must be total.
If the systems of the CIS wanted to leave the Republic, and then isolate in some way that would avoid the Republic's hyperlanes, it's ports of trade, it's mineral wealth, it's innovations, it's justice systems...you leave all of it behind...you can argue on the merit, perhaps. But is it possible?

The difficulty often lies in geography...you can't escape being neighbors...drawing from the same waters, gathering from the same fields, fearing the same dangers...the reasons that united you in governance once...they are probably still there.

If you decide you want to change the rules for yourself, but still benefit from the rest of the system, that is a breach of mutual cooperation that establishes governments (particularly democracies) to begin with.

In the final analysis, all governments are a house of cards built on the exercise of perceived power allotted and acknowledged by the governed. If that balance is interrupted or circumvented, it risks erosion of those perceptions, which leads to further disruption, more grievance, and more erosion of confidence.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled secession is illegal. The South's argument IIRC was that the union existed only due to the consent of the states, and the South losing the war forever buried that argument.

I think we can safely assume any state or coalition of states that wanted to secede in America would have to go to war for it, as it would be in defiance of the 1867 SC decision on the matter? Don't quote me.

The European Union allows for secession though, I do not believe Russia or China allow provinces or oblasts that right. Secession's legality and whether or not it is accepted in the real world are two entirely different questions.

All power as Mao famously put it, comes from the barrel of the gun, and we have a vast superstructure of laws, institutions and social norms and rituals that both gives public buy in, but also conceals this reality. It is one thing to say one is indifferent to secession, but power and those with power have rarely if ever let it go because they were asked nicely.

Most of human history has not been democratic. That also begs the question what "democratic" really means. Does the exclusion of women and minority groups (as in the 19th century US) make the country not democratic? Or can democracy be exclusionary and still be called democracy? There's also the fact that even modern countries are not as democratic as the word implies in some ideal platonic realm of the perfect. The influence of money, lobbying, etc... the awesome power of modern propaganda, etc... distorts and warps democratic processes and to me makes questionable how genuine any such decision really is. Though I'm sure some would disagree.

The GA was a much stronger government than the NR ever was. It had both the power and the will to contest rebellion, whereas the NR really did not. Omas, Jacen, Niathal and everyone in their circles understood that if the Confederation was allowed to walk away, it would be disastrous, for the reasons you imply.

 

Technically isn't the current U.S. constitution illegal, because the Articles of Confederation required the unanimous consent of all 13 states for it to be modified? But the Founding Fathers went ahead and discarded it anyway.

As for whether a new secession attempt would be met with war...I think that Supreme Court decision will matter much less than whether the president and Congress has the political will to fight one.

 

Every government that existed somewhere is illegal because it was formed in opposition to a previous one. Machiavelli talked about this, IIRC-states are forged from crime, skullduggery and murder, and we just pretend they are legitimate after the blood has soaked into the ground.

This is true everywhere.

The US federal government would have to be substantially weaker than it is now, as in late roman empire weak for it to tolerate secession. The political will exist so long as at least approximately 50% of the population is willing to fight or vote for people who will fight for the union.

But the overall point remains true. Secession like revolution is one of those historical phenomena where the mystique of legality and morality is brushed away and the true mechanism of history is laid bare-violence; to separate from a community one wishes to no longer be apart of, or to keep said community together. Which is why it has been overwhelmingly opposed throughout all of history.

 

The Separatists (meaning here the actual people of the actual planets that wanted independence) didn't know Dooku was making an alliance with the megacorporations, nevermind that it was to use their droids as their armies -- that's the whole point of Obi-wan's discovery of this on Geonosis being such a big deal.
Why did Dooku need their droids? Because the actual Separatists weren't planning on a war, they were just declaring independence and hoping the Republic would recognize that.

 

I'm not sure what you want the Republic or these independent worlds to do here. The CIS is an alliance, these worlds has already left the Republic and promised to support the CIS.

These worlds either have to support the CIS who they promised to support or they have to come crawling back to the Republic who are not endeared to them,or separate from the CIS and be left with no allies at all.

Theoretically it's possible that the CIS has its own version of Satine's Neutral Systems party who refuse to support the war, but from what we see of Mandalore as the only real example that would leave them in an economically fragile position and cuts their list of allies short. Some of the wealthier members were probably fine(Zin Paulness is dressed in the same clothes as Giddean of Kuat and might imply that the government of Kuat was itself was part even as KDY the company pumped out warships) but hardly something everyone can do without consequences.

 

When I said "Zin Paulness" dressed like Giddean of Kuat I meant Dantum Roohd, but I can't update the original comment anymore

Whoops.

 

Exactly.

The unwillingness to let them go was one big step in the Republic's slide towards imperialism.

I'm not sure what you're addressing and disagreeing with in my post? They didn't want war, they had no army for war -- until Dooku surprised them with his deal with the corporations for their security droids as armies. And as said above, Geonosis can easily be seen as an unprovoked attack. Obi-wan was a foreigner conducting espionage, who refused a clemency deal with Dooku to root out the corruption in the Senate instead of going to war. Anakin and Padme then intruded and killed a number of Geonosians. These are Jedi and a Senator... officials of the Republic. The executions were an escalation, but could be justified, and it doesn't seem like the Republic tried to negotiate for their release, and instead went for emergency powers, war, and grabbing the secret army (yes that was Palpatine's doing, but everyone including the Jedi and a Senate majority went along with it.) After Geonosis, they could see it as a Pearl Harbor moment, they were attacked and thank goodness Dooku had a droid army ready to go to defend them from this imperial aggression and refusal to recognize their independence. Especially as the Republic was seem more similar to the United Nations or European in some ways, or, probably intentionally, like the United States prior to the Civil War.

And to @Darth Invictus , one reason why President Buchanan didn't do much is because he and the Justice Department had concluded that it was legal for states to secede, that it was something the Constitution was silent on while also giving strong rights to be reserved by the states. Only later was secession ruled illegal - and even then, that 1869 decision specifically ruled unilateral secession as illegal, while leaving the door open to secession being legal if also approved by the national government.
I think Brexit could actually be seen as an equivalent, if not perfectly.
And while the Quebec/Catalonia/Scotland independence referendums didn't succeed (and I think there were others like French Guiana, the Falklands, maybe Greenland and Puerto Rico), the fact they were legally permitted shows the national government was going to recognize their independence if passed. For something successful... many forget the United States owned the Philippines as a colony, and then decided to peacefully let it go, yet the United States didn't seem or get weaker as a result. The same happened with other U.S. territories in the Pacific (like the now-independent Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands), as well as the Panama Canal Zone. It's slightly different, but the US also allowed and even encouraged former slaves to leave and found the nation of Liberia. There's also many territories of France and UK that were allowed independence. Modern democracies haven't been around too long to have too many case examples... but there are still many cases, and also cases that would have been allowed but didn't happen.

 

Obviously the study of states is not a hard science. And there will always be counter examples. States act in accordance with international law or popular will when its in their interests, they don't when its not. The US still has a strong diplomatic relationship with Panama and the Philippines. It has also engaged in dozens of coups in the cold war and post cold war era to protect its interests. Spain, the UK and Canada are not also particularly powerful actors-they are all part of the global economy, all signatories to international treaties, and thus acting against said law, (crushing a legitimate referendum) would be against their interests. The way the international system works by and large is its in most countries interest to play by the rules and to respect popular sovereignty when expressed.

I'd argue the Republic was always an imperialist core project but that is neither here nor there.

 

Yes. I don't think anything you say here contradicts anything I said (although I will just add that states do sometimes act against their own interests - but that's a separate discussion). So I think it can be said you agree with my large point now>

 

I am disputing the notion that moral considerations matter in and of themselves. When it comes to statecraft, only the appearance thereof and whether or not it’s in a state’s self interest to abide.

We see plenty of examples today, right now where countries blithely ignore international laws and treaties. Because they are either part of the UN permanent security council or because they have the backing of countries that do, or just because the international community doesn’t care to stop them.

Secession like I said is only accepted under certain conditions.

1. It is overwhelmingly in the state’s interest to let it happen(again, even Spain’s government vociferously opposed Catalan independence and put some of the leadership in prison due to well founded concerns it would trigger further disintegration).
2. International and domestic consequences of a hard line policy. If Quebec seceded, there would be a whole load of negotiations and re adjustments. But Canada sending in the troops to put it down would inevitably cause more trouble than that action was worth. Unless Ottawa could convince the US it was a Russian plot and the Quebecois secessionists were agents thereof or something like that. (Thus gaining international support for a crackdown).
3. Wherewithal. To be able to suppress secession, you need both the will and manpower to do so. The Union in the US civil war had that will and the manpower and material to pursue the war till the end. Spain or the UK in the 2010s I don’t think had either to actually fight Scotland or Catalonia all else excluded.
4. And finally, is a province or state or oblast seceding an existential threat or not? Is said province dominated by a minority group(like many times in Africa and the Middle East) where keeping the province just causes more strife and letting them go would be in the state’s interests. Does it risk triggering further secessionist movements-Russia, Spain and I’d argue the U.S. government even today would be most afraid of this. If one state or province or oblast leaves, others will demand the same. If it doesn’t. If the loss is deemed tolerable then sure let them go. Tax revenues might even go up. Resources and investment can be used elsewhere. As a corollary- a state may decide keeping a rebellious or angry population in a territory under its domain is worth any expense, loss of prestige or life. Perhaps there are valuable resources in said province, or its secession would open it to foreign attack, or it would be an intolerable display of weakness if said territory left, among many other reasons a state may decide that fighting to keep a territory that wants to go is worthwhile.

Point being there are a lot of factors and determinants on whether or not a state tolerates secession and under what conditions they are willing to fight a civil war over it, and when they are not.

None of which have to do with morality in and of itself.

 

So, you are responding to me with an argument I'm not making. Ok.

 

I’m not sure what your argument is honestly? Yes we have instances in the modern day of countries letting colonies or territories go. My point summarized is they don’t do this out of the goodness of their hearts and because they truly deeply believe in the UN charter.