Plebiscitarianism Revisited: A Typology of Independence Referendums

Sanjaume‐Calvet, Marc

doi:10.1017/s0008423921000421

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A plurality of preconditions, variables, and triggers may be identified. Depending on the theory followed, these elements play different roles and have more or less explanatory weight in the emergence of secessionism and the support for it: diversity in ethnicity and/or national identity (Hale, 2000;Hechter, 1992;Horowitz, 1981;Wood, 1981); relative isolation or other geographical aspects (Sorens, 2012); cultural, economic, and other kinds of perceived (or not) grievances (Griffiths & Martinez, 2020); relative economic success or failure (Álvarez Pereira et al, 2018;Hechter, 1992;Webb, 2015;Wood, 1981); individual and collective socio-psychological characteristics (Basta, 2018;Dion, 1996); agency (Krause, 2017;Sanjaume-Calvet, 2021;Siroky et al, 2016); external recognition (Coggins, 2014;Griffiths & Muro, 2020); and variation in state formation patterns and institutional past (Roeder, 2007;Webb, 2015).…”

Section: Some Analytical Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Secessionism: What Do We Really Know About It?

Requejo

Sanjaume‐Calvet

2021

PaG

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this thematic issue we discuss what we really know about the explanations for secessionism. Over the last few decades, an increasing number of new analyses on secessionism have appeared, regarding both its normative and its empirical dimensions. We can distinguish at least three types of research questions that categorise the current analyses of secessionism: normative, explanatory, and pragmatic. Political theorists work mainly on the moral and political right to unilaterally secede, answering questions such as “under what conditions” this right is legitimate and “who” has this moral right (Requejo & Sanjaume-Calvet, 2015; Sanjaume‐Calvet, 2020). Despite the importance of normative theories, these approaches do not provide explanations for secessionism, although most of them are built on implicit explanations of these phenomena. The field of explanatory theories of secession focuses mainly on the individual and/or aggregate preconditions and variables that correlate (or not) with the presence (or absence) of secessionist movements in specific territories. Through our general guiding question—”what do we really know about the explanations for secessionism?”—we try to disentangle the current explanations of secessionism by using empirical analyses, combining comparative politics and case studies. We bring together several different analytical perspectives, from political economy, nationalism, electoral behaviour, and institutional studies. Beyond these empirical perspectives, the issue puts forward some normative implications based on what we know and what we do not know about the existence of secessionist claims.

show abstract

Section: Some Analytical Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Secessionism: What Do We Really Know About It?

Requejo

Sanjaume‐Calvet

2021

PaG

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A divided society is defined by the fact that the risk of a breakup is salient (Choudhry, 2008b), and all the societies we investigate have experienced in the past decades, in some way or another, a referendum on secessionism, in which a substantial part of all participants (but never the majority) expressed support for independence of their region or province. Although independence referenda can have other political motives, the observed high level of public support for secessionism makes clear that the long-term stability of these divided societies should not be taken for granted (Lecours, 2021;Sanjaume-Calvet, 2021). In this article, we investigate the long-term trends in public opinion in three divided societies: Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) and Spain.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward an Ever Looser Union? Investigating Diverging Trends in Public Opinion in Three Divided Societies

Stiers¹,

Hooghe²

2023

Can J Pol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stability of divided societies is an important and recurring concern in political science research. It has been suggested that distinctive socialization processes in the different regions of divided societies will lead to diverging trends in public opinion. Therefore, we investigate trends in public opinion on key political issues and attitudes in three divided societies: Canada (Quebec), the United Kingdom (Scotland) and Spain (Catalonia). Using over two decades of survey data, we show that these distinct communities indeed have a particular ideological profile but also that there is no indication these differences become larger over time. In other words, we do not observe any evidence for an increasing lack of public opinion coherence in these divided societies. We conclude with some observations on why divergence could not be observed at the level of public opinion but might still be present at the level of party elites.

show abstract

The Life after Life of the 2006 Transnistrian Sovereignty Referendum

Kosienkowski

2023

Nationalities Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2006, the authorities of the de facto state of Transnistria unilaterally held a sovereignty referendum. Almost all voters supported Transnistria gaining internationally recognized independence and subsequently integrating/associating with Russia. Despite such clear results, the poll was not recognized internationally and, consequently, not implemented. However, this was not a problem for the Transnistrian leadership, since the primary objective of the referendum was not to reallocate sovereignty, but to domestically empower Transnistria’s President Igor Smirnov. Based on the discourse of Transnistria’s next president, Yevgeniy Shevchuk, this article argues that the referendum was not placed in the dustbin of history. Analysis of the official Transnistrian news published during his presidency from 2011–2016 shows that Shevchuk re-exploited the 2006 sovereignty referendum. His aim was not to reallocate sovereignty either, but to reach the following goals: 1. procure legitimacy of the Transnistrian sovereignty cause internationally; 2. empower Transnistria vis-à-vis its parent state, Moldova; 3. boost relations with Transnistria’s patron, Russia; and 4. empower himself domestically. Arguably, the argument about the strategic use of past unilateral sovereignty referendums also works in cases of other de facto states, which can be analyzed using the analytical framework presented in this article.

show abstract

Plebiscitarianism Revisited: A Typology of Independence Referendums

Cited by 10 publications

References 39 publications

Explaining Secessionism: What Do We Really Know About It?

Explaining Secessionism: What Do We Really Know About It?

Toward an Ever Looser Union? Investigating Diverging Trends in Public Opinion in Three Divided Societies

The Life after Life of the 2006 Transnistrian Sovereignty Referendum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About