The Way Forward: Evolution or Devolution?

By Marquis Black (Originally posted at The Soaring Eagle)

A couple of days ago, a colleague of mine at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and I had an interesting little conversation about what we believed was the next step in the natural evolution of the political state. We both agreed that the only way forward was through bigger, more centralized states, but he posed an interesting view on the present circumstances that seem to contradict this natural evolution theory.

He told me, "The world is becoming feudal once again."

Now, I was, at first, very much against that idea, but a second of contemplation got me to realizing that he was quite correct. The world is indeed becoming more feudal. After all, we now have micronations like Kosovo being recognized worldwide (something that would have been unthinkable during the pre-World War II period), and devolution seems to be the name of the game. Heck, by 2012, if this trend is not stopped, I have no doubt in my mind that Panama, the tiny isthmus bordering Colombia and Costa Rica, will be deemed one of the largest countries in the world.

But why this trend, however? What has made people decide that smaller is better, and that their regional government is better than the central government? I, personally, blame the Republicans. Not the political party, mind you, but the actual proponents to the government system. The idea of regional, elected assemblies being the only just rulers of a people is theirs, after all.

Now, that is not to say that some countries are led to Republicanism without due cause. In Nepal, the last king has proven to be horrible, and of course the sentiment would therefore cause the population to move towards the diametrically opposite end of the political spectrum: republicanism. However, even so, that particular "revolution" is occurring at the same time at the spearheads of Maoist weapons, as the former guerrillas (who would be ready to rebel again at a moment's notice, mark my words) are the leaders of this republican revolution. Therefore, overall, it's quite tainted of Jacobinism. I wonder if they will actually let the King leave, or if they will simply kill him on his way out?

Regardless, the problem with regionalism is one best demonstrated by the age-old examples of Scotland and Quebec. In the United Kingdom, the republicans in Scotland do not go a single day without crying for the abolishment of the monarchy, the separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom, etcetera, ad nauseam. But do they have an actual basis for their righteous outrage?

No.

The Scots' main argument against the monarchy is that the Queen is not Scottish, last I heard. However, given my limited knowledge of genealogy and genetics, I would think that a direct descendant of James I of Scotland (and therefore descendant of the Scottish Stewart line) would prove to be a good enough measure of Scottish descent to shut that argument up, but I suppose bullheadedness runs rampant throughout the Scottish Independence Movement.

The Quebecois, for their part, have a little more basis for their discontent, but none that is justified in present times. Their abnormal disdain for the British monarchy would be understandable, had they been born in 1740, but to keep a grudge against the British (translated later to the Canadians) because of a military defeat that happened over 240 years ago is absolutely ridiculous. Grudges, if at all, should be kept only against events occurring during your lifetime. After all, feeling outrage over an offense given at a time when you were not born to be offended is absolutely illogical and stupid.

Going onto their desire to become an independent Republic, however. The Scots seem to think (as do the Quebecois) that, alone, and without the moneys budgeted for them by the British Parliament (or Canadian Parliament, respectively), that they will do just as well as they are now (which is...how, exactly?). Not only does this reek of Quebecois arrogance (as they seem to think the exact same thing), but it is counter-evolutionary, and therefore illogical. Indeed, the Scots seem to think that since they are allegedly so culturally different from the English (a moot point now that everyone is simply British), they should be a separate state. Going by that logic, were Scotland to become a Republic, and the Highlanders wanted more autonomy, then they should become a Republic too! And Glasgow should become its own city-state, being so close to the ancient English-Scottish border that its population is probably a good mix of both! And if Town X thinks its culture to be too different from the national one, then it should have the right to secede! Heck, I eat scrambled eggs with pepperoni and listen to international music--this is clearly an irreconcilable difference in culture between my country and I; I must declare my flat to be an independent nation!

No.

If there's anything Darwinism has taught us, it is that evolution towards a more complex organism is the way things work. Now, evolution has also taught us that bigger creatures can be beat by smaller ones, and any historian with half a brain can tell you there have been enough wars around to prove that, but in the realm of politics, bigger states generally equate more international stability, if only because the prospect of war becomes too complicated to easily dish out. Smaller countries, however, have no such trouble, as the most ridiculous of claims can trigger a border war (somewhat akin to the feudal wars of Medieval Europe).

Cultures, history teaches us, come together under a single state because they evolve that way through years, decades, and centenaries of interaction. If the Scots-English culture had evolved to eventually bring about the British culture we all know and love (although the label was somewhat arbitrarily created, granted), then does anyone really believe that the United Kingdom would have survived so long? That it would have found the strength to create the most powerful and global Empire the world has ever known? No!

A state with disintegrated cultures cannot survive, simply because the task of keeping them separate causes misunderstandings that in turn are taken as racism, which then causes hostilities. The attempt of keeping all cultures equally present, yet equally separated (known today as Multiculturalism) is the reason that states disintegrate. If the people of a country do not feel at home there, or feel that their neighbours, because they do things differently, should not be there, then the country cannot function peacefully. A state like Canada (not counting Quebec), for instance, is highly integrated, socially speaking, and the different oddities of different people are not chalked up to cultural differences, but rather as something intrinsically "Canadian"; when a reasoning like that can be given, you end up with a stable, self-sustaining country that can prosper with little internal troubles. However, blindly adopting multiculturalist views and letting foreign "enclaves" fester within the country, trying their damn most to keep their culture separate from the national one, is simply going to end with the tragic end of the victim country.