Stateless Nations and the possible future: Federalism or fracture?

Recent and not-so-recent history shows that territories inhabited by ethno-linguistic minorities or stateless national communities represent one of the most structural and complex challenges for contemporary states. From Donbas to Catalonia, from Corsica to Scotland, through Sardinia, the Basque Country, and Kurdistan — and even in federal systems like Canada, where Québec enjoys broad autonomy — we find a wide variety of communities do not feel fully represented or protected within the institutional frameworks of the states they belong to.

As Will Kymlicka argues, “multinational states must recognize that national minorities are not simply ethnic groups but bearers of distinct societal cultures that require protection” (Kymlicka, 1995). This framing helps us understand why mere tolerance is often perceived as insufficient by these communities.

Often, the conflict between these territories and the central state escalates into acute, sometimes violent, forms — from the Russian aggression (wrongly) justified by the alleged protection of the Russian minority in Donbas, to the judicial crackdown on the 2017 Catalan referendum, or the repeated blocking of a second Scottish independence referendum, despite a democratically expressed mandate.

Are these tensions truly inevitable?

The answer — if we rely on data rather than ideology — is: no, they are not. But they become explosive when dialogue is suppressed and institutions remain deaf to legitimate claims. As Amartya Sen reminds us, democracy is not merely about formal procedures, but about “public reasoning and recognition” (Sen, 2009).

The facts: a democratic representation problem

According to UNESCO, over 6,000 languages are spoken worldwide, but only about 200 are official at the state level. This creates a profound imbalance in cultural and administrative equity.

In Europe, approximately 40 million people belong to national minorities or speak regional languages (Council of Europe, 2022). However, federal systems remain a minority. Only a few European states — Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and partially Belgium — have adopted a genuine federal structure. Most others (France, Italy, Spain, UK) are formally unitary, despite their internal cultural and linguistic diversity.

When democratic mechanisms fail to ensure self-government, cultural recognition, and policy adaptation, demands for autonomy or independence arise as a defensive response to perceived marginalization.

The core issue: genuine federalism vs. rigid centralism

The key issue, therefore, is not separatism per se, but the inability of states to evolve toward a truly federal system. As Elazar (1991) notes, federalism is a way of “sharing sovereignty” that can reconcile unity with diversity.

Three institutional pillars are essential for this transformation:

• Constitutional recognition of plural identities, as in Canada (see: the 1982 Constitution Act) or Belgium;

• Robust fiscal and legislative decentralization, as in Switzerland and Germany;

• Direct political representation of territories at the central level, such as in Germany’s Bundesrat or Switzerland’s Council of States.

Without these, even formally democratic systems risk remaining asymmetric, fragile, and prone to friction — like asking an engine to run with only half its cylinders.

The Russian paradox and the dangers of manipulation

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, allegedly to protect Russian-speaking minorities in Donbas, represents a gross distortion of international law. No cultural claim can justify the military aggression of a sovereign nation. As Michael Walzer warns, “the right to self-determination cannot be used to justify conquest” (Walzer, 2004).

We must clearly distinguish between:

• Democratic and peaceful demands, like those of Scotland or Catalonia;

• Ethnic wars and disguised annexations, as seen in Donbas or Crimea.

Blurring these lines — as is often done in populist discourse — legitimizes violence and weakens democratic institutions.

A viable alternative: next-generation federal states

Rather than suppressing regional demands or making empty promises of referenda, European states should reimagine themselves as solidarity-based federations — where diversity is not merely tolerated but institutionally valued.

A plurilingual, plurinational, and polycentric federalism could:

• Ensure equality in rights;

• Adapt public policies to the needs of territories;

• Prevent identity-driven conflict and fratricidal wars.

This shift demands institutional imagination, political courage, and a renewed democratic pact between central and peripheral actors.

Democratic legitimacy: the role of referenda and popular sovereignty

No structural reform — whether it concerns federalization, autonomy, or even potential secession — can be sustainable without the explicit consent of the people concerned. In this sense, referenda represent the highest form of democratic expression, allowing communities to articulate their will in a direct and binding manner.

As argued by David Miller, “self-determination must be filtered through democratic institutions that give voice to the population concerned, and referenda are the most legitimate mechanism for this” (Miller, 1997).

Unfortunately, many modern states tend to either suppress such referenda (as in the case of Catalonia in 2017) or ignore their outcomes (as happened, to some extent, after the 2014 Scottish referendum). This behavior generates distrust and exacerbates tensions.

Therefore, any proposal for a next-generation federal model must be rooted in popular sovereignty. Structural changes must be validated by the people, with free, informed, and inclusive referenda as the democratic tool for resolving territorial and identity-based questions.

This is not only a matter of principle, but of political durability: reforms imposed from above, without public endorsement, are destined to unravel.

Conclusion: not independence, but dignity of difference

Minorities and stateless nations are not simply asking for independence.They are demanding recognition, democratic representation, and the right to express their identity and political aspirations.

Authentic federalism, if built on pluralist and participatory foundations, can become the most advanced and inclusive form of democratic citizenship. But for this transformation to be legitimate and lasting, it must be anchored in the will of the people.

Every institutional reform, especially those that touch on the identity and autonomy of communities, must be submitted to the citizens’ judgment through referenda. Only then can federalism become not a concession from above, but a contract of mutual respect and shared sovereignty.

As Habermas puts it, “democracy must not homogenize; it must integrate diversity within the public sphere” (Habermas, 1996).This is the challenge — and the promise — of the federal future.

If you found this perspective thought-provoking, feel free to share or comment. Democratic pluralism needs more than institutions — it needs voices.

___________________________________

📚 Select Bibliography

Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford University Press.

Elazar, D. (1991). Exploring Federalism. University of Alabama Press.

Council of Europe (2022). Minority Rights and Regional Languages in Europe. Strasbourg.

Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press.

Walzer, M. (2004). Arguing About War. Yale University Press.

Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms. MIT Press.

UNESCO (2021). Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger.

Miller, D. (1997). On Nationality. Oxford University Press.