Proceedings of the Workshop
by
Matthias Major (UPV/EHU)
on Friday 12th 2015, EHUgune hold a workshop with the title Plurinational democracy across
political scales / A very European way of “independence“ for Stateless Nations at the Bizkaia
Aretoa, Bilbao.
The main speaker was Hans-Jürgen Zahorka, Assessor jury. former Member of the European
Parliament, Chief Editor of “European Union Foreign Affairs Journal“ (EUFAJ), Member of TEAM
EUROPE (Germany), Government Advisor and Senior lecturer at various European universities.
Further speakers at the event were Dr. Joxerramon Bengoetxea (EHU/UPV), Dr. Igor Filibi
(EHU/UPV) and Matthias Major (PhD candidate at EHU/EPV).
After the official welcoming by Dr. Joxerramon Bengoetxea and a brief introduction of the
speakers, Hans-Jürgen Zahorka made his first approach on this topic from a supra- and
international perspective. Being both, a theorist but more important a practitioner of and for the
European Union, the participants were introduced with a general introduction of this topic to
determine how plurinational democracy could be understood. One of the first remarkable
statements was that the notion of a plurinational approach exists nowadays especially in
developed democracies whereas it has been also discussed and the term “plurinational“
implemented in South America, namely in Bolivia and Ecuador. Having a look at the European
sphere, the plurinational approach goes hand in hand with federalism and its proper application.
Nevertheless, federalism has to be executed in adequate terms in order to satisfy the sub-stratal
entity. This implicates the understanding from the state-level towards the sub-state level or, as
Hans-Jürgen Zahorka stated, it is “a matter of attitude“. There are successful functional federations
such as the German nation-state, where each Bundesland is satisfied with its rights and
competences and further discussions of plurinationality or any kind of secessions have not
emerged like in other European countries or in Canada. Zahorka emphasized in this context the
notion of sovereignty, that is challenged and finds itself in a transformation by European integration
on one hand and, as a further factor, by decentralization nowadays.
As a an expertt on the academic and the political level, a further important statement was that the
notion “plurinational“ is not usual and de facto missing in parliamentary debates, the media or as a
model among civil society but rather exists among political scientists. With other words, the
concept of plurinationality lacks a translation for the mass, for ordinary people in order to promote it
outside the academic world, but namely among the civil society and political circles.
Regarding the term Democracy in this context, he stated, is about establishing and exercising the
power and the will of the majority as an ongoing process where popular control, equality and
freedom are guaranteed and that formal democracy is compatible with that. As said in the
beginning, the concept of plurinational democracy could be — according to Hans-Jürgen Zahorka
— exercised in developed democracies. One example to make clear what was meant was when
Russia was mentioned, where the sub-state divisions faced a cut in their competences and
possibilities with the consolidation of Putin II where formal democracy is not present anymore since
then. Nevertheless, plurinational situations might show up to be more important than it seems at
the first sight and here, the question arises how Russia can and will deal in the future with its
internal nations.
A further important input was given when plurinationality was defined as a synonym from state
building in the 19th century and societies of today, that do not view themselves as internal
minorities but as polities in themselves also capable of exercising the state functions. Examples
given here by the speaker were Switzerland and Belgium as states with different indigenous ethnic
groups or language communities or smaller minorities in Germany for example, namely the Sorbs
and the Frisians. The list can be extended to other cases like Finland or even internationally like
New Zealand or the Canadian model with the involuntary inclusion of aboriginal people and the
Quebec case. In the end of the day, although plurinational countries are not identical and face
different challenges, Zahorka stated that it is necessary to shape a plurinational state that also
promotes unity and diversity and that implies the existence of two ore more nations or ethnic
group.
Giving a brief review in early EU history, the attempts by the states, namely the german federal
states, was quiet interesting as the creativity and the will of establishing themselves at the EU with
offices showed the dynamic and the potential such as the consciousness of those sub-state
entities in order to be seen and recognized by the supra-national level.
After that short digression, Hans-Jürgen Zahorka highlighted the change the EU has to live through
which were mainly globalisation, interaction, harmonization and within that autonomy. The
European Union faces new global trends in a post-sovereign era with cosmopolitan legal
structures. The OHADA system in Africa was highlighted here as a trend setter, where 17 African
countries operates with one common court of justice.
The plurinational state governance itself also faces many challenges like ensuring social justice,
social cultural recognition of differences, intercultural learning and establishing a politically
ensuring union with recognition. When the question arose here, whether the EU could serve as a
real model for such new state structures, Hans Jürgen Zahorka stated that the EU, a kind of state
sui generis, is not a completed model but in constant change and development, and therefore a
novelty to be found and thought out. One of the changes here are the terms of sovereignty which
are, in their original meaning, referring to 1648, not useful anymore as they do not fit for the
problems of today. When speaking about the change of terms in statehood towards the needs of
ethnic or national communities, the principle of subsidiarity is another key aspect to take into
account. Here, the debate, whether speed limits on highways should be imposed by the European
Union or by the member states, the knowledge of needs of the lower level turned out to lead to the
decision to leave it up to the member states, served as as a non abstract example to understand
the idea, reason and logic of subsidiarity.
The EU, as not being a federal state but a complex system of pluralistic interconnected orders
does not rest on one source of power, but rather a post-sovereign plurinational platform, where
sovereignty is shared. The EU, as a model does give models for how to cooperate in a postsovereign system, as things are seen more loose, flexible, negotiable. The fact of the existence of
officially 24 languages and this fact not being challenged but respected by everyone shows the
capacity, that this model has in concrete and practical terms on other levels.
Another further conclusion was that Regionalism, decentralization, federalism are all related with
each other, but the plurinational attempts is the least used but has, according to the speaker, the
greatest potential. Furthermore, it is an example for the lack of touch of political science with
reality. Nevertheless, the EU has a lot to contribute and to show how it enables stateless nations to
exercise paradiplomacy. One example are the well known offices of Catalunya or the Basque
Country for example, which were mentioned before. Another form of paradiplomacy was carried as
the recent recognition of the Basque Parliament of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, and in this
way, the mutual strengthening of aspiration. One example here in this concrete context was
mentioned by Hans Jürgen Zahorka: Lorenzo Ochoa, the president of the group “Friend of
Armenia“ in Brussels, who launched this step that was adopted by the Basque parliament. Such
steps can enable certain pressure, that means, stateless nations can exercise some real and some
symbolic power. For the states, taking care of stateless nations can help to deal with real issues
like the Kurds in Turkey, where the kurdish party finally topped the 10% national vote threshold and
where the Kurds are now on a national level also legally present.
A final conlcusion was that the concept of plurinational democracy is indeed promising, innovative
and adequate one but as its concept is still in processing, namely by political scientists, it still
needs some steps to be taken in order to be translated for the broad mass. However, its great
potential might give it a bright future within the EU for the nation-state to continue developing this
strategy and both, satisfying internal aspirations of nations and continue european integration that
goes hand in hand with the transformation of the state.
The second speaker, Dr. Igor Filibi, examined the modern nation-state in this debate and stressed
the tension within a democratic nation-state by questioning where the emphasis — democratic or
nation-state — can be detected nowadays and highlighted the state-centric view that is in the end
practically lived by the modern nation-state. This theoretical approached allowed to reveal the
reason of the state and the priorities in this context, which is the state in its being and not a
consequent implementation of the democratic when it comes to social and national realities within
a nation-state. Regarding the question whether plurinational democracy as an alternative, critics,
that a current model in the western world is lacking, can be dismissed: the European Union itself is
such an intent at a supra-national, multi state level. Coming back in this context to the modern
European nation-state, a remarkable contradiction comes up: european integration means a
delegation of competences towards the supranational european level, but nation-states define it
clearly and therefore limit it by emphasizing and protecting them as entities. At the same time,
states deny that process for de-facto entities on the state-level but regard them as subordinated by
limiting or even denying rights and possibilities for entities such as stateless nations. This reveals
the absence of both, a single coherent concept of multinational democracy, this means, that also
on the nation level there should be plurinational democracies, and the need of a general framework
of democracy for Europe such as, in the consequence, the interaction of the different levels
(supranational, state, sub-state) in one political space.
Matthias Major introduced as the third speaker the case of a sub-national entity, which was here
Upper Silesia or in short only Silesia. The purpose was on one side to examine the topic and the
questions arising from the same with a concrete but a relatively new, central-european and still
unexploited case to study and to promote further scientifically researches on this case. Upper
Silesia also serves to generalize a behaviour seen by the european nation-states when confronted
with social and national reality that differs from the official state-centric and state legitimating legal
framework. While Silesia, a historic borderland region in nowadays largely Poland, experienced
various attempts of nation-building from especially Poland and Germany, a transnational identity
has emerged already in the 19th, but definitely in the 20th century when it came to the future of the
belonging of Upper Silesia after the First World War. This own identity manifested itself in political
movements for a Free State in order to respond to the complex national identity of the locals in this
region. Nevertheless, all transnational or international attempts were dismissed by the European
nation-states. However, Silesian identity is facing a revival and, although the conditions have
changed as the dispute between Poland and Germany for this territory is over, the polish state acts
as a typical nation-state that denies even the existence of a Silesian entity in any form. The
European Union plays a crucial role for those unrecognized or only limited recognized entities.
Examining the EU in this issue is therefore also important as for now, attempts in favor of
innovative changes have been lacking.
The Silesian case is a new and dynamic example of the contradictions stated before by Dr. Igor
Filibi and gave a fresh introduction on this issue from a relatively, yet undiscovered by science,
example in central Europe.
Some more inputs were given afterwards during the final discussion. The interdisciplinary public
showed a great interests and revealed an open mind towards this approach that was shown by
several questions and comments made, that were discussed. Especially its dynamic, flexible
character and as it avoids a rigid approach and the all or nothing scheme were highlighted.
The workshop can be evaluated as a great success, following the EHUgune’s objective to bring
together scholars of different disciplines and the civil society and to connect both with each other.
Furthermore, it revealed the potential which this topic holds but also the interests and the
remarkable response by the public but also the obstacles, which have to be taken to transform it
from a theory into a useful and practical approach for the future in Europe.