This is a serious question!

There has been a recent proposal to turn Auckland – currently locally-governed by four city councils and several other entities – into a “super-region,” a “one stop governance shop.” And the plan has the PM’s support. While the plan was not received with much enthusiasm, I suspect that it is inevitable at some point in the future. Globalization brings two major trends: integration and fragmentation. It sounds contradictory, but it is the same process overall. Stregthening links in one area weakens them in another. Large states are fragmenting into smaller entities, even as they give up more and more power to transnational structures like the European Union, the United Nations and the World Bank.

Recent examples of this trend have included the two newest sovereign states, East Timor and Montenegro. Montenegro’s successful referendum on independence sparked debate on blogs including Coming Anarchy and John Robb’s Global Guerrillas. More recently, John Robb mentioned that he is thinking of writing a book about successful seccessions. Coming Anarchy’s Chirol, linking to several earlier posts about the trend to fragmentation and microstates, posted about Transdniester – Moldova’s breakaway republic, born of civil war and controlled by organised crime, the bad side of fragmentation. Interestingly, Montenegro’s secession is peaceful partly because the EU provides an overarching structure which can resolve disputes in Europe, and both Montenegro and Serbia want to join the EU. On the other hand, the involvement of Russia – itself a multinational federation including several small autonomous republics – is a threat to peace, according to Chirol, when it comes to fragmentation in Moldova and the South Caucasus.

So what should a libertarian make of this phenomenon? And will it come to New Zealand?

Libertarianism and decentralisation

Firstly, there are various positive features about making government more localized. Your leaders are more visible, and so is their spending, making the waste of tax money harder to get away with. It is easier to move away if things get bad. On the other hand, if you’re just adding more layers, it is inefficient. Rothbard among others would argue for extreme decentralisation, but he was an anarchist. If you believe that government is necessary for law and order, oversight at a higher level is needed to ensure that local groups don’t gain control of the state for private ends, as apparently happens regarding child-abusing Mormon sects in the US, who intimidate police, bribe judges, etc. Pitcairn Island is another rather frightening example. I think a constitutional federal structure is an excellent idea, both moral, pragmatic and practical. Tdaxp talks about the advantages of federalism here – although I’m conflicted as to what extent a libertarian federal government would intervene to protect individual rights if they were threatened by a state government.

New Zealand

So… New Zealand? (Excluding Tokelau) Apparently one local libertarian was advocating for the South Island’s West Coast to declare independence. I know from experience that the Coasters are rather eccentric, sometimes distrustful of outsiders (as demonstrated in the Timberlands affair over logging of native forests) and not inclined to respect the government (as the cannabis plantations in the bush attest to). But they aren’t particularly unified, with various political views represented – after all, the Coast was the birthplace of the NZ Communist Party. I say probably not. Northland: Some academic proposed a Maori homeland (Bantustan-style) in Northland. It would probably do quite well exporting crime and drugs, as well as agricultural produce, to Auckland. But like the West Coast, there are poltical divisions between the poor Maori and wealthy Pakeha farmers. There isn’t any real desire for such a plan, so I think it won’t happen. The South Island? They might develop grievances over the more populous North Island taking their resources, but really the two populations are intermixed to the point where secessionist sentiment is unlikely. Conclusion: only if we move to federalism. Which brings me to Auckland. Many Aucklanders probably feel closer to say, Sydney or Shanghai than Stratford or Shannon. There is a deepening rural-urban divide, increasing economic importance of Auckland, and rising mistrust and resentment going both ways, along with a definite cultural gap. Aucklanders may well decide that they don’t need Wellington’s rule, and the rest of NZ may not want to keep paying for Auckland’s crap infrastructure and transport problems. Who knows, maybe Auckland will become an independent city-state.

The near future

Meanwhile, the number of sovereign states is steadily increasing, and more and more regions are becoming devolved and receiving greater autonomy. Who will take up seats in the UN next? Maybe Quebec or Scotland – the Scots are becoming more and more opposed to English rule. A referendum could be held next year, depending on the election results. Catalonia, the Basque country, Corsica, Northern Italy… these are all getting more autonomy, but not independence. Fragmentation doesn’t just happen in places like the Balkans or the ex-Soviet areas, it will hit the West, too. Kosovo and the Serb Republic of Bosnia are possibilities, and all South Ossetia or Abkhazia need is international recognition. Iraq’s federalism plan is politically unpopular, but oil-rich Iraqi Kurdistan will remain a pseudo-state, albeit surrounded by mortal enemies. Even closer to home, most Tokelauans voted for secession from New Zealand in the recent referendum. The next one they have will probably give them independence with free association, like the Cook Islands and Niue.

Posted by Phil on Saturday, September 16th, 2006 at 4:08 am.