Separatism and the hegemonic aspects of political violence: structural and intersubjective readings

A striking pattern in the study of contemporary international conflicts emerges through the soaring number of territorial claims as a means of dealing with perceived or real collective injustices (Newman 2014). At the same time, separatist conflicts are typically associated with high levels of collective violence and human rights abuse, both by separatist organizations and, more commonly, the states that seek to deny their claims (Walter 2009). Drawing on three case studies (Kurds, Kachin, and Transdnistria) this paper seeks to explore the relations of force that make separatist communities to link claims to political autonomy with the exercise of collective violence. The struggle for the survival of political communities is often pegged to independent statehood and recognition by the international community. Thus, independent statehood has become the ideal type of political organization in world politics and a sine qua non condition for existence in the case of separatist communities (Buzan 1991; Holsti 1996; Toft 2003). Usually cloaked under the discourse of nationalism and ethnic identity, separatist movements and states alike associate their identity with the defence of a particular homeland which secures their survival (Kubo 2011). State creation as an outcome of separatist violence may bring major changes in the strategic status of regional and international actors, including among other outcomes, the development of organisations that have often been characterised as ‘terrorist’ (Jackson 2007; Tuastad 2003). I aim to analyse political violence in three separatist contexts (see above) by employing the notion of hegemony. Based on neo-Gramscian and critical realist interpretations of the concept I argue that hegemonic practice incorporates both inter-subjective and structural/systemic aspects (Cox 1996). The inter-subjective aspect of hegemony places emphasis on the relations between social groups and the way social agents try to secure consensus in favour of particular elites (Joseph 2008). Accordingly, the inter-subjective character of territorial separatism as hegemonic practice is evident in the organization of social agents towards a political option (secession, autonomy etc.) to the extent that it serves the goals of certain elites. The structural character of hegemonic practice is evident in the reproduction of social conditions and values both globally and domestically. The structural/systemic aspect of separatist practice is hegemonic because it reproduces international structures that tend to associate political organization with identity politics (and violence) at the state level. Thus, the principle of self-determination, nationality, and state sovereignty are seen as structural/systemic aspects of world politics and essential elements for movements that pursue some form of collective political organization, although they basically underpin violence.