The Catalan Moment and the Comparative Theories of Secession: The Empirical Bull in a Theoretical China Shop

The growth of the Catalan independence movement and its recent confrontation with the Spanish institutions presents a number of thorny problems for the comparative study of secession. This paper engages with these problems in three ways. First, it catalogues the various anomalies that the Catalan movement presents for existing theories of secessionism. Second, it offers an alternative theoretical account of these anomalies. Third, provides a critique of existing ontological and methodological approaches to the study of this phenomenon. Recent years have seen a revival in the scholarly interest in secession. A prominent strand of the literature argues that support for independence increases as existing autonomy is reduced (Gurr 1993; Gurr and Moore 1997; Siroky and Cuffe 2015; Sorens 2012; Cederman, Wimmer, and Min 2010). Yet, the Catalan case directly contradicts these conclusions. First, the growth of the Catalan independence movement did not occur hand-in-hand with the reduction of Catalan autonomy, particularly if we guide ourselves by the objective measures of self-government and power (e.g. Minorities at Risk, Ethnic Power Relations, Regional Authority Index). The 2010 decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court did not unambiguously reduce Catalan self-rule (though it did, arguably, limit some aspects of it), and at any rate, the spike in support for independence came two years later. The only clear reversal in autonomy occurred in October of 2017, with the temporary suspension of Catalan autonomy via Article 155 of the Constitution. And yet, no major spike in the rise in secessionist sentiment, to say nothing of mass civil disobedience, occurred as a result. This paper argues for a reorientation in the study of secessionist movements. First, we need to start paying attention to the dynamics of such movements, meaning that existing studies based on comparative statics must be amended and supplemented by process-tracing methods better attuned to capturing diachronic complexity. Second, I foreground the role of framing, interpretation, and ideas in understanding the actions and counter-actions of key participants in secessionist contests. Third, I demonstrate the need to examine the interaction of different layers of causality in such contests. I demonstrate how the interaction of three layers – social movement mobilization, party politics (notably outbidding), and institutional change (constitutional reform) – first contributed to mainstreaming Catalan secessionism, and then pushed secessionist players toward a previously unlikely and costly political confrontation. The concluding section considers the broader implications of the case for the study of secessionism and the politics of nationalism. Comparative politics in general, and comparative study of secession in particular, have recently turned to broad theoretical statements based on large datasets. The raw ‘facts’ on which these datasets depend, however, do not come with ready-made meaning. The paper proceeds from the constructivist sensibility in emphasizing the importance of the politics of interpretation in understanding secessionist outcomes.