Back in 1576, French jurist and politician Jean Bodin published a work, Six Books on the Republic, which for the first time attempted to define sovereignty. Being an experienced politician, he concluded that sovereignty is the absolute and perpetual power vested in the state. Given that Bodin lived during the period of feudal fragmentation in France, which reduced the king’s power over his relatives in certain parts of the country, this definition was not coincidental. His task as a statesman was to unify the country by consolidating authority around the crown. As a result, the principle of supremacy of power or internal sovereignty was established. This term took on special significance following the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) when leading European players of that epoch agreed to form a set of universally recognised rules and regulations. This is how the first system of international relations, the Westphalian system, emerged, laying the foundation for the principle of external sovereignty, understood as non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.
Sovereignty is one of the characteristics of a state, but it is often confused with independence. The former refers to the government’s functioning system which controls socio-political life within the country, while the latter reflects the ability of the state and nation as a single organism to devise its own national interests and to protect and promote them in the international arena (regardless of the source of origin of the sovereign and its external recognition). Before the Great French Revolution of 1789, the country’s sovereignty was derived from the divine origin of power, and the Bourbon dynasty was seen as legitimate by the rest of Europe. Although the principle of non-interference in its internal affairs was upheld officially, de facto France at that time served as a thoroughfare for British, Austrian, and Russian special services. Additionally, Princess Marie Antoinette of Austria, the wife of King Louis XVI, was providing Vienna with confidential information about French political and military plans. The country was sovereign, but not independent at all. State immunity was at rock bottom, the nation was divided, and the army suffered defeat after defeat.
Napoleon Bonaparte, who came to power and dissolved the ‘sovereign’ represented by the Directory by force of arms, was long unrecognised as a legitimate ruler by the European royal courts. However, this did not deter him from purging the country of external agents, implementing systemic reforms, and strengthening the armed forces that triumphantly marched across Europe. Bonaparte laid the foundations of independent French statehood, forcing the world to both recognise and respect it.
Between 1775 and 1783, the American colonies fought for independence from the British Crown, whose sovereignty over them was recognised by the rest of the world. Their military victory forced the British to opt for a capitulation and recognition of independent American statehood (an imposed renunciation of their sovereignty status over these territories). And history is replete with examples of this kind. The total majority of peoples sought independence as a foundational condition for state- and nation-building. For example, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton had no disagreements regarding the Americans’ aspiration for independence, but once they achieved it, they became rivals (Federalists and Confederates) when it came to the selection of a domestic model of sovereignty and its origin. The relationship between Eamon de Valera and Michael Collins, two of the closest comrades-in-arms who sacrificed everything for an independent Ireland, had been severely hampered by the question of sovereignty.
The independence achieved through hard work, sweat and blood constitutes the supreme value. To preserve it and pass it on to new generations, one must work day-to-day to create meaningful (or genuine) statehood and strengthen its immunity. Only a self-sufficient state (not kings, presidents, ministers, or parties) becomes the one true sovereign whose mission is to safeguard the physical, spiritual, and social security of the nation.
The first stage of independence as a process begins with the formation of an independent-minded aristocracy. Most of the founding fathers of their independent states started out as typical conformist politicians keen to maintain the familiar and convenient status quo. George Washington and John Adams, around whom the elites of the thirteen colonies were united, held onto the hope that an agreement with the British could be made right up until the very end. Theodor Herzl and many of his supporters believed that the Jews would be welcomed by European civilisation up until the ‘Dreyfus affair’, while Michael Collins was convinced that Irish and English flags could fly side by side in Dublin peacefully before the extremely violent crackdown on the Easter Rising. The aforementioned people were compelled by later events to accept the harsh reality, which enabled them to become the founders of a national aristocracy. The later events forced the above-mentioned figures to realise the harsh realities, thus becoming the founders of the national aristocracy. Gradually but surely, they died out as social and political actors and emerged as statesmen.
The second stage is the formation of a national ideology. Ideology is not a trivial set of wishes; rather, development of a profound value foundation on the basis of analysis and systematisation of historical, social, economic, and cultural peculiarities of a people. However, even the most elaborate ideology, worked on by the best minds, will turn into an empty philosophical treatise unless it is tested in practice. Herzl’s work ‘The Jewish State’ evolved into the political ideology of Zionism only after numerous meetings with Jews around the world, eventually leading to the first global systemic Jewish assembly – the Zionist Congress.
The third stage is the inventory and mobilisation of quantitative and qualitative resources. Genuine independence is a privilege that must be earned. And mere desire, even the most sincere, is absolutely insufficient. There are even examples that prove that for ultimate success, it is sometimes enough to involve just one well-off yet but dedicated to the ideology of independence person: Edmond de Rothschild in the case of Zionism and Israel (his brother, by the way, held a different view and undertook to cover reparations for France after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871), the O’Mara family as regards the Gaelic League and the Irish independence movement.
‘Without me Zionism would not have succeeded, but without Zionism my work would have been stuck to death’.
Edmond de Rothschild
Gaining independence is just the beginning. At first it is extremely fragile and requires the utmost dedication, concentration, and cool-headedness from its builders. The conflict within the Irish aristocracy, victorious against the British Empire, led to a civil war that divided the society and deprived the country of the time and resources for a quick solution to the Ulster problem (the liberation of Northern Ireland and reunification with Ireland). It was only some time later that representatives of the contending camps realised that Britain had scored a strategic victory, since only partial independence of Irish statehood could be claimed without Ulster. Retaining independence is a far more daunting task that requires day-to-day handling. Both internal and external enemies will always be there. The former are those politicians and bureaucrats who treat the state as a profit-making enterprise, employing them to generate revenue and acquire leverage to fulfil their personal interests. The latter are the states willing to abolish one’s independence to establish control over its political decision-making.
In short, independence requires a lot of hard work, for which one should not expect appreciation even from the most of their own people. Yet it is well worth it, for there is no greater calling than to create and protect your own state, which will not tolerate anyone mocking your people and will never let the Great Famine, the Holocaust, etc. be repeated.
To be continued…
