Why would Space Colonies even want to secede? [closed]

Question

First thing to note before you get into the story, it's a soft scifi setting with "magic" being a thing. It's basically just transmuting elements and substances into each other and healing. Now to get to the meat of it:

Just a little over 150 years before "now", country A - a fairly liberal Republic- established space colonies. Said colonies are mostly gigantic O'Neill Cylinders in the 5 Langrage points of the Earth system. The oldest colonies are just under 180 years old while the youngest are barely 50 years old.

They are reasonably prosperous, though some are still dependent on Earth for a fraction of their calorie imports- which is more a factor of economics than not being able to grow the food. All are self-sufficient in energy due to tapping the Sun for energy. Some even export energy.

Now to the important part. They are getting politically restless and nationalist sentiments are erupting, with many radicals calling for more independence or even secession on grounds that A does not seem to care for their economic interests. However, why would the nationalistic sentiments even rise in the first place? There are no significant differences in culture between the homeland and the colonies. Not in language, race, religion, or whatever.

How do nationalistic sentiments, and secessionist ideas, even rise in smaller polities attached to larger states? And how could they rise in this case?

Answer 1

The same reason that as at any time in history - a Voice not being heard and a need not being met - being too far removed from the levers of power, whilst being beholden to its rules

The concerns of a Space Colony are not going to be the same as the concerns of a planetary colony.

Consider Infrastructure maintenance. Everyone knows it is important, but it rarely is a sexy vote-winner and so it rarely gets prominence.

People can survive with a few extra Pot-Holes, We can put it off this year, whilst we spend money on our shiny new program...

Except for a Space Colony, the Maintenance budget could be a matter of Life and Death and so it is critical.

Conversely, a new policy might be highly applicable to a Planet-based Colony (some new sweeping environmental regulation), that is totally irrelevant to the Space Colony. Initially they may just ignore it, but then in true Soviet style, they get compliance enforced for things that don't exist - reports are filled in for the sake of doing them etc.

Or to use a recent non-violent example:

Brexit

FWIW - I am an Englishman (although no longer live in the UK) - I am also Pro-Brexit - whether you agree with Brexit or not - I am going to outline the reasons that many people wanted to leave the EU:

• The English have always been independent of Europe (we are stubborn like that - God made us an Island for a reason ;) )
• Laws that were good for Spanish Fishermen or French farmers were not necessarily good for British Fishermen or British Farmers.
• The intrusion of EU law into every facet of our lives - consider GDPR, as an IT professional - on Paper the idea behind it was a Noble one. Converseley, the fact that every website I click on now asks me about Cookies pisses me off.
• EU laws affected England in a way the English did not like (Migration laws, ECHR etc.)
• For me personally, the EU Parliment breaks a fundamental principle of Government - I can vote for my local MEP - but my local MEP cannot propose Legislation, that is done by the EU commission. My MEP can vote against legislation that both I and they dont like, but they cannot propose legislation that both I and them DO like.
• The EU wanted a Military, it already has taxes, a Flag, a Currency, an Anthem, a Parliment etc. A Military is the final step in becoming a Nation. I was told I was joining a Trading block - not becoming a new Nation.

And the list goes on - ultimately, people in the UK were frustrated at the EU not listening to what the British wanted and eventually the British said: Stuff you, we are off!

Answer 2

A difference of destiny

The United States seceded from the UK despite ties of blood and sharing a common culture, history, and religion, as eventually did Canada, Australia, and other colonies. Colonies of Spain and Portugal in the New World likewise seceded from their parent nations. Why would they do that?

I believe that one thing the colonists had in mind is that they were part of a "project", part of "building something new" that was distinct from where they came from. You'd need an idea like that, psychologically, to come to a point where you saw a political separation to be useful or necessary.

Your space colonies are certainly populated by fairly special individuals and families. If they self-selected for emigration, they are likely distinguished by a certain type of optimistic or adventurous personality, or a strong religious conviction, or a commitment to some other kind of a specific project (like, uh, building a completely vegetarian human society, or maybe resurrecting the Roman Empire in space, or, um, developing a completely zero-gravity way of life?). Even if they were chosen at random or sent against their will, like the convicts who were transported to Australia, they have something in common that distinguishes them from the people on the home world.

Whatever the background is, the things the colonists have in common create the roots of the idea that they are a different group and share a different future from that of the home world.

On top of this difference of identity, which make them perceive "us" and "them", various ordinary pressures may drive the desire to secede. If the home world is levying taxes, or placing limits on trade (such as enforcing a monopoly on shipping), or appointing administrators that the colony doesn't like, those could drive the growth of a political movement to formally secede.

A nation is in some ways like an extended family. A secession is (metaphorically) like a child moving away to pursue a different destiny from his parents and siblings at home. This requires both a sense of an independent identity, and a belief that a different situation could be better than the one left behind.

Answer 3

Agency, Efficiency, Fairness, and Values

Agency

Imagine for a moment that something relatively innocuous that you do regularly is suddenly made illegal - drinking apple juice, playing poker on friday nights, walking on the grass in a public park, whatever. If you do it you go to prison. Why? If it's because the government thinks it's best you don't, your reaction is "I'm an adult and I'm not hurting anybody!" If it's for a reason that's far away from you, your reaction is "How is me doing this hurting that issue?" For example, earth needs it's apples to make a medication it's running short on, so it makes apple juice consumption illegal so they can make more meds. But you have your own apple tree in space - why can't you decide for yourself? Your apples were never going to earth anyway! Earth is having issues with illegal gambling rings so they ban all card games - but you are not on earth, what's the big deal? Earth is suffering from a plague that impacts grass, so what little grass they have they're trying to preserve. But this doesn't impact you, so why would you have to go to prison for walking on grass where there is no plague?

These types of "far away issues are being imposed on me for no reason" thoughts are frequent citations of grievances and rebellions throughout human history. Eventually people want agency - "let us make decisions for ourselves". The issues of earth are not the issues the space colonies are facing.

Efficiency

You have a great idea for a business and everybody in your colony loves it. Great! Now apply for a business license through the registry on Earth. They're backlogged and understaffed so we'll get back to you... in three years.

Your local government can't fix the road because Earth-law mandates certain permits have to be pulled first. Your local government raised a new tax to hire more doctors or more police officers, but they've been sitting on the money for two years because Earth-law has a "fairness in hiring" act that requires a specialist from Earth to review the colony's hiring practices before increasing staffing of any government agency.

Your local colony is having issues with certain types of crimes, so you get with the local council to do something about it. Unfortunately, Earth legislation says the colonies have no authority on these types of issues, so only the Earth-headquartered agency, not your local police, can take action. File a report, nothing happens. The Earth-headquartered agency claims they're under-budgeted so they lobby the Republic for more money, but there are inflation issues so nothing happens. The Red Tape strangles the issue and nothing happens. In the meantime your local cops have to do nothing and watch crime happen. (side note - in the real world this is a serious issue in many countries to this day!) Eventually people get frustrated and think their tax dollars are better spent locally, so they start talking about seceding.

Fairness

A local colony is having a hard time economically, or dealing with a serious problem. Earth increases taxes to deal with problems on earth. Across time, there's a general sense that Earth doesn't care about the colony. How is it fair for poor people on Earth to get better roads when your colony is dealing with a serious housing shortage? Why is the "Better Healthcare Tax" giving braces to low-income kids on earth when hundreds of people on your colony are dying from preventable diseases because there is a shortage of hospital beds?

Values and Priorities

Ultimately revolutions often come around differences in values or concerns. The Republic can only debate and resolve so many issues per day/month/year, which means major issues get dropped if people can't handle them locally. What happens when a local colony's values and priorities are significantly different from the Republic on earth?

Answer 4

Colonialism Suppresses the Would Be Aristocracy

Colonies are by definition not run by their own governments. When you look at the British colonization of America for example, the founding fathers were the most wealthy, powerful, and influential American born citizens. In any other place in the world, they would have already been the aristocracy, but because they were born in America, they could never rise to the upper echelons of their own society because those positions were outsourced to British born citizens.

George Washington could never rise above the rank of Major in the British Military, Thomas Jefferson could never become a member of Parliament, etc. Colonies are an inherently unstable political construct because a foreign presence will never be able to maintain as much sway over political opinions as the local upper echelons of society: those who own and run the local media outlets, those who own and run the local industries that sign people's paychecks, and those who command the local military, militia, and police units.

Human ambition is unavoidable, but in a national system, you can keep "middle management" in their place by leaving some road, no matter how hard and unlikely it is to follow, for those guys to ascend to the top. They will do everything they can to work the system to get there which means they will still choose to abide by the system. But take that road away completely, and those same people will choose to oppose the system itself to get to where they want to be. Because ambitious people tend to already be able to put themselves into the rich and influential crowd, it is not so much a matter of why they say they are rebelling as it is about having the will and resources to spread the call to action and to suppress any counterpoints to their call to action.

So, as the news articles and history books record it, the rebellion will be about whatever appeals to your specific population of space colonists, and that message can actually be anything whatsoever. It could be about taxes, unfair trade deals, abortion laws, gun control, drug trade, racism, sexism, invasion of privacy, labor laws, educational laws, lack of social support systems ... whatever the "call to arms" is about is ultimately just window dressing for those select few who gain to benefit from the rebellion. It's impossible to run a government without doing anything with the potential to piss off a good number of your citizens, but loyalty is shaped by how those government actions are discussed in public forums; so, an influencer will always have some spark available to fan into the flames of rebellion if they have reason to do so.

Answer 5

Like most U.S. citizens, I can't help but think of the American Revolution on this topic, and I think it makes a great case study here. After all, you even specifically state that the colonizing country "does not seem to care for [the colonists'] economic interests" despite sharing culture and values with them. There were three major factors that spurred on the American Revolution: there was a widespread belief among British subjects (including the American colonists) that taxes should only be levied against a consenting population, yet the colonists were denied representation in Parliament, and Parliament moved to tax them anyway.

The widespread belief in the idea of "no taxation without representation" represents an enduring social norm dating to medieval England (like a surprising amount of American political and legal culture) and is enshrined in the Magna Carta, a fact that many educated colonists were well aware of. It contains the passage "No scutage or aid shall be imposed in our realm unless by the common counsel of our realm," scutage being initially a tax paid by knights to the crown in lieu of military service but which widened in scope over time. This passage in the Magna Carta established the norm that new taxes should originate in the House of Commons ("common counsel") rather than be levied directly and autonomously by the crown, with the idea that the House of Commons represents the masses and thus provides their consent. King John levied a rather heavy scutage during a period of peace, and anger over this was a contributing factor in the rebellion that lead to the Magna Carta. So, the frustration of the colonists was in some ways a chapter of a larger story, in which English/British subjects repeatedly become frustrated with their government for imposing what they see as arbitrary and onerous taxes without their consent, leading to unrest and sometimes revolt.

In America, much unrest in particular was stirred up by the Stamp Act of 1765. This levied a direct tax against the American colonists to fund the stationing of British troops in the area following the French and Indian War. Many colonists were enraged that this was decided by Parliament over their objections, and argued that it should not have been done while they lacked Parliamentary representation. Supporters of the Stamp Act suggested that the colonists had "virtual representation," i.e. that even if they did not elect their own representatives to Parliament, yet the members of Parliament had interests in common with them and thus could represent them indirectly, just as with most British subjects (roughly 90% of whom were not given the right to vote either).

In response to this position, Daniel Dulany wrote a popular pamphlet Considerations on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes in the British Colonies. I think reading this might make for good inspiration in your case. He argued that even if there were many British subjects that lacked the right to elect their representatives in Parliament, there was nothing absolutely preventing those who lived in Britain from acquiring that right by securing landholdings in Britain, such that even in a population in Britain with few electors, still there would be a few electors in their ranks, and perhaps even a member of Parliament or two. As such, he felt that Parliament would be less inclined to move against those populations, because any such movements would hurt even the electors and members of Parliament among them. The American colonies had no electors or voting members of Parliament at all, so Dulany felt there was no bulwark stopping Parliament from taking advantage of the colonists, because in his eyes the members of Parliament did not truly have interests in common with them, only with other residents of Britain.

Of course, the story of the American Revolution has many chapters aside from this, but just in this brief sketch of part of it we can see a general outline of how unrest can build in a colony not only despite but even because of shared values with the colonizing country. All it takes is a perceived double standard, ideally one that flouts the written law of the colonizing country and widely-held values of its people. In the specific case of the American Revolution, it was a belief that taxes should only be levied against a British population that elects representatives to Parliament, a belief shared by many people back in Britain and enshrined in one of its central constitutional documents. However, it could honestly be anything—anything that leads the colonists to feel that they are being treated as second-class citizens, not afforded the rights they see as their due as subjects of the government of the colonizing country.

As a side note, since you're interested in exploring the case of rebellious colonies that share a culture with the colonizing state, one source of much drama in the tale of the American Revolution is how many of the colonists felt torn between their allegiance to Britain and their allegiance to America. At the time of the Revolution, most of the population of the American colonies saw themselves as British, even quite proudly, and this inspired a great reluctance to revolt in many even if they felt that they had legitimate grievances. Dulany, for example, remained a Loyalist even through the war and had his property confiscated as a result, because he was a passionate British subject and felt that the proper path for the colonies was in protest as opposed to revolt and that reason would win out in Parliament eventually. Ben Franklin was of a similar mindset until relatively late in the game—he was stridently British and refused to side with the revolutionaries until he was dressed down in Parliament in his capacity as deputy postmaster over issues stemming from wide and rather openly rebellious opposition to the Stamp Act by that time (a whole other chapter in the tale). Others like Samuel Adams were quick to the side of revolution and saw less romance in their British status. When the colony shares much in its culture with the colonizing country, you can see that it comes down to the individual how they will react to the prospect of revolution—many will feel a degree of attachment to the colonizing country and everyone will resolve this in a different way. A great source for dramatic character-driven writing!

Answer 6

Plain old simple political manipulation of 'remote' and physically isolated communities.

In the scenario outlined in your post there are two possible sources of this manipulation, one external, one internal.

The external source is perhaps the simplest to explain. You stated that the founding nation 'A' was a liberal democracy. Such a country will tend to make enemies of any other nation run by dictators or a single party that monopolizes political power. So in this case one or more of those enemies decides to damage 'A' politically and economically by using agitators and disinformation to gradually polarize the political situation in the stations with the goal of fostering 'pro-independence' movements on all of them (preferably one that then becomes dependent on the hostile nation for covert financial & political support).

We all know the drill, growing political dissension leads to call's for a referendum or some such which if successful results in the pro-independence political party winning office. (And if it's not successful - more riots.) If they do win? The party starts to win every election after that with ever increasing majorities and anyone who dissents gets jailed for being an agitator etc. Likely enough? At some point teams of 'advisers' will be sent by the hostile nation to help 'support' the station's new government and before long the station, perhaps all of them are tied to the hostile nation by a series of loans and 'mutually beneficial' trade and military pacts.

The second method is more complex psychologically and sociologically but simply put involves the rise of a demagogue who exploits internal political, social, historical or religious differences on a station to gradually raise their own political profile. Eventually this leads to them being promoted or elected to a position of power. Once in that position? They then begin seeding other key positions in the station with trusted followers all the while appealing to and promoting popular causes and feeding grievances (real or imagined) against the weak/morally corrupt/'insert your favorite pejorative term here'nation 'A' who is according to them responsible for all the 'problems' the station apparently faces. Of course he or she will also target any dissenters or failing that a convenient minority of the station's popluaton who can be painted as also being responsible for whatever 'problems' the station is allegedly facing and who are by default also in cahoots with nation 'A'!

Answer 7

They Have More in Common With B,C,& D:

Your colonists are space dwellers. Their economics are driven by different factors than planet dwellers. 180 or even 50 years is plenty of time for the locals to figure that out. And unless your country A has a huge advantage over all other countries, other states are likely to have built similar colonies.

Folks dwelling in space are likely to have started intermarrying with colonists from other states. They have likely developed rules and customs around transit, visitation, rescue of disabled vessels, and so forth. Industry may have more in common with the colony around the bend than with that on the planet. Even the languages may be shifting with commonly used navigational terms and slang.

But A isn't going to appreciate those differences. "You can't share technology with the B colonists because they are enemies." "You can't move asteroids into planetary orbit because of the military treaties we have in place with C and D to prevent the use of orbital kinetic weapons."

Back in My Day...:

Those timeframes are also long enough to allow technological changes that affect how things are done. Inter-colony shuttles are now more efficient, and they can go back and forth with each other easier than going to A. Control of asteroid orbits allows for safe parking of bodies in orbit when 50 years ago doing so was hazardous. Food production used to be terribly limited, but now foodstuffs are produced at the B colony abundantly but are still imported from A more due to contracts.

Or, worse yet, a new robot is going to allow A to replace the colonists in orbital industry, It used to be too expensive to bring in new workers from A. Planetary corporations own all the factories, and the colonists who built those factories and depend on them for survival will now be replaced by bots and short contract workers. The bots may even be invented and built in the colonies, and the colonists are being asked to phase out their entire way of life.

Answer 8

It all comes down to a difference in economic interests.

From the perspective of the nation on Earth:

• some of the colonies are self-sufficient, which means there's very little we can offer them
• but we started those colonies - we own them - and they've been a massive cash cow so far, we don't want to give that up
• so we need to find ways to extract resources from them without giving much in return
• we have no carrot with which to keep them in line, so it'll have to be all stick

From the perspective of those colonies that are self-sufficient

• we are self-sufficient, so there's very little that Earth can offer us
• they just want to extract resources from us without offering much in return
• they say they own us, why should we stand for that?
• they keep threatening us, why should we stand for that?

You said that some of the colonies are more dependent on Earth, and those won't be the first to secede, but once they see other colonies doing it successfully they'll start to consider their options.