"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.”
-Abraham Lincoln at the Illinois Republican State Convention in 1858
Drawing from biblical terms, Abraham Lincoln was clearly on the dot when he stated “a house divided against itself cannot stand” in reference to the antebellum United States. Three years after he said this, the United States Civil War began. Though applied to the United States at the time, this idea can perhaps be echoed in various civil conflicts - not always violent - that led to the ultimate geographic division of nations in recent history. This week, we’ll take a look at several historic examples in which nations split geographically as well as some speculation on current politically “fragile” nations. In the midst of all this conflict, there is still opportunity for growth.
India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh
This “split” was relatively sudden and created mass migration and conflict. The Partition of India occurred in 1947 as the former British India won its independence from the British. As part of independence and after much political debate, the nation was split geographically and politically into India and Pakistan based on the two most prominent religions of the area: Hinduism and Islam. India was meant to predominantly retain Hinduism and Sikhism, and Pakistan (divided into two separate areas known as West and East Pakistan) was meant to predominantly retain Islam. Later on in 1971, East Pakistan separated from the rest of Pakistan and became Bangladesh.
These lines dividing Pakistan and India were actually drawn up by a British Committee with the end goal of drawing most of the Muslim people into Pakistana and most Hindu or Sikh people into India. Mahatma Gandhi, a prominent figure of peace, initially opposed this idea of separating into two nations, but later accepted the Partition as a means of compromise. Gandhi was then assassinated in 1948 by an Indian nationalist in response to this compromise.
In reality, people did not live in geographic areas exclusively based on religion, so the drawing of these lines caused mass migrations of Muslim people out of India and into Pakistan, and vice versa for Hindu people living in Pakistan. As this mass migration happened, a great deal of violence came with it. Certain areas, such as the region of Kashmir, became disputed by the two newly formed nations, and large numbers of refugees caused strains on land and resources as well as the unfortunate spread of communicable disease. Estimates from various sources suggest a death toll up to 2 million due to the Partition of India and the ensuing migration and conflict.
The Partition caused a mass migration of people between the newly formed countries
Today, Pakistan and Bangladesh primarily consist of adherents to Islam while India primarily consists of adherents to Hinduism, and there is still disputed territory between Pakistan and India. Both India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons, which does cause some concern due to the conflict as well. Despite this conflict, there is still a Hindu minority in Pakistan and Bangladesh and a Muslim minority (>10% of the population) in India.
Sudan and South Sudan
The Republic of the Sudan (pre-split) originally formed in 1956 as the country gained independence from joint British and Egyptian rule. After this independence and for decades following, several military coups occurred with several iterations of military leaders and rebellions. From the beginning of independence in 1956, southern Sudan expressed discontent towards the north. The pre-split Sudan was certainly different in the northern and southern regions, with the northern areas predominantly following Islam whilst the south retained a Christian and also more traditional African identity. Northern Sudan also had a significantly higher literacy rate and generally had a more dominant presence in the country. Additionally, major oil reserves are primarily present only in southern Sudan, which certainly exacerbated conflict. Other countries offered assistance during this post-independence period via diplomatic recognition, military supplies, and/or advisory roles. These outside countries included the Soviet Union, Libya, Egypt, the United States, and Saudi Arabia among others.
A map of Sudan following independence from Britain and Egypt, but before South Sudan voted for autonomy
During the turmoil and government turnovers in Sudan, the southern secessionists were never really addressed, and several guerilla groups remained. The Southern Sudan Liberation Movement (SSLM) was formed in 1971 as a conglomeration of these southern guerilla fighters. In 1972, the Addis Ababa Agreement was reached between north and south to give southerners a degree of autonomy, though tensions remained high.
In 1983, the president at the time, President Nimeiry, declared Sudan to be an Islamic state under sharia law. This prompted southern Sudan, predominantly led by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), to rebel, beginning another civil war in Sudan between north and south. During this civil war, an election was held in 1986, and a (somewhat) democratic government was established later that year. The southern Sudanese rebels did not acknowledge this government. The government was then replaced within 3 years… SURPRISE… by yet another leader who banned political parties and declared a state of emergency whilst putting down rebellions. This leader, Omar al-Bashir, sought to continue the mix of Islam and government.
The Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) was started as southern Sudan’s military opposition to northern Sudan
Throughout the 1990s, legislative elections were held, and competing political parties struggled for power in the north. Certain human rights groups such as Amnesty International spoke out against the government of Sudan during 1996 for abuses against government opponents. This struggle for fair elections and peace both within northern Sudan as well as between north and south Sudan, continued on into the 21st Century. A formal treaty between north and south was not reached until 2005 with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which allowed southern Sudan to vote in a referendum in six years to decide whether they would separate and become autonomous. During this interim time, oil revenues were to be split 50-50 between north and south. During the civil war between north and south from 1983 to 2005, well over 2 million civilians were killed due to the conflict.
In 2011, the referendum went through with 99% of southern Sudan voting for independence (an outcome caused by an election that some deemed fraudulent). Thus, South Sudan became its own country in 2011. Throughout the years, well over 2 million people died in the conflicts within Sudan.
South Sudan independence celebrations
Despite this eventual split into two nations, there still - understandably - are tensions present between and within Sudan and South Sudan. The governments still retain very little legitimacy among their own people, and disputes over oil and territory still remain. Over 60 years following the removal of British and Egyptian control in the region, the Sudanese and South Sudanese people seem to have a long way to go to achieve peace.
Czech Republic and Slovakia
Once called Czechoslovakia, the nation split into the separate countries of the Czech Republic and Slovakia beginning in 1993. Unlike the other two examples in this article (India and Sudan), the break-up of Czechoslovakia was rather peaceful, and is also referred to as the “Velvet Divorce”. The nation of Czechoslovakia was initially formed in the early 1900s following the end of World War I, when the Austrian Habsburg empire was split into separate nation-states, which included Czechoslovakia. Initially, the nation was made up of similar, yet distinct, ethnic groups including Czechs and Slovaks among other Germanic peoples. The Czechs made up a majority of the population, with the Slovaks as a large minority group. After German occupation during World War II, Czechoslovakia began recovery and soon after became a Communist state under influence from the Soviet Union.
Though the Communist government supported by the Soviet Union did hold the country together (despite political and social conflict), the eventual decline of the Soviet Union resulted in the “Velvet Revolution”. This rather peaceful revolution consisted of organized protests against the one-party communist regime. The communist leaders negotiated with the pro-democracy leaders, and a transition government was formed. A free election was held in 1990, and Václav Havel, a spokesman for one of the pro-democracy groups, was elected President. Following the establishment of the democratic government, disagreements between Czechs and Slovaks over the structure of the government prevented the formation of a unified government front. The Czech leader Klaus and Slovak leader Meciar seemed to both drift towards separation of the two.
Photo from the “Velvet Revolution”
In the midst of frustrations between Czechs and Slovaks, Havel resigned from the presidency in 1992. Czech and Slovak leaders proceeded with the separation of Czechoslovakia into two separate nations, though public support did not appear to be definitive one way or the other. Though there were political disputes, the separation into the Czech Republic and Slovakia did not stem from or result in violence.
This image is a tad outdated (note the “USSR” labeled to the eastern border), but gives an idea of how Czech Republic (blue area) and Slovakia (orange area) split
These are just three examples, but there are plenty of other recent instances where countries separated, such as Taiwan and China (still hotly debated whether Taiwan is actually a separate entity), Eritrea and Ethiopia, Panama and Colombia, etc….
“Fragile” Nations
All nations are certainly prone to some degree of internal conflict, but it isn’t always going to result in dissolution or split of the nation itself. The three examples from recent history provided in this article show that these separations can take different forms and may stem from a multitude of reasons. “Fragile” nations are those that appear to be more prone to dissolution or government failure based on the current state of things. This “fragility” could be due to various things, such as political corruption, ethnic conflict, general lack of unity, or economic distress. The Fragile States Index, developed by The Fund for Peace, is one attempt at quantifying just how fragile each country is in relation to others. The index uses twelve indicators:
Security Apparatus
Factionalized Elites
Group Grievance
Economic Decline
Uneven Economic Development
Human Flight and Brain Drain
State Legitimacy
Public Services
Human Rights and Rule of Law
Demographic Pressures
Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)
External Intervention
A more aesthetic presentation of the indicators used by The Fund for Peace
Each country receives ratings for each indicator, which are assigned using quantitative data from pre-existing data sets (e.g., data form the World Bank), prevalence of key words associated with the indicators in global media outlets and research reports, and a follow-up qualitative review. According to the 2021 analysis, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria top the list for most fragile. Finland, Norway, and Iceland come out on top as the least fragile nations based on the ranking system.
An interactive form of the map can be found here: https://fragilestatesindex.org/analytics/fsi-heat-map/
Fragile States Index results from 2021published by The Fund for Peace
Public perception of division in a society can also be considered. Ipsos conducted a survey in early 2018 which included 19,428 participants representing 27 different countries. The survey centered on how divided they think their country is and the most divisive aspects of their country. On average, about 6 in 10 people said their country was more divided now than it was 10 years ago, and the greatest cause of tension was considered differences in political views, closely followed by differences between rich and poor. The variation among countries is fairly significant as well. One thing to consider is that this data is all perception, so maybe people in one country have a misguided or skewed view of other citizens. Additionally, the people that would take this sort of survey may not be entirely representative in terms of gauging an entire country (19,428 people is a very small sample size considering the size of the population).
The percentage of people that think others in their country are tolerant of those with different backgrounds, cultures or views. Canadians think other Canadians are tolerant.
The division of nations along political and geographic borders is a rather arbitrary idea when you think about it, and it requires general agreement amongst societies. Territorial disputes, cultural or religious differences, political conflicts, economic disparities, and the fight for various natural resources may strain tensions among peoples and encourage the re-drawing of borders. It’s also difficult to forget a violent history... and geopolitics is also incredibly complex. Hopefully this article didn’t leave you with a waning hope for “world peace”, though. The separation of nations in recent history and the current “fragility” of certain nations today offer an opportunity to learn from previous conflicts and address issues as they arise. Maybe it even begs a more basic question: what is the goal of a nation and a government? Whatever the goal is, it seems that achieving peace requires a fight, but maybe (just maybe) that fight doesn’t always have to be a violent one.
To Think About…
Is the division of a nation always bad? In what instances do you think it could be a good thing?
Do you think intervention from other countries (e.g., mediating treaties, sending supplies, providing support) helps or hurts efforts to create peace or stability in a fragile country?
On a more optimistic note… try to think of some examples when nations have worked together for positive reasons.
Sources
https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/housedivided.htm
https://exhibits.stanford.edu/1947-partition/about/1947-partition-of-india-pakistan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/46428985
https://www.britannica.com/place/Bangladesh
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/gandhi-assassinated
https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/05/16/sudan-from-conflict-to-conflict-pub-48140
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14019208
https://s3.amazonaws.com/berkley-center/130801BCSudanRaceReligionCivilWar.pdf
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/01/04/the-impact-of-czechoslovakias-split
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Czechoslovak-history/Velvet-Revolution-and-Velvet-Divorce
https://scalar.usc.edu/works/dissolution-of-czechoslovakia/the-dissolution-of-czechoslovakia
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-velvet-divorce-1221617
https://www.ipsos.com/en/bbc-global-survey-world-divided
https://fragilestatesindex.org/
https://fpif.org/revisiting_the_velvet_divorce/