Paravia and the Dilemma of Federalization

EMPIRE OF PARAVIA (DM) – The Empire of Paravia has recently seen a huge chunk of territory secede from its nation.

The Khanate of Nedland, which occupies the vast majority of the former territory of the Paravian State of Nedland (which still exists as a political entity within the Empire insofar as it enables Ned Greiner, the leader of the Khanate and Governor or equivalent title of the Paravian territory, to continue to be a force within Paravian politics), declared its secession from the nation at 11:16 AM yesterday, local time, with Ned Greiner serving as the first Khan of the new country.

This creates something of a dilemma.

While on the surface, nothing in particular has changed within the Empire – geographical acquisition on a country level only really matters insofar as a country is recognized as acquiring said territory, which is why geopolitics generally have less effect on micronational diplomacy – this move by Khan Greiner should come as a sobering message to those intending to follow the Paravian model and federalize themselves.

Before we can go into why this is a dilemma, however, we need to understand the history of the federal period of Paravia, which we will discuss, in brevitis, now.

The federal Empire of Paravia was established following the discovery by a number of micronationalists – mostly, it must be said, of the quote unquote “new guard” micronations – that a number of their micronational legislatures contained more or less the same stock set of people. The Beacon City Municipal Assembly, the former Mcarthian fordenskaelinc, the then recently established Valdslandic Parliament, the Great Khural of Nedland and so forth all had roughly the same makeup, personnel wise.

The solution, it appeared to a number of people, was to combine those countries into one, single, federal country. In this model, Mccarthia (now dissolved), Beacon City, Valdsland, Nedland, and various other nations which were struggling with the constant spectre of government inactivity would band together and form a new, singular country which would, in theory, be more active, as parliamentarians’ time would be less split between, say, five countries, and be solely vested in one.

A number of micronationalists subscribed to this idea, and thus was birthed the Treaty of Nyros; the Treaty that made the State of Nedland, the Gremmian Empire, the Democratic Republic of Cinnamon Creek, the State of Dachenia and the Republic of Humanytaria federal states of a new, federal Empire of Paravia. (The Republic of Galveston and the nation of Carpathia both signed separately under separate treaties to join the nation later on.) Additionally, there were calls for the Realms of Valdsland to join, though the Parliament, on two occasions, refused, though it later became a member state of Mercia.

After this, little news came out of Paravia. It is assumed, one supposes, that meetings of their parliament occurred – but no news has really traveled outside of the Paravian government other than news of the passage of the Constitution Act. Recently, furthermore, they have moved to prevent observers from entering the parliament, raising further queries about what, exactly, if anything, they do.

This brings us to yesterday morning, when the Khanate of Nedland declared its independence. While, nominally, this is of no consequence to Paravia – as aforementioned, geopolitics tends to play a limited part in secessionist micronationalism of this nature – it should be a cautionary warning to both Paravia and the international community about the natural consequence of nation projects such as the Paravian experiment.

Part of the attraction of micronationalism – indeed, part of the attraction of nation projects in general – is the creative license that it grants to create a society and a culture of one’s own. In a legislative capacity, this means being able to create laws that affect your society all by oneself without having to go through the traditional channels of parliament or Congress (though, naturally, this does leave the slight caveat that declarations of one’s micronational parliament tend not to have force of law outside of one’s own inner circle). In a cultural capacity, this means being able to coin one’s own banknotes, have one’s own national animal, create one’s own national anthem, and recognize a flag that is one’s own, a flag subordinate to no other.

By and large, the attraction of micronationalism is sovereignty, and the creative license it enables those who attempt to pursue it through this medium, and through the framework micronationalism provides.

This creates a paradox, a paradox that has been felt to a large degree in the MicroWiki nations in particular, and that is this: generally speaking, micronations that attempt to exist to some secessionist extent while practically existing over the internet, as is the case with Paravia, Mercia, Nedland, formerly Mcarthia, Valdsland, and so on, require at least some level of commitment from those taking part in order to make it a success. The people who run their own nations want it to be a success, and therefore devote their micronational time to their own nations. In order to have the manpower to make the nation run apace, or at least as far apace as, for instance, Mercia, outside of recruiting one’s own friendship base (which, in many cases, is not particularly doable, as certain proclivities towards politics and legislative processes may not be shared between them) is to tap the existing resource of manpower that exists within the MicroWiki sector – other national leaders. This is the logical problem of micronationalism: being members of each other’s nations is a requirement to make it work in the MicroWiki sphere, but national leaders are by and large unwilling to contribute actively to a nation that is not their own, thus every nation ends up falling apart due to inactivity.

The solution to this dilemma is federalization: the problem, however, is that this solution creates a logical dilemma of its own. While joining the nation enables national leaders to co-operate more readily with each other, now that they are all part of the same “country”, there is a constant feeling that one’s national culture has been subordinated to another, that the sovereignty one entered the micronational “game”, as it were, for, has evaporated, as if it were a cogent substance to begin with. This was large part of the reasoning behind Valdsland’s rejection of the Treaty of Nyros, on grounds that they would no longer be able to independently prosecute their own foreign affairs.

Being unable to run one’s own government without superior approval makes the whole point of micronationalism somewhat moot – being able to write one’s own laws and one’s own rules and create one’s own anthem and flag and national animal and culture and everything else without requiring approval higher up some arbitrary chain of command.

The result? Independence movements. Secession. And the cycle repeats itself.

The independence of Nedland is not of immediate concern to the Paravian Empire. Ned Greiner will continue to serve within the Paravian government, and will likely be elevated to the post of Riksminster in due course (the Paravian equivalent of a Prime Minister). However, the desire by micronationalists to have the best of both worlds – retaining complete sovereignty while having the advantage of the additional manpower lended by being part of the same micronation as other national leaders – is one that can never, realistically, be achieved, and ultimately, this makes micronationalism as we understand it today a notion that contradicts itself.


Horatio Eden is Editor-in-chief of the Daily Micronational and Lord Executor of Valdsland. Mostly known for running a Minecraft let's play channel with two subs, which is the only organization he allows to advertise on the site.

2 thoughts on “Paravia and the Dilemma of Federalization

  • September 24, 2016 at 6:04 pm

    If Paravia doesn’t give enough autonomy to its constituent states in order for them to freely practice creative micronationalism, it’s not really a federation – at that point it’s essentially a unitary state. The goal should be to balance the competing demands of personal creative freedom and an active legislature. At the very least, constituent states need to be able to create their own local legislation, their own local symbols, etc. If these powers do not currently exist then I would suggest making the necessary constitutional changes to allow this.

  • Pingback: KIT MCCARTHY: On Citizenship | Observer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *