Talk:Regionalism (politics)

Nationalists vs Regionalist

Surely there is a difference between nationalists and regionalists? Plaid Cymru and the SNP are nationalist parties, who claim that Wales and Scotland are nations and should be independent nation states. Regionalist parties only want autonomy within a state. --Rhyswynne 10:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

When has Plaid Cymru avocated Wales indepedence?--71.236.0.245 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Regionalist parties and regional ones

I think that there's a difference between regional parties (ex: CSU) and regionalist parties (regional parties demanding autonomy for their regions, ex: Lega Nord, SNP, PC, etc.). --Checco 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Seperation

I don't believe my original article was POV; what can be POV about a hypothetical term, which in this case was "can be", which indeed it can be a worrying time for a central government when local spots wish to devolve power to themselves! I mean, take the UK, why should the county of Merseyside ask for more powers than West Yorkshire or Norfolk have!! And why would the highest office grant it to them when nobody else seems to need it?! But I'll be fair, the paragraph was badly written; so I don't mind the present version. I did change one part; I didn't think it needed the line "not always so" because that is perfectly clear from the first two paragraphs. I thought it better to give an example. And I chose the Balkans of course as it is the one for which I have most personal experience; the organisations responsible for the end of the federation in 1990/1991 were all descended from parties whose roots go back as far as the golden age of modern nationalism, the 18th century. So just as some people in some places advocated unification, others elsewhere opposed the idea. When the latter group's speakers finally took stage, they pretended to be "united" but sought for "more". We have a saying in the Balkans, "Give someone your finger, he'll want the whole hand; give the hand, he'll want the arm; then the head and so forth", like a child and his craving for more chocolate. My point is that independence is exactly that, the structure of certain national systems makes it more practical for some to use regionalist tactics to achieve their goals. That is the only point I wanted to make and I think it deserves a mention. Obviously it is better phrased now, so I doubt it needs any more editing. Evlekis 11:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Yugoslavia is a good example, as the various groups were split on ethnic/religious lines (but I'm no expert on Balkans history)--Rhyswynne 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I'd like to convert the "regionalism" page to a disambiguation and move the content here to regionalism (politics). Regionalism in literature and art are at least as significant as Regionalism in politics, and what's more those articles are currently much better-maintained than this one. Academically I've studied both politics and literature - more of the former than the latter, in fact - so I'm fairly certain I'm evaluating the relative weight of those articles without bias. --Orphic (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Actually, I wish I'd thought of it. I support the idea. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• PAGE MOVED. Sorry for the delay. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Belgium

I don't quite agree with the statement that Belgian political parties would be regionalist parties, Walloon (south-Belgium) parties are, in fact, unionist. Even in Flanders, almost all parties support the European Union and are in favour of a international economy, it is true though, that there are nationalist parties in Belgium and more specifically in Flanders.--78.21.236.163 (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I also don't agree that "almost all Belgian parties" are regionalist parties. As the user above states there is a difference between the parties in the Dutch-speaking north (Flanders) en de French-speaking (Wallonia) south of the country. I disagree with his following remarks. Stating that Walloon parties are in fact unionist, is a huge denial of the history of the Walloon movement (about which I'm not going to elaborate over here). In our present days, the president of the Walloon parliament, José Happart, by example is a well known regionalist. Rudy Demotte president of the Walloon regional governments is also known as regionalist (originated in his duties as president of course). Both are members of the socialist party, as well as most Walloon regionalist. None of the Walloon parties is known to denounce the federal state with it's regional governments as it is right now. Nor most Flemish parties. The difference between both is that Walloon parties want to clear up the difficulties in the division of powers between federal and regional authorities by centralizing some of the powers, while Flemish parties want to decentralize some of the powers. But there are on both sides (esp. in the Brussels area) people who wish a more unionist policy. On the Flemish side there is on the other hand a strong nationalist movement who wants independence for Flanders. But that concerns only two parties (of the eight parties in parliament): N-VA and Vlaams Belang. Both can be called nationalist, N-VA democratic-right, Vlaams Belang far-right. Despite some people in the N-VA party are in fact regionalist, the only party who calls itself regionalist in Flanders is SPIRIT (recently renamed to Vlaams Progressieven). Scattered in the other Flemish parties (Greens, CD&V, Open VLD, SP.A, LDD) are some regionalists and some nationalists. But none of these parties can be called nationalist or regionalist, tough many tend to the latter. (btw: LDD still hasn't a clear profile on this matter since it's a populist party with several voices going from unionist to separatist, but certainly not a nationalist party like N-VA or Vlaams Belang). To conclude, it isn't all that easy to point out who is regionalist in Belgium. As far as I know it's more an ideology spread amongst individuals than parties, with exception of SPIRIT/VL.PRO.

BTW: all parties (even the nationalist and especially the regionalist) support the EU and ar in favour of an international economy. That's all! (TomCobbaert (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Regionalism in New England/NYC

Regionalism also exists within countries or even within cities. Once such region [[New

England]], is an extreme example of regionalism within the United States. In that region

and those who identify with it, they want to promote Boston, the region's largest

city, as the de facto capital and force all adjacent cities and states to accept it.

One such state is Connecticut, which is a part of metro New York.  

Regionalists in the Boston area seemingly wannt to do anything that it takes to "reel

in" CT as a full member of New England and to take it out of the NYC metro region that

it is a part of. This includes going to such extremes as buying CT businesses and

putting a "New England" label on it in the form of declaring said businesses as a "New

England" business instead of a CT or NYC area business. Once example is [[People's

United Bank]] which used to be simply "People's Bank" headquartered in [[Bridgeport,

CT]] which is the NYC metro region. New England investors bought the bank and declared

it a New England bank when it was simply a CT and NY bank. Recently, they have gone to

such extremes to promote CT as New England, which seems to have been the real aim of the

purchase, that have billboard as all along interstates in CT that heads: "New England

has spoken..." One such sign is in Stamford, CT which is clearly in the NYC metro

region, where the words "New England" seem to dominate the sign. Is appears as if it is

there to advertise CT is New England more so than anything else. What also leads to

this conclusion is the fact the People's United bank is not any place in New England, it

is only in CT and NY! So how could "New England" have spoken? With some ways of

thinking, even spending money for a certain goal is not beyond some regionalists.

Other extremes include opening stores and stocking products out of the Boston area such

as ice cream, milk and Boston sports team products in CT stores to give the appearance

that CT is geared toward Boston even if it is not. This is all done in an effort to

strengthen the city of Boston in not only the northeastern US, but in the US itself.

This, is regionalism at one of it's most insane moments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.187.106 (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Transylvanianism

Checco Transylvanianism is not regionalism. Its name is not related. Please read User talk:2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The article is on regional and regionalist movements/parties, both of them, non just regionalist ones. Whatever its purpose, "Transylvanianism" is a regional movement and can be mentioned in the "See also" section quite uncontroversially. I was not the one who added the link in the first place. A third editor, User:Autospark, who thanked for my edit, agrees with me. Two editors, including me, rollbacked your removal. Finally, your total rollbacks are quite disturbing: why removing Romania altogether? In a nutshell, you are the only one to oppose the inclusion of Transylvanianism in the "See also" section so far, thus you should avoid rollbacks: why not first seeking compromise, then edit the article on the issue.--Checco (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

But Transylvanianism does not fit the initial definition of Regionalism this article gives. It doesn't say anywhere it's simply about regional movements. And almost all examples given in the article are about nationalisms, not just mere regional movements, so adding Transylvanianism to that part is like comparing it to Chechen nationalism, Tibetan nationalism or Galician nationalism, when they are not on the same "level". But if the article is left at its current state, I have no complains. Super Ψ Dro 09:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Social

Regional parties 106.76.214.228 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Frente Polisario as a secessionist party.

On the third paragraph of the Regionalism, autonomism, and nationalism section, it is said that Frente Polisario (the national liberation movement of the Sahrawi people) is a secessionist party from "Western Sahara (Morocco)". Although Frente Polisario is indeed a national liberation movement seeking to push a nationalist and what can be arguably considered a regionalist agenda, considering the Front a "secessionist political party from Morocco" goes against the own nature of Polisario as a national liberation movement (Frente Polisario doesn't consider itself a political party) and supports the Moroccan thesis that Western Sahara belongs to Morocco and Polisario simply seeks to separate the territory.

Western Sahara is considered by the United Nations as a non-self-governing territory occupied by Morocco, which I'd say clearly means that Western Sahara is not legally or de jure part of Morocco, in other words, treating it as separatist is biased towards Morocco's side and could go against the Neutral point of view of Wikipedia.

I won't remove it from the article myself as I'm clearly biased on this topic and I'd rather see what others think about it. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)