Imagine you are living in a country where an internet provider claims a de jure territorial monopoly wherein all inhabitants must be customers. The price-performance ratio is dismal. There are two proposals to fix the problem:
-
- First proposal: Democracy … the CEO of the service provider shall be elected by the country’s citizens every four years.
- Second proposal: Competition … the monopoly of the internet service provider shall be abolished and the market be opened for competitors.
Which solution would you prefer?
I, just like basically all sane persons, would prefer the second over the first proposal. “Democratizing” the internet provider may (or may not) improve things somewhat. But only competition can deliver the best possible price-performance ratio. I don’t care how the CEO of my internet provider gets appointed. He/she can be chosen by shareholders, through “democratic elections” or by rolling the dice. As long as I’m happy with the service, I couldn’t care less.
What does this have to do with Liechtenstein?
Liechtenstein is, so far, the only country in the world where the provider of governance services does no longer have a de jure territorial monopoly over the country’s inhabitants.
In the words of Prince Hans-Adam:
The State should treat its citizens like an enterprise treats its customers. For this to work, the State also needs competition. We therefore support the right of self-determination at the municipal level, in order to end the monopoly of the State over its territory.
Therefore, since the constitutional reform of 2003, every commune in Liechtenstein has had the right to secede. Even tiny Planken (with roughly 280 voters) could have its independence recognized following a local vote.
The root of bad governance is lack of competition. Incorporating this key insight into its constitution has made Liechtenstein the country with the most advanced constitution in the world.
It’s a catastrophe that in other countries there has, thus far, been so little understanding of the fundamental importance of the right to secession.