• Home
• /
• Opinion

Independence or Autonomy?

China sees the Dalai Lama as a separatist campaigning for an independent Tibet. The Dalai Lama, on the other hand, argues that he is campaigning for a middle way, namely an autonomous Tibet within the People’s Republic of China.

The word “within” is important and indeed the memorandum drawn up by the Dalai Lama’s negotiating team points out the difference between autonomy within China and independence from China. It all got me thinking.

How often do we mistake a yearning for independence for a yearning for autonomy? So what exactly is the difference between autonomy 
and independence?

The Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines autonomy as: “The right of a group of people to govern itself or to organise its own activities.” And it defines independence as “freedom from being governed or ruled by another country” and “the ability to live your life without being helped or influenced by other people.”

On the personal level, we often use the two words interchangeably. In fact, autonomy is sometimes defined as personal independence. Independence is closely linked to freedom in my mind. It is the trigger that allows us to free ourselves from the yoke of being governed by others.

In my own life the yearning for freedom and independence has been a key motivation since early childhood. And yet today I wonder whether what I hankered for is really autonomy rather 
than independence.

To some extent, independence, just like freedom, is a fallacy. No individual is entirely free or entirely independent of others, with the possible exception of raving lunatics.

It’s all relative. Without being drawn into a philosophical or even a psychoanalytical debate about the subject, it is an intriguing aspect of human nature that we long both for connections with others and freedom from the ties 
that bind.

Autonomy comes from the Greek words auto, meaning self, and nomos, meaning law. Essentially what it means is that an individual, or a group depending on the context, has the power to make up and live by its own set of rules and regulations.

Independence, on the other hand, focuses on the idea of being a separate entity not subject to the rules and influence of others.

And so I wonder whether personal happiness requires not a sense of independence, which by definition entails a sense of separation from others, but a sense of autonomy. What we all want is the security of being part of a social group, be that the family, society, nationhood or a religious Ummah, of being intricately and unambiguously connected into the lives of others, whilst at the same time feeling that we have a say over how we live our lives, from the every day banalities of choosing what we eat to the higher-end principles of what we believe in and the moral principles that guide us.

At the group level the same principles apply. Independence focuses on sovereignty while autonomy focuses on the power to make decisions. Institutions will seldom be independent but their success largely depends on their ability to be autonomous. Take the judiciary.

We often talk of an independent judiciary, although perhaps not so much in the Arab world, but it is rarely the case. Being subject to government appointments and funding negates the idea of independence but leaves open the possibility of autonomy. And so we 
come to statehood.

When a group of people see themselves as a culturally or ethnically distinct group that is being governed by a well-defined “other”, this “other” often being a state or an ethnic group that has forcefully taken over the group through peaceful or violent means, they naturally feel anger and resentment. You don’t have to look far to find examples of such groups; they exist in every continent. What they have in common is grievance at being subject to the rules of others, combined with economic and social discrimination against them.

When the inhabitants of a geographic region such as Tibet, united by historical, cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious identity find themselves living under the governance of a nation such as China to which they have some historical and geographic affiliation, but from which they also have an unmistakable sense of alienation, and when they live under the very real consequences of being disempowered in their own land, is the answer to be found in independence or in autonomy?

The Dalai Lama has chosen a path to peaceful resolution through autonomy within China rather than independence from China.

Partly this is because autonomy is a more realistic goal than independence. But it is also pragmatic.

Perhaps what applies at the personal level applies equally at the state level. It is not freedom but self-determination, not sovereignty but empowerment that are ultimately key.

We may all scream for independence but what really counts is autonomy, though that in no way erases the legitimacy of independence. What is more, it is no coincidence that the more economically and socially developed a country, the more it favours the concept of regional autonomy.

Iman Kurdi is an Arab writer based
in Nice, France. For comments,
write to opinion@khaleejtimes.com