Download As PDF

Modern politics usually assumes that the nation-state is the natural way to organise society. Large central governments, national economies, giant corporations and mass systems are treated as signs of progress. Yet in several parts of the world, there remain peoples whose traditions developed in a very different direction. Two particularly interesting examples are the Basques of the Pyrenees and the Kurds of the Middle East.

Although separated by geography, language and history, both societies display features which resemble localism.

The Basques inhabit areas on both sides of the Pyrenees in Spain and France. For centuries, their mountain geography encouraged strong local identities and relative independence from distant rulers. Villages, valleys and small towns became important social and economic units. Shared grazing land, local forestry, cooperative labour and mutual aid were common features of life.

Even today, the Basque Country retains strong traditions of local identity and cooperative economics. The Mondragon cooperative system in northern Spain became one of the largest worker-owned economic systems in the world. Rather than concentrating wealth into distant shareholders, many businesses were designed around worker participation, local employment and community benefit.

The Kurdish experience is different but also contains localist features. The Kurds are spread across several countries, including Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. In northern Syria, during the breakdown caused by war, Kurdish communities developed a system sometimes called “democratic confederalism”. This approach attempts to place power at the level of neighbourhoods, villages and local councils rather than concentrating it entirely in a central state.

In both cases, there is a distrust of over-centralisation and an emphasis upon the locality as the foundation of society.

There are several reasons why such systems emerge.

Mountain societies often evolve local structures naturally because geography limits central control. Communities become more self-reliant because transport is difficult and outside assistance is uncertain. Shared survival encourages cooperation. Local knowledge becomes valuable. Families and communities remain economically important.

In addition, societies under pressure often reorganise from below. When distant systems become weak, expensive, or ineffective, people increasingly turn to local solutions. Food production, practical skills, informal exchange and mutual support regain importance.

This may become increasingly relevant in the future.

Modern industrial economies were built during a period of abundant fossil fuel energy and rapid economic growth. Large cities, long supply chains and huge administrative systems became possible because cheap energy allowed enormous complexity. However, if economic growth slows or reverses, societies may gradually move back towards smaller-scale and more local forms of organisation.

The Basque and Kurdish examples suggest that localism is not merely a political theory. It may instead represent a recurring social pattern which appears whenever people seek resilience, identity and practical control over daily life.

Importantly, localism does not necessarily mean isolation. Both the Basque and Kurdish approaches involve networks of local communities cooperating with one another. The emphasis is not upon complete separation but upon beginning with the locality rather than with the distant centre.

Perhaps this is one of the most important lessons for the future. As large national systems become increasingly strained by debt, energy costs, infrastructure pressures, and social fragmentation, the locality may once again become the most practical and human-scale level at which society can function effectively.

In that sense, the Basques and the Kurds may offer glimpses of how societies naturally reorganise themselves when large systems begin to weaken.