David J. Rovinsky

david@rovinsky.net

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1486-6230

Journal of Australian, Canadian, and Aotearoa New Zealand Studies 6 (September 2026): 37-76, https://doi.org/10.52230/DXRG8397

Abstract:

This article compares secessionist politics in Western Australia and Alberta to examine a form of regional separatism not well captured by identity-centered theories of nationalism and self-determination. Neither region possesses the linguistic, ethnic, or national distinctiveness associated with cases such as Quebec, Scotland, or Catalonia, yet both have generated recurring claims that their respective federal bargains are unfair or no longer legitimate. The article develops the concept of resource periphery secessionism to describe territorial movements rooted primarily in the interaction of resource wealth, fiscal redistribution, political authority, geographic distance, and disparities between economic contribution and electoral influence. Western Australia and Alberta occupy strikingly similar structural positions within their federations but have developed markedly different political responses. Contemporary Western Australian secessionism emphasizes institutional design, fiscal autonomy, economic competitiveness, and the construction of a prospective independent state. Alberta’s debate ranges from federal reform and enhanced provincial sovereignty to conditional preparation for independence and outright separatism, increasingly intersecting with conservative populism and broader cultural conflict. The comparison suggests that resource periphery secessionism constitutes an additional pathway through which federal legitimacy can erode even where conventional nationalism remains weak. It therefore complements nationalism-centered theories of secession by emphasizing the political economy of federalism and the continuing legitimacy of the federal bargain.

Keywords:

Alberta, Federalism, Resource Politics, Secession, Western Australia

Article