What is the meaning of democracy? The sovereignty of the people although not unlimited sovereignty as democracy is delimited by virtue or it is simply mass tyranny.
Why is it then that the people does not get to democratically determine borders? Why is that this aspect of sovereignty is withheld from the people concerned? Why on earth should borders be determined by phallocentric warfare and historical injustice? There is no good explanation other than male stupidity. Of course stupidity does not refer to lack of intelligence but rather to lack of good judgment. What does it mean to be foolish? Of course foolishness does not refer to any type of diagnosis but rather lack of judgment. Why lack of judgment? Because repressed male sexual urges are sublimated in various ways, including through masculinist warfare as intended to literally rape other peoples.
Who needs wars? Wars of course are necessary in the sense that self-defense is a must in the face of political evil. Where is political evil? UNfortunately is it all over the map. What we thus need to do is take democracy to the next level by means of strictly law-abiding feminist social revolution of universal emancipation. This certainly needs include instituting democratic borders as international law.
What then are democratic borders? Democratic borders are drawn in consultation with local communities with the purpose of as much as possible honoring local wishes in for example typically a border community wishing to avoid involuntary minoritization. Democratic borders does not mean that local communities absolutely decide international borders but rather that international borders are drawn in such a way so as to as much possible honor those local comunal wishes.
Democratic borders however does not mean creating archipelagos of isolated enclaves but it does permit for mutual territorial intersections with the purpose of minimizing involuntary local/regional minoritization.
Linguistic statehood should be the basic principle of democratic borders as linguistic states are natural economic and democratic units. Yet not all states need be linguistic states. During India’s first decades of independence were many linguistic states created on popular demand but in more recent decades have different kinds of states been created such as the state of Jharkand which contains many indigenous peoples within its borders.
Linguistic statehood is hence the basic model for state formation but if a people desires otherwise as regards their own future without compromising the future of another people, then what conceivably is wrong with that? Nothing of course. This means that while linguistic states are the basic building blocs are other types of states allowed as well on popular demand.
What is the foundation of a linguistic state and what is its extension? A linguistic state needs be based on the national heritage language of the people. For example is the Gaelic language with its Irish, Scottish and Manx literary dialects a natural foundation for a Gaelic linguistic state.
What then about enclaves? Some enclaves are very demographically large such as the Kurdish enclave in Khorasan and the major Hungarian enclave at the turn of the Carpathian mountains. These enclaves should be allowed to politically become part of their main homeland if they so wish. Smaller enclaves however must not be granted this privilege and will have to accept minority status with their national heritage language nevertheless being the main local official language.
How then decide the will of a local community? There is the Swiss model of assembling the people in the town square. The purpose of the first assembly is to determine whether there is already consensus on the issue and subsequently assemblies are thereafter organized with the purpose of either repeatedly confirming a pre-existing consensus on the issue or eventually after thorough democratic discussion and deliberation arrive at a consensus decision. If a consensus decision cannot be reached will the issue need to be determined by local communal referendum.
Some locations are composed of different neighborhoods with different preferences and typically so due to different cultural backgrounds. Such a location can thus be divided between two, three or more states if that is the will of the those concerned. This is especially relevant to border cities where different neighborhoods have different backgrounds.
None of this is to advocate ethnic, racial or linguistic purity but it rather means as much as possible honoring the wishes of those locally concerned; meaning that each geographic local community/subcommunity gets a say in deciding its own future and so conversely will have no voice in deciding the future of neighboring communities/subcommunites with different priorities and preferences.
Local consultation and local referenda referenda will only be held where territorial contiguity would be possible, including through territorial intersections. Such territorial contiguity of course needs not be based on on any kind of “purity” but simply on the wishes of local communities.
Democratic borders are obviously not etched in stone but can be changed as part of local democratic processes on the initiative of local communities. What say then should sovereign states have in the process? Sovereign states should have veto over accession but no veto over secession.
Then comes the issue of creating new states, ending previous states and partitioning existing ones. How will that be performed? Simply by public debate and region-wide democratic processes of consultation and referendum. Borders are then drawn as described above.
This of course needs become international law as ethnocracy is a scourge that must no more be tolerated. Democratic borders will surely go a long way towards minimizing outbreaks of clearly preventable warfare.