From Azawad (Aza who? yep, Azawad) to Azania, societal groups are seeking preservation of their ways, autonomy or total independence. Balkanisation, it would be appear is back in fashion following the lull after the break up of some east European countries. Azawad is the name given to the recently proclaimed Tuareg state in the north of Mali with world famous Timbuktu as the intended capital. The state is not yet recognised but this has not diminished the appetite for freedom of the Azawadis.

Come to think of it, balkanisation is not new at all. Apart from the fact that the first Tuareg rebellion started way back in the sixties and there have been a few after that until this latest one, we find that worldwide, there are people wanting to secede from the mother ship which they do not consider a mother at all. In Zambia, for instance, the Lozi want to establish an independent Barotseland, The Scots want their Independence from England. Well even though the Scottish National Party won 45% of the vote in the last parliamentary election, only a third of Scots themselves actually back a divorce, but who knows what will happen in the next couple of years?

What drives balkanisation? Is it the discovery of rich natural resources like oil, diamonds or water depending where you find yourself? Is it driven by long simmering anger over a battle from thousands of years prior only to be triggered by a single aberrant action of a local policeman or authority? Indeed, what makes a people? Is it a flag, a country to call one's own, language, economic or military power? How is freedom truly defined and is it really about freedom or simply the ability to say we rule ourselves or are ruled by our own? Irony of ironies, the same Patrick Henry, post colonial Governor of Virginia, who said "give me liberty or give me death" during the movement for independence in Virginia owned 78 slaves! How could a man who could express a cry for freedom with such eloquence own slaves?

Societies must always interrogate the motives of men and women who would lead us to war for a murky ideal that is based on a thousand years of hatred. We should be especially wary of secessionists whose raison d'agir is based on tribal affiliation or bitter pain as opposed to a historical right of a nation of peoples in historically acknowledged borders such as in the case of Native Americans or Australia's Aborignes. At the same time, politicians must surely understand their duty to govern any nation in a manner that serves all who live in as equally as possible lest a demagogue were to exploit the consequences of deliberate lopsided development, a policy which is simply unsustainable. There are obviously clear cut cases for a right to return and independence. No brainer examples include Western Sahara and the Chagos Islands but others are perhaps better resolved with a fairer and more transparent share of the national cake.

Is it possible to choose from the best of divorces as happened in Czechslovakia rather than opt for the bloddy option as happened in Yugoslavia?

Whatever the case, will the Timbuktu desert festival still take place next year? Will the Tuareg, having "won" their freedom, assuming they can hold on to the territory in chaotic Mali, sing a better song for their people? Or does it not matter as long as they are singing their own song?