Oh, Canada. Our large neighbor to the north survived a breakup by just one percent of the vote this past Monday as Quebec narrowly elected to remain a part of the country.

That situation, along with the breakups of other large nations, begs the question; can large, multi-ethnic, federally-controlled countries survive?

In the past ten years, some major nations have broken apart after a number of internal and external stresses stretched them to the breaking point. The prime example is the Soviet Union, which slowly crumbled after years of internal economic and social rot, plus the strain of attempting to keep pace with the West in the arms race. The fact that the U.S.S.R. had 15 republics and over 100 ethnic groups, each with territorial claims and conflicts with other ethnic groups, aided the fall of our old adversary. Yugoslavia, while certainly not a large country, broke apart after the Soviet Union lost influence in Eastern Europe, especially after it was apparent that they would not send in the tanks and airborne divisions into nations which gave up on communism. Of course, decades of living under communism and its empty promises of paradise for the worker only made the end of Tito’s dream more rapid. The ethnic tension which was hidden under the repressive communist regime and released when it went under also helped to shred Yugoslavia, and led to the civil war which has raged there for four years.

Canada was certainly a logical candidate to go next. The socialist policies of the 1970s led to large debt, and elements in Quebec have been itching to secede for decades. Most of the other provinces have been unhappy with Ottawa as well and have been making noise about secession, too.

So, what problems did all of these countries have that led to their breakup or near-breakup? They each had or still have government systems that are discredited or don’t work. Communism and socialism just do not work; the bureaucracy they generate sucks a nation’s resources and does not allow it to make rapid changes in policy should those policies not work.

Similarly, large governments cannot successfully implement policy at the local level. A government focused on large-scale policy matters, national or international, cannot and should not attempt to exert control over programs at a local level. For example, the Soviets effectively controlled everything from Moscow, and local party organizations could not make policy. They just implemented Moscow’s instructions.

This begs the question – is the United States next in line to face a possible breakup? Clearly, the federal government is having problems. The national debt is out of control, the budget process in in paralysis, and there is no way that every group in this country can be satisfied with Washington’s policies. We also have a multi-ethnic population and cultural stresses along racial lines exist. Does all of that sound familiar?

I seriously doubt that the U.S. would break apart as violently as the U.S.S.R. or Yugoslavia, but we could be facing a serious situation if the federal government doesn’t change how it operates. Would downsizing the role of the federal government help? Probably, although small size does not necessarily imply efficiency or effectiveness. Plenty of small-town governments are poorly run, but at least the local organizations could theoretically better serve their constituents by being more in touch with their needs than a huge federal system. Could we be heading toward a federal system more like a confederacy, just a big free-trade zone, handling national defense and merely guiding the states in their affairs? It may not be a bad idea, given the current state of the federal government.

Hopefully, and probably, we could navigate such a change like the Canadians have done, democratically deciding the course to take rather than fighting it out like the Croats and Serbs and Bosnian Muslims are doing, or as the former Soviets have sporadically done. Change on the international scene can be violent, especially where entrenched systems and governments are involved. We are experiencing, and in fact have experienced throughout our history, political violence, and it appears that more and more groups are using violence as a mechanism for change.

I’m confident that the U.S. will stay together, at least in some form. And if any change does come about, hopefully we can manage it democratically and without bloodshed. But I am also sure that the U.S. will fundamentally change in the near future, if the events in other countries can provide a clue.

Kevin S. Kirby is a senior in journalism mass communication from Louisville, Ky. He has a B.A. in political science from the University of Wyoming.