Federalism and Territorial Arrangements: Benefits and Challenges
1.0 Introduction
Federalism
has strongly emerged especially in the contemporary period as one of the most
vibrant socio-political and economic practice which cannot be ignored in world
politics and economics. The post Cold War world, its changed environment and
new challenges facing humanity today have been contributory factors propelling
federalism into occupying a more central place. Also issues such globalization
which characterizes the modern world with its dynamics ranging from the
revolution in the information and communications world to the increased levels
of interdependence, interrelation and interaction have contributed to the more
forceful emergence of federalism and territorial arrangements. This is due to
the realizations by states that isolationist policies are more and more being
rendered irrelevant with a world which is swiftly shrinking and increasingly becoming
what Giddens (1997, p. 15) calls a global system; a world which events
everywhere are so much affected with what happens elsewhere.
With
globalization the Westphalia definition of a state and the real-politic view of the state as the most powerful actor in the
international system is being questioned because, both territorial integrity
and sovereignty are being greatly eroded. This is a situation forcing states
into a situation whereby they must enter into new arrangements for their own
survival. There is also a feeling that with globalization nations can only
survive together through unity with diversity.
This
paper is a response to the emergence of federalism especially in the post cold
war period. The paper will therefore seek to critically examine the formation
of federations and the territorial arrangements mainly between different
nations and/or tribe (ethnic groups) with specificity to socio-political and
economic dynamics but also with a keen examination of the consumption of
federalism and territorial arrangements, their benefits and challenges.
1.1 Clarification of terms
According to Elazar (1987, p. 33) “federalism has to do with the need of people and polities to unitefor common purposes yet remain separate to preserve their respective integrities.” Federalism is therefore a theory or advocacy of such an order, including principles for dividing final authority between member units and the common institutions. This division of power is typically entrenched in a constitution which neither a member unit nor the common government can alter unilaterally. It is “the genus of political organization that is marked by the combination of shared-rule and self-rule” (Watts, 1998, p. 120). Federalism must be anchored in the constitution, actually according to W.H. Riker (1964, p. 37) a constitution is federal if it fulfills the following: “two levels of government rule the same land and people, each level has at least one area of action in which it is autonomous and there is some guarantee (even though merely a statement in the constitution) of the autonomy of each government in its own sphere.”
According to Elazar (1987, p. 33) “federalism has to do with the need of people and polities to unitefor common purposes yet remain separate to preserve their respective integrities.” Federalism is therefore a theory or advocacy of such an order, including principles for dividing final authority between member units and the common institutions. This division of power is typically entrenched in a constitution which neither a member unit nor the common government can alter unilaterally. It is “the genus of political organization that is marked by the combination of shared-rule and self-rule” (Watts, 1998, p. 120). Federalism must be anchored in the constitution, actually according to W.H. Riker (1964, p. 37) a constitution is federal if it fulfills the following: “two levels of government rule the same land and people, each level has at least one area of action in which it is autonomous and there is some guarantee (even though merely a statement in the constitution) of the autonomy of each government in its own sphere.”
Another
related term or arrangement is ‘confederation’. However, in contrast to a
federation, a ‘confederation’ has come to mean a political order with a weaker
center than a federation, often dependent on the constituent units. Typically,
in a confederation, member units may legally exit, the center only exercises
authority delegated by member units, the center is subject to member units’
veto on many issues and that center decisions bind member units but not
citizens directly. Furthermore, in a confederation, the center lacks an
independent fiscal or electoral base, and/or the member units do not cede
authority permanently to the center (Watts, 1998, p. 121).
Territorial
arrangement covers a wide range, done either within or between states. It is
vast such that it could embrace other arrangements such as regionalism and
regional bodies and blocs. It is pretty difficulty to supply one precise
definition to such arrangements as regionalism because this is a term laden
with meaning. Some scholars have however attempted definitions. Generally, regionalism
is that process and condition of containment with a territory of a sense of
security and institutions and practices strong enough and widespread enough to
assure for a long time dependable expectations of peaceful change among its population.
Michael Hechter (1973, p. 319) expressly identifies two broad types of
regionalism; “peripheral sectionalism and functional sectionalism.” The former
based on distinctive cultural heritage within a certain region and the latter based
on specific social structural composition of a given territory. However, in attempting to comprehend
territorial arrangements such as regionalism what is more important is not
looking at the kinds of definitions attempted by various scholars but looking
at some of the key indicators of such arrangements. These indicators are such
as enduring cooperation in many spheres, standardization of goods and services
and increased substance in diversity for example through shared cultural
practices. The challenges of the contemporary time and the experience of the
past are among the factors that have compelled many states to enter into
territorial arrangements. Globalization is one such a factor. This is a process
of growing international activity in many areas that is creating ever-closer
ties, enhanced interdependence, and greater opportunity and vulnerability for
all, countries and regions are being drawn closer together, key trends are
interacting as never before, and the pace of change is accelerating (Kugler & Frost, 2001, p. 3). In
the face of such a changed environment states find it only necessary to face
new challenges together hence regional arrangements.
2.0
Conditions
for federalism and territorial arrangement
The
world has been caught up with the need to make reforms especially in the
societal organizations. The nationalistic and ethnic tensions which have
informed policy and relationship have proved to be more detrimental than
facilitative to the desired prosperity. Unfortunately from the end of the Cold
War these nationalist and ethnic tensions have characterized politics in most
parts of the world with Africa most hit. What comes into the mind of policy makers
therefore is the question as to how best to organize national and
ethno-regional communities so as they can live together even with their
differences (Smith, 1995, p. 1).
In
the twentieth century, there has been experienced a growing uncertainty regarding
the traditional geopolitical and geostrategic leverage of states. With that
kind of uncertainty there has emerged what Elazar (1991, p. 7) terms “a federal
revolution sweeping the world.”
3.0
The
ideological and political dimensions of federalism and territorial arrangements
Politics
is as old as humanity; political philosophers have since antiquity held that
man is a political being. It is inevitable that any given community must be
ordered and that the science and art of ordering and governing a society is
what simply comes to be referred to as politics. In the book “Exploring
Federalism” Daniel Elazar (1987, p. 2) argues that “since its beginnings,
political science has identified three basic ways in which polities come into
existence.” These according to him are conquest which in the words of
federalists is force, organic development which federalists term accident and
thirdly through covenant which is purely based on choice. Choice is the best
way in the establishment of a polity because it not only affords legitimacy but
also it ensures good governance. It is through such a backdrop that federalism
as an ideology and as a system of government can be put to its proper
perspective.
The
member unit and the common government both have effect on the citizenry because
the common government operates “on the individual citizens composing the
nation” and the authorities of both are directly elected (Watts, 1998, p. 121).
Federalism can involve member units in central decision-making in at least two
different ways in various forms of interlocking or cooperative federalism. If
the decisions made centrally do not involve member units at all, then there is separate,
split or compact federalism. The US is often given as an example, since the two
Senators from each state are not representing or selected by member unit/state
authorities but by electors voted directly by citizens though this is by member unit decision (U.S. Constitution Art. II
Section 1; cf. Dahl 2001).
Two
quite distinct processes that lead to federal political order may be here
identified (Friedrich 1968, p. 135). Independent states may aggregate either by
ceding or pulling sovereign powers in certain domains for the sake of goods
otherwise individually unattainable, such as security or economic prosperity. Through
such coming together federal political orders are typically arranged to
constrain the center and prevent majorities from overriding other member units
especially those of the minority (Buchanan 1995, p. 260). Examples include USA,
Canada, Switzerland and Australia.
Holding
together type of federal political
orders develop from unitary states, as governments devolve authority to alleviate
threats of unrest or secession by territorially clustered minorities. Such
federal political arrangements grant some member units particular domains of
sovereignty for example over language and cultural rights in an asymmetric
federation, while maintaining broad scope of action for the central government
and majorities (Buchanan 1995, p. 259). Here the good examples are India, Belgium
and Spain.
4.0
Federalism
and territorial arrangements in practice
Federalism
and territorial arrangements are not utopia, they are realities. There are in
the world quite a number of these kinds of arrangements. It would only be
realistic to assert that some of the federations have worked, others are
struggling and yet others have failed. The biggest challenge to federalism and
territorial arrangements over the years and across the world has been cultural
conflicts and ethnic pluralism. In response to this some practical measures
have been taken to ensure the survival of federations. As Smith (1995, p. 15)
has pointed out “consociationalism is a more widely practiced form of managing
cultural conflict.”
4.1 Benefits of federalism and territorial arrangements
The
road to federalism and territorial arrangement is normally painstaking but the
end results of these kinds of arrangements have definitely been quite
rewarding. Life experiences, market forces, new challenges such as
globalization and the propensity for humanity to interact have informed the
choices for nations to cooperate through federalism and territorial
arrangements. The geopolitical and geo-strategic factors have also been quite
instrumental drivers of both federalism and territorial arrangements. For example,
landlocked states are forced into entering into regional arrangements with
littoral states for survival interest but as time passes by they realize that
the need for regional arrangements whether through territorial arrangements
certainly go way beyond mere survival interests and affords them other goods.
In
this regard therefore there are many advantages of federalism and territorial arrangements;
however, the challenges to the same and the long and precarious journey towards
attainment of such arrangements and the long period which normally passes
before their maturation may blur these benefits. Here are highlighted some of
the direct benefits of federalism and territorial arrangements.
4.1.1 Social justice
The theory of federalism might not be popularly mentioned in the realm of social justice. However, the surprisingly limited reference of the same, both representation and difference have implications for social justice. Smith (1995, p. 3) raises “basic “questions about the politics of ethno-regional identities and rights and of whether such identities and rights can and should be accommodated within a multi-layered political architecture.” By raising such a sensitive issue Smith has opened a gateway towards the realization of the role played by federalism and territorial arrangements in ensuring social justice.
These can be experienced in different and diverse perspectives. “One of the central questions that federalism raises is whether a political system based on non-majoritarian rule is compatible with social justice” (Smith, 1995, p. 16). The fact that federalism poses such a bold question is in itself a milestone in the field of social justice since asking a right question is one such a sure way and certainly a step on the right direction towards the desired end. What is curious to look at is the dynamism between federalism and how it juggles the ideologies of self determination and the coexistence of certain collectivist rights and the need to secure the liberty of individuals. Furthermore, in the words of Graham Smith (1995, p. 16) one can argue that “federalism functions as a forum of empowerment” because it creates an opportunity for some people to be heard and also it enables ethno-regional concerns to take the desired precedence within multi-ethnic federalism and territorial arrangements
Again it is only logical to argue that in a federation all stand to gain because federations are often formed under common and popular agreements. Federalism is therefore a political tool which if tailored carefully is meant to benefit all members who are party to the arrangements therein. In this regard even the rights of the minority are catered for. Actually in reality, the majority has demonstrated the tendency to dominate and as such federations and territorial arrangements can serve as a remedy to such domination especially as wield by the strong and the majority against the weak who are often the minority. “The retention of ethnic minority group rights through territorial-institutional supports can therefore be defended on the grounds that it protects minority interests against the tyranny of the majority” (Smith, 1995, p. 17). Adding his weight into this matter, Gagnon (1993, p. 37) argues that “for localities, empowerment and innovation make federation meaningful.”
4.1.2 Unification
The world especially in the contemporary time is exhibiting a clear demand for cooperation. It is becoming more and more challenging and even impossible for nations whether tribal or multi-ethnic to deal with contemporary challenges in isolation. The isolation policies have proved failure for instance in several parts of Asia and experience has shown that even if a state employed isolationist policies they can only work to a certain extent and for a certain duration of time. Federalism ensures cooperation because it is an arrangement comprising of two levels; that of autonomy and that of unity or commonly referred to as unity in diversity.
Federalism
and territorial arrangements therefore bring about a motivation for shared
commitment, the kind which is experienced in regionalism, regional integration
and regional blocs. Through federalism there is brought about regional identity
which acts as a catalyst for unity. Unity is extremely important for instance in
cases of attack, nations in a federation are better positioned to respond
through collective defense mechanisms. Northern Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) is a perfect example of a territorial arrangement which has been very
successful in ensuring collective defense among its member states. The
different situations of the 20th century and especially the Kosovo
crisis led states into a realization for the need to cooperate and NATO has
left a landmark in this.
Moved
by the impulse to avoid the calamity of war, states have found it almost
inevitable to avoid federalism and territorial arrangements aimed at states
working together for the common interest. Economic growth and market forces
have also mounted pressure on states to work together. In order for nations to
benefit fully from the economies of the changed environment of this century and
in order for them to benefit from globalization, the need for unity is more
likely than not. The kind of unity brought about by federalism and territorial
arrangements go a long way in aiding states and regions to benefit from
economic arrangements for example through trade guarantees, joint markets,
successive lowering of internal tariffs, standardization of both goods and
services and, common market protocols.
4.2 Challenges of federalism and territorial arrangements
There are quite a number of challenges to federalism and territorial arrangements. These have been some of the hindrances which have often stood on the way to the fully realization of such arrangements. The exponents of federalism seem to have looked at it as one of the most effective political arrangement. However, on the contrary, critics may disagree with such an assertion citing the challenges and weaknesses of federalism. As Graham Smith (1995, p. 2) argues, there are genuine concerns about the appropriateness of federalism as a form of governance in multi-ethnic societies to effectively respond to the economic, social and political conditions offered by the contemporary time.
There
is the obvious challenge of globalization which brings along the
internationalization of capital, the greater mobility of labor, the growth in
trading blocs and the money factor. The challenge which comes with
globalization is that the situation seems to be at ones local and universal;
globalization affords the kind of situation whereby it becomes pretty difficult
to distinguish between what is local and what is global. It is becoming
difficult to define a national interest that transcends locality (Kerekou,
2009, p. 1). He further argues that with the dawn of globalization, things have changed and that states are
now seen as seeking peace, consensus and cooperation instead of war, conflict
and disputes. On the other hand, Samwel Huntington (2007) in his book “The
Clash of Civilizations” seems to succinctly propagate the fact that
globalization has led to what he refers to as the death of distance and to him
this could be the cause of more conflict than cooperation and collaboration. In
addition to these, Graham Smith has argued that: "in a late
modern federal democracy like Canada, there is more than just a sense that its provinces have gone simultaneously ‘local’
and ‘global’. On the one hand such localities have
become more autonomous, questioning the center's capacity to act as the most appropriate arena for expressing and
integrating regional views or for defining national interests that transcends locality" (1995, p. 2).
It seems that globalization
poses more serious challenges to federalism than can be immediately captured.
For example the influence that globalization wields on the way local
communities with similar identity relate with their counterparts with the same
identity abroad is greatly influenced by globalization. There is always a
tendency for such communities to chart their own political interest parallel to
those of the official federal nation-state. By so doing, there can emerge more
serious problems to states and especially the communities sharing same identity
could come together to fight for common
beliefs for instance as it has been witnessed in irredentism[1]
or the so called tribal annexing nationalism for example as it happened in
Korea and Somalia.
Graham Smith (1995, p. 2) has
identified the second challenge as that posed by “sub-state or locally-based
nationalism to federalism.” That federalism can create the situation whereby
tribal, ethnic, religious and linguistic differences are rife. Also it can lead
to dual identity which often times than not raise inter-communal tensions.
Given such circumstances the world has witnessed quite a number of failed federal
governments for example in Pakistan, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and many
others are struggling like Nigeria, Canada and India (Smith, 1995, p. 3). For
example writing on Canada, Taylor (1993, p. 1) argues that “a
wave of nationalism swept French Quebec but unlike previous waves this one was
heard and felt far beyond its frontiers.” This was mainly due to the acts of
the extreme terrorist wing of that nationalistic movement. Separatism became
the central issue and the modal point around which all strands of nationalism
were distributed (Tailor, 1993, p. 2).
The defensibility of a political
federal organization also seems to be at stake. Federalism may contravene the
rights of the majority and yet bask in the glory of being the handmaid of
democracy. Graham Smith (1995, p. 3) has further argued that “specifying which
citizens are entitled to particular rights, and by what measure, are issues
which affect all federal formations, nascent or otherwise.” Another big
challenge to federalism is how it grapples with multi-ethnic societies whose
cultures, politics and identities are undergoing profound change. Federalism as
an ideology and the political practice in actuality is a technical endeavour
altogether.
There are other challenges to
federalism especially in relation to managing diversity. The federal government
may formulate a policy but the understanding of the same policy may vary from
one federal unit to the other. In such a case it becomes way too complicated to
implement uniform policies aimed at common good of the federal state. This also
stretches to the way of understanding and dealing with different emergencies.
For example there could be what Mitchell as quoted by Scavo, Kearney and Kilroy (2008. p.
15) refer to as resilience meaning the extent to
which a local community or government can successfully respond to and recover from
an extreme event. This also implies that some states or units within a federal
state may respond differently and may take different strands of time to go
through such a response thereby jeopardizing uniformity especially in moving on
and in development.
5.0
Conclusion
Philosophical
contributions have addressed the dilemmas and opportunities facing Canada,
Russia, Iraq, Nepal and Nigeria, to mention but a few areas where federal
arrangements are seen as interesting solutions to accommodate differences among
populations divided by ethnic or cultural cleavages yet seeking a common, often
democratic, political order. Federalism can indeed be no more than a legal
fiction and as Thomas Hobbes as quoted by Vincent Ostrom (1973, p. 207) said
“covenants without the sword are but words”. The major challenge therefore to
federalism like to any other territorial arrangement and indeed all political
organizations and policies is the implementation. Legal and political concepts
are meaningless unless the claims based upon relationships inherent in such
concepts are enforced (Ostrom, 1973, p. 199). As experience has demonstrated
over the years and across the globe “the resurgence of nationalistic and ethnic
tensions have given federalism the prominence” (Smith, 1995, p. 1), however,
this prominence is not always a positive one and that is where the trial for
federalism lies. Territorial arrangements and federalism are therefore good at
least ideologically, their main challenges still lie on implementation. The
curious area of interest could therefore be a keen observation to see whether
and how federalism and territorial arrangements are going to stand the
challenges of the contemporary world of complex emergencies.
Bibliography
Buchanan, J. M. (1995). Federalism
and individual sovereignty. Cato J., 15, 259.
Dahl, R. (2001). Is Post-national
Democracy Possible? Nation, Federalism and Democracy. Trento: Editrice Compositori.
Elazar, D., (1991). Federal democracy in a world beyond authoritarianism
and totalitarianism in McAuley, A.,
(Ed.). Soviet federalism, nationalism and economic decentralization. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Friedrich, C. J., & Friedrich,
C. J. (1968). Trends of federalism in theory and practice. New York: Praeger.
Gagnon,
A., (1988). Federalism in Multi-community Countries: A Theoretical and
Comparative analysis in Brown-John, C.
L., Centralizing and decentralizing trends in federal states. New York: University Press of
America, pp. 23-37.
Giddens, A. (1997). Anthony Giddens
on globalization. UNRIST News, (15). Group.
Hechter, M. (1973). The persistence
of regionalism in the British Isles, 1885-1966. American Journal of Sociology, 319-342.
Huntington, S. P. (1997). The class of civilizations and the remaking
of world order. Penguin
Kerekou, M. T., (2009). The process of integration in Arica: The
African Union (AU) weak institutions.VDM
Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengeselleschaft & Co.KG: Sarbrucken.
Kugler, R.L., & Frost, E.L.,
(Eds.). (2001). The global century: Globalization and National
Ostrom, V. (1973). Can federalism
make a difference? Publius, 3(2), 197-237.
Riker, W. H. (1964). Federalism:
Origin, operation, significance. Boston: Little, Brown security
(Vol. II). Washington, D.C. National Defense University Press.
Scavo, C., Kearney, R. C., &
Kilroy, R. J. (2008). Challenges to federalism: homeland security a and disaster response. Publius: The Journal
of Federalism, 38(1), 81-110.
Smith, G., (1995). (Ed.). Federalism; The multiethnic challenge. London:
Longman.
Taylor, C. (1993). Reconciling
the solitudes: Essays on Canadian federalism and nationalism. MQUP.
Watts, R. L. (1998). Federalism,
federal political systems, and federations. Annual Review of Political Science, 1(1),
117-137.
[1]
Advocacy and struggle for the
recovery of territory culturally or historically related to one’s nation but
now subject to a foreign government.
Federalism and Territorial Arrangements: Benefits and Challenges
Reviewed by Ibrahim Magara
on
May 19, 2016
Rating:
No comments: