Federalism is a mode ofgovernment that combines a general level of government (acentral orfederal government) with aregional level of sub-unit governments (e.g.,provinces,states,cantons,territories, etc.), while dividing the powers of governing between the two levels of governments. Two illustrative examples of federated countries—one of the world's oldest federations, and one recently organized—areAustralia and theFederated States of Micronesia, (Micronesia).
Johannes Althusius (1563-1638), is considered the father of modern federalism, along withMontesquieu. In 1603, Althusius first described the bases of thispolitical philosophy in hisPolitica Methodice Digesta, Atque Exemplis Sacris et Profanis Illustrata. By 1748, in his treatiseThe Spirit of Law, Montesquieu (1689-1755) observed various examples of federalist governments: in corporate societies, in thepolis bringing villages together, and in cities themselves formingconfederations.[1] In themodern era Federalism was first adopted by a union of the states of theOld Swiss Confederacy[2] as of the mid-14th century.
Federalism differs fromconfederalism, where thecentral government is created subordinate to the regional states—and is notable for itsregional-separation of governing powers, (e.g., theArticles of Confederation as the general level of government of the originalThirteen Colonies; and, later in the United States, theConfederate States of America). And federalism also differs from theunitary state, where theregional level is subordinate to the central/federal government, even after a devolution of powers—and is notable forregional-integration of governing powers, (e.g., theUnited Kingdom).[3]
Federalism is at the midpoint of variations on the pathway (or spectrum) ofregional-integration or regional-separation. It is bordered on the increasing-separation side by confederalism, and on the increasing-integration side by devolution within a unitary state; (see "pathway" graphic).[4][5]
Some characterize theEuropean Union as a pioneering example of federalism in a multi-state setting—with the concept termed a "federal union of states", as situated on thepathway (sprectrum) ofregional-integration or regional-separation.[6][7]
The pathway of regional integration or regional separation
The terms "federalism" and "confederalism" share a root in theLatin wordfoedus, meaning "treaty, pact orcovenant". Until the late eighteenth century their two early meanings were essentially the same: a simple league amongsovereign states, based on a treaty; (thus, initially the two were synonyms). It was in this sense thatJames Madison referred to the newUS Constitution as "neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both"—i.e., constituting neither a single large unitary state nor a league/confederation among several small states, but a hybrid of the two forms—according to Madison;"The Federalist No. 39".[8]
Notably, in the course of the nineteenth century in the United States, the meaning of federalism shifted, now referring uniquely to the novel compound-political form established at thePhiladelphia Constitution Convention—while the meaning of confederalism remained as a league of states.[9]
In a narrow sense, federalism refers to the mode in which thebody politic of a state is organized internally—and this is the meaning most often used in modern times. Political scientists, however, use the term federalism in a much broader sense, referring instead to a "multi-layer or pluralistic concept of social and political life."[10]
Modern federalism is a political system that (nominally) is based upon operating underdemocratic rules and institutions; and where governing powers are shared between a country's national and provincial/state governments. However, the termfederalist comprises various political practices that differ in important details among the (so-called) federalist nations—some of which aredemocratic in name only (e.g., modernRussia)—leaving the terms "federalist", "federalism", "federation", etc., dependent on context. And, because the termfederalization also proclaims distinctive political processes, its use also depends on context.[12]
Typically, political theory today discusses two main types of the federalization process:
integrative,[13](or aggregative) federalization,[14]which encompasses several political processes, including: 1) transforming aconfederation into a federation; 2) incorporating non-federated population(s) into an existing federation; or 3) integrating a non-federated population by creating a new or revised federation.
devolutive,[13](or dis-aggregative) federalization:[15] 1) transforming aunitary state into a federation.
According toDaniel Ziblatt, there are four competing theoretical explanations for adopting a federal system:
Ideational theories, which hold: that among subunit population(s), a greater ideological commitment todecentralist ideas makes federalism more likely to be sought and adopted.
Cultural-historical theories: that in societies withculturally or ethnically fragmented populations, federalized subunits are more likely to be favored and adopted.
"Social contract" theories: that federalism emerges via a bargaining process between the center and a periphery (subunit)—where the center is not powerful enough to dominate the periphery, but the periphery is not powerful enough to secede from the center, (e.g., modernIraq reKurdistan).
"Infrastructural power" theories: that federalism is likely to emerge for the subunit population that already has highly developed infrastructures, (e.g., they already are a constitutional, parliamentary, and administratively modernized state).[16]
Immanuel Kant noted that "the problem of setting up a state can be solved even by a nation of devils"[17]—if they possess a constitution that pits opposing factions against each other with a durable system of bindingchecks and balances. Essentially, particular states may use federation as a mechanism (a safeguard) against the possibilities of rebellion or war—or the rise of repressive government via a would-be dictator or a centralizedoligarchy.
Proponents of federal systems have historically argued that the structures of checks-and-balances and power-sharing that are inherent in a federal system reduces threats—both foreign and domestic. And federalism enables a state to beboth large and diverse, by mitigating the risk of a central government turning tyrannical.[18][19]
Countries around the world have implemented federal systems using variations of central and regional sovereignty for their governments. For convenience of studying these governments, they may be divided according to several categories, such as:minimalistic federations, which consist of only two sub-federal units (subunits); as compared tomulti-regional federations, consisting of three or more regional governments (subunits). Or, based on their bodypolity type: emirate, provincial, state,republicanism orconstitutional monarchy, democratic—ordemocratic in-name-only. And, federal systems may be differentiated between those whoseentire territory is federated, vs.only part of their territory is federated. Some systems are national while others, like theEuropean Union, are supra-national.
Two extremes of federalism are notable: 1) at one extreme, the strong federal state is almost completely unitary, with few powers reserved to local governments; 2) at the opposite extreme, the national government may be a federation in name-only, while actually operating as aconfederation, (see "pathway" graphic re regional integration or regional separation). Federalism may encompass as few as two or three internal divisions, as is the case inBelgium orBosnia and Herzegovina.
InCanada, federalism typically implies opposition tosovereignty movements—most commonly the question ofQuebec separatism.[20] In 1999, theGovernment of Canada established theForum of Federations as an international network for exchange of best practices among federal and federalizing countries. Headquartered inOttawa, the Forum of Federations partner governments include Australia, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan and Switzerland.
InEurope, "federalist" is sometimes used to describe those who favor a common federal government, with distributed power at regional, national and supranational levels. TheUnion of European Federalists advocates for this development within theEuropean Union, ultimately leading to theUnited States of Europe.[21] Although there are medieval and early modern examples of European states which used confederal and federal systems, contemporaryEuropean federalism originated in post-war Europe; one of the more important initiatives wasWinston Churchill's speech inZürich in 1946.[22]
In theUnited States, federalism originally referred to belief in a stronger central government. When the U.S. Constitution was being drafted, theFederalist Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" wanted a weaker central government. This is very different from the modern usage of "federalism" in Europe and the United States. The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between aconfederacy and aunitary state. The U.S. Constitution was written as a replacement for theArticles of Confederation, under which the United States was a loose confederation with a weak central government.
In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a weaker central government, relative to a unitary state. The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense. As the power of theU.S. federal government has increased, some people[who?] have perceived a much more unitary state than they believe theFounding Fathers intended. Most people politically advocating "federalism" in the United States argue in favor of limiting the powers of the federal government, especially thejudiciary (seeFederalist Society,New Federalism).
The contemporary concept of federalism came about with the creation of an entirely new system of government that provided for democratic representation at two governing levels simultaneously, which was implemented in theUS Constitution.[23][24] In the United States implementation of federalism, a bicameral general government, consisting of a chamber of popular representation proportional to population (the House of Representatives), and a chamber of equal State-based representation consisting of two delegates per State (the Senate), was overlaid upon the pre-existing regional governments of the thirteen independent States. With each level of government allocated a defined sphere of powers, under a written constitution and the rule of law (that is, subject to the independent third-party arbitration of a supreme court in competence disputes), the two levels were thus brought into a coordinate relationship[further explanation needed] for the first time.
In 1946,Kenneth Wheare observed that the two levels of government in the US were "co-equally supreme".[25][full citation needed] In this, he echoed the perspective of American founding father James Madison who saw the several States as forming "distinct and independent portions of the supremacy"[26] in relation to the general government.
Inanarchism, federalism is ahorizontalist anddecentralized organizational doctrine which holds that society should be built from the bottom-up, from the periphery to the centre. Higher-order units are merely thedirect expression of lower-order units delegating, combining and coordinating. Though there is no central government or administration, higher-ordercommittees andcouncils, composed of delegates from federal constituencies, may convene under apopular, revocable mandate.[27][28]
Embracing the principle offree andvoluntary association as the basis of a federal society, constituent entities of an anarchist federation are ideally autonomous and self-determining, collaborating equally, freely and mutually within the federation through the values ofsolidarity andautonomy.[29]
Comparing republican and anarchist federalism,James Guillaume states thatSwitzerland's federativecantonal system, despite itsdirect democracy, differs significantly from anarchist federalism: while Swiss federalism retains a state and provides only limited regional sovereignty, anarchist federalism as envisioned byPierre-Joseph Proudhon is stateless, providing every autonomy with absolute sovereignty and distinct individuality. TheSwiss constitution, in its support ofindivisibility andnationhood and its view that its cantons are mere territorial divisions rather than sovereign constituencies, is incompatible with anarchist federalism and its principles offree association,decentralization andautonomy.[27][31]
In a federation, the division of power between federal and regional governments is usually outlined in theconstitution. Almost every country allows some degree of regional self-government, but in federations the right to self-government of the component states is constitutionally entrenched. Component states often also possess their own constitutions which they may amend as they see fit, although in the event of conflict the federal constitution usually takes precedence.
In almost all federations the central government enjoys the powers of foreign policy and national defense asexclusive federal powers. Were this not the case a federation would not be a single sovereign state, per the UN definition. Notably, thestates of Germany retain the right to act on their own behalf at an international level, a condition originally granted in exchange for theKingdom of Bavaria's agreement to join theGerman Empire in 1871. The constitutions ofGermany and theUnited States provide that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states. The Constitution of some countries, likeCanada andIndia, state that powers not explicitly granted to the provincial/state governments are retained by the federal government. Much like the US system, the Australian Constitution allocates to the Federal government (the Commonwealth of Australia) the power to make laws about certain specified matters which were considered too difficult for the States to manage, so that the States retain all other areas of responsibility. Under the division of powers of the European Union in theLisbon Treaty, powers which are not either exclusively ofUnion competence or shared between the Union and the Member States asconcurrent powers are retained by the constituent States.
Satiric depiction of late 19th-century political tensions in Spain
Where every component state of a federation possesses the same powers, we are said to find 'symmetric federalism'.Asymmetric federalism exists where states are granted different powers, or some possess greater autonomy than others do. This is often done in recognition of the existence of a distinct culture in a particular region or regions. In Spain, theBasques andCatalans, as well as theGalicians, spearheaded a historic movement to have their national specificity recognized, crystallizing in the "historical communities" such asNavarre,Galicia,Catalonia, and theBasque Country. They have more powers than the later expanded arrangement for other Spanish regions, orthe Spain of the autonomous communities (called also the "coffee for everyone" arrangement), partly to deal with their separate identity and to appease peripheral nationalist leanings, partly out of respect tospecific rights they had held earlier in history. However, strictly speaking Spain is not a federation, but a system of asymmetric devolved government within a unitary state.
It is common that during the historical evolution of a federation there is a gradual movement of power from the component states to the centre, as the federal government acquires additional powers, sometimes to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The acquisition of new powers by a federal government may occur through formal constitutional amendment or simply through a broadening of the interpretation of a government's existing constitutional powers given by the courts.
Usually, a federation is formed at two levels: the central government and the regions (states, provinces, territories), and little to nothing is said about second or third level administrative political entities. Brazil is an exception, because the 1988 Constitution included the municipalities as autonomous political entities making the federation tripartite, encompassing the Union, the States, and the municipalities. Each state is divided into municipalities (municípios) with their own legislative council (câmara de vereadores) and a mayor (prefeito), which are partly autonomous from both Federal and State Government. Each municipality has a "little constitution", called "organic law" (lei orgânica). Mexico is an intermediate case, in that municipalities are granted full-autonomy by the federal constitution and their existence as autonomous entities (municipio libre, "free municipality") is established by the federal government and cannot be revoked by the states' constitutions. Moreover, the federal constitution determines which powers and competencies belong exclusively to the municipalities and not to theconstituent states. However, municipalities do not have an elected legislative assembly.
Federations often employ theparadox of being a union of states, while still being states (or having aspects ofstatehood) in themselves. For example, James Madison (author of theUnited States Constitution) wrote inFederalist Paper No. 39 that the US Constitution "is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the Government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national..." This stems from the fact that states in the US maintain allsovereignty that they do not yield to the federation by their own consent. This was reaffirmed by theTenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reserves all powers and rights that are not delegated to the Federal Government as left to the States and to the people.
The structures of most federal governments incorporate mechanisms to protect the rights of component states. One method, known as 'intrastate federalism', is to directly represent the governments of component states in federal political institutions. Where a federation has abicameral legislature theupper house is often used to represent the component states while thelower house represents the people of the nation as a whole. A federal upper house may be based on a special scheme ofapportionment, as is the case in thesenates of the United States and Australia, where each state is represented by an equal number of senators irrespective of the size of its population.
Alternatively, or in addition to this practice, the members of an upper house may be indirectly elected by the government or legislature of the component states, as occurred in the United Statesprior to 1913, or be actual members or delegates of the state governments, as, for example, is the case in theGerman Bundesrat and in theCouncil of the European Union. The lower house of a federal legislature is usually directly elected, with apportionment in proportion to population, although states may sometimes still be guaranteed a certain minimum number of seats.
In Canada, the provincial governments represent regional interests and negotiate directly with the central government. AFirst Ministers conference of the prime minister and the provincial premiers is thede facto highest political forum in the land, although it is not mentioned in the constitution.
Federations often have special procedures for amendment of the federal constitution. As well as reflecting the federal structure of the state this may guarantee that the self-governing status of the component states cannot be abolished without their consent. An amendment to the constitution of the United States must be ratified by three-quarters of either the state legislatures, or of constitutional conventions specially elected in each of the states, before it can come into effect. In referendums to amend the constitutions of Australia and Switzerland it is required that a proposal be endorsed not just by an overall majority of the electorate in the nation as a whole, but also by separate majorities in each of a majority of the states or cantons. In Australia, this latter requirement is known as adouble majority.
Some federal constitutions also provide that certain constitutional amendments cannot occur without the unanimous consent of all states or of a particular state. The US constitution provides that no state may be deprived of equal representation in the senate without its consent. In Australia, if a proposed amendment will specifically impact one or more states, then it must be endorsed in the referendum held in each of those states. Any amendment to the Canadian constitution that would modify the role of themonarchy would require unanimous consent of the provinces. TheGerman Basic Law provides that no amendment is admissible at all that would abolish the federal system.
Fiscal federalism – the relative financial positions and the financial relations between the levels of government in a federal system.
Formal federalism (or 'constitutional federalism') – the delineation of powers is specified in a written constitution, which may or may not correspond to the actual operation of the system in practice.
Executive federalism refers in the English-speaking tradition to the intergovernmental relationships between the executive branches of the levels of government in a federal system and in the continental European tradition to the way constituent units 'execute' or administer laws made centrally.
Gleichschaltung – the conversion from a federal governance to either a completely unitary or more unitary one, the term was borrowed from the German for conversion fromalternating todirect current.[33] During the Nazi era thetraditional German states were mostly left intact in the formal sense, but their constitutional rights and sovereignty were eroded and ultimately ended and replaced with theGau system.Gleichschaltung also has a broader sense referring to political consolidation in general.
defederalize – to remove from federal government, such as taking a responsibility from a national level government and giving it to states or provinces.
It has been argued that federalism and other forms of territorial autonomy are a useful way to structure political systems in order to prevent violence among different groups within countries because it allows certain groups to legislate at the subnational level.[34] Some scholars have suggested, however, that federalism can divide countries and result in state collapse because it creates proto-states.[35] Still others have shown that federalism is only divisive when it lacks mechanisms that encourage political parties to compete across regional boundaries.[36]
Federalism is sometimes viewed in the context of international negotiation as "the best system for integrating diverse nations, ethnic groups, or combatant parties, all of whom may have cause to fear control by an overly powerful center."[37] However, those skeptical of federal prescriptions sometimes believe that increasedregional autonomy can lead to secession or dissolution of the nation.[37] InSyria, for example, federalization proposals have failed in part because "Syrians fear that these borders could turn out to be the same as the ones that the fighting parties have currently carved out."[37]
^Grabill, Stephen J. (2013). "Althusius in context: A biographical and historical introduction". In Althusius, Johannes (ed.).On law and power. Sources in early modern economics, ethics, and law. Translated by Veenstra, Jeffrey J. Grand Rapids, Michigan:Christian's Library Press. p. xx.ISBN978-1-938948-59-6.
^Law, John (2013)."How can we define federalism?"(PDF).Perspectives on Federalism.5 (3). Turin, Italy: Centro Studi sul Federalismo:88–120, at p. 104.ISSN2036-5438. Archived fromthe original(PDF) on 2015-07-15. This author identifies two distinct federal forms, where before only one was known, based upon whethersovereignty (conceived in its core meaning of ultimate authority) resides in the whole (in one people) or in the parts (in many peoples). This is determined by the absence or presence of a unilateral right of secession for the parts. The structures are termed, respectively, the federal state (or federation) and the federal union of states (or federal union).
.JPG)
