This article lists the various types offederal systems in different countries.
Following the end ofWorld War II, several movements, including theUnion of European Federalists and theEuropean Movement (founded in 1948), began advocating a Europeanfederation. Those organizations exercised influence in the European unification process, but never in a decisive way.[citation needed]
Although the drafts of both theMaastricht Treaty and theTreaty establishing a Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the reference never made it to the text of the treaties adopted by consensus. The strongest advocates of European federalism have been Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg while those historically most strongly opposed have been the United Kingdom, Denmark[1] and France (with conservative heads of state and governments).[citation needed] Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981–1995), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours.
Those uncomfortable using the "F" word in the EU context should feel free to refer to it as a quasi-federal or federal-like system. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the analysis here, the EU has the necessary attributes of a federal system. It is striking that while many scholars of the EU continue to resist analyzing it as a federation, most contemporary students of federalism view the EU as a federal system (See for instance, Bednar, Filippov et al., McKay, Kelemen, Defigueido and Weingast). (R. Daniel Kelemen)[2]
TheFederal Republic of Cameroon operated between 1961 and 1972.
TheUnited States of Colombia operated between 1863 and 1886.
TheCzechoslovak Socialist Republic from 1969 to 1990 and then theCzech and Slovak Federative Republic, until the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic separated in 1993.
During theFrench Revolution, especially in 1793, "federalism" had an entirely different meaning. It was a political movement to weaken the central government in Paris by devolving power to the provinces.[3][4]
TheUnited Republic of Tanzania, formerly theUnited Republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar, was the union ofTanganyika andZanzibar, and maintained a two-part federal system. Currently it is a unitary state with Zanzibar retaining a degree of autonomy as afederated state.
TheFederal Republic of Yugoslavia, from 1992 to 2003 was a federal state until it became a confederation titled the State Union ofSerbia and Montenegro. This confederation expired 2006 asMontenegro declared its independence.
TheUnited Arab Emirates is afederalsemi-constitutional monarchy of seven emirates. Each emirate is an absolute monarchy headed by a ruler fromthe six ruling families of the United Arab Emirates. The president of the United Arab Emirates is elected by theFederal Supreme Council, a body formed of the rulers of each emirate. Theruler of Abu Dhabi isde facto elected as thepresident of the United Arab Emirates, while the office of vice president and prime ministerde facto held by theruling family of Dubai.[5]
Federalism in Argentina was the result of a long lasting debate and severalcivil wars after theMay Revolution of 1810 and subsequently,the independence in 1816. There were several failed attempts to establish bothunitary and federal governments. With the establishment of the first successful and currentconstitution in 1853, the debate was sealed and Argentina adopted a federal system.
At that time there were still several territories under federal administration which have since acquired provincial status, the last being the province ofTierra del Fuego in 1990. The city ofBuenos Aires was established as the seat of the federal government in 1853 and put underfederal administration in 1880. It remained under direct control of the federal government until the1994 constitutional amendment with which it acquired its present autonomous status which gives it a very similar degree of autonomy as the provinces.
In Canada the system of federalism is described by the division of powers between thefederal parliament and the country'sprovincial governments. Under theConstitution Act, 1867 (previously known as theBritish North America Act 1867), specific powers of legislation are allotted. Section 91 of the constitution gives rise to federal authority for legislation, whereas section 92 gives rise to provincial powers.
For matters not directly dealt with in the constitution, the federal government retains residual powers; however, conflicts between the two levels of government, relating to which level has legislative jurisdiction over various matters, have been a longstanding and evolving issue. Areas being contested include legislation with respect to regulation of the economy, taxation, and natural resources.
Nepal is a country withgeographical diversity. Nepal has been practising unitary form of government since unification byPrithvi Narayan Shah. However, this system was not able to achieve the development goals of the country and has been described as an "exclusive form of rule" by its critics.[citation needed] Federalism has been seen as the answer to solving regional inequality and reducing the economic, social and religious discrimination[citation needed]; the country has transformed into a federal structure as a result.
Nepal has become a federal democratic republican state since 28 May 2008 (15th Jestha, 2065 BS). According to the concept of a federal system, Nepal has been divided into 7provinces, 77districts and 753local levels. Now each province has a separate government along with its federal government at the centre.
Pakistan is a democraticfederalparliamentary republic.[7] Powers are shared between thefederal government and theprovinces. Relations between federation and provinces is defined in Part V (Articles 141–159) of theconstitution.[8]
Pakistan consists of four provinces and three territories, including theIslamabad Capital Territory.[6]
%2c_disputed_Crimea_and_Donbass.svg)
The post-Imperial nature of Russian subdivision of government changed towards a generally autonomous model which began with the establishment of theUSSR (of which Russia was governed as part). It was liberalized in theaftermath of the Soviet Union, with the reforms underBoris Yeltsin preserving much of the Soviet structure while applying increasingly liberal reforms to the governance of the constituent republics and subjects (while also coming into conflict with Chechen secessionist rebels during theChechen War). Some of the reforms under Yeltsin were scaled back byVladimir Putin.
All of Russia's subdivisional entities are known as subjects, with some smaller entities, such as the republics enjoying more autonomy than other subjects on account of having an extant presence of a culturally non-Russian ethnic minority or, in some cases, majority.
Currently, there are 83 federal subjects of Russia, excluding disputed territories in Ukraine. If those subjects are included, there are 89 federal subjects of the Russian Federation.
On 1 January 1901, the dominion of Australia officially came into existence as a federation. TheAustralian continent was colonised in 1788 by the United Kingdom, which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all heldreferendums on becoming the unified, self-governing "Commonwealth of Australia" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, theFederation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a generally parliamentaryWestminster system rather than a presidential system.[9][10] Various aspects of the Parliament are more heavily inspired by theUnited States Congress however, notably the Senate.
In Brazil, thefall of the monarchy in 1889 by a militarycoup d'état led to the rise of thepresidential system, headed byDeodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known juristRuy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by everyBrazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 federal government had the authority to appoint State Governors (calledintervenors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of PresidentGetúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.
TheBrazilian Constitution of 1988 introduced a new component to the ideas of federalism, includingmunicipalities as federal entities. Brazilian municipalities are now invested with some of the traditional powers usually granted to states in federalism.
Ethiopia has over 80 ethno-linguistic groups and the new Constitution which was introduced in 1994, dividing Ethiopia on ethnic lines into nine regional states and two multiethnic "chartered administrations" (Addis Ababa and Diredawa).[10][14]:54–55 Ethnic groups received rights to self-government:[8] the states were given autonomy in legislative, executive and judicial functions,[15]:8 while there were provisions for ethnic groups to be represented in central institutions. Ethnic groups were granted the "unconditional right" to secession,[14]:55 although it is doubtful whether any group could in fact achieve this.[16][15]:22 The government was aiming not only to reduce inter-ethnic conflict but to equalise living standards in different areas and improve the working of public institutions locally.
Germany and the European Union present the only examples of federalism in the world where members of the federal "upper houses" (the GermanBundesrat, i.e. the Federal Council; and theEuropean Council) are neither elected nor appointed but comprise members or delegates of the governments of their constituents. The United States had a similar system until 1913, where prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were delegates of the state elected by the state legislatures rather than the citizens.
Already theHoly Roman Empire, theConfederation of the Rhine, theGerman Confederation, theNorth German Confederation, theGerman Empire and theWeimar Republic were federal complexes of territories of different political structures. Modern Germany abandoned federalism only duringNazism (1933–1945, only de facto but not de jure) and in theGerman Democratic Republic (1952–1990).Adolf Hitler viewed federalism as an obstacle to his goals. As he wrote inMein Kampf, "National Socialism must claim the right to impose its principles on the whole German nation, without regard to what were hitherto the confines of federal states."[page needed]
Accordingly, the idea of a strong, centralized government has very negative connotations in German politics, although the progressive political movements in Germany (Liberals, Social Democrats) were advocating at the time of the Second German Empire (1871–1918) to abolish (or to reshape) the majority of German federated states of that era, as they were considered to be mostly monarchist remnants of the feudal structures of the Middle Ages.[11]
TheGovernment of India (referred to as theUnion Government) is the governing authority of afederal union of28 states and 8 union territories.
The government of India is based on a three tiered system, in which theConstitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and theState governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form ofPanchayats andMunicipalities. In the current arrangement, TheSeventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:
A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of federalism, it is asymmetric and gives limitedautonomy to only someIndian states.[12]Article 370 of the Constitution of India made special provisions for the state ofJammu and Kashmir as per itsInstrument of Accession but it wasrevoked in 2019. Article 371 makes special provisions for the states ofAndhra Pradesh,Arunachal Pradesh,Assam,Goa,Gujarat,Karnataka,Maharashtra,Manipur,Mizoram,Nagaland andSikkim as per their accession or state-hood deals. One more aspect of Indian federalism is the system ofPresident's Rule in which the central government (through its appointed Governor) takes control of a state's administration for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent disturbance in the state.
Although the constitution does not say so, India is now a multilingual federation.[12] India has a multi-party system, with political allegiances frequently based on linguistic and regional identities,[13] necessitating coalition politics, especially at theUnion level. India has generally two main groups known as the NDA and the UPA.
Malaysia is afederalconstitutional monarchy. Its monarchy is elective, with the nine rulers and four state leaders (representing states with their respective sultanates abolished) meet at theConference of Rulers to elect the next monarch every five years, or if the position becomes vacant for any reason. There is also a custom of rotation of the monarchy between the nine rulers. A legacy of British colonial rule, the federation's system of government is modelled closely on theWestminster parliamentary system. There exists alower andupper house. Governance of the states is divided between thefederal and thestate governments, with different powers reserved for each, and the federal government has direct administration of the federal territories. Legislative powers are divided between state and federal assemblies, with elections being held every five years.
Before British rule, Malaysia as it is today, was composed of separate sultanates and states. TheFederated Malay States was the first instance of federalism being introduced in the Malay Peninsula.Penang,Malacca andSingapore were ruled as part of theStraits Settlements. In Borneo,British North Borneo joined the federation as the state ofSabah, along with a briefly independentRaj of Sarawak as the state ofSarawak.Singapore became independent after being ejected from the federation, due to differences between the central government and the state's ownPeople's Action Party, which still rules Singapore until today.
The nature of Malaysia's formation from various levels of colonial administrations made its federal government very extensive and highly centralised akin to aunitary state, its power became more consolidated duringMahathir Mohamad's term as prime minister.[14]
The United Mexican States (Mexico) is a federal state consisting of 32 federal with its capital Mexico City.
TheFederal Republic of Nigeria has various states which haveevolved over time due to complexsocioeconomic issues as well as the effect of theircolonial era. However, in modern Nigeria there are 36 states and one federal capital territory:Abia,Adamawa,Akwa Ibom,Anambra,Bauchi,Bayelsa,Benue,Borno,Cross River,Delta,Ebonyi,Enugu,Edo,Ekiti,Gombe,Imo,Jigawa,Kaduna,Kano,Katsina,Kebbi,Kogi,Kwara,Lagos,Nasarawa,Niger,Ogun,Ondo,Osun,Oyo,Plateau,Rivers,Sokoto,Taraba,Yobe, andZamfara, and theFederal Capital Territory (FCT).
Federalism in the United States is the evolving relationship betweenstate governments and thefederal government of the United States. American government has evolved from a system of dual federalism to one of associative federalism. In "Federalist No. 46", James Madison asserted that the states and national government "are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers."Alexander Hamilton, writing in "Federalist No. 28", suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens' benefit: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress."[15]
Because the states were pre-existing political entities (although almost none was ever an independent state, rather colonies, provinces or later created entities), the U.S. Constitution did not need to define or explain federalism in any one section but it often mentions the rights and responsibilities of state governments and state officials in relation to the federal government. The federal government has certainexpress powers (also calledenumerated powers) which are powers spelled out in the Constitution, including the right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In addition, theNecessary and Proper Clause gives the federal government theimplied power to pass any law "necessary and proper" for the execution of its express powers. Other powers—thereserved powers—are reserved to the people or the states.[16] The power delegated to the federal government was significantly expanded by the Supreme Court decision inMcCulloch v. Maryland (1819), amendments to the Constitution following theCivil War, and by some later amendments—as well as the overall claim of the Civil War, that the states were legally subject to the final dictates of the federal government.
TheFederalist Party of the United States was opposed by theDemocratic-Republicans, including powerful figures such asThomas Jefferson. The Democratic-Republicans mainly believed that: the Legislature had too much power (mainly because of theNecessary and Proper Clause) and that they were unchecked; the Executive had too much power, and that there was no check on the executive; a dictator would arise; and that a bill of rights should be coupled with the constitution to prevent a potential dictator from exploiting or tyrannizing citizens. The federalists said that it was impossible to list all the rights, and those that were not listed could be easily overlooked because they were not in the official bill of rights. Rather, rights in specific cases were to be decided by the judicial system of courts.
After theAmerican Civil War, the federal government increased greatly in influence on everyday life and in size relative to the state governments. Reasons included the need to regulate businesses and industries that span state borders, attempts to secure civil rights, and the provision of social services. The federal government acquired no substantial new powers until the acceptance by the Supreme Court of theSherman Antitrust Act.
From 1938 until 1995, theU.S. Supreme Court did not invalidate any federal statute as exceeding Congress' power under theCommerce Clause. Most actions by the federal government can find some legal support among the express powers, such as theCommerce Clause, whose applicability has been narrowed by the Supreme Court in recent years. In 1995, the Supreme Court rejected theGun-Free School Zones Act in the Lopez decision, and also rejected the civil remedy portion of theViolence Against Women Act of 1994 in theUnited States v. Morrison decision. Recently, the Commerce Clause was interpreted to include marijuana laws in theGonzales v. Raich decision.
Dual federalism holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign.
However, since the Civil War Era, the national courts often interpret the federal government as the final judge of its own powers under dual federalism. The establishment ofNative American governments (which areseparate and distinct from state and federal government) exercising limited powers ofsovereignty, has given rise to the concept of "bi-federalism".
TheFederal War ended in 1864 with the signing of the Treaty of Coche by both the centralist government of the time and the Federal Forces. TheUnited States of Venezuela were subsequently incorporated under a "Federation of Sovereign States" upon principles borrowed from theArticles of Confederation of the United States of America. In this Federation, each State had a "President" of its own that controlled almost every issue, even the creation of "State Armies," while the Federal Army was required to obtain presidential permission to enter any given state.
However, more than 140 years later, the original system has gradually evolved into a quasi-centralist form of government. While the1999 Constitution still defines Venezuela as a Federal Republic, it abolished the Senate, transferred competences of the States to the Federal Government and granted the President of the Republic vast powers to intervene in the States and Municipalities.
 | This section may contain informationnotimportant or relevant to the article's subject. Please helpimprove this section.(September 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Federalism in the Kingdom of Belgium is an evolving system.
Belgian federalism is a twin system which reflects both the
On one hand, this means that theBelgian political landscape, generally speaking, consists of only two components: the Dutch-speaking population represented by Dutch-languagepolitical parties, and the majority populations of Wallonia and Brussels, represented by their French-speaking parties. The Brussels region emerges as a third component.[20] This specific dual form of federalism, with the special position of Brussels, consequently has a number of political issues—even minor ones—that are being fought out over the Dutch/French-language political division. With such issues, a final decision is possible only in the form of a compromise. This tendency gives this dual federalism model a number of traits that generally are ascribed toconfederalism, and makes the future of Belgian federalism contentious.[21][22]
Belgian federalism is federated with three components. An affirmative resolution concerning Brussels' place in the federal system passed in the parliaments ofWallonia and Brussels.[23][24] These resolutions passed against the desires of Dutch-speaking parties, who are generally in favour of a federal system with two components (i.e. the Dutch and French Communities of Belgium). However, the Flemish representatives in theParliament of the Brussels Capital-Region voted in favour of the Brussels resolution, with the exception ofone party. The chairman of theWalloon Parliament stated on July 17, 2008 that "Brussels would take an attitude".[25] Brussels' parliament passed the resolution on July 18, 2008:
This aspect of Belgian federalism helps to explain the difficulties ofpartition; Brussels, with its importance, is linked to both Wallonia and Flanders andvice versa. This situation, however, does not erase the traits of a confederation in the Belgian system.
Bosnia and Herzegovina is a federation of twoentities:Republika Srpska andFederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the latter itself a federation.
Official flag ofKurdistan Region of Iraq (flag ratio is 2:3)Iraq adapted a federal system on 15 October 2005, and formed theKurdistan Region as the country's first and currently only federal region, with the method of creating federal entities enshrined in theConstitution of Iraq.
St. Kitts and Nevis is a federation of twoentities: The island ofSt. Kitts and the island ofNevis. Uniquely while Nevis has its own semi-autonomousNevis Island Assembly, St Kitts is directly administered by the federalNational Assembly and lacks its owndevolved government.
Although South Africa bears some elements of a federal system, such as the allocation of certain powers to provinces, it is nevertheless constitutionally and functionally a devolved unitary state.[26]
Spain is a unitary state with a high level of decentralisation, often regarded as a federal system in all but name or a "federation without federalism".[27] The country has been quoted as being "an extraordinarily decentralized country", with the central government accounting for just 18% of public spending,[28] 38% for the regional governments, 13% for the local councils, and the remaining 31% for thesocial security system.[29] Thecurrent Spanish constitution has been implemented in such a way that, in many respects, Spain can be compared to countries which are undeniably federal.[30]
However, in order to manage the tensions present in theSpanish transition to democracy, the drafters of the current Spanish constitution avoided giving labels such as 'federal' to the territorial arrangements.[31] Besides, unlike in the federal system, the main taxes are taken centrally from Madrid (except for the Basque Country and Navarre, which were recognized in the Spanish democratic constitution ascharter territories drawing from historical reasons) and then distributed to theAutonomous Communities.
An explicit and legal recognition of federalism as such has been promoted by parties such asPodemos,United Left and theSpanish Socialist Workers' Party. The Spanish Socialist party considered the idea of enshrining a federal Spain in 2012, as meeting point between separatist and recentralizing proposals.[32]
It has been proposed in severalunitary states to establish a federal system, for various reasons.
China is the largest unitary state in the world by both population and land area. Although China has had long periods of central rule for centuries, it is often argued that the unitary structure of the Chinese government is far too unwieldy to effectively and equitably manage the country's affairs.Chinese nationalists are suspicious of decentralization as a form of secessionism and a backdoor for national disunity; still others argue that the degree of autonomy given toprovincial-level officials in the People's Republic of China amounts to ade facto federalism.
The 1960Constitution of Cyprus was based on the idea of a two-part federalisation[citation needed], but the union ofGreek Cypriots andTurkish Cypriots failed.
Indonesia had been in federation from 1949, and dissolved in 1950. Since then, many people, especially in the 2000s, proposed Indonesia to go back to federated, but on different systems.
On May 20, 2019, the former Chief Justice of theConstitutional Court of Indonesia who is also an expert on constitutional lawMahfud MD gave his response regarding the proposal of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia to return to the United States of Indonesia. He stated that Indonesia could be federated again if people agreed. He also stated that if people agreed to go back to federation, the Indonesian government could make a newresultante.[33]
A new amendment is proposed because people, especially East Indonesians, argue that the unitary system makes East Indonesians feel disappointed with the existence of distributive justice that is far from expectations, a discriminatory political system, to the oligarchy that has gripped strongly from the center of power to the regions.[34]
Shortly after the2011 civil war, some people inCyrenaica (in the eastern region of the country) began to call for the new regime to be federal, with the traditional three regions of Libya (Cyrenaica,Tripolitania, andFezzan) being the constituent units. A group calling itself the "Cyrenaican Transitional Council" issued a declaration of autonomy on 6 March 2012; this move was rejected by theNational Transitional Council inTripoli.[35][36][37]
The changes in the state structure that composes the national government in Naypyitaw and the state/regional governments and the federal negotiations between the national government and ethnic minority armed forces said to be the first step of federalism in Myanmar.[38] Former president of Myanmar, Thein Sein supported the federalization of Myanmar as he said federalization can promote national stability.[39]
_map.svg)
The Philippines is a unitary state with some powers devolved toLocal Government Units (LGUs) under the terms of theLocal Government Code. There is also one autonomous region,Bangsamoro. Over the years,various modifications have been proposed to theConstitution of the Philippines, including possible transition to a federal system as part of a shift to asemi-presidential system. In 2004,Philippine PresidentGloria Macapagal Arroyo established the Consultative Commission which suggested such a Charter Change but no action was taken by thePhilippine Congress to amend the 1987 Constitution. The push for federalism was again revived under the administration ofRodrigo Duterte in 2016.
Federalism has long been advocated as a means of resolving the ethnic issues and unbalanced development inSri Lanka. As the unitary state has resulted in uneven development across Sri Lanka theWestern Province dominates over the other 8 provinces. Despite declining regional disparity Western province continues to contribute most to theGross Domestic Product (GDP) contributing 42% of the GDP while the second highest theSouthern Province only represents 10.8% of the GDP whileUva andNorthern provinces representing the least with 5% and 3.6% respectively. Other provinces also have trouble attracting capitals. This has resulted in calls for the abolishing of the unitary system and powers being devolved.[40][41][42]
The federalization of Syria has been proposed as a way to end theSyrian Civil War.[43][44][45][46][47] In the broadest sense, it means turning thecentralizedSyrian Arab Republic into afederal republic with autonomous subdivisions. Many powers and actors involved in the Syrian Civil War have entertained the idea of "federal division", not least among themRussia,United Nations representatives, and theUnited States.[45] PresidentBashar al-Assad has not ruled out the possibility of a federal democratic state of Syria. In particular,Turkey is strongly hostile towards the idea of a federalization of Syria because it fears possible repercussions for its own highly centralized state.[citation needed]
Due to the fact that federalization would more or less follow ethnic and possibly also religious-sectarian lines, it has been dismissed as "division of the country" and "Balkanization" by its opponents.[44][46] Mainstream institutions of theSyrian opposition based in Turkey orQatar like theSyrian National Council and theNational Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces have consistently rejected the idea of federalization,[45] while in particularKurds in Syria have promoted the idea.[45] TheEgypt-based opposition partySyria's Tomorrow Movement takes an intermediate position.[48][49]
In the United Kingdom, anImperial Federation was once seen as (inter alia) a method of solving theHome Rule problem in Ireland; in the late nineties, the Liberal Democrates proposed it as a solution to the "Irish Problem" and the "West Lothian question".[50]
The United Kingdom has traditionally been governed as aunitary state by theWestminster Parliament inLondon. Instead of adopting a federal model, the UK has relied on gradualdevolution to decentralise political power. Devolution in the UK began with theGovernment of Ireland Act 1914 which grantedhome rule to Ireland as a constituent country of the formerUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Following thepartition of Ireland in 1921 which saw the creation of the sovereignIrish Free State (which eventually evolved into the modern day Republic of Ireland), Northern Ireland retained its devolved government through theParliament of Northern Ireland, the only part of the UK to have such a body at this time. This body was suspended in 1972 and Northern Ireland was governed bydirect rule during the period of conflict known asThe Troubles.
In modern times, a process ofdevolution in the United Kingdom has decentralised power once again. Since the1997 referendums in Scotland andWales and theGood Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, three of the fourconstituent countries of the UK now have some level of autonomy. Government has been devolved to theScottish Parliament, theNational Assembly for Wales and theNorthern Ireland Assembly.[51][52] England does not have its own parliament and English affairs continue to be decided by the Westminster Parliament. In 1998 a set of eight unelectedRegional assemblies, or chambers, was created to support theEnglish Regional Development Agencies, but these were abolished between 2008 and 2010. TheRegions of England continue to be used in certain governmental administrative functions.
Critics of devolution often cite theWest Lothian question, which refers to the voting power of non-English MPs on matters affecting only England in the UK Parliament.Scottish andWelsh nationalism have been increasing in popularity, and since the2014 Scottish independence referendum there has been a wider debate about the UK adopting a federal system with each of the fourhome nations having its own, equal devolved legislatures and law-making powers.[53]
UK federal government was proposed as early as 1912 by theMember of Parliament for Dundee,Winston Churchill, in the context of the legislation for Irish Home Rule. In a speech inDundee on 12 September, he proposed that England should also be governed by regional parliaments, with power devolved to areas such as Lancashire, Yorkshire, the Midlands and London as part of a federal system of government.[54][55]
The 2013–2014National Dialogue Conference concluded that Yemen would adopt federalism in an attempt to resolve thepolitical crisis that began with theYemeni Revolution in 2011. Under the federal system, Yemen's full name would become theFederal Republic of Yemen.[56] A committee organized by Yemeni PresidentAbdrabbuh Mansur Hadi determined that Yemen would be split into six federal regions: Azal,Saba,Tihama, Aden, Janad, andHadhramaut.[57] Azal, Saba, Janad and Tihama would have been northern provinces whereas Aden and Hadhramaut would have been southern.[58]Sana'a, the capital, was to become afederal city and would not have been part of any region.Aden, the former capital of South Yemen, would have been a part of the Aden region, but would have had special legislative and executive powers.[59] Each region was to be further divided into states, which would have taken the place of Yemen's existinggovernorates.[60] The conclusions of the Conference formed the basis of a new constitution, which was to be put to a referendum in 2015.[61]
The plan for a six-region federation received international praise, but was denounced by many within Yemen.[62] TheSouthern Movement suspected that the division of the south into two regions was an attempt to turn southern secessionists against each other; they preferred a two-region division between the north and the south. TheZaidi elites in the Azal region would have been left with almost no natural resources, whereas the sparsely populated Saba and Hadhramaut regions would have received nearly all of the country's natural resources.[63] Meanwhile, theHouthis were outraged that the plan would have landlocked their home governorate ofSaada. The referendum on the new federal constitution was indefinitely delayed by the intensification of theYemeni Civil War in 2015.[61] Some commentators have cited Hadi's federalization plan as one of the main causes of the civil war.[63]
On 20 June 2023, theNational Hadhrami Council was formed marking the first steps for the transformation.
After careful research and analysis of various sources and the constitution, it can be confirmed that the government system in the Republic of South Africa is a unitary system. Observance of the government in action as well as analysis of the constitution has contributed to this confirmation. Despite the delocalisation enjoyed within the republic, the federal principle is not evident enough and it failed Wheare's very simple federal test right in the beginning
