FEDERALISM

Introduction
Federalism is one of the most important and dynamic aspects of discourse in the political
sphere of democratic governance and unity. It is basically intended to create and sustain a
united polity and coherent society in multicultural and diverse societal realities. Over
centuries and decades, federalism has been evolving through several experiences of ruler
vs. subjects, public vs. government, and constituent units vs. federal unit which in common
signify the necessity and importance of the human concern for widening the space for
‘unity’ in diversity. Federalism, which succeeded in most of the modern liberal democracies
operational in modern societies, has now entered a new phase of broader political
integration. Modern developments in transportation, social communications, technology,
globalization and other modern means of interactions have all contributed to such a
paradigm shift in the modern world. However, the relevance of federalism has remarkably
grown over the years due to its inherent viability of institutional and operational
mechanisms in forging unity in diversity.

Meaning/definitions of federalism
Federalism is not a descriptive but a normative term that advocates multi-layered
governments combining elements of self-rule and shared-rule. It is premised upon the
expectation and rationality of promoting unity in diversity by accommodating, preserving
and representing distinct identities within a larger political union. In the opinion of
Ronald L. Watts, the essence of federalism as a normative principle is the perpetuation
of both union and non-centralisation at the same time. In other words, federalism aims
at achieving some degree of political integration based on the wisdom of diversities to
compromise upon the common goal of sustaining unity.
There are few important factors to consider while studying federalism. They are :
1. There is a distinction between constitutional form and operational reality. In many
federations political practices had changed the way constitution operates. For e.g., in
Canada and India the initial constitution was quasi federal with overriding power to
the centre. But in Canada this power has been in disuse and in India the operational
reality has been changed to come closer to full fledged federalism.
2. While knowledge about structural characters is important equally important is
knowing nature of its political process. Significant characteristics of political process
include strong predisposition to democracy, non centralisation, checks and balances
to avoid concentration of powers, respect to constitutionalism
3. Federal process maybe consociation, territorial or maybe both.

WHY FEDERALISM?
America’s experience with the short-lived American Confederation Congress (1781–89) had
them adopt a federal constitution in 1787 and is also regarded as the first modern
federation in the history of federations. If we look back to the medieval period, we can see a
lot of self-governing countries like Italy, Germany and Switzerland forming confederations.
Swiss confederation established in 1291 is said to be one of the earliest confederacies. Since
then, a lot of confederations came into existence. But soon countries became aware of its
deficiencies and were reluctant to establish a strong central government which led to the
Philadelphia convention of 1787. A second factor influencing the formation of federations is
the existence of an external threat, or a desire to play a more effective role in international
affairs. Small, strategically vulnerable states, for instance, have a powerful incentive to enter
broader political unions. A third factor is geographical size. It is no coincidence that many of
the territorially largest states in the world have opted to introduce federal systems. This was
true of the USA, and it also applied to Canada (federated in 1867), Brazil (1891), Australia
(1901), Mexico (1917) and India (1947). The final factor encouraging the adoption of
federalism is cultural and ethnic heterogeneity. Federalism, in short, has often been an
institutional response to societal divisions and diversities. Canada’s ten provinces, for
instance, reflect not only longestablished regional traditions, but also language and cultural
differences between English-speaking and French-speaking parts of the country. India’s 25
self-governing states were defined primarily by language but, in the case of statessuch as
Punjab and Kashmir, also take religious differences into account.

Features
Federal systems are based on a compromise between unity and regional diversity, between
the need for an effective central power and the need for checks or constraints on that
power. Over one-third of the world’s population is governed by states that have some kind
of federal structure. These states include the USA, Brazil, Pakistan, Australia, Mexico,
Switzerland, Nigeria, Malaysia and Canada. Although no two federal structures are identical,
the central feature of each is a sharing of sovereignty between central and peripheral
institutions. More features are described below
 Power concentration: The hierarchy of power in federal government system starts
from the federal level and then flows to the state and then local level. In the federal
system, power is jointly shared between the state and federal government. The
advantage of federalism is that it combines a degree of national government unity
with a constitutionally entrenched degree of independence for lower levels of
government, variously named states, regions, or provinces.
 Constitutional limitations: federal systems contain middle-level territorial units of
government (states, provinces, regions) which have a guaranteed status in the
constitution that gives them a degree of independence and autonomy from the
central government.
 Two relatively autonomous levels of government: Both central government (the
federal level) and regional government (the state level) possess a range of powers on
which the other cannot encroach. These include, at least, a measure of legislative
and executive authority, and the capacity to raise revenue; thus enjoying a degree of
 fiscal independence. However, the specific fields of jurisdiction of each level of
government, and the capacity of each to influence the other, vary considerably.
 Geography: Federal decentralisation works best in countries that are large
geographically, or where different social groups in the population are concentrated
in particular regions.
 Written constitution: The responsibilities and powers of each level of government
are defined in a codified or ‘written’ constitution. The relationship between the
centre and the periphery is therefore conducted within a formal legal framework.
The autonomy of each level is usually guaranteed by the fact that neither is able to
amend the constitution unilaterally; for example, in Australia and Switzerland
amendments to the constitution must also be ratified by an affirmative referendum

 there are different forms of federalism: some have many units of sub-central
government, others only a few, some reserve powerful functions for the centre
(Canada, India), others give them to the states (Australia, Switzerland, the USA);
some specify carefully the functions and powers of each level of government others
assume that powers and functions not specifically assigned to one level will be the
responsibility of the other.
 Local government is normally under the general oversight of the states, not the
federal government. This means that each state or province can determine its own
system of local government, with the result that they can vary in a bewildering
variety of ways
 Special Judiciary: In a federation, there are possibilities of constitutional disputes
arising between the federal centre and the units or between one unit and another.
All these disputes are to be adjudicated in the light of the constitution. For this
purpose a special judiciary with wide powers must be established.

OTHER FORMS OF GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEMS

All modern states are divided on a territorial basis between central (national) and peripheral
(regional, provincial or local) institutions. The two most common forms of territorial
organization found in the modern world are the federal and unitary systems. A third form,
confederation, has generally proved to be unsustainable. So now Let us know more about
the features of confederations and unitary government along with its differences with
federal system in detail to understand the concept of federalism more clearly.

CONFEDERATIONS
The term ‘confederation’ is often confused with ‘federation’, because the terms sound
similar and have much in common. Confederations are formed by other organizations that
want to cooperate with each other on a generally specific interest while preserving their
independent identity and not merge completely into a single, larger body. Confederations
include international organizations such as NATO, the UN and the United Arab
Emirates.
Confederations do not encroach upon the sovereign autonomy of their members who can
leave the confederation when they please, whereas federations are created by a pooling of
sovereignty that binds their constituent units together. One of the earliest confederations
was the Swiss Confederacy, dating back to 1315 (some say even to 1291).
Confederations are looser knit than federations that is why most of them are weaker, less
centralized and less stable than federal states and all have a narrow range of functions
and duties. The short-lived American Confederation Congress (1781–89) highlights the main
problem of such groupings – they are often too loose and powerless to achieve much, and
sometimes they fall apart.
Confederations are formed by all sorts of organisations for all sorts of purposes, and they
operate at all levels of the political system, from the most local to the most global. Trade
unions, business associations, professional organisations, churches and sports clubs often
form confederations around their common interests. However, international confederations
are particularly well suited to the needs of countries that want to retain their independent
identity and autonomy while cooperating with other countries on specific matters such as
economic development, defence, environmental policy or cultural affairs. The World Trade
Organisation (WTO), the World Bank (IBRD and IDA) and the European Space Agency (ESA)
are examples of international government confederations.

UNITARY SYSTEM
The vast majority of contemporary states have unitary systems of government. The unitary
government system is based on the concept of consistency, unity, and identity that’s why
the centralization of power and authority system remains at the top priority. UK, Afghanistan,
Italy, China, Saudi Arabia, Spain, etc., are the important examples of unitary government Let us look
into the features of the unitary system.
 Power concentration: Unitary government is a kind of government system in which a
single power, which is known as the central government, controls the whole
government. It is thus largely centralised than the federal system.
 Constitutional limitations: sub-central units of government [units below the central
government] in unitary states are the creatures of central government, which
creates them and which can reform, restructure, or abolish them without
constitutional limitation.
 Local government are under control of the central government. How central
government changes local government in a unitary system is a sensitive political
issue, of course, and there may be severe limitations to what it can do, but this is a
political, not a constitutional, matter.
 Single Government: In a unitary government, there is a single set of governmental
apparatus. There is a single supreme legislature, single executive body and one
supreme judiciary. England, for example, is a unitary state. She has one parliament
as her legislature, the King-in-Council as the executive and the judicial committee of
the House of Lords as her supreme judiciary.
 Devolution: Devolution, establishes the greatest possible measure of
decentralization in a unitary system of government. It occurs where higher levels of
government grant decision-making powers to lower levels while maintaining their
constitutionally subordinate status.
  No Special Judiciary: There is no need of having a special judiciary with wide powers
of judicial veto in a unitary government. Even the highest court of U.K., for example,
cannot sit in judgment over the law passed by Parliament.
 Geography: Unitary states are usually smaller than federal ones in terms of both
population and territory. Japan is the largest unitary state.
Pros and Cons of unitary Systems
Authority in unitary states can be absurdly overcentralized. Local government may not be
able to install a traffic light or bus stop without permission from the capital. This leads
citizens to ignore local affairs and produces political alienation.
Centralization of power, however, can be an advantage in facing modern problems. Clear
lines of authority without excess bickering among units of government can be useful. In
unitary systems, the capital can marshal economic resources and coordinate planning and
development. Taxation is nearly the same nationwide, so firms and individuals do not flee to
low-tax states, as in the United States. Education standards can be high and uniform, as in
Japan.
UNITARY AND FEDERAL SYSTEM IN PRACTICE

 In the first place, some unitary states have quasi-federal features such as a degree of
‘home rule’ for special areas. These include the island of Åland (Finland), Corsica
(France), the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man (the UK), Scotland, Northern
Ireland and Wales, etc. Spain is a unitary state but it gives some regions (notably
Catalonia and the Basque Country) so much autonomy that it might be called a semi-
federal or regional system. Japan gives a certain amount of autonomy to its subunits,
but they, too, tug in a quasi-federal direction. Japan has forty-three prefectures plus
its three largest cities and its thinly populated northern- most island, each with an
elected governor and unicameral assembly. In other words, unitary states can be
rather variable and flexible, and not as highly centralised as they first seem. In a
word, they also devolve power to lower levels of government.
 Second, central and local government depend upon each other, even in the most
centralised of states, such as the UK and France. Just as central government in Paris
relies upon the cooperation of local officials in the communes and departments, so
local officials depend upon Paris for resources and support. Each has to negotiate
and cooperate with the other to some extent, as in federal systems
 Third, federal systems are tending towards greater centralisation. As countries
become internally more integrated, and as they face the pressures of globalisation,
also to reduce economic inequalities between regions, and in order to implement
national minimum standards of service provision, federal governments have
assumed greater control over some national affairs. Some federal systems have
become more centralised
 Although there is a tendency for federal and unitary states to converge, they still
remain distinct as central government in unitary states usually accounts for a higher
 proportion of public expenditure and employment than central government in
federal states.

Unitary, federal and confederal government compared

Having described the operations of federal, confederal, and unitary government in theory
and practice, we can now compare their advantages and disadvantages.
Assessment of federalism
One of the chief strengths of federal systems is that, unlike unitary systems, they give
regional and local interests a constitutionally guaranteed political voice. The states or
provinces exercise a range of autonomous powers and enjoy some measure of
representation in central government
A second advantage of federalism is that, in diffusing government power, it
creates a network of checks and balances that helps to protect individual liberty. Despite a
worldwide tendency towards centralization, federal systems
such as those in the USA, Australia and Canada have usually been more effective in
constraining national politicians than have been unitary systems.
Finally, federalism has provided an institutional mechanism through which
fractured societies have maintained unity and coherence. In this respect, the
federal solution may be appropriate only to a limited number of ethnically
diverse and regionally divided societies but, in these cases, it may be absolutely vital.
local governments may lack the money to finance programs, and their officials are
sometimes incompetent and corrupt. Local decision-making can lead to duplication of
services and poor coordination.
The danger of federalism, however, is that by breeding governmental division it may
strengthen centrifugal pressures and ultimately lead to disintegration. Some have argued, as
a result, that federal systems are inherently unstable, tending either towards the
guaranteed unity that only a unitary system can offer, or towards greater decentralization
and ultimate collapse. Federalism in Canada, for example, can perhaps be deemed a failure,
if its chief purpose were to construct a political union within which both French-speaking
and English-speaking populations can live together in harmony