Federalism the Fundamental Principle Behind

Federalism

The fundamental principle behind the notion of federalism is that no particular level of government can unilaterally wield power over an entire nation. "The Constitution enumerated the powers of the new federal government in Article I, section 8. Writing in Federalist Paper No. 45, James Madison described those powers as 'few and definite,' compared to the 'numerous and indefinite' powers of the states." Broadly, the federal government is responsible for identifying the fundamental laws and ideologies of a nation that the territories are allowed to address as they see fit. It also, however, pertains to specific mechanisms. In this respect, federalism within the United States can be exemplified by the specific mechanism by which amendments are be ratified: amendments require approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and three-quarters of the fifty states. Thus, the governmental power is distributed both among the bodies within the central government, and the territorial governments. Therefore, "Federalism is a territorial distribution of power between the Central Government and peripheral or subordinate Governments under an arrangement which cannot be changed by an ordinary or simple process of central legislation." Accordingly, such processes have been designed to reduce the ability of a centralized government to exercise tyrannical powers, and maintain the status of states as their own sovereign entities with their own citizens and affairs.

Problems with this ordering of government often arise because of differences between the aims of the federal government and the state governments. Sometimes,

The objectives of the federal union could not be carried out because State Governments had in some cases different views from that of the Federal Government and furthermore, they were reluctant to displease local interests or wishes, particularly over matters in which their stake was not high." further difficulty that faces federalist forms of rule is associated with ensuring the equality of the constituent states under the law. Sometimes, this process is near to impossible because the states are organized along the lines of populations, and these populations necessarily vary; thus, affording some states more sway than others. So, in the United States for example, it is estimated that voters in the state of Nevada possess about 135 times as much voting power as voters from New York State within the Senate. This is a peculiar consequence of federalism, and is a reflection of the duel ambitions the founders of the American Revolution; namely, instituting a centralized government while upholding the sovereign powers of the existing territorial governments.

Although the United States is an example of a nation in which federalism is operating relatively well, it still possesses many complications that often hinder multiple mechanisms of government, from enforcement to judiciary. Often times, states establish laws that conflict with one another. Also, in attempts to rectify these discrepancies, the courts actually act to generate new problems. "If the Court is credibly to claim a significant role for itself in safeguarding the federal system from overreaching by Congress, the Court should not abdicate its federalism-enforcing role when the mistake is of its own making." Occasionally, when chasing criminals across state lines the laws specifically regarding to the nature of the crime and the manner in which the individual can be apprehended sometimes become ambiguous. The famous Lindberg Baby case was one of the most public examples of how differing state laws can influence the administration of justice:

Despite the level of attention swirling around the missing Lindberg baby, authorities investigating the kidnapping found themselves hampered in their efforts by the nature of kidnapping laws. At the time, the only kidnapping laws were state laws, and these often -- conflicting state laws forced the authorities to conform an otherwise national manhunt to the particular idiosyncrasies of each state into which it extended."

Congress, in light of the public nature of the dispute, quickly enacted the Federal Kidnapping Act to alleviate some of the difficulties facing investigators in the case. The act made explicit the illegality of kidnapping when the victim is taken across state lines by the perpetrator. Still, this is merely one instance in which the division of power between the state and federal governments has significantly hampered the administration of justice. So, even in nations in which federalism is operating fairly successfully and with few complications, often the intuitive ways in which laws should be upheld are ineffective by virtue of conflicting laws between states, and between the federal government and states.

Far more significant and expansive complications associated with this specific constitutional division of power come about when federalism is adopted within nations that are ill-suited to its implications. Specifically, this occurs in nations where the notion of regional sovereignty is either unformed, or possesses different historical meanings than within the United States. This is a particularly significant issue facing the world community considering the large number of nations attempting to enact new forms of democratic government. In the wake of the Soviet collapse, and the substantial political unrest in portions of sub-Saharan Africa, many budding governments are toying with their interpretations of federalism and with varying degrees of success. So, despite the numerous glaring predicaments that arise from the American understanding of federalist rule, it is commonly being utilized as a model for the many new governments throughout the world. Consequently, the problems that face the United States when it comes to administration of justice and achievement of national goals have been amplified in settings where the conceptions of territorial sovereignty and national identity are almost antithetical to the federalist apparatus.

It is important to note that when the United States was conceived of as a single nation, it was essential that the doctrines that held it together cater to the needs of the individual states. After all, they were significantly separated geographically, and had become quite accustomed to instituting and enforcing their own laws. Therefore, the new government of the United States needed to demonstrate to its inhabitant territories that the implementation of this regime was not going to drastically alter their way of life, and neither was it going to establish expansive laws that were contrary to locally held customs or beliefs. Ideologically, this was the foundation for American federalism. Essentially, the Constitution was meant to pull together a number of autonomous territories with the promise of mutual advantage.

However, this outlook on the way in which nations should be held together is not altogether accepted by many people throughout the world. Obviously, motivations for holding a nation together are not necessarily founded upon autonomous states, so the implications of federalism cannot be applied to all democratic nations as a general rule. Also, sometimes the levels of sovereignty allowed the territories much be significantly greater than that allowed the American states to convince their leaders that it is advantageous to become an aspect of a larger entity. The latter has become the case in Russia following the fall of the Soviet Union:

While on paper Russia had a federal structure during the Soviet period, it was in fact a unitary framework with regions that were formally autonomous but subordinated to central party control. When all hell broke loose, the Soviet Union collapsed, and the wave of independence reached the newly independent Russian Federation, Yeltsin had no choice but to offer regional leaders as much autonomy as they could stomach."

As a result of this necessity, the asymmetry of the Russian federation was not based upon population -- like in the United States -- but instead, upon the levels of political power already held by the constituent parts of the new government. Essentially, the territorial governments have been forced to enter a bargaining game with the federal government for money and resources, and each of them to varying degrees of success. Clearly, the success enjoyed was not primarily centered upon need, but rather, upon the political pull of specific regions:

Not all regional leaders were equally successful in this bargaining game. Some, like Tatarstan's president, Mintimer Shaimiyev, or the leader of Bashkortostan, Murtaza Rakhimov, managed to strike much better deals with Yeltsin in return for their personal loyalty and support. Others, mostly the leaders of resource-poor regions, had to struggle for every ruble of federal transfers"

The implications of this severe level of territorial autonomy include a strong aversion among many Russians to the entire notion of federalism. They point to the corruption of the government, and the illegitimacy of regional elections. Many Russians today call for a much stronger, centralized form of rule; generally, rejecting both the advantages and disadvantages of federalist organization. Clearly, in Russia there appears to be little or no middle road when it comes to the notion of territorial autonomy: the necessities involved in holding the nation together after the Soviet collapse have generated gross injustices for the people of Russia, and the most expedient solution -- to some -- appears to be radical in nature.

The primary manner by which a federation may exist with some level of efficiency is dependent upon the way certain programs are financed by the central government to the territorial governments. So, although the two entities are linked by the constitution, it is essential that the federal government provide the state governments with the means to carry out their own policies, and this needs to be done in a nearly equal manner relative to each of the elemental components. Overall, if a is considered to be the state government, and B. is the federal government:

The federal relation or federalism will exist unimpaired even if, again by Constitutional agreement, the Government of B. finances some or all of the functions which the Government of State a is constitutionally authorized to perform. In other words, B may be the proverbial payer of the 'Piper' a, but B. has nevertheless no legal or Constitutional right to call 'the tune.'"

This illustrates the primary problem that faces the existence of federalism in modern Russia. Namely, the central government finances the operations of the provinces based upon intrinsically unjust and corrupt bases. Obviously, this fact does not suggest that all forms of federalism in Russia are doomed -- economic federalism will always be necessary -- but the negative consequences of its current form have possibly caused a trend towards higher levels of centralization that are, at this point, unavoidable. Still,

The problem with Russian federalism is that the country has never had an efficient federal structure. Essentially, current relations between Moscow and the regions are grounded in the only experiences with federal arrangements Russians ever had, namely Soviet-era ethno-federalism and the asymmetrical federalism of President Boris Yeltsin's administration."

Another problem that can face the proper functioning of a federalist form of government can come about following internal warfare and social unrest. With this in mind it is important to recall the history of the United States, and specifically, the Civil War. Although the war was fought, primarily, to maintain the unification of the central government, its conclusion could easily have ended in a form of military rule. It was a battle between state and federal interests and the federal government won. Accordingly, it is not difficult to imagine an alternative history in which Lincoln and successive presidents upheld their unifying power with the military force that had won them the war; thus, utterly degrading the sovereignty of the states in an attempt to ensure their compliance with national interests. This illustrates one of the ways in which federalist governments can deteriorate into strongly centralized military rules.

This alternative American history is analogous to the state of Nigerian federalism. Nigerian General Yakubu Gowon said, "Nigeria is almost the only African country which has consistently tried to maintain a federal system of government similar to the United States. It is true that federalism and military rule make very strange bedfellows. Nigerian federalism has been distorted by militarism." Essentially, the Nigerian Civil War, although headed by idealistic leaders intent on upholding the institutions of federalism, eventually degraded the notion in successive attempts to hold tumultuous nation together. Largely, this was a result of the forced unification of various tribes following the colonial period:

The adoption of federalism as a system of government by Nigeria was as a result of the domineering presence of centrifugal forces over the centripetal forces since the time of amalgamation in 1914. The North, South, East, West territories of Nigeria were forcefully joined together under a unitary administration of colonial rule, thus when Nigerians had opportunity to choose the type of system of government under which they want to live, a federal system became the obvious answer."

This is an example almost contrary to the Russian malfunctioning of federalism; whereas the Russian federation has delegated undue and asymmetrical powers to their territories, the Nigerian federation has supplanted their territory's autonomies with central military enforcement. Each outcome has been a result of political leaders struggling to hold together numerous geographical regions and cultures, but accomplished in entirely different ways -- but both at the expense of federalism.

So from a broad perspective, federalism involves a delicate balance between provincial and central government, and is not merely any relationship between the two. There are circumstances in which too much authority falls to one or the other and these can no-longer be termed functioning federations. Yet, even within nations that exercise a division of power more effective than those found in Russia or Nigeria, there exist variations from nation to nation due to different pulls either towards state or federal rights.

Doubtlessly, this is the case when considering the differences between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Although all three were formed under similar circumstances, with similar ideologies, and analogous appeals towards both central and territorial rules, they currently exhibit contrasting forms of federalism and differing implications for the future.

Although sharing common borders, Canada, Mexico, and the United States have quite different histories, cultures, and constitutional arrangements. For example, most observers would likely agree that on a scale of federal centralization, Mexico has been the most centralized of the three federations; Canada, the least."

Although their levels of centralization contrast, they are currently all experiencing movements away from federal control and more towards the sovereignty of their territories. In the United States, "For most of the past 20 years or so, American data have shown a generally decreasing level of public support and approval of the federal government, corresponding with more favorable views of state and local governments." This pattern has carried over into Mexico where, pressures for decentralization have been evident in Mexico as well. Federalism was a central issue during the administration of President Ernest Zedillo (1994-2000) when a program known as 'New Federalism' was launched with promises to transfer power and resources to state and local governments."

Not surprisingly, since Canada is arguably the most decentralized nation of the three it is experiencing the most drastic turns towards increases in provincial sovereignty. "The most prominent example was the 1995 referendum on secession in the province of Quebec -- a vote that failed by only a very small margin." In fact, within Canada, asymmetrical federalism is being hailed as a definitive step in the right direction towards more judicious governmental rule. Benoit Pelletier argues:

In fact, asymmetry is the genuine acknowledgement that both flexibility and adaptability are essential parts of the federal formula. Asymmetry is indicative of the idea that Canadian federalism is not only based on the fact its constituent parts came together to combine their resources, values and ideals, but also to defend, foster and promote their own uniqueness and differences. In short, asymmetry is undeniably one of the fundamental features of federalism."

Running common throughout these movements towards decentralization is the prevalent notion that somehow the federal government has lost the ultimate aims of its constituents and has, perhaps, become an end unto itself. Coupled with this notion, as exemplified by Pelletier's statement, is the concept of vast diversity within large nations and their need to accommodate the different needs of different people. The near secession of Quebec from Canada can be seen as the alternative to the current situation facing the territories of Russia. Many Russian territories are not receiving the resources they demand from the central government, and consequently, are calling for a more centralized federal structure in which they will be handled equally. Quebec on the other hand, although in a similar situation, looks to decentralize the Canadian government in an attempt to grant themselves more power and the freedom to adopt independent practices. The problems are analogous, but the solutions are near opposites.