POL 1000 – Lecture 10: Federalism & Federations

1. POL 1000 – Lecture 10: Federalism & Federations Sean Clark Lecturer, Memorial University Doctoral Fellow, CFPS Fall Session, 2011

2. Lecture Arc • 1. The division of power. • Unitary. • Federal. • Confederal. • 2. Origins of federalism. • 3. Virtues of federalism. • 3. Modern devolutionary pressures.

3. Federalism • 3 basic types of power sharing arrangements. • Unitary (that is, no sharing at all) • Centralized under single authority (i.e. France, UK, China). • Are local govts, but they exist at leisure of central authority. • Federal. • Divided powers (present in US, Canada, Mexico, Germany, Brazil). • Though federal level—the centre—tends to keep defence, trade, FP, etc, plus residual powers (anything left over). Locals get health, education, etc. • Confederal. • Each political unit is an equal (early Switzerland, early US, EU). No single leader (and thus hard to keep together). • 1780s US had ‘President’, but not head of the executive—subservient to Congress. Was more of an admin aide. • Federations are generally the consequence of efforts either to: • Bring different groups into common political being (i.e. US 1789, Germany 1871); or… • Avoid an existing political unit from fracturing apart (i.e. India, Belgium). • Federalism is about the sharing of power btn levels & regions. • Powers are constitutionally-enshrined (i.e. each is sovereign, autonomous). • Change thus requires consent of both. • Federal level will generally assist in transfer of wealth btn rich & poor regions (in Canada: ‘equalization’). • When asymmetry of power is involved, conflict is inevitable. • Frustration builds the more interests diverge. Money issues are particularly divisive.

4. Federalism, II • Virtues: offers leadership (in federal govt), but also…. • Fragments political power, creating checks & balance vs potential for absolutism. • US founding fathers were chiefly preoccupied by this. • Helps manage ethnic, cultural, & regional diversity. • Empowering local authorities protects them from abuse by the majority (was core part of Canada’s 1867 bargain). • System is dominant in N America, but not much else. • Is, however, movt towards ‘devolution,’ i.e. Spain & UK. • Argmt: local govt is better govt. • In fact, calls for devolution abound. • Saw w Nunavut. Scotland & Wales. Now in Spain. Further devolution in Belg. • However, at what point does centrifugal force threaten very existence of state? • I.e. give locals too much power, & they might just leave (i.e. Quebec, Belgium). S. Sudan has already split. • What is purpose of a common nation if everyone does their own thing anyways. • Besides, encouraging everyone to do their own thing eases way to outright separation. • Is particularly problematic when just a few equal groups. • I.e. Paraguay & Uruguay separated from Argentina; India & Pakistan; Pakistan & Bangladesh; Rhodesia w separation of Zambia & Malawi, etc. Flemish & Walloons. Cypriot Turks & Greeks. • Rather than deadlock of equals, prefer to just go on own.