Skip to Content Skip to Wiki Navigation Skip to Site Navigation
Wikia
Start a wiki
Entertainment
Gaming
Lifestyle
Connect
Log in
Sign up
Alternative History
The Nexus
TSPTF
List of Althists
Useful Stuff
Random Page Wiki Activity
Watchlist Recent changes
0 Talk
World War I (Chaos)
Edit
1911: World War One breaks out. The complicated alliances between the powers lead to the following events:
Contents
[show]
First six weeks Edit
June 14th: Novorossiya declares war on Canada.
June 15th: First skirmishes between Russian and Canadian soldiers in the Yukon valley. In the gold mining cities of Alyeska, Russians lynch Canadians and Germans - and vice versa.
June 18th: Atlantean Germany declares war on Novorossiya, together with its satellite North California (now more often called Kalifornien); Old Germany follows suit. The two Germanies and Canada form the Bündnis (German for alliance).
June 19th: German-Canadian armies unite to attack Russians in OTL Whatcom county, Washington state. Russians start shipping troops there, hoping not to come too late. Many civilians flee via the Pacific from the Germans.
German army attacks Novorossiya in Estonia.
June 20th: South Russia declares war on Old Germany; Poland, Greater Bohemia and Hungary also mobilize troops against the Russians.
June 22th-27th: Balcan states allied to South Russia (Serbia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Vlachia, Moldavia, Transsylvania) declare war on the Bündnis.
June 24th: Bündnis attack against Serbia throws them back behind the Danube, except for Belgrade.
June 25th: German-Polish attack starts in Galicia. They conquer the SW corner of South Russia, but then the big armies clash and freeze along the line Daugavpils-Chernovcy (Bukovina).
June 26th: One Hungarian and one German army cross the Transsylvanian border, going around the Apuseni mountains to unite. Serbia is left alone for the moment.
June 27th: First Transsylvanian city Cluj conquered by Hungarians.
June 28th: Argentinien declares war on the Russias - for the beginning, only symbolically.
June 29th: Most of Russian Cascadia in German hands, except for OTL Cape Flattery and some fortresses at the coast.
June 30th: After Canada uses some diplomacy, China declares war on Novorossiya, as does Nippon.
July 1911: Chinese uprisings against Russians in Beijing and other occupied cities start.
July 2nd: Germans defeat Russians in the battle of Kohtla-Järve, Estonia. Except for the capital Tallinn and the islands, the whole province is under German control.
July 3rd: First sea battle between Nippon and Novorossiya. Despite of severe losses, the Nipponese can open a way to Ezo (Hokkaido).
July 5th: Germans and Hungarians control the whole Mures valley in Transsylvania, approach the Carpathians, besiege Hermannstadt / Sibiu.
July 6th: After heated discussions behind the scenes, New Rome decides to declare war on the Bündnis. The two Russias and New Rome now form the Imperial Pact (the name is incorrect, since Novorossiya is still a republic, but it sticks).
Nipponese land on Ezo, manage to establish a bridgehead after hard fighting.
July 7th: German satellite Lothringen declares war on New Rome.
July 8th: Sea battle of Saaremaa. German-Scandinavian navies defeat Russian Baltic fleet, land on the Estonian islands.
July 9th-20th: German Atlantis pushes the New Romans behind the Ohio, conquer OTL south tip of Illinois.
July 10th: New Rome starts a short raid into Argentinien from Peru. Although not unsuccessful, they have to retreat after the Argentinian army is fully mobilized.
July 11th: Netherlands and Switzerland declare war on New Rome.
July 12th (Tammuz 17th 5671): Judea solidarizes with New Rome, declares war on the Bündnis.
July 14th: Braseal declares war on New Rome.
July 17th: Tallinn capitulates.
July 18th: Siam declares war on the Pact, also moved by Canada to do this step. Canada starts rising two native armies from their colonies and protectorates in SE Asia.
July 26th: Ethiopia declares war on the Bündnis.
The only states now still staying neutral are Socialist Britain, the small native state of Aymaria (south tip of Atlantis), the Muslim states (Persia, the rump Seljuk state, Hejaz, Oman, Arabia and Mahdi Sudan), the central Asian states of Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim and Tibet, finally Tir Tairngire and New Albion.
Relative strengths of the powers Edit
The situation at the beginning of the war, for each continent:
North Atlantis: Novorossiya has a presence in Alyeska and OTL Cascadia, but these areas are hopelessly outnumbered even by Canada alone. Otherwise, the northern half of the continent belongs to Canada and German Atlantis, while the South is New Roman, as is the whole Caribbean.
South Atlantis: The north and the Andes are New Roman, while the rest is divided between German Argentinien and Braseal.
Europe: The center and the north are under control of Germany or its satellites, while the west and south belong to New Rome, and the east and south-east to the Russias.
Africa: The Maghreb is New Roman, the sub-saharan areas German. The Sahara desert, Mahdi Sudan and independent Ethiopia seperate the powers.
Asia: The North belongs to Novorossiya, the Indian subcontinent to New Rome, the south-west to independent Muslim states (except for Judea), the east and south-east to Canada or independent Asian states which are allied with the Bündnis.
Oceania: Almost exclusively controlled by the Canadians, except for the neutral states in the south.
And in the oceans:
Atlantic: The north and the south more under control of the Bündnis, the center under control of New Rome.
Indian Ocean: The west under German, the east (incl. the Malacca Straits) under Canadian, the rest under New Roman control.
Pacific: Strong pact powers in the east and the north-west; rest mostly under comparably weak Canadian control (their forces are scattered).
North Sea: A German lake.
The Channel: Under New Roman control, although the Germans and Dutch can blockade the east.
Baltic: German-Scandinavian superiority.
Mediterranean: A New Roman lake.
Black Sea: A Russian lake.
Red Sea: Both ends controlled by New Romans.
Yellow Sea: Domain of the Chinese and Nipponese.
The fronts Edit
After the declarations of war and the mobilizing of the armies, these fronts form:
North Atlantis:
Alyeska front (Novorossiya vs Canada)
for short time: Cascadia front (Novorossiya vs. German Atlantis)
California front (Kalifornien + German Atlantis vs New Rome)
Desert front (German Atlantis vs New Rome)
Missouri front (German Atlantis vs New Rome)
Ohio front (German Atlantis vs New Rome)
Appalachia front (German Atlantis vs New Rome)
South Atlantis:
Guayana front (Braseal vs New Rome)
Amazonas front (Braseal vs New Rome)
Andes front (Argentinien vs New Rome)
Europe:
France front
Alps front
Balcan front
Eastern front
Finland front
Africa:
Senegal front
Ethiopia front
Asia:
Siam (later Bengal) front
Steppe front
China front
Corea front
Ezo front
The strategies Edit
The German general staff is quite shocked. A war against the Russias is one thing; but a war against the Russias AND the superpower New Rome, which is undefeated in war yet, if you don't count the guerilla war of Braseal? Especially European Germany seems to be hopelessly outnumbered. The governments in Martinsburg (OTL Philadelphia) and Neu-Hamburg (OTL Buenos Aires) are contacted. Both are somewhat hesitating to send their men over the Atlantic, which is to a good part controlled by the Imperial Navy; finally, Argentinien promises to send some troops to German Africa, and Atlantis promises help for the time after they win in Russian Cascadia. An invasion of the Russian Pacific coast that was considered before New Rome entered the war is cancelled, since the Russian and Imperial navies control most of the Pacific, and the Germans and Canadians have to take care not to be invaded themselves.
But even the pact isn't in such a rosy situation. The New Roman empire, especially in Europe, suffers under the language problem: Every non-Italian speaking soldier is only taught 200 words Italian, which leads to difficulties in communication. The Russians face similar problems with their Balcan allies, of whom only the officers speak Russian fluently. And more important: There are no experiences in leading a comparable war - even the anti-Russian and anti-British wars were more local in comparison.
Of course the Italians and Russians would make jokes about the "wurst/kraut-eating surrender monkeys", but in the summer of 1911, these jokes almost became reality. Noone in European Germany had really wanted a war with both the Russias and the New Roman superpower. The German ministry of Exterior continually contacted its counterpart in Rome, franticly trying to make a seperate peace. They offered Lothringen and Hungary for a peace, and some members of the government even thought about European Germany leaving the war completely, sacrificing Poland if necessary. But the pact powers declined, sure they could get an even better peace in a few weeks anyway.
So, born out of necessity, the German military leadership decided to make a victory as costly as possible for the pact. "Die Front muss gehalten werden, auf Biegen und Brechen!" ("You've got to hold the line, that it neither bends nor breaks!") The cavalry troops are unmounted, and the soldiers dug trenches all along the borders. Then they waited for the New Romans and Russians to attack, praying that their German brothers and their allies at the other fronts might save the day.
And to everyone's surprise, it worked. The proud Russian steppe riders and the New Roman cavalry, even the New Roman motorized corps (the New Romans had twice as many cars available than all other European powers taken together!), attacked the German trenches in vain. The new weapon, the machinegun, much improved since the last war, simply favored the defender too much. July, August and September went by, but at the end, the fronts had barely moved if at all, and the cavalrists and the drivers joined their comrades in the trenches.
After the first months of the war it becomes apparent that the war will take longer - and New Rome faces the first problem, because their material is running low. Before the war, they received lots of steel and coal (not to mention finished products) from Germany, especially the Krafft corporation from the Ruhrgebiet; now, their own reserves of iron and coal aren't sufficient, and they have to import their stuff from South Russia or the Urals instead - the latter being four times as far from Italy than the Ruhr, and transport takes six times longer, at best. The fact that the Germans can easily replace their lost ships, while the Imperial navy can't, is another problem. Until a solution is found, the New Romans have to use up the stockpiles of Castille and North Africa, which aren't threatened.
Both sides also start to use submarines. This part of the war is even costlier than IOTL, since the Germans don't have to fear another great power entering the war. OTOH, it's also less one-sided, and thus, the Germans and Canadians suffer under New Roman and Russian subs as well.
1911 (August to December) Edit
North Atlantis: California and the lands east of the Appalachians see a lot of battles in which the fronts barely move. The Ohio front is almost quiet in comparison - it's too hard to cross the river, although in August, the 4th New Roman army tries to invade Ohio and cut German Atlantis in two. They destroy some railroads, which are later repaired. The western desert isn't that interesting for both parties either. Between Rockies and Mississippi however, the German-Canadian armies advance into the province of Montana (OTL east Colorado), take its capital Metara Nova. The Russian troops in Cascadia have to capitulate, after supporting them via the ocean proves to be impossible.
South Atlantis: In the Amazon jungle, Brasealian "amazon warriors" advance against New Rome. Former black slaves who're unemployed since slavery was abolished join the army, later become famous as the "Black Panthers". Along the Andes, the fronts don't move either - the Argentinians have the superior forces, but New Rome has the far better terrain for defense.
Europe: The situation in Atlantis forces New Rome to make its protectorate kingdoms of Portugal, Brittany and the Basque country enter the war. Their troops are sent to North Atlantis, to help defend Italia Nuova. Otherwise, the fronts still don't move much: The Germans don't want to attack, and the Pact powers can't break through. Both sides start to try psychological warfare. After the kingdom of Occitania (OTL South France and Catalonia) also mobilizes troops against the Germans, the latter have to conscript another army to be able to defend in France (it won't be the last one).
Africa: New Roman advances into Senegal and Kenya, until they're stopped by Brasealian and Argentinian reinforcements. During the winter, "Black Panther" troops arrived from Braseal help the Germans to drive the Ethiopians and New Romans back into Ethiopia.
Asia: The Nipponese fight with the Russians on Ezo, not willing to give up. North China becomes a chaos, as the Russians are confronted with partisans all over the place. Their armies are constantly threatened to be cut off; new armies conscripted in Novorossiya have to be sent east instead being used against Germany. The Chinese emperor starts to reclaim the once lost territories in North China, and his new subjects welcome him.
In the South, New Rome has occupied Ava (OTL North Birma). The united Bündnis armies (China, Canada, Siam) occupy Lan Xang (OTL Laos), after which the fronts freeze too.
Oceania: The Pact powers decide to bring the Pacific under their control, attack from both sides. New Roman ships coming from South Atlantis attack the Canadians on OTL Pitcairn and Polynesia, Novorossiya attacks from the North towards the Marianas and Marshall islands. Both are quite successful, since the Canadians lack ships.
Atlantic: Several big sea battles happen - at Stefor (OTL Recife), Cabo Verde and Jersey in the Channel, the Imperial Navy can defeat German, Canadian and Brasealian fleets, while the battle of Haraldsborg (OTL New York) is a draw. The Russians try to conquer Svalbard by sea, but are fought back.
Indian Ocean: After two won sea battles of Madagascar and Sumatra, New Romans land troops on both islands.
Pacific: Early in the war, the Canadians defeat the Novorussian coastal fleet of Alyeska, but later, the Pact powers have several successes, driving the Canadian navy back to Hawaii and the Indies respectively - the Central Pacific is under their control now.
Novorussian ships fight Chinese and Nipponese ships in the Chinese Sea; their young navies lose many ships, and Shanghai and many Nipponese cities are bombarded by Novorussian ships.
1912 Edit
For this year, Olympic Games were planned to happen in Delhi, but are cancelled due to the war.
During the winter, the 1st (German) Atlantean army is transported via Greenland, Iceland and the Faroers to Europe. Thanks to the ice storms, which the Imperial Navy isn't exactly accustomed to, this happens without high losses. On the other side, the New Romans transport two more armies to Italia Nuova, which is in a difficult situation. New Rome is even forced to trade with the British Socialists for iron and coal. The Brits happily demand prices several times higher than before the war, but the anti-Socialist Germans are furious, and those demanding a compromise peace are silenced because of this.
North Atlantis: After both sides brought reinforcements, the fronts are frozen even at the Missouri front. Atlantean chancellor Kleiber knows that only "his" Germany can decide the war, but he needs a real victory for that. After talking with the commander Friedrich-Paul Halbe, they decide to use a new, untested weapon: The tank (ITTL called Walze, German for roller, as in steamroller) - a big armored vehicle, driven by steam - essentially a crossbreed between a locomotive and an OTL WW1 tank. The Walzen are horribly slow, but perfectly fit for crushing resistance in a battlefield full of barbed wire and trenches. The following strike(s) towards south leads them almost towards Texan city Trinidad (OTL Amarillo), when a New Roman counter-attack throws them back to OTL Kansas. (New Rome had to bring reinforcements from Spain and even India to stop the Germans.)
South Atlantis: Braseal has conquered OTL Guayana and entered OTL Venezuela from the South. The Argentinian army under general Bauernfeind tries to enter New Roman territory in the Andes, but is fought back and has severe losses.
Europe: In the spring, after Atlantean reinforcements have arrived, the Germans start a major offensive against New Rome in Burgundy, which has them win 30 km land east of Saone (in the south) and between Bar-le-Duc and Langres further north. Then, the offensive stops, after new Occitan troops and a Judean legion have arrived at the New Roman front.
After neither a crossing of the Danube (by the New Romans) nor an attack through the Carpathians (by the Russians and allies) was successful, South Russia moves its troops further north, starts the Sechin offensive against Poland. This time, they're successful: The German east front is crushed, Volhynia is overrun. The Germans only manage to stop the Russians by using poison gas, for the first time in the war. The Pact powers start using gas too, and later in the year, after using shocktroopers, East Poland is conquered too; only behind the rivers Narev and Vistula, a successful defense can be established again. Lots of Poles (more than a million) flee from the Russians to Germany, where they're... not exactly welcomed with open arms, but at least provided with food and provisional housing (well, huts). The refugees cause some unrest in the country, many people doubt they can still win the war. The government needs a scapegoat and has the Jewish civilians arrested and interned (similar to the Nipponese-Americans in OTL WW2 USA), because Judea is fighting Germany. Just to survive, European Germany has to use every measure: Women have to work in the factories, anti-New Roman legions are made by recruiting French and Arab POWs, and every last man is drafted. It becomes apparent that this can't last forever.
Africa: After the Germans conscript an army in Australia (OTL South Africa) and transport it north, they defeat Ethiopia and occupy it; the king is deposed, flees to New Roman Egypt. Now Germany starts to contact the Arab states, trying to make them enter the war against New Rome. After placing strong artillery in Djibouti, the New Roman navy in the Red Sea is practically trapped, which puts India into a difficult situation. In the second half of the year, troops from Egypt are brought to Aden and make a landing in Eritrea, which are later defeated, though.
Asia: While the Russians keep firm control in Manchuria and Mongolia and also keep Beijing, their armies heavily suffer under the partisan war. In September, the 6th Novorussian army is cut off and destroyed in the province of Henan. In the South, the Imperial Indian army fights the Bündnis armies in Yunnan and North Birma. Nipponese slowly advance north in Ezo, approach Vladivostok (OTL Sapporo).
Oceania: The Novorussian fleet manages to confuse the Canadians and occupies parts of Mindanao, until they retreat again.
Atlantic: In the battle of Roma Nuova (OTL Norfolk, Virginia), the German-Canadian navy is defeated, and attacks become impossible for several months. However, New Rome has lost many ships too, and worse, can't replace them that easily. The later battles of the Azores and Puerto Rico already turn out better for the Germans. They also manage to send a new fleet from the North Sea around the British Isles south to Africa. An attack against the Russians in the North Polar Sea fails, however.
Indian Ocean: Germans try to help Madagascar, but are defeated in a battle before Pemba.
Pacific: In the first battle of Hawaii, the Canadian navy can fight back the Imperial fleets. Another Chinese fleet is defeated before Tsingdao.
1913 Edit
In Europe, the Pact powers still have the advantage, or at least it seems so. This is overshadowed a bit by their defeats in Asia, Atlantis and Africa, though. Still everyone, including the Germans, believes that the war will be won in Europe.
North Atlantis: After building more walzen, the next German thrust goes first into and later through the province of Texas, cutting New Roman Atlantis in two. This gives Germany access to the Texan oil, and takes New Rome its biggest advantage - its motorized troops. Now New Rome starts to panick, even liberates and arms slaves and peons who promise to fight the Germans, with mixed successes.
South Atlantis: Brasealians storm Nueva Leon (OTL Caracas). Secretly, New Rome tries to contact them to make them leave the war, but to no avail. Some stories of the plunderings made spread through the empire.
Europe: After even more Atlantean and also Argentinian reinforcements arrive, the Germans try an attack in the west, hoping to hurt New Rome enough. Their attack is successful - during the year, all of France east of the Seine is conquered - but it hasn't the effect of New Rome leaving the war. Germany declares the republic of Free France, hoping to get more support from the French. The effort is not in vain: Many French serving for New Rome change sides.
A German-Scandinavian army manages to land in Finland, hoping to distract the Russians, who're threatening another offensive in Poland. During the winter, the Russians manage to conquer parts of the German province Littauen (Lithuania).
Africa: The army of Liberien marches into Senegal, taking it back. "Black Panther" troops liberate Madagascar.
Asia: Despite unbelievably high losses, the Chinese march north, recruit new armies among the former partisans and triumphally take Beijing at the end of the year. Nippon manages to land an army in Novorossiya's protectorate Corea. This leads to diplomatic clashes with China, and the Canadian diplomats have a lot of work to do to calm both parties down.
A Chinese-Canadian-Siamese army manages a break through to Assam.
After the Arab states declare war on New Rome, the Judean legion has to return home, and New Rome has to send troops from North Africa to Syria.
Oceania: Canadians force New Romans to leave Sumatra, start to reconquer their lost islands, with the help of fanatical Nipponese soldiers.
Atlantic: The battle of Saint-Malo gives the German and Dutch navies more control in the Channel. Meanwhile, they can mostly move free in the Atlantic; the convoi system makes encounters, and thus battles, less probable. Still, thanks to the Miskito canal (OTL it would be the Nicaragua canal), the New Romans can use their fleet in both Atlantic and Pacific. But in fact, New Rome is that desperate that they bribe the Socialist pirates of Britain to attack German ships. Which causes even more anger in Germany later...
Indian Ocean: Germany fights the battle of Sokotra, after which they manage to land troops in southern Arabia, start to cooperate with the Arab states, besiege New Roman fortress Aden. Germany starts to approach Persia.
Pacific: In the battle of the Kuriles, united Canadians, Chinese and Nipponese defeat the Novorussian fleet, which is on the defensive from now on. Scattered Novorussian ships are later fought and defeated in the second battle of Hawaii.
1914 Edit
North Atlantis: Germany has decided to cut the New Roman empire into pieces and thus supports independence movements in Louisiana, California, Texas and Mexico. The New Roman authorities face difficulties to keep them under control.
South Atlantis: Braseal attacks further west, entering OTL Colombia.
Europe: Germany starts the year with another walzen attack, aiming at the whole territory between Seine and Loire. The growing Free French army helps them, although the declaration of the republic of Brittany in late spring angers the French somewhat.
A counter-attack against the Russians in Littauen gives the Germans some breathing space in the East.
In July, the Germans attack south from Austria, reaching the Adria and cutting the only railroad between Italy and the Balcans.
Finally, in August, Germans win the battle of Saint Etienne, making a link to the partisans of the Central Massive of France, rush to the west, reaching Limoges. This is the last straw.
Africa: A few attacks of the New Romans in the Sahara are fought back. German, Brasealian and African troops approach Morocco, but can't proceed further. OTOH, in Algeria and Egypt, native uprisings bring New Rome even more difficulties. The empire seems at the verge of collapse.
Asia: Persia decides to enter the war. In the Russian occupied north, uprisings start. Novorossiya has to move many armies south to counter this new threat. In Corea, their troops are caught between the Chinese in the north and the Nipponese in the south. German and Arab troops throw the New Romans out of Syria. Now the Seljuk state also enters the war, attacks Cilicia. South Russia has to send troops over the Black Sea to defend its lands there. And worst of all, the Chinese and Canadians have entered Bengal, threaten Calcutta.
Oceania: Canadians have reconquered their Pacific colonial empire, strike east to take OTL Easter Island.
Atlantic: The battle of Ceuta, which is victorious for the Germans, drives the Imperial navy back into the Mediterranean. Further west, they attack the Caribbean islands.
Indian Ocean: Germans and Canadians unite their navies, strike against the New Romans near the Maledives, threaten "the jewel in the crown", India.
Pacific: Canada strikes in the north, takes the Aleutes from Novorossiya.
In August, the situation seems hopeless for the New Roman empire: France is practically lost, Iberia also is in danger, the Atlantean lands are breaking away, as is North Africa, India is threatened, and there is no hope for relieve. Now the Council of Imperial provinces (the New Roman quasi-parliament, where representatives from all lands are attendant) demands from the emperor to make peace with Germany, if he doesn't want the empire to break apart. Emperor Alessandro II decides to step down, goes into exile in New Albion, together with his family.
August 28th: New Rome and Judea make an armistice with the Germanies, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Braseal, Liberien, China, Siam, Hungary, Lothringen, Persia, the Seljuk state, and Free France and Arabs. All of France, the North Italian plain, the important fortress Ceuta, Slovenia and Croatia, Texas, the Caribbean islands, the Miskito and Suez canals, the Egyptian delta, and a part of India are occupied by troops of the Bündnis.
After the capitulation of New Rome, the Germans start sending as many troops as possible to the East, to turn the tables against the Russians. Moderated forces in Russia suggest making peace, but the more radical parties don't want to admit defeat - Russian troops are still standing deep in Poland, after all.
Rest of 1914 Edit
North Atlantis: Canada concentrates on the remaining Russian holds in Alyeska. In the winter, they have to capitulate.
Europe: A first attack against Russia, coming from OTL Latvia, gives the Germans Littauen (OTL Lithuania) back. From occupied Croatia, Germans and Hungarians advance into Bosnia. The Germans also try a landing on the Kallipolis peninsula, but the Russians can defend the place.
Asia: China and Nippon manage to conquer Corea, and since the German navy makes an evacuation impossible, two Russian armies are captured. The fights on Ezo (OTL Hokkaido) and in the steppes of Mongolia still go on, although the Chinese don't advance that far beyond their borders.
In the South, the Seljuks start a guerilla war in the Russian-occupied Pontus. Orthodox Greeks leave the area, going for the more secure Trapezunt. The Persians, also supplied with German arms, also advance in the mountains of North Persia and Afghanistan.
Oceania: Canada sends its troops from SE Asia to reconquer the Russian-occupied islands. However, despite being cut off, the Russians fight hard. Nippon sends soldiers and takes some islands back too.
Atlantic, Indian Ocean are quiet now.
Pacific: In the battle of Dalian, the combined German-Canadian-Chinese-Nipponese navies defeat the remaining Novorussian fleet. From now on, the Russians just can defend their own waters, and Alyeska is practically cut off.
Other events Edit
The many Indian soldiers who served in the different places of the New Roman empire have to put down their arms and return to India. Not all of them do, however; many stay in the breakaway states of the New Roman empire, serving for the new governments instead. The final transport will take as long as summer 1915.
The Germans and their allies start talking about how to divide the spoils of war. This proves to be very hard, however; some states have no territorial claims against New Rome, but want their fair share of the cake; and the war against the Russias is not over yet. Later, the Staatenkonferenz (conference of states) will emerge from these talks.
The German Jews who were interned during the war are released again; many however decide to leave the Germanies and emigrate to Judea, being fed up with Germany.
September: The loss of the emperor leaves the New Roman government in trouble. For a short time, the Council of Imperial provinces had hoped to keep the empire together, but now they find out that the people in the provinces think different than their representatives, who got their posts for their ability to work together with the emperor, who isn't anymore. Louisiane declares independence first; Central Atlantis and California follow, as does Algeria (still more French than Italian). Things in Europe aren't much better: The Basques declare an independent republic and topple the former grand duke. Germany, which has troops nearby, forbids to interfere.
Seeing Greece in danger being overrun by the Seljuks, the Russians and Bulgarians send troops to occupy the country.
New Roman officer Italo Malaparte flees via Greece and Bulgaria to the Russians, tells them about the importance of the German tank weapon.
Hoping to get more support from the Finns, the Germans proclaim the Finnish republic. Their Scandinavian collaborators aren't too happy about this, having hoped that they'd get Finland instead.
The Germans send their navy into the Mediterranean, occupy Greek islands, including Cyprus.
October: Catalonia (formerly part of the kingdom of Occitania and directly under the emperor) also becomes a republic; king Benedetto II of Andalusia seeks his future with the Germans, also leaves the empire; in Asturia, the twelve-year-old grand duke also is toppled and has to flee; and finally, even old king Alfonso XIII of Castille can't deny the wishes of the Spaniards and declares Castille independent.
In Atlantis, California (OTL South and Central California plus Baja) declares independence; the big province of Mexico follows, as does Florida. And in Africa, Morocco and Egypt declare independence.
Central Atlantis makes a treaty with German Atlantis, renting the Atlantic-Pacific canal to the latter.
November: The Castillian break with New Rome leads to the Portuguese protectorate declaring independence too. Internal struggles between a monarchist and a republican faction follow. Castillians who dream of a stronger Spain (including the heir Juan) aren't happy about this. OTOH, Asturia declares they're willing to join Castille again.
New Rome tries to re-occupy Egypt from the Cyrenaica, but Germany forbids it; when they feel the Italians don't comply, their battleships bombard Tobruq and Benghazi.
A German newspaper uses the term of "Southern Chaos" for the first time.
December: Castille and Portugal start a war.
In Nouvelle Orleans, the Socialist harbor workers rise against the government, which has to flee the city. Due to the breakdown of the New Roman empire, trade in the city is down, and the workers are unemployed. It takes some time until order is restored.
1915 Edit
European theater: In several severe battles, Germans and allies drive the Russians out of Poland, cross the pre-war border. Finns and Scandinavians conquer the Finnish capital Turku and Vanhakaupunki (OTL Helsinki/Helsingfors).
Asian theater: With the troops returned from Corea, Nippon conquers the island Ezo. Afterwards, they also land on Sachalin and the Kuriles.
Seljuk and German troops take the various harbors of Pontus, reach the Asian side of Constantinople/Czargrad.
In Russian-occupied Choresm, people start protests and later uprisings, which weaken Novorossiya. Persians reach Azerbaijan, threaten Baku.
Other events Edit
General: The post-war economical crisis and the unclear future of the new countries leads to many unrests. Often, this causes anti-semite reactions. Jews start leaving their countries for Judea.
The Italians, who until now were a privileged minority in the areas which became independent after the war (every Italian starting a plantage there was made "Padrone" by the empire, which was the lowest noble rank - under the baron), start leaving said areas for Italy proper, Italia Nuova or Italian North Africa (OTL Tunisia and Libya).
January: Uprisings in OTL Yucatan force the Mexican government to react.
February: Until now, the New Roman province of Caroline (OTL Carolinas and Georgia) has stayed loyal to the government. Now however, clashes between Italian- and French-descended people lead to uprisings of the latter. When the central government tries to put them down, German troops occupy Roma Nuova (OTL Richmond) and Charlesbourg (OTL Charleston), make sure Caroline becomes independent. This leads to even more bad blood.
March: In Besancon, the capital of Lothringen / Lorraine, the old and respected politician Daniel Legrand makes a speech in parliament (first in French, then in German). He speaks about how the people of Lorraine have fought at Germany's side; he also admits that the French occupation of Germany in the 18th and early 19th century was wrong; but finally, he points out that this was the 20th century, and asks the German governments for nothing but a reunification with France proper. The Germans don't want such trouble, try to get more time. But the French understood him, and from now on, in the (still German-occupied) French cities demonstrations for a united France start.
April: Castille and Portugal make peace, giving Galicia back to Castille.
May: Young state of Syria (which also has Palestine) feels threatened by the growing Jewish population in Judea. The Jewish-Syrian war starts. Many Jews who stayed in the diaspora until now go to Judea, to fight against the Syrians.
June: After long and hard negotiations, the Bündnis powers make a peace treaty with the sad rest of New Rome, which is more of a multi-continental Italy now. Braseal takes the conquered areas in OTL Venezuela and Guayana; German Atlantis keeps occupied Caribbean, Texas and Montana, which are supposed to become settling grounds for German surplus population; European Germany claims Slovenia; Persia moves its border with India to the Indus valley; Argentinien, Siam and Canada, plus other minor powers, only take money as spoils; China takes OTL North Birma; the Seljuks get Cilicia back; finally, there's the question about what to do with India. Finally the Germanies decide to keep the northern half and to administrate it together, while the South stays with New Rome. In addition, slavery in the New Roman empire is declared void.
Another point that enrages the French is that Normandy is supposed to become a Dutch satellite, and Brittany a German one. The demonstrations become uprisings; the puppet government of Normandy is unable to do anything.
July: In Algiers, French and Berbs clash for several months.
August: After long discussions, Morocco proclaims the republic of the Cortes.
September: After hard fights in French cities, the French resistance against the dismemberment is broken. Instead, they act passive resistance against the Germans. Preoccupied in the East, the German leadership is happy that the west is quiet again.
October: Castille attacks Andalusia, aiming at a reunification of old Spain.
November: Andalusia asks Germany for help, offering harbors for the new German Mediterranean navy. Germany accepts, sends troops.
December: When the coming winter leads to shortages in food, new uprisings in Normandy start again. For a while the situation is undecided, but at Christmas, a new player enters the scene: After the fled French Socialists in Britain made propaganda for their cause, the Brits decide to send volunteers over the Channel. Their troops occupy the Channel Islands, land at the beaches and take Caen and Le Havre, where they set up a counter-government. Lots of weapons are transported to arm the French against the Germans.
1916 Edit
When the war goes into its fifth year, people start getting tired. Caricaturists draw cartoons of the Grim Reaper saying: "You humans, stop it - I can't do it anymore!"
European theater: After the mud period is over, the Germans decide to attack towards Kiev, the capital of South Russia. At the Balcans, they cross the "Iron Gate" in the Carpathians, pour into the plain of Vlachia, later also taking Moldavia. The governments of both states are toppled and replaced by German/Hungarian satellites.
The way to Kiev proves to be hard. Both sides are almost exhausted. After several months of fighting, the German artillery bombards Kiev, threaten the complete destruction of the city. Now South Russia is willing to make peace.
Asian theater: The Persians manage to break into the Central Asian plain, forcing the Russians to retreat. At the same time, the Chinese start advancing in Sinkiang. The orderly retreat breaks together, becomes a flight. Samarkand and other great cities of Choresm are liberated.
Other events until the end of the war Edit
January: The uprisings throughout France start again. In Lorraine, the government declares its break with Germany and the reunification with France. Socialists reach Rouen.
Jews conquer Jerusalem.
February: Socialist pirates help capturing Brest, while French-British troops coming from Normandy take Rennes. At the outskirts of Paris, Socialist and Germans battle. In Paris, the German occupation troops are bound in an unwinnable guerilla war.
March: French-British troops defeat a Dutch army near Amiens, later that month reach the important industrial city of Lille. German and Breton troops in Brittany have to capitulate; Paris is liberated by the Socialists.
April: Socialists have reached the Loire in the South and Reims in the East. Britain and Socialist French government make an "everlasting alliance".
In Samarkand, the independence of Choresm is proclaimed.
May: Heavy battles in the Marne and Seine valleys. At the end, the Socialists win, which gives them Lorraine. They also advance into Wallonia. Swiss prepare for the defense of Alsace.
June: Socialists sweep south, take Lyon. Many Germans protest against the unnecessary engagement in little wars while the big war is still going on. The German government loses the nerves, makes an armistice with the Socialists, who now get all of France. POWs are exchanged.
July: Socialists bring Occitania under their control. Germany secretly encourages Italian volunteers to fight the Socialists in Southern France.
On July 17th, South Russia and its allies on the Balcans make an armistice with Germany. Novorossiya follows on July 29th. In South Russia, the republic and the unification with Novorossiya is proclaimed; the Germans occupy the biggest cities of South Russia, including the Donez area. The Czarist family goes to exile in Bulgaria.
The World War is over. After five years, the whole world is exhausted.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
presidential, parliamentary & Hybrid system
As we have seen, democratic systems have elected officials. Most democratic states have many elected officials, who share power in predetermined ways. The two most popular models for sharing power amongst elected officials is the Presidential System and the Parliamentary System.
The Parliamentary System is the most popular model. In this system, a body of many representatives is elected by voters. This body might be called a House of Commons', a national assembly, a legislative assembly, a lower house, or any number of other names (for this discussion, we shall refer to it as a Legislature). Each member of the Legislature has one equal vote. The Legislature has the power to pass legislation, which has the force of law. To become law, the proposed law must receive the approval of the majority of the Legislature.
Usually at its first meeting after an election of new members, the Legislature chooses from amongst its membership an Executive body, i.e., the officials in charge of making sure that legislation is enforced. This body is usually called a cabinet, but is sometimes called a Council of Ministers. Each member of the cabinet usually has a specific portfolio, over which he/she is responsible: finances, foreign policy, defence, agriculture, transport, etc. The chairman of the cabinet is the most powerful person in a Parliamentary system, and is usually given the title of Prime Minister (aka., "chancellor", "premier", or "first minister").
The Legislature also chooses the "President" of the state, who is usually a ceremonial figurehead for the state (called the head of state). Sometimes, the President is given the duty of settling deadlocks in the Legislature over the choice of members of the Cabinet. (Some states maintain a king or queen as their ceremonial head of state. Such states are called "constitutional monarchies", while systems with presidents are called "republics". There is little difference between these two types of states in practice).
Most members of the Legislature are part of a faction within the body that wishes to pursue a common political agenda. This is called a political party. If one political party constitutes a majority of the members of a Legislature, then that party can dictate who gets chosen for the Cabinet and what legislation gets approval. This is called majority government. The leader of the majority party automatically becomes Prime Minister, and as long as he/she maintains the confidence of his/her party, he/she can dictate who is in the cabinet and what legislation gets passed. This makes the Prime Minister a very power official. The Prime Minister can even decide to dissolve the Legislature and call a new election.
Parliamentary systems are prevalent in western Europe, as well as the former colonies of Great Britain.
The Presidential system was first developed by the framers of the United States Constitution in the 1780s. The framers disapproved of the way in which the Prime Minister of Parliamentary systems could accumulate so much power. They therefore developed a system designed to spread power more evenly over many different elected officials. This is known as the separation of powers.
In a typical presidential system, the president is not purely symbolic. Not only is the President the head of state, but is also in charge of naming the members of the cabinet (called "administration" in the United States). The President also has some powers specifically mandated by the constitution, particularly in foreign policy and defence. The president is not chosen by the legislature, but directly elected by the voters. The President is not allowed to be a member of the legislature.
The legislature (or congress in the United States), the leader of the majority party does not automatically become the Prime Minister. In fact, in many presidential systems, the position of Prime Minister does not exist; the President instead chairs the cabinet. The legislature holds elections at fixed intervals (usually every four years), instead of being dissolved by a Prime Minister. Because the majority party of the legislature does not control the executive, political parties play a less important role in a Presidential system, and members of the same party may often vote differently in the legislature.
The Presidential system is used in the United States and states strongly influenced by the United States, such as Mexico.
Mixed systems incorporate attributes of the Parliamentary system and Presidential System. Often, these mixes result in a directly elected President with powers equivalent to a Prime Minister. For instance, in France, the President is directly elected by the people every five years. The President of France may dissolve the National Assembly. If the President has the following of a majority of the National Assembly, then he may appoint the Cabinet; if he does not have the following of the National Assembly, then he may only appoint members of the Cabinet who are responsible for foreign policy and defence.
Mixed systems have proven popular amongst relatively new democracies, such as Russia, the Ukraine, and Iraq, since they give a lot of power to the President.
The Parliamentary System is the most popular model. In this system, a body of many representatives is elected by voters. This body might be called a House of Commons', a national assembly, a legislative assembly, a lower house, or any number of other names (for this discussion, we shall refer to it as a Legislature). Each member of the Legislature has one equal vote. The Legislature has the power to pass legislation, which has the force of law. To become law, the proposed law must receive the approval of the majority of the Legislature.
Usually at its first meeting after an election of new members, the Legislature chooses from amongst its membership an Executive body, i.e., the officials in charge of making sure that legislation is enforced. This body is usually called a cabinet, but is sometimes called a Council of Ministers. Each member of the cabinet usually has a specific portfolio, over which he/she is responsible: finances, foreign policy, defence, agriculture, transport, etc. The chairman of the cabinet is the most powerful person in a Parliamentary system, and is usually given the title of Prime Minister (aka., "chancellor", "premier", or "first minister").
The Legislature also chooses the "President" of the state, who is usually a ceremonial figurehead for the state (called the head of state). Sometimes, the President is given the duty of settling deadlocks in the Legislature over the choice of members of the Cabinet. (Some states maintain a king or queen as their ceremonial head of state. Such states are called "constitutional monarchies", while systems with presidents are called "republics". There is little difference between these two types of states in practice).
Most members of the Legislature are part of a faction within the body that wishes to pursue a common political agenda. This is called a political party. If one political party constitutes a majority of the members of a Legislature, then that party can dictate who gets chosen for the Cabinet and what legislation gets approval. This is called majority government. The leader of the majority party automatically becomes Prime Minister, and as long as he/she maintains the confidence of his/her party, he/she can dictate who is in the cabinet and what legislation gets passed. This makes the Prime Minister a very power official. The Prime Minister can even decide to dissolve the Legislature and call a new election.
Parliamentary systems are prevalent in western Europe, as well as the former colonies of Great Britain.
The Presidential system was first developed by the framers of the United States Constitution in the 1780s. The framers disapproved of the way in which the Prime Minister of Parliamentary systems could accumulate so much power. They therefore developed a system designed to spread power more evenly over many different elected officials. This is known as the separation of powers.
In a typical presidential system, the president is not purely symbolic. Not only is the President the head of state, but is also in charge of naming the members of the cabinet (called "administration" in the United States). The President also has some powers specifically mandated by the constitution, particularly in foreign policy and defence. The president is not chosen by the legislature, but directly elected by the voters. The President is not allowed to be a member of the legislature.
The legislature (or congress in the United States), the leader of the majority party does not automatically become the Prime Minister. In fact, in many presidential systems, the position of Prime Minister does not exist; the President instead chairs the cabinet. The legislature holds elections at fixed intervals (usually every four years), instead of being dissolved by a Prime Minister. Because the majority party of the legislature does not control the executive, political parties play a less important role in a Presidential system, and members of the same party may often vote differently in the legislature.
The Presidential system is used in the United States and states strongly influenced by the United States, such as Mexico.
Mixed systems incorporate attributes of the Parliamentary system and Presidential System. Often, these mixes result in a directly elected President with powers equivalent to a Prime Minister. For instance, in France, the President is directly elected by the people every five years. The President of France may dissolve the National Assembly. If the President has the following of a majority of the National Assembly, then he may appoint the Cabinet; if he does not have the following of the National Assembly, then he may only appoint members of the Cabinet who are responsible for foreign policy and defence.
Mixed systems have proven popular amongst relatively new democracies, such as Russia, the Ukraine, and Iraq, since they give a lot of power to the President.
FEDERALISM SYSTEM
FEDERALISM
Federalism, a central feature of the American political system, is the division and sharing of power between the national government and the states. The balance of power between the two levels of government has spawned some of the most intense controversies in American history. Historically, national interests have clashed with states' rights, and even today, when most Americans think of the government in Washington as vastly more powerful than the state governments, federalism is still one of the most important founding principles of the United States.
UNITARY, FEDERAL, AND CONFEDERAL POLITICAL SYSTEMS
All political systems may be evaluated according to their geographic distribution of power. A unitary system is one that concentrates all policymaking powers in one central geographic place; a confederal system spreads the power among many sub-units (such as states), and has a weak central government. A federal system divides the power between the central government and the sub-units. All political systems fall on a continuum from the most concentrated amount of power to the least. Unitary governments may be placed on the left side, according to the degree of concentration; confederal governments are placed to the right; and federal governments fall in between.
|___________________________________________________________________]
UNITARY FEDERAL CONFEDERAL
SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM
(China, Britain, (U.S. Canada) (U.S. under the Articles
France) of Confederation, The
Confederate States
of America during the
Civil War)
THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERALISM
Federalism was carefully defined in the Constitution as a founding principle of the U.S. political system. Even so, the nature of federalism is dynamic and has been shaped through the years by laws, Supreme Court decisions, and debates among prominent elected officials and statesmen.
FEDERALISM AS PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION
When the colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776, they reacted against the British unitary system in which all political and economic power was concentrated in London. Although the British did not impose this power consistently until after the French and Indian War ended in 1763, new controls on the colonial governments during the 1760s became a major source of friction that eventually led to war. During the American Revolution, the states reacted to Britain's unitary system by creating the Articles of Confederation that gave virtually all powers to the states. The framers at the Constitutional Convention tried to balance the perceived tyranny of the unitary system with the chaos created by the confederal system by outlining a hybrid federal system in the Constitution. Federalism, then, became a major building block for preserving freedoms while still maintaining order in the new nation.
Delegated Powers
The Constitution grants the national government certain delegated powers, chief of which are the war power, the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and the power to tax and spend. Delegated powers (also called expressed or enumerated powers) are those that are specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution.
The War Power - The national government is responsible for protecting the nation from external attacks and for declaring war when necessary. Today, defense includes not only maintaining a standing army, navy, and air force, but also the ability to mobilize industry and scientific knowledge to back the efforts of the military.
á The Power to Regulate Interstate and Foreign Commerce - The national government has the responsibility to regulate commerce between the U.S. and foreign nations, as well as trade between states (interstate commerce.) The commerce clause (Article One, Section 8, Clause 3) gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes." The government regulates a wide range of human activity, including agriculture, transportation, finance, product safety, labor relations, and the workplace. Few aspects of today's economy affect commerce in only one state, so most activities are subject to the national government's constitutional authority.
á The Power to Tax and Spend - Even when Congress lacks the constitutional power to legislate (for example, education and agriculture), its power to appropriate money provides Congress with a great deal of control. When Congress finances an undertaking, it determines how the money will be spent. Congress may threaten to withhold funds if a project does not meet federal guidelines. In recent years Congress has refused to finance any program in which benefits are denied because of race, color, or national origin, and more recently, gender and physical handicap.
Other powers specifically delegated to the national government include coining money, establishing a postal system, and the right of the government to borrow against its credit.
Concurrent Powers
All powers not granted in the Constitution to the national government are reserved for the states. States, however, may hold some of the same powers that the national government has, unless they have been given exclusively to the national government, either by provision of the Constitution or by judicial interpretation. Concurrent powers are those that both national and state governments hold. Examples are the concurrent powers of levying taxes and establishing and maintaining separate court systems. Even so, federalism limits state powers in that states cannot "unduly burden" their citizens with taxes. Neither can they interfere with a function of the national government, nor abridge the terms of a treaty of the United States government.
Reserved Powers
Reserved powers are those held by the states alone. They are not listed (as delegated powers are), but they are guaranteed by the 10th Amendment as ãreserved to the states respectively, or to the people.ä Reserved powers include establishing local governments and regulating trade within a state. States also have police power ö the authority to legislate for the protection of the health, morals, safety, and welfare of the people. However, because these powers are not listed in the Constitution, there is sometimes a question about whether certain powers are delegated to the national government or reserved for the states.
Prohibited Powers
Prohibited powers are denied to either the national government, state governments, or both. For example, the federal government canât tax exports, and state governments cannot tax either imports or exports. States canât make treaties with or declare war on foreign governments
The ãNecessary and Proper Debateä
From the beginning, the meaning of federalism has been open to debate. In the late 18th century, Alexander Hamilton ö the first Secretary of the Treasury ö championed loose construction, the view that the Constitution should be broadly interpreted. The national government created by the government represented "the supreme law of the land" (Article Six), and its powers should be broadly defined and liberally construed. The opposite view of strict construction, articulated by Thomas Jefferson, was that the federal government was the product of an agreement among the states and that the main threat to personal liberty was likely to come from the national government. Jefferson's strict construction required that the powers of the national government should be narrowly construed and sharply limited. This famous clash in interpretations of the Constitution shaped the political culture of the United States for many years, well into the mid-twentieth century.
Realizing that they could not make a comprehensive list of powers for the national or the state governments, the founders added to Article I the "necessary and proper clause.ä This clause states that Congress shall have the power "to make all laws which shall be necesary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Hamilton's arguments for national supremacy relied heavily on the "necessary and proper" (or ãelasticä) clause. Jefferson's states rights point of view rested partially on the 10th Amendment that reserves powers to the states.
McCULLOCH V. MARYLAND
During the early 19th century, the Supreme Court tipped the balance of the debate to national supremacy, the point of view that the national government should have relatively more power than the states. Chief Justice John Marshall advocated this view in a series of decisions, including the influential 1819 case known as McCulloch v. Maryland.
The case arose when James McCulloch, the cashier of the Bank of the United States in Baltimore, refused to pay a tax levied on the bank by the state of Maryland. When state officials arrested him, McCulloch appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court's opinion set an important precedent that established national supremacy over states rights. The case questioned the right of the federal government to establish a bank, since no such right is enumerated in Article I.
Marshall ruled the Maryland law that established the tax unconstitutional with his famous statement: "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The power to destroy a federal agency would give the state supremacy over the federal government, so the states may not tax a federal agency.
THE NULLIFICATION CONTROVERSY
The issue continued to rage during the early 19th century. Eventually James Madison and Thomas Jefferson defined the states rights point of view as nullification, the right of a state to declare null and void a federal law that in the state's opinion, violated the Constitution. Before the Civil War, John C. Calhoun led the charge for southern states that claimed the right to declare ãnull and voidä any attempts by the national government to ban slavery. The issue was settled with the northern victory in the Civil War that determined once and for all that the federal union is indissoluble and that states cannot declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.
THE "COMMERCE CLAUSE"
The meaning of the commerce clause was at issue in the 1824 Gibbons vs. Ogden case. Aaron Ogden had been given exclusive license by the state of New York to operate steam-powered ferryboats between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons obtained a license from the U.S. government to operate boats in the same area, and when he decided to compete with Ogden, Ogden sued, and the case went to the Supreme Court. Several issues were at stake in defining federalism:
The definition of commerce - When New Yorkâs highest court ruled against Gibbons, defined commerce narrowly as only the shipment of goods, not navigation or the transport of people.
National governmentâs powers over intrastate commerce ö Does the national government have the right to control any commerce within a stateâs boundaries?
State governmentâs powers over interstate commerce ö Is interstate commerce a concurrent power that states may share with the national government?
John Marshall wrote the majority opinion in the case, an expansive interpretation of the commerce clause that increased the national governmentâs authority over all areas of economic affairs. Marshall defined commerce as all business dealings, not just the transfer of goods, and he ruled that the national government could regulate within statesâ jurisdiction. On the other hand, interstate commerce is solely the right of the national government, and so the New York court had no right to prohibit Gibbonsâ trade.
Expansion of the Commerce Clause
With the booming Industrial Revolution of the late 1800s, the debate over the balance of power between state and national government focused on the interpretation of the commerce clause, which gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." At first, the Court tried to distinguish between interstate commerce, which Congress could regulate, and intrastate commerce, which only the states could control. Because most companies participate in both types of commerce, the Court had a great deal of trouble distinguishing between the two. If a company is canning vegetables, some of which will be shipped within the state, and some outside the state, should different regulations apply to canning the same product? Is a shipment destined for another state under state control as long as it travels to the border? At what point does it become interstate commerce?
Over the years this clause has been interpreted more and more broadly, so that today, the national government regulates a wide range of commercial activities, including transportation, agriculture, labor relations, finance, and manufacturing. Almost no type of commerce is controlled exclusively by the states, and the current Court interpretation of commerce laws is extremely complex.
The Commerce Clause and Civil Rights
The Commerce clause also has been used to sustain legislation outside of commercial matters. In 1964 the Supreme Court upheld the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbidding discrimination based on race in public accommodations because
"Congress's action in removing the disruptive effect which it found racial
discrimination has on interstate travel is not invalidated because Congress
was also legislating against what it considers to be moral wrongs."
Discrimination affects interstate commerce, so Congress constitutionally could legislate against discrimination. Again, many years later, Hamilton's loose interpretation of the Constitution insured that the principle of national supremacy prevailed over that of states rights.
Reining in the Commerce Power
Since the 1990s the Supreme Court has been limiting the national governmentâs power under the commerce clause. In United States vs. Lopez (1995) the Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority when it banned possession of guns within one thousand feet of any school. The law was declared unconstitutional because it had ãnothing to do with commerce.ä In 2000, the Court held that the 1994 Violence against Women Act also overstepped the Constitution with the statement that violence against women had an adverse effect on interstate commerce.
TWO TYPES OF FEDERALISM
Until the 1930s, the relationship between the national and state governments was usually described as dual federalism, a system in which each remains supreme within its own sphere. However, as the commerce controversy in Gibbons vs. Ogden points out, separating national from state jurisdiction isnât always easy. With the New Deal programs of the 1930s the separation proved to be virtually impossible, ushering in the era of cooperative federalism. During this era state and federal governments cooperated in solving the common complex problems brought on by the Great Depression. The New Deal programs often involved joint action between the national government and the states. Cooperative federalism remains in place today, with the national government involved to some extent in virtually all public policymaking.
The two types of federalism are often compared by using an analogy with two types of cakes: the layer cake (dual federalism) with its clearly distinct separations, and the marble cake (cooperative federalism) where the two intertwine and swirl together.
THE POLITICS OF MODERN FEDERALISM
The structures of the federal system have not changed much since the Constitution was written, but modern politics have changed the relationship between national and state governments, especially over the past 50 years or so. Today a major aspect of federalism is the grants-in-aid system: the national government provides millions of dollars for federal grants to states.
GRANTS-IN-AID
One of the national governments most important tools for influencing policy at the state and local levels is the federal grant. Congress authorizes grants, establishes rules for how grants may be used, and decides how much control the states have over federal funds.
Federal grants fall into two general types:
Categorical grants are appropriated by Congress for specific purposes - highway or airport building, welfare, or school lunches. These grants usually require the state to "match" (put up money) the federal grants, although the matching funds can vary widely. There are hundreds of categorical grant programs, but a few, including Medicaid and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, account for almost 85 percent of total spending for categorical grants. State and local officials complain that these grants are often too narrow and cannot be adapted easily to local needs.
Block grants consolidate several categorical grants into a single "block" for prescribed broad activities, such as social services, health services, or public education. This type of grant was promoted by Ronald Reagan, and during the early 1980s, Congress consolidated a number of categorical grants into block grants. Later Presidents have advocated that more consolidation occur, but Congress has been reluctant to do so. Block grants give Congress less control over how the money is used, and representative cannot take credit for grants to their particular districts. State governors generally have supported block grants, because they give states wide control of how and where the money is spent. City mayors have tended to oppose them because cities must rely on state governments to determine funding rules and amounts.
Today, even though block grants still exist, Congress is always tempted to add "strings" that set requirements for how federal grants are to be spent. As a result, block grants gradually become more categorical, a phenomenon known as "creeping categorization."
MANDATES
A recent federal control on the activities of state governments is a mandate, a rule that tells states what they must do in order to comply with federal guidelines. Often the mandates are tied to federal grants, but sometimes the mandates have nothing to do with federal aid.
Most mandates apply to civil rights and environmental protection. State programs may not discriminate against specific groups of people, no matter who pays for them. Today, anti-discrimination rules apply to race, sex, age, ethnicity, and physical and mental disabilities. States must comply with federal laws and standards regarding the environment, as well.
Mandates have been criticized strongly by state and local governments. From their point of view, it is easy enough for Congress to pass mandates when the states must foot the bills. For example, the 1986 Handicapped Children's Protection Act provided federal regulations meant to assure equal access and opportunity for disabled children. Federal guidelines included requirements for public schools to build access ramps and elevators, provide special buses and personnel, and widen hallways, all with no federal money to help schools comply.
Examples of Federal Mandates for State and Local Governments
1983 - Social Security Amendments
1984 - Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
Highway Safety Amendments
1986 - Asbestos Emergency Response Act
Handicapped Children's Protection Act
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments
1988 - Drug-Free Workplace Acts
Ocean Dumping Ban Act
1990 - Clean Air Act Amendments
Americans with Disabilities Act
THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF FEDERALISM
Few Americans believe that the federalist system should be abandoned, but the nature of federalism is still a controversy today, and Americans still disagree about the balance of power between national and state governments.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
1. Mobilization of political activity
The various levels of government provide many alternatives for a citizen to be heard regarding a concern. If a local official won't listen, a citizen may appeal to someone on the state or national level.
1. Confusion of political activity
The various levels of government can be confusing to a citizen, so that he or she does not know which official to contact.
2. Interest groups cannot easily take over the government. Powerful interest groups cannot force their will upon less powerful groups because in order to control, they would have to take over not only the national government, but state and local governments as well. Small groups of people have a chance to be heard and influence legislation. 2. Small but motivated interest groups can block the will of the majority for extended periods of time. Sometimes small groups of people can impose their will for extended periods of time on the majority. For example, a relatively small group of southern senators blocked civil rights legislation for many years after most citizens favored such legislation.
3. Diversity of policies among states encourages experimentation and creativity.
50 different state governments tackle similar issues, and a good solution in one state can be modeled in another. For example, if a state finds a good way to finance public education, other states can mimic the plan, altering for special needs. On the other hand, if a state tries something that fails, at least it affects only one state, not all.
3. Diversity of policies among states creates inequality between citizens of different states. Because states provide different levels of support, citizens in some states have more advantages than those in other states. For example, welfare benefits vary widely among the states, as do funding levels for public education.
4. Diverse policies among states are good because uniform laws don't make sense in many areas.
For example, speed limits on highways should be under state and local control, as should the minimum age for obtaining a driving license. Crowded New Jersey should not have the same speed limits as does wide-open Montana. Young people in farm states should be allowed to drive at early ages in order to help support the farm.
4. Diverse policies among states even for speed limits and driving ages creates confusion and inequality.
Although speed limits obviously need to vary, arbitrary differences in state laws are confusing and outdated in this era of interstate highways. Differences in driving ages are not fair to young people in states with higher age requirements.
An individual's attitude about federalism depends partly on how much he or she values equality vs. freedom. Uniform laws passed by a unitary government tend to emphasize equal treatment of citizens. Diverse laws by their very nature allow a great deal of individual freedom.
THE ãDEVOLUTION REVOLUTIONä
Although the trend toward national supremacy has continued throughout most of American history, a movement has begun in recent years to devolve more responsibilities back to the states. The movement began as a Republican initiative shortly after the 1994 elections, when the Republicans became the majority party in both houses of Congress. The new conservative leadership looked for ways to scale back the size and activities of the national government. A major focus was the welfare system, and as a result, the ãwelfare to workä legislation passed in 1996 has led to a major shift of responsibility for welfare programs from federal to state governments. The national government continues to give block grants to states, but overall federal funding for welfare programs has decreased dramatically.
Although the balance of power between national and state governments has varied over time, the federalist system is an essential building block of American government. States sponsor major programs to fund education, help distressed cities, and provide welfare. Local governments have wide controls over a myriad of services and regulations. The federalist system is rooted in the Constitution, and governmental powers certainly will continue to be shared among national, state, and local levels.
IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS AND IDENTIFICATIONS
block grants
categorical grants
the ãcommerce clauseä
concurrent powers
confederal systems
creeping categorization
delegated powers
devolution revolution
federal systems
federalism
grants-in-aid system
loose construction
mandate
national supremacy
necessary and proper clause
nullification
reserved powers
revenue sharing
strict construction
unitary governments
Go to the Table of Contents
Go to the Unit Questions
Federalism, a central feature of the American political system, is the division and sharing of power between the national government and the states. The balance of power between the two levels of government has spawned some of the most intense controversies in American history. Historically, national interests have clashed with states' rights, and even today, when most Americans think of the government in Washington as vastly more powerful than the state governments, federalism is still one of the most important founding principles of the United States.
UNITARY, FEDERAL, AND CONFEDERAL POLITICAL SYSTEMS
All political systems may be evaluated according to their geographic distribution of power. A unitary system is one that concentrates all policymaking powers in one central geographic place; a confederal system spreads the power among many sub-units (such as states), and has a weak central government. A federal system divides the power between the central government and the sub-units. All political systems fall on a continuum from the most concentrated amount of power to the least. Unitary governments may be placed on the left side, according to the degree of concentration; confederal governments are placed to the right; and federal governments fall in between.
|___________________________________________________________________]
UNITARY FEDERAL CONFEDERAL
SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM
(China, Britain, (U.S. Canada) (U.S. under the Articles
France) of Confederation, The
Confederate States
of America during the
Civil War)
THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERALISM
Federalism was carefully defined in the Constitution as a founding principle of the U.S. political system. Even so, the nature of federalism is dynamic and has been shaped through the years by laws, Supreme Court decisions, and debates among prominent elected officials and statesmen.
FEDERALISM AS PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION
When the colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776, they reacted against the British unitary system in which all political and economic power was concentrated in London. Although the British did not impose this power consistently until after the French and Indian War ended in 1763, new controls on the colonial governments during the 1760s became a major source of friction that eventually led to war. During the American Revolution, the states reacted to Britain's unitary system by creating the Articles of Confederation that gave virtually all powers to the states. The framers at the Constitutional Convention tried to balance the perceived tyranny of the unitary system with the chaos created by the confederal system by outlining a hybrid federal system in the Constitution. Federalism, then, became a major building block for preserving freedoms while still maintaining order in the new nation.
Delegated Powers
The Constitution grants the national government certain delegated powers, chief of which are the war power, the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, and the power to tax and spend. Delegated powers (also called expressed or enumerated powers) are those that are specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution.
The War Power - The national government is responsible for protecting the nation from external attacks and for declaring war when necessary. Today, defense includes not only maintaining a standing army, navy, and air force, but also the ability to mobilize industry and scientific knowledge to back the efforts of the military.
á The Power to Regulate Interstate and Foreign Commerce - The national government has the responsibility to regulate commerce between the U.S. and foreign nations, as well as trade between states (interstate commerce.) The commerce clause (Article One, Section 8, Clause 3) gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes." The government regulates a wide range of human activity, including agriculture, transportation, finance, product safety, labor relations, and the workplace. Few aspects of today's economy affect commerce in only one state, so most activities are subject to the national government's constitutional authority.
á The Power to Tax and Spend - Even when Congress lacks the constitutional power to legislate (for example, education and agriculture), its power to appropriate money provides Congress with a great deal of control. When Congress finances an undertaking, it determines how the money will be spent. Congress may threaten to withhold funds if a project does not meet federal guidelines. In recent years Congress has refused to finance any program in which benefits are denied because of race, color, or national origin, and more recently, gender and physical handicap.
Other powers specifically delegated to the national government include coining money, establishing a postal system, and the right of the government to borrow against its credit.
Concurrent Powers
All powers not granted in the Constitution to the national government are reserved for the states. States, however, may hold some of the same powers that the national government has, unless they have been given exclusively to the national government, either by provision of the Constitution or by judicial interpretation. Concurrent powers are those that both national and state governments hold. Examples are the concurrent powers of levying taxes and establishing and maintaining separate court systems. Even so, federalism limits state powers in that states cannot "unduly burden" their citizens with taxes. Neither can they interfere with a function of the national government, nor abridge the terms of a treaty of the United States government.
Reserved Powers
Reserved powers are those held by the states alone. They are not listed (as delegated powers are), but they are guaranteed by the 10th Amendment as ãreserved to the states respectively, or to the people.ä Reserved powers include establishing local governments and regulating trade within a state. States also have police power ö the authority to legislate for the protection of the health, morals, safety, and welfare of the people. However, because these powers are not listed in the Constitution, there is sometimes a question about whether certain powers are delegated to the national government or reserved for the states.
Prohibited Powers
Prohibited powers are denied to either the national government, state governments, or both. For example, the federal government canât tax exports, and state governments cannot tax either imports or exports. States canât make treaties with or declare war on foreign governments
The ãNecessary and Proper Debateä
From the beginning, the meaning of federalism has been open to debate. In the late 18th century, Alexander Hamilton ö the first Secretary of the Treasury ö championed loose construction, the view that the Constitution should be broadly interpreted. The national government created by the government represented "the supreme law of the land" (Article Six), and its powers should be broadly defined and liberally construed. The opposite view of strict construction, articulated by Thomas Jefferson, was that the federal government was the product of an agreement among the states and that the main threat to personal liberty was likely to come from the national government. Jefferson's strict construction required that the powers of the national government should be narrowly construed and sharply limited. This famous clash in interpretations of the Constitution shaped the political culture of the United States for many years, well into the mid-twentieth century.
Realizing that they could not make a comprehensive list of powers for the national or the state governments, the founders added to Article I the "necessary and proper clause.ä This clause states that Congress shall have the power "to make all laws which shall be necesary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Hamilton's arguments for national supremacy relied heavily on the "necessary and proper" (or ãelasticä) clause. Jefferson's states rights point of view rested partially on the 10th Amendment that reserves powers to the states.
McCULLOCH V. MARYLAND
During the early 19th century, the Supreme Court tipped the balance of the debate to national supremacy, the point of view that the national government should have relatively more power than the states. Chief Justice John Marshall advocated this view in a series of decisions, including the influential 1819 case known as McCulloch v. Maryland.
The case arose when James McCulloch, the cashier of the Bank of the United States in Baltimore, refused to pay a tax levied on the bank by the state of Maryland. When state officials arrested him, McCulloch appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court's opinion set an important precedent that established national supremacy over states rights. The case questioned the right of the federal government to establish a bank, since no such right is enumerated in Article I.
Marshall ruled the Maryland law that established the tax unconstitutional with his famous statement: "The power to tax is the power to destroy." The power to destroy a federal agency would give the state supremacy over the federal government, so the states may not tax a federal agency.
THE NULLIFICATION CONTROVERSY
The issue continued to rage during the early 19th century. Eventually James Madison and Thomas Jefferson defined the states rights point of view as nullification, the right of a state to declare null and void a federal law that in the state's opinion, violated the Constitution. Before the Civil War, John C. Calhoun led the charge for southern states that claimed the right to declare ãnull and voidä any attempts by the national government to ban slavery. The issue was settled with the northern victory in the Civil War that determined once and for all that the federal union is indissoluble and that states cannot declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.
THE "COMMERCE CLAUSE"
The meaning of the commerce clause was at issue in the 1824 Gibbons vs. Ogden case. Aaron Ogden had been given exclusive license by the state of New York to operate steam-powered ferryboats between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons obtained a license from the U.S. government to operate boats in the same area, and when he decided to compete with Ogden, Ogden sued, and the case went to the Supreme Court. Several issues were at stake in defining federalism:
The definition of commerce - When New Yorkâs highest court ruled against Gibbons, defined commerce narrowly as only the shipment of goods, not navigation or the transport of people.
National governmentâs powers over intrastate commerce ö Does the national government have the right to control any commerce within a stateâs boundaries?
State governmentâs powers over interstate commerce ö Is interstate commerce a concurrent power that states may share with the national government?
John Marshall wrote the majority opinion in the case, an expansive interpretation of the commerce clause that increased the national governmentâs authority over all areas of economic affairs. Marshall defined commerce as all business dealings, not just the transfer of goods, and he ruled that the national government could regulate within statesâ jurisdiction. On the other hand, interstate commerce is solely the right of the national government, and so the New York court had no right to prohibit Gibbonsâ trade.
Expansion of the Commerce Clause
With the booming Industrial Revolution of the late 1800s, the debate over the balance of power between state and national government focused on the interpretation of the commerce clause, which gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." At first, the Court tried to distinguish between interstate commerce, which Congress could regulate, and intrastate commerce, which only the states could control. Because most companies participate in both types of commerce, the Court had a great deal of trouble distinguishing between the two. If a company is canning vegetables, some of which will be shipped within the state, and some outside the state, should different regulations apply to canning the same product? Is a shipment destined for another state under state control as long as it travels to the border? At what point does it become interstate commerce?
Over the years this clause has been interpreted more and more broadly, so that today, the national government regulates a wide range of commercial activities, including transportation, agriculture, labor relations, finance, and manufacturing. Almost no type of commerce is controlled exclusively by the states, and the current Court interpretation of commerce laws is extremely complex.
The Commerce Clause and Civil Rights
The Commerce clause also has been used to sustain legislation outside of commercial matters. In 1964 the Supreme Court upheld the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbidding discrimination based on race in public accommodations because
"Congress's action in removing the disruptive effect which it found racial
discrimination has on interstate travel is not invalidated because Congress
was also legislating against what it considers to be moral wrongs."
Discrimination affects interstate commerce, so Congress constitutionally could legislate against discrimination. Again, many years later, Hamilton's loose interpretation of the Constitution insured that the principle of national supremacy prevailed over that of states rights.
Reining in the Commerce Power
Since the 1990s the Supreme Court has been limiting the national governmentâs power under the commerce clause. In United States vs. Lopez (1995) the Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority when it banned possession of guns within one thousand feet of any school. The law was declared unconstitutional because it had ãnothing to do with commerce.ä In 2000, the Court held that the 1994 Violence against Women Act also overstepped the Constitution with the statement that violence against women had an adverse effect on interstate commerce.
TWO TYPES OF FEDERALISM
Until the 1930s, the relationship between the national and state governments was usually described as dual federalism, a system in which each remains supreme within its own sphere. However, as the commerce controversy in Gibbons vs. Ogden points out, separating national from state jurisdiction isnât always easy. With the New Deal programs of the 1930s the separation proved to be virtually impossible, ushering in the era of cooperative federalism. During this era state and federal governments cooperated in solving the common complex problems brought on by the Great Depression. The New Deal programs often involved joint action between the national government and the states. Cooperative federalism remains in place today, with the national government involved to some extent in virtually all public policymaking.
The two types of federalism are often compared by using an analogy with two types of cakes: the layer cake (dual federalism) with its clearly distinct separations, and the marble cake (cooperative federalism) where the two intertwine and swirl together.
THE POLITICS OF MODERN FEDERALISM
The structures of the federal system have not changed much since the Constitution was written, but modern politics have changed the relationship between national and state governments, especially over the past 50 years or so. Today a major aspect of federalism is the grants-in-aid system: the national government provides millions of dollars for federal grants to states.
GRANTS-IN-AID
One of the national governments most important tools for influencing policy at the state and local levels is the federal grant. Congress authorizes grants, establishes rules for how grants may be used, and decides how much control the states have over federal funds.
Federal grants fall into two general types:
Categorical grants are appropriated by Congress for specific purposes - highway or airport building, welfare, or school lunches. These grants usually require the state to "match" (put up money) the federal grants, although the matching funds can vary widely. There are hundreds of categorical grant programs, but a few, including Medicaid and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, account for almost 85 percent of total spending for categorical grants. State and local officials complain that these grants are often too narrow and cannot be adapted easily to local needs.
Block grants consolidate several categorical grants into a single "block" for prescribed broad activities, such as social services, health services, or public education. This type of grant was promoted by Ronald Reagan, and during the early 1980s, Congress consolidated a number of categorical grants into block grants. Later Presidents have advocated that more consolidation occur, but Congress has been reluctant to do so. Block grants give Congress less control over how the money is used, and representative cannot take credit for grants to their particular districts. State governors generally have supported block grants, because they give states wide control of how and where the money is spent. City mayors have tended to oppose them because cities must rely on state governments to determine funding rules and amounts.
Today, even though block grants still exist, Congress is always tempted to add "strings" that set requirements for how federal grants are to be spent. As a result, block grants gradually become more categorical, a phenomenon known as "creeping categorization."
MANDATES
A recent federal control on the activities of state governments is a mandate, a rule that tells states what they must do in order to comply with federal guidelines. Often the mandates are tied to federal grants, but sometimes the mandates have nothing to do with federal aid.
Most mandates apply to civil rights and environmental protection. State programs may not discriminate against specific groups of people, no matter who pays for them. Today, anti-discrimination rules apply to race, sex, age, ethnicity, and physical and mental disabilities. States must comply with federal laws and standards regarding the environment, as well.
Mandates have been criticized strongly by state and local governments. From their point of view, it is easy enough for Congress to pass mandates when the states must foot the bills. For example, the 1986 Handicapped Children's Protection Act provided federal regulations meant to assure equal access and opportunity for disabled children. Federal guidelines included requirements for public schools to build access ramps and elevators, provide special buses and personnel, and widen hallways, all with no federal money to help schools comply.
Examples of Federal Mandates for State and Local Governments
1983 - Social Security Amendments
1984 - Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
Highway Safety Amendments
1986 - Asbestos Emergency Response Act
Handicapped Children's Protection Act
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments
1988 - Drug-Free Workplace Acts
Ocean Dumping Ban Act
1990 - Clean Air Act Amendments
Americans with Disabilities Act
THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF FEDERALISM
Few Americans believe that the federalist system should be abandoned, but the nature of federalism is still a controversy today, and Americans still disagree about the balance of power between national and state governments.
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
1. Mobilization of political activity
The various levels of government provide many alternatives for a citizen to be heard regarding a concern. If a local official won't listen, a citizen may appeal to someone on the state or national level.
1. Confusion of political activity
The various levels of government can be confusing to a citizen, so that he or she does not know which official to contact.
2. Interest groups cannot easily take over the government. Powerful interest groups cannot force their will upon less powerful groups because in order to control, they would have to take over not only the national government, but state and local governments as well. Small groups of people have a chance to be heard and influence legislation. 2. Small but motivated interest groups can block the will of the majority for extended periods of time. Sometimes small groups of people can impose their will for extended periods of time on the majority. For example, a relatively small group of southern senators blocked civil rights legislation for many years after most citizens favored such legislation.
3. Diversity of policies among states encourages experimentation and creativity.
50 different state governments tackle similar issues, and a good solution in one state can be modeled in another. For example, if a state finds a good way to finance public education, other states can mimic the plan, altering for special needs. On the other hand, if a state tries something that fails, at least it affects only one state, not all.
3. Diversity of policies among states creates inequality between citizens of different states. Because states provide different levels of support, citizens in some states have more advantages than those in other states. For example, welfare benefits vary widely among the states, as do funding levels for public education.
4. Diverse policies among states are good because uniform laws don't make sense in many areas.
For example, speed limits on highways should be under state and local control, as should the minimum age for obtaining a driving license. Crowded New Jersey should not have the same speed limits as does wide-open Montana. Young people in farm states should be allowed to drive at early ages in order to help support the farm.
4. Diverse policies among states even for speed limits and driving ages creates confusion and inequality.
Although speed limits obviously need to vary, arbitrary differences in state laws are confusing and outdated in this era of interstate highways. Differences in driving ages are not fair to young people in states with higher age requirements.
An individual's attitude about federalism depends partly on how much he or she values equality vs. freedom. Uniform laws passed by a unitary government tend to emphasize equal treatment of citizens. Diverse laws by their very nature allow a great deal of individual freedom.
THE ãDEVOLUTION REVOLUTIONä
Although the trend toward national supremacy has continued throughout most of American history, a movement has begun in recent years to devolve more responsibilities back to the states. The movement began as a Republican initiative shortly after the 1994 elections, when the Republicans became the majority party in both houses of Congress. The new conservative leadership looked for ways to scale back the size and activities of the national government. A major focus was the welfare system, and as a result, the ãwelfare to workä legislation passed in 1996 has led to a major shift of responsibility for welfare programs from federal to state governments. The national government continues to give block grants to states, but overall federal funding for welfare programs has decreased dramatically.
Although the balance of power between national and state governments has varied over time, the federalist system is an essential building block of American government. States sponsor major programs to fund education, help distressed cities, and provide welfare. Local governments have wide controls over a myriad of services and regulations. The federalist system is rooted in the Constitution, and governmental powers certainly will continue to be shared among national, state, and local levels.
IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS AND IDENTIFICATIONS
block grants
categorical grants
the ãcommerce clauseä
concurrent powers
confederal systems
creeping categorization
delegated powers
devolution revolution
federal systems
federalism
grants-in-aid system
loose construction
mandate
national supremacy
necessary and proper clause
nullification
reserved powers
revenue sharing
strict construction
unitary governments
Go to the Table of Contents
Go to the Unit Questions
FEDERALISM
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Federalism
Federal Systems of the World: A Handbook of Federal, Confederal and Autonomy Arrangements
Introduction
Daniel J. Elazar
Federalist responses to current democratic revolutions
The vast changes that have occurred in Eastern Europe and the USSR since the first edition of this handbook bring us face to face with the opening of a new era in contemporary history, one in which the people themselves have rejected totalitarian communism and are seeking to restore civil society through the introduction of more liberal political regimes. In that, they are following in the footsteps of a similar movement that took place in Latin America earlier in the 1980s against the authoritarian regimes that had taken power there. Those, in turn, were stimulated by the ending of the authoritarian regimes in the European countries of the Mediterranean region -- Spain, Portugal, and Greece -- in the later 1970s. Suddenly, democracy, which only a decade ago had seemed to be in retreat in the face of growing repression throughout the world, has emerged as the real wave of the future.
One of the critical problems faced in several of those countries is that of accommodating internal diversity, often ethnic in character, and fostering appropriate links with their neighbors. In both of these cases, the only solutions that seem to be feasible are federal solutions. This is certainly true in the case of the biggest of the polities involved, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, most of whose former republics are linked confederally through the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). As soon as glasnost and perestroika began to take effect, the different non-Russian nationality groups raised their heads and set their sights on greater independence. Shortly thereafter, the Russians themselves began to assert their 'Russianness' and to seek greater expression of it.
At present, the USSR successor states hang in the balance between greater independence for their nationalities or restoration of repressive centralized government. The USSR's nominal federalism which, despite the paper guarantees of its constitution, did not function in a federalistic way in practice, was incapable of responding satisfactorily to those demands so it was dissolved. Now those who believe that it is best or at least necessary to preserve its successor states, particularly Russia but also Ukraine and Georgia, under one general government are looking to federal solutions to solve their problems of balancing nationality demands with the desire or need for a common framework and are having difficulties in that.
But the CIS republics are not the only states involved. In Eastern Europe, totalitarian Communism imposed its own murderous straitjacket after each of the world wars. It finally collapsed under the weight of its own sins (one is tempted to say "internal contradictions"), opening the door to democracy and demonstrating the need for federal democracy at that. Czechoslovakia became nominally federal in 1968 -- the only major result of the Prague Spring to survive. While on its way to becoming meaningfully federal, however, Slovak nationalists engineered that state's peaceful secession, now much regretted by many Slovakians who perceive their loss while many Czechs are relieved at having shed a burden.
Yugoslavia, on the other hand, ruled by Leagues of Communists, although not a member of the Soviet bloc, erupted into civil war once the Soviet threat to its existence was eliminated. Two of its republics, Slovenia and Croatia, took the lead in seceding. Slovenia's secession was successful. Croatia successfully established its independence but has lost approximately a third of its territory to Serbia which invaded it to "rescue" local Serbs. Macedonia subsequently seceeded, while Bosnia has been wracked by a three-way civil war between Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats, and seems destined for partition in some form. Serbia, Montenegro, and those parts of the other republics captured by the Serbian army maintain at least the form of Yugoslav federalism. Nevertheless, all of this demonstrates that "federalism" imposed by force and ruled from the top is neither true federalism nor is it destined to be successful. Federalism is too intimately associated with democratic republicanism for that.
The German situation, which has been so very different, is a case in point. Their reunion of west and east was achieved through first reconstituting the states of the eastern German Democratic Republic. They then joined the western German Federal Republic. Part of the maintenance of democracy in a reunified Germany undoubtedly will be tied to the continued linkage of Germany to the European Community, itself an evolving confederation that has restored the possibility of confederation as a viable form of federalism, most recently through the Maastricht treaty.
Within the European Community, Spain, Portugal, and Greece returned to democracy as a precondition to joining the EC. In 1978 Spain adopted the regime of the autonomies, a form of federal solution designed to solve its own internal nationality problem. Over fifteen years after the adoption of a democratic constitution for Spain and the introduction of the regime of the autonomies, it is generally agreed that the introduction of those federal principles and arrangements has had extraordinary success in restoring democracy and diffusing internal conflict in that country. The continuation of a democratic regime in Greece was strongly influenced by that country's membership in the European Community. Portuguese democracy has also been influenced for the good by Community membership.
With a still-powerful Russia to their east and a newly-powerful Germany to their west, the former Soviet bloc countries of Eastern Europe are faced with their own problems of survival and renewal. There is every reason to expect that at some stage they either will be absorbed into the EC or its network, or older ideas of a middle European confederation may be revived, albeit more along lines of a confederation like that of the European Community to the west.
Turning to Latin America, the strengthening of federalism has been a significant item on the agendas of Argentina and Brazil in their turn from authoritarianism to liberal democracy. Brazil's new constitution increases the formal powers of the states vis-a-vis the federal government in the name of democracy. The formal and rather weak federal system of Mexico is becoming a vehicle for the emergence of an effective and competitive political opposition there through the Mexican states. Venezuela has elected to strengthen its existing federal system by providing for the popular election of state and local chief executives to strengthen its democratic regime. Recently, there has been some promise that regional confederal arrangements in Central America will be playing a role in the restoration of democracy in Nicaragua and Panama and other countries of that region.
The end of the statist epoch: a paradigm shift
In the early 1990s the world as a whole is in a paradigm shift of major proportions from a world of states modeled after the ideal of the nation-state developed at the beginning of the modern epoch in the seventeenth century to a world of diminished state sovereignty and increased interstate linkages of a constitutionalized federal charcter. This paradigm shift actually began after World War II. It may yet turn out that the United Nations, founded in San Francisco in May 1945 as no more than a league of politically sovereign states with the elevated goal of maintaining world peace, that had been riven by the ultimately fatal struggle between the two great powers that led to the Cold War, was the first step toward this paradigm shift. Despite the developments in Western Europe which led to the radical diminution of the political sovereignty of the member states of the European Community, and similar developments in other parts of the world, particularly Southeast Asia (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations -- ASEAN) and the Caribbean, it was not until the collapse of first the Soviet empire and then the Soviet Union itself between 1989 and 1993, that the extensive and decisive character of this paradigm shift became evident to most people, even (or perhaps especially) those who closely follow public affairs. Most of the latter were and still are wedded to the earlier paradigm that the building blocks of world organization are politically sovereign states, most or all of which strive to be nation-states and maximize their independence of action and decision. While there are a few who have been aware of this paradigm shift as it was taking place and some who have advocated it as a major political goal, for most it has seemed to have crept up unawares as it were.
Let us understand the nature of this paradigm shift. It is not that states are disappearing, it is that the state system is acquiring a new dimension, one that began as a supplement and is now coming to overlay the system that prevailed throughout the modern epoch. That overlay is a network of agreements that are not only militarily and economically binding for de facto reasons but that are becoming constitutionally binding de jure to radically restrict what was called state sovereignty and force states into various combinations of self-rule and shared rule to enable them to survive at all. The implications of this paradigm shift are enormous. Whereas before, every state strove for self-sufficiency, homogeneity, and, with a few exceptions, concentration of authority and power in single center, under the new paradigm all states had to recognize their interdependence, heterogeneity, and the fact that their centers, if they ever existed, are no longer single centers but parts of a multi-centered network that is increasingly noncentralized, and that all of this is necessary in order to survive in the new world.
The principal form of political organization in the modern and early post-modern epochs, that is to say, at least since the seventeenth century, has been the nation-state, politically sovereign in its territory and exercising that sovereignty over or in the name of the people of that territory on an exclusive basis. For well over 300 years, the major political efforts of European civilization as well as peoples and countries influenced by that civilization have been directed toward building such politically sovereign states, and all too often in reifying them so that the states take on an existence separate from the peoples they are designed to serve. We have just passed through what is in all likelihood the last great era of state-building, namely the establishment of such politically independent states in the Third World as a result of the decolonization process. Today there are over 180 such states recognized in international law and participating in international politics.
While this kind of state-building and even statism has been the common denominator of the modern age and its immediate aftermath, parallel to it there has developed a second system of polity-building, one in which the benefits of statehood, namely liberty and autonomy, or, in contemporary terminology, self-determination and self-government, are gained through what generally may be denominated federal arrangements. Such arrangements reached their apotheosis in the modern epoch in the form of modern federations such as the United States under its 1787 constitution, Switzerland after 1848, and Canada from 1867. Indeed, during the modern epoch only federation offered a model of statehood capable of serving as an alternative to the reified state.
Since the end of the modern epoch, however, other species of federalism and autonomy have begun to come into their own, so that today over 50 of the 180 politically sovereign states are either federations or include within them forms of self-determination and self-government which represent extensions of the federal principle or applications of the idea of political autonomy. Since several of these contemporary states embrace a variety of such arrangements (the United States and the United Kingdom each include six different ones), the total number of arrangements is well over 100. Well over 300 separate polities have state status or the equivalent through such arrangements, while hundreds of local governments also have a real measure of constitutionally grounded autonomy. Nearly 60 politically sovereign states are members of constitutionally-anchored confederal arrangements.
Thus, there has emerged a parallel system to the state system which, in a world growing more complex and interrelated, has begun to act in the international arena in a variety of ways. As a result, the two systems have themselves begun to interact. The informal linkages between them were always there; now formal ones are developing as well.
The rapid spread of this parallel system is in great part a response to the effort on the part of a number of the reified, politically sovereign states to force the peoples on their respective territories into the procrustean jurisdiction of a single central government. In other words, their goal has been "one people, one government and one territory." In some cases this goal has been linked to revolutionary radicalism, in others to reaction; in some it has been liberal in content, in others conservative. But whatever the form or content, federal arrangements in some form have become the common denominator of the age.
In all too many cases, the centralized sovereign state became the procrustean state at the very least. Indeed, the term that was invented to describe this new creature -- "nation state" -- was, in itself, an ideal projection or a sleight of hand. We now are far enough removed from the process to recognize that rarely did the establishment of a particular state, embracing a given territory, reflect a pre-existing national homogeneity. In most cases, boundaries often were established by violent means. The formation of the nation came afterward, when the central authority subdued all the dissident elements within the territory to make the self-defined nation-state a reality. In the course of its development, the nation-state often became a citizen state, where each person was individually a citizen but was not entitled to maintain any substantial group identity other than that of the official nation.
If the truth be told, the homogeneous polity with so close a linkage between people, government and territory in every respect, simply has not come to pass, even in those countries where it once seemed to be farthest along the road. One major characteristic of the post-modern era is the ethnic revival, the re-emergence of the sense of primordial ties as central to individual identity. This development is reflected politically in the world-wide movement from class-based to ethnic-based politics.(1)
A second characteristic of the post-modern era is the linkage of peoples or nations across state borders. Inter-regional arrangements such as those in the Upper Rhine Valley offer one example of such linkages. There, people of Allemanian background living in three different nation-states -- France, Germany, and Switzerland -- a number of Swiss cantons, and the German land of Baden-Wurtenberg are linked together through a variety of devices.(2) State-diaspora arrangements of the kind that are characteristic of the Jewish people offer another example. Yet another is reflected in the interstate relations which are characteristic of the Arab world, which perceives itself as one Arab nation divided into a number of states but with trans-state linkages.
A third characteristic is the development of new governmental arrangements -- at least new to the modern era (some have classic antecedents) -- to accommodate post-modern trends. There are common markets which transcend the boundaries of the older nation-states. There are federacies and associated-state arrangements through which a principal state and a smaller one are linked together through asymmetrical federal ties for their mutual advantage.(3) Mini-states of a few thousand population have emerged that can exist because of the overall security shield provided by the great powers and the general predisposition on the part of the larger nations of the world to tolerate such entities and to protect them even though they could not protect or sustain themselves under the state system of the modern era. Among the new developments are entities within polities which possess autonomy or home-rule in one form or another. These new governmental arrangements have moved in two directions simultaneously, to create both larger and smaller political units for different purposes, to gain the economic or strategic advantages of larger size while at the same time maintaining smaller scale structures to secure certain kinds of indigenous communities, or to better accommodate ethnic diversity.
A fourth characteristic of the post-modern era is the establishment of new relationships between governments and territories, most of which flow out of these new governmental arrangements. The idea of more than one government exercising powers over the same territory was anathema to the European fathers of the modern nation-state. The twentieth century, on the other hand, is the age of federalism. Hence the existence of more than one government over the same territory, each with its special powers, competence, or tasks, is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon.(4)
A fifth characteristic, manifested in all these new relationships, is the growing reality of the limitations on sovereignty. No state today is as sovereign as any state was perceived to be 100 years ago, if only because even the great powers recognize their limits in a nuclear age when it comes to making unilateral decisions about war and peace. Many states are accepting these increased limitations and trading them off, as it were, for advantages. The European Union is the major example of how the acceptance of limitations on sovereignty in the economic sphere can be "traded off" for greater economic benefits under the military protection of the NATO security-community. It is not the only such example. At the other end of the Eurasian land mass, the members of ASEAN -- the Association of Southeast Asian Nations -- have taken substantial steps in the direction of limiting their freedom of action in many matters, while not formally limiting their political sovereignty, to attain greater military security and economic development.
A new theory of political relationships
The intellectual effort to come to grips with all of these phenomena has been much slower than developments in the real world. The accepted intellectual models of state-building in particular have tended to lag behind these new realities. Only recently is there beginning to be a recognition that new thinking and other models are needed to deal with them. More specifically, the dominant center -- periphery model of statehood is being challenged by the champions of a new model which views the polity as a matrix of overlapping, interlocking units, powers, and relationships.(5) A separate theory of federal relations is developing to replace the nation, that the arrangements mentioned above simply represent points on a centralization -- decentralization continuum. This theory is not confined to the definition of intergovernmental relations but is related to a larger understanding of politics, a federalist understanding which is challenging the dominant Jacobin -- Marxian view on a number of fronts.(6)
The center -- periphery model holds that sovereign power in a state is properly concentrated in a single center which may or may not be significantly influenced by its periphery. This model is derived from the organic theory of the polity and represents an effort to democratize preexisting monarchic or aristocratic polities by conquering and transforming the center of power in each. While its modern political sources are to be found in Bourbon France, in the works of French political theorists exemplified by Jean Bodin, and in Rousseau's statist interpretation of the general will, its democratic expressions are principally Jacobin. Jacobinism is a European invention given form in the French Revolution and subsequently extended and reshaped by Marx and various socialist movements of the nineteenth century. Centralization is the organizational expression of Jacobinism, which distrusts dispersed power because of the historical experience out of which it grew, in which localism was synonymous with support for the pre-revolutionary power-holders.
Parallel to the center -- periphery model is the pyramid model originally developed for such hierarchical states as ancient Egypt, modern Prussia, and Napoleonic France. It became a general model in the wake of the development of the administrative state, reflecting the managerial conception of political organization. While originally authoritarian in character, if not totalitarian, as a managerial model it has been adapted for democratic republics.
The matrix model, whereby authority and power are dispersed among a network of arenas within arenas, is almost inevitably federalist in its origins. Federalism is derived from covenant and compact theories of the polity and, in its modern form, represents the effort to democratize republicanism. For moderns, its immediate political sources were the Puritans, Reformed and Calvinist theologians, Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu. The foundations of modern federalism are to be found in the American revolutionary experience, including its constitution-making phase. The most articulate expressions of this model are to be found in The Federalist and Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Its organizational expression is non-centralization, the constitutional diffusion and sharing of powers among many centres. Its logical outcome is the construction of the body politic out of diverse entities that retain their respective integrities within the common framework.
The federal principle and its uses
Utilizing the federal principle does not necessarily mean establishing a federal system in the conventional sense of a modern federation. A federation is a polity with a strong overarching general government whose constitution is recognized as the supreme law of the land and which is able to relate directly to the individuals who are dual citizens in both the federation and their constituent states. The position and autonomy of the latter are constitutionally protected. Despite the tendency to limit federalism to that model, the federal principle actually is embodied in a wide variety of structures, each adapted to a particular polity. This is possible because the essence of federalism is not to be found in a particular kind of structure but a particular set of relationships among the participants in a political system. Consequently, federalism is a phenomenon that provides many options for the organization of political authority and power; as long as the proper relations are developed, a wide variety of political structures can be developed that are consistent with federal principles.
What is federalism?
Federal principles are concerned with the combination of self-rule and shared rule. In the broadest sense, federalism involves the linkage of individuals, groups and polities in lasting but limited union, in such a way as to provide for the energetic pursuit of common ends while maintaining the respective integrities of all parties. As a political principle, federalism has to do with the constitutional diffusion of power so that the constituting elements in a federal arrangement share in the processes of common policy-making and administration by right, while the activities of the common government are conducted in such a way as to maintain their respective integrities. Federal systems do this by constitutionally distributing power among general and constituent governing bodies in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of all. In federal systems, basic policies are made and implemented through negotiation in some form so that all can share in the system's decision-making and executing processes.
As many philosophers, theologians, and political theorists in the Western world have noted, the federal idea has its roots in the Bible. Indeed, the first usage of the term was for theological purposes, to define the partnership between humans and God described in the Bible which, in turn, gave form to the idea of a covenantal (or federal) relationship between individuals leading to the formation of a body politic, and between bodies politic leading to the formation of compound polities. The political applications of the theological usage gave rise to the transformation of the term "federal" into an explicitly political concept.
The term "federal" is derived from the Latin foedus which, like the Hebrew term brit, means covenant. In essence, a federal arrangement is one of partnership, established and regulated by a covenant, whose internal relationships reflect the special kind of sharing which must prevail among the partners, namely one that both recognizes the integrity of each partner and seeks to foster a special kind of unity among them. Significantly, shalom, the Hebrew term for peace, is a cognate of brit, having to do with the creation of the covenantal wholeness that is true peace.
The spread of the federal idea
The federalist revolution is among the most widespread of the various revolutions that are changing the face of the globe. Federalism has emerged as a means of accommodating the spreading desire of people to preserve or revive the intimacy of small societies, and the growing necessity for larger combinations to mobilize the utilization of common resources better. Consequently, federal arrangements have been widely applied, on the one hand, to integrate new polities while preserving legitimate internal diversities and, on the other, to link established polities for economic advantage and greater security. Nearly 80 per cent of the world's population now live within polities that either are formally federal or that utilize federal arrangements in some way, while only 20 per cent live in polities that can be denominated as outside of any federal arrangements.
Accompanying this spread of federalist arrangements has been an expansion of the variety of means for translating the federal idea into practice. Whereas in the nineteenth century federalism was considered particularly notable for the rigidity of its institutional arrangements, in the twentieth century it has come to be particularly useful for its flexibility when it comes to translating principles into political systems. Pre-modern Europe knew of only one federal arrangement: confederation. In a confederation, the general government is the creature of and subordinate to the constituent governments and can only work through them. While it may be established in perpetuity, it is quite limited in scope. Two centuries ago, the United States invented modern federalism and added federation as a second form, one that was widely emulated in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, especially since World War II, new forms have been developed or federal elements have been recognized in older ones previously not well understood.
Definitions
Confederation: Several pre-existing polities joined together to form a common government for strictly limited purposes, usually foreign affairs and defence, and more recently economics, that remains dependent upon its constituent polities in critical ways and must work through them.
Federation: A compound polity compounded of strong constituent entities and a strong general government, each possessing powers delegated to it by the people and empowered to deal directly with the citizenry in the exercise of those powers.
Federacy: Whereby a larger power and a smaller polity are linked asymmetrically in a federal relationship in which the latter has substantial autonomy and in return has a minimal role in the governance of the larger power. Resembling a federation, the relationship between them can be dissolved only by mutual agreement.
Associated state: An asymmetrical arrangement similar to a federacy but like a confederation in that it can be dissolved by either of the parties under pre-arranged terms.
Consociation: A non-territorial federation in which the polity is divided into "permanent" transgenerational religious, cultural, ethnic or ideological groupings known as "camps", "sectors", or "pillars" federated together and jointly governed by coalitions of the leaders of each.
Union: A polity compounded in such a way that its constituent entities preserve their respective integrities primarily or exclusively through the common organs of the general government rather than through dual government structures.
League: A linkage of politically independent polities for specific purposes that function through a common secretariat rather than a government and from which members may unilaterally withdraw at will, at least formally.
Joint functional authority: An agency established by two or more polities for joint implementation of a particular task or tasks.
Condominium: A polity ruled jointly by two external powers in such a way that the inhabitants of the polity have substantial internal self-rule.
Confederal, federacy, associated state, and common market arrangements as we now know them are post-modern applications of the federal principle and political scientists have rediscovered the degree of federalism involved in consociational polities, unions and leagues. There is every reason to expect that the post-modern world will develop new applications of the federal principle in addition to the arrangements we already know, including functional authorities and condominiums. Thus, reality itself is coming to reflect the various faces of federalism.
What the federalist revolution means: some examples
The reassertion of ethnic and regional identities is worldwide in scope and promises to be one of the major political issues of this generation and the next century. There are some 3,000 ethnic or tribal groups in the world conscious of their respective identities. Of the over 180 politically "sovereign" states now in existence, over 170 are multi-ethnic in composition. In sum, while the ideology of the nation-state remains strong, the nation-state itself is rare enough. Nearly one-half of those states are involved in formal arrangements utilizing federal principles in some way to accommodate demands for self-rule or shared rule within their boundaries or in partnership with other polities.
Even as Western Europe moved toward a new-style confederation of old states, its federalist revolution was taking yet another form in the revival of even older ethnic and regional identities in the political arena. As a result, Belgium, Italy, and Spain have constitutionally federalized or regionalized themselves. Portugal devolved power to its island provinces -- as the Netherlands and Denmark have long since done. Switzerland, Germany and Austria, already federal systems, are undergoing an intensification of their federalist dimensions in one way or another.
Most of the new states of Asia and Africa must come to grips with the multi-ethnic issue, even if only a few do so through formally federal systems as in India, Malaysia, Nigeria, and Pakistan. It is an issue that can be accommodated only through the application of federal principles that will combine kinship (the basis of ethnicity) and consent (the basis of democratic government) into politically viable, constitutionally protected arrangements involving territorial and non-territorial polities. The success or failure of that effort will determine the peace of the world.
Western Asia and the Mediterranean region are no exceptions to this problem of ethnic diversity. Indeed, many of its current problems can be traced to the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire, which had succeeded in accommodating communal diversity within a universal state that provided for ethno-religious home rule for several centuries. The inter-communal wars in Cyprus, Iraq, Lebanon, and Sudan, not to speak of the minority problems in Egypt and Syria and the Jewish-Arab struggle, offer headline testimony to this reality. Federal solutions are no less relevant in the Middle East than elsewhere, but in the Middle East especially is the need greatest for a post-modern federalism, a federalism that is not simply based upon territorial boundaries but recognizes the existence of long-enduring peoples as well.
Forms of autonomy or self-rule
In Varieties of Autonomy Arrangements, the original working paper on the subject published by the Jerusalem Institute for Federal Studies in anticipation of the autonomy talks called for in the Camp David Accords, 91 currently functioning examples of autonomy or self-rule, ranging from classic federation to various forms of cultural home-rule, were identified in 52 different states. Since then, others have come to our attention, bringing the total included here to over a hundred. If each separate self-governing comprehensive political entity were to be counted, the number would be in the hundreds, and if local home rule arrangements were added, in the thousands. The examples reflect the same purposes that have led to the creation of "sovereign" states, namely the achievement of self-determination by collectivities (nations, peoples, even tribes) under such conditions that require at least a formal commitment to democratic republicanism. Since over 90 per cent of all "sovereign" states encompass a significant ethnic diversity, not to mention historic and traditional territorially based differences and interstate regional ties, they represent necessary responses to a real human condition.
The variety of arrangements extant includes:
Federations: there are 23 formally federal systems in the world today.
Confederations: of these are three actual ones in existence and three others de facto; the European Union is the prime example.
Decentralized unions in which there is regional or local functional autonomy or which are divided into historic provinces with autonomous municipal powers (e.g., the Netherlands).
Feudal arrangements transformed (e.g., Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Monaco, and San Marino).
Federacies such as Puerto Rico and the United States, or Bhutan and India.
Home-rule, of which there are at least two kinds: that which is unilaterally granted with local consent, as in ex-colonial situations; or constitutional home-rule, generally municipal, embodied in a constitution or charter.
Cultural home-rule, designed to preserve a minority language or religion.
Autonomous provinces or national districts (which the Communist world had developed extensively, but which also exist in countries like Nigeria).
Regional arrangements, both intra-national where there is regional decentralization as in Italy and Spain, or trans-national, such as the kind of regional functional arrangements in the Upper Rhine Valley.
Customs unions, an old-fashioned device that has taken on new meaning, particularly in southern Africa.
Leagues based upon common national or cultural ties, such as Benelux, the Nordic Union, or the Arab League.
State-diaspora ties, such as those that link the Jewish people the world over or those of India that link the union's constituent states and their diaspora communities in other parts of the country or outside.
Extra-territorial arrangements or enclaves -- Egypt and the Sudan have a fairly elaborate system of enclaves on their borders.
Condominiums, such as Andorra, which has been functioning under joint rule for 700 years.
State structures functioning through autonomous tribes: Afghanistan has such a two-tier system. Recently one party captured the state structure but has not been able to deal with the autonomous tribes and consequently brought the country to civil war.
Consociational arrangements of two kinds: equal pillars (e.g., Belgium) or ethno-religious communities in rank order, some of which are dominant and others subordinate.
Where such arrangements exist, they usually exist in multiples. The United States is a good example of this with its federal system, constitutional home rule within the states, federacy arrangements with Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas, the special status of Indian tribes in their tribal areas with a growing measure of territorial home rule, and three associated states in Micronesia: the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia (itself a federation), and the Marshall Islands. Or take the United Kingdom with its different special relationships with Scotland, Wales, Ulster, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, growing out of its pre-modern constitutional history, not to speak of its remaining colonies with home rule. In short, where there is a turning from the reified state-exclusive sovereignty -- centralism syndrome toward a self-rule/shared rule syndrome, it manifests itself more or less across the board.
The Handbook
What follows is a handbook of existing forms of self-rule and autonomy across the world. As a handbook, it is essentially an outline and not a comprehensive description of any of the various forms. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, incorporating the Jerusalem Institute for Federal Studies, has assembled data on each case and has access to the data in the files of its sister institutes in the International Association of Centers for Federal Studies and particularly the Center for the Study of Federalism in Philadelphia.
This handbook represents the first major effort to inventory and describe all known examples of federal and autonomous arrangements, compare their basic features, and classify them by form. Each example is treated within the following framework:
Introduction: A brief description indicating the federal arrangement or arrangements involved, with a brief historical background highlighting any special features of note.
Territorial Structure and Population: Basic information on each of the units of government involved.
General government structure: General description of political system and/or connections between political systems of the polities involved.
Constitutional principles and design: Including government structure (executive, legislative, and judicial) and distribution of selected functions (taxation, land use, police, education).
The various polities are then compared with regard to international relations (what, if any, role the federated states or constituent units play) and symbolic representations of autonomous entities (flag, anthem, stamps, special linguistic rights).
Political culture: A brief and at times preliminary assessment of the political culture as it influences the shared rule arrangement principally based on the 12-cell matrix developed by the author to compare political cultures.
Political dynamics/Recent constitutional developments: As they relate to issues of federalism, autonomy and shared rule.
The growing complexity of shared rule arrangements is reflected in the following pages. While it cannot be shown exactly in table of contents or the headings for each arrangement, we have tried to provide maximum clarity in this regard. Thus: 1) ordinary federations are designated in the following manner -- UNITED STATES; 2) federacies and equivalent asymmetrical federal arrangements are designated as follows -- UNITED STATES: FEDERACIES, Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas, Native American Nations; 3) associated state arrangements in which the associated states do not enjoy international recognition as politically sovereign are designated as follows -- NEW ZEALAND: COOK ISLANDS; 4. associated state arrangements in which the associated states have international recognition as political sovereign -- MARSHALL ISLANDS: UNITED STATES.
References: The principal sources for continuing information about the political systems in question are: Keesings Contemporary Archives until 1987, and Keesings Record of World Events since 1987 (Harlow: Longman Group, UK Ltd.); Facts on File (New York: Facts on File, Inc.), especially "Weekly World News Digest"; Statesman's Yearbook (New York: St. Martin's Press); The Europa Yearbook (London: Europa Publications Ltd.); The World Factbook (Washington: CIA Publications); Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 1971-present, articles on individual polities and comparative articles. A more specialized bibliography is listed in the references at the end of each entry.
This handbook is divided into three parts. The first treats federal and autonomy arrangements utilized to maintain entities within or attached to particular polities. The second treats such arrangements as they are used to link separate states in confederal arrangements. The third reports on recently dissolved federal arrangements. Four appendices suplement the information contained in the body of the handbook.
Notes
1. See Nathan Glazer, "From Class-based to Ethnic-based Politics", in Daniel J. Elazar, ed., Governing Peoples and Territories, Philadelphia, ISHI Publications, 1982.
2. See Susan Koch, "Toward a Europe of Regions: Transnational Political Activities in Alsace," in Publius, 4:3 (Summer 1974); and Stephen Schechter, "Sharing Jurisdiction Across Frontiers," in Daniel J. Elazar, ed., Self-Rule/Shared Rule, Ramat Gan, Israel, Turtledove Publishing, 1979.
3. See R. Michael Stevens, "Asymmetrical Federalism: The Federal Principle and the Survival of the Small Republic", Publius, 7:4 (Fall 1977).
4. This issue is treated more fully in Daniel J. Elazar, ed., Federalism and Political Integration, Ramat Gan, Israel, Turtledove Publishing, 1979, particularly the Introduction and Chapter 1.
5. Federalism and Political Integration, passim.
6. See, for example, Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring Federalism (University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1987); Vincent Ostrom, The Political Theory of a Compound Republic: Designing the American Experiment (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987); Martin Landau and Eva Eagle, "On the Concept of Decentralization", Reseach Report of the Project on Managing Decentralization, University of California at Berkeley (March 1981); Martin Landau, "Redundancy, Rationality, and the Problem of Duplication and Overlap", Public Administration Review (July/August 1969), pp.346-58; Martin Landau, "Federalism, Redundancy and System Reliability", Publius, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall 1973), pp.173-196.
* * *
The research and preparation of both the first and second editions of this book was undertaken by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Assistance in its preparation came from the International Association of Centers for Federal Studies and the Center for the Study of Federalism at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, co-sponsors of the project. Special thanks for publication support are due the Earhart Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the Foundations of the Milken Family, Los Angeles, California.
The second edition was strengthened by the contributions of scholars throughout the world. We are indebted to the following individuals for their assistance: Australia - Brian Galligan, Cheryl Saunders; Austria - Fried Esterbauer; Bhutan, India, SAARC - Rasheeduddin Khan; Brazil - Lino Ferreira Netto; Canada - Ronald L. Watts; Germany - Hans-Peter Schneider; Japan - Benedict Stavis; Liechtenstein, Switzerland - Max Frankel; New Zealand - Stephen Levine; Spain - Robert Agranoff, Joseph M. Vilaseca Marcet, Isidre Molas; Sudan - Mordechai Abir; UAE - Emile Nakhleh; UK - Murray Forsyth; and USA - Joseph Marbach.
Many Jerusalem Center staff members were involved in the decade-long preparation of the first edition of this reference work. Those most involved included Alysa Dortort, Naomi Linder, Ellen Friedlander, and Kirk Preuss, without whose assistance this book would not have been completed. The second edition benefitted from the assistance of Zeev Schwartz, Deborah Gerber and Jeffrey Meltzer. Mark Ami-El, JCPA Publications Coordinator, brought both to press in his usual skilled way.
Entries for the different polities reflect the following contributions:
Map Credits: U.S. State Department -- Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Comoros, Ghana, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands Antilles, Nigeria, Papua -- New Guinea, St. Christopher and Nevis, Solomon Islands, South Africa: Dependent Black Homelands, Vanuatu, ASEAN, European Communities; Keesings Contemporary Archives and Keesings Record of World Events -- Czechoslovakia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Spain, Switzerland, Tanzania, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia; Publius: The Journal of Federalism -- Austria, Cyprus, Sri Lanka; Group Coudenberg, The New Belgian Framework (1989) -- Belgium; Economist -- Germany; W.R. Mead and S.H. Jaatinen, The Aaland Islands (London: David & Charles, 1975) -- Aaland Islands; R.D. Dikshit, The Political Geography of Federalism (New York: John Wiley, 1975) -- Bhutan, India; Regional Institutions and Reginalization, Council of Europe Studies, No. 8 -- Italy; Jerusalem Post -- Lebanon; Robert E. Scott, Mexican Government in Transition (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964) -- Mexico; Ivo D. Duchacek, Comparative Federalism: The Territorial Dimension of Politics (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1970) -- Myanmar; Martin Gilbert, Russian History Atlas (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972) -- USSR; Austin Ranney and Howard Penniman, Democracy in the Islands (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1985) -- Micronesia, Marshall Islands; Harry Bernstein, Venezuela and Columbia (New York: Prentice -- Hall, 1964) -- Venezuela; Treaties and Alliances of the World (London: Longman, 1986) -- Benelux, Nordic Council.
Daniel J. Elazar
Federalism
Federal Systems of the World: A Handbook of Federal, Confederal and Autonomy Arrangements
Introduction
Daniel J. Elazar
Federalist responses to current democratic revolutions
The vast changes that have occurred in Eastern Europe and the USSR since the first edition of this handbook bring us face to face with the opening of a new era in contemporary history, one in which the people themselves have rejected totalitarian communism and are seeking to restore civil society through the introduction of more liberal political regimes. In that, they are following in the footsteps of a similar movement that took place in Latin America earlier in the 1980s against the authoritarian regimes that had taken power there. Those, in turn, were stimulated by the ending of the authoritarian regimes in the European countries of the Mediterranean region -- Spain, Portugal, and Greece -- in the later 1970s. Suddenly, democracy, which only a decade ago had seemed to be in retreat in the face of growing repression throughout the world, has emerged as the real wave of the future.
One of the critical problems faced in several of those countries is that of accommodating internal diversity, often ethnic in character, and fostering appropriate links with their neighbors. In both of these cases, the only solutions that seem to be feasible are federal solutions. This is certainly true in the case of the biggest of the polities involved, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, most of whose former republics are linked confederally through the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). As soon as glasnost and perestroika began to take effect, the different non-Russian nationality groups raised their heads and set their sights on greater independence. Shortly thereafter, the Russians themselves began to assert their 'Russianness' and to seek greater expression of it.
At present, the USSR successor states hang in the balance between greater independence for their nationalities or restoration of repressive centralized government. The USSR's nominal federalism which, despite the paper guarantees of its constitution, did not function in a federalistic way in practice, was incapable of responding satisfactorily to those demands so it was dissolved. Now those who believe that it is best or at least necessary to preserve its successor states, particularly Russia but also Ukraine and Georgia, under one general government are looking to federal solutions to solve their problems of balancing nationality demands with the desire or need for a common framework and are having difficulties in that.
But the CIS republics are not the only states involved. In Eastern Europe, totalitarian Communism imposed its own murderous straitjacket after each of the world wars. It finally collapsed under the weight of its own sins (one is tempted to say "internal contradictions"), opening the door to democracy and demonstrating the need for federal democracy at that. Czechoslovakia became nominally federal in 1968 -- the only major result of the Prague Spring to survive. While on its way to becoming meaningfully federal, however, Slovak nationalists engineered that state's peaceful secession, now much regretted by many Slovakians who perceive their loss while many Czechs are relieved at having shed a burden.
Yugoslavia, on the other hand, ruled by Leagues of Communists, although not a member of the Soviet bloc, erupted into civil war once the Soviet threat to its existence was eliminated. Two of its republics, Slovenia and Croatia, took the lead in seceding. Slovenia's secession was successful. Croatia successfully established its independence but has lost approximately a third of its territory to Serbia which invaded it to "rescue" local Serbs. Macedonia subsequently seceeded, while Bosnia has been wracked by a three-way civil war between Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats, and seems destined for partition in some form. Serbia, Montenegro, and those parts of the other republics captured by the Serbian army maintain at least the form of Yugoslav federalism. Nevertheless, all of this demonstrates that "federalism" imposed by force and ruled from the top is neither true federalism nor is it destined to be successful. Federalism is too intimately associated with democratic republicanism for that.
The German situation, which has been so very different, is a case in point. Their reunion of west and east was achieved through first reconstituting the states of the eastern German Democratic Republic. They then joined the western German Federal Republic. Part of the maintenance of democracy in a reunified Germany undoubtedly will be tied to the continued linkage of Germany to the European Community, itself an evolving confederation that has restored the possibility of confederation as a viable form of federalism, most recently through the Maastricht treaty.
Within the European Community, Spain, Portugal, and Greece returned to democracy as a precondition to joining the EC. In 1978 Spain adopted the regime of the autonomies, a form of federal solution designed to solve its own internal nationality problem. Over fifteen years after the adoption of a democratic constitution for Spain and the introduction of the regime of the autonomies, it is generally agreed that the introduction of those federal principles and arrangements has had extraordinary success in restoring democracy and diffusing internal conflict in that country. The continuation of a democratic regime in Greece was strongly influenced by that country's membership in the European Community. Portuguese democracy has also been influenced for the good by Community membership.
With a still-powerful Russia to their east and a newly-powerful Germany to their west, the former Soviet bloc countries of Eastern Europe are faced with their own problems of survival and renewal. There is every reason to expect that at some stage they either will be absorbed into the EC or its network, or older ideas of a middle European confederation may be revived, albeit more along lines of a confederation like that of the European Community to the west.
Turning to Latin America, the strengthening of federalism has been a significant item on the agendas of Argentina and Brazil in their turn from authoritarianism to liberal democracy. Brazil's new constitution increases the formal powers of the states vis-a-vis the federal government in the name of democracy. The formal and rather weak federal system of Mexico is becoming a vehicle for the emergence of an effective and competitive political opposition there through the Mexican states. Venezuela has elected to strengthen its existing federal system by providing for the popular election of state and local chief executives to strengthen its democratic regime. Recently, there has been some promise that regional confederal arrangements in Central America will be playing a role in the restoration of democracy in Nicaragua and Panama and other countries of that region.
The end of the statist epoch: a paradigm shift
In the early 1990s the world as a whole is in a paradigm shift of major proportions from a world of states modeled after the ideal of the nation-state developed at the beginning of the modern epoch in the seventeenth century to a world of diminished state sovereignty and increased interstate linkages of a constitutionalized federal charcter. This paradigm shift actually began after World War II. It may yet turn out that the United Nations, founded in San Francisco in May 1945 as no more than a league of politically sovereign states with the elevated goal of maintaining world peace, that had been riven by the ultimately fatal struggle between the two great powers that led to the Cold War, was the first step toward this paradigm shift. Despite the developments in Western Europe which led to the radical diminution of the political sovereignty of the member states of the European Community, and similar developments in other parts of the world, particularly Southeast Asia (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations -- ASEAN) and the Caribbean, it was not until the collapse of first the Soviet empire and then the Soviet Union itself between 1989 and 1993, that the extensive and decisive character of this paradigm shift became evident to most people, even (or perhaps especially) those who closely follow public affairs. Most of the latter were and still are wedded to the earlier paradigm that the building blocks of world organization are politically sovereign states, most or all of which strive to be nation-states and maximize their independence of action and decision. While there are a few who have been aware of this paradigm shift as it was taking place and some who have advocated it as a major political goal, for most it has seemed to have crept up unawares as it were.
Let us understand the nature of this paradigm shift. It is not that states are disappearing, it is that the state system is acquiring a new dimension, one that began as a supplement and is now coming to overlay the system that prevailed throughout the modern epoch. That overlay is a network of agreements that are not only militarily and economically binding for de facto reasons but that are becoming constitutionally binding de jure to radically restrict what was called state sovereignty and force states into various combinations of self-rule and shared rule to enable them to survive at all. The implications of this paradigm shift are enormous. Whereas before, every state strove for self-sufficiency, homogeneity, and, with a few exceptions, concentration of authority and power in single center, under the new paradigm all states had to recognize their interdependence, heterogeneity, and the fact that their centers, if they ever existed, are no longer single centers but parts of a multi-centered network that is increasingly noncentralized, and that all of this is necessary in order to survive in the new world.
The principal form of political organization in the modern and early post-modern epochs, that is to say, at least since the seventeenth century, has been the nation-state, politically sovereign in its territory and exercising that sovereignty over or in the name of the people of that territory on an exclusive basis. For well over 300 years, the major political efforts of European civilization as well as peoples and countries influenced by that civilization have been directed toward building such politically sovereign states, and all too often in reifying them so that the states take on an existence separate from the peoples they are designed to serve. We have just passed through what is in all likelihood the last great era of state-building, namely the establishment of such politically independent states in the Third World as a result of the decolonization process. Today there are over 180 such states recognized in international law and participating in international politics.
While this kind of state-building and even statism has been the common denominator of the modern age and its immediate aftermath, parallel to it there has developed a second system of polity-building, one in which the benefits of statehood, namely liberty and autonomy, or, in contemporary terminology, self-determination and self-government, are gained through what generally may be denominated federal arrangements. Such arrangements reached their apotheosis in the modern epoch in the form of modern federations such as the United States under its 1787 constitution, Switzerland after 1848, and Canada from 1867. Indeed, during the modern epoch only federation offered a model of statehood capable of serving as an alternative to the reified state.
Since the end of the modern epoch, however, other species of federalism and autonomy have begun to come into their own, so that today over 50 of the 180 politically sovereign states are either federations or include within them forms of self-determination and self-government which represent extensions of the federal principle or applications of the idea of political autonomy. Since several of these contemporary states embrace a variety of such arrangements (the United States and the United Kingdom each include six different ones), the total number of arrangements is well over 100. Well over 300 separate polities have state status or the equivalent through such arrangements, while hundreds of local governments also have a real measure of constitutionally grounded autonomy. Nearly 60 politically sovereign states are members of constitutionally-anchored confederal arrangements.
Thus, there has emerged a parallel system to the state system which, in a world growing more complex and interrelated, has begun to act in the international arena in a variety of ways. As a result, the two systems have themselves begun to interact. The informal linkages between them were always there; now formal ones are developing as well.
The rapid spread of this parallel system is in great part a response to the effort on the part of a number of the reified, politically sovereign states to force the peoples on their respective territories into the procrustean jurisdiction of a single central government. In other words, their goal has been "one people, one government and one territory." In some cases this goal has been linked to revolutionary radicalism, in others to reaction; in some it has been liberal in content, in others conservative. But whatever the form or content, federal arrangements in some form have become the common denominator of the age.
In all too many cases, the centralized sovereign state became the procrustean state at the very least. Indeed, the term that was invented to describe this new creature -- "nation state" -- was, in itself, an ideal projection or a sleight of hand. We now are far enough removed from the process to recognize that rarely did the establishment of a particular state, embracing a given territory, reflect a pre-existing national homogeneity. In most cases, boundaries often were established by violent means. The formation of the nation came afterward, when the central authority subdued all the dissident elements within the territory to make the self-defined nation-state a reality. In the course of its development, the nation-state often became a citizen state, where each person was individually a citizen but was not entitled to maintain any substantial group identity other than that of the official nation.
If the truth be told, the homogeneous polity with so close a linkage between people, government and territory in every respect, simply has not come to pass, even in those countries where it once seemed to be farthest along the road. One major characteristic of the post-modern era is the ethnic revival, the re-emergence of the sense of primordial ties as central to individual identity. This development is reflected politically in the world-wide movement from class-based to ethnic-based politics.(1)
A second characteristic of the post-modern era is the linkage of peoples or nations across state borders. Inter-regional arrangements such as those in the Upper Rhine Valley offer one example of such linkages. There, people of Allemanian background living in three different nation-states -- France, Germany, and Switzerland -- a number of Swiss cantons, and the German land of Baden-Wurtenberg are linked together through a variety of devices.(2) State-diaspora arrangements of the kind that are characteristic of the Jewish people offer another example. Yet another is reflected in the interstate relations which are characteristic of the Arab world, which perceives itself as one Arab nation divided into a number of states but with trans-state linkages.
A third characteristic is the development of new governmental arrangements -- at least new to the modern era (some have classic antecedents) -- to accommodate post-modern trends. There are common markets which transcend the boundaries of the older nation-states. There are federacies and associated-state arrangements through which a principal state and a smaller one are linked together through asymmetrical federal ties for their mutual advantage.(3) Mini-states of a few thousand population have emerged that can exist because of the overall security shield provided by the great powers and the general predisposition on the part of the larger nations of the world to tolerate such entities and to protect them even though they could not protect or sustain themselves under the state system of the modern era. Among the new developments are entities within polities which possess autonomy or home-rule in one form or another. These new governmental arrangements have moved in two directions simultaneously, to create both larger and smaller political units for different purposes, to gain the economic or strategic advantages of larger size while at the same time maintaining smaller scale structures to secure certain kinds of indigenous communities, or to better accommodate ethnic diversity.
A fourth characteristic of the post-modern era is the establishment of new relationships between governments and territories, most of which flow out of these new governmental arrangements. The idea of more than one government exercising powers over the same territory was anathema to the European fathers of the modern nation-state. The twentieth century, on the other hand, is the age of federalism. Hence the existence of more than one government over the same territory, each with its special powers, competence, or tasks, is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon.(4)
A fifth characteristic, manifested in all these new relationships, is the growing reality of the limitations on sovereignty. No state today is as sovereign as any state was perceived to be 100 years ago, if only because even the great powers recognize their limits in a nuclear age when it comes to making unilateral decisions about war and peace. Many states are accepting these increased limitations and trading them off, as it were, for advantages. The European Union is the major example of how the acceptance of limitations on sovereignty in the economic sphere can be "traded off" for greater economic benefits under the military protection of the NATO security-community. It is not the only such example. At the other end of the Eurasian land mass, the members of ASEAN -- the Association of Southeast Asian Nations -- have taken substantial steps in the direction of limiting their freedom of action in many matters, while not formally limiting their political sovereignty, to attain greater military security and economic development.
A new theory of political relationships
The intellectual effort to come to grips with all of these phenomena has been much slower than developments in the real world. The accepted intellectual models of state-building in particular have tended to lag behind these new realities. Only recently is there beginning to be a recognition that new thinking and other models are needed to deal with them. More specifically, the dominant center -- periphery model of statehood is being challenged by the champions of a new model which views the polity as a matrix of overlapping, interlocking units, powers, and relationships.(5) A separate theory of federal relations is developing to replace the nation, that the arrangements mentioned above simply represent points on a centralization -- decentralization continuum. This theory is not confined to the definition of intergovernmental relations but is related to a larger understanding of politics, a federalist understanding which is challenging the dominant Jacobin -- Marxian view on a number of fronts.(6)
The center -- periphery model holds that sovereign power in a state is properly concentrated in a single center which may or may not be significantly influenced by its periphery. This model is derived from the organic theory of the polity and represents an effort to democratize preexisting monarchic or aristocratic polities by conquering and transforming the center of power in each. While its modern political sources are to be found in Bourbon France, in the works of French political theorists exemplified by Jean Bodin, and in Rousseau's statist interpretation of the general will, its democratic expressions are principally Jacobin. Jacobinism is a European invention given form in the French Revolution and subsequently extended and reshaped by Marx and various socialist movements of the nineteenth century. Centralization is the organizational expression of Jacobinism, which distrusts dispersed power because of the historical experience out of which it grew, in which localism was synonymous with support for the pre-revolutionary power-holders.
Parallel to the center -- periphery model is the pyramid model originally developed for such hierarchical states as ancient Egypt, modern Prussia, and Napoleonic France. It became a general model in the wake of the development of the administrative state, reflecting the managerial conception of political organization. While originally authoritarian in character, if not totalitarian, as a managerial model it has been adapted for democratic republics.
The matrix model, whereby authority and power are dispersed among a network of arenas within arenas, is almost inevitably federalist in its origins. Federalism is derived from covenant and compact theories of the polity and, in its modern form, represents the effort to democratize republicanism. For moderns, its immediate political sources were the Puritans, Reformed and Calvinist theologians, Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu. The foundations of modern federalism are to be found in the American revolutionary experience, including its constitution-making phase. The most articulate expressions of this model are to be found in The Federalist and Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Its organizational expression is non-centralization, the constitutional diffusion and sharing of powers among many centres. Its logical outcome is the construction of the body politic out of diverse entities that retain their respective integrities within the common framework.
The federal principle and its uses
Utilizing the federal principle does not necessarily mean establishing a federal system in the conventional sense of a modern federation. A federation is a polity with a strong overarching general government whose constitution is recognized as the supreme law of the land and which is able to relate directly to the individuals who are dual citizens in both the federation and their constituent states. The position and autonomy of the latter are constitutionally protected. Despite the tendency to limit federalism to that model, the federal principle actually is embodied in a wide variety of structures, each adapted to a particular polity. This is possible because the essence of federalism is not to be found in a particular kind of structure but a particular set of relationships among the participants in a political system. Consequently, federalism is a phenomenon that provides many options for the organization of political authority and power; as long as the proper relations are developed, a wide variety of political structures can be developed that are consistent with federal principles.
What is federalism?
Federal principles are concerned with the combination of self-rule and shared rule. In the broadest sense, federalism involves the linkage of individuals, groups and polities in lasting but limited union, in such a way as to provide for the energetic pursuit of common ends while maintaining the respective integrities of all parties. As a political principle, federalism has to do with the constitutional diffusion of power so that the constituting elements in a federal arrangement share in the processes of common policy-making and administration by right, while the activities of the common government are conducted in such a way as to maintain their respective integrities. Federal systems do this by constitutionally distributing power among general and constituent governing bodies in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of all. In federal systems, basic policies are made and implemented through negotiation in some form so that all can share in the system's decision-making and executing processes.
As many philosophers, theologians, and political theorists in the Western world have noted, the federal idea has its roots in the Bible. Indeed, the first usage of the term was for theological purposes, to define the partnership between humans and God described in the Bible which, in turn, gave form to the idea of a covenantal (or federal) relationship between individuals leading to the formation of a body politic, and between bodies politic leading to the formation of compound polities. The political applications of the theological usage gave rise to the transformation of the term "federal" into an explicitly political concept.
The term "federal" is derived from the Latin foedus which, like the Hebrew term brit, means covenant. In essence, a federal arrangement is one of partnership, established and regulated by a covenant, whose internal relationships reflect the special kind of sharing which must prevail among the partners, namely one that both recognizes the integrity of each partner and seeks to foster a special kind of unity among them. Significantly, shalom, the Hebrew term for peace, is a cognate of brit, having to do with the creation of the covenantal wholeness that is true peace.
The spread of the federal idea
The federalist revolution is among the most widespread of the various revolutions that are changing the face of the globe. Federalism has emerged as a means of accommodating the spreading desire of people to preserve or revive the intimacy of small societies, and the growing necessity for larger combinations to mobilize the utilization of common resources better. Consequently, federal arrangements have been widely applied, on the one hand, to integrate new polities while preserving legitimate internal diversities and, on the other, to link established polities for economic advantage and greater security. Nearly 80 per cent of the world's population now live within polities that either are formally federal or that utilize federal arrangements in some way, while only 20 per cent live in polities that can be denominated as outside of any federal arrangements.
Accompanying this spread of federalist arrangements has been an expansion of the variety of means for translating the federal idea into practice. Whereas in the nineteenth century federalism was considered particularly notable for the rigidity of its institutional arrangements, in the twentieth century it has come to be particularly useful for its flexibility when it comes to translating principles into political systems. Pre-modern Europe knew of only one federal arrangement: confederation. In a confederation, the general government is the creature of and subordinate to the constituent governments and can only work through them. While it may be established in perpetuity, it is quite limited in scope. Two centuries ago, the United States invented modern federalism and added federation as a second form, one that was widely emulated in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, especially since World War II, new forms have been developed or federal elements have been recognized in older ones previously not well understood.
Definitions
Confederation: Several pre-existing polities joined together to form a common government for strictly limited purposes, usually foreign affairs and defence, and more recently economics, that remains dependent upon its constituent polities in critical ways and must work through them.
Federation: A compound polity compounded of strong constituent entities and a strong general government, each possessing powers delegated to it by the people and empowered to deal directly with the citizenry in the exercise of those powers.
Federacy: Whereby a larger power and a smaller polity are linked asymmetrically in a federal relationship in which the latter has substantial autonomy and in return has a minimal role in the governance of the larger power. Resembling a federation, the relationship between them can be dissolved only by mutual agreement.
Associated state: An asymmetrical arrangement similar to a federacy but like a confederation in that it can be dissolved by either of the parties under pre-arranged terms.
Consociation: A non-territorial federation in which the polity is divided into "permanent" transgenerational religious, cultural, ethnic or ideological groupings known as "camps", "sectors", or "pillars" federated together and jointly governed by coalitions of the leaders of each.
Union: A polity compounded in such a way that its constituent entities preserve their respective integrities primarily or exclusively through the common organs of the general government rather than through dual government structures.
League: A linkage of politically independent polities for specific purposes that function through a common secretariat rather than a government and from which members may unilaterally withdraw at will, at least formally.
Joint functional authority: An agency established by two or more polities for joint implementation of a particular task or tasks.
Condominium: A polity ruled jointly by two external powers in such a way that the inhabitants of the polity have substantial internal self-rule.
Confederal, federacy, associated state, and common market arrangements as we now know them are post-modern applications of the federal principle and political scientists have rediscovered the degree of federalism involved in consociational polities, unions and leagues. There is every reason to expect that the post-modern world will develop new applications of the federal principle in addition to the arrangements we already know, including functional authorities and condominiums. Thus, reality itself is coming to reflect the various faces of federalism.
What the federalist revolution means: some examples
The reassertion of ethnic and regional identities is worldwide in scope and promises to be one of the major political issues of this generation and the next century. There are some 3,000 ethnic or tribal groups in the world conscious of their respective identities. Of the over 180 politically "sovereign" states now in existence, over 170 are multi-ethnic in composition. In sum, while the ideology of the nation-state remains strong, the nation-state itself is rare enough. Nearly one-half of those states are involved in formal arrangements utilizing federal principles in some way to accommodate demands for self-rule or shared rule within their boundaries or in partnership with other polities.
Even as Western Europe moved toward a new-style confederation of old states, its federalist revolution was taking yet another form in the revival of even older ethnic and regional identities in the political arena. As a result, Belgium, Italy, and Spain have constitutionally federalized or regionalized themselves. Portugal devolved power to its island provinces -- as the Netherlands and Denmark have long since done. Switzerland, Germany and Austria, already federal systems, are undergoing an intensification of their federalist dimensions in one way or another.
Most of the new states of Asia and Africa must come to grips with the multi-ethnic issue, even if only a few do so through formally federal systems as in India, Malaysia, Nigeria, and Pakistan. It is an issue that can be accommodated only through the application of federal principles that will combine kinship (the basis of ethnicity) and consent (the basis of democratic government) into politically viable, constitutionally protected arrangements involving territorial and non-territorial polities. The success or failure of that effort will determine the peace of the world.
Western Asia and the Mediterranean region are no exceptions to this problem of ethnic diversity. Indeed, many of its current problems can be traced to the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire, which had succeeded in accommodating communal diversity within a universal state that provided for ethno-religious home rule for several centuries. The inter-communal wars in Cyprus, Iraq, Lebanon, and Sudan, not to speak of the minority problems in Egypt and Syria and the Jewish-Arab struggle, offer headline testimony to this reality. Federal solutions are no less relevant in the Middle East than elsewhere, but in the Middle East especially is the need greatest for a post-modern federalism, a federalism that is not simply based upon territorial boundaries but recognizes the existence of long-enduring peoples as well.
Forms of autonomy or self-rule
In Varieties of Autonomy Arrangements, the original working paper on the subject published by the Jerusalem Institute for Federal Studies in anticipation of the autonomy talks called for in the Camp David Accords, 91 currently functioning examples of autonomy or self-rule, ranging from classic federation to various forms of cultural home-rule, were identified in 52 different states. Since then, others have come to our attention, bringing the total included here to over a hundred. If each separate self-governing comprehensive political entity were to be counted, the number would be in the hundreds, and if local home rule arrangements were added, in the thousands. The examples reflect the same purposes that have led to the creation of "sovereign" states, namely the achievement of self-determination by collectivities (nations, peoples, even tribes) under such conditions that require at least a formal commitment to democratic republicanism. Since over 90 per cent of all "sovereign" states encompass a significant ethnic diversity, not to mention historic and traditional territorially based differences and interstate regional ties, they represent necessary responses to a real human condition.
The variety of arrangements extant includes:
Federations: there are 23 formally federal systems in the world today.
Confederations: of these are three actual ones in existence and three others de facto; the European Union is the prime example.
Decentralized unions in which there is regional or local functional autonomy or which are divided into historic provinces with autonomous municipal powers (e.g., the Netherlands).
Feudal arrangements transformed (e.g., Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Monaco, and San Marino).
Federacies such as Puerto Rico and the United States, or Bhutan and India.
Home-rule, of which there are at least two kinds: that which is unilaterally granted with local consent, as in ex-colonial situations; or constitutional home-rule, generally municipal, embodied in a constitution or charter.
Cultural home-rule, designed to preserve a minority language or religion.
Autonomous provinces or national districts (which the Communist world had developed extensively, but which also exist in countries like Nigeria).
Regional arrangements, both intra-national where there is regional decentralization as in Italy and Spain, or trans-national, such as the kind of regional functional arrangements in the Upper Rhine Valley.
Customs unions, an old-fashioned device that has taken on new meaning, particularly in southern Africa.
Leagues based upon common national or cultural ties, such as Benelux, the Nordic Union, or the Arab League.
State-diaspora ties, such as those that link the Jewish people the world over or those of India that link the union's constituent states and their diaspora communities in other parts of the country or outside.
Extra-territorial arrangements or enclaves -- Egypt and the Sudan have a fairly elaborate system of enclaves on their borders.
Condominiums, such as Andorra, which has been functioning under joint rule for 700 years.
State structures functioning through autonomous tribes: Afghanistan has such a two-tier system. Recently one party captured the state structure but has not been able to deal with the autonomous tribes and consequently brought the country to civil war.
Consociational arrangements of two kinds: equal pillars (e.g., Belgium) or ethno-religious communities in rank order, some of which are dominant and others subordinate.
Where such arrangements exist, they usually exist in multiples. The United States is a good example of this with its federal system, constitutional home rule within the states, federacy arrangements with Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas, the special status of Indian tribes in their tribal areas with a growing measure of territorial home rule, and three associated states in Micronesia: the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia (itself a federation), and the Marshall Islands. Or take the United Kingdom with its different special relationships with Scotland, Wales, Ulster, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, growing out of its pre-modern constitutional history, not to speak of its remaining colonies with home rule. In short, where there is a turning from the reified state-exclusive sovereignty -- centralism syndrome toward a self-rule/shared rule syndrome, it manifests itself more or less across the board.
The Handbook
What follows is a handbook of existing forms of self-rule and autonomy across the world. As a handbook, it is essentially an outline and not a comprehensive description of any of the various forms. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, incorporating the Jerusalem Institute for Federal Studies, has assembled data on each case and has access to the data in the files of its sister institutes in the International Association of Centers for Federal Studies and particularly the Center for the Study of Federalism in Philadelphia.
This handbook represents the first major effort to inventory and describe all known examples of federal and autonomous arrangements, compare their basic features, and classify them by form. Each example is treated within the following framework:
Introduction: A brief description indicating the federal arrangement or arrangements involved, with a brief historical background highlighting any special features of note.
Territorial Structure and Population: Basic information on each of the units of government involved.
General government structure: General description of political system and/or connections between political systems of the polities involved.
Constitutional principles and design: Including government structure (executive, legislative, and judicial) and distribution of selected functions (taxation, land use, police, education).
The various polities are then compared with regard to international relations (what, if any, role the federated states or constituent units play) and symbolic representations of autonomous entities (flag, anthem, stamps, special linguistic rights).
Political culture: A brief and at times preliminary assessment of the political culture as it influences the shared rule arrangement principally based on the 12-cell matrix developed by the author to compare political cultures.
Political dynamics/Recent constitutional developments: As they relate to issues of federalism, autonomy and shared rule.
The growing complexity of shared rule arrangements is reflected in the following pages. While it cannot be shown exactly in table of contents or the headings for each arrangement, we have tried to provide maximum clarity in this regard. Thus: 1) ordinary federations are designated in the following manner -- UNITED STATES; 2) federacies and equivalent asymmetrical federal arrangements are designated as follows -- UNITED STATES: FEDERACIES, Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas, Native American Nations; 3) associated state arrangements in which the associated states do not enjoy international recognition as politically sovereign are designated as follows -- NEW ZEALAND: COOK ISLANDS; 4. associated state arrangements in which the associated states have international recognition as political sovereign -- MARSHALL ISLANDS: UNITED STATES.
References: The principal sources for continuing information about the political systems in question are: Keesings Contemporary Archives until 1987, and Keesings Record of World Events since 1987 (Harlow: Longman Group, UK Ltd.); Facts on File (New York: Facts on File, Inc.), especially "Weekly World News Digest"; Statesman's Yearbook (New York: St. Martin's Press); The Europa Yearbook (London: Europa Publications Ltd.); The World Factbook (Washington: CIA Publications); Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 1971-present, articles on individual polities and comparative articles. A more specialized bibliography is listed in the references at the end of each entry.
This handbook is divided into three parts. The first treats federal and autonomy arrangements utilized to maintain entities within or attached to particular polities. The second treats such arrangements as they are used to link separate states in confederal arrangements. The third reports on recently dissolved federal arrangements. Four appendices suplement the information contained in the body of the handbook.
Notes
1. See Nathan Glazer, "From Class-based to Ethnic-based Politics", in Daniel J. Elazar, ed., Governing Peoples and Territories, Philadelphia, ISHI Publications, 1982.
2. See Susan Koch, "Toward a Europe of Regions: Transnational Political Activities in Alsace," in Publius, 4:3 (Summer 1974); and Stephen Schechter, "Sharing Jurisdiction Across Frontiers," in Daniel J. Elazar, ed., Self-Rule/Shared Rule, Ramat Gan, Israel, Turtledove Publishing, 1979.
3. See R. Michael Stevens, "Asymmetrical Federalism: The Federal Principle and the Survival of the Small Republic", Publius, 7:4 (Fall 1977).
4. This issue is treated more fully in Daniel J. Elazar, ed., Federalism and Political Integration, Ramat Gan, Israel, Turtledove Publishing, 1979, particularly the Introduction and Chapter 1.
5. Federalism and Political Integration, passim.
6. See, for example, Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring Federalism (University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1987); Vincent Ostrom, The Political Theory of a Compound Republic: Designing the American Experiment (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987); Martin Landau and Eva Eagle, "On the Concept of Decentralization", Reseach Report of the Project on Managing Decentralization, University of California at Berkeley (March 1981); Martin Landau, "Redundancy, Rationality, and the Problem of Duplication and Overlap", Public Administration Review (July/August 1969), pp.346-58; Martin Landau, "Federalism, Redundancy and System Reliability", Publius, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall 1973), pp.173-196.
* * *
The research and preparation of both the first and second editions of this book was undertaken by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Assistance in its preparation came from the International Association of Centers for Federal Studies and the Center for the Study of Federalism at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, co-sponsors of the project. Special thanks for publication support are due the Earhart Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the Foundations of the Milken Family, Los Angeles, California.
The second edition was strengthened by the contributions of scholars throughout the world. We are indebted to the following individuals for their assistance: Australia - Brian Galligan, Cheryl Saunders; Austria - Fried Esterbauer; Bhutan, India, SAARC - Rasheeduddin Khan; Brazil - Lino Ferreira Netto; Canada - Ronald L. Watts; Germany - Hans-Peter Schneider; Japan - Benedict Stavis; Liechtenstein, Switzerland - Max Frankel; New Zealand - Stephen Levine; Spain - Robert Agranoff, Joseph M. Vilaseca Marcet, Isidre Molas; Sudan - Mordechai Abir; UAE - Emile Nakhleh; UK - Murray Forsyth; and USA - Joseph Marbach.
Many Jerusalem Center staff members were involved in the decade-long preparation of the first edition of this reference work. Those most involved included Alysa Dortort, Naomi Linder, Ellen Friedlander, and Kirk Preuss, without whose assistance this book would not have been completed. The second edition benefitted from the assistance of Zeev Schwartz, Deborah Gerber and Jeffrey Meltzer. Mark Ami-El, JCPA Publications Coordinator, brought both to press in his usual skilled way.
Entries for the different polities reflect the following contributions:
Map Credits: U.S. State Department -- Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Comoros, Ghana, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands Antilles, Nigeria, Papua -- New Guinea, St. Christopher and Nevis, Solomon Islands, South Africa: Dependent Black Homelands, Vanuatu, ASEAN, European Communities; Keesings Contemporary Archives and Keesings Record of World Events -- Czechoslovakia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Spain, Switzerland, Tanzania, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia; Publius: The Journal of Federalism -- Austria, Cyprus, Sri Lanka; Group Coudenberg, The New Belgian Framework (1989) -- Belgium; Economist -- Germany; W.R. Mead and S.H. Jaatinen, The Aaland Islands (London: David & Charles, 1975) -- Aaland Islands; R.D. Dikshit, The Political Geography of Federalism (New York: John Wiley, 1975) -- Bhutan, India; Regional Institutions and Reginalization, Council of Europe Studies, No. 8 -- Italy; Jerusalem Post -- Lebanon; Robert E. Scott, Mexican Government in Transition (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964) -- Mexico; Ivo D. Duchacek, Comparative Federalism: The Territorial Dimension of Politics (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1970) -- Myanmar; Martin Gilbert, Russian History Atlas (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972) -- USSR; Austin Ranney and Howard Penniman, Democracy in the Islands (Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1985) -- Micronesia, Marshall Islands; Harry Bernstein, Venezuela and Columbia (New York: Prentice -- Hall, 1964) -- Venezuela; Treaties and Alliances of the World (London: Longman, 1986) -- Benelux, Nordic Council.
Daniel J. Elazar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
