The basic idea behind federalism can be very simply stated. It is that relations between states should be conducted under the rule of law. Conflict and disagreement should be resolved through peaceful means rather than through coercion or war.
What are the main features of a federal system?
The most important aspect of a federal system is that it recognises that there are different types of political issue which need different types of institution to deal with them. Some affect only a local area, others are more widespread in their scope. The institutions of government should reflect this. The idea that government should be based solely on strong central institutions is old-fashioned and out-of-date.
In a federal system, the power to deal with an issue is held by institutions at a level as low as possible, and only as high as necessary. This is the famous principle of subsidiarity.
The second major feature of a federal system is that it is democratic. Each level of government has its own direct relationship with the citizens. Its laws apply directly to the citizens and not solely to the constituent states.
In a federal system, power is dispersed but coordinated. For this reason, federalism is often seen as a means of protecting pluralism and the rights of the individual against an over-powerful government.
How much difference would federalism make in Britain?
The British system of government has for many years been one of the most centralised in Europe. Many more matters are decided at the national level than in Germany or Belgium, for example, where an effective level of regional government has been established.
The last Labour government took some steps towards regional government, notably in Scotland and Wales but also on a smaller scale in England. But treating regional authorities as representatives of Westminster rather than representatives of the people in the regions does not really change very much.
A federal system would be much better.
Regional authorities, perhaps based on the existing government regions or perhaps on new city-regions, would be directly elected and exercise clearly defined powers. Most of these powers would be drawn from those currently exercised by Whitehall. Such a system could bring the citizens closer to the decisions which most affect their lives. The power of distant bureaucrats would be reduced.
A federal Britain would be a more diverse and stable environment for investment and economic development. It would provide a new protection of the rights of the individual. And it might also lead to a different attitude towards cooperation with our European neighbours.
What would a federal Europe look like?
At the heart of the British attitude to Europe is a misconception. We know that our own political system is highly centralised, and we often assume that any European system must inevitably go the same way.
But this is not the case. If the European Union continues to develop in a federalist direction, democracy will be strengthened and over-centralisation prevented, and not the reverse.
The European Union is in many ways quite a lot like a federation already. And the areas of difference are areas of weakness, not of strength.
For example, the EU clearly suffers from not having enough power in matters such as the environment and foreign policy. These are areas where the individual member states are no longer able to take effective decisions on their own.
The EU also needs to make its institutions more democratic. The European Commission should become the executive arm for all areas of EU activity, elected by and accountable to the European Parliament. When passing law, the Council of Ministers should meet in public and vote by majority, sharing budgetary and legislative power equally with the European Parliament; and every law and activity of the EU should be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
Federalism at the global level
Proposals have been made that the United Nations should adopt a similar system to that described above. The theory is beautiful, but the prospect is rather unlikely. Nevertheless, there are some areas in which the basic approach of federalism – that states should be subject to democratically-formulated international law – has great importance.
For example, global flows of money are now far beyond the power of any national authority but the relevant global bodies, such as the World Trade Organisation and the IMF, lack legitimacy. Bringing democratic principles into global economic institutions will make possible a fairer and more prosperous global economy.
Similarly, we face environmental and humanitarian problems on an unprecedented scale, but the United Nations lacks the power to take the actions that we all need.
Federalism in the future
The alternative to federalism is continuing instability between states and the domination of the stronger over the weaker. The threat to the survival of individual states lies not in a system of international democracy, but in each other.
Federalism offers the British people a means of regaining control of the way their country is governed. It is leading to a democratic and effective European Union. And it makes possible reforms of the global system to ensure peace and prosperity for us all.
This article was written by Richard Laming, a member of the Executive Committee of Federal Union. He can be contacted at richard@richardlaming.com. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of Federal Union. First edition, June 2001, updated August 2010.
¤ ¤ ¤
For more articles about federalism on this website, click here.
Loading ...
I would like to look upon Federalism as sharing of power between one central and several regional governments, which can promote synergy and enable the group to achieve more than what the individual governments can achieve on their own. Federalism can develop differently in different parts of the world to suit the regional ways of life of people and their traditions. Nonetheless, groups can be formed by compatible nations coming together with a positive aim to seek agreements as far as possible and do better by complementing the strengths of their member states. It may sound somewhat utopian and wishful thinking at present, but the concept of Federalism can be extrapolated to bring about global togetherness of such groups for the benefit of mankind as a whole.
I am tempted to use an old axiom in basic Hindu philosophy. It advocates that individuals working in a group should have their own viewpoints and limits but each one should strive towards agreeing with others, as far as possible. Saying “yes” is far more difficult than saying “no”. This does not mean surrendering one’s values. It simply gives a direction to consider others with some recognition, and not give them “zero points” right at the beginning.
Federalism may promote positive inter-state relationship and diminish avoidable differences and negativity. There are far too many examples in the history, leading to conflicts, inhumanity and loss of lives, which have resulted simply on account of negative stances taken by various governments. There are also instances of multi-nationals and superpowers dominating smaller nations, which can potentially be countered by the ability of a group of nations to stand up to such overpowering influence.
It is true that politics and short-termism can cast shadows on all well-meaning international deliberations. However, Federalism is perhaps the only way to provide the right direction to avoid future conflicts and promote interests of humanity.
“Each level of government has its own direct relationship with the citizens.”
seems to be contradicted by
“The European Commission should become the executive arm for all areas of EU activity, elected by and accountable to the European Parliament”.
I would prefer direct elections of the commission or a senate and president – US style. I thought democracy might involve the people, but I’m old-fashioned!
No contradiction. The European Commission and the European Parliament are, together, the European level of government. Its electoral mandate derives from direct elections.
The alternative would be that elections at national level provide the legitimacy for the choice of the European political leadership. This is how the president of the European Council is chosen – his electorate was the 27 heads of national government. It is not a better way of choosing the leadership of Europe.
It is often argued that the relatively weak position of the European Parliament is due to the lack of Europe-wide political parties and Europe-wide political campaigning; in effect, the EP is elected by 27 simultaneous national elections rather than a European election. Stronger European political parties and a stronger set of European political identities would therefore be a major step towards making federalism work within the European Union.