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

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

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

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