Explained: The Evolution of Federalism: Covenantal Relationship to Hybrid Systems

One of the concluding scenes of 2014 Hollywood film ＆Exodus: Gods and Kings＊ shows Christian Bale (playing Moses) scribbling the ＆Ten Commandments＊ on a piece of stone that were a set of biblical principles relating to ethics and moral living. The connotations may be religious, however, theorists believe that the ＆Ten Commandments＊ gave form to the idea of a covenantal (federal) relationship between man and God.

Daniel J. Elazar, who was a leading political scientist and an authority on federalism, noted that ※Israelites tribes were the first to have a written constitution and Jewish people lived on as the first federal people§. Ancient confederacies were also found among the tribes in Africa, North America, Greece and Asia. Of similar antiquity were the confederacies of the Bedouin tribes in the Arabian Peninsula, Greek Hellenic city-states and Mahajanapadas (Kashi, Kosala, Magadha and Ujjain confederacy) in ancient India. The asymmetrical federations practiced by the Romans, the Helvetic Confederation (1291), Hanseatic League (1356), The Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands (1579) are some other remarkable examples of confederacies which went on to become powerful federations later on. All of these were based on some sort of covenantal arrangements between the parties.

Credit: elawtalk.com

Broadly speaking, the federal idea and federative political arrangements have existed throughout human history. But, the federal polity began to become a modern constitutional reality with the triumph of parliamentarianism over monarchy. The culmination of this process was the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 on the basis of a series of 85 newspaper articles in a New York independent journal.

In junking the despotic peripheral morbidity of the Articles of Confederation, the authors of The Federalist Papers turned the global tide in favor of federalism and took cues from Greek, Germanic and Roman confederal arrangements where factionalism reigned-in and the leaders of the strongest cities corrupted or subdued the weaker to win the judgments. The authors deemed it prudent for such power to reside in a national government than any regional identity, which, however, must be represented through proper structures and shared rule at the helm.

Since then, federalism as a concept and a political system has only evolved and the many constitutions around the world are but the hybrid offshoots of the robust constitutional-based federal polity espoused in 1787 by the US. The success of the American federal system attracted the attention of scholars like Alex de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill and Edward Freeman. Their discourse implied that a federation can be used as a device to achieve external security and internal democracy.

Credit: elawtalk.com

This was also the time of the rise of unitary monarchic systems and the first real theories of federation, as noted by Dimitrios Karmis and Wayne Norman, began to be formed in response to the centralized modern states of Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes. Immanuel Kant argued in the early 18th century that the aim of federalism is not to acquire the power reminiscent of a state but to bring about an arrangement that works for the preservation of freedom without any boundation to submit to a coercive power. Kant prophesized that the idea of federalism would ※gradually extend over all states§ 每 more than half of world＊s population now lives under one or the other form of federal structure.

Federalism, as a concept, further evolved in the minds of the western scholars in the 20th century. From Morton Grodzins＊s ※Marble Cake§ explanation to William Riker＊s ※Federal Bargain§ to the emphasis by Carl Friedrich on the ※dynamism§ of federalism, federal theory became a topic of huge interest. Maurice Vile gave importance to the ※mutually interdependent§ political relationship between the national government and its constituent units, whereas Antony Birch remarked in 1966 that federalism had entered a new phase which could conveniently be called ＆cooperative federalism＊, the terminology having immense contemporary resonance.

William Livingston, who championed the socio-cultural aspect of federal theory, portended that federalism is the institutionalization of compromise between the demands for federal recognition of territorially-based socio-cultural groups and the desire for integration, an analysis that resonates contemporarily as threats of succession looms large on diverse and, often, fragmented societies in the post-colonial countries. Ronald Watts argued that around this time (de-colonization years), federalism, in many ways, became an urgency to manage the pressures of integration and disintegration in multi-cultural societies and ※emerged as a closest institutional approximation to the multinational reality of the contemporary world.§

Harihar Bhattacharya argued that the real proliferation of federations took place in the post-Second World War period mostly in the former colonies in Asia and Africa, but also in Europe, with the overriding need to unite multicultural societies. This resulted in the fundamental paradigmatic shift from the ＆coming-together＊ approach as was the case with the US to ＆holding-together＊ necessity, explained succinctly by Alfred Stephan and exemplified by most post-colonial countries including India. The ＆holding together＊ model signifies autonomy given to the constituent units for administrative convenience and representation of regional interests.

Keeping the fragmented and ethnically divergent post-colonial societies together was not as easy task and entailed a complex set of challenges requiring frequent theoretical adjustments which gave rise to various forms of federations wherein some political systems combine characteristics of different federal models. This dynamic quality has actually made hybridism one of the key characteristics of federal societies around the globe.

A hybrid approach instead of pluralizing looks to reconcile differing opinions through compromise. As Ronald Watts put it, in managing the deeply divided societies, hybridism avoids the trap of fixation towards a particular type of federalism and a particular degree up to which a state is federalized. Contemporary federalism, therefore, involves huge disparities in terms of authority and function of levels of government, quantum of mutual independence and interdependence, institutional practices etc. leading to changing configurations of federations.

Credit: cenfa.org

Consider the case of South Asia where no two countries are similar in terms of the type of federalism they practice. Ronald Watts called India a ※matured§ federalism in 1990 and rightly so. Given the size of the country, India has managed to keep its federal structure intact.

The adapting and accommodating qualities of federalism are its real strengths. India has put this central characteristic of federalism to much better use than its neighbors. Accommodating diversity and responding to challenges in an evolving manner define the degree to which federalism has matured. In fact, the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir in India, reflects, to some extent, the flexibility federalism provides to address challenges to the state.

The Indian Constitution laid down a political system which is federal in nature. However, it has structurally made the Union Government more powerful than the states 每 hence the paradox of ※centralized parliamentary federalism§. Few political scientists like Philip Mahwood have argued that in culturally diverse countries like India, federalism is chosen not merely for administrative requirements but for the very survival of the nation.

In case of India, Mohit Bhattacharya, argued, the framers of the constitution refrained from creating a fully federalized political system at the time of independence, because of their fear of further disunity and secessionist tendencies. In the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, ※it would be injurious to the interests of the country to provide for a weak central authority which would be incapable of ensuring peace, of coordinating vital matters of common concern and of speaking effectively for the whole country in the international sphere§.

The abrogation of Article 370 in J&K, therefore, needs also be looked into from a futuristic perspective, especially in the face of no clear improvement in the governance of the erstwhile state even after enjoying the benefits of the ※asymmetrical§ approach extended to the state for decades.

A Supreme Court bench hearing the petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 asked: ※So, really, speaking, though J&K Constitution framed itself in relation to the Indian Constitution, unless that relationship is embodied in the Indian Constitution, how will we bind the Dominion of India or successor parliaments or executives?§ Clearly, in many ways, the abrogation of Article 370 is a manifestation of holding-together of the Union of India in the face of, in this case, external threats.

Nepal, which became a ※federal democratic republic§ as recent as 2015, and Sri Lanka 每 both marred by unstable domestic politics 每 are aspiring federations. Pakistan, despite the ray of hope that was generated with the passage of the 18th Amendment has, for all practical purposes, become a ※defunct§ federation. The phenomenon like ※Brexit§ is nothing but the manifestation, at the supranational level, of the many push and pulls any federal system carries with it in trying to create a balance between varying degrees of power and aspirations. But, from any standpoint, the importance of federalism cannot be undermined. A federal approach allows Britain, even after Brexit, to realign itself with international countries in way that suits its interests.

Federalism breathes life into the disarraying situations arising out of pressures and processes of state-making and nation-building and has been one of the prevalent political phenomena, especially post decolonization, not without a reason. Instead of integrationist approach, the World today needs a mix of accommodation and pragmatism to hold their countries together.

Calling for a ＆World-Federation＊, God (if one is a believer) responded to the spiritual teacher Neale Donald Walsch in his bestseller ＆Conversations with God＊ as this: ※We need one-world communities, with each nation having a say and having an equal proportionate share of the world＊s resources.§

The book goes on saying: ※If we share the world＊s total wealth, then no one will be lacking of anything; thus no one will wish to attack another country. We can also develop a system of resolution of differences, which is not based on wars.§ That＊s exactly what federalism tries to achieve, politically, at the international, national, state and local levels. The theme of India＊s successfully concluded G20 presidency 每 ※Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam§ or ＆One Earth, One Family, One Future＊ 每 signifies this notion.

The author has a PhD in International Studies and a Consultant with Government of India