Federal and decentralized political systems

Federal and decentralized political systems: a key to strong democracies

As the co-founder of the Union of European Federalists, Hendrik Brugmans has said Federalism is the necessary consequence of democracy (Brugmans in King 1982:21). Dahl (2000: 26-31) talks about differences between democratic goals and actualities by stating that in every democratic country there is a gap between actual and ideal democracy. This gap offers a challenge: Can we find ways to make "democratic" countries more democratic? In this essay it will be argued that federal and decentralized political systems maximize democratic accountability, strengthen and make "democratic" countries more democratic and promotes democracy overall. In order to achieve this, the author of this essay will reference to several political scientists that have majorly contributed to discussion of democracy, decentralized and federal political systems. This essay is divided in three main parts that include discussion of arguments relevant to the main argument: the distribution of power in such political systems, citizen rule in federal and decentralized states as well as the equality matter and representation of minority.
To begin with, one must understand what is meant by "decentralization" and "federalism" in order to further apply these terms in political discussion. However, it must be made clear that there is no single definition that is taken in account in order to create a generally accepted term of "decentralization" or "federalism". As it is stated in the United Nations Development Programme working paper of 1999: Decentralization, or decentralizing governance, refers to the restructuring or reorganization of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the principle of subsidiarity, thus increasing the overall quality and effectiveness of the system of governance, while increasing the authority and capacities of sub-national levels. This statement provides a theoretical explanation of what decentralization is – a process of restructuring the authority so that there is a greater division of powers. Federalism is sometimes seen as a consequence to decentralization and as Aiyar (1961: 1) states: the process of decentralization can be a way of creating a federal government. One could then debate whether federal government is a necessity and if it should be perceived as a favourable political system. Mayne (1990: 4) refers to federalism as an evolutionary advance that is only a step away from World-State. This suggests that federalism must be viewed as an advance that might lead to the widely desired model of World-State. King (1982: 12) on the other hand, talks about the basic cause of federalism as a need to unite in order to hold military, diplomatic and economic powers, suggesting that federalism is nothing more than a struggle for power. Although many views of decentralized and federal systems may be proposed, the author of this essay argues that these two types of political systems certainly promote and strengthen democracy, while centralized and unitary political systems might cause inequality, ineffectiveness and overall weakening of democracy.

First, Newton and Deth (2005: 82) state that government must have some decentralization of its operations in the interests of both democracy and efficiency. Most countries rely heavily upon sub-central government to deliver services to citizens. This further leads to the discussion of the distribution of power in decentralized and federal political systems, and how this particular type of power distribution can promote democracy. Aiyar (1961: 2) describes federation in its core as a voluntary union of originally independent States. He argues that federation is a contract in which the parties to it are independent. In a unitary government the States exist on the will of the central government, whereas in a federation neither is dependent on the other (Aiyar 1961: 2). Cooperation of federal and state government is required in both cooperative federalism and dual federalism; this means that the central government shares powers with local governments. Corruption is viewed as a major concern and threat to democracy therefore centralized and unitary political systems are dangerous for democracy, because the power is held by central government. The division of power in decentralized and federal political systems, on the other hand, secures democratic principles. Some might argue that the separation of powers in decentralized and federal states leads to slow, complex and costly government operations implying that central government is clearly accountable and acts more decisively (Newton and Deth 2005: 82-83). In defense to this counter-argument one can mention that the British political commentator Lord Acton noted that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely (Acton in UNDP 1999). Decentralisation can be viewed as a call for democratization where emphasis placed on the strengthening of local governance that is recently becoming a bigger trend has been motivated by a desire to break the grip of sometimes quite corrupt national bureaucracies (UNDP 1999). Similarly, Cheema and Rondinelli (2007: 3) state that local governments began to decentralize in order to accelerate development, break bureaucratic bottlenecks resulted from centralized government management, and participate more effectively in global economy. Decentralised and federal political systems do not suggest that there should not be central power, as it is a necessity when dealing with major central and international issues. However, these political systems are created with the intention of distributing power horizontally within the state in order to achieve strong democratic state.

Second, democracy in its very basic understanding is the rule of demos, meaning the rule by the people. Robert Dahl describes five criteria for a democratic process – Effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda, inclusion of adults – all of which suggest that the participation and decision-making of the people is a necessity for democracy (Dahl 2000: 38). If one assumes that Dahl's argument of what democracy means and what the five criteria should be is sound, then it is clear that decentralized and federal political systems strongly promote democracy as in these systems, decision making process is brought closer to the people. The United Nations Development Programme (1999) regards decentralisation as a necessity for democratization: Decentralization is an integral part of the logic of democratization – the power of a people to determine their own form of government, representation, policies and services. Dillinger and Fay in their book From Decentralized to Centralized Governance argue: On the positive side, decentralization can improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the public sector by bringing decision making closer to citizens. On the negative side, decentralization raises the risk of macroeconomic instability. To continue with another counter-argument opposing the effectiveness of decentralized political systems in promoting democracy by bringing decision-making process closer to people, Adam Przeworski refers to federalism as demos-constraining phenomena. He argues that unitary systems generally have a more open agenda, while in a federal democracy the agenda of the demos is restricted because many policy areas have been constitutionally assigned to the exclusive competence of the states (Przeworski in Stepan 1999). In response to this statement, Riker regards to demos-constraining aspect of federalism as a tool that can help protect individual rights from being infringed by the central government's potential for producing populist majorities (Riker in Stepan 1999). Decentralized and federal political systems can prevent production of populist majorities and bring decision-making closer to people. In addition, these systems can also promote political participation, which is one of Dahl's five criteria for democracy. Newton and Deth (2005: 85) state that it simply makes sense to put decision-making regarding local issues in the hands of the people that are being affected by them. Giving the power to the central government to decide on local issues might not only lead to poor outcome regarding a certain issue, but may also discourage people from participating in the decision-making process in the future. The United Kingdom has been one of the most centralized states in the past century but there has been an increasing demand for decentralisation even in this allegedly centralized state. British Labour Party politician Wayne David talks about this trend to decentralize in his recent article Welsh devolution: Bringing decision-making closer to the people in a way that recognises the realities of the modern world (David 2013). To conclude, in many countries decentralisation is viewed as a vehicle to promote participatory decision-making, local infrastructure development, and service delivery (Cheema and Rondinelli 2007: 242), and failure to decentralize might lead to "Democratic deficit", a process that occurs as the decision making is moved further from the citizens in national government (Tomassi and Weinschelbaum 2007).

Third, another issue often discussed regarding democracy is equality. Dahl (2000: 37) states that voting equality is one of the criteria for a democratic process meaning that when the moment arrives at which the decision about a policy will be made, every member should have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal. To continue, one must include minorities and minority needs when discussing the equality factor of democracy. Many political scientists that talk about federalism often include Coming-Together vs. Holding-Together (Stepan 1999 as one of them) and factors aiding creation of federal political systems such as geography, defence, economic motives, political motives as well as the racial and cultural factors (Aiyar 1961: 12-16) in their discussion. It is clear though that even those who argue against usefulness of federal and decentralized political systems in democratization process must refer to these factors, which inclusively demand recognition of minorities in political processes. Racial and cultural factors are often emphasized when talking about federal countries like Belgium, Canada, Switzerland and the USA. Newton and Deth (2005: 79-83) state that a country with deep political cleavages of any kind, whether it is based on ethnicity, culture or religion, may have severe problems with its unity. The authors also suggest that federalism makes it easier to hold diverse areas together by giving regions a degree of control and that it defuses potentially dangerous national conflicts. Belgium serves as an example to this; in order to prevent the Dutch-speaking Wallonia and French-speaking Flanders from falling apart it adapted a federal system in 1993. Further, we might look at six longstanding democracies that score highest on an index of linguistic and ethnic diversity-India, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, and the United States-are all federal states (Stepan 1999). In India for example, scheduled castes and tribes have reserved seats in the lower house of Federal Parliament and under a constitutional amendment passed in 1993, one-third of seats in India's local councils are reserved for women (considered a minority) (Bird 2003). Some might argue that asymmetrical arrangements in federal political systems are incompatible with the equality of the states and citizen's rights (Stepan 1999) and that unitary political systems facilitate the equalization of regional sources, while granting some areas special powers (e.g. Basque Country in Spain) (Newton and Deth 2005: 83). One must understand that in unitary system government can reform, reorganize, or abolish units of local or regional governments without any special constitutional restraint (Newton and Deth 2005: 52). This clearly weakens all arguments in favor of unitary political systems contributing to democratization as the absolute power of central government might lead to complete discrimination of minorities as well as the overall inequality. In contrast, federal political system can protect the rights of territorially concentrated minorities as well as maintain the unity of the country by containing regional divisions (Newton and Deth 2005: 83) and abolishment of minority needs is made almost impossible in federal political system.

In conclusion, horizontal division of power within the state in federal and decentralized political systems provides greater democratic accountability and prevents creation of corrupt absolute central power. The decision-making process is brought closer to citizens as the creation of local governments in federal and decentralized political systems allow people to elect accountable local representatives that will further make decisions regarding local services and represent people needs in different levels of government. Equality and representation of minority needs is a measure of effectiveness when talking about political systems. In federal and decentralized states greater equality is provided as the political cleavages are taken into consideration when creating a political system. People from different backgrounds, ethnicities and geographical areas have a greater equality and representation in federal and decentralized political systems whereas in unitary and central political systems government can abolish or reorganize local governments without constitutional restraint (Newton and Deth 2005: 52). These arguments strongly support the main argument proposed in this essay: decentralized and federal political systems promote democracy and maximize democratic accountability and effectiveness. However, one must understand that Limitation of area is essential; federalism is a strong remedy for a virulent disorder; it is not a healing lotion that can be sprayed over the world (Beveridge in Mayne 1990: 4). Federal and decentralized political systems might not succeed in all regions but it clearly is the necessary consequence of democracy and as Dillinger and Fay have said: Strategies aimed at stopping decentralization are unlikely to succeed. The pressures to decentralize are beyond government control. Rather than resisting these pressures, countries in particular regions should learn from countries that have gone before. Currently, almost 70 states have adopted democratic thinking and perceptions, though as Dahl has said, perceptions of actual and ideal democracy have also created gaps that offer a challenge to democratize already democratic states to a greater extent. If there was a way to make democratic countries more democratic, adaption of federal and decentralized political systems should be the first step towards it.




Bibliography

Aiyar S.P. (1961) Federalism and Social Change: A Study in Quasi-Federalism, London: Asia Publishing House

Bird K. (2003) The Political Representation of Women and Ethnic Minorities in Established Democracies: A Framework for Comparative Research, Available at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/stm103%20articles/Karen%20Bird%20amidpaper.pdf [Accessed Mar 18, 2014]

Cheema G.S., Rondinelli D.A. (2007) Decentralizing Governance: Concepts and Practices, Washington: Brookings Institution Press

Dahl R. A. (2000) On Democracy: Yale Nota Bene, New Haven: Yale University Press

David W. (2013) Welsh devolution: Bringing decision-making closer to the people in a way that recognises the realities of the modern world, Available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/33864 [Acceseed Mar18, 2014]

Dillinger W., Fay M. (1999) From Centralized to Decentralized Governance, Finance and Government Vol.36 Nr.4 Available at : https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1999/12/dillinge.htm [Accessed Mar 14, 2014]

King P. (1982) Federalism and Federation, International Series in Social and Political Thought, London: Croom Helm

Mayne R., Pinder J., Roberts J. (1990) Federal Union: The Pioneers, Hampshire: Macmillan

Newton K., Deth J.W. (2005) Foundations of Comparative Politics: Democracies of the Modern World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Stepan A. (1999) Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the US Model, Journal of Democracy Vol.10 Nr.4 Available at: http://www.catedras.fsoc.uba.ar/deluca/Stepan.htm [Accessed Mar 16, 2014]

Tommasi M., Weinschelbaum F. (2007) Centralization vs Decentralisation: APrincipal Agent-Analysis, Journal of Public Economic Theory 9(2) Available at: http://www.yale.edu/leitner/resources/docs/2003-02.pdf [Accessed Mar 14, 2014]

United Nations Development Programme (1999) Decentralization: A Sampling of Definitions, Working Paper Available at: http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/decentralization_working_report.PDF [Accessed Mar 16, 2014]