Federalism
In 1603, Althusius first described the bases of this political philosophy in his Politica Methodice Digesta, Atque Exemplis Sacris et Profanis Illustrata.
By 1748, in his treatise The Spirit of Law, Montesquieu (1689-1755) observed various examples of federalist governments: in corporate societies, in the polis bringing villages together, and in cities themselves forming confederations.
[6][7] Examples of federalism today, i.e., the federation of a central/federal government with regional sub-unit governments, include: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Iraq, Malaysia, Mexico, Micronesia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, and Venezuela.
The terms "federalism" and "confederalism" share a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning "treaty, pact or covenant".
Until the late eighteenth century their two early meanings were essentially the same: a simple league among sovereign states, based on a treaty; (thus, initially the two were synonyms).
[9] In a narrow sense, federalism refers to the mode in which the body politic of a state is organized internally—and this is the meaning most often used in modern times.
[12] Typically, political theory today discusses two main types of the federalization process: According to Daniel Ziblatt, there are four competing theoretical explanations for adopting a federal system: Immanuel Kant noted that "the problem of setting up a state can be solved even by a nation of devils"[17]—if they possess a constitution that pits opposing factions against each other with a durable system of binding checks and balances.
Essentially, particular states may use federation as a mechanism (a safeguard) against the possibilities of rebellion or war—or the rise of repressive government via a would-be dictator or a centralized oligarchy.
And federalism enables a state to be both large and diverse, by mitigating the risk of a central government turning tyrannical.
Or, based on their body polity type: emirate, provincial, state, republicanism or constitutional monarchy, democratic—or democratic in-name-only.
Headquartered in Ottawa, the Forum of Federations partner governments include Australia, Brazil, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan and Switzerland.
In Europe, "federalist" is sometimes used to describe those who favor a common federal government, with distributed power at regional, national and supranational levels.
The distinction stems from the fact that "federalism" is situated in the middle of the political spectrum between a confederacy and a unitary state.
With each level of government allocated a defined sphere of powers, under a written constitution and the rule of law (that is, subject to the independent third-party arbitration of a supreme court in competence disputes), the two levels were thus brought into a coordinate relationship [further explanation needed] for the first time.
[25][full citation needed] In this, he echoed the perspective of American founding father James Madison who saw the several States as forming "distinct and independent portions of the supremacy"[26] in relation to the general government.
In anarchism, federalism is a horizontalist and decentralized organizational doctrine which holds that society should be built from the bottom-up, from the periphery to the centre.
Though there is no central government or administration, higher-order committees and councils, composed of delegates from federal constituencies, may convene under a popular, revocable mandate.
Consequently, anarchist federalism, promoting widespread, common ownership over the means of production, detests the centralized and unequal nature of capitalism, and the hierarchy of its companies and corporations: an anarchist federalist society would envisage widespread, federalized wealth distribution.
The Swiss constitution, in its support of indivisibility and nationhood and its view that its cantons are mere territorial divisions rather than sovereign constituencies, is incompatible with anarchist federalism and its principles of free association, decentralization and autonomy.
Notably, the states of Germany retain the right to act on their own behalf at an international level, a condition originally granted in exchange for the Kingdom of Bavaria's agreement to join the German Empire in 1871.
They have more powers than the later expanded arrangement for other Spanish regions, or the Spain of the autonomous communities (called also the "coffee for everyone" arrangement), partly to deal with their separate identity and to appease peripheral nationalist leanings, partly out of respect to specific rights they had held earlier in history.
The lower house of a federal legislature is usually directly elected, with apportionment in proportion to population, although states may sometimes still be guaranteed a certain minimum number of seats.
[35] Still others have shown that federalism is only divisive when it lacks mechanisms that encourage political parties to compete across regional boundaries.
[36] Federalism is sometimes viewed in the context of international negotiation as "the best system for integrating diverse nations, ethnic groups, or combatant parties, all of whom may have cause to fear control by an overly powerful center.
[37] In Syria, for example, federalization proposals have failed in part because "Syrians fear that these borders could turn out to be the same as the ones that the fighting parties have currently carved out.
