Countries facing serious conflicts do not find resolu- tion in formulaic responses. That, in summary, was the conclusion””and is the challenge””faced by the over 500 scholars, practitioners and government leaders who gathered at a conference on federalism in St. Gallen, Switzerland at the end of August.

The conference focused on federalism and its role in conflict resolution, democracy, human rights and fiscal sharing, and sought to underline the benefits of the flexi- bility and diverse power sharing arrangements federalism can offer. Countries with very different federal experiences, and with economic and social conditions as different as Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom, sent delegations.

What seemed most hopeful was the extent to which non-federal countries were looking to federalism, in some form, for assistance in resolving conflicts and managing the opposing pulls of larger centralized governments””which have better reach in terms of fiscal and economic resources ””versus the desire to maintain local cultures, languages and ways of life.

Countries like Romania, Italy and Cyprus””not now federal states””seemed to be earnestly examining federation-like organizational prospects. Other countries, like Nigeria, which has emerged from multi-decade military dic- tatorship and nascent democracy with a strong federal instinct intact, and New World countries like Mexico, Canada and Peru, contributed a sense of opportunity, while Old World countries like Germany reflected eloquently on how federalism had been not only a way to rebuild after the Second World War, but also an even better way to sustain the core fairness and equity that encouraged legitimacy and democratic optimism. Yet, at the workshops, plenaries and the deliberations, it became clear that federalism, while a hopeful instrument for managing conflict, is not in and of itself a solution to conflict.

Decentralization does little for the local populations if the local entities, who may often be corrupt or anti-demo- cratic, simply capture the local government. If the local gov- ernment has insufficient resources, or if it is simply a new regional majority fashioned from an old national minority and is insensitive to the new minority in their region, we are not much further ahead in terms of fairness and decency. In countries with strong fundamentalist geographic strong- holds, for example, decentralizing education to local gov- environernments could mean women are not educated in the schools, or females accused of adultery are legally stoned by local authorities. Like any debate where the issue is deemed to be ”œabout the principle and not the money,” how federalism works at the decentralized unit level is actually about the money. At one work session, a distinguished Italian regional president said his region was able to take immense strides toward helping minority linguistic groups and building constructive ties around Europe because 90 percent of all taxes collected in his small region were returned to his government by Rome. (I resisted the instinct to invite him on a tour of Ontario and Alberta, but just barely.) In Nigeria, we were told, the challenge to federalism was very much the absence of cash to pay state salaries in the 36 states within the six geo-political regions. In Switzerland, one of the oldest federations in the world, the inherent wealth of the country served to sustain the positive fiscal reforms which are now very much on the Swiss agenda. Equalization reforms underway in Germany and Switzerland and reports of possible powersharing elsewhere all spoke to the dynamic nature of federal governance. Federalism in Canada, and its relatively static reality, clearly is not the norm. Formulae, principles and rules are changing worldwide. The St. Gallen conference reflected not only those changes but also the extent to which other countries, like Italy, were beginning to federalize administratively, which spoke compellingly about how the core asymmetry and flexibility of federalism can attract and inspire.

What was mentioned, but not pursued, by the Belgian prime minister was the poten- tial recuperative and democratically restorative role federalism can play in response to the fears, some realistic and some hysterical, of the anti- globalization movement. In essence, the core fear of the anti-globalization movement is that glob- alization is about a massive theft: Global compa- nies and their political friends are stealing jobs, violating workers rights, trashing the environ- ment, threatening sovereignty, corrupting democracy and destroying local cultures every day, all for ”œill-gotten criminally negligent prof- its,” which are short-term, unearned and exploitative, and essentially a huge concentra- tion of power. That may be an overstatement of the anti-globalist view, but not if some of the websites, manifestos and direct mail solicitations are taken at face value.

Federalism””because it balances local juris- diction with national decision-making, and can, through decentralization, ensure that local autonomy and interests are protected””can be a counterweight to the legitimate concerns about democratic deficit and erosion of community diversity. As well, the federal process in Europe and within European countries means that regions in Italy, provinces in Spain and states in Germany can work together within their own sovereignties on common economic and social challenges. Here, federalism is a multi-level bridge for everything from modest issues to heavy public policy, all at appropriately different speeds.

As enthusiastically articulated by Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel of Austria, President Kojislav Kostunica of Yugoslavia, and Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium, the poten- tial of federalism acquires, if one is not careful, an almost messianic tone. The notion here is that Austria and Belgium could not survive unless they were federations. Prime Minister Chrétien made a similar point about Canada in his address, the closing speech of the conference. Simply put, the proposition is that the old nation-state, defined in its earliest days by a com- mon faith or simple culture, cannot and does not exist. The multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multina- tional nature of most states””a nature made more real every day by migration patterns of the poor, and career and economic choices by the better off ””requires something less blunt and unforgiving than the overly centralized unitary state. Here, even the oldest of unitary states, the United Kingdom, has started down the path to a more federal approach with devolution to the Scottish parliament. The world’s largest democracy and federation, India, while able to centralize power in times of war and emergency, has been strength- ening the capacity of decentralized local govern- ments to ensure participation from women, lower castes and workers. And Mexico has a determined plan to address a constructive decentralization that hopefully will strengthen the federal toler- ances of a country with its own share of minority, local and indigenous peoples’ challenges.

What became apparent in conference work- shops (on the role of sub-national units in for- eign policy, the management of fiscal equalization regimes, conflict management, democracy and human rights) is that ”œfederaliza- tion” or federalism is not able in and of itself to combat problems like non-democratic environments, seriously insufficient resources or ram- pant corruption. Societies in which the political system rewards those who encourage racial or ethnic definition, or women are marginalized as a result of culture or religion, cannot look only to federalism to sort out core inequities or injus- tices. But, where there is a will to seek solutions that imply people of different backgrounds, lan- guage or heritage can live together to maximize economic and social benefits, and to do so in peace and good faith, federalism offers a series of building materials and design options.

It was a senior member of the Mexican dele- gation who made the point that this process of shaping a federal system and an outcome was much more about architecture than engineering. This is an important distinction, one that reflects the critical roles of design, culture, harmony and creativity. An approach to federation building”” for either nation building or nation saving””that is too tied to the rigidities of pure engineering is problematic. What is called for is an approach that is open to the art of the possible, the dynam- ics of cooperation and the spirit of reasonable accommodation. Centralists may well worry the shape of the product of all this artistry may not resemble the normative nation-state. Here the argument may well revolve around various levels of dysfunction in specific areas of governance versus the overall social and economic benefit of peace and accommodation. In Canadian terms, do federal-provincial difficulties and challenges ever equal the gross economic and social cost of part of the country separating completely? In the former Yugoslavia, this question has literally embraced issues of life and death.

In the end, federalism emerges as an accept- able option because there is no other way to fair- ly address substantive and deeply rooted differ- ences. Those differences may come from cen- turies-old issues of identity. They may stem from compelling regional or cultural differences. They may ordain a federal approach from the deep recesses of historical experience. Or they may be the way disparate nations gather in one eco- nomically and socially promising country. Whether Europe federalizes further is less impor- tant than the federal realities in Germany, Austria and Belgium, and the decentralizing instincts in the UK and Italy. However the new Europe may grow, whatever the new Europe- wide competencies, the very federal nature of so much of Europe will always mean checks and balances and the sharing of power across at least three levels of government.

In North America, where Canada, the United States and Mexico embrace federal governance in different ways, this European example of power restrained speaks earnestly to what a North American union might become. The feder- al promise is one of process over excess, and power sharing rather than power concentration. This is a reason to let the promise of federalism, even if somewhat overstated, inflate the opti- mism of conciliatory and nation-building politi- cians from the 38 countries that represented all hemispheres. In a world where polarization, the politics of identity and internecine struggle have become toxic, any organized system of gover- nance associated with hope and reconciliation is very welcome indeed.

For federalism itself, as a means of state organization and a facilitator of multinational and multi-linguistic states, these are both hopeful and trying times. Fiscal reform in terms of equal- ization, and changes in older federations like Germany and Switzerland, speak to the dynamic nature of federal systems. Canada’s Social Union Framework Agreement is witness to both the cre- ative potential of federal states and how little that potential can mean in the day-to-day lives of people wanting better access to health-care or higher standards of education. In Nigeria and India, federalism is both real and relatively deep- rooted, and suspended in times of emergency. In places like Sri Lanka, where a sub-national popu- lation seeks a measure of protection and parity with the national majority, the potential, while compelling, is clearly contingent upon issues much larger than the mechanics or specifics of how federalism does or can work.

The Canadian-based Forum of Federations has done an outstanding job of passing the torch to federal countries everywhere. While the Forum may well have been originally conceived by Ottawa for domestic purposes after the close 1995 Quebec referendum, it now stands at the centre of a global network of elected and appointed practitioners, academics and scholars who share a vital interest in and commitment to the federal idea.

There are not many forums where prime ministers, presidents, scholars, civil servants and students meet to consider the evolution of a par- ticular approach to governance and state organi- zation. The truth is that in the same way that not all democracies are equally democratic, not all federations are evenly federal. Unlike democracy, more federalism is not always better or desirable.

The strengths of federalism do not always out- weigh potential weaknesses. Strong central gov- ernment is often a critical protector of rights and freedoms, especially when supportive of an even- handed and disinterested judiciary. While the absence of local or regional decision-making is never good, exalting it at the expense of appro- priate national standards may not always serve the common interest. Local government often has less voter interest, media coverage or actual electoral turnout. The notion that downloading to local levels always heightens accountability, responsiveness, democracy or human rights seems especially optimistic. In some cases, down- loading can mean just the opposite””and in many unkind ways.

It has always struck me that we in Canada have raised the practice of compromise to an art form, and in exalting federalism we worship freely at the altar of a systematic way of avoid- ing unpleasantness, as if Canadians had any other choice or preference. But we are a rich country by any relative measure, and federal- provincial processes that are intrinsically attrac- tive as processes that manage conflict should be inviting. We live in a country were the vast majority of people can live their lives without regard to day-to-day problems in politics. This is a good thing. Many people in many countries have no such option and, sadly, they are bur- dened with the reality that local and national politics determine whether they eat, whether they receive an education or, in some cases, whether they live or die.

So the task is not to proselytize about federal- ism, but to study its dynamics and explore how it can better serve the way changing soci- eties demand more flexibility and sensitivity from all levels of government. There may be new applications and opportunities; there may also be areas where federalism may frustrate legitimate economic, social or national aspirations.

The anti-globalization movement””which like most movements has its sane and thoughtful, and extreme and radical fringes””may well want to reflect in its more rational precincts about the true prospects federalism holds as a bulwark against undue concentration of power, something they clearly worry about most intently. For this reflec- tion and others, the St. Gallen conference provided immense substance and considerable hope. The Swiss civil servants, the International Student Committee that sustained the conference’s opera- tions, the plenary committee that conceptualized and structured the context, and the participants can take credit for that, and deservedly so.

The task now is to take the message of the ongoing evolution of federalism and engage at the level of real problems””oppression of women, erosion of human rights, the arresting of democ- racy in large areas of the world””to see how a fed- eral approach to governance might help.

In the end, whether federalism can help is what really matters.

You are welcome to republish this Policy Options article online or in print periodicals, under a Creative Commons/No Derivatives licence.

Creative Commons License

More like this