The Moral and Sentimental Value of Federalism: A Southerner's View

Tesfaye Habisso

December 06, 2010

Introduction
After more than a century of absolutist and centralized rule of monarchs and soldiers, Ethiopia adopted a federal democratic order in 1995 and it is more than a decade since we have been practicing federal democracy at two tiers of government, central/federal and regional levels, which are equal to one another and not one subordinate to the other. This arrangement affirms the long-denied right of every nation, nationality and people to enjoy and practice ‘self-rule’ in its distinctly defined territorial area (ethnic autonomy) and ‘shared rule’ at the central or federal government level. Though rhetoric and reality do not still match for various reasons, the gradual and incremental growth and development as well as practice and management of the federal model (federation) however is, more or less, progressing in the right direction.

In this regard no one can appreciate the advantages of the federal system more than the nations, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia who have had to endure long decades of national oppression and subjugation under alternating monarchical regimes of the past. These peoples who only recently came out of the vilest possible experience ever invented by the past monarchs of Ethiopia for human beings, the nightmare of ‘settler-serf’ (‘neftegna-gebbar’) system of brutal rule, hold the federal system to be one of the most powerful combinations favoring their human prosperity and freedom, as ‘self-rule’ and ‘shared-rule’ as well as secure and prosperous living conditions have been their age-old dreams; they hold the federal arrangement quite dearly whatever the reality on the ground. They now believe that the nations, nationalities and peoples of Ethiopia are now placed like great families beside each other, and their close contacts with one another, especially annual celebration of the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Day on November 29, have produced a healthy spirit of emulation, a tremendous benefit to all rather than otherwise, and their diversity an asset rather than a liability, unlike in the past. They know that peace and a just order are integral to a state based on the rule of law. For them constitutional government informed by the principles of human rights (individual and group rights), democracy, and the rule of just laws contribute towards the eradication of corruption, political oppression, economic privation, and the development of a just system of ordered liberty and also fraternal relations amongst the peoples.

Today, Ethiopians in general know that the quest for what is right, just and good must be plural; they know that it is by drawing on the best part of each culture, each individual, regional or historical experience, that they come closer to what is best in every one of them, as Oromos, Amharas, Somalis, Tigraway, Wolayta, Sidama, Gurage, Kembata, Hadiya, Afar, Gambella, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gamo, Gofa, Gedeo, Burji, Yem, Agaw, Kunama, Erob, Harari, Silti, Tambaro, Halaba, Kabena, etc.—big and small minorities as one family or one nation of many nationalities. However, trying to ensure that everyone is part of a majority wherever he or she lives would be an exercise in futility. We need to seek the means by which confident, flourishing minorities and cultures can live together within a single political structure. Ethiopians today know that equality must not be confused with uniformity. They strongly believe that the imposition of a mono-ethnic state on a multi-ethnic society or a uniform religion on a religiously diverse society would be a futile and dangerous route to tread. According to literature on constitutional theory, this is because “those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.” [West Virginia State Bd. Of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)]. Or at least, those who do not know that yet should read and think about the advantages of federalism and federal democracy, and the fruits of unity in diversity, and interdependence and solidarity geared towards multi-ethnic mobilization aimed at fast economic development with the ultimate aim of building one robust political and economic community worthy of the name.

Undoubtedly, the moral and sentimental value of federalism is thus deeply and emotionally held among the Ethiopian peoples in general today. Similar sentiments are also felt towards the “Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ Day” that is annually celebrated on November 29. The purpose of this article is to highlight the basics or essentials of federalism as an ideology and a specific form or variant of state, and to discuss some of the most important factors and prerequisites that are believed to contribute to the success of a federation. The article is divided into three parts:

• 1. Introduction;
  
• 2. Beyond the Ethic and Sentimentalism: What Makes Federalism Work?;
  
• 3. Conclusion

Beyond the Ethic and Sentimentalism: What Makes Federalism Work?
The term "federal" is derived from the Latin foedus which means "covenant." This embodies ideas of promise, commitment and undertaking so that the federal idea involves cooperation, reciprocity and mutuality. [Chen, P. 1999. "Federalism and Rights: A Neglected Relationship' in South Texas Law Review 40; 845 at 850]. "In essence, a federal arrangement is one of partnership, established and regulated by a covenant, whose internal relationships reflect the special kind of sharing which must prevail among the partners, namely one that both recognizes the integrity of each partner and seeks to foster a special kind of unity among them." [Elazar, D. 1994 at 8]. In this sense, the federal idea is concerned with the combination of self-rule and shared-rule. The defining characteristic of a federation is that in a federation neither the federal nor the constituent units of government are constitutionally subordinate to the other. Each order of government has sovereign powers defined by the constitution rather than by another level of government, each is empowered to deal directly with its citizens in the exercise of its legislative, executive and taxing powers, and each is directly elected by and accountable to its citizens.

Federalism, although a legal and constitutional condition, is, as Edward McWhinney explains, also an attitude. McWhinney explains that federalism is “as much a social-psychological attitude on the part of government decision-makers as a strictly juridical condition.”[McWhinney, E. 1965. Comparative Federalism. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. P. 69] As he suggests, commitment and goodwill for the maintenance of federalism is one of the most important factors. With the existence of goodwill and commitment, federal spirit and federal behavior develops over time. According to Carl Friedrich, with the development of a federal spirit and of federal behavior, “agreement on fundamentals is achieved and similar forms of doctrinaire rigidity” are avoided [Friedrich, C. 1968. Trends of Federalism in Theory and Practice. Pall Mall Press, London. P. 39]. Thus, compromise and accommodation, which are very important in the functioning of a successful federation, can be achieved. The above analysis can be summarized in K. C. Wheare’s words: “A desire for federal union among communities is a first and obvious factor which produces in them the capacity to make and work a federal union.”[Wheare, K. C. 1951. Federal Government. Oxford University Press, London, New York, Toronto. P. 45]. Or, as Elazar succinctly put it:
"Where there is a positive attitude toward federalism and a will to build a federal system, where the political society involved rests on sufficient trust, ...where political culture is either favorable or at least open to federal arrangements, where all of this leads to a wider understanding of liberty as federal liberty, then federalism has a good chance of succeeding when used for peace-making. It may have almost as a good chance if most of those elements are present and some chance even if one or two of them is. But it seems quite clear that without any, the chances of success are extremely limited." [Elazar, D. 1998 at 4].

There are other factors that affect the successful functioning of a federation. Federalism has usually been considered the second best choice for political association. It offers a balance between unity for common purposes and separation for ethnic or other local reasons. Many people living in a federation are generally torn between the feeling that they want to go and the feeling that they want to stay. These dual feelings should be supported by a constitution and institutions. The institutions should be devised in such a way that there is no danger of an over-powerful central government. In most federal states, even Switzerland, there is a tendency for the power of the central government to grow. There is also the danger of the regions inspiring greater loyalty than the union. Such tendencies are also prevalent in our young federal democracy today. However, to devise a ready-made constitution for a new federation such as ours is very difficult. As H. Hicks explains, unless all citizens hold a dual loyalty, the existence of proper institutions cannot guarantee the durability of a federation [Hicks, H. 1978. Federalism: Failure and Success. The Macmilan Press Ltd., Great Britain. P. 175]. Whether federal structures provide an adequate basis for the governance of local interests depends on the existence of several other factors.

One of these factors is the so-called cross-cutting cleavages. For example, in the case of the Swiss federation, there are four linguistic groups (German, French, Italian and Romanche) and two main religious groupings. Although these cleavages might be expected to promote violence and instability, on the contrary, the existence of these cleavages brings unique success to their system. One can imagine the cross-cutting cleavages-- ethnic, linguistic , regional and religious cleavages—that exist amongst our over 80 ethno-linguistic communities in Ethiopia and the positive role that they would play, if handled wisely and appropriately, in augmenting the smooth functioning of the federal system. Before moving onto how these cleavages bring stability and success to the Swiss federation, we shall try to explain how cross-cutting cleavages work in general.

In politics there are competing interests. These different interests represent majority opinions in different states of a federation. However, if there is one split in a country (such as that of religion, nationality or language), the country will be in a danger of being torn apart by violence. On the other hand, if the member states’ alliances are subject to more than one cleavage then potential tensions will be cancelled out as, in this way, an individual cleavage does not become entrenched in the system. In the Swiss case the religious cleavage cuts across the linguistic cleavage (of the eleven predominantly Catholic cantons, seven are German, two bilingual). In this way, cleavages of language and religion cut across each other. While on some issues the Swiss may divide on linguistic grounds, on others they may divide on religious grounds [Watts, Ronald L. 1970. Administration in Federal Systems. Hutchinson Educational Ltd. London, p. 10]. These cross-cutting cleavages prevent a permanent majority factor. As Ross explains:
A society, therefore, which is riven by a dozen oppositions along lines running in every direction, may actually be in less danger of being torn with violence or falling to pieces than one split along just one line. For each new cleavage contributes to narrow the cross clefts, so that one might say that society is sewn together by its inner conflicts [Bogdanor, S. 1988. ‘Federalism in Switzerland, Government and Opposition. Vol. 13, No. 1, p. 20]. By contrast to Swiss cross-cutting cleavages, in Canada, the English speaking Canadian majority also coincides with a Protestant majority and the French Canadian minority is predominantly Roman Catholic. [Watts, Ronald L. 1970.

Administration in Federal Systems. Hutchinson Educational Ltd. London, p. 10]. Hence, there is no cross-cutting of linguistic and religious issues, which is a disadvantage for Canada's system. However, Canada has been one of the successful multi-ethnic federations despite the lack of these cross-cutting cleavages. The Canadian case shows the necessity of a substantial number of member states in a federation. Only in this way can the competing interests of the units be pacified. Therefore, the size, number and relative homogeneity of the component units become important in the stability and success of the system ]Ibid, p. 11].

As K. C. Wheare writes in his book 'Federal Government'', it is not desirable that one or two should be so powerful that they can overrule the others (e.g. as was the case of Prussia in the German empire of 1871). Federations are composed of a varying number of states. For example, Switzerland has 22 cantons, the USA has 50 states, Pakistan had two units until its break up into Pakistan and Bangladesh, and Canada has 10 provinces. The number of units in a federation usually has the potential to act as a crosscutting cleavage as well. In Canada, the existence of more than two units in a federation that are composed of two ethnic national communities, French and English, helps its integration process.

When Ivo Duchacek analyzed thirteen bi-communal polities, he found out that the durability of bi-communal federations is more difficult than multi-unit federations. Such bi-communal federations are those where there are two dominant communities and two separate local states as well. Now, there is one bi-communal federation that is working and that is Belgium. As Duchacek explains: The distinctive feature of a confrontation between only two communities have no opportunity to alter their power relationship by internal coalition shifting. They tend to confront each other within a rather narrow alley that endows their bargaining or frontal conflicts with a zero sum quality [Duchacek, I. D. 1988. Publius: Journal of Federalism, Dydadic Federations and Confederation. No. 18, p. 12]. The absence of alternative coalitions in bi-communal systems results in the confrontation of the two communities on every issue. Many bi-communal federations--like Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, pre-Bangladesh Pakistan and Czechoslovakia--have been aggravated by violence and disintegration. Another factor in the bi-communal states that might have a destabilizing effect on the system is the possibility that one or both communities have blood or national relations with people in a neighboring state. This kind of connection decreases the willingness of the component units in a federation to cooperate with one another. Instead, they try to get support from outside. Examples of this can be seen in Greece and Turkey's relationship with Cyprus, England with respect to Northern Ireland, etc. Hence, foreign relations can be cited as one of the factors determining the failure or success of a federation [Hicks, U. 1978. Federalism: Failure and Success. The Macmilan Press Ltd., Great Britain, p. 177].

Another factor that is important for the success of a federation is the common peoples' acceptance of the political system; the idea must be popular. Experience has shown that a federation imposed from above and in the absence of popular approval is likely to experience difficulties and may well lead to disintegration [Smith, G. 1995. Federalism: The Multi-ethnic Challenge. Longman group Ltd., New York, USA, p. 262].

Conclusion
The lessons of federalism show that federations combining self-rule and shared-rule do provide a practical way of combining the benefits of both unity and diversity through representative institutions. Secondly, the degree to which there has been a wide degree of public acceptance of the need to respect constitutional norms and structures and the rule of law has a great role for the success of a federation. Thirdly, the development of mutual faith and trust among the different groups within a federation and an emphasis upon the spirit of tolerance and compromise are imperative for a federation to become sustainable. Fourthly, fully democratic processes are a fundamental prerequisite to effective federation. Fifthly, the form or variant of federation that is adopted or evolved gives adequate expression to the desires and requirements of the particular society in question. Finally, the most important factor for the durability of federalism is the maintenance of both diversity and unity, and both of these will be realized through the existence of goodwill and commitment, crosscutting cleavages, the number of units in a federation, and the acceptance of a federation as an end in itself. At the end of the day, however, it is not merely the form of constitutional government that is important; rather, the constitutional culture or ethos of tolerance and mutual respect are important in maintaining social peace. A plural society or community that desires peace and an integrated society must set its face against ethnic and religious hatred and aggressive nationalism which demonizes and excludes the 'Other'. It must both honor and give expression to a constitutional culture respectful of human and group rights and committed to sustaining ethnic-religious pluralism within the national order.