Federalism and Devolution
Webpages concerning "Federalism and Devolution"
|
The contents has been generating using technology developed by scientec.
Wikipedia-Article "Federalism"
Federalism is the idea of a group or body of members that are bound together (latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. That representative head can be a king or God (as in theology), or a thing or general assembly (as in politics).
- In politics, federalism is the political philosophy that underlies a system of government in which power is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent partially self-governing political units (like states or provinces), creating what is often called a federation. The two levels of government are interdependent, and share sovereignty. Proponents are often called federalists. In Canada and Europe, "federalist" is often used to describe those who favor a strong federal government and weaker provincial governments. Curiously, in the United States it describes those who generally favor a weaker federal government and stronger state governments.
- In theology, federalism is a synonym for basic Covenant Theology. It is a commonly used term in serious theological treatises since the 17th century (yes, prior to the political use) and to this very day, particularly among Reformed thinkers. Federalism describes the relationship between Adam and those born of the flesh (i.e. all generate mankind), and likewise between Christ and those who are in addition born of the Spirit (i.e. all regenerate mankind; see John 3:1-8 and Romans 8:1-17), which is most clearly described in Romans 5:12-21. In theology, the two parties (i.e. the representative head and the represented members) do not share sovereignty.
Contents |
Political federalism
Characteristics
The writings of two British observers, Albert Dicey and James Bryce, have been influential in the early theory of federalism. Dicey identified two conditions for the formation of a federal state. The first was the existence of a body of countries "so closely connected by locality, by history, by race, or the like, as to be capable to bearing, in the eyes of their inhabitants, an impress of common nationality." The second condition is "the desire for national unity and the determination to maintain the independence of each man's separate State".
The distribution of powers is an essential feature of federalism. In a classic work on the subject, Professor K. C. Wheare gave this test for federal government: "Does a system of government embody predominantly a division of powers between general and regional authorities, each of which, in its own sphere, is co-ordinate with the others and independent of them?" The result of the distribution of powers is that no one authority can wield the same amount of power as under a unitarian state.
Under a federal system a Constitution is the supreme power from which the state is derived. An independent judiciary is necessary to treat as void every act which is inconsistent with the Constitution. Because of this, federalism is precluded by legalism. The Constitution must necessarily be "rigid" and "inexpansive". Its law must be either legally immutable, or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies. The difficulty of altering the constitution tends to produce conservative sentiment.
Federalism and Democracy
The case for federalism is advanced by federalist theory, which argue that federalism provides a robust constitutional system that anchors pluralist democracy, and that it enhances democratic participation through providing dual citizenship in a compound republic.
The classic statement of this position can be found in The Federalist, which argued that federalism helps enshrine the principle of due process, limiting arbitrary action by the state. First, federalism can limit government power to infringe rights, since it creates the possibility that a legislature wishing to restrict liberties will lack the constitutional power, while the level of government that possesses the power lacks the desire. Second, the legalistic decision making processes of federal systems limit the speed with which governments can act.
The argument that federalism helps to secure democracy and human rights has been influenced by the contemporary public choice theory. It has been argued that in smaller political units, individuals can participate more directly than in a monolithic unitary government. Moreover, individuals dissatisfied with conditions in one State have the option of moving to another. Of course, this argument assumes that a freedom of movement between States is necessarily secured by a federal system.
The capacity of a federal system to protect civil liberties has been disputed. Often there is confusion between the rights of individuals with those of states. In Australia, for example, some of the major intergovernmental conflicts in recent decades have been the direct result of federal intervention to secure the rights of minority groups, and required limitations on the powers of state governments. It is also essential to avoid confusion between the constraints set by judicial review, the constitutional power of the courts to overrule Parliament, and federalism itself.
On the one hand, some U.S. states have regrettable histories of denying civil liberties to racial groups, women, and others. On the other hand, the laws and constitutions of some states have protected such minorities with legal rights and protections that exceed those of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Federalism and the U.S. Constitution
Before the U.S. Constitution was written, each American state was essentially sovereign. The U.S. Constitution created a national government with sufficient powers to unify the states, but did not supplant state governments. This federal arrangement, by which the central national government exercises power over some issues and the state governments exercise power over other issues, is one of the basic characteristics of the U.S. Constitution that checks governmental power. Other such characteristics are the separation of powers among the three branches of government--the legislative, executive, and judicial--and civil liberties. The authors of the Federalist Papers explained in essays number 45 and 46 how they expected state governments to exercise checks and balances on the national government to maintain limited government over time.
Because the states were preexisting political entities, the U.S. Constitution did not need to define or explain federalism in any one section. However, it contains numerous mentions of the rights and responsibilities of state governments and state officials vis-à-vis the federal government. The federal government has certain express powers (also called enumerated powers), including the right to declare taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In addition, it has implied power to pass any law "necessary and proper" (found within the elastic clause) for the execution of its express powers. Powers that the Constitution does not give to the federal government or forbid to the states—the reserved powers—are reserved to the people or the states[1]. The power of the federal government was significantly expanded by amendments to the Constitution following the Civil War, and by some later amendments.
Over time, the federal government has increased in size and influence, both in terms of its influence on everyday life and relative to the state governments. There are several reasons for this, including the need to regulate businesses and industries that span state borders, attempts to secure civil rights, and the provision of social services. Many people believe that the federal government has grown beyond the bounds permitted by the express powers. The US Supreme Court has occasionally invalidated federal statutes (e.g., the Gun-Free School Zones Act in United States v. Lopez). However, most actions by the federal government can find some legal support among the express powers, such as the commerce clause.
Dual federalism holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign. In this theory, parts of the Constitution are interpreted very narrowly, such as the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause. In this narrow interpretation, the federal government has jurisdiction only if the Constitution clearly grants such. In this case, there is a very large group of powers belonging to the states, and the federal government is limited to only those powers explicitly listed in the Constitution. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_fedr.html good link
European federalism
After WWII, several movements were created advocating a European Federation such as the Union of European Federalists or the European Movement, founded in 1948. Those organisations were influential, but never in a decisive way, regarding the European unification process. Europe remains nowadays far from being a federation, although the European Union includes some characteristics of federalism. The European federalists have been campaigning in favour of a directly elected European Parliament and were among the firsts to put a European Constitution on the agenda. Their opponents are both those in favour of a lesser role for the Union and those who wish the Union to be ruled by national governments rather than by an elected European government. Although federalism was mentioned both in drafts of the Maastricht treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, it was never accepted by the representatives of the Member-States. Governments in favour of a more federal Union are usually the German, Belgian and Italian governments. Those traditionally opposed to this idea are the British and French governments. The attempt to create a European Defense Community was actually the last attempt to create a federal Europe.
Theological federalism
See Covenant Theology for a more extended treatment of the theological federalism described in the introduction above.
Secondarily in theology, federalism also finds expression in ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church). For example, presbyterian ecclesiology resembles parliamentary republicanism (a form of political federalism) to a large extent. In Presbyterian denominations, the local church is ruled by elected elders, some of which are ministerial. Each church then sends representatives to presbyteries and further to a general assembly. Each greater level of assembly has ruling authority over its constituent members. In this governmental structure, each component has some level of sovereignty over itself. As in political federalism, in presbyterian ecclesiology there is shared sovereignty.
Other ecclesiologies also have significant representational and federalistic components, including the more democratic congregational ecclesiology, and even in more hierarchical episcopal ecclesiology.
See also
- Canadian federalism (which refers to opponents of Quebec separatism)
Wikipedia-Article "Devolution"
- For "devolution" as a term sometimes misapplied to evolution, see devolution (fallacy)
Devolution or home rule is the granting of powers from central government to government at regional or local level. It differs from federalism in that the powers devolved are temporary and ultimately reside in central government, thus the state remains unitary. Any devolved assemblies can be repealed by central government in the same way as an ordinary law can be. Federal systems differ in that subnational government is guaranteed in the constitution.
The devolution can be mainly financial, e.g. giving regions a budget which was formerly administered by central government. However, the power to make legislation relevant to the area may also be granted. See devolved government for more information.
In the United States, the District of Columbia offers an excellent illustration of the nature of devolved government. The District is separate from any state, and has its own elected government; in many ways, on a day-to-day basis, it operates much like another state, with its own laws, court system, Department of Motor Vehicles, public university, and so on. However, the governments of the 50 states have a broad range of powers reserved to them by the U.S. Constitution, and most of their laws cannot be voided by any act of the U.S. federal government. The District of Columbia, by contrast, is constitutionally under the sole control of the United States Congress, which created the current District government by statute. Any law passed by the District legislature can be nullified by Congressional action, and indeed the District government could be significantly altered or eliminated entirely by a simple majority vote in Congress. For more details, see District of Columbia home rule.
In the United Kingdom, devolved government was created following referenda in Wales and Scotland in September 1997. In 1999, the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland Assembly and Greater London Assembly were established.
The move came eighteen years after similar proposals were defeated in referenda in Wales and Scotland on March 1979.
England remains without regional government. Following the defeat of plans for a regional assembly in the North East of England in 2004, Tony Blair's Labour Government abandoned plans for English devolution. The West Lothian question still remains unresolved.
There is also a system of home rule for Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Aruba, and the Netherlands Antilles.
The term Home Rule appears in the first stanza of the English language version of the National Anthem of the Isle of Man.
Contents |
History
Irish home rule
The issue of Irish home rule was the dominant political question of British politics at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.
From the late nineteenth century, leaders of the Irish Parliamentary Party under Isaac Butt, William Shaw and Charles Stewart Parnell had demanded a form of home rule, with the creation of a subsidiary Irish parliament within the United Kingdom. This demand led to the eventual introduction of four Irish Home Rule Bills, of which only the last two were approved by the British Parliament, and only the final one was enacted: the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The bills were opposed by Irish Unionists who raised the Ulster Volunteer Force and signed the Ulster Covenant to oppose the bill, thereby raising the spectre of civil war. This Act created the parliaments of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland — although the latter did not in reality function and most of Ireland became the Irish Free State in 1922 after the Anglo-Irish Treaty.
The home rule demands of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century differed from earlier demands for Repeal by Daniel O'Connell in the first half of the nineteenth century. Whereas home rule meant a subsidiary parliament under Westminster, repeal meant the repeal of the Act of Union 1800 and the creation of an entirely independent Irish state, separated from the United Kingdom, with only a shared monarch joining them both.
- 1886: First Irish Home Rule Bill never made it through the House of Commons.
- 1893: Second Irish Home Rule Bill defeated in the House of Lords
- 1912: Third Irish Home Rule Act passed (as the Government of Ireland Act 1914) but never came into force, due to the intervention of World War I (1914–18) and of the Easter Rising in Dublin (1916).
- 1920: Fourth Irish Home Rule Act (Government of Ireland Act 1920)
Scotland and Wales
In May 1997, the Labour government of Tony Blair was elected with a promise of creating devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales. In late 1997, referenda were held in those nations, which both resulted in a "yes" vote. The newly-created Scottish Parliament (as a result of the Scotland Act ) had powers to make primary legislation in certain areas of policy, in addition to some limited tax raising powers (which to date have not been exercised). The Welsh Assembly (as a consequence of the Government of Wales Act) possesses the power to determine how the government budget for Wales is spent and administered.
Devolution for Scotland & Wales was justified on the basis that it would aid in bringing government closer to the people in these nations. Such a need was apparent, since the populations of Scotland and Wales felt detached from the Westminster government (largely because of the policies of the Conservative governments led by Margaret Thatcher and John Major). Critics of devolution believed that it would seek to undermine the existence of the United Kingdom.
Northern Ireland
A devolved Assembly was created as a consequence of the 1998 Belfast Agreement. However, at present it is not operational, due to a breakdown in the Northern Ireland peace process.
Movements Calling For Devolution
Movements calling for devolution also exist, to a more limited degree, in England, particularly with regards to Cornwall as well as some unofficial or historic English Regions such as Wessex. In Northern Italy, there is a political movement led by the Lega Nord, for the homerule of "Padania".
Other meanings of the term devolution
In some hierarchical churches, especially Anglican churches including the Church of England, devolution is a bishop's appointment of a person to a benefice (e.g. a parish) when the ordinary patron or collator (i.e. the person or body with the right to appoint) has failed to do so, either because an improper candidate has been nominated or because no candidate could be found.