“Federalism” is used a lot here and everybody seems to have a different meaning for it. I just thought I would put my oar in the water.
A federation is a group of organisations that voluntarily club together for a specific purpose. Companies might join a federation that polices set standards, or countries (regions, states, cities, whatever) might join to further common causes.
The Magna Carta is a statement of federation that states, in essence, that the King is not superior to the aristocracy, but they are all equals. I always note that the nobility was all for federal rights for themselves, but they were not interested in anything like the suffrage they enjoyed being offered to the levels below them. That seems to be the problem with federalism.
I am using the word“suffrage” as the right to an influence on decisions rather than the common definition of a vote. A vote is often a placebo to replace real democracy. I believe that real influence may or may not include a vote.
In practice, the federalism that is the political norm is a division of power as opposed to a sharing of power. The central government is not often the “honest broker” but an impediment to the members. The jealously protected powers by every level of government are not in the spirit of federalism, or democracy when it comes to that.
In a true federal system, as I see it, the sharing of power would continue right down the ladder, giving the communities a say in county government and the counties having a say in provincial/(American) state government and states having a say in central government.
In a democracy, all these levels of governments will be elected, but rather than that being the end to the mandate, the mandate is further tempered by the lower levels of government. Of course this is going to slow the process and complicate things up and down the ladder, but real democracy is not a “quick and dirty” process.
Next, since governments are all “serving at the pleasure” of the lower levels of the system, why do the representatives not “serve at the pleasure” of the electorate,
This would mean a built in process whereby the electorate could make their displeasure known and able to escalate eventually to a removal of mandate. I am not a fan of fixed terms but rather of direct responsibility. With a fixed term, the member can say what gets them elected and then do whatever they want until they have to face their constituents once again in hopes that the electorate has forgotten.
As long as I am at it, I am not happy about the almost universal situation where the elected representatives owe more to the parties than to the voting public. Assuming we all believe in democracy and most think federalism a good idea, why should the party system be so opaque? For that matter, if our representatives are really “the servants of the people,” why are they not treated as the employees they are? I have been appalled by all sorts of countries that have turned out to have been selling influence, collecting what may easily be considered bribes, and riding roughshod over the “grace and favour”expenses. What company would ever let their own employees police their own expense accounts, sell personal influence to sources outside of the company or especially let a labour union (Party) arrange much of this for them. That sort of company would be suffering a shareholder’s revolt that would shake the business to the very foundations. It would seem we, the shareholders, are being treated as mugs to the management. It is hard to think that corporate enterprises show more signs of democracy than the political structures.
I read recently that Spain is “a federalist state in all but name.” Apparently when they say “in all but name” they mean “not at all.” Catalunya obviously had no rights of self determination and the freely elected government was first ignored and then overthrown, agreements were as nothing and the constitution protected nothing.
Do not let me be so parochial. In the UK, the states outside of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and (I think) Wales voted against leaving the EU by a large majority. The Central government is simply not interested in what the regions think. They have the majority and therefore they can ignore them with no repercussions. The fact the central government argued against the Scottish independence movement by pointing out if Scotland left the UK they would be leaving the EU. The central government now says another referendum is ridiculous! “The Scots have already spoken,and it was to stay in the UK.” There is a good example of federalism at work. Even more glaring when you consider the vote to leave was such a close run thing.
I will not mention the United States, since there are so many Americans here who can,and often have, certainly fill in the arguments far better than I and with a better mandate.
To close this screed, let me tell you what I see as a path to the democracy so piteously lacking.
All party funding must be completely transparent and violations of this would result with a suspension of all their candidates at the minimum. Nothing speaks louder against corruption than actively breaking up the game. Only in the most egregious cases are either politicians or parties ever brought to law. How democratic.
Election spending should be very strictly limited, both nationally and by riding. I, for one, have had quite enough of clever convincers devoid of policy and content. Wouldn’t it be nice if a campaign were left to politicians who had to speak clearly and with their own voices. I would love to see elections based on facts instead of the candidates hair and dental display..
I would love to see a situation where the electorate could give their representatives a floating mandate. If the electorate did not like what was being done they could start expressing displeasure that may, in the final instance of a process, end up removing the mandate altogether. In other words, the member can lose their seat at any time if they do not hold the confidence of the electorate. That would force members to actually explain their positions and establish performance goals, just like any other employee. Come to think of it, that might easily reduce the dictatorship of parties.
Last of all, I really dislike elected members getting unmonitored expenses, golden handshakes when they lose elections, and very generous pensions after very short service. Does anybody really wonder why their representatives seem to be so out of touch? In most countries getting elected is like winning a lottery. What is even worse is that the party selects those who are in the running and what they will stand for across the board. To me, that is not democracy. We do not elect a party, but an individual. If all we wanted was a party line, we could do all this at so much “less” cost.
Rant ends.