Although the drafts of both the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe mentioned federalism, the reference never made it to the text of the treaties adopted by consensus. The strongest advocates of European federalism have been Germany, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg while those historically most strongly opposed have been the United Kingdom, Denmark[1] and France (with conservative heads of state and governments).[citation needed] Since the presidency of François Mitterrand (1981–1995), the French authorities have adopted a much more pro-European Unification position, as they consider that a strong EU is presenting the best "insurance" against a unified Germany which might become too strong and thus a threat for its neighbours
Those uncomfortable using the "F" word in the EU context should feel free to refer to it as a quasi-federal or federal-like system. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the analysis here, the EU has the necessary attributes of a federal system. It is striking that while many scholars of the EU continue to resist analyzing it as a federation, most contemporary students of federalism view the EU as a federal system (See for instance, Bednar, Filippov et al., McKay, Kelemen, Defigueido and Weingast). (R. Daniel Kelemen)[2]
During the French Revolution, especially in 1793, "federalism" had an entirely different meaning. It was a political movement to weaken the central government in Paris by devolving power to the provinces.[3][4]
Argentina is a federation made up of 23 provinces and its Federal Capital, Buenos Aires
Federalism in Argentina was the result of a long lasting debate and several civil wars after the May Revolution of 1810 and subsequently, the independence in 1816. There were several failed attempts to establish both unitary and federal governments. With the establishment of the first successful and current constitution in 1853, the debate was sealed and Argentina adopted a federal system.
At that time there were still several territories under federal administration which have since acquired provincial status, the last being the province of Tierra del Fuego in 1990. The city of Buenos Aires was established as the seat of the federal government in 1853 and put under federal administration in 1880. It remained under direct control of the federal government until the 1994 constitutional amendment with which it acquired its present autonomous status which gives it a very similar degree of autonomy as the provinces.
In Canada, the provincial governments derive all their powers directly from the constitution. In contrast, the territories are subordinate to the federal government and are delegated powers by it.
In Canada the system of federalism is described by the division of powers between the federal parliament and the country's provincial governments. Under the Constitution Act (previously known as the British North America Act of 1867), specific powers of legislation are allotted. Section 91 of the constitution gives rise to federal authority for legislation, whereas section 92 gives rise to provincial powers.
For matters not directly dealt with in the constitution, the federal government retains residual powers; however, conflicts between the two levels of government, relating to which level has legislative jurisdiction over various matters, have been a longstanding and evolving issue. Areas being contested include legislation with respect to regulation of the economy, taxation, and natural resources.
Nepal is a country with geographical diversity. Nepal has been practising unitary form of government since unification by Prithvi Narayan Shah. However, this system was not able to achieve the development goals of the country and has been described as an "exclusive form of rule" by its critics.[citation needed] Federalism has been seen as the answer to solving regional inequality and reducing the economic, social and religious discrimination[citation needed]; the country has transformed into a federal structure as a result.
Nepal has become a federal democratic republican state since 28 May 2008 (15th Jestha, 2065 BS). According to the concept of a federal system, Nepal has been divided into 7 provinces, 77 districts and 753 local levels. Now each province has a separate government along with its federal government at the centre.
Federal subjects of Russia. Crimean peninsula and Donbass, internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, shown with diagonal stripes.
The post-Imperial nature of Russian subdivision of government changed towards a generally autonomous model which began with the establishment of the USSR (of which Russia was governed as part). It was liberalized in the aftermath of the Soviet Union, with the reforms under Boris Yeltsin preserving much of the Soviet structure while applying increasingly liberal reforms to the governance of the constituent republics and subjects (while also coming into conflict with Chechen secessionist rebels during the Chechen War). Some of the reforms under Yeltsin were scaled back by Vladimir Putin.
All of Russia's subdivisional entities are known as subjects, with some smaller entities, such as the republics enjoying more autonomy than other subjects on account of having an extant presence of a culturally non-Russian ethnic minority or, in some cases, majority.
Currently, there are 83 federal subjects of Russia, excluding disputed territories in Ukraine. If those subjects are included, there are 89 federal subjects of the Russian Federation.
On 1 January 1901, the dominion of Australia officially came into existence as a federation. The Australian continent was colonised in 1788 by the United Kingdom, which subsequently established six, eventually self-governing, colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming the unified, self-governing "Commonwealth of Australia" within the British Empire. When all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres closely to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a generally parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system.[9][10] Various aspects of the Parliament are more heavily inspired by the United States Congress however, notably the Senate.
In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles. The 1937 federal government had the authority to appoint State Governors (called intervenors) at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of President Getúlio Vargas. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to regulate interstate trade. Brazil is one of the biggest federal governments.
The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 introduced a new component to the ideas of federalism, including municipalities as federal entities. Brazilian municipalities are now invested with some of the traditional powers usually granted to states in federalism, and they are allowed to adopt a constitution.
Ethiopia
Ethiopia has over 80 ethno-linguistic groups and the new Constitution which was introduced in 1994, dividing Ethiopia on ethnic lines into nine regional states and two multiethnic "chartered administrations" (Addis Ababa and Diredawa).[10][14]:54–55 Ethnic groups received rights to self-government:[8] the states were given autonomy in legislative, executive and judicial functions,[15]:8 while there were provisions for ethnic groups to be represented in central institutions. Ethnic groups were granted the "unconditional right" to secession,[14]:55 although it is doubtful whether any group could in fact achieve this.[16][15]:22 The government was aiming not only to reduce inter-ethnic conflict but to equalise living standards in different areas and improve the working of public institutions locally.
Germany and the European Union present the only examples of federalism in the world where members of the federal "upper houses" (the German Bundesrat, i.e. the Federal Council; and the European Council) are neither elected nor appointed but comprise members or delegates of the governments of their constituents. The United States had a similar system until 1913, where prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were delegates of the state elected by the state legislatures rather than the citizens.
Accordingly, the idea of a strong, centralized government has very negative connotations in German politics, although the progressive political movements in Germany (Liberals, Social Democrats) were advocating at the time of the Second German Empire (1871–1918) to abolish (or to reshape) the majority of German federated states of that era, as they were considered to be mostly monarchist remnants of the feudal structures of the Middle Ages.[11]
The government of India is based on a three tiered system, in which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government has executive powers. The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government), representing the Union of India, and the State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing them into three lists:
Union List includes subjects of national importance such as defence of the country, foreign affairs, banking, communications and currency. The Union Government alone can make laws relating to the subjects mentioned in the Union List. This list is about portfolios concerning the country as one or inter-state transaction.
State List contains subjects of state and local importance such as police, trade, commerce, agriculture and irrigation. The State Governments alone can make laws relating to the subjects mentioned in the State List.
Concurrent List includes subjects of common interest to both the Union Government as well as the State Governments, such as education, forest, trade unions, marriage, adoption and succession. Both the Union as well as the State Governments can make laws on the subjects mentioned in this list. If their laws conflict with each other, the law made by the Union Government will prevail.
Although the constitution does not say so, India is now a multilingual federation.[12] India has a multi-party system, with political allegiances frequently based on linguistic and regional identities,[13] necessitating coalition politics, especially at the Union level. India has generally two main groups known as the NDA and the UPA.
Malaysia
Map of Malaysia with its states
Malaysia is a federalconstitutional monarchy. Its monarchy is elective, with the nine rulers and four state leaders (representing states with their respective sultanates abolished) meet at the Conference of Rulers to elect the next monarch every five years, or if the position becomes vacant for any reason. There is also a custom of rotation of the monarchy between the nine rulers. A legacy of British colonial rule, the federation's system of government is modelled closely on the Westminster parliamentary system. There exists a lower and upper house. Governance of the states is divided between the federal and the state governments, with different powers reserved for each, and the federal government has direct administration of the federal territories. Legislative powers are divided between state and federal assemblies, with elections being held every five years.
Before British rule, Malaysia as it is today, was composed of separate sultanates and states. The Federated Malay States was the first instance of federalism being introduced in the Malay Peninsula. Penang, Malacca and Singapore were ruled as part of the Straits Settlements. In Borneo, British North Borneo joined the federation as the state of Sabah, along with a briefly independent Raj of Sarawak as the state of Sarawak. Singapore became independent after being ejected from the federation, due to differences between the central government and the People's Action Party, which still rules Singapore until today.
United Mexican States
The United Mexican States (Mexico) is a federal state consisting of 32 federal with its capital Mexico City.
Federalism in the United States is the evolving relationship between state governments and the federal government of the United States. American government has evolved from a system of dual federalism to one of associative federalism. In "Federalist No. 46", James Madison asserted that the states and national government "are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers." Alexander Hamilton, writing in "Federalist No. 28", suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens' benefit: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress."[14]
The United States is composed of 50 self-governing states, along with a capital and several territories that are administered by the federal government.
Because the states were pre-existing political entities (although almost none was ever an independent state, rather colonies, provinces or later created entities), the U.S. Constitution did not need to define or explain federalism in any one section but it often mentions the rights and responsibilities of state governments and state officials in relation to the federal government. The federal government has certain express powers (also called enumerated powers) which are powers spelled out in the Constitution, including the right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. In addition, the Necessary and Proper Clause gives the federal government the implied power to pass any law "necessary and proper" for the execution of its express powers. Other powers—the reserved powers—are reserved to the people or the states.[15] The power delegated to the federal government was significantly expanded by the Supreme Court decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), amendments to the Constitution following the Civil War, and by some later amendments—as well as the overall claim of the Civil War, that the states were legally subject to the final dictates of the federal government.
The Federalist Party of the United States was opposed by the Democratic-Republicans, including powerful figures such as Thomas Jefferson. The Democratic-Republicans mainly believed that: the Legislature had too much power (mainly because of the Necessary and Proper Clause) and that they were unchecked; the Executive had too much power, and that there was no check on the executive; a dictator would arise; and that a bill of rights should be coupled with the constitution to prevent a potential dictator from exploiting or tyrannizing citizens. The federalists said that it was impossible to list all the rights, and those that were not listed could be easily overlooked because they were not in the official bill of rights. Rather, rights in specific cases were to be decided by the judicial system of courts.
After the American Civil War, the federal government increased greatly in influence on everyday life and in size relative to the state governments. Reasons included the need to regulate businesses and industries that span state borders, attempts to secure civil rights, and the provision of social services. The federal government acquired no substantial new powers until the acceptance by the Supreme Court of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
From 1938 until 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court did not invalidate any federal statute as exceeding Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. Most actions by the federal government can find some legal support among the express powers, such as the Commerce Clause, whose applicability has been narrowed by the Supreme Court in recent years. In 1995, the Supreme Court rejected the Gun-Free School Zones Act in the Lopez decision, and also rejected the civil remedy portion of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 in the United States v. Morrison decision. Recently, the Commerce Clause was interpreted to include marijuana laws in the Gonzales v. Raich decision.
Dual federalism holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign.
However, since the Civil War Era, the national courts often interpret the federal government as the final judge of its own powers under dual federalism. The establishment of Native American governments (which are separate and distinct from state and federal government) exercising limited powers of sovereignty, has given rise to the concept of "bi-federalism".
Venezuela
Map of the Venezuelan federation
The Federal War ended in 1864 with the signing of the Treaty of Coche by both the centralist government of the time and the Federal Forces. The United States of Venezuela were subsequently incorporated under a "Federation of Sovereign States" upon principles borrowed from the Articles of Confederation of the United States of America. In this Federation, each State had a "President" of its own that controlled almost every issue, even the creation of "State Armies," while the Federal Army was required to obtain presidential permission to enter any given state.
However, more than 140 years later, the original system has gradually evolved into a quasi-centralist form of government. While the 1999 Constitution still defines Venezuela as a Federal Republic, it abolished the Senate, transferred competences of the States to the Federal Government and granted the President of the Republic vast powers to intervene in the States and Municipalities.
geographically defined Regions (federated States: Brussels-Capital (de facto Greater Brussels), Flanders and Wallonia). The last two correspond to the language areas in Belgium, Wallonia hosting both the bulk of the French-speaking population and the German-speaking minority. In Brussels, ca. 80% of the population speaks French and ca. 20% Dutch with the city being an enclave of the Flemish region and officially a bilingual area.[16]
Due to its relatively small size (approximately one percent) the German-speaking Community of Belgium does not have much influence on national politics.
Wallonia is a French-speaking area, except for the German-speaking so-called East Cantons (Cantons de l'est). French is the second most spoken mother tongue of Belgium, after Dutch. Within the French-speaking Community of Belgium, there is a geographical and political distinction between Wallonia and Brussels for historical and sociological reasons. Historically, the Walloons were for a federalism with three components and the Flemings for two.[17] This difference is one of the elements which makes the Belgian issue so complicated. The Flemings wanted to defend their culture while the Walloons wanted to defend their political and economical supremacy they had in the 19th century: "It is true that the Walloon movement, which has never stopped affirming that Wallonia is part of the French cultural area, has never made this cultural struggle a priority, being more concerned to struggle against its status as a political minority and the economic decline which was only a corollary to it".[18]
On one hand, this means that the Belgian political landscape, generally speaking, consists of only two components: the Dutch-speaking population represented by Dutch-language political parties, and the majority populations of Wallonia and Brussels, represented by their French-speaking parties. The Brussels region emerges as a third component.[19] This specific dual form of federalism, with the special position of Brussels, consequently has a number of political issues—even minor ones—that are being fought out over the Dutch/French-language political division. With such issues, a final decision is possible only in the form of a compromise. This tendency gives this dual federalism model a number of traits that generally are ascribed to confederalism, and makes the future of Belgian federalism contentious.[20][21]
Belgian federalism is federated with three components. An affirmative resolution concerning Brussels' place in the federal system passed in the parliaments of Wallonia and Brussels.[22][23] These resolutions passed against the desires of Dutch-speaking parties, who are generally in favour of a federal system with two components (i.e. the Dutch and French Communities of Belgium). However, the Flemish representatives in the Parliament of the Brussels Capital-Region voted in favour of the Brussels resolution, with the exception of one party. The chairman of the Walloon Parliament stated on July 17, 2008 that "Brussels would take an attitude".[24] Brussels' parliament passed the resolution on July 18, 2008:
"The Parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region approves with great majority a resolution claiming the presence of Brussels itself at the negotiations of the reformation of the Belgian State."[23]
This aspect of Belgian federalism helps to explain the difficulties of partition; Brussels, with its importance, is linked to both Wallonia and Flanders and vice versa. This situation, however, does not erase the traits of a confederation in the Belgian system.
Iraq adapted a federal system on 15 October 2005, and formed the Kurdistan Region as the country's first and currently only federal region, with the method of creating federal entities enshrined in the Constitution of Iraq.
Although South Africa bears some elements of a federal system, such as the allocation of certain powers to provinces, it is nevertheless constitutionally and functionally a devolved unitary state.[25]
Spain
Spain is a unitary state with a high level of decentralisation, often regarded as a federal system in all but name or a "federation without federalism".[26] The country has been quoted as being "an extraordinarily decentralized country", with the central government accounting for just 18% of public spending,[27] 38% for the regional governments, 13% for the local councils, and the remaining 31% for the social security system.[28] The current Spanish constitution has been implemented in such a way that, in many respects, Spain can be compared to countries which are undeniably federal.[29]
However, in order to manage the tensions present in the Spanish transition to democracy, the drafters of the current Spanish constitution avoided giving labels such as 'federal' to the territorial arrangements.[30] Besides, unlike in the federal system, the main taxes are taken centrally from Madrid (except for the Basque Country and Navarre, which were recognized in the Spanish democratic constitution as charter territories drawing from historical reasons) and then distributed to the Autonomous Communities.
An explicit and legal recognition of federalism as such has been promoted by parties such as Podemos, United Left and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. The Spanish Socialist party considered the idea of enshrining a federal Spain in 2012, as meeting point between separatist and recentralizing proposals.[31]
Proposed
It has been proposed in several unitary states to establish a federal system, for various reasons.
China is the largest unitary state in the world by both population and land area. Although China has had long periods of central rule for centuries, it is often argued that the unitary structure of the Chinese government is far too unwieldy to effectively and equitably manage the country's affairs. Chinese nationalists are suspicious of decentralization as a form of secessionism and a backdoor for national disunity; still others argue that the degree of autonomy given to provincial-level officials in the People's Republic of China amounts to a de facto federalism.
Indonesia had been in federation from 1949, and dissolved in 1950. Since then, many people, especially in the 2000s, proposed Indonesia to go back to federated, but on different systems.
On May 20, 2019, the former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia who is also an expert on constitutional law Mahfud MD gave his response regarding the proposal of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia to return to the United States of Indonesia. He stated that Indonesia could be federated again if people agreed. He also stated that if people agreed to go back to federation, the Indonesian government could make a new resultante.[32]
A new amendment is proposed because people, especially East Indonesians, argue that the unitary system makes East Indonesians feel disappointed with the existence of distributive justice that is far from expectations, a discriminatory political system, to the oligarchy that has gripped strongly from the center of power to the regions.[33]
Shortly after the 2011 civil war, some people in Cyrenaica (in the eastern region of the country) began to call for the new regime to be federal, with the traditional three regions of Libya (Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan) being the constituent units. A group calling itself the "Cyrenaican Transitional Council" issued a declaration of autonomy on 6 March 2012; this move was rejected by the National Transitional Council in Tripoli.[34][35][36]
The changes in the state structure that composes the national government in Naypyitaw and the state/regional governments and the federal negotiations between the national government and ethnic minority armed forces said to be the first step of federalism in Myanmar.[37] Former president of Myanmar, Thein Sein supported the federalization of Myanmar as he said federalization can promote national stability.[38]
Federalism has long been advocated as a means of resolving the ethnic issues and unbalanced development in Sri Lanka. As the unitary state has resulted in uneven development across Sri Lanka the Western Province dominates over the other 8 provinces. Despite declining regional disparity Western province continues to contribute most to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) contributing 42% of the GDP while the second highest the Southern Province only represents 10.8% of the GDP while Uva and Northern provinces representing the least with 5% and 3.6% respectively. Other provinces also have trouble attracting capitals. This has resulted in calls for the abolishing of the unitary system and powers being devolved.[39][40][41]
The federalization of Syria has been proposed as a way to end the Syrian Civil War.[42][43][44][45][46] In the broadest sense, it means turning the centralizedSyrian Arab Republic into a federal republic with autonomous subdivisions. Many powers and actors involved in the Syrian Civil War have entertained the idea of "federal division", not least among them Russia, United Nations representatives, and the United States.[44] President Bashar al-Assad has not ruled out the possibility of a federal democratic state of Syria. In particular, Turkey is strongly hostile towards the idea of a federalization of Syria because it fears possible repercussions for its own highly centralized state.[citation needed]
Critics of devolution often cite the West Lothian question, which refers to the voting power of non-English MPs on matters affecting only England in the UK Parliament. Scottish and Welsh nationalism have been increasing in popularity, and since the 2014 Scottish independence referendum there has been a wider debate about the UK adopting a federal system with each of the four home nations having its own, equal devolved legislatures and law-making powers.[52]
UK federal government was proposed as early as 1912 by the Member of Parliament for Dundee, Winston Churchill, in the context of the legislation for Irish Home Rule. In a speech in Dundee on 12 September, he proposed that England should also be governed by regional parliaments, with power devolved to areas such as Lancashire, Yorkshire, the Midlands and London as part of a federal system of government.[53][54]
Yemen
The 2013–2014 National Dialogue Conference concluded that Yemen would adopt federalism in an attempt to resolve the political crisis that began with the Yemeni Revolution in 2011. Under the federal system, Yemen's full name would become the Federal Republic of Yemen.[55] A committee organized by Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi determined that Yemen would be split into six federal regions: Azal, Saba, Tihama, Aden, Janad, and Hadhramaut.[56] Azal, Saba, Janad and Tihama would have been northern provinces whereas Aden and Hadhramaut would have been southern.[57]Sana'a, the capital, was to become a federal city and would not have been part of any region. Aden, the former capital of South Yemen, would have been a part of the Aden region, but would have had special legislative and executive powers.[58] Each region was to be further divided into states, which would have taken the place of Yemen's existing governorates.[59] The conclusions of the Conference formed the basis of a new constitution, which was to be put to a referendum in 2015.[60]
The plan for a six-region federation received international praise, but was denounced by many within Yemen.[61] The Southern Movement suspected that the division of the south into two regions was an attempt to turn southern secessionists against each other; they preferred a two-region division between the north and the south. The Zaidi elites in the Azal region would have been left with almost no natural resources, whereas the sparsely populated Saba and Hadhramaut regions would have received nearly all of the country's natural resources.[62] Meanwhile, the Houthis were outraged that the plan would have landlocked their home governorate of Saada. The referendum on the new federal constitution was indefinitely delayed by the intensification of the Yemeni Civil War in 2015.[60] Some commentators have cited Hadi's federalization plan as one of the main causes of the civil war.[62]
On 20 June 2023, the National Hadhrami Council was formed marking the first steps for the transformation.
Federalism is a mode of government that combines a general government with regional governments in a single political system, dividing the powers between the two. Johannes Althusius is considered the father of modern federalism along with Montesquieu. Althusius notably exposes the bases of this political philosophy in Politica Methodice Digesta, Atque Exemplis Sacris et Profanis Illustrata (1603). In The Spirit of Law, Montesquieu for his part sees examples of federalist republics in corporate societies, the polis bringing together villages, and the cities themselves forming confederations. Federalism in the modern era was first adopted in the unions of states during the Old Swiss Confederacy.
In Spain, an autonomous community is the first sub-national level of political and administrative division, created in accordance with the Spanish Constitution of 1978, with the aim of guaranteeing limited autonomy of the nationalities and regions that make up Spain.
The politics of Belgium take place in the framework of a federal, representative democratic, constitutional monarchy. The King of the Belgians is the head of state, and the prime minister of Belgium is the head of government, in a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Federal legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of parliament, the Senate and the Chamber of Representatives. The federation is made up of (language-based) communities and (territorial) regions. Philippe is the seventh and current King of the Belgians, having ascended the throne on 21 July 2013.
Belgium is a federal state comprising three communities and three regions that are based on four language areas. For each of these subdivision types, the subdivisions together make up the entire country; in other words, the types overlap.
A federation is an entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing provinces, states, or other regions under a federal government (federalism). In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, is constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision, neither by the component states nor the federal political body without constitutional amendment.
A federated state is a territorial and constitutional community forming part of a federation. A federated state does not have international sovereignty since powers are divided between the other federated states and the federal government. Unlike international sovereign states, which have what is often referred to as Westphalian sovereignty, federated states operate under their domestic or federal law with relation to the rest of the world.
A unitary state is a state or sovereign state governed as a single entity in which the central government is the supreme authority. The central government may create or abolish administrative divisions. Such units exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate. Although political power may be delegated through devolution to regional or local governments by statute, the central government may override the decisions of devolved governments, curtail their powers, or expand their powers. The modern unitary state concept originated in France; in the aftermath of the Hundred Years' War, national feelings that emerged from the war unified France. The war accelerated the process of transforming France from a feudal monarchy to a unitary state. The French then later spread unitary states by conquests, throughout Europe during and after the Napoleonic Wars, and to the world through the vast French colonial empire.
A confederation is a political union of sovereign states united for purposes of common action. Usually created by a treaty, confederations of states tend to be established for dealing with critical issues, such as defence, foreign relations, internal trade or currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all its members. Confederalism represents a main form of intergovernmentalism, defined as any form of interaction around states that takes place on the basis of sovereign independence or government.
The Flemish Parliament constitutes the legislative power in Flanders for matters which fall within the competence of Flanders, both as a geographic region and as a cultural community of Belgium.
A state government is the government that controls a subdivision of a country in a federal form of government, which shares political power with the federal or national government. A state government may have some level of political autonomy, or be subject to the direct control of the federal government. This relationship may be defined by a constitution.
Belgian nationalism, sometimes pejoratively referred to as Belgicism, is a nationalist ideology. In its modern form it favours the reversal of federalism and the creation of a unitary state in Belgium. The ideology advocates reduced or no autonomy for the Flemish Community who constitute Flanders, the French Community of Belgium and the German-speaking Community of Belgium who constitute Wallonia and the Brussels-Capital Region which is inhabited by both Walloons and Flemings, and the dissolution of the regional counterparts of each ethnic group within Belgium.
A central government is the government that is a controlling power over a unitary state. Another distinct but sovereign political entity is a federal government, which may have distinct powers at various levels of government, authorized or delegated to it by the federation and mutually agreed upon by each of the federated states.
A regional state, or a regionalised unitary state, is a term used to denote a type of state that is formally unitary but where a high degree of political power has been highly decentralised to regional governments. This contrasts with a state organized on principles of federalism where the powers of the regions are enshrined in constitutional law. In many cases, the regions are based on long standing cultural or regional divisions.
Asymmetric federalism or asymmetrical federalism is found in a federation or other types of union in which different constituent states possess different powers: one or more of the substates has considerably more autonomy than the other substates, although they have the same constitutional status. This is in contrast to symmetric federalism, where no distinction is made between constituent states. As a result, it is frequently proposed as a solution to the dissatisfaction that arises when one or more constituent units feel significantly different needs from the others, as the result of an ethnic, linguistic or cultural difference.
A federacy is a form of government where one or several substate units enjoy considerably more independence than the majority of the substate units. To some extent, such an arrangement can be considered to be similar to asymmetric federalism.
The partition of Belgium is a hypothetical situation, which has been discussed by both Belgian and international media, envisioning a split of Belgium along linguistic divisions, with the Flemish Community (Flanders) and the French-speaking Community (Wallonia) becoming independent states. Alternatively, it is hypothesized that Flanders could join the Netherlands and Wallonia could join France or Luxembourg.
State reform, in the context of Belgium, is the ongoing process of seeking and finding constitutional and legal solutions to the problems and tensions in the different segments of the Belgian population, mostly between the Dutch-speakers of Flanders and the French-speakers of Wallonia. In general, Belgium has evolved from a unitary state to a federal state with communities, regions, and language areas.
A province is an administrative division within a country or state. The term derives from the ancient Roman provincia, which was the major territorial and administrative unit of the Roman Empire's territorial possessions outside Italy. The term province has since been adopted by many countries. In some countries with no actual provinces, "the provinces" is a metaphorical term meaning "outside the capital city".
Ethnic federalism, multi-ethnic or multi-national federalism, is a form of federal system in which the federated regional or state units are defined by ethnicity. Ethnic federal systems have been created in attempts to accommodate demands for ethnic autonomy and manage inter-ethnic tensions within a state. They have not always succeeded in this: problems inherent in the construction and maintenance of an ethnic federation have led to some states or sub-divisions of a state into either breaking up, resorting to authoritarian repression, or resorting to ethnocracy, ethnic segregation, population transfer, internal displacement, ethnic cleansing, and/or even ethnicity-based attacks and pogroms.
The federalization of Yemen is the proposed transformation of Yemen from a unitary state to a federal state. Driven by the significant economic, religious, political, and historical differences between the northern and southern parts as well as the southern and eastern regions of the country, federalization has been a common and controversial proposal to resolve regionalist tensions since the unification of the country in 1990, It may also extend to the union of the South Arabia with Hadhramaut in 1967.
↑ François Furet and Mona Ozouf, eds. A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution (1989), pp. 54-64
↑ Stewart, Dona J. (2013). The Middle East Today: Political, Geographical and Cultural Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge. p.155. ISBN978-0-415-78243-2.
↑ Lisa Filippin; Annie Wilson; Peter Farrar; Margaret Beazer; Josie Gray (2018). Access & Justice Legal Studies for VCE Units 1 & 2. Oxford University Press. p.32-25. ISBN978-0-19-031032-5.
↑ Brenton, Scott (March 2010). "Conclusion". Parliament of Australia. Retrieved September 7, 2020.
↑ Bernt Engelmann, Einig gegen Recht und Freiheit, p7ff, publ. Goldmann, Munich 1975
↑ Charles Picqué, Minister-President of the Brussels-Capital Region said in a September, 2008 declaration in Namur at the National Walloon Feast: "It is, besides, impossible to have a debate about the institutions of Belgium in which Brussels would be excluded." (French Il n'est d'ailleurs, pas question d'imaginer un débat institutionnel dont Bruxelles serait exclu.) The Brussels-Capital Region has claimed and obtained a special place in the current negotiations about the reformation of the Belgian state. (French Pendant 18 ans, Bruxelles est demeurée sans statut (...) L'absence de statut pour Bruxelles s'expliquait par la différence de vision que partis flamands et partis francophones en avaient: [les partis flamands étaient] allergiques à la notion de Région (...) les francophones (...) considéraient que Bruxelles devait devenir une Région à part entière (...) Les partis flamands ont accepté [en 1988] la création d'une troisième Région et l'exercice par celle-ci des mêmes compétences que celles des deux autres... C.E. Lagasse, Les nouvelles institutions politiques de la Belgique et de l'Europe, Erasme, Namur, 2003, pp. 177- 178 ISBN )
↑ Wright, Jonathan Haydn Faure (Mar 31, 2014). "The type of government in the Republic of South Africa – Examining the presence of federal and unitary state elements in the republic". www.researchgate.net. Retrieved 8 November 2016. After careful research and analysis of various sources and the constitution, it can be confirmed that the government system in the Republic of South Africa is a unitary system. Observance of the government in action as well as analysis of the constitution has contributed to this confirmation. Despite the delocalisation enjoyed within the republic, the federal principle is not evident enough and it failed Wheare's very simple federal test right in the beginning
↑ The Federal Option and Constitutional Management of Diversity in Spain Xavier Arbós Marín, page 375; included in 'The Ways of Federalism in Western Countries and the Horizons of Territorial Autonomy in Spain' (volume 2), edited by Alberto López-Eguren and Leire Escajedo San Epifanio; edited by SpringerISBN978-3-642-27716-0, ISBN978-3-642-27717-7 (eBook)
↑ The Federal Option and Constitutional Management of Diversity in Spain Xavier Arbós Marín, page 381; included in 'The Ways of Federalism in Western Countries and the Horizons of Territorial Autonomy in Spain' (volume 2), edited by Alberto López-Eguren and Leire Escajedo San Epifanio; edited by SpringerISBN978-3-642-27716-0, ISBN978-3-642-27717-7 (eBook)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
