In a political sense, the term federalism (Latin foedus: covenant, agreement, alliance) indicates a 'contract' between sovereign states, which ceded some of their sovereignty and are combined to form a single political body order, declared or not, to increase its strength and ensure favorable conditions for domestic peace and opportunity in the economic field, but also to ensure that the rights of citizens are respected in individual countries. According to Montesquieu, the federation can add the benefits of the republic with that of the monarchy, ie the benefits of the rule of law with that of a state big and strong. "Composed of small republics, it [the Federation] enjoy the goodness of the internal governance of each, then from the outside, possesses, thanks to the strength of the association, all the advantages of large monarchies "(Laws, IX, 1).
For their part, citizens participate in choosing the federal government, according to the principle of 'one citizen, one vote. " In the end, writes Elazar, "Federalism involves connecting individuals, groups and political communities in a lasting union but limited, so as to allow the energetic pursuit of common goals while maintaining the integrity of all parties" (1998 : 6-7). It is, in the words of KC Weare, a "system of division powers enabling the central government and regional ones to be, each in his sphere, coordinated and independent "(1997: 26). How
first known federation in history usually indicates that ancient Israel, while the most important example of medieval federalism is the "confederation of republics of the Swiss mountains, formed in 1291 and aimed at mutual aid in the defense of ' independence "(Elazar 1998: 102]. However, the f. reached maturity with the establishment of the American federal system and has expanded continuously over the past two centuries, and today is seen as a viable alternative to nationalism.
According to A. Lijphart, "you can identify five key features of federalism: a written constitution, the bicameral system, the right of unit members to be involved in the process of amending the federal constitution, but the ability to amend their constitution unilaterally, but not non-proportional representation of the units making up the smallest room in the federal and devolved government "(1988: 182).
17.1. The constitution
Because there can be orderly and peaceful coexistence among sovereign states is necessary that they be equipped with the equivalent force, establish clear agreements and define precisely the powers of each. Hence the importance of a written constitution, which, in principle, gives the federal government control of foreign policy, the right to declare war and mint money, while letting individual states much greater freedom to legislate in all other areas of public interest, such as health, taxation, education and social services, with the exception of the right to withdraw from the federation (this right, in fact, is denied.)
17.2. Federations and confederations
model is different confederations: the Confederation holders of rights and duties are not individuals but states, which enjoy equal terms enshrined in the principle "one state, one vote." The participation of a Member of the Federation is voluntary and revocable, and nobody can interfere in the internal affairs of another state. "Even in cases of blatant violation of basic human rights, as in the case of genocide, the federal government may intervene in the internal affairs of a State. The rights of individuals have no other protection in a confederation than that accorded to them by individual states (Archibugi, Beetham, 1998: 92-3).
17.3. The state of federalism
In theory it is possible a federation of states ruled by dictatorships, but in practice the Fed is more suited to systems Republicans. Hardly, in fact, a dictator would agree to limit its power. In theory it is also possible to agreement between the federal states which differ in terms of military strength and economic resources, in practice, however, the agreement is more likely that these differences are less pronounced because, normally a state is much stronger than another tends to dominate rather than to consider an equal partner. In fact, a political organization is a federal attractive only to those who will enjoy a relatively prosperous economic condition and not have to beware of dangerous enemies (usually these are countries in which liberal democratic systems of type), which means so ensure conditions of peace and consolidate their positions. On the contrary, in case of economic crisis or serious external threat, the need to establish a prevailing centralized government. "The war and the economic crisis require a control unit if you want that their problems are actually solved, and require financial efforts that only central governments are able to bear" (Wheare 1997: 375).
As liberals, federalists see also "freedom as more important than the fight for absolute equality" and "are willing to sacrifice some degree of equality for the sake of freedom" (in POZZOLI 1997: 300). "Since power is not in session in a single center, in the federal state are the most favorable conditions for local self-government "(LEVI 1998: 379). On this basis, the DD may prevail and prosper. Federalism is thus compatible with both the DR as the DD, although today there are only models DR.
According to Elazar, republicanism and constitutionalism are the pillars of federalism. "The will to federate means just that: the desire to build a political community based on a composite of republican principles, embodied in an appropriate constitutional framework and presenting as a key element in the sharing of power" (Elazar 1998: 160].
17.4. The reasons of federalism
coexist on earth about three thousand ethnic and tribal groups tied to their identity and their own traditions. The risk of violent conflict between these groups is high and explode, to avert, in the course of history has generally resorted to force. "Always people have defended their independence, and have ensured their safety with Arms (ALBERTINI 1999: 183). But since the American Revolution, it was discovered that there is another way to live peacefully with the various populations that occupy the planet, federalism, which, since nuclear weapons have made it very dangerous for all of the custom of appealing to the war as the final arbiter in disputes between human groups, "responds to the needs of peoples and political communities to come together to pursue common goals, but remain separate to preserve their integrity" (Elazar 1998: 28 ]. It is, in other words, a compromise between the need for regional self-government and central government requirements, including requirements to maintain their own local values \u200b\u200band needs to be part of a community large enough to best meet the needs of the individual .
17.5.
model of federalism "There are three main models of modern federalism: the American, Swiss and Canadian (Elazar 1998: 35], and they are all DR systems with two levels of citizenship and representation in the sense that "everyone is at the same time a citizen of your country and the federation" (Levi 1997: 90) and contributes to elect respective governments. Depending on operating at one or more states, the f can be divided into national and supranational levels, and it is also possible to imagine a world f.. This is the dream of Kant. "peoples, as Member can be judged as individual men [...] and each of them can and must require the other to join with him in a constitution similar to a civilian, in which each player is guaranteed his right. This would a federation of peoples, which however should not be a State of nations "(2002: 60). In practice, the Prussian philosopher think of a world federation, to be made on the basis of a 'contract', as the one signed by individuals in the state of nature. Along the same line moves Proudhon, who considers the sub-Federalism the first step to reach the supranational level.
17.6. Federalism and the Justice
f. world requires the establishment of an international legal order, governing relations between States by preventing them from going to war, but not any legal order, but an order just enough that it can be shared. In fact, if the order was perceived as unfair by some Member States, it could only exist as an order imposed and it would be easy to predict the emergence of hotbeds of tension that could endanger the state of peace. From a peace imposed by an unjust law could cause an unbearable social system. Hence the need to accompany the f. with some form of justice, as the only guarantee of political stability. Until now the f. world is a dream unrealized. However, there are two important cases of f. supranational: the U.S. and the EU.
17.7. The American model
The birth of a political community can take place in three different ways: first, for armed conquest, completed in authoritarian regimes, and secondly, to spontaneous evolution (from family, tribe, village, city, state), and resulted in oligarchic regimes and thirdly for the covenant, that is, following voluntary agreement between the parties, and resulted in the democratic regime-federal (Elazar 1998: 4-5). The federation of the United States of America and belongs to the latter group represents the first example of a union of states for Republicans took place not by a historical process or force, but following an agreement among free peoples. This is why Hamilton can say with heartfelt satisfaction: "Being able to launch at a moment of absolute peace, with the voluntary consent of all the people, the Constitution is a marvel as I look at the implementation of the anxiety with trembling "(HAMILTON, MADISON, JAY 1997: 693).
At the time when the English colonies of America are fighting for their independence, two forms of government are deemed capable of administering a large and powerful state: the monarchy, where all powers are centralized in the person of the sovereign, and the republic, where power is exercised by representatives elected by the people. And democracy? In the eighteenth century the only conceivable form of democracy is to live. "In a democracy - Madison writes - the people gather and groom directly" (1997: 215). But this form Government, in agreement with what has already been expressed by Aristotle and Rousseau, is considered suitable only for small communities, however, for being small, can not compete with the great monarchies and republics, large and therefore do not provide sufficient security to its citizens in case of aggression.
Well, after the proclamation of independence (04/07/1776), Americans believe more in line with its spirit of free republican model, but they wonder whether they should be limited to thirteen sovereign republics, or whether it is better to create a single federal state, even bigger and more powerful. In the end, that is unique in modern history, Americans choose the compromise and write the Federal Constitution. The establishment of the Constitution is a historical novelty and breaks a long tradition according to which the foundation of a state is the result of chance or an act of force. Thanks to the Constitution, a state or a federation of states may arise through the freely expressed will of the democratically approved by some and with consent of the people with nothing left to chance and without bloodshed. Even the system of the Federal Constitution is a matter of novelty, being the federal guidance stranger to European culture (Switzerland is an exception).
What kind of government Americans want to build with the Constitution? So For starters, they want to find an alternative to the monarchy, which at that time is the most successful form of government, but opposed to their free spirit. Having rejected the monarchy, the republic remains, namely the form of government where the people "meet and manage through their representatives and delegates." However, if the thirteen states would join the federation would "combine the advantages of a monarchy with those of a republican regime" (1997: 186). In the federal state, in fact, combine the advantages of the monarchy (central government, strong and secure) and the republican liberal (democratic rights). But that is not a true democracy is demonstrated by the fact that they are excluded from citizenship of blacks, Indians and women (the right to vote is granted to blacks and Indians in 1870 and women in 1920). The goal of Americans is to build a democracy but a country with more liberal, the largest and most powerful as possible, in short, a federal republic, which is only improperly called democracy.
The U.S. Constitution does not include any reference to the individual and his rights, while speaking of Governments, the States, the President and the powers (executive, legislative, administrative and judicial). In short, we find a logical group rather than individual logic. "In United States, the executive power is entrusted to one person, the President of the federation. The Ministers are appointed by the President and responsible to him. He combines in his hands the powers of head of state and head of government, not accountable for its actions to the legislature, but to the people who elected him and can confirm or revoke its trust every four years "(LEVI 1997: 52). The president also heads the country's foreign policy, commands the armed forces, appoints civil servants and judges of the Supreme Court. His term lasts four years and may be replicated once. The Congress can not discouraged, but just put it in a state of accusation (impeachment ). It is, in essence, a system of "separated powers and balanced" (Barber, FUSARO 1997: 58), whose main advantage is the stability, but that is not without limits. One limitation is that the people elect the candidate generally more attractive and sympathetic, but is not necessarily what has the best qualities to steer the second is that if the president and parliament are not willing to cooperate, the system block (BARBERA, Fusaro 1997: 62-3).
The relationship between the Member is not hierarchical and is governed by the Constitution, which is above all powers, both state and federal, and observance of which is guaranteed by the judiciary independent. In addition, the Constitution is only the people, the only one in which Hamilton gives the power to change it. "In essence, sovereignty belongs to the federal people and is exercised through various centers of power" (LEVI 1997: 37). What comes out in the end is a "government of laws and not of men" (LEVI 1997: 47).
In the end, it is well recognized, the f. represents the closest thing to democracy there, and most importantly, with the interesting prospect of a global involvement. "The federal democracy made possible the formation of a democratic government on a continental scale, which potentially can be widened to the whole world "(LEVI L. 1997: 45).
17.8. Federalism in Europe
The American model has a strong attraction in the Old Continent, where, along with the Enlightenment principles, results represent a sort of explosive mixture, which carved out the contemporary Europe. In Europe, however, the f. struggling to assert itself, while the monarchy continues to prevail. Unlike previous centuries, however, it is more autocratic regimes, but with various forms of parliamentary systems of law and suffrage. In this new cultural climate is no place for the Federal Court, which he sees taking place Saint-Simon, Augustin Thierry, Kant, and others, but only at the level of principle.
In Italy the political debate on liberal democracy and federalism is developed only after the fall of Napoleon and creates a series of anti-monarchist movement, hailing the constitutional charters, the liberal principles and federalism. Among the most ardent supporters should be reminded of an Italy federal Carlo Cattaneo (1801-69), which is a strong supporter of local, as well as the creation of the United States of Europe. But his views are a minority. Cattaneo is considered a loser and is forced to live on the margins of political power, along with a few that share the ideas, such as Giuseppe Ferrari (1811-76), Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-72) and Carlo Pisacane (1818-57), which are carriers of a thought of a socialist and egalitarian, secular and anticlerical antispiritualistico. Ferrari also wants an Italy federalist and republican, while Pisacane advocates the abolition of all hierarchy, all authority and all property and dreams of a nation composed of many common democratically governed. But Ferrari and Pisacane are losers as well as all those after them, have continued to advocate the f., as Spinelli (1907-86).
Condemned (1927), because of his faith community and its anti-fascism in the first ten years in prison and then to exile in 1937, entered into a critical policy with the USSR, Spinelli was expelled from the Communist Party and became a fervent advocate of federalism esuropeo, which will keep him busy until his death (cf. Graglia 2008). In 1941, while he is in exile on the island of Ventotene, Spinelli writes Problems of European federation, in which, together with Ernesto Rossi and Eugenio Colorni, expresses its determination to implement in the United States of Europe. The book will be published illegally in January 1944 and will go down in history as Manifesto Ventotene . The idea of \u200b\u200bfederalism Spinelli was born from a condition of criticism of the nation-state and war, in a time when a war is upsetting the old balance, and each requires a reorganization of States. "A free and united Europe is necessary premise to the strengthening of modern civilization, which the totalitarian era is an arrest" (p. 23). Spinelli wants to implement an international order in Europe "through a federal system, which, while leaving each state the opportunity to develop its national life in a way that best fits the position and characteristics of its civilization [...], writing and manages a body of international laws to which all alike are to be submitted "(p. 60), leading to the handover of sovereignty by individual states the Federal Government in an irrevocable way. Spinelli thinks Europe rising together from the rubble of a war that saw the loser Germany (p. 70-1), breaking with centuries of tradition in favor of the nation states. In truth, Spinelli is also believed to a socialist Europe, where private property is "abolished, limited, proper" (p. 24) and is guaranteed for all "a decent standard of living" (p. 26).
in Europe today are federal only Belgium, Germany, Spain and Switzerland, but is looming and a new epoch-making event: the same as Europe moves towards a federal organization. "The need to unify Europe is obvious. Existing states are powder without substance. None of them able to bear the cost of a self-defense. Only the union can make them last. The problem is not between independence and union, there is between the U.S. and the fade "(ALBERTINI 1999: 140-1). The EU federalism is an element of novelty in history and, in fact, while the former federations or a variant form of national unification (Switzerland) or the result of a movement of liberation from colonial domination (the United States, Canada and Australia) The EU is the first case of tolerance of peaceful nations historically established, the product of the will to overcome the nationalistic laceration of the human race.
17.9. Federalism vs. Republicanism Italian USA (from Zincone 1995)
Italy runs to Europe, which, in turn, runs toward the U.S. model. But Italy will come to endorse the American model? Judging from his history, probably not, it is expected, however, an approach with a compromise solution.
Characters of American democracy / Italian democracy
1. Federalism and decentralization of power / state and centralization
2. Presidential / parliamentary
3. Been minimal, especially in economy / multiparty and consociativismo
4. Two-party electoral system and / mixed electoral system
5. Counterweights the power of the majority (Supreme Court, opposition party, the means of mass communication is not subject to the executive) / counterweight to the power of the majority (President of the Republic, opposition parties)
6. Relevant power of lobbies / Relevant power of lobbies and the papacy
7. Public opinion in favor of "democracy and public opinion in favor of democracy, but with some nostalgia for the recent past dictatorial monarchy.
17:10 World Federalism
If you fail to realize the European Federation, there is no reason you can not do the same worldwide. Proponents of federalism world fear that, as long as there will be only one sovereign state and armed, world peace will be in jeopardy. There are many today see the world federalism the best way to govern all the peoples of the earth. According to Levi, for example, "after the city-state, understood as the institution which has permission to pacify the tribes, the state and nation, which has ensured peace between the cities, the federation is the form of political organization that allows to bring peace to nations and to unite entire regions of the world and around the world in perspective "(1998: 380). The same thought is developed by M. Albertini. "Direct democracy - the scholar writes - it was the democratic government of men belonging to the sphere of a city [...]. Representative democracy was the democratic government of men belonging to a nation [...]. [...] The federal system is the rule of men belonging to a supranational space, and can reach up to that of the whole world "(1999: 57). According to Albertini, the vocation of federalism is the conquest of the world, because "federal democracy can not function if it has a stable, global" (1999: 58). Daniele Archibugi is about
cosmopolitan democracy, "an extremely ambitious project whose objective is to achieve a world order inspired by the values \u200b\u200bof legality and democracy" (1998: 66). He is convinced that there can be no democracy without local democracy globally. "The national democracy and global democracy are two sides of same coin, and without the achievement of both the journey to democracy is likely to be interrupted tragically" (Archibugi, Beetham 1998: 86). Members of the system are so cosmopolitan states and citizens. The example that comes closest to the model of cosmopolitan democracy is the European Union. Inside there are two fundamental principles: "one state, one vote" and "a citizen, one vote." It is a democracy of states and citizens.
17.11. An open question: the division of power and federalism individualistic
Federated States are not ordered in a hierarchy, as is the case between the equipment of a unitary state, but divided between them the power: none of the concentrates all power in their hands, while each is a recognized ' fiscal autonomy (fiscal federalism) and administrative. The existence of the federation is based on constitutional requirements, which must be written and so hard and have a value higher than that of ordinary laws. Federalism is not opposed to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe state, but only to that of centralized power. It demands that power be divided. But torn between whom? That's the point.
Take, for example, Italy. The Federalists say: "It is not that power remains concentrated in Rome, it is good to be part of the periphery". But what is the periphery? First of all regions. According to the federalist project, each region should become a sovereign mini-state, contained in a larger state, which is Italy. One wonders, "Why the federalist logic should not apply even within a single region?" We take Sicily. Because the power should remain concentrated in Palermo, and not divided between the provinces? Then, however, municipalities could also be observed: "Why should not we also participate in power?" The municipalities, however, are not simple entities: in them we recognize the divisions, the manufacturing companies, business units, services, condos, families. Is there any reason why the logic of federalism should not be applied to these realities? Why they could not legitimately ask for the right to autonomy and self? And so, following this path, a waterfall, you come to the individual. Why deny the individual the right to stand as the smallest and most important center of political power?
In my opinion, the only credible federalism is that it is willing to conduct its own principles to the extreme limits, the one that is not content to stop, as did Proudhon, the head of the family, who is also a limit to be considered brave, but should be up to the individual. The federal ideal is that, consistent with its underlying principles, is willing to distribute power to all citizens under equal conditions, namely the individualistic federalism, which is based on the unconditional and indiscriminate promotion of the individual, recognition certain fundamental individual rights (equal opportunities, equal access and unlimited to all kinds of information, right to participate in the preparation of the agenda) and the representation with a binding mandate. So, to be consistent with its principles, federalism can not be limited to the group, but must extend the rights of which he promoted to the fullest extent. But at this point, what would be federalism if not a DD?
The fact is that, in practice it looks good from extending the logic of federalism to the individuals and, usually, we stop at the regions, although we can not exclude the possibility of including the provinces and even municipalities, but no one thinks we can go further. In so doing, federalism ends up multiplying institutions with political power, since the central power must be added the local authorities. In any case, ordinary citizens remain excluded from political participation and the company is still kind of dual class with a dominant minority and the majority of citizens subject, whose only power conferred is to freely elect their representatives.
17.12. A system for the rich?
Who wins in such a polity? Certainly the men who have aspirations of power: a federal system, it can accommodate a larger number than any other form of government. Of course, the lords of Rome should share power with those of the periphery, but at least their position would be more stable. Overall, the power will be more extended and leveled, but also more secure, and because of the conditions of peace guaranteed by the federal as well as the most formidable competitors, having their share of power, have little motivation to stir things up. If anything, one would expect some reshuffling, some exchange of roles, but the ruling class would still be firmly in command. In addition to the men of power, earning with federalism will be the richest in resources, which may have the upper hand in competition with other centers less fortunate, and become richer. Not for nothing is the federalism advocated mainly by the regions and the more affluent middle-class people with ambition for power. For the same reason, federalism goes very well with capitalism thrives and where they are common values \u200b\u200bof free markets, free trade, of free competition, free enterprise, traditional values \u200b\u200bof capitalism where the rich are getting richer and the poor get poorer.
And the citizens? For them, change very little. The power will never be in their hands. They will continue to elect their representatives by delegation apparently subject to verification, but in fact white, and their votes will be contested at the sound of advertising and propaganda campaigns by those who hold economic power and controls the means of information mass. Many people probably understand the subtle play of which they are victims and they will retire from politics. So to govern the country will remain only those who have large private interests to defend, which will be supported by the masses of unsuspecting citizens to be just a tool. In practice, the country was ruled by powerful groups, companies, corporations and lobbies.
Even if it were to be granted citizens the right to take any decision through the referendum vote, in fact, as long as the power in the hands of the representatives, they find thousands of tricks to prevent the will of the people prevail. Thus, the government of this country is the prerogative of citizens from the middle class up, which will govern their own benefit, with the result that a broad band population must deal daily with problems of mere survival, in typical capitalism: the rich are getting richer, the poor get poorer.
the light of what has been said, we can distinguish two forms of federalism. The first, which we call "individualistic" or DD wants all citizens are sovereign, all participate equally in political power, we all have equal opportunities, equal access to information, control of the agenda, and representation is only mandate. It is considered utopian and, therefore, is not being achieved. The second, which we call 'public' or DR, is the only existing form of federalism, and that we refer to it when not otherwise specified. Well what are the pros and cons of federalism DR?
17.13. Pros and Cons of Federalism
A major advantage of the f. is to avoid the dangers of nationalism. "The federalists are distinguished from all other political movements, whether democratic or undemocratic in this: they regard as an enemy to kill the very thing that everyone else considered, each in its own way, like an idol to worship or serve: the nation state "(in POZZOLI 1997: 287). "Understood correctly, the federalism opposed to the centralized nation-state and reified, that is the main product of the modern era of nationalism "(Elazar 1998: 105). It is precisely this aspect of the f. which is based on an attempt to create a united Europe. "The novelty of the experiment is the search for European Federation of institutional response to the crisis of sovereign " (LEVI 1998: 379).
Another important advantage of the f. is linked to the principle that unity is strength. " "All the people who have incurred great wars have been caused, albeit unintentionally, to increase the strength of the government, those who could not do it, have been won" (Tocqueville 1996: 164-5). The Federation, however, makes it the strongest single state, without which it increases its armament. According
J. Maritain, the f. "Seems the only way open for the abolition of war" (message delivered to the radio in New York on 25/3/1944 (in POZZOLI 1997: 107). In fact, only a f. worldwide could achieve this ambitious goal, which is particularly attractive in an age like ours, in which weapons are more frightening, they cost more expensive, the risk of conflict than in the past. Well, today, f. a world of peoples, which is not a simple confederation of sovereign states as the League of Nations or the UN could actually achieve cessation of war between sovereign states and to ensure a lasting world peace.
But the benefits do not stop there, and because their discussion would require too much space, I will only mention the following: •
Sovereignty "group" substituted for "State".
• Many "groups" involved in power (polyarchy).
• It achieves an excellent compromise between the need to preserve the advantages of a large state and the need for individual groups to protect their identity.
• It expands the middle class, made up of owners and wealthy citizens, who care about education, autonomy and participation in power.
• It encourages the journey towards democracy extended to a large number of citizens.
• There is interest in keeping the peace terms.
• It gives impetus to free enterprise and free competition, with consequent economic growth of the country.
• Capitalism and market economy are the ideal conditions to thrive.
Among the disadvantages of f. I remember the following: •
Federalism responds to a logic of power, the power of the rich.
• There is little interest in the promotion of the individual, but we pursue the logic of the group. • The right to
will of the people you precede the raison d'etat.
• The individual is reduced to the role of the instrument, subject to simple consumer and producer of votes.
• In accordance with the principle of majority (if that means 51% of eligible voters) will precede that of the stability of the government. Example: If you go to vote 30% of the electorate, decide what becomes law, the majority of this 30%. Federalism does not care what he thinks the 70% who do not go to vote, but only that there is a law.
• Since, typically, they go to vote for those who have interests to defend, you end up with a dictatorship advent of the middle class, which we call polyarchy or oligarchy enlarged, but not democracy.
• Wealth is not distributed according to individual merits, but will continue to exist a differentiation of social status by birth. • The Federalist
peace is not averse to war, but love the status quo by the rich, who, unlike the poor, have no interest in changing the system.
0 comments:
Post a Comment