State of Present-Day Federalism

The modern age is seeing once again a rise in authoritarianism and decline in freedom. As much as today’s globalized age and an accompanying increased tendency of people and ideas to come together and mix or clash calls upon greater mutual understanding, patience, and pluralism, we instead witness a rise in isolationist, nationalist policies. Pluralism, or a system in which two or more groups, principles, sources of authority coexist, is by definition supposed to lead to an increase of public tolerance, inclusion, and peace even in societies featuring a complex mix of ideological and ethnic belongings.

A mechanism that seemingly goes perfectly in hand with pluralist tendencies is precisely federalism. This is because the very idea of federalism allows for a distribution and compartmentalization of power in a way that ideally echoes societal needs and provides for an appropriate division of powers and greater societal and regional cohesion. However, with much left to still be explored and better understood, different styles of federalism have developed, with some favoring division along political lines while others along social lines, each with various degrees of success in ensuring citizen liberties and preventing abuse of power that are some of the core goals of a federal order.

Given the increased complexity of national, regional, and international bonds in the globalized world, ideas of pluralism or coexistence of various often competitive entities becomes imperative. In order to further develop potential for federal political order to support this kind of pluralism leading to greater peace and co-existence in the modern world, this article will reflect on different ways in which federalism is presently working to do this in countries across the world.

The Case of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Ethiopia is one of the oldest organized sovereign states. Throughout its long history, it has witnessed a number of power changes, migrations, internal, regional, and global turbulence, for the most part managing to preserve its sovereignty and territorial integrity in spite of all these threats including European colonialism and major financial crises of the past century. The Derg regime replaced its monarchy with nationalization and attempt at socialism by assassinating the last Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie and changing political and economic circumstances to match the regime’s ideology. This period of Ethiopian history featured authoritarian behavior on behalf of the regime and is remembered with censorship and brutal behavior towards civilians. Everything changed again in 1991 when the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) won against the Derg regime and established democratic rule in the country. This is now being yet again challenged as, following dissolution of the EPRDF due to internal strife and shifting power dynamics, Prime Minister and Noble prize winner Abiy Ahmed broke off with his own Prosperity Party and attempted to yet again change political scenario in Ethiopia. Opposed Abiy Ahmed’s promise on bringing prosperity and economic and democratic progress to the country stand armies labeled as rebels such as the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) that in turn labels Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s actions as power-grabbing and undemocratic. The conflict is currently revolving primarily along ethnopolitical lines and has so far caused thousands of deaths and forced millions to flee. All of this comes following a period of perceived tolerance that marked the era of the EPRDF. As such, the regime of EPRDF that was marked by political focus on ethnic federalism and need for pluralism along the often described as divisive ethnic lines, serves as a perfect example and a test to durability and functionality of federalism when uniquely framed along ethnic divisions.

The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) stayed in power in Ethiopia between 1991 and 2019. On top of its national emphasis on ethnic federalism and pluralism, it in itself featured very pluralist and compartmentalized politics. The party was actually a coalition of four political parties: Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), Amhara Democratic Party (ADP), Oromo Democratic Party (ODP), and Southern Ethiopian People’s Democratic Movement (SEPDM). The very existence of EPRDF required constant collaboration amongst the leaders of each party within the coalition, with special value placed on party, local, regional, and federal elections. Ethiopia first witnessed a democratic and federal ruling arrangement following the EPRDF ascend to power. The democratically elected House of Representatives chooses the president who has largely a ceremonial role as well as the prime minister who actually holds the executive power. In order to ensure nonpartisanship and separation of powers, the 6-year presidential and ministerial terms are usually meant not to overlap with the 5-year terms of the members of the House of Representatives.

The ideas of the federal government and the ruling coalition were passed onto the entire nation as the country was federally compartmentalized along ethnic lines, with Tigray, Amhara, and Oromo, being some of the largest ethnicities within Ethiopia having their separate local politics that would often center around their ethnic grouping, space, and culture. Southern Ethiopian tribes that largely practice traditional religions and are generally fewer in number were also able to receive special protections and recognition in this way. The ideal is that each ethnicity would be able to thrive on its own terms while also functioning as one on a unified national front with a form of supra-ethnic identity that would characterize them simultaneously as Ethiopian along their other ethnic, cultural, and local markers. This practice, while practiced in its own unique way everywhere due to unique ethnic and sociopolitical make-ups of each location, is not unique to Ethiopia. Other countries that featured or continue to feature this arrangement to varying degrees of success include Nepal, Pakistan, South Sudan, and historically Apartheid-era South Africa through its locally-led Bantustans, as well as former Yugoslavia and to an extent present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Ethnic federalism is presently blamed for Ethiopian political fallout and ongoing war as now that Abiy Ahmed - a member of the Oromo, the largest ethnolinguistic group of the country that has traditionally been scarcely represented in politics - came to hold substantial power, the scales quickly tipped and fragile balance was disturbed as the traditional rulers usually of Tigrayan ethnicity sided against the present status quo. Ethnic federalism is, in short, blamed for maintaining and facilitating easier inflammation of ethnic fault lines because it by nature maintains these ethnic divisions through the way it facilitates politics and attempts to maintain inclusion. However, an alternative view to ethnic federalism also persists. It is easy to quickly label ethnic federalism as the cause of all troubles when, in fact, it might be simply a manifestation of causes that are buried deeper in the past. Oftentimes, ethnic federalism was in fact an imperfect albeit rare solution to more deeply engraved ethnic divisions and internal struggles. Countries that feature ethnic federalism, as evidenced from the list above, also tend to stand witness to centuries of foreign rule and colonial oppression and have been exposed to a number of migrations and complex ethnic and religious diversity as a result of this dynamic history. Thus, ethnic federalism can appear as the only possible solution, albeit imperfect. In this way, ethnic federalism can be awarded blame for maintaining ethnic fault lines, but should also be judged with an understanding of local complexities and unique situations the country found itself in historically and presently.

The Case of the Republic of India

The Republic of India features a highly diverse and complex social and political landscape. Having gained independence from the British Empire in 1947, India cherished its freedom and democracy ever since. However, India underwent a partition with Pakistan in that same year due to disagreements often labeled as ethno-religious which echo to this day and that affected the potential for a more unified South Asia. This perhaps showed flaws in ability to accurately and in a pluralist and inclusive fashion represent all of its constituents. All of this, similar to other cases where a need for ethnic federalism seems the apparent albeit imperfect solution, is against the backdrop of complex and divisive colonial heritage. In this case too, we see a need for greater attention towards ethnic foundations of political opinion that, for better or worse given flaws of ethnic federalism, are not as emphasized in India as in the previous case of Ethiopia. Regardless, present-day Indian politics show a focus on the increasingly Hindu nationalist ruling party and the emphasis on constitutional integrity and a rather unique form of centralized federalism. India, the world’s most populous democracy, now features a complex interaction between demands of local and somewhat central federal government, with demands balanced to carefully meet local needs for self-agency and linguistic integrity with the federal government’s need for national control. The system seems somewhat contradictory yet has shown to work resiliently for more than half a century.

In the case of India, we find a scenario more reminiscent of countries that adopted ethnic federalism succumbing to the need to balance ethnic divisions and unique cultural, religious, and linguistic spaces alike to those in India, here met with a persistent focus towards an emphasized federal level politics and nationalized parliament. The nationalized, centralized federal government has seen an interruption in Indian politics, especially in the 1990s following failure of the Indian nationalist Congress party that dates back to the independence movement, to maintain its traditional overwhelming majority in the parliament and consistent regional resistance towards centralized governance as witnessed in provinces such as Assam, Kashmir, Mizoram, and Punjab in the 1970s and 80s. This resulted in a rise of regionalization and coalitionary politics in the coming decades only to be yet again interrupted with the rise of Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party (BJP).

India serves as an example of a nation carefully balancing demands for national unity and regional cultural, ethnic, and linguistic identities without relying on often divisive ethnic federalism and clear political compartmentalization along fault lines. However, the rise of nationalist politics that now threaten to establish a scenario alike to tyranny of the majority in a country that prides itself on its pluralism and democracy that withstands millenia-old demographic and class diversity shows that this promise may be too fragile and questions ability for a more centralized federation to ensure pluralism and civilian protections. On the other hand, Indian politics has previously managed to survive threats to its division of powers and imposition of presidential over federal and constitutional rule in landmark cases such as S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) that ensured protection of regional administration and supremacy of federal, constitutional rule against the backdrop of presidential attempts at misusing constitutional authority of Article 356 to curb local autonomy. This means that there is still hope for resiliency of Indian uniquely centralized federal political institutions to withstand the pressure of internal nationalisms that threaten destabilization of the Indian federal system.

The Case of the Russian Federation

The largest country in the world, Russia, features its own version of federalism as well. The Russian Federation emerged following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It became an attempt to balance the traditionally highly centralized power of Russian political leaders with the vast space and diversity of people and regions it governs, against the backdrop of a modern globalized and interdependent world. The Russian Federation as such consists of a number of areas with established regional governance that are all considered equal federal subjects albeit with diverse degrees of autonomy. There are 85 such federal subjects, albeit the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol are two areas that are not yet internationally recognized as belonging to Russia. The federal subjects, based on their degree of autonomy and specific national considerations are divided into oblasts, republics, krais, autonomous okrugs, federal cities, and autonomous oblasts. Of these, republics and autonomous okrugs and oblasts or areas tend to be home to specific ethnic minorities where we see a degree of federal compartmentalization along ethnic lines. Given Russia’s vast territory featuring over 193 different ethnic groups, an aspect of ethnic federalism is not surprising , albeit fears of destabilization of this vast country often results in an emphasis on the core Russian, or Slavic, ethnicity as a state foundation.

While each federal subject has its own head, parliament, and constitutional court, federal politics, especially since the turn of the century, have come to dominate the Russian political landscape. The wording of the Russian Constitution allocates the president with primary relationship to maintenance of constitutional integrity and the federal presidential head also can choose degrees to which regional autonomy is reflected in practice. Regional governance of Russian federal subjects also is set up in a way that reflects the overarching federal government’s hierarchical structure and can thus serve to additionally reflect the degree of centralization favored by the federal government on regional governance institutions, as may presently be the case given the state of Russian politics centered on its president. This leaves integrity of minority rights as well as safeguarding of the separation of powers, civilian freedoms, and decisions regarding international relations, such as the decision to sign treaties or go to war, largely in the hands of the executive branch or the president. Implications of this scenario are evident in the ongoing attack on Ukraine that does not seem to feature an approval on a federal but rather on a centralized presidential level, as well as attempts to undermine and silence all internal opposition, again showing the overwhelming real-life implications of (mis)application of federalism. A greater recognition of the importance of separation of powers and checks and balances as key characteristics of federalism, as well as greater appreciation of civil liberties and powers vested in regional governments and autonomous regions would result in a more favorable case for pluralism and inclusion of the highly diverse political, ethnic, and cultural landscape of the world’s largest country.

The Case of the United States of America

The United States of America, or arguably the first modern world democracy, features a centuries-old constitution that establishes a very clear separation of powers and voting provisions. On a federal level, it features legislative, executive, and judicial separation of powers that many modern democracies take inspiration from, while on a territorial governance level, the country features what some describe as a true example of different states with their own degree of autonomy coming together to form “a more perfect union.” Decisions on the powers granted to states vs. the federal government are constitutionally divided and inalienable. However, states: a) often compete with one another to attract businesses by lowering taxes which hurts state-funded programs, b) can experience economic inequalities across state lines, and c) there is also a degree to which federal funding can manipulate states into accepting or enforcing certain kinds of legislation to which they otherwise would not agree upon, as seen in the enforcement of prostitution, drinking, substance control, and historically even slavery laws. Similarly, there is a weakness in the US ability to respond to pressures that need a more unified central government, as, for example, in cases of grave financial distress seen in the Great Depression.

However, the US was able to withstand many tests to its political system. The challenge of the Great Depression was resolved through unprecedented overarching federal policies showing the willingness of regional governing bodies to accept a more centralized federal functioning in times of grave need. On the other hand, the US failed to uphold integrity of its democratic institutions and territorial unity in the 1860s when it underwent a civil war revolving precisely around the issue of state rights and relation of the federal government towards the country’s particularly tragic disagreement on the institution of slavery.

Interestingly, the US was initially envisioned by its first president George Washington in his farewell address as a nonpartisan entity that would as such facilitate seemingly endless political plurality and inclusion. However, since the turn of the 19th century to the present day, the US features a rigid two-party system that leaves little space for a more nuanced ideological debate in its legislative body, the Congress, that also plays a major role in the decision to go to war or engage in international economic cooperation. The US curiously also finds itself amidst international criticism for imperial tendencies and overreliance on its military industrial complex. The state of constantly being in war campaigns around the world which received a highly mixed public opinion in the last couple of decades and (mis)treatment of its territories and indigenous/minority populations only serve to enforce the aforementioned criticism and further question US ability to ensure political, ideological, and cultural integrity of all of its subjects. In the end, a greater appreciation for the role of centralized government approaches in historically maintaining the country’s stability and minority protection coupled with a less rigid division of the congressional representation of public opinion may assist the US on the path of greater pluralism, stability, and inclusion.

The Case of the Argentine Republic

The Argentine Republic stands as an example of federalism from the South American continent. Argentina features a presidential representative democracy akin to that of the US where the president is in charge of the executive power, the National Congress possess legislative power while the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court. Argentina similarly exhibits a highly decentralized political system, with each of its 23 provinces exercising considerable regional power and maintaining considerable ability to influence debates on the national levels through representation in the legislative branch. However, regional politics tend to suffer from exclusionary practices which then translate to misrepresentation of a region or a part of the region’s population and damage the cohesiveness of politics on the greater federal level, and Argentine congressional structure also can have unbalanced representation, having often been ranked highest globally on overrepresentation of some regions in the upper chamber. This may be a consequence of the post-colonial effects that see a translation of the exclusionary elite-based politics of the Spanish Empire translated in the modern world. Argentina is additionally grappling with dictatorial experiences such as that of the military junta rule of the 1970s that curbed pluralism and civil liberties but now also serve as a reminder of the fragility and importance of federal and pluralist ideals.

 Of particular attention are also the rights of the indigenous people in Argentine areas, that have faced centuries of abuse due to European colonialism and remain at threat in the post-colonial world. While indigenous peoples and integrity of their land, language, and culture are now federally recognized and under constitutional protections that many can learn from, in practice they often still face discrimination and theft from their lands and also stand victim to exclusion from political presence, including on local, province, and federal levels. In short, the federal structure of Argentina may benefit from greater enforcement of these protections as well as from greater focus on transparent and fair elections and representation on regional levels to ensure a more balanced discussion and development in the National Congress. Additionally, Argentine development policy initiatives could benefit from a sustained focus on perceiving Argentine provinces not as homogenous isolated units, as was traditionally the case, but as interconnected entities that should be on a shared development track coupled with cooperation from both all levels of government with civil society and flourishing local initiatives.  

Conclusion

Federalism, while at its core a system of governance favoring division of powers and participation of multiple entities in a shared political process, can differ significantly in the way that it is practiced. As evidenced in the cases above, the way federalism is to be manifested is highly dependent on a country’s history, past institutions, as well as features of its political, ethnic, and cultural makeup. The unifying lessons from examples above show the need for a strong constitutional backing in establishment of a federal political order, as well as the importance of the precise and detailed wording of this endeavor and ability to enforce constitutional integrity through a clear separation of powers and rule of law. The importance of separation of powers and check of balances, as well as constitutional and federal government’s ability to maintain protection of minority rights also proved of instrumental importance and challenge no matter what region and historical background a country finds itself in. An additional consideration when establishing a federal style of governance is the need to understand implications that ethnic divisions will play on the system and how ethnic divisions can be mitigated through democratic, inclusive policies on local, regional, and federal levels to avoid divisions while ensuring freedoms of ethnic, cultural, and religious expression. Lastly, there is also a need to recognize the dynamics between central and regional governance levels, appreciating and considering the need for centralized actions as well as federal, regional divisions and autonomy, and ensuring that the two levels of government are able to coexist, maintain clear communication in the interest of citizenry, and also maintain checks and balances on each other through constitutional, judiciary, and democratic means.

The Enigmatic Economics of Argentina

An oft-cited bit of wisdom in the field of international economics is a quote by Nobel laureate Simon Kuznets, who argued that there are four types of countries in the world: developed, underdeveloped, Japan, and Argentina. For decades, the case of Argentina has confounded economists, political scientists, and observers of international politics alike. A pendulum has swung from liberal democracy to military dictatorship and back, overseeing rapid transformation from late 19th-century growth to 20th-century depression and hyperinflation. Once thought to challenge Brazil for regional primacy, Argentina now more closely resembles a boomerang. When Argentines went to the polls on October 27, they voiced their displeasure with the center-right regime of Mauricio Macri and declared that the boomerang will come back again in the form of president-elect Alberto Fernandez. With mounting anti-democratic, right-wing populism on the rise in Peru and in power in Brazil and countervailing anti-corruption movements sweeping the region, establishing sound democratic and economic institutions is as crucial as ever if Argentina is to be spared from the same fate of turmoil. 

A Short History of Argentine Economics 

In the early 1900s, the future of Argentina appeared promising. Just this mere century ago, Argentina rivaled an upstart and industrializing United States, as both rode the first wave of globalization in the 20th century. Its economy, facilitated by livestock exports to Europe and the labor of immigrants from Europe, entered World War I among the ten largest in the world, and its average per capita income was vastly superior to that of Italy, Portugal, and Spain. The idea that the Argentine economy would see anything less than an absolute boom given its potential at the time would seem to have been unbelievable. 

Yet the economy is worse off today than it was in 1913. While the early 1900s were a tremendous time to be a farmer in the Americas, it would not last forever. When the United States followed the British model of industrialization, it was set up to take advantage of the new economy while its Argentine counterpart, still dependent on borrowing foreign cash to distribute beef to foreign markets, was not. As soon as 1930, meat exports to continental Europe had decreased by two-thirds from their 1924 level. 

The Great Depression further exacerbated things. Between 1929 and 1932, the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 25 percent. Yet the elite political class in Argentina, with its deep distrust of government intervention in the market, refrained from taking the dramatic social-democratic actions that were undertaken by American president Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the economy continued its decline. 

The controversial reign of Juan Perón presented a mixed bag for Argentina later. From 1945 to 1955, the Perón administration nationalized key industries, such as the Central Bank and the railways, and instituted generous social welfare policies. Inflation rose and persisted, averaging 26 percent from 1944 to 1974, but the modest GDP growth the country experienced during this time was quite well-distributed. Enforcement of minimum wage laws and the expansion of health insurance programs led to increases in real wages and the development of the largest and most unionized middle class in South America at the time. By the time the military dictatorship of 1976-1983 left office, the labor rights instituted by Perón were wiped out and the anti-democratic behaviors he engaged in were further legitimized. 

What followed over the next few decades was a period of neoliberal, market-based reforms that focused on opening Argentina to the global economy via agricultural exports and drastically reducing spending in accordance with the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Each time this path was undertaken, the results were disastrous, with foreign debt accumulating and increased poverty and unemployment. The worst of these crises came in 2001; after the economy contracted by 15 percent in less than two years, more than half the population fell into poverty, and the country defaulted on almost $100 billion in foreign debt. 

The election of Macri, a businessman and former president of legendary football club Boca Juniors, energized conservative hopes for economic recovery. Yet as his presidency comes to a close, it is evident that no such economic recovery manifested. Even after he instituted market-oriented reforms, anxiety among foreign investors mounted, and ultimately, foreign capital dried up. He piled on foreign debt and sought the largest bailout in the history of the IMF, some five times the size of the package approved to stave off economic collapse in Egypt. With budget cuts constricting economic growth and equality, GDP is expected to decrease by three percent while the very inflation he sought to curb has increased to over 55 percent, a higher number than any other country in Latin America besides Venezuela. Furthermore, Fitch, one of the Big Three American credit rating agencies, changed Argentina’s credit rating from B to CCC, indicating a significant increase in financial precarity. Once a safe bet for economic development, Argentina is now in full free-fall. 

Persistent Challenges: Corruption and Weak Institutions 

At the root of Argentina’s economic issues are its struggles with corruption and unstable democratic and economic institutions. Declining faith in government and institutions like the central bank and the judiciary have sustained the country’s state of crisis. Despite the common umbrella of Peronism, the members of the political movement were fiercely divided. Perón himself deemed left-wing Peronists immature and enlisted his right-wing guerrilla allies to target them. This manifested in the fascist Minister of Social Welfare Jóse López Rega forming the Triple-A alliance, a far-right death squad that carried out acts of terrorism against moderate and left-wing opponents of the regime. Furthermore, in its later days, the Perón regime began detaining people indefinitely without a trial, a drastic shift in human rights in Argentina. With dissent stifled and liberal values like human rights cascading off the Argentine political map, faith in democracy reached a low point. This would be exacerbated by the U.S.-backed military coup that installed a military dictatorship from 1976 to 1983. While approval of the military and more independent civil-military relations was previously high, the human rights abuses (torture and forced disappearances) carried out by the military during the period known as the Dirty War (or the “Época de los desaparecidos”) resulted in a decline in approval of these hallmarks of democratic states and democracy itself. But broad disapproval of liberal values alone does not explain the instability and lack of sufficient development in Argentina. Corruption continues to be a major issue impeding development. Nowhere is this more evident than in the judiciary, which is independent of both politics and outside interference in name only. Odeberecht, the Brazilian construction company in the midst of a multinational bribery scandal (including an estimated $35 million in bribes paid in Argentina, including donating millions to Macri’s campaign), has faced almost no legal recourse. When state-owned enterprises were privatized in the 1990s by President Carlos Menem, fraud and kickbacks were an open secret. Yet today, Menem is a legislator, not a prisoner. Impunity is the norm rather than something that is to be avoided. 

Declining faith in the judiciary is yet another lightning rod that amplifies the class conflict in Argentina. When powerful politicians and multinationals get away with committing fraud and bribery, it sends a message to ordinary civilians that the elites will always win, a message the Argentine people are all too familiar with. The legacy of politicians more concerned with an ideological crusade against socialism than supporting their citizens during a global economic depression looms in this regard. The chief factor holding back the independence of the judiciary and corruption reform is a poorly-designed plea bargain system. The 2016 law reforming the plea bargain system regrettably limits cooperation agreements to a small group of crimes, excluding such important and major crimes as criminal fraud. Cooperating witnesses are also rewarded only for evidence related to the case in which they are charged, though they may have evidence of unrelated crimes. These pointless restrictions make responsibly prosecuting corruption next to impossible and they must be dropped if Argentina is ever going to establish a viable liberal democracy for, by, and of the people. The central bank is another issue of institutional credibility. Turnover has plagued the institution, thereby inhibiting its consistency in monetary policy. It has had 23 different presidents in 36 years. Furthermore, even as most central banks in Latin America enshrined independence from the federal executive branch into their central banks during the regional hyperinflationary crisis, Argentina resisted the trend. Macri’s own selection for chair of the central bank blamed the current economic struggles on government interference in monetary policy. 

Argentina was once a rising economic star on par with the United States. Yet the downward trajectory of Macri’s political career is all too familiar to the Argentine people, who have spent the last half-century constricted by austerity and an insufficient social safety net while their elites escaped accountability for their misdeeds. Their frustrations were heard in the election of Fernandez and maybe, just maybe, their concerns will be reflected in the new administration’s policies.