Federalism: An Effective Mechanism of Division of Power - Research Paper Example

Federalism: An Effective Mechanism of Division of Power Introduction A system of government where a constitution divides the sovereignty between provinces/states and a central government is known as federal system of government and the political system based on the ideology of division of power in this way is known as federalism. Nonetheless federalism is a democratic system of government and the ultimate right of ruling the country is believed to rest with the people who elect the representatives for provincial/state legislatures and also for a central legislature. All the institutions in a federal system of government work in the spirit of democracy and on the concept of sharing of power. Federalism is antagonistic to separatism and the federalists believe in achieving a common good by running the affairs of the government by sharing power and at the same time a reasonable degree of autonomy is granted to the units of federation. Federalism is currently being practiced in many countries of the world which include United States, Canada, India, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and is found to be very useful for sharing power between a central government and the provinces and states. In most of the federal democracies, important issues like currency, foreign policy, energy and defense are governed by the central government whereas the issues related to public welfare and social service such as health, food, education and infrastructure development etc are dealt by the provincial government (Pennington). The division of power in federalism is explicitly stated in the constitution of the federation and thus the right of government of the central government and the states is safeguarded by the constitution and a rational autonomy is granted to the states and provinces forming the federation. Keeping foreign policy, national security and currency with the central government is imperative for creating a strong federation and thus in most of the federations these powers rest with the central government. The remaining powers are divided between the central government and the provinces as per the political and geostrategic scenario of the federation and thus the power sharing pattern differs from one federation to the other. For example in the federation countries like United States and Germany the powers about which the constitution is silent and are not explicitly stated to rest with central or the provincial/state government are retained by the state governments whereas in India, Canada and Argentina such powers are retained by the central government. Federalist system of government provides a very flexible mechanism of power sharing between the components of the federation and that is why it has been adopted by a large number of democracies in the world. In some federations the power sharing is not uniform across the various components of the federation, such a federation is known as asymmetric federation because some of the components of federation are given greater level of autonomy because of their cultural or historical uniqueness and thus those units which are given greater level of autonomy are not entitled to enjoy all the benefits provided by the central government as the others units can do (Caramani). In federalism the power sharing is generally done in a way which results in such a setup which keeps the components of the federation united in the long run and thus the components i.e. the states and the provinces have to make a compromise in most of the cases, and for the same reason the central government in a federation enjoys the most important powers. The opponents of federalism generally point this out as an imbalance in power sharing scheme of the federal system of government but they do not take into account the fact that the central government is also composed of representatives from all the states and provinces and thus all components of the federation have a say at the central level as well. In most of the federations government is established at two levels; the central government and the regional governments (states, territories and provinces) however in certain federal democracies there is a third level of government formed at the local level in the form of municipalities, as in Brazil and Mexico. The municipalities and local governments also exist in other countries but with very little level of autonomy and thus are not considered a component of the federal system of government (Freely and Rubin). Critics and opponents have written detailed accounts about the failure of federalism as a rightful system of government with regards to power sharing between the central government and the states, however the ground reality is that federalism has proved itself to be an effective way of sharing power and because of the flexibility offered by federalism it can be adopted in all types of political, historical and geographical scenarios in the world and the proof of its success is the large number of democracies following this system of government. In this research paper an analysis of the federalism in United States has been presented from historical, legal, cultural and political point of view to prove that federalism has emerged as the most successful system of sharing power between various political, regional and cultural units in a country and keeping them united. Federalism in the United States and the Division of Power The division of power is a matter of great political and legal debate in the United States and this debate has brought about a number of political and constitutional changes in the country, giving the ultimate shape to the politics and the constitution of the country. Because of the experiences of the system of government introduced by the British the Americans in the beginning were very distrustful about a powerful centralized government and believed in greater regional and state autonomy. This is why the initial governmental setup by the founding fathers of the country gave very less powers to the central government with no control over the court system, taxation and commerce as well. Nationalism was absent and the nation in effect was divided among various states each concerned about its own well being and was supposed to make its own profits with an independent commerce and trade policy. However achieving progress in such a system was very difficult at that time because most of the states depended on each other for a number of resources, infrastructure was absent and an independent growth was almost impossible at that time. Economic progress was the most important need of that time which seemed very difficult to attain with such a fragmented and weak governmental structure, these circumstances lead to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The federalist and anti-federalist leaders of the nation joined together and after long deliberations came up with a system of government in which the central government was responsible for keeping the states united and a consensus was achieved on establishing a national economy in which economic progress could easily be achieved through the sharing of resources and mutual cooperation. The system of government agreed upon was effectively federalism with a dual system of sovereignty, splitting power between central and state governments and the areas of governance of the central and state governments were explicitly decided and stated (May). Moreover the most important point which was agreed upon was that the central as well as the state governments will have to agree upon any amendments proposed in the constitution. Many notable leaders of that time including Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison started convincing the masses on the newly agreed upon system of government because the public in general was unwilling to adopt the new system of government because of the remarkable powers given to the central government (Amar). Most of the people were concerned about the supremacy clause of article IV which clearly created supremacy of the federal laws, treaties and agreements over the state laws. The Bill of Rights then served as an agent to bring about a consensus among the states and for addressing the concerns of the general public. The Bill of Rights was initially a list of basic human rights which was prepared by the leaders advocating the pros of the federal system of government in order to address the grievances and objections of the public and anti-federalist leaders and was made the part of the constitution immediately after its ratification. The tenth amendment was another break through for the advocates of state autonomy according to which the power which are neither assigned to the central nor to the state governments in the constitution effectively rest with the states. This amendment has provided the anti-federalists and the advocates of the state autonomy with a base to fight their legal and political battles in the following years. Power Sharing Scheme The power sharing scheme was decided after long discussion among the leaders of the nation in the constitutional convention and the scheme is very clearly stated in the Article I to Article VI of the constitution. The power to coin a currency in the country, to devise the foreign policy of the country and to devise the national defense policy was given to the central government which meant that the currency of each and every state will be the same and thus a national economy was automatically created. The anti-federalists, not only in the United States but also in various other countries of the world are generally concerned about this clause of the federalist system of government. They argue that when various states have different level of economic progress and have different proportions of resources then they must be given the right to coin their own currency and thus establish an independent economy of their own. However this argument falls flatly when the status of a single state is studied in the international political scenario as the federalist correlate this clause with national security. According to the federalist when the central government is responsible for the national security of the country, it has the right to establish a single economy as well because in the process of ensuring national security, certain states are forced to take more responsibility than the others because of their geostrategic position and the geographical conditions, thus other states have to take the responsibility of supporting the national economy. Similarly the anti-federalists also argue that each state should be given the right to independently devise a trade policy of its own and trade relations with various countries of the world regardless of the foreign policy devised by the centre. This is also a very weak argument against federalism and is actually not practical in the global scenario because the foreign policy of a country is always dictated by the issues of national security and not of trade and commerce which certainly are of secondary value when state sovereignty and integrity is at stake (Holdstedt). The power sharing scheme present in the constitution give certain powers to state governments as well as the federal government, these include levying taxes on the public and borrowing of money from international donors and monetary institutions. The constitution is silent about the judicial system within a state however establishes the United States Supreme Court as the supreme judicial body in the country and also allows the federal government to establish more federal courts. The powers not discussed in the constitution effectively rest with the states as per the 10th amendment. The clauses which give greater powers to the central government include the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, the Contract Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Commerce Clause as discussed in the previous paragraph is about the federal government’s powers to regulate trade between states and conduct trade agreements with other countries of the world. The Necessary and Proper Clause has gives the legal supremacy to the Congress with regards to legislature and allows it to formulate laws for exercising the powers stated in the constitution. The Supremacy Clause is the next most debated clause because it establishes the supremacy of the federal laws over the state laws in all situations of conflict between the two. The anti-federalists argue that certain laws are formulated in states as per the cultural and social scenario of the state and thus the state should be granted a right to safeguard its cultural values. This argument damages the spirit of nationalism and unity among the states because if the cultural values of the state are in conflict with nationalism they will not do any good to the people of the state and will isolate them from other states, which will ultimately result in social backlash of the state in the national scenario. This supremacy of the federal laws over the state laws actually stops the marginalization of certain states and promotes national unity. Supreme Court and the Civil War Despite the evident progress achieved by the nation under the federal system of government, the debate continued and federalism became stronger, particularly during the time of John Marshall as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. During this time most of the laws and the constitutional articles were translated by the Supreme Court to favor federalism and for creating a strong central government. During the middle part of the 19th century the Supreme Court adopted the doctrine of dual federalism and most of the rulings of the Supreme Court during this era favored state autonomy. Slavery appeared on the national scene as the most important issue of that time and the victory of the Union forces in the Civil War decided the future of the government of the United States to be federalist because of the Civil War Amendments introduced after the war. The thirteenth and the fourteenth amendments made the federation more strong and the limitations put on the federal government under the Bill of Rights were also put on the state governments. The following years saw a balance between the federation and the states and many laws were introduced to make federation stronger, some of them were overturned by the Supreme Court following the policy of dual federalism, however all these developments made federalism in the United State stronger and more acceptable to the people (Zimmerman). Federalism in the Twentieth Century The Great Depression and the subsequent economic recovery added to the strength of federalism as a system of government in the United States. The economic recovery required the nation to act as a single unit and various states had to collaborate with each other and all this was carried out through a strong central government. The nation developed new bonds of nationhood and discovered the benefits of striving for the common good. This was for the first time in the history of United States that the nation came to know about the actual benefits of federalism and a strong central government which can ensure national unity and collaboration. During the middle part of the 20th century the federal system of government gained more stability and the central government was made stronger through the Supreme Court rulings on various cases which included racial discrimination, child labor and trade policies. By the end of the century, another wave of support for strong state power emerged in the country and laws were formulated, however the central government and thus federalism has gained immense strength and stability by that time and the nation has accepted federalism as the most feasible system of government in the country. Conclusion Despite strong opposition from the anti-federalists, federalism has emerged to be the most feasible system of government in the United States because of the high level of flexibility it offers in power sharing between the central government and the governments of the states. The concept of striving for a common good serves as the motivating force for states to compromise certain powers. Federalism creates a political environment in which the states can work together by minimizing their limitations with regards to resources and thus ensuring better development and progress. The fact that the central government safeguards the rights of all the states in the international scenario entitles it to practice more powers than the states and the greater burden of responsibility put on the central government makes it acceptable for the states to grant more powers to the central government. Nevertheless legislation is a continuous process and its continuity allows everyone to defend his rights, and federalism is the most flexible system of government in this regard. Creating a balance between responsibilities and the powers allocated to governments, federalism provides the best mechanism for the division of power in a country. Works Cited Amar, Akhil. Americas Constitution: A Biography. N.p.: Random House Publishing Group, 2010. Print. Caramani, Daniele. Comparative politics. 2nd ed. N.p.: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. The Constitution of the United States and Other Historical American Documents. N.p.: Cosimo Inc., 2010. Print. Freely, Malcolm, and Edward Rubin. Federalism: political identity and tragic compromise. N.p.: University of Michigan Press, 2009. Print. Holdstedt, Melissa. Federalism: history and current issues. N.p.: Nova Publishers, 2006. Print. May, Christopher. Constitutional law national power and federalism: examples and explanations. N.p.: Aspen Publishers, 2007. Print. Pennington, Mark. Comparative Politics. N.p.: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2009. Print. Smith, Jennifer. Federalism. N.p.: UBC Press, 2005. Print. Zimmerman, Joseph. Contemporary American Federalism: The Growth of National Power. N.p.: SUNY Press, 2009. Print. Read More