The History and Definition of Federalism - Essay Example

Introduction Today when we look around the globe, there are many countries that are way too big for just one political administration to control allaspects of each states functions and operations. By distributing the functions of the government between each state, it is far more achievable and therefore this type of process is called “de-centralization” (Rodden et al, 2003, p. 03). These various forms of de-centralization are done by systems of the national government which in turn gives it a multi-functional autonomy with the decision making process. When we inspect these multi forms of processes of de-centralization, the one that reflects as the dominant and functional form is federalism; this is where the legal sovereignty is shared between the central government and the national or regional governments. As the American nation was in its infancy, the debate that took place was over what would become of the United States government that we know today. Also which framework or in this case which form of government will it be? Madison mentions that the nation back then was split between two groups; the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, in the case of one group was pro Constitution and the other group opposed it (Madison et al, 1987, pp. 2-5). Since the American nation had a well-documented history of it becoming a federalist sovereign state, we will focus on its past and present considering that the theory of federalism has been proven for over two centuries. Within this context, it is found that federalism is the most efficient manner of dividing political power in a democracy. This essay will illustrate how the U.S. government considered that federalism was the best choice for the American nation. In this paper we will help define federalism in the first body paragraph and the argument according to it as well. It will be broken down into two parts which the second one will discuss the history of federalism. We will move on from there to the second body paragraph that will contain a refutation of the opposition of my argument which clear examples of criticism will be provided. Following that we will get to the third and last body paragraph which will contain information and examples of the validity of my argument. Thus we will be ending it all with a conclusion which will encompass my argument and the summarization of this essay. Part I: Definition of Federalism Wachendorfer defines Federalism as a principle by which the powers of the government are divided so that the national and regional governments are each co-ordinate and independent (Wachendorfer, 2005, pp. XIV-XV). The majority of the people agree that it is an association of states, which has common purposes, and the member states retain a certain amount of their independence. In this case the central government is independent on certain matters, and the state governments are independent to a certain extent as well. In the world that we know today, there are three types of governments in place; Unitary, Confederal, and federalism. When we discuss about the first one which is the Unitary type of government it simply implies that power is held at the national level, minimal power in places such as political subdivisions, provinces, counties, or towns (Wachendorfer, 2005, pp. 4-5). Perfect examples of the countries that follow this type of government rule are: Japan, France, Sweden, and Saudi Arabia. The Confederation form of government means that there are equal states, power held at the national level. Usually conflicting interests lead to the ruin of confederations (Wachendorfer, 2005, pp. 5-6). Some forms international associations that still use this form of government can be seen as: the United Nations, and the European Union. Lastly this is the third system the federal system. Federalism divides the power between federal and state governments. The national government has some significant power, but there are smaller subdivisions that have some significant power as well (Wachendorfer, 2005, pp. 6-7). Some primary examples of countries that operate in this system are: The United States, Canada, Australia, Nigeria, India, and Germany. Part II: History of Federalism Federalism in essence within the United States has evolved since it was first implemented in 1787. In America, Leibiger mentions that federalism exists as a contract, which helps the states to create a central government with limited functions. The Constitution itself is built around the concept of separation of powers, and a system of balance in the United States (Leibiger, 1993, p. 443). The Founding Fathers helped create the Constitution in order to replace the weak confederation since the Declaration of Independence. On September 17, 1787, the U.S. Constitutional Convention met and was supposed to revise the Articles, instead they ended up making fundamental changes. Leibiger adds that many debates and arguments ensued about the benefits and risks of federalism in comparison to the Confederal government that was in place at the time. Eventually this did lead to the creation of the Constitution in 1789 (Leibiger, 1993, p. 444). In general, the United States government operates under the presumption of a cooperative federalism. The United States, Canada, and Australia are examples of federal systems. Each country has a positive and negative spin on how to interpret federalism, and of course it depends on the nation, the people, and its political subdivisions. No one country is better than the other; in this case it’s a matter of opinion on which one is far better evolved and which one operates better. The United States in this particular case has a very rich history on the evolution of federalism, under the British unitary system they were only a series of colonies and nothing more. After the Revolution, the United States turned into a confederation with the aid of the Articles of Confederation, but when that became a failed system, they had to find a new one that would help them prosper which in this case it was transformed into a federal system by the Constitution (Leibiger, 1993, pp. 449-450). Of course, there were people who opposed such a system who were known as the anti-federalists which claimed that a central government would ruin the balance of powers between the states. Refutation of Federalism During the period of the United States Constitution of 1787-1789, a significant debate began concerning both opposition and support of the proposed federalist government. There were two types of groups the Federalists, supporters of the Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists the ones who opposed it (Ketcham, 2003). The debates consisted primarily of the role and form of government, political sovereignty, and the rights of man. Each side had rendered valid arguments both in favor and opposition of the nation’s constitution. In general both sides agreed on principles such as; liberty, and political salvation. With the disagreements between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, the first issue was the amount of power that the central government should have. The second issue was that the Anti-Federalists desired a written Bill of Rights with the Constitution to ensure the liberty of the people against any type of tyranny. The third issue was of how the nation’s people would be represented (Ketcham, 2003). Federalism does have its disadvantages, with a larger bureaucracy and more people involved in the decision-making process. Because there are far too many people involved in the decision-making process, a major disadvantage of federalism is the slow response to crises by the central government (Ketcham, 2003). Longer periods of time in alertness and action by the authorities that govern it, thus were making the state vulnerable. The federal government did not have enough power at that time to oversee and control small outbursts of the people’s rebellion. Shay’s Rebellion, was undoubtedly one of the best examples of how the system was weak and unorganized in controlling the situation. Szatmary executes an analysis of what truly happened during that rebellion, he says that it was an armed uprising of Yeoman farmers in, Massachusetts. This rebellion was fueled by a poor economy which was created by the inability of the federal government to deal effectively with the debt from the American Revolution (Szatmary, 1980, pp. 19-22). The federal government was incapable of creating an army to silence the rebellion; in this case Massachusetts was forced to raise its own military. The Anti-Federalists understood federalism as a division of political authority between the states. Each colony would be a separate sovereignty and each state would be its own primary actor. As Ketcham states that it is unfortunately what they saw federalists proclaim was a transition that invited all manner of ruin to unfold in the nation’s future (Ketcham, 2003). As it is documented within history, the Federalists eventually won the fight over the Constitution. Although the Federalists won, the principles of those who opposed the Constitution, resides in the Bill of Rights. The government of today is a mechanism that is complex, politically-motivated, and has not yet despite all arguments fell into tyranny as the Anti-Federalists feared. Validity of Federalism Merging all of the states into one meant a relinquishment of sovereignty; this affected the rights and powers of the people. Madison states that Federalists in their mind believed the proposed division of a national government from the state governments was beneficial to the United States of America (Madison, 1987, pp. 2-3). There are many ways of how a Federal system is chosen; it may include the size of the nation or the diversity of the political subdivisions. The United States has been able to combine both because a unitary system was impossible, and the interests of the States due to the confederation were impossible as well. This in turn made federalism by far the only logical choice. Madison mentions that the Articles of Confederation were finally ratified by the American states at Maryland, in 1781 and became the ruling document in the new nation (Madison, 1987, pp. 1-2).The state governments were able to retain most of the power under these Articles, and little power was given to the central government. Due to these Articles the central government was not able to do much let alone it had minor respect because it had little authority over the states or individuals in America. Million shows a good example of how well federalism aided the American federalist states during the National Bank Acts of 1863 and 1864. It was a fundamental success during World War I in which a system of federal banks aided farmers, and to promote home ownership (Million, 1894, pp. 255-257). Another example of a fundamental valid federalism is when Cross talks about the “Morrill Land-Grant Acts” which Congress used land sale revenues to make grants. By providing land sale revenues to the states, they helped aid primary schools which in turn federal grants multiplied, thus utilizing and helping the general the general welfare of the population (Cross et al, 2012, Chapter 2, para. 47). Washington expanded its role in disaster relief for areas affected by hurricanes, floods, dry crops or other natural disasters, which aided the affected areas. The national government in essence must carry out a certain level of authority, and if it wouldn’t then the new nation would not survive. On a final note the fact that the current U.S. government system has been able to last as long as two hundred years is a testimony in itself as to how well federalism has been implemented and how it carried out its numerous functions. Conclusion In this paper we have been able to prove that the argument at hand which is that federalism is the most efficient way of dividing political power in a democracy. By first analyzing the concept of federalism and then gaining its history we were able to understand the meaning of it. Later in the paper we examined some refutations as to why federalism is not a good form of government but yet the arguments presented against it were minimal and didn’t have enough solid ground to reject its working concept. Lastly the argument that validated its importance of federalism had some fundamental examples of its usefulness as a system and undoubtedly its survival of more than two hundred years proves to be resilient. The concept of federalism exists on mutual co-operation between the various levels of government. They are co-ordinate with the central, federal government. The federal system in the United States has several advantages, and there are also quite a few disadvantages. Federalism is a constitutional phenomenon, and disagreements will continue to form over the balance of power between the central and national governments, but the political system will continue to be adaptive and flexible as it has in the past. Total Word Count: 2104  Bibliography Cross II, C. F., & Cross, C. F. (2012). Justin Smith Morrill: Father of the land-grant colleges. MSU Press. Ketcham, R. (2003). The anti-federalist papers and the constitutional convention debates. Penguin. Leibiger, S. (1993). James Madison and Amendments to the Constitution, 1787-1789:" Parchment Barriers". The Journal of Southern History, 441-468. doi: 10.2307/2210003 Madison, J., Hamilton, A., & Jay, J. (1987). The federalist papers. New York: New American Library. Retrieved November 02, 2014, from http://www.crestwoodlclsd.beta.schools.bz/userfiles/620/Classes/29024/The%20Federalist%20Papers.pdf Million, J. W. (1894). The Debate on the National Bank Act of 1863. The Journal of Political Economy, 2(2), 251-280. Retrieved November 02, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1819470 Rodden, J., Eskeland, G. S., & Litvack, J. I. (Eds.). (2003). Fiscal decentralization and the challenge of hard budget constraints. MIT Press. Szatmary, D. P. (1980). Shays' Rebellion: The Making of an Agrarian Insurrection. University of Massachusetts Press. Wachendorfer-Schmidt, U. (Ed.). (2005). Federalism and political performance. Routledge. Read More