Autonomy and Regional Devolution - Report Example

Autonomy and Regional Devolution Autonomy and Regional Devolution Regional devolution may be defined as an act of legislative house of any sovereign country that creates or allow for the powers of the central government to be exercised at a sub national level for this case being a region on a “temporary” basis with the power remaining with the central government1. The central government may dissolve such arrangements whenever it deems appropriate and possible. Federalism on the other hand is almost similar to devolution in general except that for federalism, the devolved powers are entrenched in the constitution and not just a mere creation of the legislative assembly. Autonomy, on the other hand, is a policy of government in which governance is given to the people (self-governance). Federalism clearer definition may mean a system of government of a country under which there exist concurrent central government comprising executive and legislature and other state or regional legislatures with powers divided or shared between the central government and the other small regions2. It involves basic devolving of power to the smaller sub divisions of the main central government. The sole identification factor normally is the clear and official lines that separates the central government powers and the powers of the sub division which as stated above can be a county or a state. Normally, different governments use this system to increase confidence and morale of the conflicting individuals by giving or rather devolving some powers to them3. some scholars point out that federalism is normally used to bring confidence to people separated on by a regional geographical boundary especially for groups that may be at loggerheads on perception that one group is being a threat to the other. This arrangement makes the fearing party to feel less threatened. This then brings the challenge of other conflicts that are not geographically or territorial based like the cultural differences which may lead to clashes. The other challenge as noted by Horrowitz is that federalism normally come with costs that sometimes outweigh the benefits that a given group and by extension a central government derives from the arrangement4. The disadvantages may include the duplication of governmental roles hence attracting unnecessary spending by the national government and the sub division. T run a separate government within a government will normally attract costs which funnily may have been incurred by the central government. Example of countries that have tried federalism include Nigeria and india. Nigeria is the African country that tried this system that was started by the British and fully adopted by the government in the wake of the independence in the year 1960. Initially, the British created three regions but with independence, these regions were further subdivided into more divisions to satisfy or bar any conflict. These can be assumed so because most of these regions are reported to have been created as a result of demands by different ethnic groups. These demands were so much that by 1996, Nigeria had around thirty six different federal regions. Even though some scholars ague against the establishment of these many regions in Nigeria, Diamond has expressed support for the federalism in Nigeria saying that it was a necessary thing for Nigeria to avoid the central power wielding too much power. This was echoed by another writer, Akinrnade who stated that Nigeria in deed shows a need for federalism with central power having less power as opposed to the current state where too much power is wielded by the federal Nigerian government5. Another scholar who has also advocated for federalism in Nigeria is Rothschild who argued that forming federal units in Nigeria is a way of making Nigerian politics less threatening thereby improving inter-cooperation among different groups6. He however was very keen to point out that federalism should not be used as a way of solving inter-ethnic conflicts where the state does not equally allocate resources or act towards these groups equitably as this may lead to failure of the same. Rothschild explained that forming federal units and over relying on using them as a way of solving conflicts may with time lead undermining and belittling of the central government’s leaders and their authority7. These with time will or may lead to loss of confidence in the said leaders Federalism according to Lake and Rothschild, can fuel conflict soaring inter-ethnic clashes if a proper way of introduction is not applied8. Scholar Osaghae criticized federalism in Nigeria saying that it only favoured the powerful and the majority while neglecting the minority groups. He reasoned that even if ethnic groups are given autonomy, increasing such autonomy to certain regions does not fully address the concerns of the minority groups. India India is also one of the Asian countries that embraced the use of federalism with a constitutional tie and support. The Indian federation unlike the Nigerian one was formed with a close and well-knit strong center. This was probably motivated by the fact that its framers were knowledgeable of the Indian’s economic disparity. This was in terms of economic aspects as well as industrial advancement. Many regions were far much behind others in development hence the nation as a whole committed to a revolution of socio economic issues in India. This factor was also necessitated by the exit of British from colonizers from India and the subsequent independence of India in 1935. Another compelling factor to federalism is the diversity in culture, religion, languages and ethnicity. India also has a variation in the dominant races and which does not share political views, faith with different perception of federal issues. India is also very big geographically with a very big population thereby making it hard to use a central system of government for the whole territory. India and Nigeria share a common fact of being the world’s biggest federations with each country having a unique style and different success levels. In India, it was necessitated by the big geographical size and population. Administration of different states are allowed to use the group’s ethnic language while in Nigeria, the whole concept of federalism was crafted and implemented in a way that hampered democracy. Nigerian federalism was trying to show stability and in the process ended up denying the general pluralism and leading to a denial of the very democracy it targeted to uphold9. This originates from the Nigerian political economy which has been having flaws especially with the fight to control oil revenue. This coupled with the Nigerian military rule trying to make the oil business a monopoly business. This federal military government is reported to have manipulated the revenue allocation system thereby not accommodating plural interest. McGarry and O’Leary quotes the failed federalism in Asia and Africa to their non preference of the same for solving conflicts10. They however suggest that for it to work properly and successfully, amount of power shared should on a continuous basis, be renegotiated with supplementary measures being put to maintain stability at these sub levels of the central government. In fact, with proper measures like the above recommended ones, Federalism can always prove a better solution to countries experiencing inter-ethnic conflicts. Autonomy in Indonesia Indonesia is one of the many countries that have put a lot of preference in the centralized style of governance which they continued from the colonial master Dutch. However, efforts have always been made to introduce decentralization in forms of autonomy to the country as a way of solving conflicts that have continued to emerge. This is with regard to the groups like the Aceh and Papua. The government in an attempt to respond to secessionist quest in some provinces. This the government did not just propose and forget, they ensured this was legalized by enacting laws on special autonomy for Aceh and Papua under the presidency of Suharto in 1998. This is reported to have resulted in violent conflicts pitting security forces against advocators of independence11. Government on realizing the pressure that was continually increasing about secession, tried to divert the attention of the advocators by offering special autonomy to them instead. This special offer was to benefit the disadvantaged minority or regions. This policy has indeed been adopted by many governments making one of the many popular policies. As opposed to other governments like Somalia and Russia, Indonesia made this into law12. At the time of granting this special autonomy to Aceh and Papua, the central government depended on foreign aid especially foreign financing. Pressure was being mounted on the state by civil societies who were questioning the credibility of the state’s institutions, separatist’s movements and human rights challenges. This means by this time, the central government’s authority had been threatened and weakened. The government then granted this against the backdrop of opposition by the pro nationalist who were worried about this action going to set a bad precedent for other disgruntled provinces. These oppositions together with the wavering support of the government towards this course just weakened the support for autonomy. In fact, there was no proper legal frame work governing its implementation. This coupled with the corrupt government officials, made the debate to loose in favor of the opponents. From the experience of Indonesia, it is apparent that autonomy can’t be in itself a solution to a separatist movement hence there is the need to engage the leaders of the proponents of the movement on a serious note before granting the same. Secondly, autonomy has limits especially concerning using it as a way of resolving conflicts concerning secession and more so when it is passed when the government is suffering in the central authority13. Autonomy in Xinjiang This part of the paper analyses the autonomy with a special focus to the Uyghur people in the people’s republic of China in 1949. This case is reported to have portrayed government that wants to continue exercising its authority over a region with valid concerns and a people who are not as violent as is made to appear14. Initially, the political history of the Xinjiang was a little violent and has resulted into a new form of public protest and deadly conflicts in the near past that seem a little different15. The state on the other hand promised to grant a special autonomy to avoid discord and work towards resolving it. This is in line with the findings and recommendation of scholars, that autonomy can be used to solve conflicts between governments and minorities16. This problem of demanding autonomy and succession is attributed to the single party that has been the trend in China and its continued economic growth. The trouble in Xinjiang is suggested by some scholars to be related to the autonomy itself and not the grievances being peddled. Cornell claimed that systems of autonomy can by itself cause conflict17. In overall, the granting of autonomy did not very much have a solution to the conflict as had been perceived but has given rise to many issues that range to political activism within the Uyghur18. Works Cited Bovingdon, Gardner. 2004. "Autonomy in Xinjiang: Han Nationalist imperatives and uyghur discontent." Policystudies (East west center Washington). Bovington, Gardner. 2010. The Uyghurs-strangers in their own land. Columbia university Press. Gupta, Pravena. 2011. "Federalism: the new dimension in indian context." February 06th. Accessed June 5th, 2015. http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/mobile/articles/details.asp?mod-id=3480. Han, Ji Min. 2013. "Conflict management system and democracy in Multinational societies: A case study of india and Nigeria." Epik journals. Horrowitz, D.L. 1985. Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkerly: University of California. Lake, D.A, and D Rothchild. 1996. "The originsa and management of ethnic conflicts." international security. Madrid, Raul L. 2012. The rise of ethnic politics in Latin A merica. London: Cambridge University Press. McGibbon, Rodd. 2004. "Secessionist challengesin Aceh and Papua: Is special autonomy the solution?" Policy studies. Rothchild, D. 1997. Managing ethnic conflicts in Africa: Pressures and incentives for cooperation. Washington: Brooking Institution Press. Solomon, Hosein. 2001. "Transforming Ethnic conflicts." center for international political studies. Svante, Cornell. 2002. "Autonomy as a source of conflict ; caucasian conflict in theoretical perspective." World politics 24-76. Read More