DEMOCRACY AND FEDERALISM: IDENTICAL CONCEPTS

DEMOCRACY AND FEDERALISM: ARE THEY IDENTICAL CONCEPTS?

Anna Karamanou

(Notes, within the framework of the Master’s Program in “European and International Studies”, University of Athens, January 27, 2005)

INTRODUCTION

Under the current international conditions of economic globalization, as well as the increasing risks of destabilization and insecurity, a federation can contribute to a harmonious combination of democracy and effectiveness within a framework of multi-level governance. While I do not fully agree that the two concepts are identical, since each has its own history and theoretical interpretation, contemporary empirical analysis shows that in many cases, democracy and federation coincide. The issue of Federation currently dominates discussions on the future and constitutionalization of Europe, and personally, I believe it is the correct and beneficial choice. Certainly, from an individual perspective, there is no system that satisfies everyone equally and fully. Therefore, if democracy means compromise on differences and the satisfaction of needs, i.e., “unity in diversity,” then a Federation can be synonymous with democracy, for the reasons I will attempt to explain in the brief analysis that follows.

THE POSTWAR EUROPE

In postwar Europe, federalist ideas were expressed in many and different ways. They were initially supported primarily by citizens and groups who had acted during the war, often through resistance organizations, which later promoted the European idea. Although these federalist groups were very different from each other in terms of social background, ideology, and strategy, they shared a common disdain for the old European nationalism and the desire to build as quickly as possible the United States of Europe. In almost all Western European countries, federalist organizations were created immediately after the war. Among them, the Anglo-American Federal Union, the French Committee for European Federation, and the Italian Movement for Federal Europe were dominant. Most of these organizations united in the Union of European Federalists in August 1947 in Montreux. However, the influence these organizations had on later developments was very limited due to the differences and disagreements that arose among them.

For some, like the Gaullists, the prospect is very distant and depends on many changes at the level of the nation-state. For others, like the functionalists, a federal state is very likely but undesirable, while for the neo-functionalist group in Brussels, it is desirable but almost unattainable. Thus, regardless of the fate of the federalist organizations, many of their core ideas survived and remain at the center of today’s public discourse on European integration.

As a clear doctrine and belief, federalism in Europe has both pragmatic and academic aspects. By necessity, federalism has been the means through which specific political and administrative experiences from other regions of the world have been utilized to solve European problems. At the same time, many federalists have tried to develop a distinctly European federal model that reflects European traditions of political thought and social organization and suits modern conditions. Unfortunately, federalists had very limited influence on post-war political affairs, and this had serious consequences for the development of the analytical theory of the doctrine, which found itself in complete academic isolation. On the other hand, the difficulties faced by federalists stem from the dominance of the practical – pragmatic side of federalist thought. European pragmatists tend to take for granted the applicability of models and practices from the American experience or from comparative studies of federal systems. However, federalism, as a theory of unification, is much more relevant to the study of European politics than is often accepted.

THE THEORY OF FEDERATION

The federalist tradition has deep roots in Europe, tracing back to classical Greece. Edward E. Freeman wrote the historical work titled “Federal Government in Greece and Italy” in 1863. The tendencies or schools of federalist thought that developed in the Western world generally differ significantly. However, all share as a common denominator the emphasis on the element of freedom and democracy in any form of federal organization.

Kant, in his work “Perpetual Peace,” refers to the concept of federation as an organizational principle that leads to the limitation of the powers of the central authority and the achievement of world peace. Proudhon proposed a system of organizing the state and society into entities that would form a federation based on free contracts. One of the first references to federalism in political practice can be found in 1873, during the French Revolution, when Robespierre condemned attacks against the state as “la guerre civile et le fédéralisme.” In the mid-^18thcentury, the American experience of building the federal system reached Europe with the publication of A. De Tocqueville’s work “Democracy in America.”

Important theorists of the pre-modern and post-modern eras in Europe presented federalism as a solution to the major problems of their time. This occurred for a number of reasons, such as: the theory’s interest in the dialectic of power distribution within a cohesive political framework, the emphasis it places on internally structured democratic arrangements that link different levels of governance, its often flexible interpretation of the principle of sovereignty, its focus on constitutional issues that touch on sensitive areas of individual and collective freedoms, legislative representation, and the distribution of powers, as well as its deeper interest in how the demand for “unity in diversity” can be organized in a mutually acceptable and satisfying way (Tsinisizelis, 2001, “Quo Vadis Europa?”).

Federalism, however, does not originate from a single corpus of theory, and this helps in understanding the reasons for the internal differentiation between various federal systems. The tradition of federalist thought is divided into four main subcategories, which, according to Levi, are as follows:

1/ The “new federalism,” with characteristic examples being Germany and the USA. According to Vile, this is a system of governance in which the central and regional authorities are connected through an interdependent political relationship, so that the balance is maintained in such a way that no level of governance is able to impose its will on the other, but each can influence, persuade, and negotiate with the other.

2/ “Federalism as an ideology,” a trend primarily based on the contribution of Altiero Spinelli and his role during the 1950s, as well as on the Treaty Proposal for the EU presented by the European Parliament in 1984.

3/ “Federalism as a process,” a trend linked to the views of Friedrich, according to which federalism is a union of groups united on the basis of common values, goals, beliefs, and interests, and aims at highlighting and institutionally safeguarding the diversity of the components that make up a federation.

4/ “Total federalism,” a trend that discussed the possibility of a “total” arrangement of the political system and was considered a response to fascism.

The American influence on the body of federal theory has been particularly significant. The American federal system is usually recognized as a case of dual federalism, even though the federal constitution does not define in detail the powers of the federal and state governments. Article 10 delineates the powers of the two parties in a negative manner: any powers not assigned to the federation or prohibited to the states belong to the states (or the states). For example, the Constitution forbids the federal government from altering state borders and forbids the states from issuing currency. Cooperative Federalism – New Federalism.

U.S. Constitution = the revolutionary context of the time

In the development of federal ideas in Europe, the contribution of the Catholic Church as well as the Protestants should also be noted.

THE FEDERAL POLITICAL STRUCTURE

Primarily, it refers to the geographical distribution of powers, that is, between different geographic units, rather than the functional distribution. According to Friedrich, the geographical distribution of powers provides stronger guarantees for democracy than the functional distinction of powers. However, according to Wheare, in his classic work “Federal Government,” the federal principle implies the distribution of powers in such a way that both the central and regional governments operate within their respective competencies in a coordinated yet independent manner. This means that both the central and regional governments rely directly on the people, and that each citizen is simultaneously subject to two governments. This constitutes the fundamental difference between federal and confederal political organization. As Wheare emphasizes, what is necessary for a federal system is not simply the direct support of the central government by the people, but also its complete independence within the scope of its competencies and powers. In any case, a federation requires forms of political systems that have the characteristics of a “free democratic system and governance.” That is, it is impossible to form a federation between democracies and authoritarian or dictatorial regimes. Attempts to combine authoritarian and federal governance in the past (Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, etc.) proved to be unviable. Therefore, the federal system, by its nature, is an expression of democracy, so federalism and democracy are concepts that are identical.

The basic institutional and political characteristics that constitute the democratic nature of the federation are summarized as follows:

1/ Democracy – both the central and regional institutions are democratic.
2/ Rule of Law – the rules of law define the relationships between the central authority and the individual units.
3/ Application of the law – it is applied uniformly to all members of the federation.
4/ Independent legislative institutions – the central legislative institutions have powers that are independent from the institutions of the individual units.
5/ Constitutionally defined distribution of powers, competencies, and responsibilities.

Indeed, the intersection between federalism and democracy lies in the ability of the federal system to maintain its cohesion without compromising the interests of the components that make it up. In other words, the theory of federation emerges as a “living, pluralistic, and organic political order from the bottom up.”

Federalism, as a multi-level political structure, is based on a constitutional framework of decentralization and exclusive or concurrent competencies aimed at serving the interests of the federal “demos.”

THE FEDERAL IDEA IN THE DIALOGUE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF EUROPE

The federalization of Europe recently came to the forefront of political debate, mainly due to the speech by Germany’s Foreign Minister J. Fischer in May 2000 at Humboldt University in Berlin, where he proposed the transformation of the EU into a federation. That speech sparked a wide public discussion about the meaning, content, advantages and disadvantages, as well as the feasibility of federation.

The EU today does not seem to meet the criteria of a federation. The system is dramatically imbalanced, with three institutions forming the executive branch (the Commission, the Council, and the European Council) and a much weaker institution representing the legislative part (the Parliament).

The European Constitution is in the process of ratification after its signing on October 29, 2004, in Rome. In my opinion, the Constitution constitutes a significant contribution towards the development of the “federal and social European Union.” The Constitution (like any text of the Union) is a text with imperfections and deficits as it is the product of compromises and compositions of the negotiating process. As a result, it reflects the degree of political maturity of the European Union at that given historical moment. However, what matters is the direction in which it ultimately moves and the goals it serves. The Constitution includes many elements/provisions/articles, such as those I mentioned earlier, that certify the federal character and the social dynamics it opens up, as well as the strengthening of the international role of the Union on higher autonomy bases.