Benefits of Federalism

Jul 24, 2011 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

(We encourage politicians to think outside the box)

Even in a homogenous society, federalism offers many advantages over a unitary state structure. Following Montesquieu, James Madison of the US saw it as a device to split vertically, the powers of an always potentially tyrannical Government, controlled by a potentially tyrannical majority. (Much as the separation of Governmental powers into executive, legislative and judicial branches will do horizontally.)
In a plural society like Guyana, the benefits of federalism increase exponentially. Firstly, it abolishes “winner-take-all politics”, which is inherent in a unitary state structure, especially in the absence of national coalitions.
The zero-sum feature – that where there is a winner, there must be a loser – is what gives politics its life and death intensity in divided societies. With true multi-ethnic parties rare as fist-sized diamonds, the party in power is invariably seen as representing one ethnic group to the detriment of the others.
The PPP is seen, by most Guyanese as an Indian party, notwithstanding its Civic component in the Government – just as the PNC will be seen as “African” even though it is now ensconced in APNU. Federalism ensures that the political game becomes variable sum, in that every group is guaranteed at least something at the state level. For in a federalized Guyana, Africans will be guaranteed power in Demerara, Amerindians in Rupununi/Essequibo, and Indians in Berbice.
When Africanists such as Dr David Hinds reject the certainty of governing the most developed state of Demerara while having a chance to govern the entire Republic, it highlights their insistence on capturing the entire pie.
Secondly, when the centre does not possess all power, the struggle to control it will not be as intense. Additionally, since the electorate is now split, rivalry within ethnic groups [intra-ethnic rivalry], should increase since, for instance, Indian politicians dominant in Berbice and Essequibo, will see themselves as rivals for power at the centre.
This intra-ethnic rivalry should increase since, if particular ethnic groups are overwhelmingly dominant in separate states, they should not feel threatened by “out” groups. This removes the incentives to calls for “not splitting the votes”, and “vote for your own” (Aapan Jhaat). Conversely, rivalry between ethnic groups (inter-ethnic rivalry), should decrease due to the lessened possibility of a majority seizing all power for all time. Conflict is thus engineered away from the centre towards local levels, where the stakes are much lower and can be more easily contained – and also away from between ethnic groups, where the intensity can reach the most bestial levels.
Thirdly, federalism will encourage cooperation and coalitions at the centre, depending on the specific issue being debated there.
These coalitions can cut across ethnic lines due to the diverse demands that would emanate from the different states.
Berbice might have a common position with Demerara to push for the development of Bauxite let’s say, which may be opposed by Essequibo focusing on Gold.
This type of shifting alliance will introduce a fluidity to Guyanese politics which has never been present. As political parties move away from bipolar confrontation, towards a more multipolar balance, it should lower the temperature of polemics. After all, today’s rival may become tomorrow’s ally. It is in the negotiation of these issues that the bonds are forged between politicians, who may then proceed to more permanent relationships.
Fourthly, federalism reduces disparities between groups by actually forcing underrepresented groups to participate in government, education, economic development and all the other activities of the modern state. These groups will have the guarantee at the state level of receiving the experience which may catapult them into the national arena. All the rhetoric in the world, expressing concerns about the exploitation of Amerindian Guyanese, will not amount to more than a bucket of warm spit, unless we finally allow them to have the experience of actually running their own affairs. The Rupununi can become the first local state in the world, totally run by Amerindians.
Fifthly, a Federal structure will facilitate the formation of a second chamber in the legislature. Because, as we mentioned earlier, each state would have ethnically different majorities, the representation drawn from state constituencies would most likely reflect the ethnic diversity of our country.
This fortuitous circumstance gives us the opportunity of securing ethnic representation without resorting to devices such as separate electoral rolls. This second chamber should have the power to scrutinize all legislation in general, but specifically enumerated powers in reference to ethnic issues.
Sixthly, Federalism will further the democratic, political imperative to make Government more responsive and closer to the people. Local state Governments, being closer to the populace, should be more sensitive to the idiosyncrasies of its regions and citizens. The composition of police forces and cultural autonomy would be facilitated.
Federalism facilitates the principle of “unity in diversity” which is the only standard for a plural society. Fears about an increased bureaucracy are unfounded, since the staffing should not exceed that of the present regional system – only it should be more competent.

---

---