Comparative Politics

B17(a) - Federalism, Governance, and Identity: Comparative Perspectives

Date: Jun 5 | Time: 10:15am to 11:45am | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Shirley (Xinyi) Cai (McGill University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Abelardo Gómez Díaz (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

From Reluctant Federalism to Cooperative Federalism: A Comparative Study of India and South Africa: Alisha Dhingra (University of Delhi)
Abstract: The early scholarship on federalism recognized United States of America as an ideal case of federalism which stemmed from the fact that United States of America was a forerunner both in the theory and practice of federalism. The Federalist Papers that guided the constitution-making in United States of America served as a classic treatise on federal discourse. However, the federations that have developed post second world war have adopted several features which distinguish it from the U.S. model of federalism. One of the breakthrough in federal theory and practice was the Indian model of federalism that differed significantly from the dual sovereignty model of United States of America. The hegemony of the US over federal discourse made scholars such as K.C. Wheare describe India as a quasi-federation. Echoing this view, scholars in South Africa have described it as an example of reluctant federalism. There are interesting parallels in the views and approach of constitution-makers in India and South Africa towards the issue of federalism. The constitution-makers in both countries favored a reluctant model of federalism for two reasons, first the fear of instability and breakdown and second the goal of transforming society in an egalitarian direction which required a strong centralized state. However, on a closer look the constitutional texts of both India and South Africa reflect a model of cooperative federalism. The journey of Indian federalism has been an interesting one culminating in the era of cooperative federalism notwithstanding some arenas of conflict and tension between center and states. On the other hand, South African federalism is in its nascent stage and has not been able to materialize the spirit of cooperative federalism inherent in the South African constitution. The paper would compare both the texts of the constitution and the emerging practices in both these countries and reflect on their potential to offer global south perspectives on federalism and dehegemonize the comparative federal theory.

Federalism and Democracy: A Comparison of Electoral Participation in Federal and Unitary States: André Lecours (University of Ottawa), Daniel Stockemer (University of Ottawa), Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau (University of Ottawa)
Abstract: Federalism is typically associated with democracy. One important argument about the relationship between federalism and democracy is that federalism allows for multiple arenas for representation, deliberation, and collective decision-making. Implicit in this argument is the idea that federalism should stimulate electoral participation at the regional level since federal systems feature constituent units that have constitutional standing, are sovereign in their constitutionally-specified fields of jurisdiction, and possess legislative powers in those fields. This paper tests this hypothesis by comparing voter turnout at the constituent unit/regional level in federal and unitary states. Using turnout data from 32 countries and 463 constituent/regional units, we compute a linear regression model with regional turnout as the outcome variable and region-level fixed effects. Our results indicate that voter turnout at the constituent/regional level is higher in federal states compared to unitary states with no distinguishable differences in federal/state-level turnout. Through a linear regression model with the difference in federal/state and constituent/state turnout as the outcome, we further demonstrate that the gap between federal/state-level and constituent unit turnout is smallest in federal states, even when controlling for economic performance, compulsory voting, and the presence of regionalist parties. These findings provide empirical evidence that the federal model encourages electoral participation, and they support the idea that federalism meaningfully benefits democratic life. As such, this paper contributes to scholarship on federal studies and on political participation, and it informs, from a public policy perspective, processes of state restructuring in the context of transitions towards democracy.

Between Sovereignty and Dependency: Governance and Identity in Sub-National Island Jurisdictions: Gary Wilson (University of Northern British Columbia)
Abstract: Small island jurisdictions around the world struggle to maintain their autonomy and distinct identities in the face of internal challenges, powerful external forces and existential threats such as climate change. Although some small islands are sovereign states, a status that reinforces their autonomy within the international order, the majority are sub-national island jurisdictions (SNIJ) that have political, economic and social connections to larger “host” states. Also referred to as federacies, SNIJs occupy a jurisdictional middle ground between sovereignty and dependency that presents both opportunities and challenges. Using an analytical framework that is grounded in the literatures on island studies and federalism studies, this paper will compare the political, economic and social features of several SNIJs in the North Atlantic region, including two federacies (the Faeroe Islands and the Isle of Man) and two less autonomous island jurisdictions (the Shetland Islands and the Orkney Islands). The analysis will focus on four criteria: the structure of their internal governance institutions and jurisdictions (self-rule); their external relations with their host state (shared rule); their level of economic development and independence; and their political culture, demographic characteristics and identity. Based on these criteria, the paper will compare the institutional and societal circumstances of each SNIJ with a view to assessing the ways in which they have attempted to navigate a jurisdictional path between sovereignty and dependency.