A Response to Richard Vernons Article The Federal Citizen Essays

A Response to Richard Vernons Article The Federal Citizen Essays A Response to Richard Vernons Article The Federal Citizen Essay A Response to Richard Vernons Article The Federal Citizen Essay In this response I will attempt to prove that federalism is not an ideologically determined system, and that the basis of its structure is visible in all types of political orientation, such as the United States, the former Soviet Union and Canada. In this response to Richard Vernons article The Federal Citizen, I will attempt to prove that the essence of federalism is actually a general theme that is available for extraction in all levels of human interaction, from the individual in society to the highest level of supra-government. As Vernon concludes, the three conceptions which necessitate federalism as a constitutional entity are; democratic responsiveness, the openness of choice of identification, and the preservation of politics from (unqualified) nationalism.1 To begin an assessment of Vernons argument for federalism it is first necessary to have a working definition of what this system is and what the goals of its implementation are. It appears to be the idea of dual citizenship, which distinguishes the aspirations of federalism from other systems. This entails belonging to an upper-level national government as well as identifying oneself with a sub level provincial or territorial government. While this is generally agreed to be the goal of federalism, its implementation and even its purpose have been consequently stretched to all shades of the political spectre. Being a broad and loosely defined doctrine, I have chosen to divide my assessment of federalism into four sections, defined as an ideology, a political tool an individual modus operandi and as an economic model. Vernons own definition appears to fulfill the ideological perspective quite neatly and requires no further introduction. As a political tool, federalism attempts to strike a balance between the powers of governmental levels as well as providing representation for majority and minority groups simultaneously. For the individual, federalism can be viewed as a method of placing oneself in the context of ones community and nation simultaneously and separately. The economic view of the federal model is a theory for maximizing utility, in monetary and social forms, while minimizing the costs to create an optimally efficient entity. Two popular forms of federalism which can be inspected from these four perspectives are inter and intra-federalism. Inter-state federalism supports strong decentralized provincial governments where the upper level government serves to monitor the activities of the sub level governments and lead the pursuit of general common goals. From an ideological perspective, inter-state federalism avoids the problem of monarchies and empires that have a centralized structure, which makes them vulnerable to revolution or attack at a single geographical point, the Roman Empire would be a suitable example of such a system. The political analysis reveals that this breed of federalism can lead to an insulation of the individual provinces and, as in the case of Quebec, may cause individual provinces to seek secession from the federal government. It would also appear that minorities within the provinces themselves would not have as high a chance of assistance from the federal government, which would be effectively subservient to the combined powers of the provincial governments. From an individual point of view, a citizen would be more concerned with the political occurrences of her own province and feel a general apathy toward political action at the highest level as well as a disinterest in international politics. A modern example of one of the shortcomings of inter-state federalism is available in the American Civil Rights movement. A deadlock between state and federal government in Alabama meant that racial segregation policies in schools were not officially ratified until 1968, a substantially long time if one considers the date at which Abraham Lincoln officially freed African Americans. This example indicates the general problem of a lack of responsiveness by government to implement immediately the ideological principles it bases itself upon. An economic critique of inter-state federalism reveals that the lack of unification will lead to a dis-economy of scale, meaning that resources that might have been saved through mass, or national, production were used inefficiently. Another interesting consequence of the economic model analysis, is that redistribution of goods or services by a more balkanized government, has the potential of favouritism between jurisdictional levels, assuming that territorial divisions create pockets of culturally or otherwise distinct groups who may be favoured over others. As the division of power gives more individuals the authority to distribute goods or services to smaller groups of individuals, it is assumed that an increase in favouritism will occur. On the other side of the spectre we find intra-state federalism, which concentrates combined regional interests at the centre of government. While in its most extreme form intra-state federalism is nothing more than pluralism, and therefore uninteresting to an exploration of federalism; paradoxically, not all its premises have been denounced. Even anarchist writers such as Proudhon, sought the influence of the intra-state upper level government in their political writings to act as a guarantor of civil liberties and minority rights. Of course, the centralized government from this perspective does not increase its democratic responsiveness to the individual citizen, nor does it protect its citizenry from unqualified nationalism. The argument of political thinkers such as Proudhon, and later George Woodcock, is that a nation-state is too vast and remote to serve the individual citizen adequately; the bureaucracy of large government is too inhuman to accommodate the needs and desires of the people it wishes to represent. Only by narrowing the focus and reducing the size of the government and its population can the institution of government be representative of its people. This theory is considered to be a co-operative model of federalism, where all actions of government are a direct result of popular will. Unfortunately, this theory does little to support the case of minority populations and would necessitate an environment of dispassionate compromise and would pose a threat to groups that tried to distinguish themselves culturally or otherwise. This model is contrasted by a political view of pluralism, where divisions of territory are seen not as cultural demarcations but as fractions of the whole system, where power is checked and balanced by other delegates of power. This picture conflicts with the intended co-operative spirit, and would be just as likely to lead to the restraining of beneficial government action as it would be to enabling it. A division of territory will inevitably lead to inequalities between provinces, consequently, if these divisions are placed in conflict with each other there will doubtlessly be victors and vanquished. It seems fantastic that a single political system could sustain being equally present on opposite sides of the political arena. To arrive any nearer the exact nature of what federalism represents it will be necessary to look slightly more philosophically at what exactly the implications of a multi-levelled government are. Throughout the arguments presented above, it would appear that the dualistic nature of self-identification has survived. I would presently like to propose that its survival is due to the fact that it is prevalent everywhere. The attitude of being from a country but a culturally distinct part of that country is not exclusive to federal nations. I myself being from Norway, consider Bergen my home, and culturally distinct from the rest of the nation. Similar cases are extant throughout the world, from London to Thailand, people will always find ways to distinguish and associate themselves. In terms of political interests, unitary countries often have a citizenry who are more acutely aware of developments on the national level not only of their own nation but of those around it as well. The development of the European Union has had a tremendous impact on how citizens of separate nation-states see themselves as a part of a whole, and the improvement and maintenance of that whole as a collective responsibility. To expand the argument outwards, the United Nations has the potential to unify all nations as subordinate entities. It would appear that federalism is not a necessary condition for a dualistic existence where an individual feels responsibility towards two separate political bodies; the evidence seems to indicate that many people exist on multiple levels of commitment and that the numbers of these allegiances are determined by ones own awareness of the world. I would propose that the theory of Vernons dualism could be transferred to the general principle of awareness, albeit in his case of a political nature. The only remaining arguments for federalism were the three presented at the beginning of this response, namely, democratic responsiveness, choice of identification and protection from unqualified nationalism. To argue against these points individually will require that they are accepted as legitimate claims, in spite of the fact that they all contain an ideological bias. If the premise that federalism is a system without ideological attachments is accepted then all three points become moot. However, I would like to argue that another outlook is available that achieves these apparent goals of federalism. It seems that at least two of the three ideological prerequisites for the existence of federalism, the choice of identification and the protection from unqualified nationalism, can be better and more precisely met by looking outside of the national arena altogether. By having a greater awareness of ones identity in a global context, one would be more free to choose which aspects of that identity one wished to represent and less inclined towards the celebration of one nation-state alone. As argued by Plato in The Republic, the structure of man and a community serve as interchangeable vehicles. Therefore, if it is possible to define a mode of behaviour on a personal level, that exact form is applicable in a proportionate dimension to nation-states or international organisations. The argument proceeds, that an analysis of a given political structure or society will reveal the form of the individuals within that society, in effect their social roles. It is on this principle that I believe the third goal of Vernons federalism is to be found. I would like to argue that the essence of democracy is a philosophical state of being with a pattern of behaviour associated with that state. It would be futile to look to the real world for a responsive democratic government, as with federalism, democracy has become an abstract notion that all countries of the world either title themselves or aspire to. We must therefore accept democracy as an abstract mental projection, an ideal form to which we find only distortions in reality. The essence of democracy is arguably somewhere in between fairness and justice; again two abstract projections neither of which can be said to have corresponding physical manifestations. Therefore, the implications of the term democratic responsiveness are much more complex than a mere streamlining of bureaucratic protocol. I will unfortunately, be unable to give any alternative to federalism for this goal, as I am u nsure of its exact meaning and of Richard Vernons intent when he stated it. The reason that I feel Vernon and his predecessors failed to disentangle themselves from the federalist notion was that they tried to build a framework specific to their political alliances. By setting ideological parameters on a universal principle such as awareness, they blinded their own awareness to the essential truth of what they were exploring. Instead of seeing the ability to juggle several conflicting alliances simultaneously as a natural and necessary condition of human and therefore societal existence, Vernon attempted to establish an absolute truth within a very specific theoretical framework. What he failed to realize was that this basic condition of awareness was the absolute truth and that it existed independent of any political system or framework. I would like to challenge Vernon to find any extant political or social system that could not be interpreted as having his general federalist structure. In conclusion, I would argue that the importance of federalism as a dualist system is a misconception and that all politically aware people exist and view themselves in a multi-levelled society. Vernons ideological claims are not best represented by federalism from an individualistic, ideological, economic or political standpoint. The basic tenants of federalism, as outlined in his closing remarks are not representative of the broad political spectrum which the system crosses. I believe that for federalism to become a concrete political system would require a much closer definition of its constitutional framework.