(The following is the first excerpt on ROAR’s on Federalism)

LIKE “democracy”, federalism in its modern incarnation was the consequence of a polity dealing with an historical contingency – in this instance Britain’s 13 colonies in North America deciding to form “a more perfect union”.

Unfortunately, the American experience has resulted in most persons focusing on the structural, territorial aspects of federalism – federalism as a form of government - even though some of the early American political theorists gave much broader rationales for introducing the concept.

The Swiss, however, not long after the US, adopted federalist principles that went beyond mere governance issues and dealt with the question of “national identity and culture” in a multiethnic society, and forged a most stable society and state.

Just as with “democracy”, the application of federalist principles will have to be sensitive to the nuances of the particular society as to which aspect of this omnibus concept should be stressed.

Federalism is not just a form of government; any “form” of human organisation is under girded by an ideology or philosophy about how human societies can and ought to be organised.

“In its most general and commonly conceived form, federalism can be considered as an ideology which holds that the ideal organisation of human affairs is best reflected in the celebration of diversity through unity.” Federalism, then, has its particular perspective on governance, to achieve stability with justice in pursuit of the good life - the objectives of most human communities. Federalists are sensitive to the Kantian caution that “ought” implies “can”, so that an understanding of the empirical conditions of the society under consideration is an absolute prerequisite, since each society will have its own idiosyncratic enabling or retarding institutions and structures.

And it is for this reason that we have spent such a considerable time on describing the Guyanese reality.

While it may not be a “purely self-referential” political philosophy, federalism does have a substantive as well as procedural or structural/institutional component.

The substantive aspect concerns itself with the sociological values that the groups in the particular society seek to realise, while the procedural component focuses on processes, institutions and organisational forms that the groups in society may utilise to realise their values by living together.

Substantive Aspects of Federalism: Sociological Federalism

Substantively, Federalism is centred on the values of liberty and freedom and seeks to give life to those democratic values by integrating diverse groups within societies through accommodation, and not obliteration of their differences.

In the post-modern, post-colonial world, there is not only an acceptance, but a celebration of diversities. Even a staid British expert pronounced, as far back as the middle of the last century, that “one of the most urgent problems in the world today is to preserve diversities…and at the same time, to introduce such a measure of uniformity as will prevent clashes and facilitate cooperation. Federalism is one way of reconciling these two ends.”

Federalism thus seeks to achieve and maintain unity and diversity: it addresses the innate need of people (and politics) to unite for common goals and yet to remain separate and preserve their respective integrities.

Federalism means organising our society around the principle of freedom and autonomy rather than through the calculus of bureaucratic efficiency.

From this perspective, federalism demands quantum changes in our conceptions about means and ends in politics.

Federalism keeps in focus at all times this concern about means and ends and insists that we cannot intend to have people live in democracy and freedom, while utilising institutions that stifle and restrict the liberty of the people.

In general there is an inevitable lag between the institutions honed during times of more restrictive conceptions of human freedom and the more expansive ones prevalent today.

In Guyana, federalist principles would have to infuse the new political culture to give life to the values of democracy, while institutional changes would have to nurture and inculcate these new values at the personal, social and ideological levels.

Federalism deals directly with the fact of pluralism in the post-modern world. John Rawls elaborates on the rationale for this reality so well, that it is worth an extended quote:

“The diversity of comprehensive religious, philosophical and moral doctrines found in modern democratic societies is not a mere historical condition that may soon pass away.

It is a permanent feature of the public culture of democracy. Under the political and social conditions that the basic rights and liberties of free institutions secure, a diversity of conflicting and irreconcilable comprehensive doctrines will emerge, if such diversity does not already exist.” (my emphasis)

While there will be many expressions of diversity, from a political perspective, we have seen that in the post modern world, ethnicity has become the most widespread one, leading to severe strains and conflicts in many countries that are attempting to pursue democratic norms. Federalism also addresses this seemingly inevitable and intractable conflict between nationalism/ethnicity and democracy.

It combines kinship (the basis of ethnicity) and consent (the basis of democratic government) into politically viable entities through constitutionally protected arrangements, involving territorial and non-territorial politics. This is the central need of politics in Guyana.

In the modern world where groups, especially ethnic groups, have not disappeared into some sort of mélange, and there are far more groups in the world than countries, federalism performs a sociological function by simultaneously facilitating the integrity of various groups and their input into the political system.

Thus federalism combines the seemingly contradictory impulses present in all societies, but accentuated in plural societies such as Guyana, the need to be united (the principle of solidarity – and shared rule) and the need for groups to live authentically – (the principle of autonomy – self rule).

To satisfy the first need, societies have to engender a unity of purpose to ensure effective governance and this inevitably leads to some form of concentration of power - but with federalism, this is achieved by shared rule, under a contractual basis. On the second societal need, federalism facilitates the freedom and liberty to make choices; and this inevitably means a diffusion of political power in some sort of shared-rule.

In organising around the principle of autonomy, federalism achieves a political compromise – union with autonomy, unity with diversity. (To be continued)