SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS OF FEDERALISM

SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS OF FEDERALISM

Arguably, the most authoritative explanation of federalism is that presented by one of

the iconic researchers of federal political systems in the twentieth century- Kenneth C.

Wheare. According to Wheare, federalism is a system of government in which there is, “a division of functions between co-ordinate authorities, authorities which are in no way subordinate one to another either in the extent or in the exercise of their allotted functions”.14 In achieving this kind of arrangement, Wheare submits that there would be “the

method of dividing powers so that the general and regional governments are each, within a sphere, coordinate and independent”. The author list the following as theessential ingredients of federalism:
a. Division of power among other government;

b. A written constitution showing the division of powers;

c. Coordinate supremacy of two order of the government, with regards to their

respective functions.

Inherent in Wheare’s explanation of federalism is the existence of a peculiar kind of value system that guides political interactions within independent States, and sometimes, between independent States. In effect, the emphasis here is on the existence of political interaction that takes a cultural garb, which the citizens rely on to advance their national cause, and through which national aspirations are attained.

This culture is embedded in the notion of autonomous existence of the layers of government (at least two, but could sometimes be three), and the overarching coordinate relationship such that none of the layers of government has theconstitutional right to lord it over others. Critics have however described Wheare’s explanation of federalism as the institutional approach to federalism, which they argue is legalistic and restrictive. The argument is that the explanation does not take cognizance the peculiarities of federal political systems on the basis that, not all political systems are same. Furthermore, there is also the import of ignoring the socio-cultural peculiarities of the people. In essence, the bonds that tie different people together, for which they seek accommodation within a

single political system are as varied as the number of states in existence. Thus, while these sets of political systems may adopt a system that recognises the existence of more than one layer of government, the patterns of practising federalism are varied.

15 Instructively, while Wheare’s definition of federalism may be the most authoritative, other scholars have attempted to situate the federal political arrangement within the

context of the existence of levels of authorities within a State, that focus their coordinate relationship on mutual concerns for achieving national aspirations. While Wheare’s efforts is said to rely heavily on constitutional provisions, while ignoring the

sociological dimensions of federalism, Livingstone’s efforts is regarded as being mainly focussed on dissecting federalism as a function of social diversity rather than of constitutional architecture. Accordingly, Livingstone explains the concept of

federalism as a political system that take cognizance of the sociocultural environment, hence the processes and structure of the federal political system should be synchronized to suit the character of the socio-cultural environment. In effect, salient issues, such as; the historical political development, system of government, institutional structures of accommodation, among others, must be considered in the workings and processes of federalism. This point of departure buttresses the point that there is no true federalism. Aside of the provision for the structure that are common to

federal political systems, and which differentiates them from unitary systems, the practise of federalism is basically designed to fit into the uniqueness and peculiarities of individual federal political systems. This is because the pull-issues, and the union

and separateness-induced prerequisites for federalism are different in federal states. From the foregoing, it is made clear that the practise of federalism is non-uniform. Accordingly, Linder (1994: 156) submits:... there is no common model of federalism, but a rich varietythat depends not only on political structures and processes buton cultural variety and the socio-economic problems a society

has to resolve. Watts (1999: 6) also lends credence to this by arguing that: “There is no single pure model of federation that is applicable anywhere in the worlds”. As such, federalism is

patterned in accordance to the nature of challenges that brought the federal option into 16 consideration in the first instance. Despite this though, two broad variants of federalism have been identified, these are the: Anglo-Saxone viewpoint and the European viewpoint. It is contended that the Anglo-Saxone idea of federalism is heavily skewed in favour of political considerations, while the European idea is more of the legal conceptualisation of federalism. The major difference in both viewpoints of federal political arrangement, and lastly, present in tabular forms, the various states

that fall within each federal system.