Category Archives: Federalism

The Nigeria Police is a primus interpares as regards what the Americans call homeland security. It is established by the law to inter alia maintain the law and order by detecting crimes, apprehending criminals and their subsequent prosecution, see Section 4 of the Police Act 2020. It is so privileged to perform these functions through a decentralised security architectural network across the geopolitical spaces within the country, with divisional offices and outposts spawning the length and breadth of the country, albeit, with insufficient manpower.

Over the years, the police used to be so effective that young children and even the adults of the olden days dread the men in Nigeria Police uniform armed with ordinary baton (kondo). The table has, however, tuned now even with their shakabula guns and the AK 47, nobody fears or accord them recognition. The seal for the law enforcement has even waned, and being substituted with the crave for economic benefits, apparently being faced with the current hard economic reality. Little wonders that the hunter has now become the hunted with proliferation of small arms and light weapons at the disposal of criminal minded individuals in cahoots with the bad elements in uniform. The resultant Hobbesian state is better imagined!

In Nigeria today, the atmosphere is charged and tensed with hues and cries of political gladiators goading the parliamentary moves for the establishment of state police in Nigeria. The tempo is high and the atmosphere is choking with endemic insecurity, primarily of lives and the apocalyptic boldness of its perpetrators with unmistaken clear objectives.

One may ask for the reason behind the hues and cries of political gladiators, and one may also be tempted to state that the people that matter in our country do not feel secured anymore, irrespective of their ever-vigilant security details and their perceived war chests appurtenant to their deep pockets. They probably reason that they need their own policemen, customised for the protection of their ill-gotten empires and political dynasty.

Why is this important? They reasoned that they need protection against the imminent evil of their oppressed subjects whose common wealth is unrepentantly being siphoned into private pockets leaving yawning gaps of immanent contradictions of underdevelopment.

One may then ask; is having a state police in Nigeria a bad idea? This is a big question that daily begs for answers. However, to answer this completely will warrant a deep excursion into the fons et origo (the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria). I shall come back to this later.

It is submitted that, having a state police translates into having a somewhat perfection of the Nigerian federal system in which powers and responsibilities typically devolve from the centre to the constituent units, where at least two levels of government coexist constitutionally.

Therefore, the creation of state police amounts to creation of more employment opportunities for the largely unemployable youths and sometimes few privileged political thugs.

This can either amount to positive engagement of criminal minded individuals by taking them off the streets in the short run and preparing them for officially sanctioned criminality in the long run, or a complete transformation of seemingly hopeless individuals to actors in state affairs where the issue of security matters. To this end, the quality of screening in the employment process will play a vital role in the determination of these two sets of policemen recruited.

Some advocates of the creation of the state police may have rightly argued that the recruitment should be locally sourced in which the advantages of native intelligence and uncommon sense of commitment and responsibility will result in nipping crimes in the bud. This is because a policeman who is a native of his station or post will be more willing to prevent crimes in the vicinity than a policeman who is not an indigene of the area.

On the other hand, it is not impossible that such natives are capable of using the mighty powers of being a cop to settle personal, family or communal disputes and vendetta so much so that they might assume the status of an indomitable worthy of worship in their spheres of influence, because the power attributable to having connection to the coercive apparatus of the state is infinite.

By and large, the localisation of recruitment of police personnel have its own challenges, and it can easily be abused. That apart, establishment of state police has its own inherent problems especially with regards to control, organisational structure, remuneration and so on. That being the case, certain questions naturally come to minds like: Would the establishment of state police amount to the enactment of constitutions for each of the federating units in Nigeria, leading to the emergence of a confederal arrangement?

How would the state police be remunerated?Are they to be paid from the unaudited and opaque monthly security votes exclusively accruable to the coffers of the state governors in Nigeria? Are they to be paid by a different arrangement as determined by the predilections of the state governors, or still by the federal government?

It is submitted that where the remunerations flow from the state governors, there is tendency that the state police can be used to muzzle political opponents within their domains, and the opposition parties, thereby capable of turning the state not only into a one-party-state, but also a gestapo fascist dynasty. In other words, state police is likely to be abused to the extent that it may not guarantee the safeguard of security for which it was established.

If not for the love of power! Are the state governors being sincere in this cause, when they are barely able to pay a Thirty-Thousand Naira (N30,000) minimum wage? Are some state governments not paying only a fraction of monthly salaries to their workers or do they liken the setting up of state police to the establishment of nursery and primary schools? It is submitted that the problems inherent in establishing state police are more than the advantages.

This is more so because experience has taught in this country that the governors are the most powerful political bloc under the present political setting in Nigeria. And times without number, they have effectively launched terrible attacks on certain policies and succeeded in killing them.

Examples of these naked powers can be seen in the way they muzzle the functionalities of the local government as a third tier of government and the killing of the constitutional amendment to make the judiciary, the local government and House of Assembly to have fiscal autonomy.

These are instructive of the magic wands at their disposal. To this end, in spite of the unflinching efforts of the Federal Government in ensuring financial discipline and local government autonomy.

This is through the National Financial Intelligence Unit guidelines backed up by the issuance of the Presidential Executive Order 10, refraining the state governors from spending from local government joint accounts, all the governors colluded in frustrating these lofty efforts by arm-twisting the Federal Government through legal battle. To be continued tomorrow. Akingbolu is a Public Affairs Analyst and a Human Rights Activist based in Lagos.

Read more here:

Federalism and the challenges of state police in Nigeria - Guardian Nigeria

Martin Van Staden is praised for his advocacy of federalism and home rule in South Africa, as highlighted by the Cape Independence movement. Despite doubts about the DAs commitment beyond economic interests, the movement sees potential in local elections shifting power dynamics, inching towards de facto independence. The vision echoes Olive Schreiners hope for a united, fearless future.

Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Registerhere.

Join us for BizNews first investment-focused conference on Thursday, 12 September, in Hermanus, featuring top experts like Frans Cronje, Piet Viljoen, and more. Get insights on electricity and exploiting SAs gas bounty from new and familiar faces. Registerhere.

By BizNews Community Member Chris

Good Morning.

Let me preface this by commending Martin on his ( and the FmF ) continual promotion of Federalism and Home rule ( power to the periphery )

In this regard and as it concerns the Cape Independence movement.

A wonderful opportunity to put the DA on the spot / call their bluff.

However I think that one needs to understand that the DAs prime role and main focus is to provide the political space in which large SA corporates can continue to make money in SA even a semi-functional SA

There will be NO referendum and likely NO attempt to introduce any mention of any form of Federalism !

As the election results of the Referendum party have shown .. When it comes to South Africans standing up and putting themselves on the front-line They are sadly lacking. Too comfortable , too worried about change and disturbing the status-quo.. When push comes to shove research polls and reality are not quite the same thing

See part two of Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged . People need to be forceds to be free !

HOWEVER

The collapse of Gauteng under Lesufi and the crooks and grifters as well as MK in KZN is going to give added impetus to greater semi-migration to the Western Cape.

IF one studied the 2024 national elections by ward in the Western and Northern Cape.

Read more: Imagine the Western Cape with federalism: Prosperity through autonomy Woode-Smith

One would be able to notice a number of small areas where should support for the DA increase. It would be possible for the DA to command both the complete Western and Northern Cape [ s }. Perhaps together with the FF+.

Should some of this semi-migration be attracted to these marginal spport / voting aras ( and carefully nurtured ) then the displacement of the ANC ( and others ) will happen organicaaly via the workings of Civil society..

With each municiaplity rid of the ANC then independence may well have arrived quietly and surreptitiously.

DeFacto even if not DeJure. Please see the byelection results in the Central Karoo DM..I would suggest that this is a much better path / project than the one on which the CIAG is currently busy. Which really just generates a lot of hot air and achieves little..

Read also:

Continued here:

MAILBOX - DA and IFP must show their dedication to Federalism - BizNews

Federalism has been a hot topic in Nigeria, with many calling for true federalism without fully understanding what it means. True federalism is often used in political discourse to advocate for an ideal balance of power between different levels of government. However, it is not formally defined in academic literature. Advocates refer to it as a perfect balance of power between national and subnational governments, which is more theoretical than practical.

In practice, federalism varies in degrees of centralisation and decentralisation, influenced by historical, political, and economic contexts. This makes true federalism an ideal rather than a realised state. But again, we do not live in an ideal world.

Federalism is not a fixed system; it adapts to the needs of each society. To put it in Feeleys terms, federalism is not a fixed ideology; it adapts to the needs of society. It can take many forms and I hope to give some perspectives here.

There is a form of federalism called dual federalism. This kind of system has clear divisions between national and state governments. Each level of government operates independently. This system ensures clarity and reduces overlap, making it easier to understand which level is responsible for what. However, this clarity can lead to rigidity. For example, if a national issue requires local intervention, dual federalism might struggle to adapt quickly.

Cooperative Federalism is a system that emerged during the Great Depression in the US. It helped respond to the crisis of that period when there was a low government intervention and the absence of a welfare state. This was when the US was accommodating Europeans and Latin Americans from different cultures. It involves collaboration between national and state governments on various issues such as education, transportation, and healthcare. However, this model can create bureaucratic confusion and power struggles between different government levels. It also blurs the lines of responsibility between governments.

Devolution is also a form of federalism classified under Centralised Federalism. It emphasises strong central government control. This is where powers are devolved to regional governments. For example, in the devolved governments of the UK, sectors like agriculture, mining and quarrying, education, health and the environment are devolved to regional governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These devolved authorities are primarily responsible for implementing the national policies.

Similarly, countries like France, Spain and Italy adopt this model where autonomous regions operate. This system can work in Nigeria, where uniform policies and coordinated efforts are applied across the nation. However, it often marginalises local autonomy and can lead to perceptions of over-centralisation, where regions feel they have little control over the affairs of certain issues. In Nigeria, Chieftaincy affairs can be classified under this system.

A system that encourages competition among states to attract businesses and residents will choose Competitive Federalism. The idea is that states will strive to offer better services and lower taxes to appeal to a mobile population. The US saw elements of competitive federalism, particularly during the Nixon administration in the 1970s and 1980s. On the contrary, this system widens inequality in a country. Wealthier states may prosper, while poorer ones struggle to keep up.

Some advocates for resource control have a tunnel vision for Fiscal Federalism. This system revolves around the financial relationships between different levels of government. It involves the distribution of federal funds to states through grants. These can be categorical grants that come with specific conditions attached or block grants that offer more flexibility. Fiscal federalism plays a crucial role in Nigeria, where the revenue-sharing allocation formula remains a contentious issue. But this is an issue for another day.

A relatively recently designed system is the Progressive Federalism. This system allows states to implement their regulations. This system allows states to adopt laws that conform to their culture and tradition, usually different from national standards. This allows for tailored policies that reflect local preferences and needs.

The Obama administration in the United States embraced this model, particularly in areas like environmental regulation. In Nigeria, the experimentation of Sharia Law, Hisbah, and Amotekun in selected states can be attributed to progressive federalism. States were able to experiment with different policies to see what works best. State policing laws will fall under this system.

In the 1980s, Americas Ronald Reagan advocated for New Federalism. His idea was to shift power back to the state governments to promote decentralisation. This was achieved through block grants from the federal government, which reduced federal oversight. The goal was to enhance state autonomy and reduce the federal governments role in local affairs. The idea was appealing for its emphasis on local control.

However, it risked undermining national unity. It promoted more individualism and competition. Of course, this was part of his neoliberal agenda, and the outcome ended with more regional inequalities.

For those advocating for governance reforms, it is important to understand that federalism must adapt to Nigerias unique challenges. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Federalism must be a living system that responds to the needs of its people.

So, whether we know much about federalism or know too little, our perspective of federalism should be guided by practical knowledge and the law instead of ideological, religious, regional, ethnic or political sentiments.

More:

The faces of federalism: A perspective for advocates - Daily Trust

South Africas federalism rhetoric centres on the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). The DA secured six key ministries and the IFP two, crucial for decentralization efforts. Their challenge lies in devolving power as per constitutional provisions, a test of their commitment beyond rhetoric in the face of upcoming political hurdles.

Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Registerhere.

Join us for BizNews first investment-focused conference on Thursday, 12 September, in Hermanus, featuring top experts like Frans Cronje, Piet Viljoen, and more. Get insights on electricity and exploiting SAs gas bounty from new and familiar faces. Registerhere.

By Martin Van Staden*

As far as rhetorical support for federalism is concerned, South Africa has had two main political offerings over the past three decades: the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Inkatha Freedom Pary (IFP). Both now occupy central government portfolios of relevance to decentralisation will they rise to the occasion?

In Cyril Ramaphosas Cabinet announcement late on the evening of Sunday, 30 June, the DA bagged six posts and the IFP two of which one iscrucial.

On the DAs roster are the portfolios of Agriculture; Basic Education; Communications and Digital Technologies; Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment; Home Affairs; and Public Works and Infrastructure. It also scored a handful of deputy ministers elsewhere.

The IFP received Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, which also subsumes the Local Government portfolio, and Public Service and Administration.

Read more: Whos who in South Africas new, diverse Cabinet

Section 99 of the Constitution empowers Cabinet members to devolve any power or function that they are to perform in terms of an Act of Parliament to a provincial or municipal executive. Acts of Parliament themselves also often empower the relevant member to delegate their functions to others.

Section 44(1)(iii) of the Constitution, in turn, empowers Parliament to devolve any of its legislative powers (the only, singular exception being the power to amend the Constitution) to provincial or municipal legislatures. Schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution, which set the defaults of legislative authority, would therefore not be applicable in this respect.

Pursuant to section 73(2) of the Constitution, Cabinet members are usually the ones to introduce new legislation relating to their portfolios in Parliament.

The DA

The DA now presides over six important ministries in which significant executive devolution, in line with section 99 of the Constitution, can begin to take place.

Virtually every regulatory and framework-setting function that these central government ministers possess should ideally be devolved downwards. The ministers will then be in a position to provide coordination, oversight, and support to municipal and provincial authorities where necessary.

One of the primary functions of a minister is to secure funding, and in this respect these ministers could also play an important role to ensure National Treasury sends the relevant funds to the appropriate, more local spheres.

Under no circumstances should these ministers believe that they will bring about sustainable reform with the little time they have in the central sphere. The so-called Government of National Unity isnot likely to last very long. If we ignore the corruption and ideology-related forces that would likely lead to collapse, the 2026 municipal elections and the 2027 African National Congress (ANC) leadership conference alone will prove difficult obstacles to overcome.

Fantasies of progress and prosperity engineered from the top down must be put out of all of these ministers minds. They must instead look to the federalist principles upon which they campaigned.

Read more: Helen Zille: DA wont prop up ANC in Gauteng play fair or were out

The IFP

The IFP now presides over the most important state department for the purpose of devolution and federalisation. Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs is the portfolio responsible for the coordination of intergovernmental relations and it is from this portfolio which any devolution or federalisation legislation would ordinarily emanate.

The IFP has more experience being in a coalition with the ANC than the DA, so it is likely that it could retain this post for some time longer than its colleagues.

As the Free Market Foundation (FMF) proposes in itsLiberty First: A policy agenda for South Africas 2024-2029 parliamentary term, there are four legislative frameworks that the new administration should adopt:

Devolutionlegislation that transfers functions currently residing with the central government downwards. This would include policing, labour relations, and select items of economic policy. It could also include aspects of prosecutions and correctional services.

Fiscal relationslegislation that allows provinces and municipalities to retain a greater portion of the revenue that the South African Revenue Service generates within their jurisdictions. Provinces like the Western Cape, Gauteng, and KwaZulu-Natal should expect that most of what SARS collects within their boundaries will remain in the province. Cross-subsidisation between jurisdictions should only occur to the extent that the generating jurisdictions own requirements have largely been satisfied.

Federalisationlegislation that sets out binding guidelines, particularly for the courts, on how to approach disputes about the division of powers between the spheres of government. TheSouth African Constitution is a federal one, but it has been treated as though it were unitary. Proactive legislation setting this right is necessary.

Self-determinationlegislation. Section 235 of the Constitution allows self-defined cultural or linguistic communities to exercise self-determination within a territorial unit in South Africa, but legislation is required to operationalise this right. It would be best to adopt overarching legislation that can be unilaterally invoked by any such community. However, legislation could also be adoptedforevery community in particular. These might include the Zulu community living on Ingonyama Trust land or the Afrikaner cultural community of Orania in the Northern Cape.

In its Public Service and Administration portfolio, the IFP minister should also devolve significant executive responsibilities over the civil service downwards allowing provinces and municipalities more control over central government officers in their jurisdictions in accordance with section 99 of the Constitution.

There are always reasons to do something or not to do something. Ultimately, most things that matter are complicated. But it is precisely for this reason thatvaluesandprinciplesexist: to help one navigate through complexity.

Priming South Africas existing legislative and fiscal framework for substantive federalisation will be hard work, but this is no less true for other things the parties say they will do, like fixing South Africas infrastructure or ensuring better outcomes in basic education. Everything worthwhile is difficult.

Both the IFP and DA have long dedicated themselves not merely to theidea of devolution, but to outright federalismas a desirable form of government. The Constitution has met them halfway and waits with its hand extended. The power lies with the DA and the IFP in these portfolios, so the central government will not allow it is no longer an excuse they can fall back on like they have done for the past 30 years.

Just as they will defer to their ANC colleagues who have control over other portfolios, they would be right to expect deference from the ANC when it comes to matters within DA or IFP portfolios.

Read more: John Matisonn: Gautengs unhappy shotgun marriage between unwilling ANC and betrothed DA

Banish the thought, some might say, however, that the ANC would ever allow any such devolution or federalisation. I am one of those some.

Both the DA and IFPwere warned(andwarned, andwarned, andwarned, andwarned) by myselfand othersto not go into an inequitable coalition with the ANC, where the latter controls the majority of Cabinet posts. This is because, among many reasons, the former would not have enough leverage to pursue whatever reform agenda they might have. (There needs to be compromise always seems to only operate in favour of the ANC.)

Since the 29 May general election, however, both the DA and IFP replied to these warnings with:No, we think we will have enough leverage to pursue our agenda.

Whether or not the ANC will allow devolution or federalisation is an entirely political (not legal or policy) question that the DA and IFP believe they have answered affirmatively.

The FMFs proposals above are purposefully framed taking the constitutionalstatus quointo account. If we believed anythingis possible, we would have recommended significant changes to the Constitution itself. What is proposed is practical.

At this point, it would be a futile exercise to continue second-guessing the DA and IFP from outside government on whether they do or do not have the leverage or pull to bring about real reform.

If you say so, is therefore my response. So here is the roadmap to decentralisation.

The rubber has met the road: It is now that it will be decided whether the DA or IFPs apparent dedication to political decentralisation has been sincere, or merely rhetorical, in the comfort of the opposition, to garner votes.

If not now, then when? Neither the DA nor IFP will ever win an election with an absolute majority in their own right. That has not stopped them from advocating federalism. This can only mean, implicitly, that they would pursue federalism and decentralisation when they have the legal power to do so.

They now do.

Like others, I haveheld the suspicionthat these parties dedication to decentralisation only extends so far as it is nottheywho are required to decentralisetheirpower: They only want decentralisation whenthey will be the beneficiariesof it in provincial and municipal governments but when they are in the central government, they will tend to oppose it.

This is not a dedication to decentralisation, but naked opportunism. They are now within reach of dispelling any such suspicion.

Read also:

*Martin van Staden is the Head of Policy at the Free Market Foundation and former Deputy Head of Policy Research at the Institute of Race Relations (IRR).

This article was originally published by Daily Friend and has been republished with permission.

See the original post:

DA and IFP take key ministries: Time to prove commitment to federalism - Van Staden - BizNews

06 Apr 2024 | 05:01am IST A host-friendly tourism and not one where the customer is always king, has to be promoted. There are enough people in the world, who are conscientious and will be sustainable tourism enthusiasts. But for this, the participation of local people in shaping tourism is again absent

Albertina Almeida

What are the concerns that have been articulated by people in Goa in the last five years since the 2019 elections? Many. Have they been addressed? No. They have simply been either bypassed or overlooked in the march towards so-called development.

Whether it is tourism or mining or port development or any development for that matter, it is the stakeholders in the land and the resources, who must have control over what happens with the land. But if we go to see, there is no new legislation does not seek to restore controlling power to the more marginalized sections.

In the family laws of Goa, the management of the properties is the prerogative of the male spouse even if both the spouses are the owners of the marital properties. While tom tomming about Goas Uniform Civil Code, there has been no effort to retract this gender discriminatory provision. On the other hand, the positive aspects of matrimonial property have not been incorporated in Uttarakhands Uniform Civil Code, which is a forerunner of Indias Uniform Civil Code.

Similarly, there has been no effort to bring mining within the control of the local stakeholders. For instance, efforts to allow for mining by a local tribal led cooperative has not only not been encouraged, they have been stymied at every stage. This also holds for tourism where the deeds of a few local taxi drivers have been made a pretext to scapegoat all the taxi drivers, when in fact providing enabling supports to the taxi drivers and recognizing their autonomy was what needed to be foregrounded.

A host-friendly tourism and not one where the customer is always king, has to be promoted. There are enough people in the world, who are conscientious and will be sustainable tourism enthusiasts. But for this, the participation of local people in shaping tourism is again absent. Consulting agencies who have no sense of local ethos or ecology are paid a hefty fee and deployed to develop tourism policies which are completely out of sync with sustainable livelihoods of people and their right to self determination.

But for this we need to clean out the Augean stables that are antithetic to people-centric development and are tainted by incentives from those few who stand to gain huge profits from the unparticipatory development. The electoral bond scam exposed how development and even pandemic treatment were being guided by those who contributed to the ruling alliances lead Bharatiya Janata Party? That can only happen if voters and the media raise all these questions with candidates who come around at election time. As a matter of fact that is happening. When media questioned the BJPs South Goa candidate as to what was her position on double tracking, coal and other issues that South Goa was facing, she simply had no answer apart from stating that positions are preliminary.

That does bring us to the expression of women empowerment that is loosely bandied about. It is not simply that the womens movement had sought reservations for women with special emphasis on the women from the suppressed sections of society. There are enough and more women who have engaged with society and work at the grassroots and would not be alluding to positions as preliminary positions when they are already in the election fray. Womens empowerment cannot be reduced to fielding women candidates in elections as mere tokenism.

Not only has nothing been specially done to empower the marginalized sections, but on the contrary, even the hard won power that was there has been wrested from them. Even acts of people who are political dissenters are being criminalized.

Take the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021. The people having their housing and livelihood in the area that comes within the jurisdiction of the port have been deprived of their power through the gram sabha at the Panchayat or through the Municipality, to take planning decisions, which are now the prerogative of the Mormugao Port Authority. A peek into their website will show how they look at fisherpeople and fishing as an obstacle to development. This kind of perspective does not augur well for the inhabitants and those eking their livelihood within 53 kms out of Goas 160 km coastline.

We must not forget that the Mormugao Port Authority has jurisdiction from Cortalim Jetty to Raj Bhavan, Dona Paula, to the entire coast line of Mormugao Taluka and up to and including Arossim beach and extending and including the coastline on both sides of the Betul beach. The Major Port Authorities Act, 2021, along with the previous consent for nationalization of rivers, as per which six stretches of Goas rivers have been included in the declared waterways under the National Waterways Act, 2016 must be repealed. The candidates must be asked whether they are assuring this.

For peoples power to be retained, both the 73rd and 74th amendments, must be actively implemented. And to boost the same, with small and historico-spatially different states like Goa, there has to be a respect for the difference to the extent that it can pave the way for justice. But the issue of the citizenship of Goas Overseas Citizens of India, which merited special consideration, and active lobbying at the national level continues to hang in balance. Everyone is kept dangling with assurances. This has happened before. This is happening again.

As a matter of fact, difference has often been perceived to the detriment of the marginalized sections in Goa. At one point of time, the Union Minister for Tribal Affairs Ramdas Athawale was heard saying that a political quota for Scheduled Tribes in Goas Legislative Assembly was not possible, and it was a sharp reaction from Goa that got him to say that he was not aware that Scheduled Tribes comprise 12% of Goas population and that nobody had brought the same to his notice.

And at another level, difference has been used to trump up false charges against the minorities with the active support of the majoritarian Government. A fact finding report by Citizens Initiatives for Communal Harmony effectively exposed how there was an orchestrated attack against Muslims by playing victim card as a Ram Navami rally provocatively wound its way detouring from the scheduled route.

The difference that Goa is, must be galvanized in the interests of Goa, not to deny Goa and Goans and people in Goa, particularly the marginalized sections, their rightful place under the sun. What the turnaround of the Union Tribal Affairs Minister drives home to us is that if we as voters speak up, organize, question, and challenge, change towards equity, pluralism, federalism and participatory social justice is possible.

(Albertina Almeida is a lawyer and human rights activist)

Continued here:

2024 Lok Sabha Elections: Need to pitch for Federalism and Special Status for Goa - Herald Goa

Didnt the world support the boycott of apartheid South Africa? (Photo by Jonathan C. Katzenellenbogen/Getty Images)

The African National Congress (ANC) has repeatedly equated federalism, provincial autonomy, and decentralisation to Apartheid. A knee-jerk accusation that, sadly, resonates with some voters. But the truth is that federalism is not just nothing like Apartheid, it would help prevent an Apartheid system from springing up in the first place.

On 29 January, the ANC disrupted a hearing on the proposed Western cape Provincial Powers Bill, accusing any devolution of powers and embracing of federalism to be supporting Apartheid. This is consistent with the ANCs fanatical obsession with centralism and the maintaining of a unitary state no matter how inefficient said unitary state has proven to be.

While the South African constitution enshrines federal principles, the ANC has repeatedly ignored this stating arrogantly that SA is a unitary state and that provinces must fall in line.

In actuality, the ANC doesnt oppose federalism because they think its like Apartheid. Rather, the ANC just wants total control over the country. But it still makes the claim that federalism is the same as Apartheid. So, it is important to debunk this claim.

Apartheid was a collection of racist laws that, on a grand scale, relegated people of different races to different areas. Black South Africans were made to inhabit specific bantustans, which were governed by semi-autonomous authorities. Many of these bantustans still exist to this day, with traditional leaders still denying rights to black South Africans.

While these bantustans had their own separate leaderships on paper, they were effectively puppets of the Apartheid government, and still had to abide by laws set by the government. In so-called black areas, the Apartheid government even owned nationalised liquor breweries and bars. Local governments had zero substantive say over their decisions.

Apartheid saw impoverished zones being controlled by a central government. Not local rule. It is more accurately seen as a form of internal colonialism.

People think that the English meaning of Apartheid Separate Development must refer to any form of decentralisation. But Apartheid in no way resembled federalism. In fact, the National Party themselves were avowed centralists, supporting a unitary state throughout their governance. A view very similar to the ANCs.

What is Federalism?

Federalism is not a top-down authoritarian system like Apartheid. If Apartheid had been federalist, then the National Party would have had zero say over the governance of the bantustans. And if South Africa had been federalist, then Apartheid would have unlikely been allowed to happen in the first place.

Federalism is a system where provinces and local areas are able to govern their own affairs, while still being represented by a central government. The United States is a federal country, with states having their own police forces, legislation, and ability to govern their own affairs. Only the military and some centralised agencies exist on top of this.

South Africa is a large country with a diverse population, and allowing local governments to have increased power to pass necessary legislation, get rid of irrelevant policies, and be held accountable by the local community would help lessen many of the issues plaguing the country.

In fact, the Constitution already enables provinces to act with far more power than they do currently. The ANC grandstands and complains, but the Democratic Alliance (DA) could already seize far more powers than they do currently, and they really should, because ANC influence in the Western Cape is the only real thing holding back the province from becoming a first-world locality.

It is clear that Apartheid wasnt federal, and federalism wont lead to Apartheid. Rather, the opposite may occur, as local governments purge their lawbooks of racist legislation like BEE and eliminate racial-quotas in government.

Federalism will equip provinces to solve their local issues and disallow a central government from imposing oppressive laws. All South Africans should rightfully support such a system.

Nicholas Woode-Smith is an economic historian, policy analyst and author. He is an Associate of the Free Market Foundation and Western Cape co-ordinator of the FMF Campaign for Home Rule.

See the original post here:

Federalism is not Apartheid The Mail & Guardian - Mail and Guardian

Lebanese lobbyist Alfred Riachi, secretary-general of the Continual Federal Congress, discussed in a February 12, 2024 interview on OTV [Lebanon] the ramifications of Hamass October 7 attack. He said that prior to October 7, the standard of living in Gaza "seemed very reasonable." Riachi said that Hamas does not believe in pluralism and coexistence and that it is not that much better than ISIS. He stated that Israel has never attacked Lebanon unprovoked.

To view the clip of Lebanese pro-federalism activist Alfred Riachi, click here or below:

"Israel, Which You Refer To As 'Satan', Has Never Initiated An Attack Against Lebanon Without Us Giving It A Pretext First"

Alfred Riachi: "The State of Israel, which you refer to as 'Satan', has never initiated an attack against Lebanon, without us giving it a pretext first.

[...]

"What Hamas did... They entered Israel and killed 1,200 people. What did they gain from this? Did they expect Israel to welcome them with rice and flowers?"

Interviewer: "Hold on a minute. You make it sound as if Israel was peaceful, and out of nowhere Hamas entered, and how terrible what they did these innocent Israelis... These people were being killed, under siege, without water, medicine, or food for years and years. They were living in a big prison, on their own land."

Riachi: " I don't know... I watched many shows [about Gaza], and the standard living there seemed very reasonable.

[...]

"Hamas Do Not Believe In Pluralism And In Co-Existing With The Other... For Me Hamas Is Not Much Better Than ISIS"

"I view Hamas as an organization with religious ideology of exclusion. They do not believe in pluralism and in co-existing with the other. Regardless, of whether their cause is justified or not, for me Hamas is not much better than ISIS."

More:

Lebanese Pro-Federalism Activist Alfred Riachi: Prior To October 7, The Standard Of Living In Gaza Was Pretty ... - Middle East Media Research...

When the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the term Disease X into their blueprint of diseases in February 2018, they were prophetically acknowledging the potential of an unknown pathogen causing a serious international epidemic. Fast forward to today, COVID-19, caused by an unknown etiology, perfectly fits the description of the first Disease X. This situation has sparked an intriguing discourse on the potential impact of a hypothetical Disease X on the concept of federalism in the United States. As we explore this thoughtful narrative, we will delve into the challenges posed by a nationwide health crisis to the federalist system, with particular emphasis on state autonomy, public health policy, and the role of the federal government.

The concept of Disease X represents the understanding that a severe global epidemic could be triggered by an unknown pathogen. This idea has been cemented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Programs like the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), with its 3.5 billion 5-year plan, and the US National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Pandemic Preparedness Plan, are aimed at shortening vaccine development timelines and preparing for potential pandemics. The Disease X Act of 2023 further expands priorities to include viral threats that could cause a pandemic.

The federalist design of US laws is a considerable impediment to implementing nationwide community mitigation measures for pandemics, according to a Stanford Law analysis. This structure presents a significant challenge during a nationwide health crisis. State autonomy and the division of power between state and federal governments can potentially hinder the coordination of a unified response to Disease X. This challenge is further complicated by legal reforms adopted by states, which imposed substantive and procedural restrictions on public health authority, such as prohibiting vaccines, mask mandates, and restricting religious gatherings.

The role of the federal government during a major health emergency is crucial. The U.S. CDC vaccine advisory committee, for instance, develops recommendations for U.S. immunizations. However, the applicability of these recommendations largely depends on the states once published in the CDCs MMWR. This dependency on state decisions underscores the delicate balance between state and federal authority during a health crisis. The impact of systematic racism, economic inequality, mass incarceration, and labor market inequalities on COVID-19 disparities further complicates this balance.

As we contemplate the future, the adoption of crisis communication strategies by local governments during pandemics is key. Factors such as school and business closures, efficacy beliefs, and community vulnerability significantly shape these efforts. Furthermore, funding from measures like the CARES Act can enhance local governments capacity to implement these strategies.

In conclusion, the potential impact of a hypothetical Disease X on the federalist system in the U.S. poses thought-provoking questions about state autonomy, public health policy, and the role of the federal government. While our current federalist system presents challenges, it also provides opportunities for adaptive strategies that can help the nation better prepare for future health emergencies.

Read more:

The Potential Impact of 'Disease X' on Federalism in the U.S. - Medriva

The Peoples Representatives Committee for Federalism (PRCF) published its constitution for a federal democracy on Feb. 12.

The committee comprises 12 political parties: the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy, Arakan League for Democracy, Karen National Party, Zomi Congress for Democracy, Democratic Party for a New Society, United Nationalities Democracy Party, Danu Nationalities Democracy Party, Daingnet National Development Party, Mro National Democracy Party, Karen National Party, Shan State Kokang Democratic Party and Mon Affairs Association.

Previously known as the PRF, the committee changed its name to PRCF in March 2021.

Sai Kyaw Nyunt, a joint secretary of the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy, recently spoke with The Irrawaddy about the objectives of the constitution and its most important features.

What is the intention of publishing a constitution?

It has been nearly two years since we drafted the constitution in 2022. So, we decided that it was time to publish it.

What is the PRCF?

The PRCF was formed after the 2021 coup. It comprises primarily members of the United Nationalities Alliance and their partners.

The PRCF mentioned three main tasks in its statement about publishing its constitution. Can you elaborate on them?

We cant accept any form of dictatorship, either military dictatorship or civilian dictatorship. The conflict in our country since independence is deeply connected to the constitution. The 1974 constitution did not meet the wishes of the people and the same is true of the 2008 constitution.

In our view, federalism is the best [form of government] for this highly diverse and multi-ethnic country. But federalism alone is not enough. There must also be democracy. So, there is a need for a federal, democratic constitution. But again, a constitution alone is not enough. Peaceful co-existence is also critically important for us to come together to form and maintain a union.

How do you see the current political landscape in Myanmar?

Myanmar is at war now. We are politicians so we dont know much about military affairs. Military solutions alone cant solve problems in a country. Space for politics is necessary. It is more powerful than military action in terms of fulfilling the wishes of the people. We want things handled peacefully.

So, your political parties prefer non-violence?

We dont want to say which is right and which is wrong. I am only talking about our tendency. By political means, I mean you dont necessarily have to establish a party and contest the election. You may oppose the voting, and release statements about your views. These are all political means. Dialogue is also a political means. This is what we believe.

What drove the PRCF to design a constitution?

Eleven of the 12 organizations in the PRCF are political parties. We believe certain conditions must be met for our country to have greater peace and stability. So, we have designed the constitution, outlining the conditions that we think are necessary to have peace and stability. Those parties have won votes and support from people in their respective constituencies. So, we designed the constitution to convey our idea about an ideal union.

What are the salient points about your constitution?

We refer to four documents: the fundamental principles of the PRCF, the fundamental principles in a federal democracy charter, the constitution from the Federal Constitution Drafting and Coordinating Committee, and the constitution from the UNA and allies. Our constitution touches upon new topics, such as financial matters, relations between government agencies, and administration and public services.

So, is it fair to say the constitution drafted by the PRFC is one that reflects the federal democracy charter declared by anti-regime political forces?

We cant say so. Many organizations, including ethnic armed organizations, were involved in designing the federal democracy charter. Our constitution was drafted solely by PRCF members, but it can be used as a draft for all the stakeholders to discuss in the future.

Will you accept recommendations, if there are any, to your constitution?

We are willing to accept any recommendation that does not go against our principles.

The military regime upholds the 2008 Constitution. What will you say if they say they dont accept your constitution?

We represent people to a certain extent, and we live among the people. So, the constitution represents our view of what this country should be like. Everyone is aware that one group or organization representing all the others was not successful. We need to try to write a constitution that is acceptable to all by negotiating between all stakeholders.

How did stakeholders in the country respond to your constitution?

No one has yet strongly responded to our constitution. It was only published recently, and perhaps stakeholders are still studying it. Our constitution is largely based on documents of ethnic armed organizations, ethnic political organizations and ethnic Bamar organizations. So, there wont be much difference between ours and theirs.

There might be differences in the way we operate, but I dont think there will be much disagreement regarding policies. The policies of the regime and the military, however, can be markedly different from ours. In the future, we will have to accept what is best for the people.

What is the PRCFs next step?

We established political parties to do our share for the country. So, we will continue to work in our way to restore peace and build a country that all citizens want to see.

Read the rest here:

'People's Charter' Puts Federalism at The Heart of Myanmar's Democratic Future - The Irrawaddy

Something unique and rare in Indian political history happened recently. Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, and many senior cabinet ministers went to Delhi and sat in a dharna for a My State My Tax protest. They were joined by ministers and leaders from the other southern states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu and supported in spirit by Telangana. It was an extraordinary development where democratically elected heads of Indias states were forced to go to Delhi to demand their share of tax revenues and taxation rights. No taxation without representation was the slogan for the American independence struggle against the British. Southern states in India are now protesting against Representation without taxation!

With the southern states protests and the Supreme Courts recent ruling, the late BJP finance minister Arun Jaitleys contribution of the phrases cooperative federalism and electoral bonds to Indias political lexicon have been rendered dubious and hollow by the Modi government.

Elected governments across the world rely on direct and indirect taxes for revenues to implement schemes and fulfil their electoral promises. As per the Constitution, state governments in India do not have powers to levy direct income and corporate taxes, unlike in other federal nations. After GST, state governments lost their exclusive powers for indirect taxes, too. They are only left with powers to tax sin goods, fuel, property, electricity, and agriculture, which constitute a small slice of overall tax revenues. To put it simply, post-GST, democratically elected state governments in India are forced to be almost entirely dependent on the Union government for resources.

To make matters worse, the Modi government, true to its governance style, has politicised Indias federalism through duplicitous means of cesses and surcharges to garner greater share of tax revenues for itself and minimise states share.

When a Karnataka resident buys a certain good or service and pays Rs 100 as central taxes on it, the Union government keeps Rs 58 of it and shares Rs 42 with the states. But for the same transaction, if Rs 100 is charged as cess by the Union government, then it gets to keep all of it and not have to share it with the states. This is a quirk and a relic of Indias historical taxation laws. So, a cooperative federalism-minded Union government will try to minimise cess and maximise tax revenues which can be shared with state governments for their governance. Unsurprisingly, the Modi government did the exact opposite in its decade-long tenure.

Cesses and surcharges have nearly doubled as a share of revenues from 12% to 20% of overall tax revenues during Modis tenure. In 2014, overall tax revenues collected by both the Union and state governments was Rs 18 lakh crore, which rose to about Rs 46 lakh crore by 2023. But a whopping 10% of this increase came from cesses and surcharges, depriving state governments of nearly Rs 3 lakh crore. This is a huge amount, and hence state governments are crying foul. This has impacted every state government but because of the extreme high-command culture and imposition of their will on BJP-ruled states, BJP Chief Ministers can only grumble in private rather than join Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Bengal and Telangana in an overt protest. The Modi governments cess mess has stained Indias fabric of federalism.

This deceit by the Modi government is what has angered the high tax-contributing southern states and prompted them to question the transfer of their tax revenues to poorer northern states. The average person in Karnataka or Tamil Nadu pays Rs 20,000 annually in taxes while the average person in Madhya Pradesh or Uttar Pradesh pays just Rs 4,500. But the average person in Bihar, UP or Madhya Pradesh get back Rs 260 for every Rs 100 they pay in taxes, while the average Kannadiga gets back only Rs 40. Over the course of Modis tenure, this gap has only widened, and little progress has been made in bridging either the fiscal or the development gap between the richer and poorer states. Now, the contributing states are questioning the need for such an extreme skew in the distribution of tax revenues.

The very idea of India as a Union of states is now precarious. There is a complete breakdown of trust and trustworthiness between the Union and states. This growing banyan tree of distrust between states was sown by the duplicitous fiscal approach of the Modi government, watered by the imposition of a one nation one policy framework, branched by the extreme politicisation of institutions such as ED, CBI, Income Tax, Election Commission, and tended by governor politics. It is no secret that most states harbour deep disenchantment with the Modi governments anti-federal style of governance. It so happens that the more developed southern states, which are not ruled by the BJP, are able to express their resentment more freely than their Maharashtra, Haryana and Gujarat counterparts.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman exemplifies this disdain for states, especially those that are governed by non-BJP parties, with her scornful public rebukes and shallow pomposity, evident in the white paper she released in parliament recently. It claimed that Indias economy and infrastructure have grown in the last decade, all due to the untiring efforts and the inordinate skills of Narendra Modi. It was like parents celebrating the growth in age of their child from 5 to 15 after a decade. Even if cricketer Ravindra Jadeja or actor Akshay Kumar had been Prime Minister in this period, GDP would have grown, more toilets and houses constructed, more airports, ports and highways built, and India would have been the Chair of the G-20. The real question is not whether the child has grown in age, which is largely inevitable, but how tall, healthy, and happy is the child for her age. Ask the states!

(Published 17 February 2024, 20:21 IST)

Go here to see the original:

Siddaramaiah vs Modi: The 'cess-y' mess in fiscal federalism - Deccan Herald