Category Archives: Federalism

Michael R. Ford| Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Local control is a foundational governing concept in Wisconsin. Our system of dual federalism, in which the state is responsible for issues of statewide concern and local government is responsible for issues of local concern, is designed to place decision-making authority at the level of government closest to the people impacted by those decisions.

In theory, empowering local government increases the legitimacy and effectiveness of government, while ensuring residents can hold local officials accountable for their performance.

Butas a new report from the Whitburn Center for Governance and Policy Research demonstrates, local control is a contested concept weaponized for political purposes as opposed to a tool for good government in Wisconsin.

We surveyed 288 local government leaders to better understand the state of local control in Wisconsin. Tellingly, in response to an open-ended question on the meaning of local control, local officials told us, It sounds great but is not realistic because politicians use it to persuade constituents that they are voting the right way, that Legislators are more than willing to say they are for local control but it really means nothing to them, and that Local control is a moving target based on the hot regulatory items of the day.

The general pessimism around local control is not surprising given the steady erosion of local authority over key policy areas.

A 2018 memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, for example, identified more than 100 state legislative changes between 2011 and 2018 that limited local government autonomy in areas such as land use and zoning, local revenue options, transportationand K-12 education. Our survey results indicate that self-identified conservatives are most likely to perceive an imbalance between state and local authority, but overall dissatisfaction with the state-local balance of power transcended ideology. In addition, there is widespread belief among local officials that their colleagues at the state level do not share their definition of local control.

Why does the ambiguity around local control matter? Simply, disagreement on the meaning of local control hampers effectiveness. Without agreement, there can be no coordination. When state and local government officials disagree on where their authority stops and starts it becomes more difficult to meet the needs of Wisconsinites.

Consider the government response to COVID-19. Our survey results revealed largescale confusion about who was responsible for responding to different aspects of the pandemic. As one respondent put it, Everyone is doing something different. There is no uniformity like there is in neighboring states. The issue was not about local vs. state authority, but rather the lack of understanding of where decision-making authority resided. The result was confusion, wasted energyand the politicization of basic policy responses to the pandemic.

RELATED: Top GOP lawmakers now want to leave virus plan in the hands of local officials

So what can be done to restore meaning to local control in Wisconsin?

Foremost, local officials need to coalesce around a common definition of local control. City managers and mayors need to understand their authority in order to provide services, and elected officials must understand local powers to provide direction to city staff. That can be accomplished through each municipalitys strategic planning process, and communicated to the public via the annual local budget.

As our survey shows, the specific definition of local control is less important than the ability for those involved in governing to agree on a common definition. There will still be disagreement over where authority over specific policy areas should lie, but local government officials will, at the very least, eliminate ambiguity that hampers government performance.

The troubled state of local control in Wisconsin is just one example of the politicization of our democracys most basic foundational elements. Federalism has proved to be a powerful tool for enabling good government despite our ideological divisions. But, when weaponized for political purposes, it loses itsmeaning and erodes trust in our government. While there will always be tension between state and local authority, local governments can work to eliminate role ambiguity and ultimately restore meaning to local control in Wisconsin.

Michael Ford is the director of the Whitburn Center for Governance and Policy Research at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. He also serves as an associate professor of Public Administration, and an elected member of the Oshkosh Common Council.

Our subscribers make this reporting possible. Please consider supporting local journalism by subscribing to the Journal Sentinel at jsonline.com/deal.

Continue reading here:

'Local control' of government is a hallowed idea in Wisconsin. Here's what we can do to give it real meaning again. - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

The Constitution must be defended except when it must be jettisoned.

Weve heard much upon the anniversary of Jan. 6 about how Donald Trump wanted to distort the Constitution to get Vice President Mike Pence to try to throw the election to him a year ago.

And this was, indeed, a cockamamie, counter-constitutional scheme. Neither the framers of the Constitution nor the drafters of the 12th Amendment, the provision in question that day, intended to invest unilateral power in one person to decide presidential elections.

Indeed, besides Pence, who refused to buckle to Trumps pressure, the biggest hero of the post-election period was the constitutional system itself. Once again, it proved a durable vehicle of representative government and a frustration to anyone hoping to seize and wield illegitimate power.

Its distribution of power via federalism to the 50 states, its separation of powers at the federal level and its provision for an independent judiciary made it impossible for Trump allies to press one button and reverse the outcome of the election.

So, its bizarre for the Democrats and the left to profess to consider a possible repeat by Trump in 2024 an ongoing national emergency, and yet establish more precedent for a president of the United States acting unilaterally beyond his constitutional powers (via Bidens eviction moratorium and OSHA-imposed vaccine mandate); push to nationalize the countrys voting rules; play with the idea of destroying the legitimacy of the Supreme Court through court-packing; and generally undermine and tear at the fabric of the Constitution as a racist relic unworthy of the 21st century.

If Trump 3.0 is an existential threat, they should want to make it absolutely clear that all presidents have to strictly abide by the Constitution in all circumstances. They should seek to maintain a highly decentralized election system. They should work to buttress the standing of the Supreme Court. And they should hold up the Constitution as a time-tested bulwark of our liberties.

Instead, weve seen the opposite because doing these things makes it harder to pursue the progressive project.

On the center-left, it is considered an outrage that the Founders didnt foresee that a left-wing Democratic Party would have trouble competing in many rural states and therefore be at a disadvantage in the Senate and the Electoral College.

The past few years should have given progressives a new appreciation of federalism, though it allowed, for instance, deep-blue California to keep governing itself largely according to its own lights even when Trump was president.

That the Constitution makes it hard to get things done in Washington, another charge in the indictment against it, also serves an important function. It forces parties to win big majorities if they want to forge transformational changes, or to mobilize public opinion behind its agenda.

Otherwise, the gravitational force of the system is toward consensus. We see this in the debate over the sweeping Democratic voting bills.

Democrats are entertaining ideas whether blowing up the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, adding new states for partisan advantage that violate the kind of norms they always cited in opposing Trump.

The New York Times recently ran an editorial arguing that every day is Jan. 6. That is clearly absurd. But the Constitution is indeed always under threat, and it falls on its friends to defend it from all challengers.

Rich Lowry is editor of the National Review.

Go here to see the original:

Lowry: The left supports the Constitution until it doesnt - Boston Herald

The state of political discourse in America is a disaster. The federal polity continues on a downward spiral that has persisted for decades. Official Washington is broken. It is a place where backbiting has supplanted statesmanship, finger-pointing has replaced statecraft and name-calling has superseded diplomacy. Many have despaired of the ship of states ability to right itself. Is bipartisanship dead? Is compromise a quaint relic of a distant past? Is it possible for true leadership to transcend the socio-political chasms separating a polarized and suspicious electorate? Where can America look to find hope?

To the West the governors of the West.

Defying the stereotype of American politicians as ineffective, feckless and self-interested, Western governors are among the most collegial, respectful and pragmatic leaders currently populating this countrys political landscape. No group of elected officials more effectively collaborates to produce substantive and significant bipartisan public policy.

Having recently managed a meeting of Western governors in Coronado and California, my hopefulness for the future has been replenished. Such an assembly is inspiring, if not altogether cathartic. It is a place where political baggage is checked at the door, red and blue uniforms are tucked away, and a clutch of smart and savvy problem-solvers turn their attention to some of the most urgent challenges facing the region and nation.

With their attention so engaged, governors of western states proceed to do something that is, sadly, remarkable for its rarity. They work together, across party lines and ideological divisions, to develop common-sense policies, strategies and solutions. At their recent meeting, the governors worked to address the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous people, computer chip challenges in a high-tech economy and emergency preparedness. They negotiated detailed policy resolutions on energy, air quality, cybersecurity and workforce development.

And they did it all without throwing sharp elbows, calling each other names or consulting polls. Working on issues that matter, that affect real people in the real world, they apprehend no advantage in demonizing other governors who may be of a different party but who face the same challenges, threats and opportunities as they do.

Western governors share a number of attributes that account for their relative bipartisanship and effectiveness. For one thing, they are the chief executive officers of their states they are senior managers who need to make things work. Effective leaders of large organizations (like states) tend to be more pragmatic than ideological. In addressing complex and multidimensional problems, practicality beats political rigidity every time.

For another thing, these governors are not running against each other. Regardless of party affiliation, they have all traversed similar paths and find themselves facing similar challenges whether those involve the distribution of personal protective equipment, response to catastrophic wildfires or containment of invasive species threatening western landscapes. It is evident that governors have much to gain by working with and collaborating with one another. They learn from each others experiences. They alert each other to issues and threats that may be just around the bend. They unabashedly appropriate innovations from each other and they share the unusual bonhomie that comes with being members of a very small club. While the advantages of cooperation are apparent, the benefits of sniping at each other to score political points are much less so.

Other elected officials across the country would do well to emulate the example of Western governors. But even if that is too much to expect, governors will still contribute to the rescue of our country to the extent the portfolio of state and federal power is rebalanced to better reflect the intent of the founders.

The genius of American democracy is predicated not only upon the separation between branches of government (the executive, legislature and judiciary) but also upon the division of power between the national government and states, also known as federalism. Under the American version of federalism, the powers of the federal government are narrow, enumerated and defined. The powers of the states, on the other hand, are vast and indefinite and encompass all powers of governance not specifically bestowed to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.

Over time, the balance of power has shifted dramatically toward the federal government and away from the states. This reality is reflected in the vast size, scope, cost and complexity (not to mention ungovernability) of the federal behemoth. Restoring a greater measure of authority to the states would place more decisions in the hands of governors, leaders who are closer to the people and have intimate knowledge of their states environments, economies and cultures. Also, an authentic partnership between the states and federal government would result in more effective and durable policy, resulting in a stronger and more resilient nation.

Throughout the past couple of years, governors in western states have been at the point of the spear of COVID-19 response, working to protect their people and their economies. They have been called upon to make incredibly difficult decisions life and death decisions and they have borne that burden with sobriety and grace.

At the same time, their other weighty responsibilities did not magically disappear. They have still had natural disasters to manage, students to educate and budgets to balance. And through it all, they have kept their heads high and have somehow managed to maintain their optimism, energy, enthusiasm and humor.

I am confident that Western governors will emerge from their collective emergency experience stronger, more united, and more energized than ever. And I better be right about that, because governors are the last adults standing on the American political stage.

Jim Ogsbury is executive director of the Western Governors Association. He previously served as legislative director for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns and as the clerk and staff director for the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.

More here:

Governors are the last adults standing in American politics | TheHill - The Hill

Now is the time to remove our politicians penchant for insincerity from the resource control controversy. Because this is the time to begin again; time to review the 1999 Constitution in order that Nigeria may survive.

Unknown to many, possibly owing to ignorance, carelessness or perversity, the 1999 Constitution is a unitary document rather than a federal constitution. In fact, the people didnt realise the enormity of atrocity committed against federalism until the advent of the Buhari nepotism.

Even then with other regions such as South West, South East and North Central where rivers are rampant, offshore resources are placed under the Federal Government without qualms. It is noteworthy that this matter was laid to rest in 2002 with the landmark Supreme Court case between the Federal Attorney General and the Attorney General of Abia State and 35 others.The court reaffirmed federal control over the resources of the states offshore and the adjacent continental shelf on Nigerias coast. That the Supreme Court reaffirmed the anti-federalism of the 1999 Constitution never prompted the federalists to amend the Constitution. As long as graft in dollars is rolling into bank accounts of our governors and legislators, federalism can go to blazes. That federalism has not been reinstated as Nigerias accepted form of government is proof of insincerity by our politicians. And when you practice insincerity as a habit; it gradually becomes ingrained in you. You no longer recognise you are being insincere to yourself as you are doing to others. Which is why our political office holders are not ashamed of not delivering their promises to the people.

Read the original here:

Time to remove insincerity from resource control Opinion - Guardian

Lets set the scene: American democracy is said to be under threat from a political party that questions the legitimacy and outcome of a presidential election, that incites and justifies lawless insurrectionist actions and undermines American democratic institutions and processes, threatening the continued existence of the Constitution itself. If this state of affairs continues unabated, experts claim, the United States might well lapse into a second Civil War, as argued in Barbara F. Walters new book How Civil Wars Start.

Yes thats a pretty good description of the Democratic Party. You were expecting something else around the anniversary of Jan. 6?

Lets do the checklist. A Washington Post/University of Maryland poll in 2017 found that 67% of Democrats and 69% of Hillary Clinton voters said Donald Trump was not a legitimately elected president, and Hillary herself told CBS News that Trump was not a legitimate president because he stole the 2016 election. Three years of contentious and debilitating investigations into what we now know was a phony Democrat-created story followed. But now that Republicans make similar claims about an anomalous election, liberals have caught a case of the vapors and say it is a threat to democracy.

And about that insurrection: Would that be the 1992 riots in Los Angeles that Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters praised with that term? What about the violent riots of the summer of 2020, which leading Democrats and much of the media called mostly peaceful and the legitimate voice of the people despite billions of dollars in damage and dozens of deaths from the violence? Maybe they were just following the lead of Baltimores former Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who declared during that citys 2015 riots that we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.

As for the Constitution and long-established democratic processes, which party is it that argues for wholesale changes to the Constitution? That wants to pack the Supreme Court? That wants to jettison century-old rules of the Senate to make it a purely majoritarian body? Admit new states to tilt the partisan balance in Washington? What changes to the Constitution are Republicans demanding exactly? A balanced-budget amendment is about the only one hardly a regime-shaking idea.

A certain consistency deserves to be noted here. Trump was not the first Republican president to face The Resistance from Democrats. It was, after all, the refusal of the Democratic Party to abide by the results of a free election in 1860 that led to our first Civil War, so why change modes now?

The hysteria among Democrats over the shambolic riot at the Capitol a year ago reveals not only the hypocrisy of the left but also its deep insecurity, ideological hollowness and what psychologists call projection, that is, attributing to others what is going on in your own mind.

Democrats can take a patronizing attitude toward the violence and destruction from the far left because it does not take the far left seriously, while at the same time sympathizing with the far left to some extent out of liberal guilt. But a single outburst of lawlessness from the right, foolishly tolerated if not encouraged by President Donald Trump, shakes liberals to their core not simply because it is so unexpected but because it controverts their core theory of the universe.

If you think that you are on the side of history but events dont cooperate with this lazy progressive narrative, you will be pitched into an existential crisis. This outlook cannot abide the fact that we have lived in a 50/50 nation for nearly 30 years now and are likely to continue to be closely divided for a long time to come. Progressive leftists cannot understand or accept this (or any) level of dissent.

The point is: The true intolerance in America resides overwhelmingly on the left today.

The lefts concern trolling over a potential civil war can be seen as a sequel of their obsession with what should be called coup porn over the events of Jan. 6. Recall that the cities that boarded up their downtowns before the 2020 election feared violence from Democrats if Trump had won, as indeed occurred after the 2016 election.

The foolish Jan. 6 mob action allowed the left to flip the script and project their own toleration of violence onto Republicans, though as usual the impulse to hyperbole has taken over. If Jan. 6 hadnt happened, the left would have had to invent it. Now it is going to become the lefts Saint Crispins Day for decades to come.

Barbara Walter, perhaps the chief civil war re-enactor of the moment, confesses to being really happy on Jan. 6, telling the London Times recently that this was the gift that America needed to wake up because those of us who were sounding the alarm had been getting nowhere with it. A gift? More like a grift for the left.

How exactly the QAnon shaman and other unarmed rioters could have ever succeeded in preventing Joe Bidens accession to the presidency on Jan. 20, or toppling the Constitution, has never been seriously explained, which may be one reason not a single person arrested for Jan. 6 acts has been charged with insurrection or sedition.

As coups go, it was pathetic: There were no seizures of radio and TV stations, detention of officials, control of transportation and armories or other hallmarks of a real coup. Never mind that Americas separation of powers and federalism features of American government that the left generally dislikes and wishes to replace make a traditional power-grabbing coup nearly impossible to succeed.

That the electoral vote count proceeded later in the day on Jan. 6 testifies to the resilience of American democracy, not its fragility.

The giddy talk of civil war trivializes our divisions, which are real and deep. It is hard to maintain a sense of common citizenship when we increasingly see each other as utterly alien. But projections of a new civil war are overwrought. For one thing, we lack the sectional geographical divide that was central to our actual Civil War and a single, central issue over which compromise became impossible.

Walter predicts something more like guerilla war instead of a real civil war with localized terrorist acts. (Once again we can draw on the violent history of the new left in the 1960s for a precedent another case of leftist projection.)

It is more likely that Americans will continue the accelerating process of self-sorting. Americans are moving in large numbers to states more congenial to their political and social views (mostly from blue to red states) or forming enclaves within red and blue states.

Some of the ideological divides can be ameliorated by reinvigorating federalism: Let Vermont be Vermont, and let Idaho be Idaho. The possibility of terrorist acts that Walter predicts would be diminished substantially through reinvigorated federalism.

Of course we know who is against this: the very same people warning of a civil war. If a new civil war does come, it will be on account of the intransigence of the same party that started the first one.

Steven F. Hayward is a resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley.

Original post:

Sorry, Democrats: Civil War isn't likely even if you're trying to provoke one - New York Post

Ron McMullen| Guest opinion

On Friday, people in the Ethiopian city of Axum will gather to celebrate Christmas, as will some 280 million other Orthodox Christians around the world.

But wait, isnt Christmas on Dec. 25?Most Iowans would answer yes, because the 13 colonies skipped ahead 12 days in 1752 (when George Washington was just 20) as we ditched the older Julian calendar in favor of the more accurate Gregorian one.

Orthodox churches, however, still use the oldcalendar.Thus, if you have a friend who is an Orthodox Christian, surprise them with a cheery Merry Christmas on Friday.When I was ambassador to Eritrea (next door to Ethiopia), our family celebrated both days, enjoying a double helping of Christmas cheer those years.

However, few Christians celebrating Christmas this year in Axum, Ethiopia, will find anything remotely merry about the holiday season.Axum, about the size of Ames, hosts the Ark of the Covenant and the stone tablets on which Moses inscribed the Ten Commandments, according to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.

Its 45 million members believe the Ark rests in a church in Axum, having been smuggled to Ethiopia ages ago by King Solomon and the Queen of Shebas son. It has supposedly been safeguarded by Christians in Axum ever since (despite what you saw at the end of "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark").

Axumites, along with 7 million other Ethiopians living in the northern state of Tigray, have been engulfed in a civil war since November 2020.Tigray is currently besieged by Ethiopian federal forces aided by troops from Eritrea the United Nationsreports 400,000 people have crossed the threshold into famine and 1.7 million have been displaced from their homes.

Amnesty International claims Eritrean troops, who occupied Axum earlier in the war, systematically killed hundreds of civilians in cold blood.The U.S. State Department has voiced grave concern about atrocities and egregious human rights abuses committed by both sides in this ongoing war in the Horn of Africa.

Why should we care?With omicron surging, inflation spiking, supply chains clogged, politics polarized, and socio-economic gaps persisting, dont we have enough to worry about?Isnt the Tigray War just another African conflict generating vague humanitarian concerns?

The lesson we should learn from the Tigray War is that ethnic federalism doesnt work.Ethiopia, like the U.S., is a federal system.

Our states are based on geography, but Ethiopias are based largely on ethnic identity, with each major ethnic group having its own regional state.Under Ethiopias constitution, states even have the right to secede.

Politicians from Tigray dominated Ethiopia for 30 years until the election of Abiy Ahmed in 2018.Prime Minister Abiy is neither Orthodox nor Tigrayan (hes a Pentecostal Oromo) and, somewhat ironically from todays perspective, won the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were also federal systems based on ethnic group identity, at least according to their constitutions.When the Soviet Union collapsed, it did so along ethno-national lines.Yugoslavia also collapsed along ethnic lines, leading to genocide, war, secessionand ongoing animosity.

Abiy may yet win the Tigray War, albeit at great cost.Ethiopias recent agony, however, shows ethnic federalisms record is 0-3.

Expanding and protecting individual rights, as opposed to group rights nominally based on ethnicity, would have led to strikingly different outcomes in the evolution of the Soviet Union, Yugoslaviaand Ethiopia.Is there anything in these three examples that Americans should ponder as we contemplate the state of our country in 2022?

On Friday(and beyond), let us wish peace on earth to all.

Ron McMullen is a former U.S. ambassadorcurrently teaching political science at the University of Iowa.

Continue reading here:

Opinion: It will be a dreary Christmas in Ethiopia this year, and here's why Americans should care - Iowa City Press-Citizen

By P.K.Balachandran

Colombo, January 8 (newsin.asia): A long and determined effort by the political parties of the Tamil-speaking communities in Sri Lanka to jointly write to the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking his good offices to persuade Colombo to address the political grievances of the Tamils and the Muslims, has failed.

The Indian Origin Tamil (IOT) parties led by Mano Ganeshan and the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) led by Rauff Hakeem, had objected to certain demands and references in the draft saying that these were inimical to their political interests.

Subscribe to ourTelegramchannel for the latest updatesfrom around the world

The IOT parties said that the demand for federalism could not be put forward by them because such a demand would alienate the majority Sinhalese, among whom they have to live and seek their political fortune. The IOT parties also have a tradition of becoming part of the government of the day and, therefore, they cannot take very antagonistic positions.

IOT leader Mano Ganeshan said that the majority Sinhalese community would dub the demand for federalism as anti-national and use it to oppose all the demands of the Tamils. The IOT parties wanted the letter to the Indian PM to focus on the retention and full implementation of the 13th. Amendment (13A) of the Sri Lankan constitution. The 13A appears to be headed for repeal or a severe pruning if the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government goes ahead with its plan to draft a new constitution for Sri Lanka. The 13A gives the Sri Lankan Provinces a modicum of powers under a Unitary constitution. Even these limited powers might be taken away.

READ: One Country, One Law: The Sri Lankan States hostility toward Muslims grows deeper

The IOT believe that Indias help could be legitimately sought only for the retention and full implementation of the 13 A because it flowed from the India-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 signed by the then Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and the then Sri Lankan President J.R.Jayewardene in July 1987.

However, the reference to the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord in the letter irked the SLMC leader Rauff Hakeem who said that the Accord had manifestly neglected the Muslims. Also, the Muslims of the Eastern Province would not support the merger of the Northern and Eastern Province (as the Tamils have been demanding) because merger would make the Muslims a minority in a united province and further exacerbate their minority status in Sri Lanka as a whole.

READ: China reaches out to Lankan Tamil fishermen in a bid to upstage India

Not wanting to dilute the draft letter to the Indian PM as per the wishes of the IOT and the SLMC, the parties of the Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka, the home of the Sri Lankan Tamils, decided to sign the letter dated December 29, 2021. These parties plan to hand it over to the Indian High Commissioner Gopal Baglay next Tuesday or Wednesday.

The North-East parties that signed the letter are: the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK), which is the largest and the oldest Tamil party, the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization (TELO) led by Selvam Adaikalanathan, the Tamil National Liberation Alliance (TNLA) led by N.Srikantha; the Peoples Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE) led by D.Siddharthan; the Eelam Peoples Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) led by Suresh Premachandran; and the Tamil Peoples National Alliance (TPNA) led by C.V.Wigneswaran.

The Tamil National Peoples Front (TNPF) led by Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam kept out of the entire exercise because it felt that the 13A has no place even as a temporary arrangement or as the first step towards a federal structure. The only solution the Tamils should fight seek is full federalism, according to the TNPF.

READ: The many facets of the Tamil festival Thai Pongal

ITAK leader M.A.Sumanthiran said that the IOT parties could pursue their case separately with the Indian Prime Minister. Mano Ganeshan said that the IOT will lend outside support for the North Eastern Tamils cause but will not sign the letter.

Explaining his position, IOT leader Mao Ganeshan said that the original idea was to present a common front with a common set of demands, in other words a Common Minimum Program (CMP) to the Indian PM. The CMP could not include divisive issues, he said. He also felt that the letter to the PM should be short and not 13 pages. There is no need to recall the past in detail as these are known to the Indian Establishment very well, Ganeshan added.

He was at pains to stress that at the moment, there is a crisis situation as regards the 13A and this has to be met urgently with the good offices of the Indian Prime Minister. Therefore, the one and only focus of the letter should have been the 13A.

READ: In Sri Lanka, the Tamil link with Buddhism is brushed under the carpet

On the contrary, the ITAK strongly felt that the demands of the Tamils could not be confined to the 13A, which, in any case, could only be a starting point. The case of federalism could not be lost sight of at any point of time.

Therefore, the letter said that the Tamil-speaking people remain committed to a political solution based on a federal structure that recognizes their legitimate aspirations.

Calling for the unification of the Tamil Homeland, the letter pointed out that the Tamil speaking peoples have always been the majority in the North and East of Sri Lanka, thereby calling for a merger of the Northern and Eastern provinces.

On the 13A, the letter said that it was introduced into a Unitary constitution making the exercise one of decentralization instead of devolution. It pointed out that since 1987, the North-Eastern Tamil parties have been moving towards a federal structure in their campaigns.

Giving the landmarks, the letter said that at the Oslo peace conference between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, the Sri Lankan delegate, G.L.Peiris, had said that the two parties had agreed to explore a solution founded on the principle of internal self-determination in areas of historical habitation of the Tamil-speaking people, based on a federal structure within a united Sri Lanka. When Mahinda Rajapaksa was President, he told the visiting Indian Foreign Minister S.M.Krishna, that Sri Lanka would go beyond the 13A. And in an address to the Sri Lankan parliament, Indian Prime Minister Modi had said that he was a firm believer in cooperative federalism.

READ: Whats Touted As Tamil King Elaras Tomb Is A Fable, Says Historian

It was against this background the letter to the Indian PM, finalized by the North Eastern Tamil parties, sought Indian help to make the Sri Lankan government fully implement the provisions of the 13A and implement the clear commitments made by all sections of government from 1987 onwards.

A leader of one of the North Eastern Tamil parties said that the IOT parties had agreed to the draft letter initially and that it was the North-East-based Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) that was putting spokes in the wheel. The ITAK did not want the credit for getting the various parties together to go to the Tamil Elam Liberation Organization (TELO) leader Selvam Adaikalanathan.

The source also said that Mano Ganeshan finally opted out because of the insults hurled at the IOT community by an ITAK leader, S.Sritharan. The source also alleged that ITAK leader M.A.Sumanthiran had continuously worked to scuttle the bid to write to the Indian PM because he felt that the Indians would not help the Sri Lankan Tamils to achieve their goals and that it would be better to seek American help.

But IOT leaders said that their information was that the US would concentrate on wartime accountability and human rights issues, and leave the other political issues to India, the regional power.

END

For similar articles, join ourTelegram channelfor the latest updates.click here

Here is the original post:

Indian Origin Tamils and Muslims refused to ink Tamils' joint letter to Indian PM - NewsIn.Asia

Adopting a Constitution

The United States Constitution was ratified on May 29, 1790, and became the law of the land. The Constitution contains seven articles that spell out the division of powers between national and state governments. The majority of the power lies in the federal government, but the states are allowed to retain some autonomy over their local governments, so long as their local laws don't clash with federal or constitutional laws.

The Supremacy Clause is a key component of federalism as it says that the federal government's authority and laws take precedence over state laws. For example, say Texas made it illegal to vote until the age of 21. However, federal law and the Constitution say people can vote at 18. The federal law supersedes state law in this case, so Texas is not allowed to make this change.

The reverse can also be true. The federal law cannot interfere with state law if it is not a federal or constitutional matter. States can decide, for example, the drinking age, speed limits, and fireworks rules.

Federalism went through multiple phases. Dual federalism first argued that federal and state governments were partners that had equal powers. Around 1865, though, a second period maintained duality, but the federal government began to make more inroads into the sphere of state government.

Cooperative federalism (1901 to 1960) saw federal and state governments working together to address societal and economic problems occurring at all levels of government. For example, the federal government began issuing grants to states in financial need.

A short-lived form of federalism, called creative federalism, was introduced during the socially conscious, turbulent 1960s. During this phase, the federal government increased its power over the states and implemented nationwide programs to combat poverty and other social ills.

Contemporary federalism arose circa 1970 and continues to today. This phase is one of conflict and compromise, in which the federal government and state governments struggle to figure out who has authority over what. Court cases abound as states challenge federal laws and assert their right to self governance and the federal government pushes back.

As of 2020, many states have come to realize that they cannot govern without federal assistance, but the federal government has advocated for less interference in states, which has created a sense of tension and urgency between the two entities. Federal laws regulating the environment, economy, education, and other facets of American life have been decreased, resulting in multiple court cases as states argue that the federal government is not being responsible and negatively affecting the states. At the same time, the states want the federal government to help in dealing with serious issues, such as racism, poverty, and the COVID-19 pandemic. What the solution will be is yet to be seen.

In the words of former Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, challenges are ''perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist,'' and Americans seek what the founders call ''a more perfect union.''

Federalism is the shared authority between a national government and states. The U.S. decided on federalism during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and rejected the Articles of Confederation. Key players in the crafting of the United States Constitution included James Madison, who is also known as the Father of the Constitution, and American revolutionary patriot and delegate from New York, Alexander Hamilton, who strongly advocated for federalism. An important component to federalism is the Supremacy Clause, which places federal law above state law, although there are exceptions. States can implement laws so long as they are not in conflict with federal laws or the Constitution.

Federalism started out as dual federalism, a partnership between the states and the federal government, but later morphed into cooperative federalism, in which states and the federal government worked together to improve societal and economic conditions. Creative federalism emerged in the 1960s during a tumultuous time and was the progenitor of national programs to fight poverty and other social ills. The contemporary federalism of today sees states and the federal government struggle with one another to define their boundaries and push back against laws that one or the other believe to be unconstitutional.

Original post:

What is Federalism? - Definition & Factors of U.S ...

Aminu Masari, governor of Katsina, says the periodic rotation of power from one region to another will help to make the countrys federalism stronger.

Ahead of the 2023 presidential election, there has been clamour for a power shift to the southern part of the country.

Speaking at a media parley in Katsina on Tuesday, Masari said although the constitution does not provide for the mandatory shift of power to any region, such rotation will help the countrys current political structure.

Let me make my position very clear. This constitution is made for us, and not that we are made for the constitution, the governor said.

The constitution does not say we must shift power, but if you shift, have you violated any part of the constitution?

From my personal opinion as Aminu Bello Masari, until such a time when we have stable polity, I think rotation or shifting power from time to time will help consolidate our federalism.

The governor also said the transition committee in 1999 suggested that each geo-political zone be given an opportunity of five years to rule the country but the provision did not make it to the constitution.

Speaking on the failure to conduct LGA elections in his state, Masari blamed the opposition parties.

The opposition knew from day one that they have been trying to sabotage the election and one good way to do that is through litigation, he said.

We have been to the states high court, the federal high court and up to the supreme court not once, and not twice

He, however, said there are plans to conduct the poll in the new year, adding that more than 70 percent of what is required for the election is on ground.

Continued here:

Masari: Power rotation will strengthen our federalism - TheCable

A federal-democracy assumingly is where people of the federating units can fairly exercise their constitutional and legal rights within the ambit of twin principles of self-rule and shared-rule of federalism. The relative successes or failures of democracy essentially rests with its capacity to accommodate the diversity, both in terms of identities and ideologies.

The more peaceful the accommodation is, the better are the chances of laying down strong foundations of the principles of democracy and federalism.

The two incidents in the recent past, one in Mon district of Nagaland and the other at Lakhimpur Kheri in Uttar Pradesh, undermined the core principles democracy and federalism. With these two incidents in hindsight, it seems that both democracy and federalism the twin essential building blocks of modern nation-state are backsliding and clawing back. Is it because we have entered into what may be called as new age of rage?

So what happened in Mon district in Nagaland? On December 4, in an alleged botched up case, the soldiers of Indian Army (21 PARA SPECIAL FORCES) killed, without provocation, six coal miners and injured grievously two other miners near Oting village in the Mon district. The soldiers killed another seven village folks who protested against the instinctive and indiscriminate killings of the six coal miners.

The next day, one more civilian was killed when the protesters, in retaliation, attacked the Company Operating Base of Assam Rifles and set ablaze its buildings at Mon town. The death toll of civilians rose to fourteen and injured to thirty five during the incident.

The central government, having complete control over the Special Forces, regretted the loss of civilians and explained that it was the case of mistaken identity for insurgents due to intelligence failure. The incident, on the surface of it, appeared to be a casual disposition of signals and information by the security forces, but at a deeper level it begs the real question - can the people of Nagaland afford such kind of public insecurity?

More so, when the north-east regions including Nagaland has a history of internecine murders of innocent civilians and alleged extra-judicial killings by security forces under the cover of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFPSA), 1958.

The loss of lives simply by the strange quirk of military actions has not only outraged the people of Nagaland but also the larger civil society who seek equal rights for its citizens. To stave off the peoples anger both the central and state agencies responded swiftly. The army instituted a court of enquiry, headed by an officer of major general rank, which will focus on the intelligence and the circumstances of the ambush. National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) sought a detailed report within six weeks from Union Defence Secretary, Union Home Secretary, and Chief Secretary and Director General of Police of Nagaland.

The Nagaland government constituted a Special Investigative Team (SIT) to investigate the firings and the Nagaland State Crime Polices FIR on the incident said that army fired with the intention to murder and injure civilians. Clearly, the pitches in inquires and reports by both the central and the state agencies seem to be at loggerheads. Nagaland people are demanding upfront, among others, the repeal of AFPSA and justice to the bereaved families.

Nagaland Legislative Assembly, on 20th December, passed a resolution relating AFPSA and condemned the massacre. The resolution sought an apology from the central agencies involved in the operations of security forces. The house categorically demanded repeal of AFSPA from the North-East, and especially from Nagaland, so as to strengthen the ongoing efforts to find a peaceful political settlement to the Naga Political Issue.

Nagaland represents a typical case of asymmetrical federalism, where in there is a dialectical relations between the federal institutions administration both state and centre and the struggle of ethno-national communities of Nagaland for recognition and protection of their identities and interests. Article 371 A of the Indian Constitution accords special status and wide autonomy, qua asymmetrical federalism design, to the people from Nagaland in terms of the special or religious practices of Nagas, their customary laws and procedures, and the ownership and transfer of their land and resources.

However, the article also confers certain discretionary powers to the Governor of Nagaland, which essentially means direct control from the centre of the state administration. With draconian powers inherent in AFPSA and the Governors special responsibilities vis-a-vis state governance, particularly law and order which is the state subject, virtually most of the crucial decisions about public security gets appropriated with the centre.

An innovative all-party governance model, marked by clear absence of opposition, seems to gloss a veneer for state-democracy. Asymmetrical federalism, in case of Nagaland, obfuscates more than it protects the real issues of rights. All political regimes are accustomed to status quo, and hence any demand for restitutions of the rights of the citizens, if violated with impunity, are either seen with suspicion or scorn by them.

In the case of Lakhimpur Kheri district in Uttar Pradesh, violence erupted there on October 3, when the protesting farmers, peacefully, were run over by a high speeding vehicle allegedly by Ashish Mishra, son of Ajay Mishra, minister in the current central regime. Eight people lost their lives on the spot. The Supreme Court, after seeing the tardy investigation of the incident, took suo motu cognisance of the case and reconstituted the Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The opposition and protesting farmers demanded the resignation of the minister. What is shocking about the incident is the vengeful manner in which the vehicle mowed down peaceful protesting farmers. Equally shocking is that, according to the SIT investigation, the killings were a deliberate planned conspiracy and not at all an act of negligence or callousness.

The two incidents of gruesome snapping-off of innocent lives bring to the fore the debates and salience of constitutional-morality and fundamental rights as enshrined in our constitution. The recent regression of democracy in India, and worldwide, shows the waning of political and philosophical commitments to rights of the ordinary citizens. Right to protest, in the two cases abovementioned, was threatened by the unfettered power of the contemporary state or its surrogates.

The Indian constitution guarantees certain degree of shared-rule between centre and the state and also certain degree of self-rule by the state administration, particularly in law and order issues. The self-rule, for its smooth functioning, requires certain degree of decentralisation. This framework would necessarily create conditions for realisation of fundamental rights. Violation of right to life, in both the case, requires justice and restitutions.

Any deviation from the path of justice and restitutions would strike at the very root of the basic structures of the constitution.

Read more from the original source:

Nagaland To Lakhimpur Kheri: Rights, Regimes And Restitutions in Times Of Turbulence - Outlook India