Page 18«..10..17181920..30..»

Category Archives: Federalism

Poland accuses Germany of trying to form ‘Fourth Reich’ – DW (English)

Posted: December 29, 2021 at 10:06 am

Poland's deputy prime minister and the leader of its ruling party, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, accused Germany's new governmentof wanting to turn the European Union into a federal "German Fourth Reich."

In an interview with far-right Polish daily GPCpublished on Friday, the head of the Law and Justice (PiS) party said that some countries "are not enthusiastic at the prospect of a German Fourth Reich being built on the basis of the EU."

"If we Poles agreed with this kind of modern-day submission, we would be degraded in different ways," said Kaczynski.

He added that the EU's Court of Justice was being used as an "instrument" for federalist ideas.

Other PiS leaders have recently used the same phrase to describe the intentions of Berlin's new center-left coalition government toward the European Union.

The agreement forged by the three parties to form Germany's ruling coalitionstates that its ultimate goal is a federal European state. This aspect of the agreement was condemned by Poland's PiS government, with Kaczynski even claiming such a state would take away Poland's right to self-determination.

During German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's visit to Warsaw earlier this month, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said the current German government's support for EU federalism was "utopian and therefore dangerous."

Poland has been involved in along-standing conflict with the European Union, particularly over the judicial changes that the PiS has pushed through since 2015.

This week, the European Union said it was launching legal action against Poland for ignoring EU law and undermining judicial independence. Poland has also accused the EU of "bureaucratic centralism."

lc/aw (dpa, AFP)

See the article here:

Poland accuses Germany of trying to form 'Fourth Reich' - DW (English)

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Poland accuses Germany of trying to form ‘Fourth Reich’ – DW (English)

Federalism is the answer, after all – Part 61 Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and World News – Guardian Nigeria

Posted: December 23, 2021 at 10:26 pm

Incidentally, Nigeria clocked 61 as an independent country this year.

As though fated to be so, this 61st edition of our editorial advocacy to return the country to a federal state structure concludes the remarkable serial on Federalism is the answer, after all.

Last year, we began with the knowledge that Nigeria was suffering from a crisis of the state and the conviction that it could be cured with a federal recipe. Our conviction has not changed. Truly the sick man of Africa can be saved given the political will to do so by duty bearers.

In its absence, the sick man could die. Our wish is that it should live and be an entity with abundant life and a bastion of peace and justice. But the ruling elite, who by their omission and commission have brought the country to its knees, should not take the country for granted.In the 2003 maiden annual democracy lecture of the Centre for Constitutionalism and Demilitarisation, titled, Remapping the Nation: National Boundaries and Normative Bounds, Professor Adebayo Williams then of the University of Incarnate Word, San Antonio, USA, addressed the question: When is a nation? The erudite scholar argued then that nations are not permanent entities.

As historical constructs; they change over time, in other words, due to irreconcilable contradictions, they may fade into history. In his words: The history of the modem nation-state is replete with nations that have disappeared, nations without accompanying states and states pretending to rule over non-existent nations.

Since the beginning of this serial, we have dissected the federal essentialities of the Nigerian state and stressed the point that they make a federal constitutional arrangement not only attractive but good for our country. It is a veritable basis to unleash the creativity of our people and drive the countrys development.Throughout the serial, we have noted clearly that the country has been suffering from a crisis of state and the battle for Nigeria is about restoring freedom to the component units to chart the course of development in their respective enclaves. Those who plant yam should harvest yam, and those who plant rice should harvest rice and should not be made poor despite their natural resources.

Concluded.

See the original post here:

Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 61 Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and World News - Guardian Nigeria

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Federalism is the answer, after all – Part 61 Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and World News – Guardian Nigeria

PREP Act Preemption: There is no COVID-19 Exception to Federalism – JD Supra

Posted: at 10:26 pm

When the estates of nursing home residents who died from COVID-19 brought negligence and wrongful death lawsuits in New Jersey state court, defendant nursing homes removed the suits to federal court under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d, 247d-6e (PREP Act), which protects certain covered entities, such as drug manufacturers, from lawsuits during a public health emergency. The federal District Court dismissed the cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded them to state court, and an appeal to the Third Circuit ensued. Estate of Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings LLC, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 31526 (3d Cir. 2021).

The wrongful death actions arose from the treatment of residents at nursing homes where it was alleged that the residents' deaths were a direct result of the nursing homes failures to take measures to protect them at the facilities from the coronavirus and/or medical malpractice (including failure to provide personal protective equipment, to timely diagnose and treat the disease and permitting visitors and employees to enter the facilities without taking their temperatures or requiring masks.) The nursing home defendants premised their removal on the basis of a combination of federal officer removal, complete preemption and a substantial federal issue. The nursing homes urged the federal court to defer to PREP Act interpretations of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; however, the Third Circuit ruled that deference is not owed to HHS interpretations for the simple reason that HHS is not delegated authority under the PREP Act to interpret the scope of federal courts' jurisdiction.

Additionally, while removal was also premised upon the federal officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. 1442)a)(1)) the Third Circuit found nursing homes were not "acting under" the United States, its agencies or its officers. The nursing homes did not assist or help carry out the duties of a federal superior and are not government contractors. Finally, the nursing homes argued complete federal preemption of the estates' claims as the PREP Act is so pervasive that the state law negligence claims are in fact federal claims under the Act, and thus removable to federal court. The Third Circuit disagreed, finding that simply making the preemption argument is insufficient to get the nursing homes into federal court. Nevertheless, a state court might find the PREP Act displaces one or more of the estates' state law claims when they adjudicate the issue. But simply raising a defense of federal preemption does not make the case removable.

Here, the estates alleged only negligence, not willful misconduct. The Act creates an exclusive cause of action for willful misconduct, and requires plaintiffs bringing willful misconduct claims to first exhaust administrative remedies and then to bring their claim only in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In other words, "just because the PREP Act creates an exclusive federal cause of action does not mean it completely preempts the states' state law claims." The Third Circuit also rejected the argument that formation of a compensation fund creates preemption, inasmuch as the compensation fund is not a cause of action. Finally, Federal Question removal was also not appropriate since the estates did not assert a federal cause of action.

The Third Circuit stressed that they are not holding that all state law causes of action are invulnerable to complete preemption under the PREP Act, nor are they holding the PREP Act preempts the estates claims under ordinary preemption rulesthat is for the state court to decide. Importantly, while the pandemic has tested our federal system, there is no COVID-19 exception to Federalism.

Read more from the original source:

PREP Act Preemption: There is no COVID-19 Exception to Federalism - JD Supra

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on PREP Act Preemption: There is no COVID-19 Exception to Federalism – JD Supra

What the Pandemic Has Taught Us About American Democracy – The Nation

Posted: at 10:26 pm

Danielle Allen. (Photo by Laura Rose)

Thank you for signing up forThe Nations weekly newsletter.

For many people, the Covid-19 pandemic has shown that democracy in the United States is fundamentally broken. With the exception of vaccines, the government has failed to help develop and quickly implement strategies for tracing and containing the outbreaks. As the economy ground to a halt during last years lockdowns, unemployment swelled, as did food insecurity and debt. Covid further exposed the countrys deep socioeconomic disparities: The health and finances of Black Americans and other minorities were most affected by the pandemic, and the move to remote learning at the majority of the nations schools forced many women to drop out of the workforce for lack of child care. Moreover, Joe Bidens defeat of Donald Trump has done little to ease widespread public distrust of government, as demonstrated by the continued divide over masking and vaccines.

So its little wonder that some critics blame the federal system and a strong culture of individual rights for the United States inability to meet the challenge of overcoming the virus. The question naturally arises, then, as to whether US democracy can deliver solutions to the health and economic problems presented by a rapidly moving pandemic. But according to the Harvard political theorist Danielle Allen, it can.

In her new book, Democracy in the Time of Coronavirus, Allen argues that federalism, rather than being a problem, offers solutions to what ails democracy today. In particular, she embraces what she calls cooperative federalism. Consider, for instance, contract tracing programs: They are most effective, Allen argues, when managed by people trusted within the community in which they operate. While American distrust of national government has risen continuously over the last few decades, she writes, trust in local government remains high. Contact tracing programs that protect privacy are best introduced at the local level; the federal government can help design the IT infrastructure, but its reasonable, Allen says, to leave the use of that infrastructure in the hands of local authorities. For Allen, cooperative federalism suggests that the federal government should focus on the big picture: setting overarching goals and identifying promising practices for how best to respond to the pandemic. In contrast, states, counties, cities, and local governments should concentrate on the nitty-grittycontact tracing, testing, treating the ill, and supporting those who are isolating.

But how can the US government facilitate such cooperation and coordination, especially given the widespread distrust of federal organizations, not to mention the deep ideological divides that mark contemporary politics? For this to happen, Allen believes it is necessary for the nation to renew its social contract, which allows for a sense of common purpose and resilience.

The Nation spoke with Danielle Allen about her new book, the Trump administrations failures in managing the pandemic, the idea of cooperative federalism, how the countrys social contract can be renewed, and the efforts of the Biden presidency.

Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins

Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins: Well before the pandemic erupted, political scientists and pundits lamented that US democracy had entered into a state of crisis. Many said this was due to the Trump presidency and its challenge to liberal democratic norms. However, you argue that it was the pandemic itself that revealed that our social contract was fundamentally broken. What do you mean by this? More specifically, in what sense did the pandemic reveal that the real challenge we face with Covid is something beyond the political dysfunction of the Trump administration? Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Danielle Allen: What exactly is a social contract? A social contract is the set of rights and mutual responsibilities that we have among ourselves as citizens in a constitutional democracy. A social contract is both whats asked of us as participants in a constitutional democracy and all that is made possible for us by virtue of our participation in that constitutional democracy. Whats asked of us and what we receive establish relations of reciprocity within the citizenry. The pandemic revealed that our social contract is fundamentally broken. Our society includes people who are being asked to follow the law and to pay taxes but who are not in return receiving the opportunity and security promised by our arrangement of mutual rights and responsibilities. The elderly and essential workers, for instance, were left badly exposed to the pandemic and suffered terribly. We have seen disparate impacts on communities of color, because underlying foundations of health have not been adequately established for low-income workers. When this crisis hit, the society that promised to protect all did not in fact protect many of its members.

Pandemic resilience requires public health infrastructure, of course, but also a healthy social contractgood governance and bonds of solidarity and mutual commitment within the population, connected to love of country. Solidarity is the resource that enables people to make small sacrifices of liberty so as to avoid harm to others with whom they have a social bond. We convey our love of country through acts of solidarity to the other members of our polity. The Trump administration did not deliver good governance, but neither did we the people deliver resources of solidarity.

DSJ: Your notion of a social contract presupposes what you describe as a common purposeone necessary for effective Covid strategies and policies. Do you really believe a sense of common purpose can be realized, especially given the political divides in this country?

DA: Both Australia and Germany, with federal systems, succeeded in the early crisis stages in responding to the virus. Neither democracy nor federalism was the problem. In Australia, the government established a nationwide crisis-response cabinet drawing on members from both parties. Federalism, for those countries, was an asset and could have been of great value to us if we had taken more deliberate and well-considered advantage of its resources. When common purpose can be established, then federalism permits flexible and contextually specific implementation. So how do we establish a common purpose? That is the foremost purpose of our legislature, of Congress. So given the dysfunction of Congress and its now extremely rigid polarization, we do have a problem.

Readers like you make our independent journalism possible.

The ancient Greek word for civil war was stasis. In modern English, that word is typically taken to mean being stuck in place. Those meanings go together. What the Greeks understood is that when a society is completely riven by division, it gets stuck in place. In the impossibility of working together, people turn to violence. If were going to position ourselves to have our legislature do its work of synthesizing and developing a common purpose, we need to get it unstuck. I think the most efficient way of doing that, at this point, would be to abolish the filibuster. Legislation needs to move so that people can be held to account for the decisions they take, and so that we can restore productive dynamism in our politics.

DSJ: You state that the best way of aligning the Covid-19 response to the properties of disease transmission is to lodge authority for key public health decisions at the level of state and local officials. What do you see as the benefits of deploying policy programs on smaller scales?

DA: I remember a conversation in May or June 2020 with a Massachusetts official from the Department of Health and Human Services, who shared that a critical early insight in disease control was that supermarkets and shopping malls, and the patterns of traffic to them, gave the best insight into the nodes and social networks through which disease was spreading. These nodes and networks might or might not align with formal county jurisdictions, and so an overreliance on the formal jurisdictions to try to understand transmission would have led them astray. Seeing the networked structure of social life requires on-the-ground knowledge that is really accessible best to state and local authorities.

A case study is the contrast between Singapore and South Korea. After early success in suppressing the virus, Singapore saw a widespread outbreak which originated from a failure to control the virus within its migrant community; in other words, it overlooked a dense node of social relations in a marginalized community. South Korea, in contrast, moved swiftly at key points to control the spread within specific communitiesearly on, a large church congregation, and at another important point, communities frequenting a specific set of bars and nightclubs.

DSJ: Lets transition to discuss the governments failures in handling the pandemic. Interestingly, you affirm that then-President Trump was right when he said about collective stay-at-home orders, The cure cant be worse than the disease. What did you find right about his remark?

DA: Collective stay-at-home orders were a necessary response to the immediate crisis, because we had uncertain knowledge about the overall shape of the disease. Yet the weapon that could kill rapidly traveling viruses also kills economies. Both viruses and economies depend on active, frequent social interactions. The primary tool in the public health toolbox worked well, it turned out, only against localized epidemics. Localized stay-at-home orders take one bit of the economy off-line at a time, leaving the rest in operation to sustain even the portion temporarily closed. But global stay-at-home orders? They led to the most severe economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Sometimes, when a doctor gives a patient medicine, the medicine turns out to have side effects that might kill the patient. Some cancer patients, for instance, are not able to endure the prescribed course of chemotherapy. When that happens, their physicians change course: They find an alternative way of treating the disease that also preserves the underlying resources for life that the patient needs to fight the disease. Our economy is that set of resources for life that we need to fight the disease. In fighting the pandemic, the job we faced in March and April [of 2020] was to recognize that the medicine we had for this pandemic also had the side effect of killing the economy. We needed an alternative.

DSJ: This connects to your assertion in the book that, given the realities of other possible pandemics, we need an alternative to global or even national lockdowns that can defeat the disease while still preserving a functioning economy. Of course, where socioeconomic inequalities are present, we saw severe disparities in the impact of Covid on African American communities and others. And Trump himself wanted to keep the economy going. How, then, do you envision the balance between preserving a functioning economy and protecting the health of the most vulnerable?

DA: The solution will have to vary from case to case, depending on the nature of the disease and pandemic at hand. In our situation, given the specifics of Covid-19, a far more rapid mobilization of the economy to deliver the infrastructure of testing and contact tracing could have brought the disease to a close in the early stages and shortened the duration of lockdowns and the impact of disease transmission on economic life. Having failed to eliminate the disease in the early stages when that was still possible, we are now in a position where both vaccination and improved therapeutics are the necessary response, and the faster we can mobilize our economies to deliver on both worldwide, the less harm there will be to the most vulnerable.

Get unlimited access: $9.50 for six months.

DSJ: Why do you place so much emphasis on the need to keep public schools open despite community spread?

DA: Public schools were open continuously; the question was whether they were open via remote learning or in-person learning. Over the last decade, there have been lots of studies of remote education, all of which generally confirm that students do better with at least some in-person element. Those studies have focused mainly on older learnerscollege students and adult learners. In the case of this specific event, we were asking very young kids to try to learn remotely too. Its just harder, and there are also real mental health impacts from reduced access to social contact. I saw both of these challenges directly with my own children. And this was in a family where we had a full-time babysitter assisting the kids with their online learning. Need I say more?

Hospitals stayed open because of the critical functions they fulfill. Yes, we saw lots of new opportunities with telehealth, but we would never expect hospitals to fully cease offering in-person services. And they were able to open safely because they have the organizational capacity to deliver infection prevention and control in buildings and keep people safe. This is true even with much higher risk levels inside of health settings than in schools. Schools needed support in building up the organizational capacity for infection prevention and control. Hospitals have been developing this capacity for decades. It wasnt fair to turn to schools and say, Do this tomorrow, without offering technical assistance and resources.

DSJ: Given that you wrote this book last year, how do you judge the Biden administrations handling of the pandemic?

DA: The Biden administration has done well. They further accelerated investment in vaccine distribution and production, and that has served us well. They set up a Pandemic Testing Board, which my team had recommended, to help build out the infrastructure we need to understand and fight diseases like this through testing tools. They have reestablished baseline functionality at the CDC, even if there is still a long way to go to rebuild that agency. We still need, though, to achieve the modernization of our public health infrastructure. The pandemic showed us that it was badly wanting. My hope is that states will make good use of their Covid relief funding to do just that.

Follow this link:

What the Pandemic Has Taught Us About American Democracy - The Nation

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on What the Pandemic Has Taught Us About American Democracy – The Nation

Combatting air pollution in Northern India: Cooperative federalism is the way forward – Observer Research Foundation

Posted: at 10:26 pm

As the winter air pollution worsens over time, North Indian states need to collaborate to mitigate this issue, with Uttar Pradesh taking a lead on it.

As winter air pollution chokes the northern region of India, and is even spreading to far off states like West Bengal, there is a heated debate over this crisis. Unlike a few years ago, when the hype around air pollution was largely centered around Delhi, the purview has expanded to include states like Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and Rajasthan to a significant extent.

Furthermore, it has been widely acknowledged that the sources of winter air pollution are multiple and its impact is felt by citizens from across states. The meteorological factors including La Nia and anticyclonic conditions developing over eastern parts of the country along with weather conditions of wind patterns, development of fog and mist over Northern India, contribute substantially towards the geographical diversification of the air pollution.

The discourse became more about blame-shifting and the intended objectives of collaborating together seem to have been lost along the way.

Because of this nature of the crisis, a collaborative approach is the need of the hour. Previously, Delhi and the adjoining states have tried to work in a collaborative manner to address this challenge. However, the discourse became more about blame-shifting and the intended objectives of collaborating together seem to have been lost along the way.

This year, to deal with this challenge in a holistic and cooperative manner, the Parliament of India passed the Commission for Air Quality Management in the National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Bill, 2021, which created a commission to manage, monitor, and take steps to control the air pollution in the NCR and adjoining areas. This commission, commonly known as the Air Pollution Commission, has since then recommended various strict actions such as ban on construction activities, etc., to curb the air pollution at its source.

In the past few years, the legislature, executive, and judiciary have been tackling this issue head-on and have been trying to figure out concrete ways to mitigate the hazardous impacts of the toxic winter air pollution. Similarly, the Supreme Court is hearing this matter currently and is instructing all the state governments to follow certain steps for curbing air pollution. Interestingly, the apex court has also instructed to set up an Enforcement Task Force, which will step in if the states fail to comply with the directions given by the Air Pollution Commission.

In the past few years, the legislature, executive, and judiciary have been tackling this issue head-on and have been trying to figure out concrete ways to mitigate the hazardous impacts of the toxic winter air pollution.

These developments point towards an insightful learning. There is a classical situation, where a substantial amount of the time and resources of judiciary, executive, administrative committees and the legislature are not yielding the envisaged outcomes on the ground. This situation can be attributed to the behavioral development in which authorities, including the judiciary, are looking for immediate fixes to a problem that is complex and long-standing in nature. For instance, the ban on construction activities, or the recent Supreme Court instruction to the Union and State governments to submit proposals for shifting industrial units to Piped Natural Gas (PNG) or other cleaner fuels can have compounded adverse impacts on various stakeholders, whose concerns might not have been properly understood while delivering such instructions.

A way forward The best possible way to account for all the complexities related to the cause, effect, and impact of air pollution is through state-wide strategic collaboration. This can be achieved through imbibing the spirit of cooperative federalism along with having a strong leadership to drive forward the policies and actions.

A multi-stakeholder regional cooperation forum, which intends to build on the work already done by various expert groups and authorities to develop concrete regulatory, technology-based, and governance solutions, with a built-in accountability mechanism for effective implementation, monitoring, and feedback, is the way forward. Such a regional cooperation forum should have representation from academia, pollution control boards, state bureaucracy, local administration, health experts, industrial stakeholders, worker associations, environmental activists, climate experts, economists, enforcement agencies, amongst others. This is indispensable to decoding the extremely complicated linkages in the causes behind the air pollution and the unintended consequences that quick-fix solutions might have.

The best possible way to account for all the complexities related to the cause, effect, and impact of air pollution is through state-wide strategic collaboration.

The state of Uttar Pradesh, with its wide geographical, administrative, and political capital, can provide the pivotal leadership required to effectively foster a framework of for cooperative federalism and drive the intended change on the ground.

This is important given that the Air Quality Index for cities other than Delhi have been recording even worse levels of air quality than Delhi. In the past few months, cities in Uttar Pradesh including Sitapur, Meerut, Muzzafarnagar, Noida, Bulandashahar, amongst others in Uttar Pradesh have recorded AQI over and above 350, which is considered as very unhealthy. On several occasions, the AQI levels in these cities breached the level of 400, which is considered to be hazardous. Similarly, various other cities across the other states have recorded high levels of pollution as well.

The objective is not to add another authority while there are existing bodies, task forces, and commissions that deal with the issue of air pollution. The objective is to consolidate the energies and resources of all such authorities, across the states that are involved, and provide holistic, action-based solutions to deal with the problem.

The forum can follow a simple, functional framework to devise solutions. It can pool the knowledge and experience of different stakeholders from across the states for identifying the best practices regarding air pollution monitoring, following which, the forum can also help in delve into identifying region-specific localised causes and effects of the air pollution problem. On the basis of these causes and effects, the forum can then provide an overarching framework for devising action-based solutions under different circumstances. The forum can also convene capacity building workshops of for local enforcement agencies and monitoring agencies.

While the prominent causes of pollution are similar across states such as industrial pollution, vehicular pollution, stubble burning, construction-based pollution, amongst others, all these cities also have localised conditions and realities which require customised solutions to deal with them.

While the prominent causes of pollution are similar across states such as industrial pollution, vehicular pollution, stubble burning, construction-based pollution, amongst others, all these cities also have localised conditions and realities which require customised solutions to deal with them. One-size-fits-all approach cannot work effectively. Therefore, the Regional Cooperation Forum, while providing overarching framework for action, should have representation from the local and city-level administration to catalyse effective implementation.

Therefore, the spirit of cooperative federalism can enable the states to devise workable solutions to mitigate the problem of air pollution. At the same time, the strong leadership of Uttar Pradesh can provide inputs on ways and means to implement those solutions in an effective manner, by being a state that leads by example.

Read more:

Combatting air pollution in Northern India: Cooperative federalism is the way forward - Observer Research Foundation

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Combatting air pollution in Northern India: Cooperative federalism is the way forward – Observer Research Foundation

Ethiopia: A regressive vision spells the end of the republic – The Africa Report

Posted: at 10:26 pm

This article was published in partnership with Ethiopia Insight.

At the root of the Tigray war is a contest over the very nature of the state. This centuries-old struggle has most recently been played out through Prime Minister Abiy Ahmeds consolidation and centralisation of power and the Tigray elites and allies, such as pro multinational federalism forces consequent rejection of this.

One of the most salient facts about Ethiopias current predicament is that behind the veil of promoting nationalism, from the likes of Prime Minister Abiy, parties like Ezema, and media outlets like ESAT, lies a regressive vision and a nostalgic glorification of a violently unceremonious past.

This group of elites fulminate about and use the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) as a scapegoat. That outrage is used to mask the fact that they are undertaking another brutal war of subjugation on Tigray that would not have looked out of place during the imperial marches of the late 19th Century.

The government and people of Tigray have, however, refused to bend to Shewa as unitarist commentators like Tamerat Negerea Feyissa so dearly wish them to do but are instead resisting the threat on the multinational order and are pushed to pursue full independence.

The overthrow of the imperial regime in 1974 and then the defeat of the Dergs dictatorship in 1991, which heralded the birth of a federal, democratic constitutional political order in 1995, should have closed the door forever to the assimilationist nation-building project.

While it is true that the protection and promotion of human and democratic rights were not as progressive as the transformative economic development registered under the EPRDF coalition, the defining feature of post-1991 Ethiopia has in fact been the recognition of diversity of culture, language, religion, and other values.

This was a major progressive departure from the one culture, one language, and one religion monochromatic nation-building project of the past. But, the appointment of Abiy Ahmed as Prime Minister in 2018 opened up the space for unitarist elites to once again resume the nation-building project.

Former empires like Ethiopia, obsessed with national pride, revel in past glory but cannot envisage what lies ahead. This attachment to the imperial heyday and the violent nation-building project sowed the seeds of the ongoing war in the service of trying to maintain the national mythos.

By doing so, rather than building a diverse future, Ethiopianist elites are reinforcing the states formative defects, and will ultimately scupper the almost three-decade-old effort to transition from an empire into a republic.

Following four years of street protests, the former ruling coalition elected Abiy as its chair, and lawmakers subsequently nominated him as Prime Minister on 2 April 2018. After admitting the EPRDFs shortcomings, Abiy pledged reform, preached unity, and pursued rapprochement with Eritrea.

This wasportrayedby some as a sign of a new beginning for the multinational country. On the contrary, the last three years have resulted in a proliferation of violence. The economy has languished and the already constrained institutions have been further weakened to pave the way forde factoone-man rule, ushering the beginning of the end of the federation.

The EPRDF coalition that brought Abiy to power was the first victim of his powerambitions. Fittingly, the fundamental act of convening elections as per the constitution became the bone of contention in the Tigray-federal government dispute.

The article continues below

Free download

Get your free PDF: Top 200 banks 2019

The race to transform

Complete the form and download, for free, the highlights from The Africa Reports Exclusive Ranking of Africas top 200 banks from last year. Get your free PDF by completing the following form

Using the Covid-19 pandemic as a pretext, the electoral board postponed polls scheduled for 29 August 2020. As the constitution contained no provisions for such an eventuality, the House of Federation and its Council of Constitutional Inquiry largely filled with pro-federal government experts offered a veneer of legal authorisation.

A swath of the political opposition, including veteran centrist Lidetu Ayalew, the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC), the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), and the Government of Tigray, argued that the way forward should have been forged through debate between political parties because all political actors had a stake in a fragile transition. They believed that Abiys unitarist vehicle, the Prosperity Party (PP), pushed to delay the polls, as it feared electoral loss.

Emboldened yet fearful, the Prosperity Party attempted to purge its opponents, first in Oromia and then in Tigray. It subsequently held sham elections this year, with the participation of Ezema and other political entities that hold a similarly regressive take on Ethiopias journey away from a multinational federation to an empire, such as the National Movement of Amhara (NaMA). Some of their leaders now occupy cabinet positions, as Abiy embraces a narrow pluralism at the centre while attempting to destroy the pluralistic multinational order.

In response to last years PP machinations, TPLF-led Tigray regional state exercised its interpretation of its constitutional rights to hold elections as per the federal and Tigray constitutions. Abiys government declared the 9 September election to be null and void.

After a series of escalatory measures, including delegitimization and redirecting the federal budget from Tigray, Abiy mobilised forces internally. He also plotted to subjugate Tigray with Eritreas unitarist autocrat, who hates both the TPLF leaders and power-sharing federalism.

More than one year into the war in Tigray a war conducted by the Ethiopian and Eritrean armies, Amhara militias and special forces, and other regional partners the people of Tigray are once more under a siege, and therefore still fighting for their right to survive.

Despite the narrative created around the establishment of an elected government, it does little to bolster Abiys legitimacy internally, while jittery external actors like the United States and EU are focused more on the countrys overall stability and brutal conduct of the war.

Now, living out its regressive vision, the same regime under the guise of a new government looks set to alter the constitution with the participation of like-minded elites.

They will do this after violating the existing constitution as the Amhara region violently occupied western Tigray, leading to atrocities and the mass expulsion of Tigrayans. Bahir Dar now claims to have altered the administrative boundaries of the Amhara region. Yet, the constitution could not be clearer.

Under Article 48, it states that: All state border disputes shall be settled by agreement of the concerned States. Where the concerned States fail to reach an agreement, the House of Federation shall decide such disputes on the basis of settlement patterns and the wishes of the peoples concerned.

Amhara irredentists lay claim to an area that has been occupied predominantly by Tigrayans, so the real problem for them was that any fair and constitutionally mandated self-determination procedure would have inevitably reached a decision that would not be in their favour.

Constitutionally mandated rights concerning ethnic rights and self-determination such as Article 39 cannot be amended without the agreement of all regional states. But, disenfranchised and blockaded Tigray is not in a position to influence decisions made at the centre pertaining to changes that would effectively dissolve the federation as we know it.

Foreign actors are largely paralysed by geopolitical interests, but they are right to insist on an all-inclusive dialogue as the only mechanism to regulate the future of Ethiopia within the existing constitutional framework.

Cognizant that the political elites have consistently viewed a democratic order as an existential threat, there now appears to be a vanishingly slim prospect of Ethiopia transforming into a democratic republic that aptly entertains internal diversity, which is the minimum threshold for its survival.

Yet, a belated convening of that all-inclusive dialogue could at least mitigate the disorder and perhaps smooth the process of fragmentation.

View post:

Ethiopia: A regressive vision spells the end of the republic - The Africa Report

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Ethiopia: A regressive vision spells the end of the republic – The Africa Report

New Federalism – Wikipedia

Posted: December 7, 2021 at 5:17 am

Transfer of certain powers from the United States federal government back to the states

New Federalism is a political philosophy of devolution, or the transfer of certain powers from the United States federal government back to the states. The primary objective of New Federalism, unlike that of the eighteenth-century political philosophy of Federalism, is the restoration to the states of some of the autonomy and power which they lost to the federal government as a consequence of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.

Many of the ideas of New Federalism originated with Richard Nixon.[1]

As a policy theme, New Federalism typically involves the federal government providing block grants to the states to resolve a social issue. The federal government then monitors outcomes but provides broad discretion to the states for how the programs are implemented. Advocates of this approach sometimes cite a quotation from a dissent by Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

From 1937 to 1995, the Supreme Court of the United States did not void a single Act of Congress for exceeding Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, instead holding that anything that could conceivably have even a slight impact on commerce was subject to federal regulation. It was thus seen as a (narrow) victory for federalism when the Rehnquist Court reined in federal regulatory power in United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000).[original research?]

The Supreme Court wavered,[improper synthesis?] however, in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), holding that the federal government could outlaw the use of marijuana for medical purposes under the Commerce Clause even if the marijuana was never bought or sold, and never crossed state lines. Justice O'Connor dissented in Gonzalez,[2] beginning her opinion by citing United States v. Lopez, which she followed with a federalist reference to Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann. How broad a view of state autonomy the Court will take in future decisions remains unclear.[original research?] (See Gonzales v. Oregon)

Education has been controversial under New Federalism, but for different reasons. Almost all groups, state and federal, agree that a controlled education system is absolutely critical. The division, however, is that some believe that the education system should be nationally united (and therefore controlled by the federal government), while opponents believe that education should vary by state (and therefore be controlled by the state governments).

Some New Federalists, such as President Ronald Reagan, have flirted with the idea of abolishing the Department of Education, but the effort has been unsuccessful. During the Presidency of George W. Bush, the President and Congress cooperated to pass the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, which required states to meet federal testing standards.[3] Utah was the first state to reject NCLB,[clarification needed] and the Attorney General of Connecticut sued the federal government for underfunding NCLB.[4]

In April 2017, President Donald Trump used an executive order to lessen federal influence over education.[5]

Read this article:

New Federalism - Wikipedia

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on New Federalism – Wikipedia

Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States …

Posted: at 5:17 am

Your first encounter with differences across states may have come from a childhood experienceperhaps visiting relatives in another state or on a cross-country trip during summer vacation. The distinct postcard images of different states are symbolic of American federalism. (Credit: modification of work by Boston Public Library)

Part of the discussion at the 1787 Constitutional Convention focusedon basic governmental structures. In declaring independence in 1776, highly centralized unitary government under a king was clearly rejected. In sharp contrast, the first U.S. constitution, The Articles of Confederation, promoted a confederation of the states with very decentralized power concentrated at the state level and a weak central government. As previously discussed, the Articles werenot successful, and the 1787 Constitutional Convention convened to make changes in our governmental structure. Rather than tweaking the confederation structure, a third option was essentially inventedwhat we call today a federal system or federalism. The federal design divides power between multiple levels of governmentoften state and national. As defined, federalism is an institutional arrangement creating relatively autonomous levels of government, each able to act directly on behalf of the people with granted authority.

As shown in the chart below, under a federal system, the authority is divided between the national government and state governments, with authority to act derived directly from the people. In contrast, a confederation vests power and authority in state governments with national authority delegated by the states. Under a unitary system, authority to act is concentrated with the national government aloneany authority delegated to lower levels of government is exercised at the discretion of the national government.

At the time of the 1787 convention, there were examples of both unitary governments and confederations; however, no examples of the middle optionwhich we now call a federal system. Among government systems today, there are examples of all three kinds of governmental structures.

American federalism seeks to balance decentralization and centralizationforces. We see decentralization when we cross state lines and encounter different taxation levels and voting regulations. Centralization is apparent withthe federal governments unique authority to print money. State border crossings may greet us with colorful billboards, but behind them lies a complex federal design that has structured relationships between states and the nationalgovernment since the late 1700s.

An unique feature of the American governmental structure is a balance of both horizontal andvertical division of powers. As an institutional/structural design, federalism is intended to both safeguard state interests while creating a strong union led by an effective centralized national government.Federalism divides power between multiple vertical layers or levels of governmentnational, state, county, parish, local, special districtallowing for multiple access points for citizens. The governments, by design at the national and state levels, check and balance one another.

At each level of the U.S. federal structure, power is further divided horizontally by brancheslegislative, executive, and judicial. This separation of powers feature makes the U.S. federal system even more distinct, since not all federal systems have such separation of powers.

unitary power is centralizedat the top, confederate power is decentralized usually among several roughly co-equal entities/states, and federal powers are a mix with some centralized power delegated to the national government, some reserved to the states/sub-national entities and, in the United States, power is further separated between branches of government

power is separated vertically between national, state, and local governments and shared and separated between legislative, judicial, and executive branches at the various levels

centralizationpower is concentrated at one level of government such as the national level in a unitary system

confederationhighly decentralized structure of government with roughly co-equal entities/sovereign states forming an alliance for purposes such as national defense and/or other agreed purposes

decentralizationpower is divided or shared between various levels of government

federal system/federalisminstitutional arrangement creating relatively autonomous levels of government, each able to act directly on behalf of the people; authority to act granted by the people

separation of powersa horizontal division of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial powers, allowing each branch of government to act as a check and balance on the other branches

unitary systemhighly centralized governmental authority in which any other level of government below the national government is dependent upon the central/national government; centralized power or substantial authority is concentrated with national government

The structure of government impacts the function (day-to-day business) of government.

Countries must make this important decision about which structure of government to employ before working on the details of how this organizational structure will carry out the basic functions of governing.

Charts by Deborah S. Hoag, Austin Community College.

Continued here:

Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States ...

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Federalism: Basic Structure of Government | United States …

The country is moving towards a union based on democracy and federalism and it will not deviate at all: SAC’s Chair – Eleven Myanmar

Posted: at 5:17 am

The country is moving towards a union based on democracy and federalism and it will not deviate at all. Entering politics was not a creation, said Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, Prime Minister and Chair of State Administration Council (SAC).

Senior General Min Aung Hlaing made the remarks during a meeting with Chairman Sein Than and executives of the Interfaith Solidarity Group (Central) at the Zeyar Thiri Beikman in Kone Myint Thar at Yangon Command on December 6.

Senior General Min Aung Hlaing said we are temporarily carrying out state duties according to the circumstances of the country. The state is moving towards a union based on true democracy and federalism and will not deviate at all as it is the path chosen by the people. Entering politics was not our creation.

He often urged all to hold the free and fair election, to be honesty in the politics and not to commit revenge before the multi-party democracy general election. In the multi-party democratic general election, elected representatives from the winning party nominate the president and form the government. It's important for the country to have a fair general election, as judges are appointed by the president. It was found that fraud occurred during the 2020 general election. That is why we have to carry out our state duties. In any case, we must walk the path of multi-party democracy elected by the people, said the Senior General.

In addition, the assistance of the interfaith groups needed to build a union based on democracy and federalism is also required. In carrying out national affairs, it must be done collectively. In a democracy, there may be political differences, but the will of the majority must be accepted and the will of the minority must be taken into account. We are working together to facilitate the political process of the country. At the same time, the best situation will be achieved if all work together. Although Buddhism is the predominant religion in our country, there are also Hindus, Muslims, Christians and people who believed in other religions, lived together for a long time and have shared their religious beliefs. I want to urge to refrain from any religious extremism," he said.

In addition, it is necessary to be loyal to the state in order to make the country good. We want all citizens to work together for the sake of the country. Our countrys independence period will reach the 75th anniversary of the diamond jubilee in 2023. We must work together for the good of the country by applying the lessons learned in the past. It is better for religious organizations to work for the benefit of the country based on political and national causes, not on religion alone. The desire to make the country a better place was key, he said.

Chairman U Sein Than of the Interfaith Solidarity Group (Central), Vice Chairmen U Hasan Tun from Buddhist Branch, U Zaw Zaw Naing from Hindu Branch, U Moe Zin from Christian Branch and U Aung Zaw Win from Islam Branch and executives, U Aung Cho as representative from the Chinese temples and officials attended the meeting.

See the rest here:

The country is moving towards a union based on democracy and federalism and it will not deviate at all: SAC's Chair - Eleven Myanmar

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on The country is moving towards a union based on democracy and federalism and it will not deviate at all: SAC’s Chair – Eleven Myanmar

New law will be "end of Russian federalism," says North Russian MP – The Independent Barents Observer

Posted: at 5:17 am

With a large majority, Russian legislators in a first reading on the 9th of November adopted the bill that significantly strengthens Moscows control over the regions. The Law on Public Power will allow regional leaders to remain in power indefinitely. If they comply with the desires of the federal center. At the same time, the President will get expanded authority to sack the leaders thatno longer has his confidence.

In addition, federal ministries will be entitled to appoint managersof their corresponding regional bodies. And the regional leaders will no longer be named governors, but instead only heads of federal subjects, the State Duma informs.

In the first reading, a total of 317 legislators approved the bill. Among the 66 votes against the new legislationwere mostly representatives of the Communist Party. A second and third reading will take place before the bill becomes law.

A vocal representative of theCommunist opposition is Oleg Mikhailov, the politician from the Komi Republic that was elected to the State Duma in September this year.

According to Mikhailov, who for years has been a sharp critic of Putin and his United Russia Party, the new Law on Public Power threatens to put an end to federalism in Russia.

For Komi as a national republic this law is of great significance, he said in a public meeting in downtown Syktyvkar, the regional capital, on the 20th of November.

Komi is one of the countrys 21 republics that has enjoyed special national status since the Russian Constitution was adopted in 1993. This system is now in jeopardy, Mikhailov warns. It will be the last nail in the coffin of federalism in Russia, he said during a session in the State Duma, Kommersantreports.

Many people assembled around the popular politician as he last week started to speak in the central square. A policeman approached, but soon moved away from the area aspeople started to chant anti-government slogans, 7x7-journal reports

The negative attitude towards the new federal law has been voiced by the 34-year old politician also on his media channel, the Novaya Respublika blog. In weekly talk shows broadcasted on social media, Mikhailov has continuedto lash out against the current state of affairs in the country.

Reactions against the law have been strong across the country, and especially in several of the 21 republics. On the 11th of November, an activist staged a one-person protestagainst the legislation in Syktyvkar. According to Svyatoslav Krasikov, a member of the New Republic movement, the rights of his region and its people are being infringed.

As an indigenous inhabitant of the Komi Republic, I am filled with indignation, he told 7x7-journal. I believe Russia needs federalism, he underlined. During the protest, he wore a jacket with the ethnicKomi flag.

Both Krasikov and MP Mikhailov strongly react to recent statements made by Parliament Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin. According the powerful politician,the regions were instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

When talking about the federation, lets have a lookat the issues. Lets analyse the disintegration of the Soviet Union [and] therepublics, national republics, the self-determination of the nations. Mistakes embedded in the very foundation of the country [USSR] led to its collapse, Volodin said in a recent parliament discussion, 7x7-journal reports.

Read more:

New law will be "end of Russian federalism," says North Russian MP - The Independent Barents Observer

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on New law will be "end of Russian federalism," says North Russian MP – The Independent Barents Observer

Page 18«..10..17181920..30..»