Category Archives: Federalism

Clinching Nigerias presidency is the ultimate prize in politics. Some have enthused in moments of discernment that the Nigerian presidency is the most powerful in the world. The executive always emasculates other organs of government, namely, the legislature and the judiciary, which ought to be subject of mutual horizontal accountability. The exclusive legislative list provides for about 68 legislative items for the central government complemented with the doctrine of covering the field.It is this power element at the centre that has led to hegemonic control of the country by a section of the population in the country that has come to perceive such lopsidedness as a right of sorts.

While the country has been badly governed by the current administration such that it has been unable to provide adequate security for lives and property of the citizenry, the commonplace politicians and other governing elite are already justly for the presidency when the incumbent is yet to complete its second term in office. It has accentuated the well-known binary in Nigerias politics, north versus the south.

In the Lagos meeting of the Southern Governors Forum held in July, the governors let it be known that the South must produce the next president of Nigeria. While reaffirming the unity of the country on the basis ofequity, fairness, justice, progress and peaceful co-existence amongst the people, it stressed its commitment to the politics of equity, fairness and unanimously agrees that the presidency of Nigeria be rotated between Southern and Northern Nigeria and further affirmed that the next president of Nigeria should emerge from the Southern Region.This position expectedly elicited responses from the northern elite, who stated that North would not succumb to threats or blackmail. According to the spokesman of the Northern Elders Forum (NEF), Dr Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, the Southern governors position was, an expression of sentiment that could be best discussed within a political processWe are running a democratic government and decisions over where the next president comes from are basically decisions that will be made by voters exercising their rights to choose which candidate best serves their interest.The same spokesman was to abandon constructive response to hubris when he noted at the maiden Maitama Sule Lecture Series held at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria that the North would continue to lead Nigeria head or tail. In his words, We will lead Nigeria the way we have led Nigeria before whether we are President or Vice President, we will lead Nigeria. We have the majority of the votes and democracy says vote whom you wantWhy should we accept a second class position when we know we can buy a form and contest for first class and we will win?

Obviously, Nigeria has had a checkered history.It has managed to pull itself from the precipice each time it was thrown headlong. The act was brinkmanship dictated by reason and rationality. At the bottom of it all is the refusal to respect the diversity of the country and the federal scaffolding, which underpinned the state by those who held the reins of power at different times of its history. Today, the country is divided as never before with the mainstreaming of ethnic bigotry and nepotism at the highest level of governance. Doubtless, this is not a time to display arrogance of power. The times call for humility, consociational measures of inclusivity, and distributive justice, which inheres in the application of merit as well as brinksmanship.

While destination 2023 is not longer quite a distance, the time is still auspicious enough to restructure the country and restore its federal essentials. To paper over the mounting contradictions so glaring in the polity, meant postponing the doomsday.When that eventuality dawns no one can predict the scope of its consequences. Rotimi Suberu and Adigun Agbaje once noted the existence of a broad consensus in the country in favour of a reformed, revitalised and truly decentralised and democratised federal system. The consensus still abides, and let us not fritter it away. It is time to return the country to path of genuine federalism, which is the answer to the current darkness in the land.

Continued here:

Federalism is the answer, after all - part 49 - Guardian

What is smart about a city whose infrastructure works the residents and even elected representatives have no say in, ask people.

Twenty-six year-old Milana, a resident of Tumakuru city, 70 km away from capital Bengaluru in Karnataka, was in for a rude shock one August afternoon when she found the road leading to her door was flooded with sewage. When she enquired about the same with her neighbours, she found it was the result of the civic works carried out by the government-owned Tumakuru Smart City Limited company. This wasn't the first time though; the road has been dug up by TSCL at least six times in the past four months each time damaging the water pipe, underground drainage pipes, gas connection, and electric wires.

While the work has been finished by the company on paper, a dent in the road right in front of Milanas house has meant that she cannot open her house gate fully till date. Milana is not alone, there are many in Tumakuru city who are unhappy and tired with the incoherent nature of Smart City works.

Mahesh T is the elected councillor of Ward no 17 of Tumakuru city from BJP, where MIlana resides. Residents like Milana, in hopes of grievance redressal, knocked on Maheshs doors to seek accountability. But due to the nature of Smart Cities Mission (SCM) policy, even elected corporators have no knowledge of work being done in their own wards. Flooded with complaints from residents, Mahesh says he has tried to discuss matters with officials but with no success. Speaking to TNM, Mahesh says, They refuse to discuss anything with us about what work they are doing or when they will finish it. Even if we make a suggestion, they ignore it completely. The works are going on unscientifically. If we try to raise an issue, they say that the corporator is hindering the work. They finish this work worth crores and then leave us to maintain it for the next five years.

Some of these projects take months or even years, Mahesh says, When we question the TSCL staff, they make irresponsible comments saying that it is natural for any infrastructure project to take a long time. People of Tumakuru will know the problems that they face and what is needed to be done, but all these projects get approval from Delhi. Even If we ask for changes, they dont pay any heed, saying that it is already approved."

The experience in Bengaluru, another Smart City, is no different. Meenakshi S, a lifelong resident of Rhenius Street in Richmond Town at the heart of the central business district, has never seen water enter her home until this July. We have been living in this house for more than 60 years now and since the start of the Smart City project works near our house, since July, my house has been flooded more than three times. Worse, they inadvertently broke the Cauvery water connection, she says. Rhenius Street is being redone following the TenderSURE model, like in all major neighbouring CBD roads.

Meenakshi explains that every time she calls the officials, she has to deal with Smart City, BBMP and BWSSB officials shifting the blame to each other. But before they started work, everything was fine. Im not the only one who has suffered. Some of the residents are very old and their family members are all living outside Bengaluru, she adds.

Like Mahesh, Gangambike Mallikarjun of Congress, who was the 52nd Mayor of Bengaluru, says that often, corporators are not informed about Smart City works in their wards even in Bengaluru. She says, When the public gets involved in projects, we suggest improvements or modifications based on our experiences, as we know our situations better. For example if a footpath is being constructed and if there is adequate space, we might want trees to be planted. But in the current Smart City projects, there is no such scope.

All developmental works are for people, and their opinion about what has to be done should be sought. At least in Bengaluru, we have ward committees. When people get together and decide what they want for their area, it also gives the residents the feeling that their opinion is valued, she adds.

Tikender Panwar, former Deputy Mayor of Shimla and a member of the CPI feels the Smart Cities Mission is an extension of the urban renewal missions of the recent years that are more targeted toward monetisation of land, and most of the projects are redevelopment works and very little greenfield projects. A very small area of a city is getting these funds where there are huge inequalities existing in our cities. These SCM funds can be insignificant for a big city like Bengaluru but for a small city, it can make a lot of difference. But the SCM is bypassing the city council and not a single elected representative is heading these decision making bodies, he says.

Incidentally, the Indian Bureau of Standards, a government entity which was working to define what makes a city smart in India, was halted in its tracks for unknown reasons by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.

Aravind Unni, urban poverty thematic lead working at Indo-Global Social Service Society, notes that the concept of smart cities started originating in the 1980s and 1990s backed by emerging tech companies like IBM, Cisco and others who floated the idea of using data to manage cities of the US West Coast better and that idea spread. It was only in 2011 that the inaugural Smart City Expo World Congress was held in Barcelona, which has now become an annual event charting smart cities development and popularizing the term, and concept beyond the developed nations, he says. The BJP in its 2014 poll manifesto had mentioned Smart Cities where it said, Our cities should no longer remain a reflection of poverty and bottlenecks. Rather they should become symbols of efficiency, speed and scale. It was in this context that Prime Minister Modi in June 2015 made a call to build 100 smart cities essentially promising better urban development and cities that match the cities of the global North.

Cities across the country had to compete with one another based on preliminary ideas. Once selected as a Smart City, the company is given Rs 500 crore over five years by the Union government as grant, and the same amount has to be contributed by the state government or the local municipal body.

Arvind notes that however vague it sounded, a smart city was defined as one having provision of basic infrastructure to give a decent quality of life to its citizens, a clean and sustainable environment, and application of smart solutions, keeping the citizens at the centre.

But this concept fit for the global North did not account for the reality of governance and institutions of Indian cities which do not have the ability to execute projects at breakneck speeds and are struggling to handle the existing city maintenance issues, he observes. According to an Indian Express analysis, till date in more than six years, less than 50% of 5,196 sanctioned projects have seen completion.

In contrast, Arvind observes in reality, there is nothing unique about the interventions and projects that are being executed by Smart Cities. He goes to the extent of saying that Smart City projects at best may be a wasteful expenditure or at worst projects that are instead worsening the existing situation, citing incidents of urban flooding of smart cities.

They are conventional urban projects that should have been executed by the city and state governments themselves, as opposed to the vague guidelines of the Special Purpose Vehicle-led implementation that will fade away as the scheme is rolled back, he adds.

TMSL or Bangalore Smart City Limited have been set up in line with the Smart Cities Mission. As per policy, the company is owned equally (50:50) by the state government and the citys municipal corporation. Once selected as a Smart City, the Union government hardly has a role in projects, according to a former MD of a Smart City in Karnataka. The board of the Smart City, composed of high ranking bureaucrats including the top IAS officer leading the city council, chooses what projects are to be taken following broad based guidelines of the Union government.

Bengaluru-based advocate Ajesh Kumar Shankar says the concept of Smart Cities itself is not only stupid but unconstitutional. He is one of the many arguing against the formation of a Smart City like company for Bengalurus Solid Waste Management, jointly owned by the Bengaluru civic body and the state government, at the Karnataka High Court.

In that case, the High Court has prima facie observed that the BBMP cannot outsource its statutory functions. By the 74th Amendment of the Constitution, we ought to have more power in the hands of the local people for their local problems through the ward committees and area sabhas or panchayats in rural areas. So this means, we elect corporators and we are in a participative democratic process, he says.

But through the Smart City project, the entire structure is being corporatised with no scope for public participation or accountability over public spending. So this creates an odd situation of duplication where the company is carrying out the work which already falls under the ambit of city corporations, but in a legislative vacuum, he adds.

Srinivas Alavilli, another advocate for decentralisation in governance, says that the problems with Smart Cities are multifold. First, being that the planning process itself is done at a parallel level of an elected city council of corporators. Second is that no one will lose an election if Smart City works are done shoddily. Our local corporator knows that if she turns a deaf ear to the residents complaints, she will have a hard time getting elected next time. But with Smart Cities, there is no such political accountability. Can we hold the Prime Minister or even Chief Minister responsible for bad Smart City works? The experience is the same with parastatal agencies like BESCOM, where there is no political price to pay for not delivering, he says, adding, Instead of spending public money on such schemes, focus on systematic reforms such as strengthening state finance commissions that will ensure financial devolution based on a formula to all cities instead of throwing some grants as special gifts. Trust the people of the city to wisely use the funds for what they deem important for them.

See the article here:

The Smart Cities Mission is an assault on cooperative federalism - The News Minute

Leader of Pan-Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, Pa Ayo Adebanjo, says he does not believe in the forthcoming 2023 general elections because of the worsening security situations in the country.

He stated this on Friday while featuring on PUNCH Online Interview Programme on the occasion of Nigerias 61st Independence Anniversary.

When asked what kind of characteristics the next Nigerian President should possess, Adebanjo said, I dont believe in 2023, so dont waste your time. I dont believe under the present insecurity situation in the country, killings here, kidnappings there, raping there, we can have an election.

Scores of police stations and offices of the Independent National Electoral Commission have been burnt in the last couple of months by rampaging hoodlums who attack government structures, especially in Southern Nigeria, where the agitation for secession has been the loudest of recent.

The Afenifere leader also lamented that some All Progressives Congress leaders including Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo; Bola Tinubu, Bisi Akande, Olusegun Osoba, amongst others, promised restructuring during the 2015 electioneering but reneged on their promises after the election of Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd) as President.

He said, Even those who came into office advocating federalism like Osinbajo, Tinubu, Osoba, Akande. You remember how they came into office under restructuring, they now say restructuring is not their priority.

Osinbajo is now telling us that there are many things to restructuring, which one are they talking of. The restructuring they put in the manifesto of APC, which one is that? The restructuring el-Rufai recommended in 2018, which one is that?

The restructuring Buhari agreed with (Tunde) Bakare and he contested election with him in 2011, which one is that? Bakare still says it loud and clear that it is restructuring I agreed with you before I contested election with you.

Adebanjo said at 93, he is a very unhappy man because Nigerias original Independence constitution, which outlined true federalism and agreed upon by the founding fathers of the country was suspended by the military after the 1966 coup.

The Afenifere leader said that the 1960 Constitution embrace fiscal federalism and encouraged regional autonomy, noting that restructuring is the way forward.

He insisted that the 1999 Constitution foisted on the country by the military is a fraud and there is the need to revisit the law guiding how Nigerians agree to live together.

The nonagenarian said, How can you say a product of the fraud would amend the fraud?

They cannot rule us under the rule of the thumb and those of us who fought for democracy will keep quiet? No, it cant work.

In 2021, Buhari telling me Nigerias constitution is not negotiable? What a balderdash! What an insult! That is not the agreement we made with the founding fathers.

Who made this constitution? Is it ours? Let him (Buhari) dispute that.

Buhari, in his address on Friday, had said, Nigeria is for all of us. Its unity is not negotiable. And its ultimate success can only be achieved if we all come together with a common goal of having peace and prosperity for our nation.

Read more:

I dont believe in 2023 elections -Afenifere leader Adebanjo - Punch Newspapers

In Statesman, Plato, the ancient Greek Philosopher noted that the states hegemony and stability lie in understanding and the force of the mind. This has been variously interpreted to mean reasoning and courage.

The fiscal autonomy aspect of the federalism discourse has unleashed some of these philosophical reflections in ways practical. Indeed, the arrogance of an over-bloated central authority is being chipped off by the force of the mind. Indeed, the awakening spawned by the Value Added Tax (VAT) through sheer interpretation of the letters and spirit of the constitution and the corresponding responses from those rattled in their comfort zones, speaks to Platos force of the mind.

While others desire the sustenance of the exploitative order, such the Katsina State Governor, Aminu Masari, others have resorted to appeal to draw the empathy of those on the winning side of the constitutional and logical struggle for fiscal justice.

The former would wish an imposition of VAT even on the transit of humans and goods through his state; the latter viewpoint is about being ones brothers keeper.Gombe State preferred an appeal to the southern governors to uphold the biblical ethic.

Inuwa Yahaya, governor of Gombe State, noted that if the emergent VAT regime held sway, his state would be in trouble with regard to its ability to pay salary. In his words, if they are granted the opportunity to collect VAT, what are we going to do? We must wake up to the reality on the ground. Earlier, his commissioner of Finance and Economic Development, Muhammad Magaji, appealed to Lagos and Rivers governments to reconsider their resolution on the collection of VAT, urging them to heed the divine injunction of being ones brothers keepers. As he put it, The VAT issue will have adverse effects not only on Gombe State but almost all the states of the federation. I was part of the discussion a few weeks ago by all commissioners of finance across the country The realisation was that only Lagos, Rivers and probably Delta states would be able to pull through without this VAT being administered centrally, and it is our appeal that we all put sentiments behind and work towards a federation that is one, by being our brothers keepers and ensuring that what is pull together at the centre is distributed to be able to balance resources across the country Dont forget that the oil-producing states collect only 13 per cent derivation, so if you say every state will take whatever resources it has, it means we are starting a very dangerous trajectory that will not augur well for the federation called Nigeria.

While the case may be raging in the judiciary, realism is that the federal authorities and the federating states in their present characterisation should wake to the imperative of financial autonomy. We firmly believe that every state of the extant state structure badly skewed as it has the window for financial fiefdom. There is hardly any state in Nigeria today that is not endowed with natural resources, which when exploited and developed would become a wealthy haven. We present in what follows a brief summary of the natural endowments of the states of the federation.

Abia has crude oil, limestone, coal, lead and zinc and other unexplored mineral deposits. Adamawa has gynapsum, dolomite, limestone, bauxite, a large deposit of gypsum at Guyuk. Akwa Ibom has crude oil (reserve). Anambra has crude oil (in reserve), kaolin, limestone and marble. Bauchi has limestone, columbite and iron-ore, crude oil (untapped). Benue has limestone, coal, clay and gypsum. Benue has limestone, clay and gypsum while Borno has Feldspar, limestone, kaolin, clay, potash, iron-Ore, natural salt, quartz, magnetite, diatomite, trona, mica, silica sand, gypsum, granite chips, flutters earth and uranium.Cross River has natural gas, limestone, clay, sand/gravel, salt, brines quartz/glass, gold, uranium, titanium. Delta is the second-largest producer of crude oil, gypsum lignitre, tar sands, marble, silica, sands, ball dolomite granite and gold. Edo limestone, marble, kaolin, dolomite and granite, glass, lead and gold, silica and oil. Enugu has the highest coal deposit in West Africa along with the ball and fine clay, limestone, silica, iron, ore, lead/zinc, kaolin barytes. Imo is endowed with limestone, lead/zinc, ore, kaolin, gypsum, lignite, clay shale, crude oil deposit. Jigawa has kaolin, copper, gold, silica, potash, tourmaline, iron ore. Kaduna has gold, gemstone, kaolin. Kano has kaolin, tin and copper. Katsina has graphite, marble, kaolin and silica. Kebbi has kaolin, salt, clay, limestone and gypsum. Kogi described as the museum of Nigeria, is the location of the confluence of Rivers Benue and Niger in Lokoja, a high profile tourist centre in Nigeria. Also, it has Limestone, clay, gold, crude oil, iron ore and gemstone.

Others like Kwara State has iron ore, marble, limestone, clay, dolomite and potash. Lagos, a state with the highest concentration of industries in Nigeria and West Africa, is equally endowed with silica and bitumen and laterite. Niger has glass and silicon, stone, gold, iron ore, limestone. Ondo has bitumen (tar sand), the second-largest deposit in the world, surpassed only by Canada. It has also crude oil, quartz limestone, kaoline, iron ore and columbite. Ogun State is gifted by providence with limestone, chalk, phosphate, clay, kaolin; its tar sand harbours the famous Olumo rock, a tourist asset. Osun has gold, clay, limestone and granite, good repository of culture and cultural artifacts. Oyo has dolomite, silimenite, kaolin and granite. Plateau has tin, iron ore, gemstone, coal, berytre, kaolin salt and zircon. Rivers is one of Nigerias largest producers of oil and has silica sand granite, and ball. Sokoto has gold, kaolin, gypsum, lignite, feldspar and limestone while Taraba has granite, bauxite, feldspar; a variety of gemstones, mica, pyrite, uranium lead/zinc, gelano, barytes, marble and clay. Besides, it harbours the famous Mambilla Plateau, c. 1830 meters above sea level. Yobe State has Gypsum, limestone, troma, clay, shale, kaolin and potash. Zamfara State has high reserves of solid minerals including gold, copper, zinc etc. By some estimate, the state is said to have over 60 per cent of total solid mineral deposits in the country (courtesy of Professor Mike Isokun, Towards a Sustainable Development in Nigeria: The End and the Means, The Constitution, Vol. 1, No. 4 June 2001).

The above endowments are complemented by sundry food and economic crops. The time has come to wean ourselves off the feeding bottle federalism. We make bold to say that all states of the federation must enlist into the struggle for restructuring so as to empower themselves to harness the resources within their domain, and perhaps, pay a royalty to a slimmer centre in a restructured Nigeria. It is the paved road to financial freedom. The twenty-first century is not for freebooters but for the creative and innovative. That is what is required of the governing elite in Nigeria, without primitive accumulation and misappropriation and mismanagement of our national resources. It is time to build. It is the promise of genuine federalism.

See the article here:

Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 48 Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and World News - Guardian

Editors note: In his April 4 address at the general conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Dallin H. Oaks spoke of his belief that the United States Constitution contains at least five divinely inspired principles: popular sovereignty, the separation of powers, federalism, individual rights and the rule of law. This essay is the third in a five-part series that will address each of these principles.

An entire region felt itself besieged. The cards of power seemed stacked against a tiny, beleaguered cluster of states. Federal policy, pursued by a president from another part of the country, was wrecking the regions interests. Some of the regions leading statesmen held a convention to coordinate a united response. Firebrands talked of secession. The regions handful of states, they insisted, might abandon the American Union and forge a regional confederacy all their own.

The year was 1814, not 1860, and the place was Hartford, Connecticut, not Charleston, South Carolina. The aggrieved partisans were New England Federalists enraged by James Madisons war with England, not Southern Democrats alarmed by Abraham Lincolns election. Fortunately for the country, the threat of secession from the Hartford Convention of December 1814 was not serious. The firebrands were swiftly sidelined. Wiser heads prevailed. In time, news of Gen. Andrew Jacksons victory at the battle of New Orleans vindicated President Madisons administration of the War of 1812 and made the Hartford delegates look disloyal. But for a brief moment, a band of northern discontents had flown the flag of sovereign states rights.

States rights is a phrase with baggage. For some, it has a dishonorable past and a malodorous smell. Its banners were hoisted by defenders of slavery in the 19th century and by champions of segregation in the 20th century. To many modern ears, talk of states rights has the ring of a racist dog whistle.

This response is understandable, but three qualifications are in order.

The first is that states rights, from the very beginning, was a two-edged sword. Yes, some Southerners invoked states rights to protect slavery, but other Southerners including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson invoked states rights to denounce the Sedition Act of 1798, a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, and Northern abolitionists invoked the principle to protest federal fugitive slave laws.

By contrast, defenders of slavery were only fair-weather proponents of states sovereignty. Their invocations of states rights were opportunistic and unprincipled. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, observed the eminent historian Henry Adams, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power. States rights was then the mantra of the free states; Massachusetts appealed to this protecting power as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina. In other words, nothing about states rights was ever inherently pro-slavery.

The second clarification is that assertions of states rights are least persuasive when individual constitutional rights are at play. Madison presciently predicted that the greatest threat to individual freedoms would come from the states, not the federal government. Our early history proved Madison right, and the framers of the 14th Amendment responded by barring the states from infringing fundamental rights or from treating citizens unequally. Lamentably, subsequent Supreme Court decisions betrayed the 14 Amendments original promise. (Plessy v. Ferguson, which approved the odious principle of separate but equal, is only the most notorious example.) But by its plain terms, the 14th Amendment already barred the abhorrent practices that 20th-century segregationists defended by spuriously asserting states rights.

The final qualification is that states rights is a misnomer. The Constitution doesnt grant rights to the states in the same way it grants rights to individuals. There is no states rights clause. Yes, the 10th Amendment makes explicit what the Constitutions entire structure implies: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. But this is quite different from an affirmative grant of power or a positive protection of rights. Under the 10th Amendment, states powers are residual. The amendment operates by subtraction. By its terms, state governments wield only those powers that the people have neither granted to the federal government nor retained for themselves. State power begins where federal power ends.

The boundary between the two is blurry. The dividing line is fiercely contested and always has been. But wherever one draws the line, it makes more sense to talk about federalism (the balance of power between the federal government and the states) or state autonomy (constitutional limits on the federal governments power to curb or constrain states) than to revive a fraught phrase like states rights.

Fair enough, you might say. But what exactly is the nature of federalism under the Constitution? What are the precise contours of state autonomy?

Here history helps. In 1789, when George Washington swore the oath of office as president of the United States, the federal government was tiny. Washington oversaw a much larger staff as a planter presiding over Mount Vernon than as president presiding over the executive branch.

Today things look very different. The federal government employs more than 2 million civilian workers and disposes of a budget that tallies in the trillions of dollars. Todays central government is a colossus of unprecedented scope. It resembles Behemoth and Leviathan, the legendary beasts of the Bible.

Unsurprisingly, the federal governments activities have expanded with its size. Over time, this growth has raised persistent questions about the scope of federal power. For the most part, federal power has been a one-way ratchet. With the Supreme Courts (occasionally reluctant) approval, the federal government has penetrated more and more spheres of American life. There are few signs that this expansion will slow soon.

This leads some to cheer and others to jeer. Even skeptics of federal power should acknowledge that the original Constitution created a central government of extensive powers. The Constitution empowered the federal government to tax and to spend, to raise armies and wage war, to regulate commerce and preempt conflicting state laws. It also conferred power to pass all laws necessary and proper to the exercise of enumerated powers. Federal powers are thus implied as well as explicit. They reach means as well as ends.

These principles were codified in landmark decisions by Chief Justice John Marshall during the 1810s and 1820s. But it wasnt until the middle decades of the 20th century that the modern administrative state truly strained all substantive limits on federal power.

The hero (or villain) of this story is the commerce clause, which allows Congress to regulate Commerce ... among the several States. The Supreme Court has always understood this language expansively, but in the aftermath of Franklin Roosevelts New Deal, the commerce power assumed unprecedented scope.

In 1942, in the case of Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court unanimously approved an agricultural regulation that capped how much wheat a farmer could produce even though the farmer in question grew wheat only to feed his livestock and family. Although farmer Filburns wheat never left his home state (or indeed, his own farm), the justices reasoned that any wheat grown anywhere in the country could affect the price of wheat in the interstate market. Even private production for home consumption was therefore part of interstate commerce, and Congress could validly regulate it.

The Wickard case gave Congress and regulators a green light, and they pressed the gas with gusto. The next 50 years witnessed what one scholar called the rise and rise of the administrative state the growth and growth of federal power. I sometimes call it, mixing metaphors, the Death Star Pac-Man Commerce Clause.

For one brief period, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress still couldnt regulate the states as states couldnt, for instance, control how states treat their own employees but the justices soon changed course, ruling that the states recourse against federal overreach lay not with the courts but with the political process. States could resist federal encroachment mostly by electing senators willing to hold the beast at bay.

Around the end of the 20th century, and to the astonishment of many constitutional scholars, the court renewed its commitment to limiting federal power. In a series of landmark judgments, the court ruled that Congress cannot invoke the commerce clause to regulate noneconomic activity (such as gun possession) or to compel economic activity (such as purchasing health insurance). The justices affirmed limits on when states can be sued, and they ruled that Congress cannot require states to pass laws or enforce federal legislation. Nor, the court held, can Congress attach conditions on federal funding to states so drastic that they amount to coercion.

These were all important decisions, though their overall practical impact was modest. Other recent decisions including expansive readings of the commerce clause to allow federal regulation of private drug consumption, as well as a sweeping interpretation of the necessary and proper clause have pointed in the opposite direction.

The current court seems sympathetic to concerns about state autonomy, but no court decision is likely to significantly limit federal power. The real check on federal encroachment remains a political check. Concerned citizens should vote for candidates committed to state autonomy. Alarmed state officials should refuse to enable the federal juggernaut even when it offers them goodies. Worried states should be wary of bureaucrats bearing federal subsidies.

But how worried should we be? Indeed, why should we care about federalism at all?

We should care about federalism, for one thing, because the Constitution commands it. As Chief Justice Marshall observed long ago, the enumeration (of constitutional powers) presupposes something not enumerated. Fidelity to the Constitution demands meaningful outer limits on federal power.

More pragmatically, we should care about state autonomy because autonomous states can experiment. Nearly 90 years ago, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted how a single courageous State may ... serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. Allowing individual states to serve as laboratories for democracy would, Brandeis believed, allow the rest of the country to see what works and what doesnt. As states experiment and learn from one another, governance improves everywhere.

Finally, federalism lowers the stakes of national politics. Although most Americans identify as Americans first and state citizens second, variation among the states particularly cultural variation remains significant and sometimes stark. Utah and Connecticut are very different places as are Massachusetts and Mississippi, Texas and Vermont. Apart from a crucial core of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution itself, there is no need for a one-size-fits-all, national solution to every issue under the sun. The scalding temperature of our national politics would drop dramatically if, on a host of issues, the federal government (including the federal judiciary!) would allow the states to live and let live. (States, of course, should allow one another the same privilege.) As things stand, partisans of all stripes scream for a federal response to virtually every divisive issue.

Sometimes, to be sure, partisans rediscover the virtues of federalism after failures in national elections. They like local solutions when they lack national power. We are all federalists, I once heard a wise judge say, when we are losing.

I believe that we should all be federalists at all times win or lose, rain or shine, whoevers foot now bears the boot, whoevers ox has just been gored. We should be federalists as a matter of constitutional principle and prudent policy. When power is devolved to the government units closest to questions of concern and most capable of resolving them, Americans receive an unparalleled, experiential education in the art of self-government. And the ties that bind us together as a union will be stronger if we dont strain or snap them in the quixotic pursuit of ideological purity and national conformity. Within proper limits, federalism makes for better governance, calmer national politics, and brighter prospects for government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Justin Collings is a professor at Brigham Young University Law School and a fellow at the Wheatley Institution.

More here:

States rights and the Constitution: What rights do states have? | Opinion - Deseret News

This article was originally published here

Eur J Dev Res. 2021 Sep 15:1-30. doi: 10.1057/s41287-021-00463-4. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

In response to the rapidly spreading COVID-19 pandemic, governments resorted to containment and closure measures to reduce population mobility and ensure social distancing. Initially, Indias state governments enacted varying social-distancing policies until the Central government overrode states to impose a nationwide lockdown on 24th March. This paper examines the relative impact of state- and central-level social-distancing policies on changes in mobility, comparing the periods before and after the national lockdown. A district-level panel dataset is formed, compiling data on social-distancing policies and changes in population mobility patterns. Panel regressions reveal that the incremental effect of each social-distancing policy varied across states in the pre-24th March period. The national lockdown led to much larger, though varying, reductions in mobility across all states. Overall, states which were able to achieve higher compliance in terms of reducing mobility in the pre-lockdown phase performed better in the national lockdown.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41287-021-00463-4.

PMID:34539098 | PMC:PMC8441042 | DOI:10.1057/s41287-021-00463-4

Go here to see the original:

COVID-19 and Federalism in India: Capturing the Effects of State and Central Responses on Mobility - DocWire News

Patrick T. Conley| Guest columnist

Patrick T. Conley is Rhode Island'shistorian laureate and past president of the U.S. Constitution Council.

Sept. 17 was Constitution Day the date in 1787 on which the U.S. Constitution was approved by delegates to the Philadelphia Convention.

Although Rhode Island was among the first in the movement for independence, it was undeniably last in peace. Its strong local doctrines and traditions religious freedom, church-state separation, democracy, federalism, and local autonomy kept the newly-independent state from attending a constitutional convention in Philadelphia a gathering that might replace one strong, remote central government, just deposed by war, with another.

Rhode Island quickly ratified the nations first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. That document exalted state sovereignty and created a weak central government with little coercive power or financial resources. The Articles gave each state a veto on legislation, and Rhode Island exercised its veto early by opposing the proposed Impost, or Tariff, of 1781, a measure that would have given the central government a significant source of revenue.

When the so-called Founding Fathers properly moved to strengthen the central government via a convention called merely to amend the Articles, Rhode Island declined to attend. When that 1787 Convention produced a new Constitution (thanks to James Madison), Rhode Island refused to ratify it. One reason for Rhode Islands obstinacy was purely local. In 1786, an agrarian political uprising led by Jonathan Hazard of Charlestown placed the Country Party in power. Their campaign was based upon the promise to relieve debtor farmers who were in danger of losing their property for non-payment of taxes on land imposed by the merchant-controlled legislature to pay the principal and interest on state and national war bonds held mostly by these merchants.

The Country Party immediately authorized the issuance of 100,000 of paper money that could be borrowed by the farmers and secured by their land. With that money, which was legal tender, they could pay their public and private debts.

The new Constitutions Article I, Section 10 prohibited the states from issuing paper money, so Rhode Islands rural-dominated General Assembly waited until the currency plan had run its course and achieved its intended effect.

But Rhode Island had more noble reasons for resisting the new Constitution: (1) it lacked a Bill of Rights; (2) it thrice gave assent to slavery in Article I, Section 2, the Three-fifths Clause, relating to representation in the House; in Article I, Section 9, the 20-year moratorium on any federal law banning the foreign slave trade; and in Article IV, Section 2, the Fugitive Slave Clause; (3) it threatened state sovereignty; and (4) it specified the use of a convention rather than a popular referendum for ratification.

In defiance of the convention directive, Rhode Island held its own referendum in March 1788. With the Constitutions supporters, called Federalists, boycotting the balloting, the proposed basic law was rejected by a vote of 2,714 to 238 a margin of 11 to 1.

Ultimately, under strong federal and internal pressure, the Rhode Island legislature authorized a ratifying convention in January1790 by a 1-vote margin. The first session met at South Kingstown in March and adjourned until May after offering 36 amendments to the new basic law.

Enraged Federalists threatened Rhode Island with tariffs and made other financial demands, and Providence threatened to secede from the state if ratification did not occur. This pressure brought compliance.On May 29, 1790, Rhode Island ratified the Constitution by a vote of 34 to 32, the narrowest margin of any state. This approval was accompanied by 21 suggested amendments to that founding document.

When one considers the basis of Rhode Islands disapproval of the original Constitution resistance to a possibly unrestrained central government; concern for the sovereignty and integrity of the states in the spirit of true federalism; solicitude for individual liberty, especially religious freedom; opposition to slavery and the incidents of servitude; and concern for democratic participation via referendum in the Constitution-making process perhaps Americans might ask not why it took a state that Federalists called Rogues Island so long to join the Union, but rather why it took the Union so long to join Rhode Island. The future course of American history has vindicated Rhode Islands obstinacy and resistance.

Follow this link:

Opinion/Conley: RI's noble reasons for resisting the Constitution - The Providence Journal

In all earnestness, the Single National Curriculum (SNC), even as an experiment has merit. Educational apartheid exists, but it isnt just limited to differing content of education; it extends to teaching, learning and critical thinking. If we remain wedded to the idea that a unified curriculum is meritless without a proper education system supporting it, the issue of disparity would still remain.

The PTI government, to its credit, recognised this. Unfortunately, the peculiar nature of governance entails that you dont get plaudits for thinking of a good idea; you need to follow it through meaningfully. On the existing evidence, the latter can be charitably described as a train-wreck.

The PTI government and SNC spokespersons have excoriated criticisms of the SNC on the basis that: (1) The Federal Government developed an existing curriculum that was dormant in 2006 and analysed it in accordance with international standards; (2) The SNC itself simply prescribes minimum standards of education that arent strictly binding on provinces and that they are free to choose and evolve new standards according to their own needs and; (3) All relevant public and private stakeholders were involved in finalising the SNC and any subsequent criticisms reek of bad faith.

The methodology adopted by the PTI Government in deploying the SNC to the provinces has been legally and constitutionally divisive. It has also been devoid of due process, the bedrock of our constitutional freedoms, which keeps executive and legislative power in check. This is not being stressed enough.

Post the 18th amendment to the constitution, education devolved as the exclusive domain of the provincial legislatures. This meant that provinces were free to evolve curriculum, syllabus, planning, policy and standards in education, for example, through ministerial bodies such as the School Education Department and Statutory Authorities such as the Punjab Curriculum and Textbook Board, under the Punjab Rules of Business, 2011.

The federal government does have a role to play in regulating education. Except that it isnt primary or secondary level education, which the SNC seeks to encompass.

Under Entry 12 of Part II of the Federal Legislative List of the constitution, the federal government has the power to prescribe standards in institutions of higher education, scientific and technical education. This is the extent of its constitutional remit.

The federal governments legislative competence does not extend to any policies regarding primary or secondary education. Higher education means universities, degree-awarding institutions and vocational institutions, but the SNC targets schools.

By spearheading the rollout of the SNC, the federal government is occupying a legislative field that it has no business to occupy in the first place.

It is misleading to claim that the Ministry of Federal Education is empowered to set minimum standards of the curriculum through the SNC when it is not constitutionally empowered to set these standards at all. Under our current constitutional dispensation, any steps on curriculum or policy in primary/secondary educational institutions may only emanate from the provinces, with the federal government at best, playing a consultative role.

Here the inverse is happening. In many ways, this is unsurprising for a government that championed the decentralization of power when it was in the opposition, but now scarcely pays lip service to the idea.

You could make the argument that the federal government is merely showing the way to the provinces to adopt the SNC; its not strictly prescribing any policies or curriculum. There is no evidence of devolution of the SNC in any meaningful manner to the provinces.

The ministry of federal education and professional training has taken the lead as an enforcer of the SNC, through model textbooks with PTI- majority provincial legislatures merely acting as a rubber stamp. The resultant reverberations are being felt in schools that cannot teach without the Punjab Curriculum and Textbook Board sanctioned textbooks.

Private publishers are also in disarray as they have deadlines imposed upon them on printing textbooks without a meaningful consultative process. They have been constrained to file petitions before appropriate judicial forums, where courts are demanding that they be included as part of the consultative process. Chaos abounds.

The steamrolling of the SNC curriculum by the federal government into the PTI-majority provinces may be a precursor to further corrective reforms. In the Islamabad Capital Territory, policy decisions in the educational sector now include teachers being policed on their clothing; accentuating an already repressed and stifling environment. This may embolden PTI-majority provinces into taking similar actions, mirroring their Parent organization.

The biological architecture of our Constitution rests on the basic premise of federalism, which is envisaged as two governments working side by side, independent of each other and co-operating with each other.

The Superior Courts of Pakistan have clarified the concept of cooperative or marble-cake federalism, which envisages an inter-mingling of all levels of government in policymaking. There is vertical sharing of legislative power, which allows both governments to enjoy legislative competence on the subjects assigned to them.

It is pertinent to question whether the implementation of the SNC captures the spirit of cooperative federalism. Is a provincial legislature duty-bound to debate, question and deliberate meaningfully on a policy that affects all its constituents or should it only show fidelity to the federal government, as a glorified satellite? Has there been meaningful coordination between the federal government and the provinces in getting all necessary stakeholders on the table and making them buy into the idea of the SNC?

The fissures appear to be showing. The Sindh Government does not seem prepared to enforce the SNC. Aitchison College has shown defiance. Other institutions with muscle may follow. Madrassas and military schools have already given the SNC a thumbs down. The PTI government has predictably defaulted to its scorched earth policy, by its ministers referring to any opposition as mafias; a recipe for further alienation.

It would be disingenuous to suggest that the SNC is replacing content that was progressive and inclusive. No one is disputing that most textbooks predating the SNC was devoid of critical thought, ultra-nationalistic and are riddled with lazy gender stereotypes.

Furthermore, some SNC approved textbooks do include content that raises awareness, is religiously inclusive and not regressive. But the larger point remains that this content is being available to the general public in a piecemeal fashion usually through isolated screenshots on social media, and often after it attains finality by being published in textbooks. The absence of a clear policy or method to amplify the good in the SNC breeds further resentment.

It should not be remiss to mention that under the constitution, inter-provincial matters and coordination is within the policy and legislative competence of the federal government.

In the spirit of this it is important that the following questions may be considered: Who are the experts that were consulted for the finalization of the SNC? Did they truly and meaningfully represent different facets of society? Is a copy of their report, green lighting the minimum standards proposed under the SNC, public? What stakeholders were co-opted for the finalization of the SNC and who did they constitute? Finally, how is it that a policy, that aims to turn on its head, the educational landscape of the land, is being implemented with a speed rarely unseen in a chronically risk-averse country?

The true nature of federalism is rooted in cooperation and consultation. It thus subordinates the whims of the individual in favour of the collective. That has clearly not happened with the SNC.

The author is a barrister who practices in Lahore. He tweets at @RezaAli1980.

Read more:

Federalism and the Single National Curriculum - Geo News

In the course of elucidating why and how the practice of true federalism can lift this country from its morass of underdevelopment, this newspaper had focused on the mining sector, with a strong contention that it is best handled by the federating units producing the minerals. That need keeps surfacing, as reflected in current activities of the Senate arm of the National Assembly which would, in three days time begin a three-day public hearing on illegal mining and gold smuggling and the attendant losses of about $9 billion yearly to Nigeria.

A theme that is expected inevitably to ring out of deliberations on the issue is how government can reverse the huge loss it is presently posting due to illegal mining activities. It will be interesting to know how effectively the Federal Government has been protecting the mining reservoir, considering that the sites are scattered widely and deeply in the states, the topography of which is firmly within the grips of the governors. It is worth recalling that under the Land Use Act, governors are the custodians of the land, held in trust for the people of their state. It makes a lot of logic therefore that the states should be held responsible for the minerals, not just in terms of exploitation and accountability, but also in terms of security.

If anything, the countrys experience in the oil sector ought to provide very big lessons, to the effect that the people are best put in charge of their resources. Recall that over the past 40 or so years, cries of undue exploitation of people and their resources, as well as degradation of the environment have dominated the public space in the oil producing regions; and even with derivation funds being given the oil producing states, and institutions like the Ministry of Niger Delta and the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) being set up, there is yet no deep or satisfactory consolation. The question then is whether or not Nigeria will be prepared to replicate the Niger Delta agitations in all the regions producing solid minerals. At the moment, the discussion is on gold. To be sure, it will extend to other minerals.

The coming Senate hearing is sequel to a motion by Abia North Senator and Chief Whip of the Senate, Orji Uzor Kalu. Former Nasarawa Governor and Chairman, Senate Committee on Solid Minerals, Mines, Steel Development and Metallurgy, Tanko Al-Makura, is expected to preside over the legislative hearing in which the Senate would be expected to grill major government and non-governmental stakeholders in the mining sector over the prevalence of clandestine activities of illegal miners.

According to a notice signed by Al-Makura, the committee extended invitations to state governors; Central Bank of Nigeria; ministers of Mines and Steel Development; Finance and Budget;Mines and Steel Development; DGs/CEOs of parastatals and agencies under the Ministry of Mines and Steel Development; Executive Secretary NEITI; Nigeria Labour Congress, Nigeria Immigration, among others. The Senate action has been lingering. At its plenary last year, it had passed a resolution to investigate the losses from illegal mining activities.

In his motion, Kalu, former governor of Abia State, had disclosed that Nigeria lost an estimated $54 billion from 2012 to 2018 due to illegal smuggling of gold. He also said the country was losing about $9 billion yearly to illegal mining and gold exportation. He lamented the activities of unlicensed minersand incessant smuggling of the solid minerals out of the country by middlemen given the huge revenue losses.

Kalu said gold mining operations in Nigeria was capable of providing no fewer than 250,000 jobs and over $500 million annually in royalties and taxes to the Federal Government. According to him, jobs and revenues accruing to the mining sector would further diversify the nations economy and improve its foreign exchange reserve. He said due to Nigerias current estimated gold reserves of over 200 million ounces, most of which have not been exploited, developing sustainable programmes that would catalyse increased investment in the extraction and refining of gold sourced from mines in Nigeria, was vital.

Making reference to data obtained from the Ministry of Solid Minerals and Development, Kalu explained that there were gold deposits in the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, Abia, Bauchi, Cross River, Edo, Niger, Sokoto, Kebbi, Oyo, Kogi, Zamfara, Osun and Kaduna states. He argued that if the country conserves her gold reserves, and ensures effective exploitation, the accruing revenue would surpass that of oil and gas.

He drew the attention of the Senate to section 44 (3) of the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Law of 1999 which provides that ownership and control of all minerals in Nigeria is vested in the Federal Government, which is mandated to manage such natural resources in a manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.

From all indications, the Senate hearing looks set to be more of the same old story, given that the Senate has shown no indication of radicalising exploitation of solid minerals to reflect genuine federalism. Acting on Kalus motion, the Senate in its resolutions mandated its Committee on Solid Minerals, Mines, Steel Development and Metallurgy to investigate the matter and report back to the Senate. That being so, its deliberation next week may be overtaken by events even before it commences.

Already, other matters scheduledfor the three-day public hearing include bills on Nigerian Minerals Development Corporation (Establishment) Bill 2021 (SB.505; Solid Minerals Producing Areas Development Commission (Establishment) Bill 2021 (SB.713); and Institute of Bitumen Management (Establishment) Bill 2021 (SB.663). These are all in preparation for a repeat experience of the Niger Delta conundrum.

But it does not have to be so, if only the Senators look beyond their personal convenience and the immediate gains for the country.

Nigeria, in the long term, will benefit immensely and more peacefully when and if the states are allowed to control their solid mineral resources among others; and tend, within agreed formula, to the needs of the Federal Government at the centre. The issue of theft will be kept at a minimum, just as the people will be highly motivated to see the returns of their resources directly on their vicinity. That will, for once, be a sincere demonstration of the federal structure that the country has professed only theoretically over many years.

The rest is here:

Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 46 - Guardian

It is widely recognised that the system envisaged by Indias founding fathers in the Constitution which came into force on January 26, 1950 was an unusually centralised one for the Indian Unions size.

At the time, it was justified by citing the fact that India had just become independent after two centuries of colonialism while undergoing a bloody Partition that had killed millions. The country needed the stability of a centralised administration.

Belying this narrative, however, in the decades to follow, India has become even more centralised not less. The most recent example: states now not being allowed to even appoint their own heads of police.

As of now, Maharashtras police force is headed by an interim acting Director General of Police. The reason: it is waiting for the Union Public Services Commission to shortlist the names of three officers. It is only after this, that Maharashtra will be able to pick its own DGP.

This isnt all. Currently, the state of Jharkhand is facing a case of contempt in the Supreme Court for appointing an acting DGP on its own, which the state argued was an outcome of the UPSC not appointing a selection panel.

On September 3, when West Bengal approached the Supreme Court, questioning the authority of the UPSC in being a part of the DGP selection process, the case was summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court.

So why are states not being able to choose who heads their own police forces? And why does the UPSC best known for conducting the civil services exam have a role in selecting police officials at all?

The answer goes back to a far-reaching Supreme Court order from 2006 called the Prakash Singh judgment based on a public interest litigation filed by Prakash Singh, a former Indian Police Services official who served as the DGP of both the Uttar Pradesh Police and the Assam Police. The main thrust of the reforms ordered as a result of the case was to combat the politicisation of the police force under the state government.

Rather than elected ministers having the full power to take decisions such as transfers, postings and dismissals, the court ordered the creation of boards and commissions composed of bureaucrats which would wield that power. Further it curtailed the powers of the government to fire senior officials. The DGP, for example, would now have a fixed tenure of two years.

The most significant change that the judgment brought about, though, was that from now on the UPSC would have a role in the critical job of selecting a states top cop, the director general of police. The Director General of Police of the State shall be selected by the State Government from amongst the three senior-most officers of the Department who have been empanelled for promotion to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission, read the judgment.

However, even after this order was passed, not a lot changed in practice. As the Supreme Court itself noted in 2019, a number of states tweaked their police acts to negate the directions of this Court in Prakash Singh. Maharashtra, for example, amended its laws in 2014 to allow the state government to transfer an officer in exceptional cases, in public interest and on account of administrative exigencies. This was a verbose way to overrule the courts order that the state government should not have the power to transfer police officers.

Even as these earlier issues are to be addressed by the Supreme Court, there are now allegations that the Prakash Singh recommendations have themselves led to further politicisation.

A person familiar with the West Bengal petition to overrule the UPSC shortlisting told Scroll.in that the state feared that the UPSC was taking a very politicised approach to selecting a panel. Bengal has sent three lists to the UPSC in July and August with the body refusing to accept any of them, in turn ordering the state to include specific officers.

Like scores of other political battles, the selection of Bengals DGP is now also being seen through the lens of bitter BJP-Trinamool rivalry.

And Bengal isnt the only opposition state where the UPSC is delaying the process of DGP appointment. It holds for Maharashtra and Jharkhand too. A writ petition filed in March, in fact, argues that the UPSC is in contempt for refusing to do its job of creating a panel from which Jharkhand is to select its DGP. While hearing the case, the Supreme Court pulled up the UPSC for refusing to form Jharkhands panel. UPSC needs an overhaul. I cant say anything more than this, Chief Justice Ramana said.

To make matters worse, awarding a role to the UPSC also ends up contravening Indias federal character, given both public order and the police are part of the state list which means the Indian constitution awards these powers exclusively to the state government.

Following this constitutional scheme, for example, the Indian Police Service cadre rules are quite clear that postings are to be decided only by the state government. The UPSC, on the other hand, is a body whose bureaucrats are appointed by the Union government. There is no constitutional backing for it to have any role in the process.

Similarly, while the duties of the UPSC are delineated in the Constitution, there is little about it taking over the core executive functions of a state government such as deciding the postings of police officers.

Since independence, the powers of the state government have seen a steady erosion with the Union taking over administrative as well as financial powers. If the police force also sees a similar movement, it would deal a significant blow to the practice of federalism.

Many of the concerns that drove the Prakash Singh judgment are real, with the police force in every state being driven by concerns quite extraneous to law and order. However, the fact that things now seem to be worse, derives from the shallow understanding of politicisation that the court adopted, where it seemed to think that transferring power from elected politicians to bureaucrats would depoliticise matters.

If anything, as the functioning of various boards, commissions and now even the UPSC shows, bureaucrats are as amenable to extraneous concerns as elected politicians. The courts assumptions that politics is limited to popular elections seems to be a restricted understanding that does not tally well with how the Indian state works in practice. In fact, the practice of trusting unelected bureaucrats over elected politicians actually works against transparency. The aim should be to give voters more not less control.

Subverting core principles such as federalism for an endeavour that has not led anywhere has ironically meant that the Prakash Singh judgment might have meant well but ended up doing more harm than good.

Visit link:

Have SC's attempts to depoliticise police inadvertently led to a weakening of federalism? - Scroll.in