Category Archives: Federalism

In the last week, there has been some convergence of words of caution about the dangers ahead if we refuse to make hay while the sun is still shinning.

In other words, the time for restructuring and redirecting the ship of state is now.Even as these calls are being made, self-interested state actors are plotting and repositioning themselves for the next electoral circle, disappointingly. It is in this context that concerned Nigerians and organisations are calling for the right step to be taken to re-focus the ship of state and avoid a shipwreck.

The National Consultative Front (NCF) through its National Secretary, Mr. Olawale Okunniyi condemned successive governments for subverting the constitutional desire of Nigerians in preference for circles of elections while neglecting constitutionalism for embedding justice and equity in the polity. He noted that unity and stability would be elusive if the National Assembly failed to invoke its powers under Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution as amended to enact a law for the good governance of the country to pave the way for concrete political dialogue and negotiations for a better Nigeria.

Similarly, Chief Afe Babalola, founder of Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti (ABUAD), and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), has added his big voice to the groundswell of popular opinion that a new constitution is imperative at this time to avoid the circulation of failed leaders in the forthcoming general elections. The eminent legal practitioner made this remark at the fifth Ife Institute of Advanced Studies, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife. He pointed up a new federal constitution underpinned by a parliamentary system of government as the remedy. With a great deal of optimism, the new constitution would expand the coast of governance, underlined ethical values of patriotism, selflessness, and commitment in ways that the people can enjoy the dividends of democracy.

In his words,Those who wish this country to remain an indivisible entity, and I am one, must unite to ensure that we replace the present 1999 Constitution with a truly federal constitution and a parliamentary system of government, which is more involving and less expensiveIt is my considered view that a new constitution must be in place before the next election, otherwise, we will be recycling the same failed leaders that have brought Nigeria to where it is today.

From offshore came the strident voices of Nigerians in the diaspora who besieged No. 10 Downing Street to urge the British to assist in the dissolution of the contraption called Nigeria. The mammoth crowd noted that the amalgamation of 1914 had expired with the reversion of sovereignty to the peoples of Nigeria. This reality for them is the basis of the clamour for a referendum to reconstitute the country.

These increasing echoes of dissent and rejection of the lie of the Nigerian state signify a bottom line, that is, all is not well with the federation as it is.In the definitional wilderness of federalism, there is the place for bargain or negotiation. In dealing with Pierre-Joseph Proudhons dialectic of antinomies that abound in the Nigerian state crisis, namely,the quest for libertyand therejection of domination, in other words, liberty versus authoritarianism, it is important for the leaders to listen to the voices of reason to save the nation.Nigerias federalism mediated by the British in what may be called holding-together for administrative convenience was ab initio path-dependent because the exit of the colonialists would necessarily provoke a new deal or bargain to balance the interest of the parties in the colonial marriage. This is what is at stake: it is what the clamour for a restructured polity is all about.

Indeed, experts have underlined the logic and utility of bargain in federations. They indicate the fact that boundaries between state and federal power can be negotiated on scales, large and small, and on an ongoing basis.The soft underbelly of the Nigerian reality is in those elite, actors, and promoters of the backward status quo, who are recalcitrant to change.

Much of the clamour indicates a continuity of the union called Nigeria but not on the basis of the prevailing contradictions of the system manifest in negative sovereignty by virtue of the fact that jihadists and terrorists lay claim to the territorial sovereignty of the state; killings by Fulani terrorists who are laying claim to the land of the indigenous people of Nigeria and undermining the local agro-based economy; skewed federal structures; mismanagement of the national economy; impunity and absolute disdain for the rule of law among other ills. It is obvious that there is wisdom in the call for restructuring in order to re-birth a modern nation with the creed of justice and equity. In the main, the times are auspicious for a choice. This is the 40thissue in our weekly message to the authorities to listen to a clarion call anchor on Federalism is the answer, after all,mantra for a nation talking to itself.

Read the rest here:

Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 40 Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and World News - Guardian

By Alex Enumah

A legal practitioner, Chidi Amamgbo has called on the National Assembly to take the advantage of the ongoing constitution review to make Nigeria a true federal system.

Speaking with journalists in Abuja at the weekend, Amamgbo said states must be empowered to be independent economically.

Amamgbo, who is also admitted to California State Bar, said that the way the country is being run presently negates all principles of federalism.

According to him, the idea of the centre taking resources from the states and sharing it out to states is antithetical to federalism.

He said: Why do we call it a federation when oil producing states cannot control their resources? The states should be allowed to control their resource level and then pay taxes to the federal government for defence and foreign affairs.

He warned that any amendment that did not address this fundamental issue is a mockery and will not bring about the change Nigerians are yawning for.

He said: Every state must be a mini nation able to thrive on its own without depending on the federal government. If this is done, there are states that have no business being a state.

If we are truly serious about changing the constitution then we should address that. Why will you go to Rivers State, collect their oil, bring it to the centre and distribute it to all the states and tell them that their derivation is 13 percent?

He also suggested that the review should also aim at strengthening the independence of the judiciary saying that the judiciary as presently constituted is not independent.

We must make the judiciary a co-equal arm of government to the executive and the executive. Until the judiciary can call the shots, impunity will remain pervasive, he added.

Amamgbo, who said he returned to Nigeria from the US to seek election into the National Assembly, called on well meaning Nigerians to participate in politics saying that politics should not be left for those who do not have the interest of the people at heart.

He stated that many of those in political offices today had no business being there because they had nothing to offer other than to go and steal public funds.

He also advised political parties to stop giving tickets to the highest bidder but should, in the interest of the country, ensure that only those who have something to offer are allowed to lead the people.

Like Loading...

Go here to read the rest:

Lawyer Asks N'Assembly to Amend Constitution to Reflect True Federalism - THISDAY Newspapers

Puntland turns 23 as it demonstrates a shining example of Somalia's federalism

GAROWE, Puntland -Puntland, the oldest Federal-State in Somalia is celebrating its 23rd-anniversary of establishment, which comes at the time the Horn of Africa is in the electioneering period.

In 1998, the Puntland State of Somalia was born, paving way for federalism, after years of turmoil which was triggered by the ouster of a military regime in 1991 by clan warlords. Successive governments failed to cure Somalia's problems, paving way for federalism.

Puntland has notable founding fathers - Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, who served as the fledgling state's founding president between 1998-2004, and Abdirahman Farole praised for leading by example from 2009 to 2014.

The Federal State had undergone major changes coupled with development progress and strong federalism under Farole's leadership, including getting a constitution, a flag, and establishing functioning security agencies just like PMPF.

In addition, the Farole administration had played a role in the preparation of the current provisional constitution of Somalia by hosting in Garowe two Constitutional Consultative Conferences in 2012 that led to the ending of the transition.

For all these years, Puntland has been pushing for strong federalism in Somalia, often triggering tough differences between Mogadishu and Garowe. Federalism was picked as the only model that could end cut-throat competition for state power in Somalia.

With six regional presidents so far, Puntland has showcased high-profile self-reliance in terms of resource mobilization and distribution, thus setting a strong foundation that can be used as a typical model.

For 23 years, Puntland has recorded major achievements including but not limited to completing key development projects, announcing new ones, and the efforts it made for Somalia's rebuilding. It had a role in Somalia's current constitution draft.

The state has strong institutions which are key in the democratization process. This October, the state is set to hold universal suffrage elections, the first of its kind in Somalia. Already, several areas have registered voters, who are set to contest in this process.

Across Somalia, key political leadership positions have always been defined through the clan-based model, which is a source of conflict. Besides Somaliland, it's only Puntland that has kickstarted this important exercise of voter registration.

In April, Puntland came out in full force opposing outgoing President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo's term. The outgoing president had mobilized parliament for unconstitutional term extension, leading to crisis talks that paved way for a clear election calendar.

Deni and his Jubaland counterpart Ahmed Islam Mohamed Madobe were on record for opposing term extension, arguing that it would create a recipe for chaos and anarchy in the country. They called for international partners' intervention.

Further, Puntland has minimized the infiltration of Al-Shabaab and IS-Somalia militants, through the use of Puntland Security Forces [PSF]. The regional government does not rely on the national army and AMISOM for crushing the militants.

GAROWE ONLINE

Follow this link:

Puntland turns 23 as it demonstrates a shining example of Somalia's federalism - Garowe Online

We talked with Professor Gyrgy Schpflin about, among other things, the problems of migration, juridocracy, federalism, cultural Marxism and the future of the Union.

If we immediately grab the bull by the horns, dont you think that the European Union has strayed far from the values and ideals advocated by the founding fathers?

Yes, agreed, but would add that the problems that the founding fathers sought to solve were very different from what the EU faces today. What has been the central principle and justification for integration was conflict resolution by consent. The EU has largely given up on this principle and is now driven by the accumulation of power. I see this as dangerous, not least, because it reduces integration to a single factor that is pursued whether the consent is there or not.

Consent has emerged as a key issue in EU politics and we may well be at a turning point when it comes to defining democracy. The divide is between those who state that central to democracy is the consent of the governed, i.e. the sovereign people, as against those who insist that the heart of democracy is values, as defined by liberal politicians and the courts. The rise of political decision-making by otherwise unaccountable judges like the European Court of Justice transforms democracy into juristocracy. The Brexit vote is evidence that when a society feels deprived of political power, it will strike back (I write as someone who supported Remain, but fully accept the Brexit vote).

Marxism is in complete contradiction with European values, so how could the EU leadership celebrate the unveiling of the monument to Karl Marx on the bicentennial of his birth?

If you look at the recent transformation of European values ever more power to the EU they are not that far from Marxs idea of concentrating power to transform the world, structurally at any rate. And the EU, the symbolic Brussels, has come to believe that it has this transformative role legitimated by history. Salvationism has a long history in Europe. What is worrying is that the EU is subordinating what it can to this political monoculture. Let me add that in practice the process is nothing like as far-reaching as Marxism-Leninism (or Titoism for that matter). And, of course, communist parties are there in the European Parliament.

Would you agree with the claim that cultural Marxism is destroying the foundations of our European civilization?

Whether we like it or not, Marxism and other forms of both left and right radicalism are a part of the European tradition. But I wouldnt call it cultural Marxism, because there is a lot of Foucault in the mix, plus some thoughts taken from Rawls and Gramsci. Im enough of an optimist to think that European civilisation is resilient enough for its foundations to live on, maybe in an altered state. The signs of resistance are visible. There is an interesting revival of Roman Catholic thought in France, there is growing evidence that in Italy, France again and in Spain the younger generation sympathises with centre-right ideas. And, maybe most importantly, there is nationhood, whether civic or ethnic. The divide between Central Europe, where nationhood is seen as the necessary condition of freedom, and the West is growing.

Why is the Brussels Eurocracy so opposed to Hungary and Poland, which want to reform the judicial system and clean it of the debris that dates back to the times of communist totalitarianism?

Because the EU has been captured by the liberal left and these liberals understand that their best chance of imposing their values on Central Europe lies through juristocracy. Hungary and Poland are in the cross-hairs because they are quite explicit in the pursuit of their national conservative project.

Why does Brussels insist on supporting mass migration from the Third World, even though experience shows that it brings ghettoisation, increased crime and violence, cultural and religious conflicts, and the financial burden?

There is a labour market answer, that Western countries need cheap labour to do jobs that no one else will do. But more importantly, there is post-colonial guilt, which is absent in Central Europe. The West finds this inexplicable and refuses to accept the relevance of both the communist and the imperial past (Prussia, Russia, Ottomans, Austria-Hungary) as a central feature of the Central European memory. Somehow these imperial subjugations dont count.

Crucially, whereas the West was able (broadly speaking) to exit the trauma of the Second World War, this was and is not true of the communist ruled countries. And, thirdly, it is explained by universalism, that there is a single humanity and that it is Europes historic task to bring it together. This universalism has its roots in Christianity (equally in Islam), in Marxism and in the Enlightenment. Now that the Enlightenment legacy that science solves everything is in trouble, given that complexity theory undermines the Newtonian view of the world, the universalists prefer to ignore the evidence.

Brussels is working hard to impose a radical LGBT (and the rest of the alphabet) agenda on all members of the Union. What do you think is the cause and goal of this imposition?

Essentially because LGBT can be presented as a universal vulnerable minority. Note that the saliency of the issue is quite recent, its an easy issue to bring into politics and it means that other, equally vulnerable minorities, like the disabled, can be ignored. The protection of minorities is there in Article 2 of the Treaty, but the EU simply rejects national minorities as having anything to do with it look what happened to the Minority SafePack, a Citizens Initiative that received well over a million signatures, but was swept to one side by the Commission.

Do you not find it hypocritical that the EU, on the one hand, declares its commitment to human rights and cooperates with China, where people are tortured in camps on the basis of their ethnic, religious or political affiliation and even used as slave labour?

You can call it hypocritical, but it can equally be called pragmatism. Note that ignoring the fate of the Uighurs has a universalist logic. If the West were to adopt the Uighur cause, then why not other ethno-religious minorities that are badly treated?

You do not find it interesting that Brussels imposes centralization on the members, but at the first major test, ie. pandemic of the Chinese virus, the bureaucratic mastodon completely gave up, and each country had to deal with the pandemic on its own?

To be fair, the EU had no experience in health issues these are member state competence and when it came face to face with the Covid crisis, it made an almighty mess of it. The Commission had neither the human resources nor the infrastructure to deal with the pandemic. The EU tripped up on its own belief system, that more Europe is the answer to everything. The same is true of the 2008 financial crisis and migration (2015).

The leadership of the Union reacts sharply against any member that does not want to fully submit to their agenda; Poland, Hungary, and recently also Slovenia. They threaten with suspensions, blockade of financial resources, exclusion. Did Brexit not taught these people anything, they want the disintegration of the Union?

In truth, Brexit was a great relief to Brussels, because or so many people thought the absence of the UK would make it easier to pursue the federalist agenda. Poland, Hungary, actually Central Europe as a whole, are an unwelcome obstacle to that agenda. But note that there are anti-federalist member states in West, like Sweden, not to mention the approximately one-third or more of Western voters who are anti-federalist. I find the rise of Vox (Spain) or Chega (Portugal) fascinating in this context.

You have been a Member of the European Parliament for a long time. Can you tell us how strong the influence of lobby groups is on the functioning of this body?

Im the wrong person to ask because I mostly worked in non-legislative committees (Constitution, Foreign Affairs), so I was not worth lobbying. But anecdotally, yes, there is endless lobbying, just as there is in the Commission. And these lobbies are accountable to no one. The same is true of the Brussels NGO-think tank ecosystem.

Finally, can you tell us your view on the future of the European Union?

Starting with my first answer democracy at the crossroads and the decline of conflict resolution I see major disagreements ahead. The Single Market is beneficial, though much less for the economically weaker Central Europeans, but political clashes will not be easy to resolve as long as the liberal-federalist current holds sway. Can Europe be further integrated without the consent of a sizeable minority? I would say no, unless it is pursued coercively the signs of this coercion exist and are hard to ignore. The countries of Central Europe have a very recent experience of coercion and reject it.

In this connection, the Declaration of 16 parties of the 2 July on the future of the EU is of considerable significance, because it offers a clear, alternative basis for the integration of Europe, one where the member states play an active role and supervisory institutions can check the Brussels federalists. Crucially, the centre-right insists that democracy is about consent and consent cannot be overridden by values. A system ruled by values undermines its own pluralism and is well on the way to becoming an oligarchy. The left may well dismiss this as populism, but the commitment to the superiority of democratic voting to elite rule (through juristocracy) is the heart of democracy as it has emerged in Europe in the last two-three centuries.

To quote the Declaration, the use of political structures and the law to create a European superstate and new social structures is a manifestation of the dangerous and invasive social engineering known from the past, which must provoke legitimate resistance.

The elections to the European Parliament in 2024 could well turn out to be a watershed in the history of Europe, giving consent a qualitatively stronger role.

*Bogdan Sajovic is a journalist at Demokracija Magazine

**Gyrgy Schpflin (b. Budapest 1939) was formerly professor of politics at the university of London, a Fidesz member of the European Parliament (2004-2019) and is currently Senior Research Fellow at iASK (Kszeg) and at the Public Service University Budapest. His most recent book is The European Polis (Ludovika, 2021)

This interview appeared for the first time in Demokracija Magazine in Slovenia and can be accessed here:https://demokracija.eu/world/gyorgy-schopflin-the-eu-tripped-up-on-its-own-belief-system-that-more-europe-is-the-answer-to-everything/

More here:

Gyrgy Schpflin: 'EU Stumbled Up On Its Own Belief System, That More Europe Is The Answer To Everything' Interview - Eurasia Review

Boise, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed on to an amicus brief today related to a case before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), seeking to protect the lives of preborn babies and restore state sovereignty.

Protecting the lives of preborn babies has always been and will continue to be a priority of mine. I am also a defender of state sovereignty. My decision to join this lawsuit to protect lives and states rights reflects my conservative approach to constitutional interpretation. The right to an abortion is a judicial creation. It is not a right expressed in the U.S. Constitution. I am asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify there is no constitutional right to an abortion and restore state sovereignty by allowing states to regulate all abortions consistent with the principles of democratic self-governance, Governor Little said.

As of today, the governors of Idaho, Montana, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Iowa, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, and Oklahoma have joined a Governors amicus brief in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization. The case centers around a 2018 Mississippi law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks except in medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality. Lower courts held that Mississippis law violated the holdings in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), in which non-elected justices recognized a right to abortion exists contrary to the text and original meaning of the Constitution.

The Governors amicus brief supports the State of Mississippis cert petition, which SCOTUS accepted, to determine whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.

The Governors amicus brief requests SCOTUS overrule Roe and Casey because there is no constitutional right to an abortion and, according to the principle of federalism, rights not granted in the U.S. Constitution should be entrusted to states to control.

SCOTUS is expected to hear the case in the fall.

The Governors amicus brief can be found here.

Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden joined 17 other attorneys general in a similar amicus brief earlier this year.

Governor Little also signed the Fetal Heartbeat Bill into law in April to protect the lives of preborn babies.

# # #

Continue reading here:

Gov. Little signs on to pro-life, states' rights amicus brief seeking SCOTUS overrule of Roe v. Wade - Office of the Governor - Governor Brad Little

//= do_shortcode('[in-content-square]')?> Andrew RT Davies picture by Senedd Cymru (CC BY 2.0).

Welsh Conservative leader Andrew RT Davies says the Welsh media is in hock to the nationalist agenda.

He accuses BBC Wales and nationalist news sites of trying to push a narrative that he says will lead to the demise of Britain.

Andrew RT Davies also questions the Unionist credentials of First Minister Mark Drakeford and criticises Welsh Labour for promoting politically extreme ideas on federalism.

He makes the claims in an article for Mail+ saying: Who needs nationalist opponents like Plaid Cymru when you have so-called Unionist friends like Welsh Labour?

But we shouldnt be surprised that the media here are in hock to the nationalist agenda that amplifies the so-called inevitable end of the Union: not only do many of them harbour the same opinions, but they rely on that agenda for their own existence.

Without the constant reporting by BBC Wales and taxpayer-funded nationalist news sites about Wales being so different, it would leave them rudderless and without purpose.

Extreme

His comments are published by a Daily Mail media group which was last week found to be the most read news outlet in Wales, with print and online stories viewed by 18% of the population. The Daily Mail was followed by the Guardian (17%), The Sun (13%) and the Western Mail (9%).

Andrew RT Davies also blasts Welsh Labour for publishing the Reforming our Union report on federalism just three months after the Senedd election.

He writes: This is whats in store for us in the Senedd over the next five years: listening to Labour ministers regurgitate historically ignorant, politically extreme ideas and a demonstrably poor understanding of sovereignty in Britain as they call for a federalist system that will only serve to worsen, not solve, the issues present in Wales.

He describes Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford as being troublingly close to SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and questions the Welsh Labour leaders claims of being a Unionist.

He says that nationalists in Wales and Scotland are trying to centrally hoard powers, in a way the Conservative Government in Westminster has been keen to avoid.

The Institute of Economic Affairs, a right-wing think tank, described Britain in 2019 as being one of the most centralised countries in the world.

Here is the original post:

Andrew RT Davies accuses media in Wales of having a 'nationalist agenda' - Nation.Cymru

Catch up on all our #forumfedcast episodes!

EP2:

How do governments in federations coordinate responses to emergency situations like COVID-19?

We examine the intergovernmental coordination practices used in Germany and Australia - two countries that received international attention for their success in controlling the first wave of Coronavirus - and assess what lessons might be learned from these experiences.

:

Professor Nathalie Behnke, Professor of Public Administration and Policy at the Institute of Political Science of the Technical University Darmstadt, Germany.

Professor Alan Fenna, Professor of Politics at Curtin University, Western Australia

Listen here: forumfedcast.podbean.com/e/forumfedcast-episode-2-policy-coordination/ ... See MoreSee Less

Catch up on all our Forum of Federations podcast episodes!

Episode 1:

We explore how the Coronavirus pandemic has impacted federal governance dynamics in Canada, the United States, and Mexico, and assess the implications of the crisis on the federations in North America.

:

The Honourable Bob Rae, Former Premier of Ontario.

Professor John Kincaid, Robert B. and Helen S. Meyner Professor of Government and Public Service, President of the Center for the Study of Federalism, Lafayette College, Pennsylvania.

Professor Laura Flamand, Research Professor at the Center for International Studies and Founding Director of the Network for the Study of Inequalities, El Colegio de Mexico, Ciudad de Mxico.

Listen here: forumfedcast.podbean.com/e/episode-1-federalism-and-coronavirus-in-north-america/ ... See MoreSee Less

Speakers:

Dr. Alan Fenna, Curtin University of Technology Dr. Marlene Kammerer, Universitt Bern Dr. Sean Mueller, Universit de Lausanne Dr. Peter Eckersley, Nottingham Trent University Prof. Araz Taeihagh University of Singapore Dr. Lili Li, National University of Singapore Mr. Charles Berthelet, Universit du Qubec Montral

The Forum of Federations hosted a panel at International Political Science Association 2021 discussing the opportunity for federal entities state, local and federal; to advance policy options addressing climate change.

Forum of Federations Senior Director, Phillip Gonzales, chaired the panel on climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts in federal and decentralized countries. The panel brought together experts and papers from across the globe presenting country case studies on approaches to address climate change and create and enforce environmental policies in the context of how federated units such as states and provinces are implementing policy to address climate change across jurisdictions.

It is increasingly evident that multilevel systems are able to address these challenges in a more nuanced and effective manner given the nature of policy implementation as noted by the Paris agreement, specifically by allowing for local and regional governments to better adapt their plans to their specific situations in order to meet the Paris Agreement targets for 2030 and 2050, as well as permitting policy experimentation in different jurisdictions, engaging in the creation of the classic federal idea of federal entities as laboratories for policy experimentation.

Case studies from Australia, China, Germany, Switzerland, and the United States, illustrated how provincial and local actors are taking massive strides to address climate change within the mechanism of federations.

Across all cases, the impacts of various political, geographic, economic, and industry factors were detailed as to their influence and impact on national efforts to address climate change and meet environmental emissions targets.

The conclusion of the panel was that all federal entities have a substantial role to play in efforts to mitigate climate change, furthermore, it was suggested provinces and local entities are, in many instances, well placed and vital actors in any national effort to implementing effective climate governance policy.

The presentation from each author was followed by an in-depth analysis and questions from the panel discussant, George Stairs, Project Officer at the Forum for Policy Research Programs. Healthy discussion among the panellists helped tease out different arguments and facets of their research, and will hopefully help to deepen the strength of the papers and the ultimate goal of influencing policymakers in federated units toward better climate mitigation practices.

The Forums ongoing research into Climate Change and Federative Governance is made possible through the support of the Gouvernement du Qubec

Upcoming Forum work in this area of federative governance is further research and support in efforts towards better climate governance at decentralized levels of government across Global South-South countries. Importantly there is the forthcoming comparative volume on this issue bringing together 14 different case studies anticipated to come in early 2022, Climate Governance and Federalism: A Forum of Federations Comparative Policy Analysis

Dibeen for Environmental Development ... See MoreSee Less

Originally posted here:

Home - Forum of Federations

With its verdict overturning a good part of the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act of 2011, the Supreme Court has done two things: one, strengthened the quasi-federal nature of the Indian polity, stopping any abridgement of the rights of the states, and, two, clarified the ambit of the working of the new Union ministry of cooperation. To the extent the court struck down the 97th Amendment based on procedural deficiency, it is still open to the Centre to initiate action to mend that defect and restore the force of the 97th Amendment.

The 97th Amendment to the Constitution, brought in by the UPA government during the days of policy paralysis in 2011-12, made the right to form cooperatives a fundamental right, on par with the right to assemble and form associations, and incorporated a mandate to encourage cooperatives in the chapter on Direct Principles. Further, it added Part IXB to the Constitution, laying down a set of norms for state legislation on cooperatives. It was challenged in the Gujarat High Court and, in 2013, the court rendered the 97th Amendment invalid on the ground that it had not been ratified by at least 50% of state legislatures, a precondition for a constitutional amendment on subjects that figure on the State List. The Supreme Court endorsed this view, in its verdict, and reinforced the judicial defence possible in Indias scheme of governance against additional degrees of centralisation of the polity. Of the three judges who heard the case and delivered the verdict, all concurred on the illegality of the amendment with regard to the states right to formulate laws on cooperatives as they deem fit, rather than as laid down in a legal change made only at the level of Parliament, and two held that the amendment would still hold with regard to multi-state cooperatives, such as Amul, Iffco and Kribhco.

The central government can initiate a process of getting the amendment ratified by at least 15 states, and, in the meantime, focus on multi-state cooperatives. RBIs right to regulate large cooperative banks remains intact.

Read more:

Federalism upheld, and cooperation - Economic Times

Not a few believe that Nigeria is being governed on the whims and caprices of state actors who have the least respect for the rule of law but in surplus of expression of ethnic bigotry and partisan disposition to running the affairs of the country. It is in this respect that happenings in South Africa have meaning for our call for restructuring of the country for equity and justice and for the general wellbeing of the commonwealth.

On June 29, the former South African President, Jacob Zuma, was jailed over contempt of South Africas Constitutional Court order to testify before a judicial panel probing corruption during his presidency in a separate process. This is besides subsisting charges of corruption over the 1999 weapons sale. His imprisonment over issues of constitutionalism sparked off deadly riots in a country where primordialism and poverty subsist alongside modernity. At the last count, thousands of businesses were ruined and over 200 lives were lost.

It is important to note that at independence, the South Africans chose liberal democracy and gave themselves a constitution that was engendered and seen as a beckon of hope for a continent, for the most part, badly governed. For South Africans, the jailing of the former president ought to have been seen as a practical demonstration of the supremacy of the rule of law and that no one is above the law, and that the rule of law must prevail over any individual in the society. The positive aspect of legal positivism was somewhat sullied by the violent protest underlined by looting and arson.

We believe that years after, South Africans if they learn to go off the beaten track of most African countries run by tin-pot dictators, nepotists, and kleptocrats, they will recall the day that former President Zuma was jailed for contempt of court, marked the consolidation of their liberal democratic process and the entrenchment of constitutionalism in the polity.

But the riots as informed observers have argued brought out all the limitations of a packed transition in which the Blacks hold the political power while the Whites maintain their stranglehold over the economic base of society, nurtured and consolidated by the historical exploitation of the Blacks since 1652. While Mandelas leadership tried to address this historical impoverishment as well as enhance the unity of the country, subsequent leaderships have not fared well in navigating the strictures of neoliberalism that have deepened the misery of the population. This reality has found expression in the series of riots and xenophobic killings since 2008.

The ANCs policies have yet to address the cruel economic structures of apartheid fuelling disillusionment in the liberal democratic process in South Africa. Beyond bemoaning the deliberate, coordinated and well-planned attack on our democracy, President Cyril Ramaphosa, who promised to address the historical inequality in his countries such as better service delivery and land reform, should do the needful and deliver the dividends of democracy to a distraught 30.4 million people on the margins of society. Above all, he should also fight corruption.

Obviously, South Africas predicament is a useful lesson for Nigeria in the context of the continuing call for restructuring in the midst of obstinate state elite inclined towards self-damnation. Basic principles of our grundnorm, the 1999 Constitution as amended with its entire shortcomings, are flagrantly violated. The executive sees itself as above the law destroying both the legal and moral foundations of society. Its treatment of those it sees as threats to constituted order is dictated by ethnic belonging and religious affiliation. The overall consequence implies that the centre cannot hold with profuse separatist impulse streaming across the country.

The first principle of the social contract over which the political community was set up is the protection of lives and property and the reclamation of the sovereignty that the people invest in the state when the latter fails to fulfill that historical role. The social contract is not tolerant of dictatorship but enamoured of democratic values.

However, the minders of the state in Nigeria have failed to live up to this expectation, hence the processes in motion including the call for restructuring, to reclaim the political sovereignty that belongs to the people and re-route the country on a democratic path with no citizens living on the margins of society but empowered for self-actualisation.

South Africa has a historical opportunity aforementioned to thread the path of constitutionalism, address inequality in its society and avoid the accentuation of primordialism and descent into anarchy, a fate that has currently befallen our country over which we seek restructuring as a rescue device.

As Samuel Huntington once noted, the truly helpless society is the one that is capable of change but that which is incapable. The Nigerian state minders must act to embrace our clamour for the restructuring of the country to move the country forward in a century that may be well underlined by social Darwinism, which implies that Nigerians want to thrive in a competitive environment where only the fittest persons or organisations prosper.

See the original post:

Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 39 Opinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and World News - Guardian

Our expenditure is increasing because of COVID and special schemes to help people, while income has stagnated; without increased borrowings no State can survive

With States finances in the doldrums after the second COVID-19 wave, Kerala Finance Minister K.N. Balagopal has urged Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to allow States to borrow up to 5% of their Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) this year, without any reform conditions. The GST regime needs urgent fixing as revenues are declining and the structure and functioning of the GST Council needs more democratisation, he said. Excerpts:

The Centre recently released 75,000 crore of GST dues, of which over 4,100 crore was to Kerala. Will this alter your borrowing plans?

I personally met the Union Finance Minister that day when they released around 4,200 crore to us. Even though it is belated, it is good. Due to the financial crisis in the State due to the second COVID wave, whatever money we are getting from these means are not enough for facing our requirements. Actually, the financial situation for the last five years has been stagnant, not only for Kerala but other States also. The annual borrowing limit this year has been fixed at 4% of GSDP, but only 0.5% of this is untied. An equal amount is permitted for achieving certain levels of capital expenditure and, separately, for undertaking electricity reforms. We are now discussing the latter but its difficult to meet all these formalities. So we have urged the Finance Minister to allow States to borrow up to 5% of GSDP, without any conditions, but they have not accepted that. So our options are limited in this scenario.

Our expenditure is increasing because of COVID expenses and special schemes introduced to help people and income has stagnated for the last few years. Without increased borrowings no State can survive, at least in the present situation.

Last years compensation dues are still pending and the FM had promised a GST council meet to discuss all compensation related issues. What is your stand?

The compensation issue is a serious one. We have already asked for States protected revenue under GST to be extended for another five years, because theres actually a very serious fall in income since GSTs inception. Theres a systemic failure; the COVID situation and, for Kerala, floods and other natural disasters have also hit income. Almost all States are seeing a decline in income. So, the compensation should continue for another five years. The GST regime is showing some systemic failure as the income is not going up. Our average income as a percentage of sales has fallen from 16% four years back, to only 11%... prices havent fallen for the consumer.

This means that if we are getting 50,000 crore tax now, it would have been another 18,000 crore in the earlier kind of taxation system and [if] buoyancy had continued.

There will be a very serious discussion about the future of compensation and on the taxation policy to see if some more plugging is needed and actual taxes [need to] go up. Moreover, the devolution theory of the Central government would also have to be discussed, separately.

Could you explain this a bit?

Up to the last Finance Commission, we were getting 2.45% from the divisible pool of taxes. Now, we are getting only 1.92%. In the 1980s, our share was 3.92% so that is the fall now. That means we are not getting our rightful part from the central pool. Earlier, the 1971 population was the base, now it is 2011. Because of our development in education, health... we have some improvement and feel we are being penalised for that.

The Tamil Nadu FM has raised concerns about the constitution and functioning of the GST Council. What is your view?

The predominance of the Central government in the GST Councils functioning was expected earlier some of us in the committee on GST in the Rajya Sabha had given a dissent note that this will affect States taxation powers. Even the AIADMK was very strongly against it. The Central government is getting maximum control in the administration of the Council, and if theyre managing some States [to back them], nobody can change that decision. So, the prerogative of the Central government will succeed. Now, fortunately other parties are understanding or accepting the points which we raised. The GST experiment will not be successful. Brexit happened because Britain wanted to go out of the European Union taxation and migration laws that it felt will not be helpful. United States, which is considered business-friendly, does not have this kind of a tax system. Our counterpart from Tamil Nadu may be speaking from his experience... This is an important debate for the States and more democratisation in the true spirit of cooperative federalism should be there in the GST Councils functioning.

Almost all States have issues with some attitude of the Central government. In the last meeting, the Centre said it has the power to tax extra-neutral alcohol. Alcohol and petroleum are not under the GST. Theres a provision in the constitution that ethanol for human consumption is under States. But they are saying that ENA is not for human consumption, so central GST will be charged. In the Council, there was a very strong protest from almost all States, whether it was BJP [ruled] or Congress [ruled].

You were part of the GoM set up by the Council on Sikkims demand to levy a special cess... What was the issue?

Sikkim is a very small State that is having very serious financial trouble now, because of COVID and they wanted to raise a small cess on power production and pharma. There is no special provision for that. This is the plight of the States; even a State which wanted only 300 crore is struggling. All the States in the GoM requested the Central government to give some additional amount to Sikkim. I said in my dissent note in the GoM that the State governments will finally have to go to the Central government with a begging bowl for their day-to-day expenditure because their entire power is going to the Centre. This will be the situation in the future for some other States too.

Infections continue to remain high in Kerala and Maharashtra, but restrictions are hurting the economy. How do you balance this?

This is a tricky question and a tricky situation. People wanted to have some relief after sitting for a year and a half Small and medium traders are frustrated because their income is suffering. Except government officials, all others are not getting a proper income. So, naturally, they wanted to start their business. But at the same time, if all the people go about like free flies, the COVID situation will alarmingly go up and Kerala is seeing a continuous trend of more than a particular number of patients every day. So, this is a serious situation. Slowly, the market is opened up, industry is opened up. Some unrest is there, complaints are there. But the relaxations are linked to the COVID situation in local panchayat areas. There is a scientific approach to the relaxations, otherwise it will be in the doldrums.

As the Finance Minister, you are responsible for driving investments. Weve had one investor saying publicly that he doesnt want to invest in Kerala and is creating a fear among other investors. What is the State planning to do to correct the investment narrative?

Actually, that particular incident, we were astonished by hearing from him. Their investment plans, business model or share value these kind of things are business decisions. It is unfortunate that a businessman openly said that he has problems in the State. No such situation was prevailing in the State. The State as well as the entire country is looking for investments. In the last year, we accepted all the proposals for improving the ease of doing business and now we are planning to bring a Bill in the Assembly for giving more help to the investors. Many big companies have shown that Kerala is a very good place for investment. That is the picture so this kind of a bad negative remark is not correct. For bringing more investors, we are giving maximum support to them, whatever is legally possible.

Remember one thing, from 1957 onwards, Left Governments in Kerala have had the same attitude to the investors. Even in recent decades, we have got investments. Even now, many people are coming and we are trying to bring more investment by using the new online work situation. Be it back offices or other operations, now you can do a lot of things here. We want more investors to come in these areas. Not only that, we know one thing for the Kerala economy, when we need to have money for all the social sectors, we have to improve our industrial productivity, the value-added production in agriculture, and our services sector, including tourism. We are giving more emphasis on these fronts now and more measures will be taken to attract investors.

More here:

Spirit of cooperative federalism is essential for GST to succeed - The Hindu