Category Archives: Federalism

In a blow to Delhi-based AAP, President Ram Nath Kovind on Sunday, gave his assent to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, making it a law. President Kovind is currently admitted to AIIMS hospital and will undergo a planned bypass surgery on March 30. The GNCTD Bill which defines the powers of the Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG), has been opposed by AAP, terming it 'murder of democracy'.

On Wednesday, Rajya Sabha passed the GNCTD Bill amid a walkout from opposition parties including Congress, SP, BJD, RJD and YSRCP. While 83 MPs voted in favour of the bill, 45 votes were cast against it. Though Congress and SP demanded that the bill should be sent to a Select Committee, BJD MP Prasanna Acharya opined that it undermines the authority of an elected government and Assembly. Amid multiple adjournments, the Upper House witnessed a war of words between AAP and the treasury benches. The Lok Sabha, where BJP has a single-party majority,passed the Bill on Monday.

According to PRS, the Bill proposes to define the powers of the Delhi government and the L-G with regard to the 1991 Act, amending it:

Previously, in a 2019 Supreme Court judgement, Delhi government has been empowered to appoint special public prosecutors or law officers, fixing land revenue rates, the power to appoint or deal with the electricity commission or board. The SC also stated Delhi Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) cannot probe central government employees and that the Centre has the power to appoint Enquiry Commission. The SC has referred to the issue of transfers and posting of officers to a larger bench.

This has led to AAP accuse the BJP of 'giving LG power to stop work being done by the government elected by the people of Delhi' - leading to delay in schemes' implementation. In 2018, the SC had observed that the Delhi government need not obtain L-Gs concurrence on all governance issues, but only inform him. As of now law and order, and the police come under the Ministry of Home Affairs while administrative powers rest under the Delhi government.

Visit link:

President Kovind gives assent to GNCTD Bill as Opposition cries Assault on federalism - Republic TV

On December 20, 1991, Home Minister S B Chavan tabled the Constitution Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha to add Article 239AA and 239AB to our Constitution. The amendment paved the way for the setting up a legislative assembly and a council of ministers for the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi. When the Bill was put to a vote, it was passed unanimously with all 349 members in the Lok Sabha supporting the bill. Along with Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the members who favoured the Bill included L K Advani and Madan Lal Khurana who had voted in support even after the amendments they introduced earlier in the day were negated. This started the process of Delhi having a legislative assembly and a council of ministers and Madan Lal Khurana went on to become the first Chief Minister of Delhi.

Earlier this week, both Houses of Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of the amendments to the Government of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi Act. The amendments aimed to clear ambiguities in the roles of various stakeholders and provide a constructive rules-based framework for stakeholders within the government of Delhi to work in tandem with the Union government. This rules-based framework is especially important given that Delhi is also our national capital and carries the symbolism that comes with being the seat of the sovereign power.

The NDA government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has championed cooperative federalism, which is evident from the tangible steps that have been taken to achieve this. The creation of NITI Aayog, the establishment of the GST council, and the restructuring of central schemes are clear examples of promoting fiscal federalism in Prime Minister Narendra Modis first term. In the 2019 manifesto, the NDA promised greater involvement of the states in all aspects of policymaking and governance, thereby strengthening federalism.

Cooperative federalism requires an environment of trust and mutual cooperation. A necessary condition for such an environment is the distinct delineation of roles and responsibilities, the removal of ambiguities, and the definition of a clear chain of command among stakeholders. In this regard, it was important to define, without a doubt, who represents the government in the unique case of Delhi.

In June 2015, the Delhi legislative assembly had passed the Delhi Netaji Subhas University of Technology Bill and sent it for assent to the President of India. In the Bill, it had defined the term government as the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. In January 2017, the Lieutenant Governor (LG) wrote to the Speaker of the Legislative assembly of Delhi stating that the President had returned the bill. One of the reasons stated for this was the inconsistent definition of the term government. The Delhi Assembly passed a modified version of the bill where the definition of government was described as Lieutenant Governor of NCT Delhi appointed by the President.

The amendment that was passed by Parliament aims to bring in this very consistency that the Delhi government has acknowledged and course-corrected on. As the Act now has the Presidents assent, we also need to ensure that the LG is made more accountable. This can be done by stipulating a maximum time limit to decide on matters that are referred to the LG in the case of legislative proposals and administrative matters in the rules.

The constitutional amendment passed in 1991 empowers the Parliament to enact laws supplementing constitutional provisions. Similarly, the Government of NCT of Delhi also has the power to enact laws regarding matters specified under the state list and concurrent list, to the extent these apply to a Union territory.

It becomes important to ensure there is complete synchronisation between the Union government and the Government of NCT of Delhi and there is no encroachment in legislative matters. In the case of the Government of NCT of Delhi, it has no legislative competence in matters pertaining to the police, public order, and land, which are in the state list but do not apply to Union Territories. The risk of incremental encroachments on these subjects in the legislative proposals under consideration by the Delhi Legislative Assembly can have severe ramifications for Delhi. Similarly, making the Delhi assembly rules consistent with the rules of the Lok Sabha or ensuring that the opinion of the LG is taken can only ensure clarity and foster an environment of co-operation. Thus, for the opposition to portray a government exercising its constitutional responsibilities as an undemocratic act shows a wilful lack of understanding.

Our national capital hosts the countrys legislature, the seat of the Union government, the judiciary, diplomatic missions, and other institutions of national importance. It deserves smooth functioning and cannot be subject to misadventures arising from the ambiguities in the roles and responsibilities of its stakeholders.

While some in the opposition have accused the government of undermining the federal structure of the country, others have painted an even darker picture proclaiming the death of democracy itself. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The people of Delhi deserve a functioning government, and the amendments made aid in creating such an environment.

This article first appeared in the print edition on March 31, 2021 under the title Ending ambiguity in Delhi. The writer is Minister of State for Home Affairs and represents the Secunderabad Parliamentary constituency in the Lok Sabha

Originally posted here:

Amendments to NCT Act clarify LGs role in Delhi, will lead to greater cooperation between Centre and UT - The Indian Express

BAHAWALPUR, (UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News - 26th Mar, 2021 ) :A two-day international conference on Federalism, State and Society has been started under the auspices of the Department of Political Science, the Islamia University of Bahawalpur (IUB).

Vice-Chancellor Prof. Dr Athar Mahboob inaugurated the conference which was attended by Germany, Sudan, UK, Belgium and Pakistan. Delegates from various universities are participating through hybrid meeting and online. Addressing the inaugural session, Vice-Chancellor Prof. Dr Athar Mahboob said the international conference on a very important and unique topic was welcoming.

The IUB was emerging as a university that is leading the society in social, political and economic affairs through advanced teaching and research. Similarly, IUB has a leading role in the promotion of sciences, social sciences and other modern sciences. Our forefathers, through a democratic struggle, achieved a separate Federal system that is designed to last forever.

He said the main objective of the federation and the state was to create a conducive environment for development by creating an atmosphere of peace and harmony in society.

The Pakistani constitution guarantees a strong federal system. He said that we have to learn from history and work out a plan of action for the future so that a peaceful, prosperous and egalitarian federation becomes the identity of our dear country Pakistan in the world.

Addressing the conference, Dean Faculty of Social Sciences Prof. Dr Rubina Bhatti said that the federal system is a very important subject of the political system and its evolution would have started with human evolution.

He said that experts from different fields would discuss the important topic of the two-day conference which would be a source of guidance for teachers and students.

Chairman Department of Political Science Prof. Dr Musawir Hussain Bukhari welcomed the delegates.

He said that the federal system is running very successfully in more than 25 countries of the world and our political system in Pakistan is also based on the same federalism.

Focal person of the conference Prof. Dr Yasmeen Rufi said that this conference was organized by the Department of Political Science. It is part of a series of national and international conferences organized by the party.

The central idea of the federal system is based on democratic and human values. In this two-day conference, researchers, scholars and students will be introduced to various aspects of federalism. On the first day, former Vice-Chancellor Bahauddin Zakaria University Multan Prof. Dr Khawaja Alqama, Prof. Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal of Quaid-e-Azam University Dr Iram Khalid, Head of the Department of Political Science Punjab University Lahore and Dr Thoran Kail of the University of Candbray UK addressed the gathering. The system is the guarantor of unity between different nations and regions. Equitable economic development of all units is the key to the success of the federal system. In the current context, the speakers said that CPEC is in fact important for strengthening the Pakistani federation. Dr Shakeel Akhtar, Dr. Safdar Hussain, Dr. Sarfraz Batool, Shahbaz Ali Khan, Shehzad Ali Gul, Arsalan Rasool, at the conference. Samara Azuma, Sehar Bano, Musarat Fatima, Dr Salman Bin Naeem, Ansar Abbas, Jibran Jamshed, Ahsan Riaz, Ayesha Bibi and Hussni Mubarak are acting as coordinators of online and hybrid sessions.

Original post:

Two-day int'l conference on federalism starts at IUB - UrduPoint News

The current imbroglio over the farm laws highlights the Centres growing intrusion into what are constitutionally state subjects. But they also highlight another uncomfortable reality. Many of the most serious economic afflictions facing the country agriculture, water, power, land, health and education are state subjects. And the failures of the states to do justice on subjects that are well within their constitutional obligations have created space for an activist Centre to weigh in.

Take power. The bleeding of the distribution companies (discoms) has had enormous opportunity costs for state finances. The attempts to stem the bleeding are a veritable alphabet soup the Accelerated Power Development and Reform Programme (APDRP), the restructured-APDRP, Integrated Power Development Scheme, Financial Restructuring Plan and Ujjwal Discom Assurance Yojana (UDAY). But, despite the enormous resources poured into them, their impact is, at best, modest and, at worst, an abject failure. The Fifteenth Finance Commission (FFC) has once again attempted to clean the Augean stables of state power finances by recommending extra annual borrowing space based on certain performance criteria in the power sector. Hope springs eternal.

Take another example. Public Order and Police fall under the State List of the Seventh Schedule, putting the onus on state governments for the maintenance of the law and order in their respective states. In 1999, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs (chaired by late President Pranab Mukherjee) observed that of late the dependence of State Governments, all over, on the Central Para Military Forces in dealing with difficult situations arising on the law and order front has increased significantly This changing trend over the years has given rise to a situation of dichotomy wherein while on the one hand the State Governments tend to demand more and more power and autonomy, on the other hand they appear to be prepared very inadequately to perform..one of the most primary duties of maintaining law and order and peace and normalcy in their respective State. On every incident of minor or major proportion they tend to seek help of the central police forces, which only throw poor light on the preparedness of their police forces in dealing with adverse situations.

Little has changed. Over the past two decades, even as the states continued to underinvest in their police, the size of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) doubled, thereby ensuring the creeping federalisation of a state subject.

The story is similar in agriculture. For the vast majority of Indias farmers, the tiny size of their farms means that there is simply no way they can make a decent income on farming alone unless their incomes are artificially boosted by a plethora of input subsidies, price or income supports or if they are part of the privileged few who have large farms. All the policy options being debated and passed as saviours are for the vast majority of farmers post-dated check on a crashing bank, as Gandhi once said of a British proposal.

The only viable long-term answer for the majority of Indias farmers, as BR Ambedkar observed a century ago, is to get out of farming. At that time, Indias population was a fifth of what it is today and land fragmentation correspondingly less. Public policies of input subsidies (especially on fertilisers and water) that underpinned the Green Revolution certainly benefited the country broadly, in terms of both aggregate output as well as farmer incomes. But their sell-by date is well-past. Once farm incomes rose, the rural surplus should have provided the springboard for structural transformation, especially in industry. Instead, it has become a trap slowly asphyxiating the sector.

The basic thrust of the farm laws was in the right direction. But their specific details and the manner in which it was done without broad deliberation and building consensus let alone the manner in which the government has lashed out at critics has been completely self-defeating. Public policies need to have broad legitimacy among those that it affects and the reality is that these farm laws simply dont.

A way out of this turmoil might lie in respecting Indias federalism more fully. The Centre should not pass farm laws that affect agriculture markets within states, but this should also mean no central government Minimum Support Price (MSP) and no central government procurement. The states say that agriculture is a state subject. It is. And they should have complete say in what subsidies they want to give their farmers, for which crop, and how. The states that strongly believe in MSP and procurement should have complete ownership of both.

The Centres involvement in procurement today is inextricably linked to its obligations under the Right to Food Act. That Act had the right intentions but its cereal obsessiveness is having deeply damaging consequences for agriculture and agro-ecology. As FFC notes, within agriculture, the more the government intervention, the lower the growth. Crops, especially cereals, are lavished with subsidies while fisheries, livestock and horticulture have grown much faster and are more nutritious.

The Centre should move to replace the Act with a Right to Nutrition Act that eschews specifying the exact cereal and instead offers broad nutritional guarantees from a basket specific to different regional contexts. That change will take time. Until then, the Centre should buy, in the open market, the rice and wheat needed for the public distribution system after the kharif and rabi harvests and maintain buffer stocks for price stabilisation. If states think that the private sector will be exploitative, they can and should do their own procurement. It is only then that they will think hard about crops and costs.

The Centres involvement in agriculture markets should be to smoothen pan-India commerce no state should be able to block inter-state movement of a commodity. For its part, the Centre should not be able to ban agriculture exports if prices rise. Why should farmers not get the upside of prices when they have to suffer the downside when prices go down? If the government is worried about consumer reaction, it should either compensate farmers commensurately or subside the consumer directly, but not force the farmer to do so. And if agriculture is truly to be a state subject, either the Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC) in the new budget should be discontinued or whatever money is raised should be handed over to the states.

But all this cannot be done overnight. There needs to be an exit ramp for farmers and states to adjust. Here, the Centre should provide a clear road map along with performance-based incentive financing to ease the transition over three to four years.

The farm laws are illustrative of an uncomfortable reality. There are many important issues that states are fully empowered to handle. But they dont. Problems arise. Then there is a clamour that the government should do more. But, inevitably, that means the central government. Of course, the Centre loves this, because it then exercises more power. And that has slowly, but surely, tilted the already imbalanced Union-state relationship even more in favour of the former.

The best bulwark against a hegemonic Centre is stronger federalism. But, for that to occur, states will have to up their game. Fundamentally, unless they bite the bullet and move to develop their non-farm sectors, most farmers will have increasingly precarious livelihoods. And the Centre can best help farmers by assisting states make that transition.

Devesh Kapur is the Starr Foundation South Asia Studies Professor and Asia Programs Director at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC.

The views expressed are personal

Read more:

The solution to the farm impasse lies in federalism - Hindustan Times

The clamour to right the anomaly in the Nigerias state system seems not to rankle the governing elite yet. They continue to procrastinate on the urgency of restructuring.Two recent state actions underscore the point being made.The first is the recent extension of the tenure of the Inspector General of Police by three months. The IGP, Mr. Mohammed Adamu has spent the mandatory 35 years in service and by rule ought to pave way to order in the Nigerian police to succeed him, but rather than allow for a routinised transition among the top hierarchy of the force, the president whose right it is constitutionally to nominate the IGP preferred to elongate the tenure of the incumbent IG to the dismay of a confounded public.

And as always a justification is supplied by his subalterns. The extension the country is told is based on some succession niceties, which in any case is a breach of the Police (Amendment) Act 2020 the same president signed into law barely four months ago. According to the Minister of Police Affairs, Mohammad Dingyadi, the extension is to allow for an appropriate and painstaking process of appointing a new IGP. In his words, This is not unconnected to the desire of Mr. President to, not only have a smooth handover but to also ensure the right officer is appointed into that position. Mr. President is extending by three months to allow him to get into the process of appointing a new one.

Second, in the appointment of a new head for the anti-corruption agency, the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC), the president in his wisdom nominated to the sensitive position a cousin of the Attorney General of the Federation, aMuslim andFulani from Kebbi,Abdulrasheed Bawa as the agencys substantive Chairman. The supervising minister of the EFCC is the same Attorney General, Abubakar Malami. It would be recalled that Mr. Ibrahim Magu who was never confirmed by the legislature as substantive chairman of the EFCC had served in acting capacity since November 2015 and was suspended in July last year over allegations of ethical misconduct verging on the sale of seized assets unaccounted for. For a president who prioritised anti-corruption as a main goal of his seeking office, circumspection is expected in the choice of a head of such an important ethical agency of the state ought to based on principles of nation-building and sensitivity to the federal character principle as enshrined in the countrys constitution.

Already, most of the anti-graft agencies including the Code of Conduct Bureau, Code of Conduct Tribunal, the EFCC and even the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) are already in the hands of the presidents tribe and religion.Again, the president ostensibly acted in accordance with Paragraph 2(3) of Part 1, CAP E1 of EFCC Act 2004 but the act lendscredence to the uninspiring epithet of his administration as endogamic.However, it is to be noted that the top anti-graft body has never been immune from politicization since its establishment in 2003 at the promptings of agencies of global governance. It has taken swipe from the public as political tool for hounding political enemies. The fearful question now is:how else will this presidents insensitivity strengthen this federation without true federalism?

The above actions raise some questions.Why is there no reflection of federal character to balance the federation and enhance federalism? Are we to conclude that all the presidents men who are in power with him now do not provoke questions about federalism and the restoration of its content in theory and practice? Also, is the president inured to ignore the simmering agitation for the rightfulness of the federating units of the Nigerian state? Why does the Nigerias president approving appointments of mostly candidates of northern extraction who are also mostly Muslims in a complex federation of distinct six geopolitical zones not dominated by Muslims? Why does the president set up structures that will continue to cause disaffection in this convoluted federation? Why would the president be insensitive to the damage control measures some governors of northern extraction have been going round to organise in the southwest region where some Fulani herdsmen have been stoking fire that can impair unity? Why cant the president use federal appointments to strengthen federalism at this perilous time?

As we have repeatedly argued in this serial, responsivity principle that panders to diversity particularly in a multinational formation like Nigeria is the federal genius. This is precisely what the incumbent administration in the country is undermining and recalcitrant to appreciate. Given the tension in the country underlined by separatist impulses, one would have expected that the president should have instrumentalised appointments as brinkmanship by adhering to the federal character principle in the 1999 Constitution as amended to allay fear of components nationalitiesthat the unity of the country is priced over nepotistic inclinations of the president.

The continuation of the skewed policies of the present administration will deepen the fault lines in the country and nudge it towards disintegration. Even countries that are theoretically unitary have devolved powers for governability. For example, the United Kingdom has devolved powers to its component units, namely, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Island in ways that invest in them a great deal of autonomy in many affairs of the state. The quest for genuine federalism is to grant autonomy to the components units of this country to grow by unleashing their productive capacity without the encumbrances of a unitary behemoth pretending to be federal. Therefore, when states can take care of their policing and other institutions of governance including anti-corruption agencies, there will be no concern when such appointments are made at the federal level. That is why the only commitment that will make the international community to believe that Nigeria is ready to take up leadership of the black race and indeed Africa is restructuring that will dismantle the evil unitary system of government Nigerias soldiers of fortune foisted on the nation in 1966.

The time to dismantle that retrogressive unitary system and embrace federalism is now!

The rest is here:

Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 17 - Guardian

DEAR Ms Cavendish. Forgive me addressing you in this slightly unorthodox and public manner. I read with great interest your article in the Financial Times on Saturday, headed A new constitutional deal would avert a break-up of the Union.

I note that you speak with some authority as the former head of the Downing Street policy unit under David Cameron and arenow a senior fellow in government at Harvard University. Perhaps even more interesting, BBC Radio 4s Womans Hour has ranked you the fifth-most influential woman in Britain.

I read your piece avidly because I, as a long-time advocate of Scottish independence, am anxious to see a resolution of the present constitutional crisis. A resolution that is both peaceful and equitable to all the constituent nations of the United Kingdom, including England.

My concern is that the UK Parliament is now acting like an English nationalist administration as you yourself admit. As a result, the political and economic future of these islands in their totality has become increasingly problematic. It is a time for wise heads and cool reflection all round.

Sadly, on reading your article, I find that you as an influential member of the British governing elite (nothing pejorative intended) are desperately ignorant of the drivers of independence in Scotland. Also, your analysis of the solutions to the present constitutional imbroglio are I do not mean to be polemical extraordinarily facile, given the gravity of the situation. Please let me explain.

I start with your opening statement that as a half-Scot, I have sympathy with the desire to assert distinct identities. I know you are trying to define common ground in this discussion but in fact you have utterly failed to understand that the demand for Scottish self-government is not and never has been centred on the issue of personal identity. Rather, the issue is about better governance, democracy, and the right of Scotland to decide its own path.

At heart, this is a debate about the over-centralisation and increasingly English-oriented nature of the UK political system. With a majority of Scots now supporting forming their own state, it is the undemocratic refusal of the Johnson administration to accept another referendum that has brought matters to a head not the psychological preferences of individuals living north of Hadrians Wall.

READ MORE:Efforts to create an idea of British Unionism shows the Union is 'under threat'

This is only compounded by the inability of influential people in the Unionist camp such as yourself to accept that the problem originates in the dysfunctional nature of the UK constitution and its obsolete parliamentary structures. This includes the House of Lords in which you sit (unelected) as Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice.

I might add, if you will forgive me, that your own understanding of how the UK constitution present operates is somewhat lacking, especially for a Harvard fellow in governance. You claim: Devolution is lopsided with Scottish and Welsh MPs voting on English matters. Surely you cannot have forgotten that in October 2015 the Conservatives used their majority to change the House of Commons standing orders to exclude MPs from Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish constituencies from voting on English-only matters (as defined by the Speaker). English votes for English matters is now standard.

This change has had serious constitutional consequences. Rather than create a devolved English legislative chamber, the Westminster Parliament now doubles as the English Parliament. Inevitably, Commons business is dominated by the health, education, transport and community ministers of England pretending to speak for the nation.

Hours of parliamentary time are taken up with English-only matters. Representatives of the other three nations are reduced to frustrated bystanders.

One obvious solution from the Unionist perspective is a move to an explicitly federal system, with a distinct English Parliament. You could even site such a parliament beyond the Red Wall.

Yet I note that you, Baroness Cavendish, are utterly opposed to federalism. You reason that federation would be unworkable as England possesses eight out of 10 UK citizens and an even higher proportion of GDP.

Again, forgive me, but your grasp of the mechanics of federation seems weak, given your Boston location. In a federation, the individual states have internal jurisdiction over agreed matters. The fact that California has a population 10 times that of Connecticut is irrelevant as they both do their own thing.

In matters reserved to the federal level, we can discount any economic or population bias by giving each constituent state the same representation. California elects two members of the Senate, as does Connecticut and every other one of the 50 US states.

Here we come to the nub of the long-standing Unionist opposition to federalism in the UK. Introducing genuine federalism would put England and English interests (chiefly economic) on an equal footing with those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and that will never do.

READ MORE:England is finally waking up to the fact that the Union is in peril

Subconsciously or otherwise, the English establishment views itself as the dominant power. At least, Baroness Cavendish, you have the honesty to admit that.

Which brings us to your own suggestion for a solution to The Scottish Question. You propose a new Act of Union which will define the UK as a unitary state with suitable powers devolved and with due respect for each nations identity. You say this would limit Downing Streets ability to make ad hoc changes to suit itself.

That is, of course, utter nonsense because a simple one-line bill commanding a simple majority will always override any previous legislation, as we have seen with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Besides, I note you want any new Act of Union to set a higher bar for referendums. Effectively, you are proposing a new prison of the nations.

Your proposal is cosmetic at best. SNP MPs would vote against it, meaning that it was imposed against the wishes of the majority of Scottish elected representatives. How, Baroness Cavendish, does that strengthen your precious Union? From day one the legislation would lack democratic legitimacy north of the Border. But there is an even more troublesome implication.

READ MORE:A different class: Darren McGarvey's BBC show breaks TV's unstated barriers

Imposing a new Act of Union on Northern Ireland is very probably in breach of the Good Friday Agreement which defines Northern Irelands status as partly in the UK and partly (constitutionally and economically) a constituent component of the whole island of Ireland. Forcing through a new Act of Union would likely trigger a fresh border poll, which Sinn Fein might win.

Worse, such meddling with the status quo in Northern Ireland could produce a dangerous backlash. And dont think that excluding Northern Ireland from the legislation would help. That would send the DUP into orbit and negate the logic of the whole project.

You finish by saying the SNPs attacks show the emptiness of their case. But how can you ever pretend to negotiate a serious modernisation of the Union when you start by dismissing your opponents case as empty. So empty, in fact, that a majority of the Scottish electorate have been won to it.

Baroness Cavendish: why not embrace the independence of the nations of the British Archipelago and let England stand on its own two feet. That and that alone is how we will create a new era of friendship and co-operation in these islands.

Read the original post:

Why Baroness Cavendish's 'new Act of Union' would do anything but save the UK - The National

By Jennifer Nicoll Victor, Ph.D., George Mason UniversityFederalism was one of the compromises made by the framers of the US Constitution. (Image: Dennis Diatel/Shutterstock)Being an American Citizen

Have you ever noticed that sometimes it seems like youre a citizen of more than one entity? If youre an American citizen, youre a citizen of your state, and you may have a sense of identity, loyalty, or affinity toward the state where you live. And this sense of belonging to a particular state may make it seem distinct from other states, even the neighboring ones with which your state shares a border.

But youre also a citizen of the United States of America and there is a separate set of associations you may make when you think about your identity as an American.

If it seems like there are separate levels of government all around, its because there are. The American system of government is known as federalism.

This is a transcript from the video series Understanding the US Government. Watch it now, on The Great Courses Plus.

Federalism is a system of government where sovereign power is divided between the national government and some other more local governments.

In the case of the United States, this is relatively straightforward. There is the national government made up of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and there are 50 sub-national governments, one in each state.

Sometimes the language used to talk about federalism is confusing because the people use the term federal government when they are referring to components of the national government, like the president or Congress.

However, the term federalism refers to the division of sovereignty between the national government and the sub-governments.

Learn more about the major types of government.

When we say that a unit of government has sovereignty, what is meant is that that unit has the ultimate governing authority.

In a democracy, when we talk about a unit of government having authority, what we often mean is that the people have given their authority to this unit. This may just seem like semantics, but its important for understanding where the source of power comes from in politics.

In a democracy like the United States, the sovereignty comes from the people. There is no god or king who asserts authority by some intrinsic nature and creates laws. Rather, it is the people who develop institutions to which they give power.

In the United States, that power is given to different units. Some authority is given to the states, some to the national or federal government, and some powers are shared between them.

When one thinks about why federalism developed in the United States, it is important to remember the historical context under which the institutions were created.

There was considerable conflict in America at the time the Constitution was written. The framers of the Constitution were arguing over everything from how to select the president, to how to divide representation in Congress, to who would hold the power of taxation.

In almost every instance of conflict, the framers came to a compromise that allowed them to agree on that segment of the Constitution. Federalism was one of these compromises.

Learn more about the concept of civil liberties.

It is important to recognize that the framers did not resolve all of their conflicts. Nor did they come to successful compromises to settle all of their disagreements.

Most notably, the framers did not settle their differences regarding slavery. Instead, the compromises that were put in place to address slavery were done in such a way that the framers could support the Constitution, but without resolving slavery.

For example, to determine how many representatives each state would have in the House of Representatives, they agreed to the 3/5 Compromise which counted each slave as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of counting the population. In this way, this compromise reflects the attitude held by many at the time that slaves were sub-human and deserved no natural rights.

The framers failure to adequately resolve conflicts over slavery is deeply tied to the creation of the federal system that remains in place today.

Because the economies and legal structures of southern states were developed around the practice of slavery, prohibiting slavery at the national level would have significantly impacted those states. Therefore, in an effort to maintain their way of life, the representatives of slave-owning states argued for the necessity of state sovereignty.

The desire of some southerners to preserve the practice of slaveholding explains a great deal about why federalism was so valued.

In the end, to achieve the larger goal of ratifying the Constitution, the framers accepted compromises on slavery and states rights. This trade-off set in place the conditions of political inequality that would lead to the Civil War, nearly 80 years later.

Learn more about congressional elections.

However, the preservation of slavery was not the only reason the United States became a federal system.

There were two other important reasons why the federal system was adopted. One is that federalism allowed government to more readily protect individual liberties. The other is that federalism created a built-in check on the powers of government.

Since many of the early settlers were drawn to the American colonies in search of greater individual liberties, protecting those liberties was very important to the framers of the Constitution.

To ensure these liberties could not be infringed upon by government, the framers sought to formalize their protection, as outlined in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. They describe all of the things that government cannot do to individuals.

The framers believed that when power is concentrated in a small group of people, it can threaten the liberties of everyone else. This is what the framers thought of as tyranny.

They believed tyranny could happen when a powerful person or small group of people have all of the control and authority, and they strip the rest of the people of their individual liberties.

In the framers minds, one way to prevent this from happening was to give two levels of government the ability to ensure and protect liberty. By setting up a sovereign authority at both the state and national levels, they created two places where government could act to ensure one was not becoming tyrannical over the other.

Federalism is a system of government where sovereign power is divided between the national government and some other more local governments.

To determine how many representatives each state would have in the House of Representatives, the framers of the US Constitution agreed to the 3/5 Compromise which counted each slave as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of counting the population.

The framers of the US Constitution set up a sovereign authority at both the state and national levels, and so created two places where government could act to ensure one did not become tyrannical over the other.

View post:

US Federalism: Definition and Background - The Great Courses Daily News

Hitherto, the service chiefs were Gen Abayomi Olonisakin, Chief of Defence Staff, General Tukur Buratai, Chief of Army Staff, Air Marshal Siddique Abubakar, Chief of Air Staff and Chief of Naval Staff, Rear Admiral Ibok Ekwe Ibas. They have now been replaced by Major-General Leo Irabor, Chief of Defence Staff; Major-General I Attahiru, Chief of Army Staff; Rear Admiral AZ Gambo, Chief of Naval Staff; and Air-Vice Marshal IO Amao, Chief of Air Staff.

The Presidents action led toheaving a sigh of relief. Replacement of the service chiefs sparked off a litany of clarion calls on the president for a long time by well meaning Nigerians. The agitation was that the president should change them due to growing insecurity in the land and the absence of a corresponding performance in terms of securing the country by the erstwhile service chiefs. Public sensibility was even offended when for example the army chief said that it would take more than two decades to tackle the security challenges in the land.

However, the replacement provided auspicious opportunity to instrumentalise governability by mainstreaming elements offederalism in the affairs of the country, in other words, manifesting representative bureaucracy in the composition of the armed forces of Nigeria. But the President, who has always evinced his predilection to clannishness by ignoring the countrys diversity, did the predictable: He shunned federal character, which nurtures the quintessence of federalism.This time, the Igbo ethnic nationality was not favoured in any of those prime positions and his media managers said reflecting federal character was not necessary, in the circumstances. This lacuna elicited the reaction ofthe former leader of Ohaneze Ndigbo, Chief John Nnia Nwodo, who bemoaned the omission. He alleged that the non-inclusion of an Igbo among the service chiefs as disdainful, and implicates the thinking in government circle that the Igbos are not considered fit enough for such service positions.

Federalism has proven to be a veritable tool for managing diversity, and the writers of our constitution are aware of this reality of our country. They engrossed the federal character principle in the constitution to assure every nationality about justice and equity in the running of the country.

This principle states in section 217(3) that, The composition of the officer corps and other ranks of the armed forces of the federation shall reflect the federal character of Nigeria. This must be brought into consideration by the president in the appointment of service chiefs as spelt out in section 218(1)(2) of the 1999 constitution as amended. Section 1 states: The powers of the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federation shall include power to determine the use of the armed forces of the federation. Section (2) states, The powers conferred on the President by subsection (1) of this section shall include power to appoint the Chief of Defence Staff, the Chief of Army Staff, the Chief of Naval Staff and heads of any other branches of the armed forces of the federation as may be established by an Act of the National Assembly.

Constitutionally, it can be argued that the president erred by the non-abidance to clearly set out provisions of the constitution. Even if the constitution does not have express provisions, the craft of governance would dictate otherwise: in a plural society, inclusivity is to be cherished to clientelism and outright isolation. They are the ingredients for the unmaking of many a country. Beyond catering for inclusivity, equitable representation in the armed forces will also ensure responsiveness and accountability.

Security is a sensitive national issue. Countries with diversities, especially ethnic ones, have regional commands to guarantee the mutual security of all. Given the growing mistrust of the military and allegation of a partisan organisation lending support to herdsmen in their brutal killings across the country, it is high time the leadership of the country began to ensure what Chief Anthony Enahoro called equitocracy in the armed formation of the country. In a proper federation, this type of practice is an abnormality, and does not strengthen national integration. If the country must endure as single entity, a functional representative bureaucracy is the key to nurture national cohesion, which is being undermined by the current state of affairs.In the same vein, the recent signing of COVID-19 Health Protection Regulations 2021 as part of efforts to boost the COVID-19 response in the country looked good but the application isnt good for a vast country with the complex diversity we have been contextualising. It is the same way we have been mismanaging the omnibus anti-graft federal laws through three agencies that are based in the nations capital. Specifically, the EFCC and ICPC laws are applicable in all the states of the federation. Law officers attached to the three agencies including the Code of Conduct Tribunal have been picking up suspects from any of the 774 local councils in the country. This partly explains why anti-corruption prosecution has been largely unsuccessful. What should be ideal is encouraging each of the 36 states to enact their laws, which will be easier to manage in this complex federation of more than 200 million people.

In the same vein, the application of the COVID-19 Health Protection and Regulation 2021 should have taken a similar path: Governors should have been directed to sign their own regulations governing their states. In the main, governors should begin to exploit challenges of the moment as veritable opportunities to restructure the country the way Dr. Agbakoba too just prescribed that there should be intentional and legal devolution of powers to overcome crisis hampering the development of this country.

According to the former NBA President in a recent publication, regional autonomy, a critical element in federalism, would resolve the countrys diversity challenges. He said devolution of powers would allow subsidiarity to deliver public service at the base of the nation as it did in the Western Region under self-rule in 1951. Agbakobas is one more voice of reason and courage in support of what this newspaper has been harping on for the past 16 weeks. It is our hope and prayer that authorities in Abuja and the governing party would not continue to remain recalcitrant and even deaf to the voices of reason on federalism as the only way forward for the worlds most populous black nation.

Go here to read the rest:

Editorial: Federalism is the answer, after all Part 16 - Guardian

This programme has topics including Indias Foreign Policy, Connectivity issues like air, water & land, attracting foreign tourists to India, common areas of interest including Para-Diplomacy.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has launched a special week long training programme which will help in equipping the States/UT officers in international engagements. This is the second such programme which has been organised by MEA at the Sushma Swaraj Institute of Foreign Service which started February 9, 2021.

Who is participating?

A batch of 17 officers from 7 States. These include, according to MEA, Haryana, Punjab, Gujarat, Karnataka, Odhisa, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.

Addressing the 2nd batch of these officers from different states, Rahul Chhabra, Secretary (Economic Relations), MEA, talked about the initiative of the States Division of MEA that Such an initiative can put Boots on the Ground for States and UTs, through the network of Indian Missions and posts around the world.

This initiative of the MEA is in line with Prime Minister Narendra Modis vision of promoting cooperative/competitive federalism.

According to Mr Chhabra, This initiative is to promote Team spirit, making States an integral part of Team India in engaging the world.

External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar has earlier commended the new initiative undertaken by the MEA.

More about the programme

The whole programme has been carefully designed. And the content of the week long programme is aimed at inculcating among the State and UT officials, the knowledge, awareness and the skills to deal with the world.

This programme has topics including Indias Foreign Policy, Connectivity issues like air, water & land, attracting foreign tourists to India, common areas of interest including Para-Diplomacy.

Managing the global COVID pandemic and the role of States & UTs: Indias success story; also, the course will touch upon the consular & diaspora issues, issues faced by foreign businesses in states & UTs. Protocol matters- which will focus on the incoming & outgoing visits by foreign dignitaries.

This time there is a new dimension of the programme to reap multiplier effect: Training the Trainers they are from Haryana Institute of Public Administration on a pilot basis.

Get live Stock Prices from BSE, NSE, US Market and latest NAV, portfolio of Mutual Funds, Check out latest IPO News, Best Performing IPOs, calculate your tax by Income Tax Calculator, know markets Top Gainers, Top Losers & Best Equity Funds. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Financial Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel and stay updated with the latest Biz news and updates.

Link:

Towards competitive Federalism: MEA trains officers from different states to put `Boots on the Ground - The Financial Express

The coming February 13 marks the 25th year of the start of the Peoples War by the Maoists in Nepal. In 2012, I remember my daughter Manushi telling me, Mother, you are so lucky to be part of the history in making this country a republic. We may not have any contribution to make in our lifetime. I had said, Dont worry, a revolution is generally followed by a counter-revolution, and you may be required to fight against it. I am baffled to note how fast the counter-revolution has come in Nepal.

Before delving into revolution and counter-revolution, let us examine the positions of the political parties before the Maoist conflict started. Although all of them were working to weaken the monarchy, there were different tendencies. The Nepali Congress was known for fighting for democracy, but they could not go beyond multiparty democracy under the monarchy. Various brands of communist parties, particularly the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) were fighting for a republic, but they could not go beyond abstract class issues. There were small parties such as the Janmukti Party and Sadbhawana Party that were campaigning for federalism, but they could not go beyond identity issues. There was only the Maoist Party that pursued a package programme of democracy, republicanism, federalism and secularism making it a holistic movement.

Synchronised leadership

It is interesting to note how the parties were functioning when the People's War was going on. Most of them, including the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, would condemn the Maoists as extremists when they were out of power; but when they were in government, they were keen to engage with the same Maoists. At the same time, the Maoist Party was spreading throughout the country because it not only addressed class issues but also nationalist, regional, gender, Dalit and other issues. There was also synchronised leadership during this period.

Pushpa Kamal Dahal played a pragmatic role in infusing power to the party while Baburam Bhattarai gave vision and direction, and Mohan Baidya made sure the party was not deviating from the path of classical revolution. A critical examination showed that Dahal represented a petty, bourgeois demagogue who named the partys ideology after himself, as Prachanda Path. Bhattarai represented an idealist leader who was more theoretical and was involved in developing Marxism in the present context. Baidya represented a dogmatist leader who liked to bask in the past.

Despite various lacunas, the People's War created a situation for launching the second People's Movement in cooperation with other parties, resulting in the promulgation of the constitution through a Constituent Assembly. However, after the promulgation of the new constitution, the structure of most of the political parties didnt change. They engaged in power-mongering instead of pursuing transformative action, and they are still hesitating to make their parties inclusive as demanded by the constitution. They still have a hangover of the feudal mindset whereby democratic norms are hardly practised within the party.

Ironically, the counter-revolution today is not being led by former king Gyanendra and his regressive forces, but by KP Oli, the so-called proletarian president of the Nepal Communist Party. Dahal, former Maoist leader and co-chairman of the Nepal Communist Party, is on the streets demanding the reinstatement of the dissolved Parliament. At the same time, many people are asking questions about the actions, or lack thereof, of the former Maoists in the Nepal Communist Party. How is it that the womens movement has taken a back seat?

The Dalits were much-empowered during the People's War, and were known for making and maintaining arms and ammunition for the Maoists. But the recent brutal killing of a Dalit youth and his friends by former Maoists in Rukum, once a hot spot of the People's War, shocked the nation. The young man had dared to love the daughter of a so-called upper caste Thakuri for which he lost his life. Even then the Dalit organisation of the Nepal Communist Party said not a word. Take the case of the Janajatis who had autonomous provinces based on identity during the People's War, but who kept their mouths shut when the provinces were formed without any regard to the spirit of identity and federalism. During the People's War, martyrs and disappeared persons were honoured by having landmarks named after them. But today the former Maoist leaders are in no hurry to conclude the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Hunger for power

Why have the Maoists lost steam? How come their vision has become nearly void? This is mainly due to Prachandas hunger for power at the cost of principles and issues. There is a potential for conflict if ethnic and regional oppression is not addressed. If the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not effectively implemented, renewed conflict may result. But KP Oli wants to turn the clock back by trying to replace the 2015 Constitution with the 1990 Constitution. No wonder dust is gathering in the streets for another storm, the third Jana Andolan!

In many ways, parallels can be drawn between Aung San Suu Kyi, who was hailed as the leader of democracy in Myanmar for fighting against the military junta, and Dahal, who was hailed as a leader who fought against the monarchy to make Nepal a federal republic. In course of time, Aung San Suu Kyi succumbed to the same military authority, disappointing those who had conferred the Nobel Prize on her. Recently, she has been stabbed in the back by the military that has imprisoned her. Similarly, Dahal succumbed to Oli who was against federalism and republicanism, disappointing those who stood for inclusive issues. Today, he is being stabbed in the back by Oli who has sent him to the streets. I wish he is not imprisoned like Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar!

Read more:

Revolution and counter-revolution - The Kathmandu Post