Category Archives: Federalism

2020 has been a bad year for the health of Indians and for the health of Indian democracy too. The Modi-Shah regime, which is authoritarian by instinct and belief, has used the pandemic to further undermine the processes of constitutional democracy and strengthen its hold over State and society. In pursuit of its ambitions, the regime has launched a multi-pronged attack on the Indian Parliament, Indian federalism, the Indian press and Indian civil society organisations. Let us consider these in turn.

In the years he was chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi displayed a consistent contempt for legislative procedure. A report compiled after he had been a decade in office showed that of all the chief ministers of Gujarat since the states formation, Modi convened the least assembly sittings.

Months would pass in which the assembly would not meet; when it did, a day would be enough to dispose of matters at hand, with much time spent mourning members who had passed away. As is well known, apart from disregarding inputs from MLAs from the Opposition and even from his own party, Chief Minister Modi rarely consulted his own cabinet about major policy decisions.

Modi has carried this contempt for consultation with him to New Delhi. For him, Parliament is a place to make the odd stirring speech in, not a chamber for deliberative decision-making. The partisan attitude adopted by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the chairman of the Rajya Sabha is very much in line with their leaders way of thinking. Their deputies act in the same way.

Consider the manner in which the farm bills were passed through the Rajya Sabha, with the deputy-chairman of the House, Harivansh, violating all the rules and norms of Parliament by refusing to allow actual voting, and making the bills into law on the basis of his own sense of the House.

Of this departure from democratic practice, PDT Achary, the former secretary-general of the Lok Sabha, wrote, Parliaments systems are designed to enable the opposition to have its say and the government to have its way. If the former is not possible, parliament as a democratic institution cannot survive for long.

Those who are Modi bhakts, or who believe that the ends justify the means, have disregarded these violations and welcomed the bills as historic. On the other hand, supporters of the farm bills with more scruples and a deeper understanding of history have honourably alerted us to the awful consequences of such contempt for Parliament.

Thus, as the senior lawyer, Arvind Datar, writes, The enormous economic loss and the dislocation of normal life around Delhi could have been wholly avoided if the Bills had not been bulldozed through Parliament. The agitation teaches us the importance of following parliamentary procedure not just in letter but in spirit as well.

Union ministers may put the blame on urban Naxals, Khalistanis, and Opposition parties, but, as Datar points out, it is the extraordinary haste with which the farm bills were pushed through both the Houses [that] has created the present crisis, which can only exacerbate the economic woes caused by the pandemic.

More recently, the government cancelled the winter session of Parliament citing the pandemic, even as the Union home minister was addressing large political rallies in Assam and West Bengal.

As chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi claimed to believe in co-operative federalism. As prime minister, he has sought to savagely curtail the rights and responsibilities of states. Again, the farm bill can serve as an example. As Harish Damodaran has pointed out, since the Constitution clearly places both agriculture and markets on the state list, on these matters the Centre can encourage, incentivise, persuade and cajole states. However, it cannot legislate on its own.

Nonetheless, through a creative (mis)interpretation of an item in the concurrent list which covers trade and commerce in foodstuffs, the Centre had these bills passed, through the dubious procedure in Parliament described above, and without consulting the states at all.

The pandemic has witnessed a more general attack on the federal principle. The powers of the Centre have been strengthened through colonial-era laws and the National Disaster Management Act. Meanwhile, state governments run by Opposition parties have been undermined by bribing, cajoling, or intimidating legislators to switch their allegiance to the Bharatiya Janata Party.

A true marker of how much the BJP cares for power and how little for the health of Indians was that the prime minister waited for the swearing-in of the new government in Madhya Pradesh before imposing a draconian lockdown at four hours notice.

In its attack on federalism, the BJP has particularly targeted two large states West Bengal and Maharashtra. Here, governors more loyal to the ruling party at the Centre than to the Constitution and Central investigative agencies more loyal to their ministers than to the law have been used by the Modi-Shah regime to harass the non-BJP governments that currently rule these states. This intimidation has become so brazen that the BJPs once loyal and long-term ally, the Shiv Sena, was compelled to state: What if our Prime Minister is taking a special interest in destabilising State governments? The Prime Minister belongs to the country. The country stands as a federation. Even the states which do not have BJP governments, those states also talk about national interest. This feeling is being killed.

In his years as chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi was deeply distrustful of even the most non-political of civil society organisations. He has carried this distrust over to New Delhi. The year, 2020, had seen a tightening of the already extensive curbs on non-governmental organisations. The new amendment to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, argues one analyst, is designed to facilitate arbitrary, vindictive action by the authorities.

By curbing and confining NGOs, the bill shall have far-reaching consequences on the fields of education, health, peoples livelihoods, gender justice and indeed democracy in India.

Narendra Modi has never much liked journalists who think for themselves, as his refusal to hold a press conference in six-and-a-half years as prime minister shows. The year, 2020, saw growing attacks on the independence of the press in India. In the first two months after the lockdown was imposed in late March, some 55 journalists faced FIRs, physical intimidation, and arrest. The highest number of attacks on journalists were in Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Himachal Pradesh, which are all ruled or controlled by the BJP.

As a report by the Free Speech Collective noted, The year 2020 has been a bad one for journalists in India The killing and attacks on journalists have continued unabated. While self-censorship within the media remained an open secret, the government sought to increase regulation of the media, with media policies, funding and administrative mechanisms for online media.

India now occupies the 142nd place on the World Press Freedom Index, ranking well below Nepal, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, though the fact that we are three places above Pakistan may provide some consolation to deshbhakts.

Apart from attacks on Parliament, federalism, civil society organisations and the press, 2020 had also seen a further stigmatisation of Indias large and vulnerable Muslim minority. This stigmatisation has been overseen by two of the most powerful politicians in India. The hand of the home minister, Amit Shah, is most visible in the BJPs Bengal campaign and in the polices partisan handling of the Delhi riots and their aftermath and the hand of Uttar Pradeshs chief minister, Adityanath, in the incarceration of a growing number of Muslim men on charges that are shady, flimsy, or non-existent.

Notwithstanding the prime ministers recent speech at the Aligarh Muslim University, it is clearly Adityanaths majoritarianism that represents the deep, inner feelings of the party faithful, as manifest in the eagerness of other BJP chief ministers to enact the discriminatory laws and practices adopted in UP.

When the new laws regarding agriculture and labour were passed, there was a chorus of applause from free-market columnists crowing, the crisis has not been wasted. The chorus was credulous, because sustained economic growth requires both a level playing field and the rule of law. Neither does, or can, exist, in the Modi-Shah regime.

Capitalists who contribute more to the secretive electoral bonds scheme shall get preferential treatment over those who dont. Politicians who defect from other parties to the BJP miraculously have all corruption cases against them dropped. The police, the bureaucracy and even the courts allegedly act in the interests of their political masters rather than according to the law.

To hold the State and the private sector accountable, one needs the transparent gaze of a free press, informed debate in Parliament, and independent civil society organisations. With what transpired in 2020, we have even less of these than previously. Finally, one cannot have social harmony if the State and the ruling party treat those who are not Hindus as inferior to those who are.

For the prime minister and his party, political power, ideological control, and personal glory take precedence over the economic and social well-being of Indias citizens. They have, therefore, used, or rather abused, the crisis to weaken the institutions of Indian democracy and the traditions of Indian pluralism so as to further the construction of an authoritarian and majoritarian State, which they seek far more diligently than anything else.

Ramachandra Guhas The Commonwealth of Cricket has just been published. His email address is ramachandraguha@yahoo.in.

This article first appeared in The Telegraph.

More:

Ramachandra Guha: Under cover of Covid-19, Modi regime has stepped up its attack on Indian democracy - Scroll.in

Sharing details on why he was forced to remove JP Rajkhowa as the governor of Arunachal Pradesh in 2016, former President Pranab Mukherjee in his memoir wrote at some point though, I had expressed my displeasure to the home minister (Rajnath Singh) on the governors conduct. Everybody wanted to wait for the Supreme Courts verdict. I was expecting, as others were, of some interim order, but when it did not come, I had to act. The verdict, when it came, indicted the governor on all counts, but Rajkhowa did not quit. I told the home minister that if the governor did not act, I would have to in other words, ask the governor to quit.

Writing on the subject of federalism and on powers of the governor, Mukherjee in the fourth volume of his autobiography The Presidential Years: 2012-2017, wrote, must confess that I was unhappy with the governors action. I have always maintained that the governor is not the ruler of a state; he acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The governor does not even belong to the state, so how can he take on the mantle of a ruler!

Mukherjee wrote in his book that India had never really been a federal state. He added, The federal structure as we understand it today, simply refers to a broad arrangement symbolizing a healthy relationship between the Centre and the states. Over the years, federalism has taken many forms, the more recent being 'cooperative federalism' and 'competitive federalism'.

The episode Mukherjee mentioned here was about the constitutional crisis that arose in Arunachal Pradesh in late 2015 when the then speaker of the state assembly, Nabam Rebia, against whom an impeachment motion had been moved, disqualified 14 Congress MLAs.

The case went to Guwahati High Court followed by the Supreme Court, during which Presidents Rule was imposed in the state. The Congress which ruled the state at that time was eventually trumped by the BJP when Prema Khandu joined the BJP-led alliance with over 40 MLAs. Mukherjee went on to remove Rajkhowa as the governor of the state.

Read the original here:

India Had Never Really Been a Federal State, Wrote Pranab Mukherjee in Memoir 'The Presidential Years' - News18

By Express News Service

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The new farm laws hurt the farmers and the state, saidGovernor Arif Mohammed Khan on Friday while reading out Kerala government's opposition to the three agriculture laws passed by the Centre.

Arif Mohammed Khan, while reading out the policy address, said "the farmers will lose bargaining powers and income loss at the cost of corporate with the amendment of Essential Commodities Act. It willalso impact a consumer state such as Kerala."

While supporting the farmers'protestingagainst the three new agri laws, the governor in his address asked the Centre to address the policy lacuna that affected thecommercial crop farming in Kerala.

INTERVIEW | Air your views but don't provoke conflicts, says Kerala Governor to state government

The state legislative assembly on Thursday unanimously passed a resolution to reject the farm laws enacted by the Centre. Both LDF and UDF were at loggerheads with the Governor for his decision to turn down the state government's request to convene a special session on August 23.

The issue was resolved after he later gave the nod later.

The Kerala government's policy read out by Governor Arif Mohammed Khan was also critical of Centre for compromising federalism in the country. While asking the Central government to respect the federal system in the country the state policy freedom for states and local bodies to function effectively in their respective space.

ALSO READ |Opposition boycotts Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan's policy address in assembly

The Life Mission project, which is a flagship housing programme of the LDF government found an indirect mention in the address as it accused the central agencies of impeding major projects and demoralising honest officers involved in it, in violation of the Cooperative federalism.

The reference was into the enquiries conducted by Enforcement Directorate probe into the suspected bribery in Life Mission project in Vadakancherry, enquiries into K-FON optical network project etc.

The opposition UDF boycotted the policy address ten minutes into the Governor's address as a mark of protest againt the Kerala government and Governor.

His speech was interrupted by constant sloganeering from the opposition prompting the Governor to pause twice.

You have raised made enough slogans. Please let me do my constitutional duty. Do not interrupt me, the Governor told the UDF MLAs. The Opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala rose from the seat and spoke against the government, terming it as the most corrupt.

The address began with the impact of Covid-19 on the social and economic situation of the state. The economic impact is estimated at Rs 80,000 crore deficit in state GDP. It gave detailed account of the pandemic fight by the state government.

Read the original here:

'New laws hurt farmers': Governor reads Kerala's resolution against Centres' agri policies in assembly - The New Indian Express

It is hard to change long-standing narratives. The popular understanding of complex subjects often includes ideas that are well-past their sell-by date, an yet persist either because they are intuitive, compelling, have seeped into the media or because someone has a vested interest in maintaining that impression.

Take, for example, the idea that high turnout in Indian elections is a sign of anti-incumbency. Not only does the data not back it up, experts seem to think it emerges from a couple of elections in 1967 and 1977, about a half-decade ago.

They can even be internalised, like Indians believing they are middle class no matter where their income falls on the spectrum.

One of the questions we likes to ask most on our newsletter the Political Fix which features an interview with experts and scholars on Indian policy, politics and beyond every Friday, is about misconceptions. Specifically what misconceptions do you encounter all the time from the public at large, from journalists and even from experts and scholars.

The answers are always interesting. So for the start of the year, we thought we would compile some of them for you to return to. You can read the entire archive of Friday Q&As here.

Do send in suggestions for who you would like us to feature next or the misconceptions about a subject that you encounter over and over by emailing rohan@scroll.in

Rahul Verma is a Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, and co-author along with Pradeep Chhibber of Ideology and Identity: The Changing Party Systems of India. I spoke to Verma about popular understandings of Indian politics and how theyre often wrong. Read the entire interview here.

What misconceptions about Indian politics do you find yourself correcting all the time?

There are lots of them. Lots of them. Despite contrary evidence and good evidence in the public domain, people continue to work with the old wisdom, which has been challenged. As we discussed in the beginning, take this whole relationship between caste and vote. Just open your eyes. Across the world, this happens. Im not saying that there are no bad effects and elements of this caste-vote relationship in India. But why do you get so worked up? Think deeply why this exists.

This conversation is loaded against the lower class and the marginalised. Upper castes also act as a voting block for the BJP in many parts of this country, or dominant castes do for regional parties in many parts of the country, but the conversation is always about some Yadav-OBCs, some Dalits and some Muslims, right? So this misconception has another layer of misconceptions loaded towards one group.

Take the silent voter theory [to explain polling errors]. This is one of the most bogus theories of Indian politics. This has no basis. But in every election you hear, we went there, the voters are not speaking up. Yes, some people are actually strategically silent. They dont want to be seen. But a lot of them actually dont know what to do. And they are looking for cues. Theyre trying to talk to their relatives, theyre trying to talk to their family members. Theyre trying to talk to their village elders.

There is a section of voters who decide whom to vote for while standing in the queue. The hawa at the polling booth.

Then, many people, including Milan Vaishnav, have given evidence on this relationship between turnout and anti-incumbency, that there is no relationship. But it keeps coming back in election after election.

Then this whole business about factionalism. I grew up reading in the newspapers someone always blaming gutbaazi, factionalism, for losing. So when you lose, its basically anti-incumbency and factionalism. And when you win, these two things dont matter.

See, parties are made up of factions. There are always going to be competing power interests. The degree of factionalism may make you win or lose an election, but that does not happen in every election.

Manan Ahmed Asif, an associate professor at Columbia University who also founded the blog Chapati Mystery, examines in his new book, The Loss of Hindustan; The Invention of India, the ways in which colonial histories of the subcontinent, often using a simplistic religious lens, overshadowed and overwhelmed a very different understanding of Hindustan held by medieval scholars.

Read the whole interview here.

The whole of the book is about misconceptions, so this question is a bit harder, but Id still like to ask: What is the one misconception that you find yourself having to correct all the time?

I think it is one thing that Ive made a part of both books, which is this idea of Muslim presence in the subcontinent being perceived as [that of] outsiders.

In both India and in Pakistan. In India, because of the Hindutva [project]. In Pakistan, they say, we are descended from Arabs, and have nothing to do with the subcontinent.

So this idea of outsiderness, both in Pakistan and India. How does it work? You see disciplinary scholarship, studies that are wedded to this analytical framework.

The thing I notice the most is how colonial categories of difference and a national emphasis on difference is not questioned. We dont put it in front and say this doesnt make sense.

Louise Tillin is director of the India Institute at the Kings College London, and author of Indian Federalism. I spoke to her about the interaction between the Centre and states in India, and how the countrys federal compact operates differently from other prominent federations.

Read the whole interview here.

Is there one misconception about Indian federalism that you find yourself frequently having to correct?

I took a bit of slack a good 10 years ago for suggesting that Indian federalism had not quite come to terms with asymmetry in the way that proponents of asymmetric federalism often assume. It was often said that the Article 370 and Kashmirs autonomous status in the Indian Union, along with the autonomy provisions in North East India, meant that India stood out as a country that had managed to design forms of asymmetry that has enabled it to accommodate the idea that certain regions should have a special status within the Constitution.

This is a debate that has played out in many other countries. There is a long-running debate of whether Quebec should be recognised as having a special status in Canada, or Catalonia in the Spanish case.

I wrote an article back in 2007 and I said, well, yes, India does have these forms of autonomy in the Constitution, but its a mistake to think they are unproblematically embedded. And Article 370 is often being obeyed more in the breach and eroded essentially over time and perhaps we ought to be a little more cautious in how well we understand India as representing a form of asymmetric federalism.

I was slightly lambasted then for those views. But I feel recent events have borne them out.

Ananth Krishnan is a journalist and author of Indias China Challenge, which tells the story of how the country arrived at this particular moment in the Xi Jinping era and what that might mean for New Delhi. I spoke to Krishnan about 2020s tensions on the disputed border between the two countries, how trade has not led to closer connections and why he set out to convey a sense of the plurality of voices that are present in China.

Read the whole interview here.

Is there one thing that you see among Indian scholars, media, even fellow experts that you think is the biggest misconception when it comes to China?

Id say that one pet peeve of mine is, its not really a deep misconception, but I wish we would stop paying as much attention to the Global Times as we do every day. Its understandable, given the fact that there arent many English-language sources from China. But the idea that everything that they say is signed off by the top leadership is something I find quite amusing.

Declan Walsh is a New York Times journalist and author of The Nine Lives of Pakistan, which tells the story of the country through nine fascinating portraits while also recounting his own time there including being expelled by the government for unspecified reasons in 2013. I spoke to Walsh about the violent period that he was witness to in Pakistan, how foreign correspondence has changed and how he sees the country from the outside.

Read the whole interview here.

Having spent nine years there and left, do you now find yourself correcting misconceptions about the way people even experts and scholars see Pakistan?

I think for foreigners in the post 9/11 period, there was a tendency to view Pakistan exclusively through a national security prism. And I think that sometimes provided for very impoverished policymaking, where foreign countries, for instance, supported Pervez Musharraf, just as they had supported General Zia for their own narrow perceived national security interest.

And I think in the medium term that has been a destabilising dynamic for Pakistan. It has led to bad decisions, and it has not helped the cause of good governance in the country. Thats not to excuse the sometimes gross failings and corruption of civilian leaders. And they certainly have been terrible. But, you know, in Pakistan, there is bad politics and fascinating politics, but sometimes very dispiriting politics in a kind of narrow sense.

But, there are also bigger, wider forces at play about the balance of power within the country and about the country, kind of having an opportunity or having the space to solidify its own identity as a country that is formally titled an Islamic Republic, but has large minorities, and in reality actually sees itself as a much more pluralistic place.

I think for a lot of Pakistanis anyway, they do, but that view is under threat from really regressive forces that are always looking for an opportunity to seize space, whether its through blasphemy, whether its through the issue of militant jihad, whether its sometimes just through conventional politics, and there is this battle for the soul of Pakistan thats always ongoing.

Originally posted here:

What does everyone keep getting wrong about India (and China and Pakistan)? - Scroll.in

Anthony Fauci, an infectious disease expert who has played a leading role in advising the Trump administration on COVID-19, thinks federalism has undermined America's response to the pandemic. "The states are very often given a considerable amount of leeway in doing things the way they want to do it, as opposed to in response to federal mandates, which are relatively rarely given," Fauci, who has directed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, recently told BBC Radio 4. "What we've had was a considerable disparity, with states doing things differently in a nonconsistent way.There have been a lot of factors that have led to the fact that, unfortunately for us, the United States has been the hardest-hit country in the world, but I believe that disparity among how states do things has been a major weakness in our response."

The "leeway" that bothers Fauci is required by the Constitution, which gives states the primary responsibility for dealing with public health threats under a broad "police power" that the federal government was never given. So his beef is not simply with the way COVID-19 policy happened to play out in the United States. It is an objection to the basic structure of our constitutional design, which limits the federal government to specifically enumerated powers that do not include a general mandate to fight communicable diseases or protect public health. Although Congress has invoked its authority over interstate and international commerce to justify certain disease control measures, the power to deal with epidemics lies mainly with the states, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized.

That point aside, is Fauci right that federalism has proven to be "a major weakness in our response"? A centralized response to COVID-19 might have been better in some respects, assuming that the federal government was wise, knowledgeable, and competent enough to settle on an ideal policy for the entire country. But that assumption is manifestly wrong.

In the areas where the federal government has taken the lead, including vaccine approval, the deployment of virus tests, and advice on face masks, its performance has been characterized by striking incompetence, bureaucratic intransigence, bewildering inconsistency, and lethal foot dragging. Given that track record, trusting the feds to decide every detail of COVID-19 control measures seems ill-advised, even if the Constitution permitted it.

While state and local officials are not necessarily smarter or more competent than national politicians and federal bureaucrats, they are more familiar with the local conditions that should inform COVID-19 policies and more accountable to the people affected by their decisions. In a huge country that includes sparsely populated, largely rural states as well as states with highly concentrated urban centers, a one-size-fits-all policy formulated in Washington, D.C., makes little sense. U.S. jurisdictions also differ widely in the extent and speed of virus transmission, the capacity and quality of their health care systems, and demographics that affect the infection fatality rate, which varies dramatically across the country. Such factors are clearly relevant in weighing the costs and benefits of interventions aimed at curtailing the epidemic.

The proliferation of "nonconsistent" policies that result in "disparity" among states also creates an opportunity for learning from the successes and failures of different approaches. Are states that imposed lockdowns early and relaxed them gradually doing better than states that acted later, lifted restrictions faster, or never imposed general lockdowns at all? Does allowing businesses such as restaurants to operate with COVID-19 safeguards create an intolerable risk? Do bans on outdoor activities make any sense at all? Do mask mandates make an important difference? What is the best way to protect high-risk groups, such as nursing home residents and prisoners? It would be much harder even to try answering questions like these without the jurisdictional variation that Fauci decries.

However you come down on those issues, the risk of centralization should be clear. If you believe that lockdowns played an important role in reducing COVID-19 deaths, would you want to trust a president who is leery of that policy and asserts "total" authority to reopen the economy? If you think face masks are a vital tool for reducing virus transmission, would you want a president who disagrees to decide whether they should be legally required? If you think some states have failed abysmally at protecting prisoners and nursing home residents, are you confident that a federal policy would be better?

Incidentally, the U.S. is not, as Fauci claimed, "the hardest-hit country in the world." While our COVID-19 numbers are certainly nothing to brag about, the United States currently ranks 14th in deaths per capita, according to Worldometer's tallies. Developed countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, and Belgiumall of which imposed sweeping restrictions on social and economic activity at the national levelare doing worse by that measure. The U.K., where Fauci's interview slamming federalism was broadcast, has imposed national lockdowns repeatedly, but its death rate is still somewhat higher than the U.S. rate. Sweden, which eschewed such measures, ranks 27th in per capita COVID-19 deaths, much higher than its Scandinavian neighbors but lower than many other European countries.

Many things went wrong with the U.S. response to COVID-19. But the most conspicuous failures happened at the federal level, where Fauci seems to think all the important decisions should have been made. The wisdom of that approach is by no means obvious from interstate or international comparisons. Centralization makes sense only if you ignore relevant differences in local circumstances and if you trust the federal government to make the right choices. If it errs, whether by failing to take steps that would have substantially reduced the death toll or by imposing restrictions that cost much more than they are worth, all of us have to live with the consequences.

Excerpt from:

Is Anthony Fauci Right That Federalism Undermined the U.S. Response to COVID-19? - Reason

This analysis was featured in Critical State, a weekly newsletter from The World and Inkstick Media.Subscribe here.

Last week, Critical State looked at how the distance between national governments and the people who actually implement their repressive policies both enables and limits the violence states can do to their own people. In the Philippines, the deadliness of President Rodrigo Dutertes ultra-violent drug war varies based on the political networks of the various mayors charged with carrying it out. This week, well look at a case where the distance has served an opposite function, making it very difficult for the national government to get its violence-implementers to stop repressing people.

Related: Federalism in violence: Part I

In Mexico, police torture civilians accused of crimes at an astonishing rate.

In Mexico, police torture civilians accused of crimes at an astonishing rate. In a survey of prisoners in Mexico, nearly 60% reported being beaten by police before being put in custody of a public prosecutor, and nearly 40% reported being beaten while in public prosecutor custody. Over 35% report being victims of simulated drowning before being turned over to public prosecutors and 25% were subjected to waterboarding or similar techniques by public prosecutors. Electric shocks, being crushed with heavy objects, and burns are also frequently inflicted on people unfortunate enough to come in contact with the Mexican criminal justice system.

Related:InMexico, the unendingdrugwar takes its toll

Mexico instituted a sweeping criminal justice reform law in 2008 that, among other things, aimed to end torture as a major component of Mexican policing and prosecution.

All this is true, despite the fact that Mexico instituted a sweeping criminal justice reform law in 2008 that, among other things, aimed to end torture as a major component of Mexican policing and prosecution. The national government, in other words, told its on-the-ground violence-implementers to chill. Twelve years on, that hasnt really happened. In a new article in the American Political Science Review, Beatriz Magaloni and Luis Rodriguez investigate why torture is so embedded at the implementation level of Mexican justice.

Related:Cartel gunmen terrorizeMexicancity to free El Chapo's son

Tortures outsized role in Mexico stems from the countrys colonial past.

Tortures outsized role in Mexico stems from the countrys colonial past. Mexico inherited an inquisitional justice system from Spain, in which confessions are a crucial part of securing convictions. Since inquisitional systems (as the name suggests) are agnostic about whether those confessions are coerced or not, torture to produce coerced confessions became an institutionalized aspect of how the justice system functioned. The 2008 reforms ended inquisitional justice by changing evidentiary standards to make coerced confessions functionally inadmissible. Magaloni and Rodriguez used data from the survey of Mexican prisoners to test the laws effectiveness. After the reforms, they found, there was a drop in torture, but the reforms were only responsible for between 4 and 8 percentage points of the drop hardly at the levels that might have been expected given the content of the new laws.

Reforms did move the needle on torture, but police and prosecutors had to institute the reforms on themselves.

Part of the reason for the laws limited effect came from the durability of the inquisitional institutions even in the face of democratic intervention. Police forces and prosecutors had a way of doing things, and the states actual ability to change those practices on the fly was extremely limited. Over time, as judicial oversight threw out more and more coerced confessions, the reforms did move the needle on torture, but police and prosecutors had to institute the reforms on themselves.

In Mexico, local police and military forces sometimes engage in joint operations against drug cartels, blurring the line between law enforcement and punitive raids.

Another issue Magaloni and Rodriguez identified was the increasingly militarized nature of Mexican policing, driven in part by Mexicos approach to its drug war. In Mexico, local police and military forces sometimes engage in joint operations against drug cartels, blurring the line between law enforcement and punitive raids. These joint operations, the researchers found, increased police torture in the area by between 5 to 10%, even controlling for areas where high levels of drug cartel violence might make the war on drugs more war-like than usual.

A national government working at cross purposes to itself will have a particularly hard time curbing its footsoldiers violent tendencies.

Mexican justice had a hard enough time implementing reforms from the national level, but the militarization of the drug war created a set of mixed signals that, in some communities, wiped away the positive effects of the reform entirely. A national government working at cross purposes withitself will have a particularly hard time curbing its footsoldiers violent tendencies.

Critical State is your weekly fix of foreign policy without all the stuff you don't need. It'stop news and accessible analysis for those who want an inside take without all the insider bs.Subscribe here.

See the article here:

Federalism in violence: Part II - The World

The flags of Wales, Scotland, England and the UK. Picture by Joowwww.

Ioan Phillips and Jac Brown

It is highly ironic that the UK has established federal political systems around the world, yet remains reluctant to embrace this form of governance for itself.

With Brexit and Covid-19 underscoring the sclerotic nature of the British state, one of the most centralised in Western Europe, the federal ideal has been resurrected most recently by Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who today promised a wave of decentralisation.

There is, however, the real danger that to channel the nineteenth-century historian, Edward Freeman advocates of a federal UK end up championing the concept without giving any meaningful though to what it actually means in practice.

Yet we should not be too hasty to condemn. The vacuity of some federalists does not mean a federal UK is necessarily an outright bad idea.

The Constitution Reform Group (CRG) proposes a new act of union that would see the four nations of the UK given beefed-up powers as part of a federal set-up in which only a core handful of responsibilities over defence, foreign affairs, immigration, and currency, would remain at a UK level. Structurally at least, this would be a significant reshaping of the way politics in the UK is conducted, stripping power away from the centre.

Federalism also gives unionists and nationalists a chance to test their arguments. Unionists can argue that reform pacifies the nationalist yearning for independence, while bringing further autonomy. Nationalist governments could utilise new powers to diverge more from Westminster, preparing the ground for eventual independence.

Practicality

The fact remains, though: federalism is an unviable pipedream.

The most immediate obstacle is that those most in favour of a federal solution Labour and the Liberal Democrats are in the political wilderness, and will likely be for the foreseeable future.

To obtain a majority of one, Labour needs to gain an unprecedented 120 seats a task made more difficult by the partys ongoing struggles in Scotland.

Furthermore, the rise of independence in Welsh and Scottish political consciousness means that the constitutional debates there have shifted beyond areas federalism would be able to address.

Foreign policy is a case in point. Federalism would not have prevented Brexit. Nor would it have any mechanism for preventing some of the more ill-judged military interventions of the past two decades.

In addition, the successful realisation of federalism requires mutual respect between the different administrations of the UK.

Would a Conservative government in England work with its Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish counterparts in that spirit? The evidence suggests otherwise. It has regularly ridden roughshod over the views of the devolved governments on Brexit, while attempting to deliver COVID policy by diktat.

The other elephant in the room is that an English parliament would make a Westminster government fairly redundant, with the preferences of England still dominating this streamlined body.

Supporters of federalism retort that federal regions would guard against Englands preponderance although such an approach could well see power taken from councils, rather than central government.

Ultimately, the proliferation of pro-independence sentiment is not motivated by a desire for control over arcane pension policy rule. It is instead a question of identity.

Looking at UK politics today, it is hard to escape the feeling that we are on a very different path one where the main constitutional juncture is unionism against independence.

For unionists, federalism might be a comforting if abstract panacea, but it is an idea past its political sell-by date.

See original here:

Federalism is an attractive idea for unionists - but past its political sell-by date - Nation.Cymru

NewsOpinionColumnistsThe astonishing decline of support for Labour, once the dominant force in Scottish politics, has been once of the stories of devolution.

Sunday, 20th December 2020, 7:00 am

In the 2003 Holyrood election, under Jack McConnell, the party won 50 seats to the SNPs 27, while in the 2010 UK election 41 Scottish seats elected a Labour MP, compared to just six for the SNP.

Fast-forward to December 2019, and the SNP secured 48 Westminster seats to Labours one, a result that may have partly reflected confused messaging over whether the then leader Jeremy Corbyn would or would not agree to a second independence referendum.

So, for some, it might be tempting to write off Scottish Labour as we look ahead to next Mays elections. And indeed, both the SNP and Conservatives have sought to bill this as a straight-forward choice between two parties and two options: independence or the Union.

However, Keir Starmer is a considerably more formidable figure than Corbyn and it is clear he has identified Scotland as a place where the party must radically transform its fortunes to have a chance of success at the next UK election.

With that in mind, he, Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard and others in the party are attempting to add a third option to the mix with radical proposals for a modernisation of the British constitution that would see greater decentralisation and devolution to not just Scotland, but the whole of the UK.

In January this year, Starmer, who is due to give a speech on the issue this week, said: We need a new constitutional settlement: a large-scale devolution of power and resources. This will involve building a new long-term political and constitutional consensus. I believe that could best be built on the principle of federalism.

Right now, it seems clear that Labour has its work cut out to get this third option onto the ballot sheet in the event of a second referendum, let alone convince people of its merits. But, it could be that as the debate heats up that those on both sides of the debate start to see the merits.

For unionists, a home rule or devo max option might just keep the United Kingdom united. For nationalists, it could be a halfway house towards their ultimate aim of independence. Devolution may have contributed to the rise in support for independence so more of the same could boost support.

With polls showing record levels of support for independence, that might not seem like an attractive option, but if the numbers narrow as during what will be a hotly contested election campaign, it could become more appealing.

And for those not completely wedded to the status quo or the idea of a new nation, it is an option to consider, it does at least deserve a hearing as part of what we hope will be a reasoned and civil debate about Scotlands future.

For anyone in any doubt, the 2014 referendum showed this is an issue that people care most passionately about and that is absolutely fine, but we all must learn to control our emotions and respect those with whom we disagree and the outcome of the democratic process.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

Read more:

Scottish independence, the status quo or federalism: Why Labour's third way deserves a fair hearing Scotsman comment - The Scotsman

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 23

Calling for a united nationwide initiative for a federal structure in the country, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) today extended solidarity with West Bengal Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress (TMC) chairperson Mamata Banerjee for the TMC kisan rally.

SAD president Sukhbir Singh Badal said here today that Punjab and West Bengal had always led the nations fight for political autonomy to the states for making India a strong federal country. We must continue with this tradition and invite more like-minded parties to take a stand for the genuine federal structure in the country, in keeping with the sentiments of our Constitution makers. We have allowed the powers of the states to be eroded in one way or another, due to which things have come to such an extent that the Centre has also legislated on a state subject agriculture. This has resulted in the ongoing mass kisan movement in the country.

Badal also applauded Banerjee for sending a five-member team of TMC MPs to hold talks with the protesting farmers and interact with the farmers leaders directly today. You have strengthened the farmers agitation by announcing a series of protests from the next week to demand revocation of the three agricultural laws. This will go a long way in making the farmers movement a national movement, he added.

The SAD president also informed the TMC leader that the party had formed a three-member sub-committee, comprising senior leaders Balwinder Singh Bhundur, Prof Prem Singh Chandumajra and Sikander Singh Maluka to coordinate with like-minded parties on the issue.

See the original post:

SAD: Will work with TMC to strengthen federalism - The Tribune India

Guy Parmelin will assume the rotating Swiss presidency for the first time on January 1. He will have the difficult tasks of guiding Switzerland through the Covid-19 pandemic and defending the institutional agreement with the European Union against the wishes of his right-wing party.

Journalist and deputy head of the swissinfo.cheditorial group for German, French and Italian. Earlier, worked for Teletext and Switzerlands French-language national broadcaster.

More about the author| French Department

The 61-year-old economics minister spoke to SWI swissinfo.ch during a ten-day quarantine, which he was forced to enter after returning from London on December 14.

swissinfo.ch: In recent months economic interests have played a major role in Switzerlands policy against Covid-19. The magazine Foreign Policy, for example, ran the headline Switzerland is choosing austerity over life. Did Switzerland choose austerity over life?

Guy Parmelin: No, Im opposed to this view, which presents Switzerland as a selfish country in its handling of the coronavirus crisis. We have always put the health of the population first. That said, balancing health measures and their economic effects is obviously necessary. So far, weve managed to do that pretty well.

We regularly review our system. In recent weeks the cantons have begun to coordinate better and to apply stricter measures than the national standards allow. This demonstrates the responsibility they have taken in managing this crisis.

Guy Parmelin was born on November 9, 1959. He comes from the village of Bursins, on the shores of Lake Geneva in French-speaking western Switzerland.

Trained as a farmer and winegrower, he focused on politics early on. After being president of the Swiss Peoples Party for canton Vaud, he joined the House of Representatives in 2003.

In 2015 he was elected to Switzerlands seven-member government. He was given the defence and sports portfolio. In 2019 he took over at the economics ministry.

swissinfo.ch: But in Austria and Germany, two neighbouring countries with comparable health systems, relative mortality rates are much lower. How do you explain this?

G.P.: Each country is dealing with the crisis in its own way. Germany, which is a federalist country comparable to ours, was less affected at the beginning of the crisis this spring. Austria acted very firmly at the beginning, then opted for liberal measures in the summer before tightening them again.

Switzerland is constantly carrying out its own analysis of the situation. One can always criticise the governments decisions and feel that it should have acted differently. But we are taking responsibility for our choices, which were made in coordination with the cantons. We have clear rules and criteria thats how things work here.

swissinfo.ch: This autumn a lot of noise was made about the measures of varying sizes decided by the cantons, which caused a fair bit of irritation. Will federalism emerge unscathed from this crisis?

G.P.: Im convinced that its not a question of a failure of federalism, even if its necessary to have a look certain aspects of it. Federalism must work not only in good weather but also in a storm. There have sometimes been delays and poor coordination between the various levels of the state. Lessons must be learnt. But its not true that methods used in centralised countries have been better than ours. We are all committed to federalism and national cohesion; were not going to throw them away at the first crisis that comes along.

swissinfo.ch: Confidence in the government is at an all-time low, according to polls. How do you intend to win back the hearts of the Swiss?

G.P.: What is really difficult in this crisis is to enable people and businesses to plan for the future. This leads to growing dissatisfaction with our decisions which I completely understand. I also sense a certain fatigue among the population. The arrival of the vaccines should help relax the atmosphere and gradually return things to normal. But lets be clear: the damage has been done; it will be long-term. Our role will be to minimise it and ensure that Switzerland is ready when the recovery comes.

swissinfo.ch: The crisis has already cost the government more than CHF30 billion ($33.7 billion). But at just under 30% of GDP Switzerlands debt ratio is still very low by international standards. Isnt it time for the state to play a greater role and develop an investment plan to revive the economy?

G.P.: Economists are almost unanimous: a stimulus package would not make sense at the moment. The financial stimuli and the billions of francs that have been freed up allow the economic machine to continue to function and to withstand temporary difficulties.

At the same time, we are investing heavily in the future. Parliament decided in its last session to grant a credit of CHF28 billion for research and education over the next four years. Measures were also decided to support the export industry and SMEs [small and medium-sized businesses] that want to invest in research and development projects.

The government has set up a special innovation promotion programme worth CHF130 million for the next two years. This means that up to 2024 a total of CHF260 million will be made available to encourage companies to invest in innovation by relieving them of part of their costs. Tourism, sport and the cultural sector will also benefit from other specific types of support.

swissinfo.ch: Is the Swiss economy resilient enough to recover quickly from the crisis or is it likely to suffer serious damage?

G.P.: The damage has been done. Itvaries greatly from one economic sector to another. Within a single industry, the situation is very uneven. For example, hotels in cities are suffering much more than those in the mountains.

However, the latest statistics show that the bankruptcy rate in 2020 was lower than in previous years. This proves that the state has intervened in a targeted and effective manner, even if it may be keeping economic structures alive artificially.

The way out of the crisis will depend on the rate at which we can vaccinate the population and regain control of the epidemic. I believe that the best recovery plan is one that allows people to work.

swissinfo.ch: You place a lot of hope in vaccinating the population. However, compared internationally, the Swiss are particularly sceptical about the Covid vaccine. Are you going to get vaccinated in public to set an example?

G.P.: Of course Im going to get vaccinated, and Im prepared to do it in the middle of a football stadium if necessary (laughs). Vaccination is a civic act towards people at risk and it is the best way to quickly return to a certain normality.

That said, the fears and questions of part of the population are perfectly legitimate. The Swiss authorities will demonstrate maximum transparency over the coming months, both on the composition and effectiveness of this vaccine and on its possible side effects.

swissinfo.ch: As president, you will also be expected to report on the institutional framework agreement with the EU if this is successful. Are you ready to put your signature at the bottom of this document in Brussels?

G.P.: Before signing this agreement, the negotiations and discussions currently underway must be completed. The government will take note of this and then decide on the way forward. If there is the outcome you mention, the Swiss president should in principle initial the document.

swissinfo.ch: You will then be completely at odds with your party, the Swiss Peoples Party, which steadfastly rejects this agreement.

G.P.: Every cabinet minister represents the views of a political party. But then discussions take place, decisions are taken and they are supported by the entire government. This is called collegiality. In this particular case, it will be no different. When you are elected to the government, you know the rules of the game. If you dont want to stick to them, you shouldnt run for election.

Translated from French by Thomas Stephens

See more here:

New president says Switzerland 'always puts the health of its population first' - swissinfo.ch