;)
Centralization and sharing of decisions, two compatible notions within federalism
Hello everyone,
This week, the association is returning to the concepts of federalism and centralization with you.
We have once again called upon AI to shed light on this issue through the following questions:
– Does federalism include centralization?
– What is the difference between federalism and centralization?
– Is the federal state the ultimate goal of the unitary state? Could federalism govern unitary states in the future?
– What is a unitary state adopting mechanisms close to federalism (e.g. advanced regionalization, asymmetry of territorial powers)?
– Between the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Italy, which of these countries is closest to a federal system?
You can find all the answers provided by the AI in the document below.
To summarize, the AI tells us that federalism is not incompatible with a certain amount of centralization . As a reminder, a central power exists in a federal state ( for example: the federal government in the United States, Canada, Germany, etc.). Nevertheless, this minimal centralization , necessary for the proper functioning of the whole, remains limited: the essence of federalism is the sharing of power , and not its exclusive concentration, as under the Ancien Régime in France, at the time of the absolute monarchy.
Compared to its neighbors, France remains for AI the typical example of the centralized unitary state. Spain, although also a unitary state, is the country that comes closest to the federal model. The level of regional autonomy is higher and more institutionalized. Some regions have specific rights. The degree of autonomy is such that many speak of a quasi-federal or asymmetrical system demonstrating that it is possible to respond to identity or autonomist demands , to adapt public action to local specificities and to preserve national unity while introducing flexibility in territorial organization. This form of advanced political decentralization , often used as a compromise between centralism and federalism, thus allows unitary states to integrate elements of federalism , without necessarily abandoning their central structure.
However, the examples of New Caledonia for France, Scotland for the United Kingdom, and Catalonia for Spain have demonstrated that this hybrid solution, halfway between centralism and federalism, is outdated. These three territories are demanding their independence in the face of the inaction of their respective central states. It is still necessary for the central states’ desire to decentralize to be real and not a decoy, which unfortunately seems to be the case for these territories. The truth is that the central states have never wanted to share responsibilities, wanting to retain centralized power whatever the cost, even if it means using force and this is to the detriment of their own populations. The degree of brutality exercised is the only element distinguishing them from authoritarian regimes.
However, AI reminds us that the unitary state can evolve towards a federal form when faced with territorial tensions, strong identity claims, or a demand for greater decentralization. This evolution can be seen as a democratic maturation, allowing for more refined management of diversity. Does this mean that France, or at least its representatives, are not yet mature enough? The spectacle inflicted on France since the dissolution of the National Assembly in 2024 seems to point in this direction.
AI also reminds us that federalism allows us to :
– respond to cultural, linguistic and territorial diversity,
– respond to local realities, through local governance, allowing better adaptation of decisions while maintaining political unity.
Thus, with all the mechanisms of advanced decentralization running out of steam, there remains only the federal solution, that of shared sovereignty , which will certainly continue to see the presence of a central (national) government but which will no longer hold more than limited power, which it will have to share with federated regional entities having significant reinforced autonomy.
Thus, centralism and federalism can coexist. It’s all a question of organization.
It should be remembered that some federal states have experienced phases of centralization , particularly in times of crisis (war, pandemic, etc.), during which the federal state strengthens its powers. This should be, along with the exercise of sovereign powers, the only use of centralization. This is perhaps why, having understood this, it is not surprising for the French state to continually claim to be in crisis, particularly economic (pension, purchasing power, etc.) in order to maintain its central role, while since the 2000s, its GDP has doubled from 1,400 to 2,900 billion euros in 2024 for a population increase of only 14% over the same period.
Furthermore, the Covid-19 health crisis has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the central role of the State. The latter went so far as to assert the useless role of masks. This revealing episode has also demonstrated that the only solution was federal, with crisis management at the EU level (group purchase of masks and vaccines, etc.) and not at the level of the central States, supposedly protective, completely overwhelmed and whose representatives have not yet been troubled by the courts.
This failure of the central state is also found at the diplomatic and military levels, two sovereign powers specific to unitary states, with the Russo-Ukrainian crisis, to such an extent that the EU member states are today discussing the establishment of a common European defense. Will it take a new global conflict for them to understand, as Germany did, that the solution is not nationalism and absolute centralization but federalism and the sharing of decisions?
As former French senator Michel Mercier recalled in his information report, ‘For a Territorial Republic: Unity in Diversity’, responsible for taking stock of decentralization and proposing improvements to facilitate the exercise of local powers, dating from 2000, (see “pour une République territoriale: l’unité dans la diversité” (rapport) – Sénat) no European state today corresponds to the classic version of the unitary state of which Jacobin and Napoleonic France was the symbol and model. Unitary states have embarked on a “regionalist” experiment that brings them closer to federal states. Nevertheless, things are happening as if unitary states pushed towards federalism (or at least a very advanced degree of decentralization) refused to opt for the declared federal form and stuck to a hybrid situation.
We wish you a pleasant read and remind you that federalism is the only solution to reconcile unity in diversity.
The APROFED association