Federalism does not mean secession

The APROFED association is coming back to you this weekend on the concepts of federalism and secession.

Some unitary states, such as Cameroon, Chad, the DRC, and Ivory Coast, are currently considering moving toward a federal-type regime. However, critics of this approach tirelessly compare this change to a desire for secession, which is absolutely not the purpose of this concept.

Indeed, federalism is a political organization in which power is shared between a central government and federated entities (states, provinces, cantons, etc.). These entities have significant autonomy , but they remain linked to the federal whole. While secession , on the other hand, is the act by which an entity decides to leave a state to form an independent state. This is not an obligatory consequence of federalism. It can even be said that federalism is often thought of as a way to avoid secession : it allows the different regions or peoples of a country to have enough autonomy to remain united within a common framework, instead of separating.

In short, federalism consists of sharing sovereignty in order to maintain unity , while secession amounts to a breakdown of political unity. Federalism thus aims to strengthen unity in diversity.

The association therefore considers it unfortunate that the French State remains deaf despite an increase in the number of uprisings, revolts and popular insurrections within it and the desire on the part of a majority of the population to change the regime to a federal type regime not only for France but also for Europe. On the contrary, the association is indignant that this same State agrees with the non-independence representatives in New Caledonia who want to establish a federalism which in reality aims not to federate but to partition the territory.

It should be remembered, however, that establishing a federation requires a general consensus and real power sharing, otherwise it will fail and disappear, as was the case, for example, with Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union (USSR), which, although they were both officially federations, had real power centralized in Belgrade and Moscow, creating an imbalance. In the USSR , the federated republics (Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania, etc.) often demanded greater autonomy or even independence. This led to the collapse of the USSR in 1991. “Federalism” in these countries was more formal than real; the federal structure was only a tool for administrative management by the center, not true autonomy . Local political elites often had no real independent power. Economic difficulties exacerbated regional rivalries. Rich regions wanted to keep their resources (e.g., Slovenia in Yugoslavia), while poor regions demanded more transfers, creating interregional conflicts. In some cases, governments preferred to recentralize power. In Russia , Vladimir Putin reduced regional autonomy after the 2000s, particularly after the Chechen War, to avoid secessions. This centralization is seen as a way to strengthen the state in the face of internal and external challenges. The federal system has often failed in Slavic countries because it was implemented in contexts of ethnic tensions , authoritarian powers , and weak democratic traditions . It has often been perceived as a risk to national unity rather than an asset. This has led either to its collapse (as in the USSR and Yugoslavia) or to its weakening (as in Russia).

Federalism does not prevent tensions , but in some cases it allows them to be channeled peacefully. Some federations have been able to maintain their regime and face separatist movements, such as Canada, which experienced secessionist attempts in Quebec, but were rejected by referendum, or Belgium, which, despite strong community tensions, remains federal.

Several federal states have disappeared throughout history, often due to internal conflicts, external pressures, or constitutional reforms. Here are some notable examples:

• • Holy Roman Empire (962–1806) : This complex political entity comprised numerous states and principalities in Central Europe. It was dissolved by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1806.

• • Federation of the West Indies (1958–1962) : This federation brought together several British colonies in the Caribbean. It was dissolved due to political and economic differences among its members, including the withdrawal of Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• • Federal Republic of Spain (1873–1874) : This short-lived regime was established after the abdication of King Amadeo I, but was soon overthrown, restoring the monarchy.

• • Republic of the United States of Indonesia (1949–1950) : Created after Indonesian independence, this federation was quickly replaced by a unitary state due to internal tensions.

• • Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (1918) : This short-lived federation included Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, but was dissolved due to national and ethnic differences.

• • The Mali Federation (Senegal + French Sudan) broke up in 1960 due to disagreements over the distribution of powers.

• • Pakistan (East and West Pakistan), although still a federation, split in 1971 with the independence of Bangladesh, partly due to the political marginalization of East Pakistan.

The disappearance of these federal states illustrates the challenges inherent in managing complex political structures, where internal tensions and external pressures can lead to dissolution.

At decolonization, federations established by newly independent countries often did not survive and transformed into unitary states for several reasons, including political, economic, cultural, and historical. The borders drawn by colonial powers often arbitrarily grouped peoples with very different identities, languages, religions, and interests . At independence, these differences generated tensions between the federated entities, as no true national unity had been built. The institutions established at the time of independence were often fragile , poorly defined, and poorly rooted in society. Federal constitutions were sometimes imposed or modeled on foreign models without any real adaptation to local realities. The leaders of the new states often preferred to concentrate power to strengthen their authority , combat internal divisions, and ensure stability. Centralization also allowed control of resources, administration, and the armed forces. Unlike older federal states (such as the United States or Switzerland), newly independent countries often had no tradition of shared governance or decentralization.

Postcolonial federations failed largely due to a combination of a lack of national unity, weak institutions, internal conflict, and a desire to centralize power. Many leaders saw the unitary state as a simpler and faster way to stabilize and build the nation.

Nevertheless, as we point out on our website ( Who are we 2 – APROFED ), the current federal states , although a minority compared to the unitary states, concentrate almost half of the world’s population and constitute half if not the majority, including the confederations, of the main economic powers of the planet.

We wish you a good read and remind you that federalism is the only solution to reconcile unity in diversity.