The different forms of federalism

Hello everyone,

The APROFED association is getting back to you this week following the intervention of the president of Eveil Océanien, 2 weeks ago, on the NCla1ere channel (see L’INVITE DU DIMANCHE : Milakulo TUKUMULI).

He mentioned that three types of federalism had been considered in the context of the search for an agreement for New Caledonia, namely:

1) a simple federalism , in which the French State would become a federal State , where New Caledonia would be part of a French-style Commonwealth,

2) a dual federalism where the provinces would obtain more power , solutions proposed by the loyalists who would aim to return to the situation of the 1980s,

3) a third federalism equivalent to a differentiated sovereignty, corresponding to a partition , proposed again by the loyalists and which was immediately buried.

Like the Caledonian independence MP using the term confederate state instead of associated state, the association is disappointed to note the use of legal notions and concepts which unfortunately seem to be unfamiliar to our local political representatives , which does not bode well for the search for a new legal status for the territory.

If we returned last week to the notions of associated State and confederate State, we considered it useful to return this week to the notion of federalism.

Where the president of Oceanian Awakening is right is that there are a multitude of forms of federalism , which can be found in the literature, often classified according to political, historical or institutional criteria. We can generally distinguish 2 main forms aimed at describing the creation, the origin of the federation . This number can vary, depending on the authors or contexts. The other forms of federalism often serve to describe the internal functioning of the federation.

1. Top-down federalism, through disintegration or dissociation, called maintenance

This form of federalism is generally used to refer to unitary states that have decided to become federal states with the creation of federated states within them, generally in order to avoid the implosion of the state following internal tensions and demands for emancipation.

This therefore corresponds to dividing power within a State, from top to bottom, between a central government and federated entities (e.g. Slavic countries).

2. Ascending federalism, by aggregation, called gathering

This form of federalism consists of defining the fact that several independent states choose to unite to form a common entity of a supranational type (e.g.: North American countries) generally with a view to defending themselves, creating from (federated) states a super (federal) state thus going from the bottom up.

A third form of federalism, called community or ethnic, which led to the creation of federal states in the Middle East, Asia, or Africa based on cultural, linguistic, or ethnic identities, has emerged, sometimes controversially, as it can freeze divisions (e.g., Belgium, Ethiopia, etc.). Within this, each community has a specific status, also special courts, and reserved seats in parliament. Although defended for a time by A. Camus to resolve the Algerian conflict, this type of federalism is very little used because each community occupies a given space, so we actually return to territorial federalism.

As for other forms of federalism, used to describe the internal functioning of the federation, there are several such as:

1. Dual federalism

Each level of government exercises its powers separately, with little overlap (e.g., the old American model, “layer cake federalism”). Each manages its own areas without interference.

2. Cooperative federalism

Consists of close cooperation between the federal level and federated entities, often for joint policies (e.g. Germany). Allows for national consistency while respecting local specificities.

3. Competitive federalism

Federated entities compete to attract resources, investments, or to innovate politically.

4. Asymmetrical federalism

Not all federated entities have the same powers or status. Some have more autonomy (e.g., Spain with Catalonia and the Basque Country, Canada with Quebec). This allows for addressing specific cultural, linguistic, or historical differences.

5. Integrated (or centralized) federalism

The federal state plays a dominant role; federated entities have little real autonomy. Strengthens national unity. A trend observed in some federal states during periods of crisis (e.g., some federal policies in the post-2001 United States ).

In New Caledonia, until now, two forms of federalism have actually been discussed, namely:

– a top-down federalism, by disintegration or dissociation, aimed at responding to the independence demands of a part of the population of New Caledonia, which would lead the territory to obtain (internal) sovereignty over the powers already acquired through the Matignon and Noumea peace agreements which established the bases of federalism on the territory. The French State thus sharing, without the right to review, legislative and political power (external federalism) except with regard to sovereign powers which would remain managed by France . France becoming a federal State, which it already is without daring to say it for some, and New Caledonia, a federated State officially recognized as such or again hidden under a sui generis status to avoid the State pronouncing the Anglo-Saxon term federalism,

– and a community or ethnic federalism, presented in particular by P.Bretegnier (see Assume federalism | NC News ), which he described as “triple federalism”, consisting in addition to reviewing the internal organization of the NC and its link to France to allow the first people to be sovereign on their own lands, more commonly called customary lands which today represent only 26% of the surface area of ​​the territory. The Kanaks sovereign on their lands could resolve conflicts on their own lands, in other words to administer justice and set up a customary police force, thus also managing security, 2 of the sovereign powers currently attributed to the State.

The project presented by the loyalists of “territorial federation” or “internal federalism”, which some have mistakenly described as asymmetrical, is not federalism since it aims to separate in the end , by removing the territorial administrative level in favor of the provinces in order to attach the Southern Province, like a department to France, the other 2 (North and Islands) having a separate status. Described as institutionalized apartheid by its detractors, this project has indeed turned out to be, according to its promoters, a partition project . These at the Deva conclave even went so far as to want to separate from the pro-independence communes of the Southern Province that are Thio and Yaté (see “Asymmetrical sovereignty”: what does the project for New Caledonia of a part of the non-independence supporters consist of? ). What about the communes of Poya, Sarraméa and the Isle of Pines?

As for the notion of dual federalism, internal and external , used by certain political representatives and taken up by us, this does not exist as such. It actually refers to top-down federalism, by disaggregation or dissociation , but which has been used in order to popularize and simplify to as many people as possible the notion of federalism and what we would like to move towards for the country. Dual federalism, contrary to what the president of Eveil Océanien says, does not therefore consist of strengthening the provinces to the detriment of the territory, nor of going back 40 years.

We refer you to the book by Florence and Jean-Yves FABERON to discover the different forms of federalism adopted by countries at the global level: Les fédéralismes – Calédo Livres

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

L’association APROFED