Federalism as a remedy for conflicts

Only federalism can establish peace (KANT, 1795) ¹

It is often when there are phenomena of domination of peoples over others that violence and wars arise ² .

However, since the end of the Second World War (1945) and the Cold War (1990), the federal solution has gradually established itself as an antidote to violence and the risk of war . It has gradually become a tool for conflict resolution within sovereign states , both as a tool for pacification and as a democratic alternative to unitary states or secession in deeply divided, post-conflict and ethnically heterogeneous societies . ³

The adoption of federalism in Europe was thus designed to avoid any new war on the European continent .

In India, the republic created in 1947, after the struggles against the colonizer, was deliberately chosen as having to be liberal, in order to guarantee the rule of law and the possibilities of expression of the different communities which compose it.

The peace process in South Africa (the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of 1995) is federal in nature.

American federalism itself was conceived in opposition to a Europe characterized by the absolute state sovereignty of its states and by the permanent state of war which resulted from it ⁴ .

Federalism thus spread in 3 major periods. The first, between the end of the 18th century and the end of the 19th century, saw the emergence of the first federal states such as the United States (1789), Switzerland (1848), Canada (1867), Australia (1901), to which were added Latin American states such as Venezuela (1811), Mexico (1824), Argentina (1853) and Brazil (1891). The second period began after the Second World War in connection with the end of the colonies, notably in India (1950), Pakistan (1956), Germany (1949), Yugoslavia (1949). The third period, after 1990, was that of the adoption by centralizing states explicitly or de facto of a federalist organization like Belgium (1993), Spain (1978 and 2006), South Africa (1996). New federations also emerged in conflict regions like Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995), Iraq (2005), Nepal (2007), …

The appeal of the federal state is that it offers different populations the chance to live out their political, cultural or religious diversity in unity . Federalism allows minorities in multicultural states to live out their cultural identity without having to give up the advantages of large central states (internal market, defense, international relations, etc.)

Although the traditional objective of federalism is to protect rights in established democracies, the recent objective attributed to it is to avoid war or secession in post-conflict societies ⁵ .

This form of government is often presented as a solution to the crisis because it is said to have pacifying virtues due to its capacity to give legitimacy to minority groups and at the same time grant them security.

Thus, by strengthening democracy and responding to the desire for autonomy of groups, federalism would reduce tensions in divided societies and avoid secessionist conflict .

Indeed, unlike the national State , which tends to make all the communities existing on its territory homogeneous, by trying to impose the same language and the same customs on all its citizens, controlling everything from the top, stifling the communities, that is to say the concrete life of men, the federated States having sufficient powers allow the latter to govern themselves autonomously.

Thus, while a unitary state does not provide space for different cultures other than the national culture, a federal state can allow diverse groups to regulate their own affairs within the framework of their competences . In a federal state, the central state and the member states are sovereign in their areas of competence.

It should be recalled that the federated states that are members of a federal state are not only autonomous in their areas of responsibility but also have their own legislative, executive and judicial authorities as well as certain rights of intervention when the central state takes a position.

If experience shows that federalism is particularly suited by its nature to contribute to resolving local conflicts between different groups of peoples in multicultural states in a significant and lasting way and thereby restoring peace and stability in war-torn countries , it should be recalled and emphasized that any federation must result from the consent of the parties involved . When this is lacking, divisions thus take over from the ceasefire. From there, any federation established under duress and/or implementing an unbalanced distribution of powers leads again to war .

Canadian political scientist Ronald Watts, who is one of the greatest experts on federalism and advises many governments in this capacity, has identified four conditions necessary for federalism to progress in a state:

l) Participants must demonstrate a genuine desire to federate, as federalism requires the consensus of all. Indeed, solutions imposed from outside, such as those from an international community of states, have little chance of success, although the UN, NATO and the EU have played an important role in the introduction of federal institutional mechanisms in certain cases.

2) Federalism requires, in addition to the self-determination of the member states, also certain common values ​​without which a federal state cannot exist in the long term,

3) For federal solutions to persist, there must first and foremost be trust between partners , considered to be different but equivalent,

4) Above all, it is necessary to develop a political culture based on cooperation, mutual consideration, respect for the Constitution, tolerance and a willingness to dialogue and compromise . According to Florence Faberon, to federate is to bring together and to rely on a culture of tolerance and the search for balance, which are fundamentally the values ​​carried by Kanak culture as well as by France ⁶ .

Federal constitutions in which this political culture was lacking often turned out to be mere facades that hid a predominant authoritarianism and centralism.

Still according to Florence Faberon, to unite is to take up the challenge of cohesion, by refusing pure and simple assimilation.

Indeed, federalism makes it possible to take into account demands for recognition and inclusion ⁷ .

Federalism is particularly well suited to conflict resolution and the peaceful integration of different groups of peoples, provided they live in separate territories . It thus gives minorities the opportunity to form majorities in a member state of the global state and to create a system that suits them, de facto limiting the secessionist aspirations of regional separatists , thereby enabling the central state, through the establishment of a so-called “maintenance” federalism, to resolve sometimes violent ethnic conflicts and to provide a solution to certain problems specific to political organization.

Federalism thus makes it possible to distribute power between different peoples while maintaining the external borders of existing states.

To conclude , in recent years, the nature of conflicts has changed, as illustrated by the proliferation of civil wars and conflicts fueled by the presence of ethnic, religious or linguistic diversity (Kaldor, 2012). These ” new wars” have encouraged the development of innovative tools to control and resolve ethnocultural conflicts. Federalism is one of these tools , in that it is able to satisfy the demands and expectations of both minority and majority groups. Indeed, it allows minority groups to have (limited) control over their own economic, political and social affairs, while at the same time ensuring the territorial integrity of the existing state.

That said, it is illusory to believe that federalism can solve all the problems faced by divided societies , especially those that have experienced violent ethnic conflict. Challenges to territorial integrity and calls for secession will not disappear despite commitments to federalism, as illustrated by some long-term democracies such as Canada, Spain, or the United Kingdom, but also by some recent federations in post-conflict societies, such as Bosnia, Ethiopia, or Iraq. This is largely due to the fact that, in post-conflict states, political elites representing different ethnic groups are reluctant to engage in dynamics of mutual trust, a willingness to cooperate, or an openness to negotiate compromises.

However, in the absence of democratic responses to ethnocultural tensions, alternative solutions are either inhumane (as is the case with genocide or ethnic cleansing), or amount to secession, partition or a continuation of the conflict, that is, solutions which, as McGarry and O’Leary (2009) point out, only worsen ethnic tensions.