Asymmetrical federalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asymmetrical federalism is a constitutional structure under which some of the constituent units (such as states or provinces) within a federal system have more extensive powers than others relative to the central government. It is frequently proposed as a solution to the dissatisfactions that arise when one or two constituent units feel significantly different needs from the others, as the result of an ethnic, linguistic or cultural difference.

Asymmetrical federalism can be divided into two types of agreements or arrangements. The first type resolves differences in legislative powers, representation in central institutions, and rights and obligations that are set in the constitution. This type of asymmetry can be called de jure asymmetry (Brown 2). The second type reflects agreements which come out of national policy, opting out, and (depending on one’s definition of the term) bilateral and ad hoc deals with specific provinces, none of which are entrenched in the constitution. This type of asymmetry is known as de facto asymmetry. The Canadian federation uses a combination of these, which make up its asymmetrical character.

[edit] Application in Canada

Asymmetrical federalism has been much discussed as a formula for stability in Canada, meeting the aspirations of French-speaking Québec for control over its cultural and social life without removing it from the national federation, where it coexists with nine largely English-speaking provinces which have more in common culturally and socially. Although the constitution of Canada does not formally recognize such a system, arrangements over the past several decades have introduced asymmetrical federalism piecemeal. For example, Québec operates its own pension plan, while the other nine provinces are covered by the federal Canada Pension Plan. Québec has extensive authority over employment and immigration issues within its borders, matters that are handled by the federal government in all the other provinces.

Such an arrangement is not widely understood in the English-speaking provinces, where there is fear that Québec is enjoying favouritism in the federal system. It does, however, provide a useful lever for those who want to decentralize the structure as a whole, transferring more powers from the centre to the provinces overall, a trend that has dominated Canadian politics for the past decade.

[edit] Application in other countries

Asymmetrical federalism is also seen in such federal systems as Belgium, Spain, and Switzerland, where two or more languages are official and well established. It is strikingly absent in the United States, where the Constitution and long practice make the states, no matter how different in size or culture, precisely equal in standing and powers. In the United Kingdom, it has been argued that asymmetrical devolution of powers (most notably to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly) was inherently unfair, citing the so-called West Lothian question.

There is a parallel debate in the development of regional institutions, such as the European Union, over whether all member states should be treated identically. At present, various countries have opt-outs from specific aspects of EU law. Some see this as a model for the future development of the EU, as a way of respecting different national traditions, whilst others object to a "Europe à géométrie variable", arguing that it is inconsistent with the original ideals of European integration.

Asymmetrical federalism has been suggested as an important part of any solution for the conflict in Sri Lanka, where tension between majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils has led to periods of civil war separated by periods of general mistrust.

[edit] References

• Brown, Douglas. “Who’s Afraid of Asymmetrical Federalism? A Summary Discussion.” 2005 Special Series on Asymmetric Federalism. Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queens University. 2005