9.3.1: Federalism vs the Unitary State

Federalism vs. the Unitary State

Because the degree to which people living within the borders of countries feel included as part of the nation varies, a variety of political systems have evolved to ensure some measure of stability in a variety of settings. In places like Egypt, France, and Japan, where nationalist feelings are strong, and a common national identity is very widely accepted by citizens, a unitary state generally develops. Unitary state systems generally work best where there is no strong opposition to central control. Therefore, the political elite in the capital city (like Paris or Tokyo) frequently have outsized power over the rest of the country. People living in outlying areas generally acquiesce to the power of the central authority. Fighting between central government and local governments is minimal and the power of local (provincial) governments is relatively weak in unitary systems.

On the other hand, countries that contain multiple national identities, or a weakly developed national identity, are likely to employ a federalist style of government in which power is geographically distributed among multiple subnational units. This style of governance makes sense when a country is “young” and still in the process of nation-building, the name given to the process of developing a strong, singular identity necessary to the creation of a unified nationality that marks fully evolved nation-states.

Federations, as these kinds of governments are called, may also work best when the country is multi-ethnic or multi-national in nature. Rather than split a country into multiple nation-states, a country’s leadership can give each of its ethnicities, or nationalities, some measure of political autonomy. So, if regional ethnic groups want to speak their own language or to teach their specific religion in the local schools, the central government allows local people to make those decisions. The central government in federal-style systems focus on things like national defense, managing interstate transportation, regulating a common currency, and promoting a common economy. The US began as a federalist system but has evolved into more of a unitary system, with numerous federal-style functions still in place.

Occasionally, a troublesome provincial region or ethnicity will demand special treatment, even in a unitary system. For example, China has a unitary system, but Hong Kong, a province, operates under a different set of rules than other provinces within China. In the United States, Puerto Rico has such a similar status and is labeled semi-autonomous. There are many dozens of other similarly self-governing regions and territories around the globe.

Figure: Washington DC. A statue of Abraham Lincoln sits inside a memorial building dedicated to his presidency, and his role in forcing the country to adopt a more centralized government.

The United States has had an exceptionally difficult time resolving conflicts between those who preferred a federal-style and those who preferred a unitary-style government. This question was perhaps the central political issue in the US during its colonial era. Originally, the United States was organized as a confederation – an allied group of independent states united in a common goal to defeat the British. Operating under the Articles of Confederation from roughly 1776-1789, the new and decentralized US found itself challenged to wage war against the British, collect taxes, sign treaties with foreign countries, or even use a common currency because the central government (congress) was so weak. The Constitution we use today was adopted in 1789 to help create a balance of powers between the central government headquartered in Washington DC, and the multiple state governments. Initially, states continued to operate essentially as separate countries. This is why in the United States, the word state is used to designate major subnational governmental units, rather than the word province or department, as is common in much of the world. In our early history, Americans saw themselves as living in “The United Countries of America”, so to speak.

Figure: Ruston, LA-Bumper stickers on this truck read "Shooting Yankees" and "Dead Yankees Tell No Tales", indicating in part the lingering antipathy of Southerns for centralized government.

People in the United States have never been able to agree on how power should be shared between the central government and the various state and local governments. This was true especially in the early 1800s while slavery was still legal in some locations. Southern states, which clearly relied on a slave economy, preferred a weak central government. Northerners preferred a strong central government, one that could override some state’s rights, and in the process, outlaw slavery nation-wide. The inability of the Constitution and the courts to settle this disagreement led to a horrific resolution of the issue on the battlefield. Some argue that following the Civil War, Americans began thinking of the country as a unitary system. Historian Shelby Foote put it best in the documentary series The Civil War:

Before the war, it was said, "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is." (Source: Wikiquote)

Figure: Washington DC. The statue of General Grant, leader of the Union Army in the Civil War is a monument to the defeat of a separatist "rebel" army that also functions to help the process of nation-building through statuary art.

Though our nationality may have been solidified during the Civil War, questions surrounding the degree to which state’s rights still exist has remained stubbornly at the center of many political controversies (civil rights, environmental regulation, guns, etc.). In 2014, one of the common markers of difference between political liberals and conservatives is their opinion about state’s rights, at least in principle. Social conservatives generally argue for greater local control because the constitution allows it, and common sense dictates that locals should run their own affairs. Liberals worry that when the central government gives too much control to local authorities, there has been a tendency of locals to use their power. The fight over school desegregation in the South is a classic example of this debate. Southern governors and mayors, unwilling to allow black schoolchildren to attend all-white schools during the Civil Rights era, always claimed publicly that they were fighting for “states’ rights”, not against the rights of minority children. Today “state’s rights” remains a rallying cry for those who disagree with national authorities on a host of other issues (gays, guns,environmental regulations, etc.).

Figure Las Vegas, NV - Nevada economy is dependent on the maintenance of liberal morality laws made possible by defense of states rights