Internal State Breakup And Federalism

Introduction

When inner-state conflict is observed in the political world, the systems of governance which are utilized within said conflicts, are closely examined. Federalism is a system of governance, which attempts to dividend the power of a centralized government, with regional governments having a high degree of self-rule. In this essay, I will argue that State breakup is better than federalism in terms of resolving internal state conflict because, when a system of governing such as federalism is forced upon a conflicted population, bloodshed and dispute is often the outcome.

This paper is separated into three main arguments, distinguishable by the subject matter which is discussed in each section. For my first point in the argument, I argue that when a hard-federalist approach is applied towards internal state problems, the likeliness of further conflict is increased. Further causes of inner-state conflict are also observed. Building upon the first argument, the second argument within this paper is regarding the principles upon which federalism is applied within central states and how they are often abused by the ones who receive regional power, furthering conflict. In the final section, I examine the interests of the multiple parties which are involved in such conflicts. More specifically, coming upon resolution for inner state conflict, which often coincides with state breakup.

First Argument

While Federalism can be seen as a system of governance that promotes unity and trust between a countries’ unique population, a hard-federalist approach can also be detrimental to resolving inner conflict within a state. In history, a large number of states that became independent in the era of decolonization adopted federalism, viewing it as a “way to allow unity and autonomy simultaneously” (Faizal, 2008). So instinctively, if federalism was the system of governing preferred by new nations, due to its promotion of unity, how has it also been the system of governance victim to such conflicts? Analysis of state breakup and what leads to it often must begin with an examination of the issues which are significant in said conflicts; ethnic and religious tensions, territorial contestation, and a seeking of further representation are often key components of internal state conflict.

As stated in the paper Institutional Outcomes of Territorial Contestation: Post-Communist Europe; failure to accommodate ethnic minority populations is a potentially grave mistake that many governments should actively avoid. One of the main concepts discussed in this article, is the idea of territorial self-government (TSG) claims by ethnic minority groups, a concept often connected to the main idea of federalism. This process works to give power to the smaller minorities within a population, and to let them rule independently, within the guidelines set by the federal powers. To a large number of scholars, federalism is a system of governance that has “helped keep states unified and democratic in the face of possible secession.” (Erk, 2009) Interestingly however, the drastic institutional changes which swept across Europe in the 90’s, (Csergo, 2017) brought the emergence of various TSG claims and along with it, bloodshed. In Yugoslavia starting in the late 80s, leaders of prominent minority groups (Slovenians, Croatians, Bosnian Muslims) made nationalistic statements promising to use force if necessary, to secure goals such as independence and control of all territory claimed as their homeland (Horowitz, 2013). This outburst of nationalist mentality in the region was attributed to the mishandling of these groups, in terms of misrepresentation, and general neglect by the central powers (in this case, the central Serbian government).

Many scholarly articles have pointed out the connection between territorial claims, and ethnic violence. Whenever territorial contestation arises, the probability of violence is much higher (Csergo, Roseberry, Wolff 2017). According to Csergo (2017), territorial disputes in Central and Eastern Europe between minorities and majorities which resulted in violence, accounted for almost half of the cases regarding the topic. Countries in the Balkan region, more specifically former Yugoslav nations, were proponents of this. For example, in Kosovo, violence between the Serb minority and the Kosovar majority was present, forcing the Kosovar government to conform to the Serb's requests, granting the minority a higher degree of self-governance (Csergo, 2017). This example of conflict was observed in a country which practices federalism, and to a further extent, is a remnant of the past history in the region. A majority of the countries in which these circumstances arose, practiced federalism, and to a high degree. If a large number of countries that have experienced internal conflict within their state also practice federalism, then it is more than probable that there is a link between the two.

Second Argument

To further understand the impact that Federalism has upon internal state conflict, it is necessary to analyze how Federalism works, and how it is enacted as a system of governance. Federalism attempts to dividend the power of a centralized government, with regional governments having a high degree of self-rule. Jan Erk (2009), proposed that self-rule, which is a major component within federalist systems, can encourage secessionism, rather than resolve it. Territorial recognition of minorities (which is often common within a federalist system), can lead to a strengthening of the divider already present in an ethnically diverse population, providing nationalists with institutionally viable methods of self-rule, and eventually, fulfillment of goals such as secession (Erk, 2009). Contrary to perceived thought, a number of scholars are starting to believe that political decentralization does not reduce ethnic tension and secessionism, but rather intensifies it (Brancati, 2006). By increasing the strength of regional parties in diverse countries, factors that often lead to ethnic conflict are amplified. A reinforcement of regionally based ethnic identities, the passing of unjust legislation, and mobilization of armed groups, (Brancati, 2006) are enacted to fulfill a goal. If one of the main goals of federalism is promoting national unity, how is it also the causal mechanism which fuels tensions between a conflicted population?

In certain countries in Europe, the process of political decentralization has seemed to work relatively well. The paper Decentralization: Fueling the Fire or Dampening the Flames of Ethnic Conflict and Secessionism, discusses this very notion. The dilution of power in countries such as Spain and Italy give belief that maybe, federalism and the conventions of it, help in the suppression of ethnic conflicts. The Northern League (a regional party in Italy), is an example of how the decentralization process helped reaffirm the identity of the people in that specific region of Italy, and also suppressed possible secessionist movements. The Northern League accomplished this through various means. Ranging from simple identification cards to whole papers devoted to issues only important in Northern Italy (Brancati, 2006). While not extremely significant in terms of change, it was what allowed for the Northern League to satisfy the needs of those within their sphere of influence.

However, when this same process of decentralization was observed in different countries around the world, less than desirable results were produced. An example of how such regional power was abused, can be observed by the actions of the Quebecois government in Canada during the 70’s. Legislation which effectively discriminated against the English-speaking minority of Quebec, made it difficult for students to enroll in English language schools in the province. Making it so that only children of parents who attended English language schools prior, would be eligible (Brancati, 2006). While this is an example of how the regional government of Quebec abused its power in form of passing legislation, there are other cases where regional governments put their powers on full throttle and go beyond just legislation.

When a regional government abuses the powers bestowed upon them during decentralization, the likelihood of regional militias and armed groups, working on behalf of the respective regional power, is increased. During the Yugoslav conflict in the 90’s, the regional parties in Croatia and Slovenia used this very method and used regional militia forces to fight for independence against the central Serbian powers (Brancati, 2006). With political decentralization being a main component of federalism, the abuse of this very method has been observed in the political world enough times to acknowledge its role in ethnic tensions.

Final Argument

While state-breakups are obviously less than desirable to the governments in which such events unfold, it is often an outcome which benefits many parties in terms of their goals towards a new state, and the strengthening of one’s central state. To analyze an example of state breakup benefiting all the parties involved, the collapse of the Soviet Union (USSR) is an interesting place to start. Regarding the USSR, this is one example where the loss of all the republics which they held, leads to a focus upon the Russian state, as opposed to also governing the other republics which were part of the Soviet Union. At first, many of the republics which were within the Soviet Union were not very fond of the breaking up of the state. Republics such as Belarus and other Asian republics only warmed up to the idea of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, once it was thrust upon them (Hale, 2005).

One of the main reforms which led the Soviet Union on the path to the breakup was the introduction of regional-level elections. More specifically, elections within each unique Soviet republic. This was done to further decentralize the Union, something that was necessary for the eyes of the Russian elites. The Russians who desired the dissolution of the USSR, wanted to strengthen the Russian identity, one which was wholly separate from the USSR (Hale, 2005). In the aftermath of the republic-level elections, nationalists had gained a new voice in their respective union republics. In an attempt to further divide the power in the USSR, the central Russian republic proposed economic reform in what was known as the 500-day plan, this was extremely significant due to the economic autonomy that it proposed to give to the other Soviet republics (Hale, 2005). All of the efforts by the central Russian government in the breaking apart of the Soviet state, were done in the main goal of kickstarting a powerful Russian state. But by also accommodating to the other republics within the Soviet Union, it satisfied the needs of the minorities within the USSR and accomplished what many who lived within the Soviet Union desired. Independence.

Conclusion

This paper argues that State breakup is better than federalism in terms of resolving internal state conflict. The first argument which this paper presents, is that a hard-federalist approach can be detrimental to resolving inner conflict within a state, as opposed to positive. Through the application of federalism in these conflicted areas, the likeliness of conflict is increased. Secondly, the conventions which federalism practice, often gives way to the abuse of these very powers by regional governments. Whether that be with the passing of discriminatory legislation, or the strengthening of a regional militia. It is the powers bestowed upon them by the federal governments, which allow for such power to be exercised. Finally, while state breakup is an option that is less than desirable by the governments to which such problems arise, it is also beneficial in terms of satisfying the needs of every party included.

As with any scholarly paper, limitations during the research process often arise. With this specific topic, the amount of information regarding it was abundant. However, the articles which I had chosen were very focused on countries within Eastern Europe, and the conflict which has resided in that specific region of the world. Federalism is practiced by a large number of countries in the world, specifically focus on how federalism is enacted in one specific part of the world, minimizes the full analysis which can be done when examining federalism as a system of governance. The topic at hand (state-breakup), also put limitations on how to analyze federalism.

The findings within this paper can also be applied to a varying degree of political problems which are often seen in the world today. How should uniquely diverse countries govern their population? Is there anyone style of government which does this best? Two of the most powerful countries in the world (Canada and the United States), practice this very style of government, and fairly well. So it begs the question, which system of governance works the best in terms of keeping a general population satisfied?