The national government is often though to be the sole sovereign authority of a territory, however, governmental authority is not so often clearly delineated or concentrated. Large, regionalized identity groups within an existing state may call for greater autonomy, or existing states may see unity with another as politically or economically advantageous, either development leading to multiple governmental levels within the same territory. Differentiated models of constitutional organization amongst regional governments and centralized national or super-national structures developed from this tension between autonomy and unity, namely the unitary state, the federation, and the confederate models. Each of these systems seeks to accommodate regionalized …show more content…
national diversity, though they are limited in methods available without a change in organization. To define the United Kingdom as a unitary state, Canada as a federation, and the European Union as a confederation of states disregards the varied and imperfect implementations of each model, but these variances are often due to relationships with regional authority. In this paper I will examine the benefits and shortcomings of these three models of constitutional arrangements, especially in their management of diversity and calls for greater regional autonomy, as unitary organization, federalism and confederation are implemented and amended in the U.K, Canada, and the EU. Unitary systems of governance grant authority to regional governments representing national identities not through entrenched constitutional change, as in federations, but through legislation. This accommodation of the needs of the regional governments is called devolution, described in Politics, Power and the Common Good as a process in which “the central government grants some legislative powers as well as administrative responsibilities to one or more regional bodies”. A contradiction of consequences can be seen in the devolution within the United Kingdom, specifically in the Scottish campaign for greater autonomy and possible status as an independent nation, as their own parliament was established in 1998, under the Scotland Act. The devolution process can be an often grants sufficient autonomy to regional governments, but the devolution process may also be viewed as a concession of the central government that furthers the drive for regional independence. Proponents of a devolved unitary system to accommodate regional diversity argue that there is greater efficiency and flexibility in accommodation of unique demands. Jan-Erik Lane describes this advantage in the article ‘Rediscovering the Unitary Model: State Format and Transaction Costs’, explaining that “unitary states face no inherent difficulties in participating in regionalism, as when they have a democratic dispensation they can flexibly move competencies either downwards or upwards”. Flexibility allows for simplified alterations to policy areas and implementation for each regional government, and for each government in a devolved unitary state to differ in their abilities. This asymmetrical devolution is evidenced in the United Kingdom as Scotland has been granted more autonomy than Wales, as devolution is scaled to the necessity. Devolution in a unitary state does not necessitate the complex negotiations or the “intuitive equal distribution of powers” in federalism; Stephen Tierney concludes in his article on English devolution that “…the ad hoc process of using ordinary legislation in the UK, with separate statuses for each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, has made it relatively easy to tailor recognition on a case-by-case basis”. Asymmetrical devolution in the UK is what made accommodation of regional diversity and autonomy in their unitary system easily tailored and dependent on the democratic process rather than the consensus necessary to alter the constitution, as in federations. Asymmetrical devolution provides autonomy to regional authorities that seek to represent their distinct national identities, but may also serve to further destabilize unitary system as regional nationalists are given a platform to demonstrate their competent use of greater autonomy and exacerbate the tensions in a devolved system. Greater competencies granted to the regional government means that those who identify with the ethnic nationality of the government interact with it on a more regular basis, and thus perceive lessened necessity of the central government. Tierney describes this loss of relevancy in terms of the United Kingdom, saying, “the devolved branch of government comes to be seen as more and more relevant to peoples’ lives, while the UK government becomes more distant”. Another development in devolution is that secessionists are given an official platform in which they may further their goals. A Scottish National Party majority government in Scottish parliament motioned to hold a referendum on secession in 2014. This put into question the effectiveness of the U.K.’s unitary devolution. Federalism is, in its organization, a method governments may use to accommodate regional diversity. Countries with large territories and historically divided identity groups may find federalism useful, as each regional government is equal and constitutionally protected. George Anderson furthers this point in his book Federalism; An Introduction: “There seems to be a limit to the size of population or territory that a singe, popularly elected government can manage effectively.” The Canadian government, from its inception, has experienced a long evolution of federalism and many theorists differ on how well current intergovernmental relations encourage Canadian unity and co-operation. Some point to the benefits of clearly delineated federal and provincial responsibilities, and the principle of subsidiarity: the ability of provincial authorities to better manage more localized affairs. In social policy and governmental services for the public, such as health and education, regional identity may necessitate greater policy differentiation than a unitary state may provide. In her article ‘The Politics of Asymmetrical Federalism’, Kathy Brock argues that an increase in differentiated agreements between the federal government and individual provinces in the early 2000s stemmed directly from the federal governments attempts to pass legislation, especially in health and monetary policy, which encroached upon and regulated the provinces’ competencies. The increased demand for autonomy in these agreements demonstrated how deeply entrenched and integral provincial autonomy is considered in Canada. This is not to say that Canadian federalism is not without the tensions experienced in many federations, however.
There exists an ever-looming threat of Quebec secession, as the province pushes for greater autonomy, recognition as a distinct nation within Canada, and greater representation on the federal level. The federal government’s relationship with Quebec is one that exhibits the “paradox of federalism” as described by Lawrence Anderson in ‘Both Too Much and Too Little: Sources of Federal Instability in Canada’, the simple truth that in federations “federal institutions can prevent secession by satisfying some of the institutional demands of those who might desire more significant decentralization but they also provide institutions to those that might be in conflict with the center that can be used to mobilize for alteration…” He argues that the government of Quebec, due to it’s focus on autonomy and protection of identity, would be the province best equipped to secede with “minimal disruption”. In this, a shortcoming of strong regional autonomies in federations is made apparent: in attempts to accommodate diversity the nationalist regions are granted the institutional framework for secession. A push in the reverse, towards less regional autonomy may have similar results, however. As the federal government moves towards centralization to avoid this paradox, they are perceived as invalidating the terms of the federation, and nationalistic pushes for autonomy still …show more content…
increase, as evidenced in Kathy Brock’s writings. In examinations of stability in intergovernmental relations it is impossible to exclude the unique challenges of confederations. The structure of a confederation is built upon a presupposition of ethnic or nationalistic diversity in identity, as each sovereign nation retains this in their entrance to the confederation. As is apparent in the quasi-confederate European Union, the question then is the correct level of sovereignty retention and supra-national authority. The EU may be seen as confederal, as the Council of the European Union is a meeting of executive ministers that at times requires consensus, but it embodies a federal element in the European Parliament which is elected by the populace of the EU member countries they represent. Theorists argue, then, if the confederal form the EU has undertaken will provide the transnational stability at the heart of the EU, or if it occupies a deadlocked middle ground. Those in favour of the modified confederal form point to it’s functionality in an increasingly globalized world, as sates become more interdependent while still retaining sovereignty at the heart of ethnically nationalist desires for autonomy. “Confederalism…may provide a powerful tool to conceptualize and structure a new global reality¬¬¬- one where we need both states and co-operation… and both a recognition of global interdependence and respect or local identity and uniqueness” explains Armin Cuyvers in ‘The Confederal Comeback’. The point he raises is that confederations provide an official framework for international coordination, without a significant loss of sovereignty as in federation. Thus leaves the issue of determining where confederate lines are to be drawn and state autonomy is to be maintained. Charles Blankart theorizes a change in EU structure due to the democratic deficit present in the current constitutional arrangement, explaining that the identification of Europeans as both nationals and ‘EU citizens’ necessitates a system where the EU populace has a role in a constitutional deliberation that designates issues as confederal or to be left in state hands. The stability of the EU is thus left not to the confederate model but to the management of levels of central and regional control, as it is also in unitary and federal states. The existence of multiple governmental levels within sovereign territories is both a necessary and difficulty-providing reality for the constitutional arrangement of the majority of modern states.
As is evidenced in the UK’s devolved unitary system, the Canadian federation and the European Union, each model aims to protect regional diversity and autonomy within it’s limitations, though the degree to which autonomy is granted creates a natural tension between unity and the desire for subsidiarity and self-determination. In devolution, asymmetrical federalism and the constitutional framework of a confederation there is the ability to manage diversity, discourage secession, and ensure stability, but with each of these comes the danger of divisive encouragement of difference. It is up to the individual governments in question then, how to best manage diversity and unity. As phrased by George Anderson, perhaps “stability can be enhanced if the culture goes beyond mere tolerance of diversity to the active embrace of diversity as part of what defines the country and gives it it's value. Institutional arrangements can hep societies better manage their conflicts, but institutions alone are not enough…” Perhaps the answer to encouraging national unity is not then found in the model, but in the contingencies of identity and
co-operation.
Although, Quebec’s population share many similar characteristics amongst one another it is not essential to decide “the people” (Heard, 2013). To be considered a state you must represent all the people in it. Quebec prefers independences for the reason of a commonality
...ereignty. As mentioned Quebec does not have complete sovereignty and it shares its powers with the federal government (Johnson). Strong words like Johnson's found in the mass media are very significant to issues such as this. As elected representatives the government will not act against the wishes of the majority of citizens. Therefore if the Canadian citizens claim that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty than it will not.
Quebec’s social identity and defining characteristics contradict and conflict with those of rest of Canada. Since the genesis of our country, the political, social disagreements, and tensions between Quebec and the rest of Canada have been unavoidable. Utilizing Hiller’s key contradictions in the analysis of a Canadian society, we will compare and contrast the nature of the societal identity in Quebec compared to that of rest of Canada, emphasising on the major differences and tensions between the province and the rest of the country.
Quebec has struggled with a need to be maitres chez nous “masters of their own house” (Young, 1998). Many attempts at resolving Quebec's issues has resulted in tensions from both sides. Because Quebec has a strong national identity, and do not define themselves as strictly Canadian, Quebec is seen as difficult, unyielding and discontented. Quebec's separation perhaps is inedible and the future of Canada questionable. Canada without Quebec will bring about many complications and whether there is a rest of Canada (ROC) after Quebec a major challenge. Western alienation and the lack of representation in federal affairs will be a factor; moreover, past actions and historical events may have turned Canada into a time bomb, and the deterioration of the provinces the only sulotion. How First Ministers react to Quebec's sovereignty regarding economic factors, political structure, and constitutional issues will be of great importance. Whether emotional issues will play a major role in decision making is subjective; however, it is fair to say that it will be an emotionally charged event and it could either tear apart the ROC or fuse it together. Placing emphasis on investigating what keeps Canada together is perhaps the key to Canada's future, and salvaging a relationship with Quebec.
In the year of 1867 the nation we know as Canada came into being. The Confederation in this year only came about after things had been overcome. Many political and economic pressures were exerted on the colonies and a federal union of the colonies seemed to be the most practical method of dealing with these pressures and conflicts. While Confederation was a solution to many of the problems, it was not a popular one for all the colonies involved. In the Maritime colonies views differed widely on the topic. Some were doubtful, some were pleased, others were annoyed and many were hopeful for a prosperous future.1
Quebec has considered and has gone as far to hold referendums over Separatism (Surette,2014). Separatism is when the province of Quebec separates from the rest of Canada to form its own country. Which would have immense effects on Quebec but also the rest of Canada (Martin, 2014). This report will focus on the root causes and origins of Quebec Separatism, the current state of Quebec Separatism and finally how we as a society can act towards Quebec Separatism. Root Causes and Origin
Frist, federalism is the division of power between the provinces and the federal government (Cutler 2010, 3). As well, Federal systems tend to be made up of multiple parts, which do not necessarily work together (Brock 2008, 3). There has been an increase on the study of federalism in recent years, which has created a more in-depth look at how federalism impacts the government. (Farfard Rocher 2009, 294). There are two aspects of federalism and both of them put limitations on the influence of the prime minister. The first is called political asymmetry; this encompasses the various attitudes of the different provinces such as the culture, economic, social and political conditions and how it shapes the relationship between the provincial and federal governments (Brock 2008, 4). This can create a problem for the federal government because it means that they may ha...
Regionalism is a growing concern for Canadians` as it affects economic stability, nationalism and western alienation. The economic stability is reliant on the regions having strong economic bases (Stilborn, 19). Nationalism with Quebec is a prime example of how distinct regional cultures hinder Canada’s unity, as they want to separate from Canada, while still having the federal Canadian government financially support them. Western Alienation is also a prime political culture that is regionally distinct.
The question of whether Quebec will secede from Canada to become an independent nation has been a hot topic in the country for several years now. It dates back to the abortive rebellions of 1837-38. In 1980, a referendum to secede was rejected by a 60-40 margin. Since then though, the numbers of Quebeckers that want to become sovereign has significantly increased. There is so many questions of what will happen if this does happen. In this paper I plan to take a deeper look at this situation and try to figure out what it would actually be like if Quebec was its own country.
Quebec is a distinct society within Canada (Darkside). With its own civil code, language, and a single dominant faith (Roman Catholic), French Quebec is defiantly distinctive from the rest of Canada and many Quebecois are fighting to preserve that distinction (Darkside). Francophones of Quebec are fighting not only to preserve this distinction but also to be recognized as an entity separate from Canada with acknowledged cultural differences ranging not only from religion, but from ethnic roots which spread to linguistic differences as well. This desire to preserve their culture is what makes them a politically relevant example of a country pursuing nationalistic causes. We will explore the ethnic and linguistic traits and cultural events that inspire Quebecois nationalism.
acquired by Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris of 1763. The mass majority of
The United States Government is beloved to all Americans, in the simple fact that all men are created equal and all men are given equal opportunity, to aspire to achieve success and make their dreams come true. Although the percentage of people who achieve all of their goals in life is fairly small, they have the freedom to chase them and America for the most part is a pretty content place. The “law of the land” that sets the standards for our rights and privileges is the U.S. Constitution.
Firstly, Canada should separate because of the economic diversity. For instance, the equalization program which makes prosperous provinces share its wealth to provinces that need extra funding. This is done by the federal government giving some of the tax revenue to less wealthy provinces which have caused unfair treatment to provinces that are economically stable. Consequently, provinces like Ontario does not benefit from the taxes they pay. Ontario receives less public services per capita than the residences of most other provinces and in 2013, the Mowat center revealed that Ontarians send $11 billion more to the federal government than it receives back in transfer payments. Therefore, due to the economic diversity, equalization has caused mistreatment to wealthier provinces.
Since federalism was introduced as an aspect of Canadian political identity, the country has undergone multiple changes as to how federalism works; in other words, over the decades the federal and provincial governments have not always acted in the same way as they do now. Canada, for example, once experienced quasi-federalism, where the provinces are made subordinate to Ottawa. Currently we are in an era of what has been coined “collaborative federalism”. Essentially, as the title would suggest, it implies that the federal and provincial levels of government work together more closely to enact and make policy changes. Unfortunately, this era of collaborative federalism may be ending sooner rather than later – in the past couple decades, the federal and provincial governments have been known to squabble over any and all policy changes in sectors such as health, the environment and fiscal issues. Generally, one would assume that in a regime employing collaborative federalism there would be a certain amount of collaboration. Lately, it seems as though the only time policy changes can take place the federal government is needed to work unilaterally. One area in which collaborative federalism has been nonexistent and unilateral federalism has prevailed and positively affected policy changes is in the Post-Secondary Education (PSE) sector.
A group of states or smaller political units that have agreed to follow a power central government is a confederal system. A confederacy that is composed by the states is often weak or loosely organized. These states have a lot of freedom because the majority of power is given to local governments. The central government has very little power. Examples of a confederal government are Belgium, the former Soviet Union, and Switzerland’s canton system.