Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Sovereignty of federations - I

By Pran Chopra

The sovereignty of federations is beginning to be questioned even in the day-to-day handling of domestic as well as foreign affairs, so that the interests of the constituent states may be adequately safeguarded.

A PARADIGM shift is taking place in the debate on what, if any, should be the role of the constituent units of a federation in the making and implementation of the foreign policy of the federation. Not so long ago, the prevailing view was that while a country may adopt the federal system as a way of preserving its "unity in diversity", to quote Jawaharlal Nehru's celebrated phrase about the Indian federation, it was no less entitled than a unitary government to speak with a single voice in international affairs, and have a single unified, national and nationwide foreign policy for the country as a whole. Now a contrary view is emerging, that the constituent units of a federation should also have a role to play so that the country's foreign policy may reflect its domestic diversity.

This shift is of added interest for the reason that it is taking place in the midst of such an attack on the whole concept of the sovereignty of nations that it looks as though sovereignty is an idea whose time is passing. Countries which are powerful enough to do so have taken many actions already against weaker countries in matters which a decade ago would have been regarded as the internal affairs of a country and therefore outside the legitimate reach of other countries. In the case of East Timor for example, and Serbia and Kosovo too, the latter leading to attacks of barbaric severity on Belgrade, the national capital of the Yugoslav federation, in the name of protecting Kosovans and Albanians against oppression by the Serbs. Similar treatment appears to be in the pipeline for Iraq, this time in the name of the Kurds.

But leaving aside these larger issues concerning the sovereignty of any country in war or near-war situations, the sovereignty of federations is beginning to be questioned even in the day-to-day handling of domestic as well as foreign affairs, so that the interests of the constituent states may be adequately safeguarded. Some of this debate discriminates against the sovereignty of federal states in comparison with the sovereignty of unitary states, discriminates against the sovereignty of parliamentary federations in comparison with presidential ones, and discriminates against the sovereignty of parliamentary federations which have pluralistic societies in comparison with the sovereignty of those which have more homogenous populations. Since India is a parliamentary federation with a highly pluralistic society, it should be actively concerned about what is emerging as advocacy for an institutionalised role of "constituent diplomacy" and legitimate "penetration of the boundaries" of such federations through a diplomatic role for their constituents. Both concepts, constituent diplomacy and penetration of boundaries, were on display at an impressive conference on federalism, sponsored by the largest organisation of its kind, the Canada-based Forum of Federations. In this context it is a welcome development that the Defence Minister, George Fernandes, has invited the Forum to hold its next conference, due in 2004, in India. He was the most prominent Indian participant, if not exactly the leader of the Indians invited to take part in the Forum's recent conference, hosted jointly by the Government of the Federation of Switzerland and the Government of one of its richest constituents, the Canton of St. Gallen.

This was the first bi-annual conference of the Forum after its founding conference at Mt Tremblant, in Quebec, in 2000, at a time when the Canadian Federation was being rocked by a near secessionist stand by Quebec, one of its most important constituents. The conference brought together the leaders of the three most important federations of the New World, the United States, Mexico, and Canada itself, and the message they hammered home to Quebec, particularly Bill Clinton did, was that it was better to be a prominent member of a prosperous federation than to get lost in a crowd of inconspicuous states.

St. Gallen was also a meaningful site for the next conference. Switzerland is the most decentralised of all federations, and it as well as St. Gallen heard a significant message from a former President of the Swiss Federation, Koeller. He said if demands for devolution were carried too far Switzerland would disappear like a spoon of sugar in a glass of water which has been stirred too much!

What would be the message, to and from India, if the next conference were indeed held in this country in response to the invitation by Mr. Fernandes? That remains to be seen. But the conference in India must examine the issue whether the appeal of federalism, and particularly of its parliamentary variety, will become weaker or stronger if a federation's claim to sovereignty is held to be a more qualified one than that of a unitary state, and if the parliamentary form became a laboratory for experimenting with the deflation of its sovereignty through the conferment of diplomatic roles upon its constituents and penetration of its boundaries.

These experiments would be ironic if they became a more substantial reality than they are so far, because of all known forms of government the parliamentary federal form gives the maximum scope for diverse parts of a country to play a role in its foreign as well as all other policies. In three different ways this form protects and promotes the role of the constituents, particularly in a pluralistic society, without in any way impairing the sovereignty of the federation. First, by being democratic; the second by being parliamentary; and the third by being federal. This is a source of the strength of this form, as will be discussed further. But it could become a source of its weakness if the changes advocated at the St. Gallen conference became a ruling reality.

The proceedings at St. Gallen were covered by the "Chatham House Rules", which inhibit the reporting of who said what. But revealing enough is a 600-page public document called the "Conference Reader". Quoting noted scholars of federalism (most of them western), the Reader sets out in detail what federations, "Learning from Each Other", should be doing in the light of such changes in international relations as "globalisation", increased "activity of constituent units in foreign relations", "multicultural conflicts", the role of "supranational organisations" in the domestic affairs of federations, "enhancing diversity", "equalising majorities and minorities", "eaking cultural diversity seriously", and the role of constituents as "pressure points in foreign policy making".

It is understandable, even commendable, that the Conference Reader, and the noted political scientists who have contributed some excellent papers to it, have taken an enthusiastic view of the increasing federalisation of Europe. As a result of this process both the collective Europe and its "constituents" are becoming larger international players on behalf of the peoples of Europe. The Conference Reader is right in holding up "the European Union as the model" for other countries and what it calls "Brusselisation" as the way to go.

But what the Reader wants other federations to "learn" is something different. The "E.U." has shown independent countries how to pool their separate sovereignties and voluntarily jell the pool into a supranational European authority. In other words, how to come together in a federation. On the other hand, the Reader is showing other federations how to step back as federations and let their constituents explore their own paths in a world of "constituent diplomacy", in which penetrating the borders of weaker countries has become a temptation which the stronger ones find hard to resist.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu