A federation or unitary state? [Archives:2005/871/Viewpoint]
Editor
Recent developments and stumbling blocks in the drafting of Iraq's constitution hold enormous implications not only for that nation, but the region as a whole. The federalist movement in Iraq, whereby the state would be divided into 5 or 6 autonomous states, is in itself intriguing. The term federalism implies a system of government in which power is constitutionally divided between a central authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). The two levels of government are interdependent, and share sovereignty.
Many arguments for federalism have traditionally been put in terms of promoting various forms of liberty in the form of non-domination, immunity and equal opportunity. In a complex cultural mosaic such as Iraq where a single ethnic minority dominated with such draconian brutality, decentralization is an unavoidably attractive concept for many. In theory, Federal constitutions diffuse central authority by assuring regions the autonomy to make decisions. Rather than attempting representation as most republics do, federalism is the politics of decentralization. Federal constitutions allocate powers to regional units and ensure integration by requiring the participation of various sub units in the central political process. Regions check central authority and regions check each other. It is a form of government designed to protect minorities. Federalism also encourages an inclusive political process as individuals are empowered at both local and therefore federal levels.
At times, such decentralization may be antithetical to the notion of state, especially when the state is not predicated on a nation, but rather a political construction. Simmering regional tensions in countries as established as Spain, for example continue to cause factionalism and disunity in the national vision. This is because the power that sub-units wield in federations often restricts or violates majority rule, in ways that merit careful scrutiny. Federal political orders typically influence individuals' political influence by skewing their voting weight in favor of citizens of small sub-units, or by granting sub-unit representatives veto rights on central decisions. Minorities thus leverage more control than their population would be entitled if all individuals were entitled to uniform political agency. On the whole, Federalism is prone to factionalism, regional manipulation and if sufficiently stressed, disintegration. This is precisely because federalism constitutionalizes power along ethnic fault lines instead of centralizing national authority.
Coming back to Iraq, tension spilled on to the streets earlier this month with mass demonstrations when thousands of supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr, marched in Baghdad in opposition to plans for a more federal state. “No to division” ran the slogan on the posters protestors held as they marched chanting “yes to unity”.
Editors and Arab political commentators were concerned by the trend to Ferderalism. “Federalism is the new stick that is being used to beat Arab nationalism” wrote Mr. Zaid Al-Ali of the Egyptian well known newspaper al-Ahram.
“It is far from clear that a majority of Iraqis are in favour of a federal model of government. Kurdish politicians and a majority of the Kurdish population of Iraq favour maintaining their current degree of autonomy. However, there is no reason why the situation as it currently stands cannot continue However, considering the history of foreign involvement in Iraq and in the region, it would be naive to assume that the invading armies that have decimated the country do not have an outcome they would prefer over others. It would be equally naive to assume that the drive towards federalism is independent from Western hostility towards Arab nationalism.” He commented. The validity of such a viewpoint is questionable however, as Arab Nationalism has not been a coherent political force since Nasser and even if revived would not represent the interests or identity of either the Kurdish North of heavily Shia south. It does seem a very strange time to evoke such an outmoded and partisan ideology.
On the other hand David L. Phillips of the Financial Times wrote last week that “Most Iraqis agree that the system of government should be republican, federal, democratic and pluralistic. They agree on the need for a separation of powers with checks and balances. Many also agree that the best way to balance competing demands for democracy and unity is through a federal structure that assigns specific authorities to the central government – such as national defense, fiscal policy and foreign affairs – while decentralizing power to regional and local governments.”
It seems everyone has a vision for what the “new Iraq” should be, except perhaps, those to whom it will matter most, the people themselves. Even when they were organized to march in the streets chanting for national unity most of the demonstrators did not have a clear idea about what they were opposing. Indeed, would a centralized government actually alter the political allegiance of so many Iraqis, loyal to their own tribes, factions and ethnicities first and the government last if at all? And what would be the regional implications of a federalist Iraq? Would other countries with critical internal imbalances such as Yemen be affected? And could the UAE, the only Arab country with a federal government, prove an example of good governance and democracy? Iraq is an anarchic context in which to forge one states political future. More important may be the implications for the region, Arab and otherwise.
——
[archive-e:871-v:13-y:2005-d:2005-08-25-p:view]