Welcome to Module 2 of our course, Federalism and Decentralization, Evaluating Africa's Track Record. I hope most of you are still with us. Now, the previous module was a general introduction to the topic. We looked at the very concepts of Federalism and Decentralization and terms closely related to both concepts. We examined their three promises in Democracy, in good governance, and managing diversity. The quiz hopefully brought all these together for you and we can now proceed further into our topic. In module two we will examine three ideas that were at the heart of Federalism and Decentralization. These three are, number one, self-rule and shared-rule. Number two, distribution of power, and, lastly, multiple identities. Now we'll start with self-rule and shared-rule. The description of federalism as a mix of self-rule and shared-rule originally belongs to a preeminent scholar of federalism from the United States, Daniel Elazar. Elazar's work in comparative and American federalism still sets the contours of numerous contemporary debates on federalism. His disarmingly simple formation captures the true essence of federalism, in fact much better than some of the more detailed attempts by other scholars. Now there are two orders of government, the center and the constituent units. Both orders of government are autonomous in the areas the constitution grants to them, but there are also two areas where the two orders of government share jurisdiction. It is the constitution and accumulated custom in Anglo-Saxon federations that determine the division of responsibilities. Without opening up an entirely new discussion on legal systems, let me very briefly explain what I mean by this last sentence. Most legal systems in the world follow the Roman Law tradition, where the law is explicitly codified in legislation. Courts then apply the law. Countries with Anglo-Saxon legal systems, on the other hand. In addition to this codified law there is a precedence system laid down by previous court rulings, and legal reasoning in deciding the cases. So in Anglo-Saxon federations like Canada and Australia, there are also uncodified customs and practices in dividing power, which often carries the weight of legislation. So it is in these countries with Anglo-Saxon legal systems that we see this practice. Now, back to self-rule and shared-rule, and the two orders of government. Either the constitution formally ascribes competences, it could be shared or exclusive to orders of government, or there is custom and legal precedence that determines who does what. Sometimes the who does what is not very clear and needs the involvement of a constitutional court or a supreme court. We will leave that discussion to the third module. At this point, what we need to know is that there are some things the center does, some things the regions do, and yet other things where the two have to cooperate. So let's unpack this a little more and look at policy areas that fall under the central government. In some policy areas, the center has control. The central government determines national goals, legislate in order to put these into practice, administers these policies, or oversees their implementation and eventually pays for it. In other words, the center has both the first and the last say in these national issues. Central government jurisdiction usually tends to be in policy areas such as defense, foreign policy, natural resources and macro-economic policy. The center is responsible for such national policies. And there are some obvious reasons for this and some policy areas with the center. Foreign policy can only be national, so are the feds and macro-economics policies which all require national unity. But there are also other policy areas where the central government has emerged as the authority with the final say, even if these policy areas were not explicitly enumerated in constitutions. During much of the 20th century what we have come to expect of governments have multiplied. Until the mid 19th century, governments did not do a lot of things well there weren't many things to do. And the region range of state infrastructure was limited. Technological advances, developments in communication and transportation, and increase population mobility suddenly brought many issues into the political arena. From regulating lending practices of banks throughout jurisdictions to building, maintaining and regulating railways, policy areas multiplied. Yet constitutions were often silent, in terms of which order of government was responsible for these new policy areas, that in one way or another affected all citizens nationwide. So what we had was an expansion in the role of the central government, in policy areas that were not explicitly under central government jurisdiction. Through explicit constitutional amendment and legal precedent, policy areas like transportation, communication, banking, research and development emerge as federal jurisdictions. And established federations like Canada and the United States. In newer federations with new constitutions, these policy areas are often explicitly given to the central government. But regional governments have not been completely helpless in this process. Some of the new policy areas brought in by modernization have increased the reach and range of regional policies as well. The multiplication of policy areas during the course of the 20th century, has not only increased the profile of the central government, but also the regional governments. From tourism to foreign direct investment, regional states now do more than their traditional responsibilities in education and culture. There are policy areas where regional states have the first and the last say. That is, they set the regional goals. They legislate in order to put these into practice, administer these policies or oversee their implementation, and eventually pay for this. But it is especially in matters closely related to identity, that we see exclusive regional state jurisdiction. Exclusive in the sense that no other governments, be it a neighboring regional state or the center can interfere. Education and culture are two such policy areas. In many federations, regional states tend to have autonomy in these two policy areas. Constitutions provide guarantees protecting the autonomy of regional states to have the final voice in these areas. In German Federalism this is called Kulterhoheit, cultural sovereignty. In some other policy areas, regional-states might enjoy exclusive jurisdiction, but their activities could have spill over effects for the neighbors. Say in environmental pollution of rivers or they could be need for coordinating polices. For example, the start of the school year, curriculum, teacher qualifications. Exclusive jurisdiction does not mean cutting ties to the rest of the country or turning a blind eye to common concerns. Common issues requires coordination of regional policies and cooperation of regional states. Coming together in search of solutions does not invalidate self rule. Yet in some policy areas, regional states might not enjoy exclusive control but share the jurisdiction with other orders of government and that is the trickiest part of federalism for us One should not lose sight of the fact that all of this self-rule and shared-rule takes part within a single sovereign state. So, there are things that have to be done together. The regional states in the center have to work together. Common challenges and national priorities often call for collaboration among orders of government. Different constitutions use different terms in defining the shared policy areas between regional governments and the center. Shared jurisdiction, concurrent power, joint competence, are all terms that define the same thing. Federal constitutions place some policy areas under the joint jurisdiction of the two orders of government. That is, no one could outfool self-rule since cooperation is a constitutional commandment. Sometimes such cooperation emerges through accumulated custom set by legal precedent. And sometimes, cooperation emerges through practice, especially in matters that are seen as national priorities but which might formally fall under regional jurisdiction and this is the tricky bit. For some regional states, national priorities and calls for cooperation could be seen as encroachment by the center and the violation of their jurisdiction. Regions with strong historic, linguistic, ethnic roots tend to be more jealous of their self-rule. This often becomes a point of contention in federal politics. That is why we hear more about Quebecan demands in Canada. Catalan and Basque demands for further autonomy in Spain and Flemish nationalism in Belgium. Formal autonomy in their areas of jurisdiction extends to all regional states, but it is these distinct regions that make use of more of this constitutional protection. In and of itself the Constitution is, of course, important, but we also have to remember that some regional states tend to exercise these rights, while others are happy to invite others in and share. Which means that we should always pay attention to the broader political, social, economic, cultural, demographic, and geographical context in order to understand not just the formal blueprint, but the true workings of constitutions. Understanding who does what is essential in order to understand federalism. The division of power, not between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of governance, but between the central government and regional governments is the essential characteristic of federalism. In the next video lecture, we will continue on this topic and look further into the distribution of power. Thank you.
