Asymmetric federation

Asymmetric federalism or asymmetrical federalism is found in a federation in which different constituent states possess different powers: one or more of the states has considerably more autonomy than the other substates, although they have the same constitutional status. The division of powers between substates is not symmetric. This is in contrast to a symmetric federation, where no distinction is made between constituent states. As a result, it is frequently proposed as a solution to the dissatisfactions that arise when one or two constituent units feel significantly different needs from the others, as the result of an ethnic, linguistic or cultural difference.

An asymmetric federation is similar to a federacy where a state where one of the substates enjoys considerably more independence than the others. The difference between an asymmetric federation and federacy is indistinct; a federacy is essentially an extreme case of an asymmetric federation, either due to large differences in the level of autonomy, or the rigidity of the constitutional arrangements. An asymmetric federation however has to have a federal constitution and all states in federation have the same formal status ("state"), while in a federacy independent substate has a different status ("autonomous region").

Contents 1 Types 2 National examples 2.1 Russia 2.2 United States 2.3 Canada 2.3.1 Quebec 2.4 Iraqi Kurdistan and Iraq 2.5 Application in other countries 2.5.1 Unitary states 3 References

Types

Asymmetrical federalism can be divided into two types of agreements or arrangements. The first type resolves differences in legislative powers, representation in central institutions, and rights and obligations that are set in the constitution. This type of asymmetry can be called de jure asymmetry (Brown 2). The second type reflects agreements which come out of national policy, opting out, and (depending on one’s definition of the term) bilateral and ad hoc deals with specific provinces, none of which are entrenched in the constitution. This type of asymmetry is known as de facto asymmetry. The Canadian federation uses a combination of these, which make up its asymmetrical character.

National examples

Russia

The Russian Federation consists of 83 federal subjects, all equal in federal matters but enjoying six more or less different levels of autonomy.

United States

As far as the fifty proper states are concerned, the United States is a symmetric federation, where every state has the same powers. However, the U.S. has a number of insular areas directly under the control of the U. S. federal government, with various degrees of autonomy. The District of Columbia is not an insular area, but it is also directly controlled by the federal government with limited autonomy.

Canada

The Constitution of Canada is broadly symmetric but contains certain specific sections that apply only to certain provinces. In practice, a degree of asymmetry is created as a result of the evolution of the Canadian federal experiment, individual federal-provincial agreements, and judicial interpretation. Asymmetrical federalism has been much discussed as a formula for stability in Canada, meeting the aspirations of French-speaking Québec for control over its cultural and social life without removing it from the national federation, where it coexists with nine largely English-speaking provinces which have more in common culturally and socially.

Quebec

For example, tax collection is often a federal responsibility but in Québec both the federal and Québec governments retain the ability to collect both corporate, personal and sales taxes. In some other provinces, provincial governments collect only sales or corporate taxes.

A recent example of asymmetry in the Canadian federation can be found in the terms of the September 2004 federal-provincial-territorial agreement on health care and the financing thereof [1]. The Government of Quebec supported the broader agreement but insisted on a separate communique [2] in which it was specified, among other things, that Quebec will apply its own wait time reduction plan, in accordance with the objectives, standards and criteria established by the relevant Quebec authorities; that the Government of Quebec will report to Quebecers on progress in achieving its objectives, and will use comparable indicators, mutually agreed to with other governments; and that funding made available by the Government of Canada will be used by the Government of Quebec to implement its own plan for renewing Quebec's health system.

For example, Québec operates its own pension plan, while the other nine provinces are covered by the federal/provincial Canada Pension Plan. Québec has extensive authority over employment and immigration issues within its borders, matters that are handled by the federal government in all the other provinces.

Such an arrangement is not widely understood in the English-speaking provinces, where there is fear that Québec is enjoying favouritism in the federal system. It does, however, provide a useful lever for those who want to decentralize the structure as a whole, transferring more powers from the centre to the provinces overall, a trend that has dominated Canadian politics for the past decade.

Iraqi Kurdistan and Iraq

The relationship between Iraqi Kurdistan and other states of the Iraq federation can be characterized as asymmetric federalism. The political and cultural distinctiveness of Iraqi Kurdistan is lawfully recognized in Article 5 of the Iraqi Constitution. Iraqi Kurdistan is the sole federative region in Iraq, which enjoyed its separative political entity as de facto state from 1991 to 2003, and voluntarily rejoined a federal democratic Iraq. Iraqi Kurdistan is the sole region in Iraq that enjoys security and political and economic development as of 2007^[update].^{[citation needed]}

Application in other countries

Asymmetrical federalism is also seen in such federal systems as Belgium, Spain, and Switzerland, where two or more languages are official and well established. It is strikingly absent in the United States, where the Constitution and long practice make the states, no matter how different in size or culture, precisely equal in standing and powers.

There is a parallel debate in the development of regional institutions, such as the European Union, over whether all member states should be treated identically. At present, various countries have opt-outs from specific aspects of EU law. Some see this as a model for the future development of the EU, as a way of respecting different national traditions, whilst others object to a "Europe à géométrie variable", arguing that it is inconsistent with the original ideals of European integration.

Asymmetrical federalism has been suggested as an important part of any solution for the conflict in Sri Lanka, where tension between majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils has led to periods of civil war separated by periods of general mistrust.

Unitary states

Although they are not properly federations, many unitary states with devolved self-governing regions have a structure of government that resembles that found in an asymmetric federation.

• In the United Kingdom England has no self-government and is ruled directly by the British Parliament but Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have varying degrees of autonomy. However, it has been argued that asymmetrical devolution of powers (most notably to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly) was inherently unfair, citing the so-called West Lothian question.

• In Spain, which is either called an "imperfect federation"^[1] or a "federation in all but its name"^[2], the central government has granted different levels of autonomy to its substates, considerably more to autonomous communities Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia and considerably less to the others, out of respect for nationalist sentiment and rights these regions have enjoyed historically.

References

• Stepan, Alfred "Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S. Model" in the Journal of Democracy 10:4 October 1999 can be accessed here
• Brown, Douglas. “Who’s Afraid of Asymmetrical Federalism? A Summary Discussion.” 2005 Special Series on Asymmetric Federalism. Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queens University. 2005

1. ^ Moreno according to Lijphart, A. Patterns of Democracy (1999) Yale, p.191
2. ^ Elazar, D.J. Federal Systems of the World: A Handbook of Federal, Confederal and Autonomy Arrangements (1991) Essex, p.228

---

No comments have been added.

Your name:
City:
Country:	USA UK India Pakistan UAE Saudi Arabia Germany Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burma Burund Cambodia Cameroon Canada Central African Rep Chad Chile China Columbia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic DR Congo Denmark Djiboutil Dominica Dominican Rep Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Eq Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Grenadines Guatemala Guinea Bissau Guinea Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Ivory Coast Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Macau Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Namibia Nauru Nepal Neth Antilles Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea Norway Oman Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Rawanda Romania Russia Sao Tome Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Korea South Africa Spain Sri Lanka St Kitts_Nevis St Lucia Sudan Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvala UAE Uganda Ukraine Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Western Samoa Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe
Your comments:
Security check * (Please enter the number into adjoining box)