II. Federalism in Asia It has been quite a pattern that adopting a federal form of government is deemed as one of the primary steps in attaining peace for struggles over ethnic homeland, especially in Asia. So is federalism the key toward state building? We need to look at the competing models of federalism in Asia. First is the regional or territorial federalism; it is considered as the universal protection of human rights, the impartiality of the state towards different ethnic groups, and having regions as the basic unit of the federal polity rather than ethnicity. Example of which are Australia and the United States. The second model is the multinational federalism, in which federal constitutions accommodate ethnic groups. There is an internal boundary drawn to support the minorities to exercise their rights, and express self-determination and allow them to achieve an ethno-national homeland. Multinational federalism allows minority group to form a local majority thus permitting them to exercise rights to self-government; it is a fair system in accommodating the wishes of the minority groups. The question is, should Asian states follow or adopt western forms of federalism? The American/Australian model is stable but many thought that it might be irrelevant for Asia. Moreover, the Belgian/Canadian/Spanish system of multinational federalism can be relevant to Asian countries but is considered unstable, and will eventually drive the divide of the state itself. Asian countries have difficulties in choosing which model to espouse, and it is said that it is unlikely for the Philippines to institute regional federalism while rejecting multinational federalism. A. India Indian federalism is considered to be the second largest in the world. The original federal design of 1950 was inspired by the British Government of India Act; the 1950 Constitution gave extensive powers to the Union legislature and executive to keep the nation intact. To be able to keep Union of India is permanent and enduring, the Center and the States are working together in such a way that they exercise their respective powers with mutual adjustment, respect and understanding. Tension is normal in federalism; it is however, aided by deterrence and mending conflicts that’s important. The framers of the Indian Constitution deemed that federalism is instrumental in making India a strong and unified state. The first phase of federalization was during the time of Independence up to the mid1960’s. And then the second phase of the development of federalization in India started with the fourth general elections B. Malaysia C. Pakistan III. Federalism in the US, Mexico, Switzerland and South Africa IV. Federalism in the Philippines Is federalism the solution to ethnic conflicts? Federalism can be a means to resolve conflict and deal with ethnic division. In our country, the driving force in adopting a federal form of government is the conflicts in the southern part of the country whose groups are claiming for autonomous state/s. The question left unanswered is the certainty that federalism can eradicate such ethnic division, or can federalism minimize such conflicts and help build a nation? How can federalism maintain diversity and difference? The western types of federalism - both regional and multinational federalism have not been widely adopted in Asia. There is, however, a third model of federalism that is being observed, the asymmetrical federalism with a main characteristic of regional autonomy. Unlike the western types of federalism, asymmetrical model is introduced in a piece-meal process which is more appropriate in Asia. V. Analysis So, does it work? According to political theorist William Riker’s definition of federalism, it is where there are two levels of government that rule the same land and people, and each of which has one area of action in its own respective autonomy and there is an agreement of the autonomy that each has in its own sphere. We can look at the insurgencies in the Northern part of India in the 60s. Mizo National Front revolted against the government of India and wanted to create its own autonomous state. In 1985, Mizos were granted autonomy and their state was recognized as the 23rd state of the Indian Union. In this illustration, there are few factors that are attributed to federalism as a tool to resolving conflicts; first, the claims of the minority were based on language rights and did not pose a threat to the Indian state; second, the regional identity they want to create for themselves does not mean exclusivity but it was rather compatible to Indian citizenship; and third, the central government was able to deal with internal suppression and has protected the civil rights in the provinces. Therefore, the Indian federalism was able to demonstrate that ethnic conflicts can be reduced. Survey Questions Name: Age: Work Position/Designation: Address: 1. How would you describe the amount of knowledge you have about our Constitution? a. Extensive b. Sufficient c. Little d. Almost none/none at all 2. Do you think it is appropriate to change the Constitution at this time? a. Yes b. No c. Cannot say 3. How would you describe the amount of knowledge you have about federalism? a. Extensive b. Sufficient c. Little d. Almost none/none at all 4. Are you in favour of changing the present unitary form of government to a federal system of government? a. in favour b. not in favour c. undecided 5. Why or why not? (just a few short lines please) References: Kumar, C. (2014). Federalism in India: A Critical Appraisal. Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research, 3(9), 31-43. doi:10.1016/b978-012732350-3/50003-x. He, B. (2006). The Federal Solution to Ethnic Conflicts. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 7(2), 29-36. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43134116. Brumby, J. (2009). Does federalism work? In Wanna J. (Ed.), Critical Reflections on Australian Public Policy: Selected Essays (pp. 13-22). ANU Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt24h9m2.6.
