D.D Phiri

Thoughts on federalism (I)

In The Nation of Friday November 7 2014 we learned that 60 percent of MPs were against federalism. If the essence of federalism were explained in greater detail, the number of those who reject the idea would rise, especially if alternative solutions to the alleged problems are spelt out convincingly.

This is what I am going to try here with a backing of college education I learnt in history, economics and political science.

In time and space we discern only two systems of states: federal and unitary. Of the two, unitary system is more popular and ubiquitous.

The federal was invented by 13 ex-British colonies in North America, which laid down the foundation of the United States of America (USA) between 1776 and 1789.

From the book American Government and Politics in the New Millennium by Schultz we learn that out of 190 countries of the world only 11 are federal. Among them Switzerland, Canada, India, Mexico, Argentina, Germany and, of course, USA. Except for Switzerland, all these are multiple times larger than Malawi.

In a federal system, government is so arganised that power is shared between two or more states. The structure of the national or federal state is replicated in provisional or regional states. We have in mind here the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. If the three regions of Malawi were turned into states, we would have four parliaments instead of one; four heads of government instead of one and so on. The regional states will have their own Constitution backed by provisions of the federal constitution.

The more common government, unitary system, vests power in one governing body. Whatever power the central government grants to other administrative agencies such as city or district councils, it may take back at will.

Paul Johnson in his book A History of the American People had this to say:

“The making of the United States Constitution ought to be a model to all states seeking the set-up of a federal system. Alas, in the 200 and more years…the French Revolutionaries in the next decade paid little attention to how the Americans set about constitutional making…the Latin Americans were in too much of a hurry to set up their new state…It was the same with Central African federation.”

Let us confine ourselves to how the American and Central African federal systems were set up.

When the 13 British North American colonies rebelled in the year 1776, they realised they could fight back successfully forces that King George III was about to send there to restore order. Therefore, they decided to form a loose association called confederation and placed their armies under George Washington from Virginia. They won the struggle because of their unity. Because they saw the need for greater unity, some of their leaders such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote a series of essays under the common title of The Federalist persuading citizens of their 13 states to accept a constitution which would provide a strong central government, but would reserve certain powers to the states. Thomas Jefferson wanted a looser association, but the federalist won the day. The federal government was to handle commerce, joint defence, the currency and the judiciary.

The Central Africa Federation comprised Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Its promoters were white settlers in these countries who wanted to set up a dominion modelled on South Africa and Australian where all power was to be in the hands of civilised people by which they meant white people and a handful of their African stooges. This federation acted from 1953 to 1963 because it was against African political rights.

The two federations had one thing in common: they brought closer countries which had been loosely related. The Central African countries used to deal with each other through the Central African Council; they used one currency and had a joint railway, while Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia had a common railway.

When Federation was imposed, the three countries had one capital city, a federal parliament, but each country retained its own legislature. The people of Nyasaland were administered by both the Nyasaland and the federal governments.

Related Articles

Back to top button
WordPress › Error

There has been a critical error on this website.

Learn more about troubleshooting WordPress.