Talk:Federalism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • /Archive 1: Nov 2004 – Dec 2005 (mostly resolved talk of merge)

Is Canada a confederation?[edit]

In the first section of the article, it is said that Canada a true confederation. Although we use this expression a lot and that provinces actually own stronger autonomy than other subnational juridiction I would not say that canadian provinces have been federated on voluntary basis. The voluntary basis would mean they were independant before. The provinces as they are were either a British colony or a Canadian federal territories before its accession to the federation. Also the concept of voluntary means that they have a self-right to withdraw from the federation. The actual constitution and recent Supreme court of Canada judgemnts on these issue states clearly that the rightful way for a province to seceed would be anegociated constitutional amendment.

I proposed to use the replace the following sentense by the later:

"Some nations with federal systems, such as Switzerland and Canada, are officially confederations, because membership in the federation is voluntary."

"Some nations with federal systems, such as Switzerland and Canada, are officially confederations, because members are formally part of the constitution and could influence its amendment."

Any comments ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrimart (talk • contribs) 10:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Federalism and the Anarchist Tradition[edit]

Why the heck is there no mention of anarchism and its advocacy of free federations at every level of social organization?

Mikhail Bakunin#Federalism, if this can be expanded into a whole article of Federalism in anarchist thought (or similar), go for it. Nagelfar 01:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold assertions in European Federalism[edit]

The subheader on European Federalism could really use some work. It makes several rather bold and unsupported statements (Claiming that certain governments favour Federalism, and then going on to claim that the European Defence Organisation was the last attempt to create a Federal Europe... I do not feel qualified enough to make something better right now but it really needs work. I also find it hard to believe that there isn't another page in this entire wiki dealing with European Federalism in a more comprehensive way - Knootoss


Federalism in Theology[edit]

This part of the introduction strikes me as "Federalism in Christian Theology". Surely there are other religious points of view about federalism as a whole, whether it is in terms of theology or politics directly. For example, the Baha'i Faith is a religion that has a political concept of federalism and outright calls for worldwide federated government as one of it's central themes. -- djKianoosh, 13 February 2006

  • Well, the difference is that it is theological federalism, not just federalism in Christian theology. It is federalism in a theological matter, not a call for political federalism from a religious body, as you're describing the Baha'i faith. It is not surprising that Christianity has a theological federalism, where others may not. It is largely a restatement of the covenantal soteriology of the Apostle Paul found in the New Testament, and recovered in the Reformation. If you know of another theological federalism, we can put it in that section, or if you want to talk about the call of the Baha'i that you describe, you can do so in the political federalism section (though I wonder how central a tenet it is to Baha'i).  IS Guðsþegn – UTCE – 23:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments about the constitution in relationship to federalism[edit]

"Under a federal system a Constitution is the supreme force from which the state is derived. An independent judiciary is necessary to treat as void every act which is inconsistent with the Constitution. Because of this, federalism is precluded by legalism. The Constitution must necessarily be "rigid" and "inexpansive". Its law must be either legally immutable, or else capable of being changed only by some authority above and beyond the ordinary legislative bodies. The difficulty of altering the constitution tends to produce conservative sentiment" this paragaraph seems broad, unsubstantiated and contray to some of what i know. these are all trends in a federal system but they are not reqirments. Beckboyanch

Agreed. A cleaned-up version of this paragraph might be appropriate in an article discussing the US system of government, but not federalism in general. ThePedanticPrick 15:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federalism vs. Imperialism[edit]

What's the difference? Hackwrench 19:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to explain this question.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federalism is the idea of a group or body of members that are bound together (latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head.

Imperialism is the idea of a group or body of members that are bound together (latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head.

What's the difference? Hackwrench 19:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding. Seriously, you must be trying to make some strange point by being sarcastic, or something. Imperialism is clearly NOT defined as you state it.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Imperialism nor Federalism are clearly defined to any great degree of resolution. Under one concept under the umbrella of imperialism, Japan is the only imperialist country as it alone has an emperor. If I understand correctly the United Kingdom's Queen is also an Empress, but searching for Empress at United Kingdom...Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom seems to indicate that while she is what might be considered a de facto Empress, Empress is not in any of her titles. Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities. An entity is a body. That which controls is a governing representitive head. Hackwrench 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "the idea of a group or body of members that are bound together with a governing representative head" IS a good definition of Federalism. I don't know the definition of Imperialism, but at least two things distinguish them: (1) empires are typically extroverted and wanting to expand, and (2) empires often use coersive forces or techniques (military, economic, etc.) to expand their boundaries.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC) ... Addendum: Also, although the basic definition of federalism is as stated, political federalism is typically expressed in the form of a federation that includes some amount of shared sovereignty between the federal government and the constutuent governments. The same is not typically said of an empire.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federalism is a group of polities formed from within by their own respectively represented constituencies and in legal unison with similar separate governmental jurisdictions of diversified laws. An empire is formed from without & imposed upon separate territories divorced from the central originating one, and has uniform law across their vassalage. They are almost opposites, but not in any way mutually exclusive. The laws of an empire could be federalized, a federal republic could become an empire. etc. Nagelfar 01:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Federalism have the power to counter imperialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANISH BANERJEE (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis[edit]

I just removed some confusing text apparently equating birth with generation and being born again with "regeneration". Anyone want to clarify the concepts? I suspect that someone out there will readd them.Hackwrench 20:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I re-added them.  :-) They actually DO explain alot if you're looking at the Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15 references. The passages refer to "all" in both cases, but can be a little nebulous to the new reader. The 1 Cor. 15 passage sets the boundaries, but when you're reading the Romans passage, you're forced into that interpretation as well. The parenthetical phrases do help clear it up. BTW, "regeneration" is a commonly used word for new birth in scholarly discourse. Uhh ... "generate" does equal "born", and "regenerate" does equal "reborn".    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thew why is the first book of the Bible Genesis (the same prefix as generate) if generate simply means birth.
Again, you must be kidding. Just because the two words share a root word, and have related meanings, does NOT in anyway substantiate that they mean the same thing. The root "gen" does mean both words refer to beginnings. Genesis refers to the beginning or birth of creation (hence the name of the first biblical book that describes creation), and generate as a modifier/adjective (which is how I used it) refers to something that has been born, i.e. has begun life. However, given that it is an uncommon usage (though the context, especially the link, made it clear), I will think of something easier. Regenerate is much more common, especially in theological works.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Adam the nongenerate is the representative of the generate and Jesus the generate is the representative of the regenerate? Hackwrench 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you state it, you are technically correct, but it misses a couple of big points (and seems to try to make fun of the issue). First, it overlooks the point that both Adam and Christ are the only men to have been incarnated (and in Adam's case created) directly by God, as such to be patriarchs of their kind (yes "men" because Eve was also directly created; but not representative). Secondly, it overlooks the point that both Adam an Christ are fathers of a race of all people in union with them (in Adam's case everyone descended from him naturally, in Christ's case everyone "descended" from him spiritually).    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But many people reading the article won't be aware of some or all of these concepts and details which are somewhat important when reading the paragraph for it to make sense. Also your use of incarnate is inconsistent with the Wikipedia entry as currently defined which reqires live birth, which as wikipedia defines it Adam did not have. Hackwrench 16:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am working on a major overhaul of the article on Covenant Theology which should clear things up. You can see the work in progress at User:Guðsþegn/Covenant Theology. BTW "incarnate" is the usual word for Christ's coming to earthly life (see incarnation). The word in its theological (and primary) use means being made flesh (with or without birth), regardless of what the Wikipedia article says. Both Adam and Christ were incarnated; Adam was also created not born; Christ was also born not created.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Theology[edit]

Is theological federalsm an aspect of Covenant Theology or as the article currently says "a synonym for basic Covenant Theology" Hackwrench 16:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, federalism is a synonym for basic Covenant Theology. In many other languages (and often in English), including the original 17th century Dutch and German treatises, it is called federal theology or federalism. My revision in progress of the Covenant Theology article will make this more clear.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 05:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federalism is not just a U.S. phenomenon[edit]

Federalism is not just a U.S. phenomenon, for that subject see Federalism (United States). A template on Christian Democracy (placed in the European federalism section; CD politicians were the foundation of federalism in Europe) was removed, and three (count 'em THREE) U.S. law templates have been added. I'm nuking one of them and adding the CD template again.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 04:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current section on European federalism makes no mention of the connection between Christian Democracy and the subject. Consider adding some info on this if you want to keep that big template. - Randwicked Alex B 07:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split the article?[edit]

It's begging to be split, unless someone can prove that theological and political federalism are really two aspects of the same thing and that we'd lose a lot of continuity by making this a dab. --Smack (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move all content on theological federalism to Federalism (theism), and retain this page for the federalism that everyone knows and loves - or has at least heard of :).--cj | talk 07:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with cj. —Nightstallion (?) 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The intro section on theological federalism says it is a synonym for covenant theology, so presumably all that is required is a dablink directed there. The federalism discussed at the end of the article seems to be the same as discussed in the rest of the article, only referring to church rather than state structures. JPD (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not just that, but federalism has so many different aspects it should definitely be split so that the political form is quite clear and then from there it should be split into subheadings such as "Canadian Federalism" and "Federalism in the US. COnstitution.

  • I don't think we should split, as this paragraph is giving an example of political hierarchy within christian church. It makes no mention of religious belief or explanation of such structure. The title is however relevant, as this structure is based on the Subsidiarity principle, which is stated in the Catholic social teaching. So, it's still about a human hierarchy, organizing authority and decision process. --Napishtim (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

federation/federalism division[edit]

It may be an idea to divide the page down into the ideological aspects (federalism) and the structural or legal aspects (federation), as per P. King (1982), Federalism and Federation, Croom Helm: London. Although this may be too academic. --Mccreacr 05:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as a lot of the content here is about federation in practice rather than the philosophy/ideology. In fact there is already a Federation article, which is where such material belongs. Grant | Talk 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler quote misleading.[edit]

This line:

Adolf Hitler viewed federalism as an obstacle, and he wrote in Mein Kampf as follows: "National Socialism must claim the right to impose its principles on the whole German nation, without regard to what were hitherto the confines of federal states."

Is a bit misleading. As the word translated as "federal" is "bundes", wherein if you look at the link on this article page to the German wikipedia, the word is Föderalismus, the German word for Federalism as we use it here is "Föderative", "Bundes" meaning something more akin to a republic system (though often translated as 'federal' as in the federal level of government.) The Reichs-administration in Nazi Germany, partitioning power between gauleiters was very much a federalized type system, the "state-within-a-state" of the bicameral legal rights under SS jurisdiction also had federal characteristics. Nagelfar 01:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gau-system was not federal, the third Reich was totaly centralised to Hitler, the fact that there were regional entities doesn't make it a federal system

and Bund means in this case Federation (words can mean differnt things in different sitiuations) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.241.36 (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different Types of Federalism[edit]

Rather that just providing example of Federalism, it may be helpful to include information about the different types of federalism, such as duel-federalism or marble-cake federalism. The differences between these type of federalism are significant enough to be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.220.8 (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The definition of "General Federalism" comes up on the first return from google, so I think it's a valid topic. Some of its parts (like the Public Trust) are being advocated by the Council on Foreign Relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.68.122 (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add a link but it was removed. I got back a lot of verbiage about policy. All I know is that this is a valid topic that comes up as the first hit in google and the URL I posted is the canonical definition for the term, so can someone fix this? The definition is on a webpage that is not a commercial or even promoted site. I don't see what in the policy should preclude this ... Also, I have a message from January, 2011. That was not me so I don't know what that means either. Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.68.122 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the entire policy and guidelines and there is nothing that corresponds to the link I provided. I have "undone" it and I hope that was the right thing to do - thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.68.122 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proudhon[edit]

Shouldnt Proudhon be considered as one of the theorics of Federalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.225.219 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Major Federating Units in Belgium...[edit]

... are, following me the Regions and not the Communities. An evidence of that: the representatives of the Parmliament of the Regions and the Communities, are elected on the base of the territories of the Regions... I think it is difficult to say which are the Major Federate Units. For Flanders evidently, the Community but not for Wallonia and Brussels. José Fontaine (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text from Belgium[edit]

Francophonic political parties favour an independent region for Brussels. It is also true to say that the Belgian Federalism is a Federalism with three components: During 18 years [from 1970], Brussels remained without status (...) The explanation of this non-status was the different views of the French-speaking political parties and of the Dutch-speaking political parties: the latter were against the concept of Region (...) the former (...) claimed that Brussels must become a Region equal to the other Regions (...) The Dutch-speaking parties accepted [in 1988] there is a third Region with the same powers as the two other Regions (...) [1]. In this context, before new negotiations in this year about the reformation of the Belgian state,

While copyediting I have removed the above text, among other, often redundant, text.

1. I'm not really sure what it is trying to say. 2. Translated quotes and selective quotations are not generally considered verifiable. 3. If it saying what I think it is, then it is repeating things already in the section. Synchronism (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case what you are writing is, following me, a good idea:
The Belgian political landscape consists of two components: the Dutch- and French-speaking populations represented by Dutch- or French-language political parties. In contrast, the Belgian federal system's primary divisions (regions) number three.
It is not the best but much better than the other versions. If it were one day possible to have a good translation of Lagasse... I think what he is saying is a good explanation. On the other hand, primary divisions (regions) is not right (excepted in the sociological sense). I think you understand the issue. It is perhaps good to say something so: In contrast, the Belgium federal system's divisions number three (without speaking of primary divisions or Regions, but stressing that there are three important components: following the Flemish Professor Robert Senelle - but I don't remember where he wrote that - these three important components are Flemish Community, Walloon Region and Brussels-Capital Region). Because these three components, beyond politics, are deeply the Belgian sociological reality. I wrote the same ideas to Luxem. Thank you for your help... José Fontaine (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to rewrite the Belgium paragraph a bit, trying to be as concise and correct as possible, but keeping in mind that this paragraph is only one of the examples in the Federalism article, and therefore should not be to extended.
The main problem is of course the specific and very difficult form of federalism in Belgium, where a number of components are not geographical.
I have put the lengthy quotes in the reflist.
--Luxem (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not bad but I don't agree with all it is said ( I say I but for me it is the reality de jure and de facto), with all the terms.
Firstly, Wallonia is not only rural but also an industrial and urban region (Liège is not rural, nor Charleroi). Secondly, the difference between Brussels and Wallonia are not only inside the French Community. Brussels is also a Region with Flemings, Flemish ministers (who are the citizens of the Flemish Community). Or the Flemish inhabitants of Brussels are in the Flemish Community and that makes impossible to have one only entity (Brussels + Wallonia).
Thirdly - and that's the most important - the Walloon region is different from Brussels and Flanders de jure. Some examples. 1) the Walloon Parliament voted a law (in 2004-2005) about the organisation of the local powers -Provinces and municipalities - which are now exercising their powers on a very different way than the local powers of Flanders and Brussels. 2) There is an international treaty on the Meuse river between Wallonia, Flanders, France, The Netherlands, Germany and Luxemburg. Brussels is not of course inside this treaty. There are other treaties only betweeen only Wallonia and some other countries (France and Québec for instance). 3) There is really no power about agriculture in Brussels. The minister of agriculture in Wallonia has the right (with the Flemish minister) to have a seat at the "Conseil des ministres européens". 4) There are many links between Wallonia and the German speaking Communities. 5) There are two officials languages in the Walloon Parliament, German and French (but not Dutch and French as in the Parliament of Brussels). 6) It is only a proposal but it has a great signification for our debate (or peacefull dispute): Charles Picqué and Rudy Demotte said a declaration in April about a possible Federation between Wallonia and Brussels (a Federation is the unity of two different States who are remaining different). 7) It is impossible that Wallonia and Brussels were becoming the same thing because Brussels following the Belgian Constitution is an independant region, and Wallonia too. Flanders will never politically accept (and it is right following me), that Brussels and Wallonia would become the same entity. 8) There are many differences on the symbolic plan : the flag, the national feast, the national song (it is an other word in English)... 9) There is an important movement in Brussels (and in Wallonia too), to eliminate the French Community. There was a Proclamation about this elimination by Citizens of Brussels in December 2006 signed by very important intellectuals as for instance Philippe van Parijs and an answer by a great number of Walllons intellectuals in May 2007 agreeing with this Proclamation. 10) Etc and among these etc. : all the different laws voted by the Walloon Parliament since 1980 (about a real kind of police for the environment, the forests,...; about the aiports of Liège/Charleroi; about interrregional cooperation on the European plan; about the economical policy; about the environment; about the rents of the houses and of the flats; about the relief to the industry; about some aspects linked to Justice... These laws are different from Brussels, often very diffrent and all these laws are making a very large specific Wallooon Law becoming larger each day).
I want to change the text in this way: the Belgian Federalism is partly a Federalism with two important components and partly with three. With two and with three have the same importance. It is necessary to say both three and two. I hesitate to write that because it is difficult to say it, even in my language. We must explain a kind of contradiction two/three. Sincerely. I begg your pardon because I am very passionate to explain that, not against you nor against the Flemings, on the contrary... José Fontaine (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible also that French-speaking Belgians are more aware of that situation (than the Flemings), because, as Walloons, we are for ages in front of this daily claim of the French-speaking people of Brussels (one million): we are speaking French but we are different and we must have our Région à part entière.

I understand your points.
I don't think we should go into the de jure aspect. We should keep the Wikipedia user in mind that comes to this Federalism article, and therefore in the first place is interested in Federalism in general. To him/her, the situation in Belgium is only relevant in that it differs from other federal systems. And it is only the de facto aspects that make this difference (de jure, most everything is organised perfectly in Belgium, it is only the de facto application by the political parties that causes the problem).
You're absolutely right that Wallonia is industrialised. We can't call it rural. My bad. But there is a sociological distinction between Wallonia and Brussels, Brussels being a cosmopolitan city, and Wallonia consisting mainly of smaller towns and communes (apart from Liège). If you have a better way of putting this, please go ahead.
The difference between Brusseler Flemings and Flemish Flemings : this has no political influence, I believe.
There is a big difference between Wallonia and Brussels, but only to a certain extent, for certain matters. For other matters, especially when there is a conflict on the national level, the main conflict is between french and dutch speakers. I don't recall a lot of communautarian conflicts where Brussels took a separate position. If you have an example, I would be curious.
But it is true that the differences between Wallonia and Brussels make Belgian federalism more difficult.
I had all this in mind when I rewrote the article. I think it is clear in the paragraphs that Brussels to a certain extent is a third component of Belgian federalism.
Evidemment, vous êtes libre à améliorer l'article. Mon seul but, comme le votre je croix, est d'arriver à l'article parfait sur le fédéralisme en Belgique.
--Luxem (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ik zal proberen. Kunt U mij helpen? (Met mijn gebroken Nederlands). Wel bedankt! The de jure is very important. On the "de facto" plan, there is a huge difference between Flemings and Walloons (which explains a part of this whole discussion). Flanders is able to define itself by the Community (6 miillion people in Flanders vis-à-vis 100 or 150.000 Flemish in Brussels). But on the French-speaking side, Walloons are in front of one million people living in the most important City of Belgium and it is impossible for the people of Brussels to feel themselves as Walloons. That is a very big difference but not the only difference. Incidentally there were always people of Brussels and Wallonia wanting two separated Federating units. And this separation does exist, at less since 1989... Sincerely and friendly, José Fontaine (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ French Pendant 18 ans, Bruxelles est demeurée sans statut (...) L'absence de statut pour Bruxelles s'expliquait par la différence de vision que partis flamands et partis francophones en avaient: [les partis flamands étaient] allergiques à la notion de Région (...) les francophones (...) considéraient que Bruxelles devait devenir une Région à part entière (...) Les partis flamands ont accepté [en 1988] la création d'une troisième Région et l'exercice par celle-ci des mêmes compétences que celles des deux autres... C.E. Lagasse, Les nouvelles institutions politiques de la Belgique et de l'Europe, Erasme, Namur, 2003, pp. 177- 178 ISBN 2-87127-783-4

Belgium : importance[edit]

I added the Importance-sect template, because I feel the paragraph is too long within this article, and goes too much into unnecessary details. --Luxem (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reduce the length, without eliminating content,including some repeated details. There are many articles covering different aspects of this topic and I've tried to point readers toward them with wikilinks. If more is removed, let's consider keeping the wikilinks and adding even more to a 'see also' section. If the most important aspects can't be effectively explained in a brief setting, then it needs to point toward where it can be. Should the tag be kept?Synchronism (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not possible to make these paragraphs much shorter (because some things are written in other pages). I copy:

Brussels is officially a bilingual area, but it has a French-speaking majority.[7] For historical reasons, Dutch-speaking Brusselers are represented on the political level by Flemish politicians, and not by Brussels based Dutch-speaking politicians. Flanders is the region associated with the Belgium's majority Flemish Community (Flemish is a dialect of Dutch). Due to its relatively small size (approximately one percent) the German-speaking Community of Belgium does not have much influence on national politics. Wallonia is a French-speaking area, except for the East Cantons. French is the second most spoken first language in Belgium following a comparable number of Dutch speakers. Within the French-speaking Community of Belgium, there is a geographical and political distinction between Wallonia and Brussels for historical and sociological reasons.[8]

On the other hand, I think it is very important to make clear that the Walloons are (since 1905!), in favour of a Federalism with three components and, by consequence, it woud be better to underline the recent and unanimous vote of the Walloon Parliament in favour of this kind of Federalism. I pointed out this vote because it is very, very selder that the Walloon Parliament (it is a Parliament!!!), votes unanimously. We may have other sources of this Walloons' will but this last vote is perhaps the best way in order to shw it. Incidentally, if y you have these votes in the Parliament (Brussels and Wallonia), it is also because the French-speaking parties are in favour of it. I take also this opportunity to say that it is a very complicated issue (two vis-à-vis three), the result of the will of both Flanders and Wallonia (and Brussels), to have a good compromise, to include the different views (etc.). But it is also true, that this kind of goodwill solution may be also the causes of other further quarells, paradoxically (I begg my pardon for my English). Have a good day, Synchronism and Luxem! José Fontaine (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa[edit]

Since the South African constitution guarantees exclusive provincial authority over certain areas (Schedule 5), does this not make the South African system a federal one? The constitution may only be amended with the consent of a super-majority of provinces (6 of 9). How is this different to the United States, albeit that the listed powers of its States are greater and changes to its constitution require a larger super-majority (75%)? See also talk:Unitary state. --Uxejn (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Misleading Information in Article Header[edit]

The introduction states that "Some nations with federal systems, such as Switzerland and Canada, are officially confederations, because membership in the federation is voluntary."

Canada is a federation, not a confederation. According to Ronald Watts' Comparing Federal Systems (3rd ed.), confederations "occur where several pre-existing polities join together to form a common government for certain limited purposes ... but the common government is dependent upon the constitutent governments, being composed of delegates from the constitutent governments, and therefore having only an indirect electoral and fiscal base" (p 8). From its federation in 1867 Canada's federal government has had direct taxation powers.

Does anyone have a citation to support the idea espoused in the intro that confederation is defined by voluntary membership?

Please forgive any bungled format in this edit EveryonelovesMP (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Federalism Amendment and movement -- 2009[edit]

There was a very interesting editorial published in the Wall Stree Journal on Thursday, April 23, 2009, entitled: "The Case for a Federalism Amendment: How the Tea Partiers can make Washington pay attention." The (currently ungated) link is here: [1]. The story appears to have rather quickly gone viral and their is already an revised draft proposal with ten amendments (versus five in the WSJ editorial) here: [2]. I'm not certain, but I'm guessing this will be sufficiently noteworthy to be worked into the WP Federalism article in the near future. N2e (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consociationalism is not federalism[edit]

Removed this text:

Similar power-sharing arrangements between two communities can be found in Fiji, Saint Kitts and Nevis, in Northern Ireland (the Belfast Agreement) and in Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol.[original research?]

The arrangements described above belong in Consociationalism, Fiji and Northern Ireland in particular.

Andrewgdotcom (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consociationalism, a quick study of the literature will surmise, is oft considered as a subtype of the umbrella beneath which federalism shows variegated functional types. i.e. is a kind of federalism. A mnenomic one can use for the essence of government types which can be called "federalism" generally, contrasts 'federalism' to 'libertarianism' in that the former is governance via regulated destandardization while the latter is by standardized deregulation. Nagelfar (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson quote...[edit]

It was first conceived by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1918 as a way to avoid communism, but was then refined by President Taft into what it is now.

^ I've never edited wiki before, but this statement is clearly bullshit. (from the page on federalism) ^Yeah, I'd have to agree with you there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.132.196 (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, people, this part needs some major TLC.[edit]

Federalism as the Anarchist Mode of Political Organization

"Federalism" if I'm right, used to mean what the anarchists advocated. Can we diversify sources, citations and add more general content? As it stands, it makes the article uglier.--66.233.55.145 (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USA under Russia[edit]

I think not. 98.227.88.98 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced gibberish added on 6 and 7 April 2016[edit]

Whomever added that bizarre discourse has apparently never studied political science at the university level. Any objections before I take out the garbage? --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

I went back and traced those edits. It appears that the babbling about how sovereignty cannot be divided originates with the essay cited at the beginning of the new introduction. As far as I am aware, that gibberish has not gained any currency in the academic political science community. The division of sovereignty in federal systems of government (that is, dual, divided, or separate sovereignty) is a long-accepted doctrine which has been amply documented in dozens of books, hundreds of journal articles, and countless appellate decisions. I am removing the text to the contrary in the article immediately as violating WP:NPOV. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 'babbling'; and I have a DPhil in Politics from the University of Oxford on the subject... If you can tell me how sovereignty, understood as final authority, can be divided between two bodies, then I would be happy for you to remove the third paragraph of the introduction. But if, like me, you find yourself unsure as to how arguments over competences unspecified/unallocated by a written constitution can be resolved between two levels of government, thought to be equally sovereign, without the intervention of a third body (presumably then itself sovereign) then perhaps the text as written should be allowed to stand. The logic of 'divided sovereignty', clearly shown false in the run-up to the US Civil War, seems to have been simply re-stated again after the North had won by the Supreme Court, intended to re-emphasize the 'dualism' (as you suggest) inherent in the division of competences between the state governments and the federal government intended by the founding fathers of the Constitution. However, dividing competences/powers is not the same thing as dividing sovereignty, which must, by its very nature, be indivisible. The victory of the North was clearly shown to have located sovereignty unambiguously in one American people, and the idea of sovereignty vested in each of the several peoples of the separate states, each one therefore able to secede, was shown to have been crushed. Woodrow Wilson made exactly this point in 1893: there had clearly been in the Civil War, he wrote, the 'virtual creation of a central sovereignty'; the states were no longer sovereign, but 'unquestionably subject to a political superior, ... fused, subordinated, dominated' ('An Old Master and Other Political Essays', Scribner, 1983, pp. 64, 91-4). This view seems to have been common currency in the late nineteenth century, upon the founding of modern political science in the US, among scholars such as Lieber, Burgess and Woolsey. So perhaps it is the more recent (twentieth century) logic which is wrong in apparently forgetting these lessons. Federalunion (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if one goes back to the nineteenth century and James Madison, it is clear that sovereignty can be divided. Since the ascendance of William Rehnquist as the 16th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986, that view has again become dominant in American discourse, thanks to landmark decisions like Lopez and Morrison and extensive academic commentary on those decisions. Certainly, scholars like Erwin Chemerinsky have harshly criticized Justice Scalia's articulation of the doctrine, but it is also clear that Chemerinsky was reacting to what was already a fait accompli. Carmen Pavel published an entire book on the subject titled Divided Sovereignty in 2014 in which she criticized the Hobbesian view of sovereignty as indivisible and pointed out how federalism in practice refutes that view.
Please review Wikipedia policies. Under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion; specifically, it is not for "advocacy" or for "opinion pieces" and it is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. This article is not the place to advocate a minority view. If it should be in this article at all, it should be placed near the end and accurately represented as such, not placed in the lead paragraphs.
Finally, if you have any connection to the author of that essay, please keep in mind that conflicts of interest are strongly frowned upon on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.--Coolcaesar (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, James Madison's view was shown false in the (subsequent) descent into Civil War in America. The idea that sovereignty was divided between two levels of government - state and federal - was clearly disproven when the Southern states attempted to reassert the sovereignty they claimed still to possess through secession and were disabused of this notion. It was no longer possible to claim that they were in any sense sovereign after the Civil War, hence Woodrow Wilson and others' conclusion above that a single unified sovereignty in the American nation/people had been established. The absence of a right of secession in a federation/federal state such as the US contrasts today with another federal system, the EU, where a right of secession still exists: indeed, the current debate over Brexit in the UK concerns the very exercise of this right, which existed anyway in practice but was formalized in 2009 in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. As you note, the idea of divided sovereignty comes to us today as a legal doctrine developed by the US Supreme Court. This body simply re-stated the pre-Civil War interpretation of the US Constitution it had employed (following Madison et al. in The Federalist) after its conclusion. As a way of interpreting the US Constitution, emphasizing a strict and constitutionalized division of powers between two levels of government, indicating a clear dualism/line of demarcation/that they are properly 'own powers' belonging to each level and not to be transgressed by the other, it has appeal and arguably utility. However, this does not change the fact that ultimately - and it is in its ultimate sense that the concept of sovereignty has its greatest importance - the final power in a political community must be indivisible and located in a singular determinate body if that polity is to be stable and peaceful. In the US, it would seem that the US Supreme Court is this body, as it has the right to rule in grey areas and allocate unclear/unattributed competences; or, if preferred, one could find the ultimate right (as John Calhoun noted in his Fort Hill address) lying behind it in the presidential power of appointment to the Supreme Court, or even further back in the power of the American people as a whole to determine the President or amend the Constitution. So do we need to slavishly follow the Supreme Court if it is mistaken? And just because someone has written an entire book on 'divided sovereignty' does not make it so. I would be interested to know how you would define sovereignty. Would you agree, for example, that it concerns authority? And, if so, would you agree that this authority is special in that it is the final/final source of authority in a political community? Federalunion (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to finish fully researching this issue until next weekend, but from what I've pulled up on Google Books it looks like you are adhering to the "command" view of sovereignty advocated by John Austin, among others. A view which has been thoroughly demolished by, among others, H. L. A. Hart. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to explain who studied (or didn't study) what or to classify writing as gibberish or garbage. The discussion about personal views about the (im)possibility of shared sovereignty based on the situation in the US is also interesting but not helping here. We don't need the personally held view, but the consensus view (or views) based on (as we have so much available) secondary and tertiary sources. Can we keep it at that? The old intro was horrible (with 2 sentences giving two definitions, the relation of which wasn't shown), but the second version seems to be not the majority view. Maybe the best is to get back to the old version and expand a bit from there? L.tak (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken on board some of the above comments and (i) removed the contentious references to the nature of sovereignty within federalism, and (ii) moved other parts of the old third paragraph to footnotes (as suggested). Hopefully everyone now happy with this...Federalunion (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Literature Section - Resembles Book Plug, Advert Links[edit]

This is actually my first foray into wikipedia editing. I was reading this article and saw something that looked off, so I thought I would start simple and merely point out for whoever is watching this article that the In Literature Section reads like blurb for a fiction book, and that the link appears to direct through to a clickbait/advertising link. On top of that, the relevance of the section to the actual article is not very clear to me, and I would suggest that it be considered for removal as a section unless other content can be found to fill its place. If you want to do me a favor, I'd appreciate your citing what rationales/policy you would use to defend or remove the section, so that I can get a better first-hand feel for it before I go around editing. Insignus (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to experiment and bore myself to death - spent 10 minutes, did a manual search, located the section addition to this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federalism&oldid=408309774 from 17 January 2011. I am suitably impressed with myself, and now eagerly await a cunning explanation of how I could have done it in 30 seconds or less. Insignus (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Insignus, welcome to Wikipedia! I just removed the section. You are correct that it seemed like spam and the link definitely doesn't lead to more information about the book. As you can see from my edit summary, I cited WP:BOOKSPAM, which is a subsection of the Wikipedia page on how to deal with spam. The section also was unsourced. It is the responsiblity of the editor that adds material to cite it. Any material that lacks a reliable source can be removed by anyone, like I just did. However, I can't help you with finding revisions, as I have no idea how to find them faster. Overall, I'd recommend for you to be bold and edit when you see something like this. Good luck! Greatedits1 (I hope so | If not, let me know) 18:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I appreciate it! I'll definitely be a bit bolder! Insignus (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ziblatt's Structuring the State in overview[edit]

I removed this recently added material from the overview. --Malerooster (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Malerooster: Why? clpo13(talk) 16:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was recently added and I don't believe it belongs in the overview section. Why is this author being chosen? Why is his opinion notable? I would include this material further into the article under an academic review or view point. --Malerooster (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason this user is removing this is out of spite. He/She had never been on this page before the day that I begun to edit it. The content that the user is removing is a brief literature review on the emergence of federal systems from an award-winning book (Co-Winner of the 2007 Best Book Award, European Politics and Society Section of the American Political Science Association, Winner of the 2004 Gabriel Almond Award for Best Dissertation in Comparative Politics, American Political Science Association Winner of the 2003 Ernst B. Haas Prize for Best Dissertation in European Politics, American Political Science Association) by a Harvard political scientist and published by one of the top academic presses, as I made the user aware of a few days ago here[3]. The user never responded, but came back here to revert the content again. Can you please restore the content? This user is threatening to sanction me, and I'm therefore wary of crossing any lines such as the 3RR (or any other obscure rules I'm unaware of) even if the editor's reverts are meritless and not made in good faith. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Snooganssnoogans, I don't edit out of spite, you have been watching to much Seinfeld. Also, I am a he, if you couldn't tell from my handle. I would just move this out of the overview into a critical reception review, ect. and not have it in the 1st paragraph, thats all. Also, I would seek consensus. If other edits think this material belongs in the overview, then I will not remove it. Please read WP:BRD. We are now in the discussion stage, and the material should stay out, or moved down, as I suggested, until clear consensus forms here. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(i) You're here on a page that you've never edited before; (ii) you're on an academic page and you've never in your recent history edited academic pages; (iii) you deleted one thing in this article and it happens to be the thing added that day by someone that you periodically name-call and follow around; (iv) the thing that you removed happened to be the only thing in the overview section that was sourced to a top-tier political science publication and wasn't original research; (v) you have shown no interest in editing any other content in this article despite the obvious flaws of other parts of the article; (vi) you make up a BS excuse for reverting the content, claiming that the content is non-notable despite not knowing anything about the author, the publication or the academic field in question; (vii) info about the author and the publication was all made clear to you, yet you did not opt to discuss and chose instead to revert twice again; (viii) you made no effort to tweak the content or place the content in a more appropriate part of the article, because that would actually demand an interest in improving the article and the Wikipedia project as opposed to harassing someone that you dislike; and (ix) the content in question was never in the "1st paragraph" of either the article or the "overview" sub-section, which shows that you either have no idea what you're editing or feel the need to lie about it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a "critical reception review"? This is not some commentator's opinion or criticism of federalism, these are the explanations in the academic literature on why federal systems emerge (these are not Ziblatt's explanations but his summary - the literature review - of the existing literature), and as such, definitely belong in the overview. The source is also among the most reliable sources you can find on Wikipedia[4]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should actually read BRD, as you're not following it at all. You indiscriminately remove content that you admit to not understanding ("When to use: While editing a particular page that many editors are discussing with little to no progress being made, or when an editor's concerns are not addressed on the talk page after a reasonable amount of effort" + "BRD is a way for editors who have a good grasp of a subject to more rapidly engage discussion"). You don't try to tweak the content per BRD's suggestions ("Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit, and whether you would like to make that bold edit instead. The other disputant may respond with another bold edit, or with a refinement on your improvement.") You invoke BRD to revert the edits of an editor whom you dislike on a page that you've never been on before and on a topic that you do not understand (the author is well-known to anyone working in this field), which should therefore obviously invoke suspicion and be seen as provocative ("Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged. Some editors may invoke this process by name in the edit summary; however, BRD is never a reason for reverting. Posting an edit that others may (strongly) disagree with, especially in a controversial area, has the potential to be seen as an act of provocation, so you're going to need to use all your tact to explain what you're aiming to achieve"). You did not opt to discuss the content when it was made clear to you who the author was, what the publication was and why the content was notable ("BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing.") Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored this content, but to the body of the article rather than to the lead section, because both editors here have expressed support for including this content somewhere in the article. Malerooster, your edits here don't reflect creditably on you. If you objected to the material in the lead, the proper response would be to move down the content, rather than eliminating it entirely without citing any actual, substantive, policy-based reason for it. It is not reasonable to remove very well-sourced text (influential, recent, award-winning academic work published by top university press) with dismissive summaries like "still not notable" (which, by the way, is not the test, notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article), followed up by threats against Snooganssnoogans. We should be better than that. Neutralitytalk 01:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Federalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background needed[edit]

  • It would be nice if someone could put together a subsection on the history of federalism. For example, there was Johannes Althusius known as a Calvinist political philosopher who's reputation now includes being the Father of Federalism. The history of federalism is important to the American federal republic. The US was the first nation of it's size in the history of the world to apply a concept of federalism. The Swiss Confederation came into existence in the year 1291 but the Swiss never called themselves a confederacy until four hundred years later. -- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations[edit]

  • Define the difference between "Division of Powers" versus "Separation of Powers" and explain how to identify the difference.
  • Be careful to practice a Neutral Point of View. Federalism is a topic of world wide interest and the current article is heavily biased towards the US federal republic. It should be fair to the US, Canada, Argentina, Germany, Ethiopia, Australia, and India as the major federations in today's world.
  • Some suggested references are:
  1. "Comparative Federalism: theory and practice" by Michael Burgess (2006)
  2. "Federalism: an introduction" by George Anderson (2008)
  3. "Exploring Federalism" by Daniel Elazar (1987)
  4. "Federal Government" by K.C.Wheare (1964)
  5. "Theories of Federalism: a reader" edited by D.Karmis and W.Norman (2006)
  6. "The Robust Federation: principles of design" by Jenna Bednar (2009)
  • All the texts address a major issue with the concept of federalism that is not addressed in this article. The problem; there is not a single well accepted definition of federalism and the word is "polymorphic", is "intractable", and "no one model is appropriate in all circumstances". Every academic text tackles this problem and I think this article should make clear what this issue is about.

-- 47.145.171.223 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“Foe(œ)deralism”[edit]

Because federalism was (and still is rarely) spelled with an oe or ligature œ in British English, I think the article should start with, “Federalism (also spelled foederalism or fœderalism)…”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaiBrown1204 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss confederacy[edit]

Intro says first example of federation is the Old Swiss confederation, and the proceeds to say that federation is not a confederation, but the article on the Swiss confederacy says it was a federation. 1)are we sure it was Swiss confederacy the fiest federation ever? what makes it the first?2)It's a strange way to phrase it.Barjimoa (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federalism&oldid=1194435722"