Federalism, Regionalism and the Reshaping of Australian Governance - Literature review Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : xxxxxxxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2013 Introduction Political actions in various regions worldwide have within the last decades attracted significant attention on the relevance and irrelevance of the federal solutions to political problems. As highlighted by Fenna (2012), federalism is basically a system whereby written constitution shares power between a country’s central government and its sub-divisional/regional governments, with all of them acting directly on the citizens not only through the officials but also through their laws. Federalism, as such, can be considered as sharing of compromised power between the sub-divisional governments and the central government. Just as in America, federalism underpins Australian politics. Currently, however, federalism as political system in Australia is undergoing a fundamental change as the country adapts to globalization as well as new trends of governance. Despite its tremendous achievements since its inception in 1901, the past century has witnessed an unending debate on the relevance of more federal power in relation to the issues of national significance, and for effective decision-making devolution frameworks as well as services to regional/local levels in a number of policy areas (Brown, 2001). Consequently, questions have risen regarding the best way that the three-tiered system can adjust to meet the integrated economy needs, in addition to meeting the needs of its diverse communities widely spread within the vast continent. To some extent, curiosity has also been raised on its capacity to achieve uniformity in terms of gains in all areas. These unending debates highlight the challenges that the federal system of government in Australia is currently facing, a factor that begs the question of whether federalism as a political system is relevant to Australia in this 21st century and whether it is a heavy burden for the Australian nation forging its path in a globalized world. This particular paper therefore intends to provide a discussion as regards this issue. To argue that federalism as a political system was a great idea in the 19th century but in the 21st century too heavy a burden for an Australian Nation forging its path in a globalized World is mistaken. According to Rhodes et.al (2006), federalism’s resurgence as a political system is partly attributable to its congruency with the current world order as well as the discarding of the prevailing orthodoxy of national sovereignty. Rhodes et.al (2006) highlights that the global environment has generally changed since the 19th century’s major focus on nation/state sovereignty and centralized governments to the 21st century’s primary focus on the issue of cosmopolitanism and multiple-sphere government. A particularly noted change relates to Keynesianism’s decline as neoliberal economics become popular, and the crumbling of the socialism along with centralist planning as market solutions take over in a number of domestic economies. According to Rhodes et.al (2006), federalism as a political system had been viewed as an impediment to the management of capitalist economies by a great number of 20th century commentators, who argued of federalism being obsolete while also influencing Australian post-war scholars. According to Rhodes et.al (2006), such arguments were not only unfounded but also often exaggerated with the flourishing of the established federations of nations particularly Australia, U.S and Canada. Besides, Rhodes et.al (2006) contends capitalism’s structural forces have significantly changed the combination of technological and economical developments producing a globalization version that has resulted in a relative reduction of the significance attached to nation states. In reaction, and partly due to the technological progress, the local as well as the regional groupings/communities are calling for greater participation, currently a phenomenon which has been considered as glocalization. In general, Rhodes et.al (2006) argues that federalism is largely attuned to the current 21st century post-sovereignty world marked by changing allegiances, overlapping jurisdiction tiers and new identities. To emphasize this, Rhodes et.al (2006), points out that the sub-national revolt, the emerging trans-national loyalties and the globalization of decision making within Western Europe indicate that processes responsible for the creation and sustenance of sovereign states within the region are already being reversed. In addition, the world has moved towards some of neo-medievalism associated with cross-cutting loyalties and overlapping structures. As such, complex interdependency characterizes a great deal of the contemporary world’s international relations. In view of the above therefore, Rhodes et.al (2006) highlights that to argue that federalism as a political system was a great idea in the 19th century but in the 21st century too heavy a burden for an Australian Nation forging its path in a globalized World is mistaken. On the other hand, since the Cold War period, the globe has witnessed a remarkable rise in what is being described by Patience (2003) as a predatory globalization. According to Patience (2003), the negative implication of this particular dynamism, as it appears within the current historical period, is imposing on the various governments the global capital discipline in a way that encourages economistic policy-making within the national decision arena, suppressing government outlooks, political entities, leaders as well as elites while also accentuating distress mainly to the vulnerable or the disadvantaged individuals and regions. One of the main consequences of this is associated with one-sided state depolticization where neo-liberalism prevails. This neo-liberalism mindset is argued to be extremely contradictory to matters regarding expenditures on welfare, public healthcare, environmental protection, job creation, poverty alleviation and education. As such, Patience (2003) suggests that, in such a global environment, Australia as a nation now needs to thoroughly re-evaluate the federal system currently used in Australia. Patience (2003) further questions whether the highly- fragmented federal structure shaped by an outdated constitution that failed to foresee the 20th century leave alone the 21st century can steer the nation securely through the current predatory globalization. According to Patience (2003) therefore, however nostalgic individuals may feel concerning the states or be committed towards the democratic federalism ideals, the response to federalism being too heavy a burden for an Australian Nation forging its path in a globalized World is a resounding yes. According to Adegehe (2009), there is an increasing interest as regards using federalism in managing ethnically-diverse nations. Australia, as the fourth largest nation worldwide in terms of the multi-ethnic population, is among the most ethnically-diverse societies globally today. As such, to argue that federalism as a political system was a great idea in the 19th century but in the 21st century too heavy a burden for an Australian Nation forging its path in a globalized World would not apply. In ethnically-diverse nations, as Habisso (2010) highlights, federalism is often regarded as a way of embracing cultural diversity. The political order associated with federalism gives space with regards to expressing different identities/diversities within a state such as Australia. It therefore acts as a political order facilitating peaceful co-existence of individuals from diverse cultures within a nation. The hope remains that in ethnically-divided nations, political acknowledgment of cultural/ethnic pluralism particularly through federalism as a political system not only lessens ethnic tension but also conflicts. Given this, federalism as a political system has been depicted as specifically a compromise between assimilationists centralization and ethnic nationalism (which just as classical nationalism advocates for congruence) by the dominant ethnic communities within multi-ethnic nations (Habisso, 2010).According to Habisso (2010), as a political system, federalism is also a national building tool as it preserves and protects the sub-national political groups/communities. From an individualistic view point, federalism calls for multiple loyalties while also facilitating expression of numerous identities. As such, Twomey & Withers (2007) argue that in a federal system that is relatively stable, the jurisdiction division involving the two government orders is often duplicated by the dual identities in addition to loyalties within the mind of every citizen. On the other hand, as highlighted by Rhodes et.al (2006), in as much as federalism has the capability of providing to the ethnically-distinct individuals an institutional basis, it can also paradoxically facilitate secession. As Rhodes et.al (2006) highlights, federalism is capable of exacerbating or mitigating ethnic conflicts while also placing emphasis on the fact that federalism as political system actually has a potential of whetting a particular region’s urge for secession by initiating conflict opportunities in addition to providing the region with opportunities and institutions necessary for mobilizing the secession support. According to Rhodes et.al (2006), calls for secessions within America’s southern states as well as Canada’s longstanding national crisis involving Quebec separatism highlight illustrative cases. Similarly, studies on failed federations as well as efforts to manage regions experiencing ethnic conflicts also highlight the risky as aspect of this particular political system. In general, Rhodes et.al (2006) highlights that federalism as a political system is often a problem where national sense among the citizens lacks, and where very sharp differences are evident among the regionally-based ethnic, linguistic and religious groups. Brown (2007) however argues that the Australian federal system is still dynamic as the nation forges towards the 21st century globalized world, despite the gridlocks that affected the 19th as well as the 20th century efforts at better accommodating regionalism in the constitutional settlement. Notwithstanding the unproductive outcomes from such deliberations, Brown (2007) highlights that other than the enormous past; there have been changes within the dynamism of the Australian federal system, especially regarding regionalism. According to Hollander & Patapan (2007), in nearly every aspect, the current federation is quite distinct from the previous federation of the year 1901 or the year 1910.As further highlighted by Hollander & Patapan (2007),growth in terms of financial control and federal influence has turn out to be phenomenal, especially during the current era of pragmatic federalism and regulatory federalism. According to Hollander & Patapan (2007), while some individuals have criticized this particular trend, to some extent it has had some significance not only to social but also economic development within the nation. It further holds potentials for the nationally-coordinated strategies of improving policy-making, delivery of services and the restructuring of the institutions at all the system levels. For instance, as argued by Hollander & Patapan (2007), in terms of the need for a highly efficient, effective and responsive system overall, then Intergovernmental collaboration, regional governance and growth in terms of the responsibility and competence of the local government will suffice. With regards to intergovernmental collaboration, for instance, the manner in which the various governments collaborate has significantly changed, and despite the pressure due to centralization, major discussions are ongoing on the relevance of a more robust and permanent system. For instance, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) and Federal Labour Party are united while supporting this path. As this collaboration intensifies, the existing governments exhibit very different relationships. As such, the notion about state governments being autonomous within their individual spheres, hence being intractably resistant particularly to pressures towards change has to a larger extent vanished. State governments currently have active dealings with other actors in areas that they used to dominate, while also minimizing their role within the public policy areas, as such highlighting the highly dynamic situation. In view of the above, there is no doubt that the 21st century Australian political landscape seems to holding enhanced prospects towards a generally productive approach including an increased capacity to arrive at more informed immediate/short-term decisions. In this regard, it would be wrong to argue that federalism as a political system was a great idea in the 19th century but in the 21st century it is too heavy a burden for an Australian Nation forging its path in a globalized World. On the other hand, according to Forbes (2013), federalism as political system has without a doubt failed in Australia. In this case, to argue that federalism as a political system was a great idea in the 19th century but in the 21st century too heavy a burden for an Australian Nation forging its path in a globalized World is definitely true. According to Forbes (2013), the main reason for the adoption of the political system was essentially to make it possible for the various states to have unity in matters such as foreign affairs and security (defense).Contrary to this however; Forbes (2013) argues that the Australian defense is pitiable while the power of Canberra to control matters associated with foreign affairs has also been extremely misused so as to facilitate the central government’s intrusion into a number of areas that it was denied by the Australian constitution. Federalism as a political system has therefore been highlighted by Forbes (2013) as having resulted in a distant, inflated, interfering and costly bureaucracy, as well as lawless government with a larger federal army. According to Forbes (2013), a true federalism where no single government/parliament body wields complete power or authority over a business or any individual is highly favourable towards competitive economies, democratic freedoms and power sharing. As such Forbes (2013) suggest that businesses everywhere, and especially within Queensland, ought not only to be concerned with protecting the most important elements found in federalism but also specifically attacking the centralist tendencies of federalism. As a political system, federalism was a great idea in the 19th century. However with the continued use within various nations including Australia, divergent views are emerging regarding its ability to maintain its relevance as it was in the 19th century. According to Twomey & Withers (2007), federalism is essentially not that old-fashioned system anchored within the past as many would relate it to. It is actually increasingly being employed worldwide and regarded as among the best in terms of handling pressures from the 21st century globalizing world. Indeed, the very system of federalism is currently very popular globally than ever before in history. As Twomey & Withers (2007) further argue, it is actually true that the Australian federal system is a product of the nation’s colonial history. It was simply not by reason of parochialism or by political convenience that the previous leaders settled on federalism as a political system, but it was because they were quite aware of reasons behind the established of the six distinct colonies in Australia. They found it quite difficult to govern the Australians spread across expansive distances away from Sidney. For the same reasons therefore, Twomey & Withers (2007) argue that, if Australians started afresh, it is probable that they will settle on the federal system. As global experiences reveal, there is still extreme difficulty in governing a geographically expansive nation through the unitary system. According to Twomey & Withers (2007), nearly all geographically expansive nations are federations including Canada, America, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, India and finally Australia as an expansive country. In view of this therefore, to argue that federalism as a political system was a great idea in the 19th century but in the 21st century too heavy a burden for an Australian Nation forging its path in a globalized World may not sound convincing. Conclusion From the analysis, it is clearly evident that federalism as a political system has again demonstrated its resilience as a significant governmental system just as it has proved its significance as an ideological dispensation. This is in spite of continuing skepticism regarding its appropriateness as well as its desirability within the current 21st century globalizing world. On the other hand, whether Federalism as a political system was a great idea in the 19th century but in the 21st century too heavy a burden for an Australian Nation forging its path in a globalized World seems to be a debatable issue. However in my opinion, I have actually presented a somehow optimistic viewpoint of federalism as a political system in Australia with regards to the 21st century globalizing world. Within this framework therefore, federalism along with federal experiences will definitely be more relevant to the current century of globalization than it has been previously. This will primarily be as a result of increased democracy though democracy in itself may occasionally be uncontrolled due to destructive/negative identity politics. Generally; therefore, federalism as political system will be quite relevant to the Australia’s politics regarding multiculturalism, citizenship, assimilation and accommodation. References Adegehe, A, ‎2009, Federalism, Federations and Ethnic Conflict: Concepts and Theories Brown, A.J, 2007, Chapter 2: Federalism, Regionalism and the Reshaping of Australian Governance Brown, A.J, 2001, Australian federalism – a Troubled History: Reform of Australia’s Federal System: Identifying the Benefits: a Discussion Paper Summary, Retrieved on 30th August,2013 from http://epress.anu.edu.au/anzsog/fra/mobile_devices/appendix/ar01s02.html Fenna, A, 2012, Best Laid Plans? Intentions, Design, and Outcomes in Australian federalism Forbes, V, 2013, The New Federalism [1990], Australia’s E-journal of Social and Political Debate Habisso, T, 2010, Multi-ethnic (Multinational) Federalism in Plural Societies: Does it make a Difference? Retrieved on 2nd September, 2013 http://www.ethiopianreporter.com/pre-en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1350:multiethnic-multinational-federalism-in-plural-societies-does-it-make-a-difference&catid=103:politics-and-law&Itemid=513 Hollander, R & Patapan, H, 2007, ‘Pragmatic Federalism: Australian Federalism from Hawke to Howard’, Australian Journal of Political Science 42 (2) Patience, A, 2003, Australian Federalism in a Globalizing World Rhodes, R, Binder, S & Rockman, B. (2006).The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, Oxford Handbooks Series, Oxford Handbooks Online Twomey, A & Withers, G, 2007, Federalist Paper 1: Australia’s Federal Future: A Report for the Council for the Australian Federation Read More