Federalism Disad



Download 0.57 Mb.
Page50/56
Date conversion16.05.2016
Size0.57 Mb.
1   ...   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   ...   56

Iraq federalism leads to fragmentation and war

Walen, teacher of philosophy of law at the University of Baltimore, 2003


(Alec, April 10, “Federalism For Postwar Iraq: How Federalism May Make Democracy Work,”

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030410_walen.html)



Unfortunately for the DPWG, federalism in Iraq seems to carry a huge cost: devolving power to the provinces threatens to lead to the disintegration of Iraq as a country. Each province could grow to feel that it has its own distinct identity, and that it would be better off governing itself without any restrictions from the center. The dangers of fragmentation are quite real. Fragmentation would likely result in a series of bloody of civil wars, made especially grave as groups struggle to control Iraq's vast oil reserves. In addition, the secession of the Kurds in particular would likely draw Turkey into the fray. Turkey has a large Kurdish population of its own, and it does not want to see an independent Kurdistan on its borders, tempting its own Kurds to try to secede in order to create a greater Kurdistan. Given these dangers, it is no surprise that the State Department has not embraced the DPWG's Final Report. Indeed, the State Department has of late been pushing a plan that actually looks to keep the bulk of the current Iraqi administration, minus the leading figures, in place. This seems to leave Iraq between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, the democratic movement's plan seems to threaten the stability of Iraq. On the other hand, the State Department's plan would not amount to meaningful regime change. And regime change that merely takes out some leading figures, that does not create fundamental democratic reforms, would not be worth the costs of the war, a war waged under the name "Iraqi Freedom."

Nigeria Models US Federalism




Nigeria models US federalism – empirically proven

Defense & Foreign Affairs' Strategic Policy, 2005


(“Oil as Troubled Waters” GRC June) lexis
By contrast, he notes: "The most exemplary practice of federalism is to be found in the United States of America where the people of the constituent states maintain a near 100 percent control over their resources and pay taxes to sustain the central government."
In the United States, the
federalist thinking remains strong, and the US Senate remains the focus of the protection of states' rights within the federation. That principle also was emplaced in, for example, Australia and Nigeria, but in both those central parliamentary systems, the senates and senators have largely forgotten that their mandate is to uphold the rights of the states within the system. Similarly, in Britain, the House of Lords was established largely to protect the rights of the land; the dispersed rural identities of the counties. In Britain, too, that role has been forgotten, as the massive centralization in London has literally abandoned the traditional rights of the less-densely-populated rural areas.

American federalism is modeled in Nigeria

Ejobowah, Department of Global Studies, 2003
[John Boye, “The New Political Economy of Federal Preservation: Insights from the Nigerian Federal Practice”, http://www.queensu.ca/politics/rgonemc/EjobowahFederalismPaper2.pdf]


Finally, the new political economy implicitly argues for a uniform federal system, contrary to established knowledge about the varieties that exist in the world (Watts 2001).

Federations in Western Europe and the Canadian one have their distinctive national qualities and they rank among the wealthiest economies. Yet, in the new political economy, the requirements for federal preservation—freedom of subnational governments to make domestic economic policies, hard budget constraints, structural separation of national power, and juridical rules—translate into the American model that is presidential and in which transfer payments or equalization grants are little or non existent. Indeed, McKinnon (1997) is direct when he compares the efficiency and prosperity of the formerly depressed American South with the poor regions of Canada, Italy, and Germany that are depended on intergovernmental transfers. Similarly, Ferejohn, Bednar, and Eskeridge (1997) present the American system as the most robust and resilient of the three cases they studied.8 But as Kincaid (2001) has argued, it is difficult to present firm conclusions on the advantages and disadvantages of a particular model given the varieties that exist today.

Nigeria proves US federalism modeled globally

Natufe, Ph.D., 01
[O. Igho “Framework For Renewed Federalism in Nigeria” http://www.ngex.com/personalities/voices/natufe020801.htm]


The United States and Canada remain the models of federalism. Other successful federations, for instance, Australia, Germany, India, and Malaysia have built on the U.S. and Canadian examples. What is the state of federalism in Nigeria? The argument in favour of the status quo in Nigeria is based primarily on the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. This constitution, supposedly a federal constitution, is in reality a unitary document that structures the country into obsequious administrative units that are referred to as states. Besides the name of the document, its core is defined in strict unitary terms. In contrast to the 1963 Republican Constitution, the 1999 variant is reflective of the military doctrine that inspired its drafting. It is highly unlikely that the military, a unitary command-based institution will produce a federal constitution. The basic tenets of military political orientation hinder its capability to design a federal polity. Furthermore, given his military training, it is obvious that President Obasanjo does not possess the dispositions nor the coordinating skills required of federalists. Thus, in political and economic terms, Nigeria is administered as a unitary polity. As will be demonstrated later in this paper, an examination of selected jurisdictional questions in the 1999 Constitution clearly underlines the command-centralizing powers of the central government vis-a-vis the states. This tendency subordinates the states to the central government, a contradiction of the key fundamental premise of federalism. As any perceptive scholar of Nigerian federalism will know, Nigeria was on its way to emulating the United States' example in its 1963 Republican Constitution, until the military aborted the democratic process on January 15, 1966.

1   ...   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   ...   56


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page