FEDERALISM AFTER THE COLD WAR: PROBLEM OF CHOICE AND IMPLEMENTATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2786-9156.110.2.27-35Keywords:
federalism, federal system, administrative-territorial system, autonomy, democracy, federative society, authoritarian federalismAbstract
The paper analyzes federal structures, the reasons for their introduction, and the peculiarities of the functioning of federalism in the post-Cold War period. It is established that the existing theoretical concepts of federalism analyze stable federal systems that developed before the beginning of the Second World War. It is emphasized that after the end of the Cold War, new federal systems emerged in different parts of the world or separate federal structures were introduced in unitary states that have not yet undergone systematic research. Based on the analysis of modern federal practice, it is determined that new federal institutions in heterogeneous societies are often supported by informal channels, the influence of which is diametrically opposed to the essence of federalism. Against the background of the dominance of the identification of federalization and democratization in classical theories of federalism, it is proven that in modern transitional regimes, the creation of federal institutions can have the opposite effect. “Authoritarian federalism” is analyzed, it is proven that this variant of the federal system is not a true federation. The territorial policy of Ukraine is analyzed through the prism of federalism.The main conclusions of the study: federalism should be understood as a process, not as a fixed institutional design; federalization of the state system in modern states is not the ultimate goal; the most common circumstance that contributes to the introduction of federal structures is a “federal society”, but diversity itself, including ethnolinguistic, is not yet a “federal society”. The conclusion is made about the inexpediency of introducing federalism in Ukraine, and a decentralized unitary system is given a reasoned preference. Prospects for further research are identified: analysis of the introduction and functioning of federal structures in states with different political regimes and their impact on solving the problems of heterogeneous societies.
Downloads
References
1. Burgess M. Federalism and federation: Putting the record straight. 50 Shades of Federalism. Retrieved April 4, 2020. URL: https://50shadesoffederalism.com/theory/federalism-federation-putting-record-straight/
2. Stepan A. Federalism and democracy: Beyond the U.S. model. Journal of Democracy. 1994. № 10 (4).
3. Braun D. (Föderalismus. Helms L., Jun U. (Eds.) Politische Theorie und Regierungslehre. Eine Einführung in die politik wissenschaftliche Institutionen forschung, 2004. P. 130–162.
4. Benz A., Broschek J. Conclusion. Theorizing federal dynamics. Benz А., Broschek J. (Eds.) Federal dynamics: Continuity, change, and the varieties of federalism. 2013. P. 366–388.
5. Benz A., Kropp S. Föderalismus in Demokratien und Autokratien – Vereinbarkeiten, Spannungsfelder und Dynamiken. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politik wissenschaft. Comparative Governance and Politics. 2014. № 8. P. 1–27.
6. Popelier P. Dynamic federalism. 50 Shades of Federalism. Retrieved April 20, 2020. URL: https://50shadesoffederalism.com/theory/dynamic-federalism/
7. Babalola D. The political economy of federalism in Nigeria. Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
8. Riker W. H. Federalism: Origin, operation, signifcance. Little, Brown & Company, 1964.
9. Erk J., Koning E. New structuralism and institutional change: Federalism between centralization and decentralization. Comparative Political Studies. 2010. № 43 (3). P. 353–378.
10. Hale H. E. Hybrid regimes-When autocracy and democracy mix. Brown N. J. (Ed.) Dynamics of democratization: Dictatorship, development, and diffusion. 2011. P. 23–45.
11. Brubaker R. Nationalizing states revisited: Projects and processes of nationalization in post-Soviet states. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 2011. № 34 (11). P. 1785–1814.
12. Erk J., Anderson L. The paradox of federalism: Does self-rule accommodate or exacerbate ethnic divisions? Regional & Federal Studies. 2009. № 19 (2). P. 191–202.
13. Kymlicka W. Multi-nation federalism. He В., Galligan В., Inoguchi Т. (Eds.) Federalism in Asia. 2007. P. 33–56.
14. Norman W. Negotiating nationalism-Nation-building, federalism, and secession in the multinational state. Oxford University Press, 2006.
15. Behnke N., Mueller S. Better together? The purpose of intergovernmental councils in federal states. Regional & Federal Studies. 2017. № 5.
16. Hale H. E. Patronal politics: Eurasian regime dynamics in comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
17. Kapidzic D. Subnational competitive authoritarianism and power-sharing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. Retrieved April 20. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2020.1700880.
18. Keil S., Anderson P. Decentralization as a tool of confict resolution. Detterbeck K., Hepburn E. (Eds.). Handbook of territorial politics. 2018. Р. 89–106.
19. Keil S. Federalism as a tool of confict resolution. Kincaid J. (Ed.) A research agenda for federalism studies. 2019. Р. 151–161.
20. Bermeo N. Conclusion: The merits of federalism. Bermeo N., Amoretti U. (Eds.). Federalism and territorial cleavage. 2004. Р. 457–483.
21. Watts R. Federalism, Federal Political System, and Federation. Annual Review of Political Science. 1998. № 1 (1). Р. 117–137.
