Understanding Federalism and Federation by Alain-G. Gagnon & Soeren Keil

Author:Alain-G. Gagnon & Soeren Keil [Gagnon, Alain-G. & Keil, Soeren]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Political Science, Essays, General
ISBN: 9781317004967
Google: 9Ha1CwAAQBAJ
Goodreads: 29512897
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2015-08-28T00:00:00+00:00

Recognition (as Integration and Accommodation) versus Empowerment

In addition to addressing the tensions between ancient and modern constitutionalism, political scientists, state managers and political philosophers have been engaged in a major debate over the best way to take into account cultural and national diversities. I have advanced a series of arguments in L’âge des incertitudes: Essais sur le fédéralisme et la diversité nationale (Gagnon, 2011) concerning these issues, some of which I wish to highlight here in connection with Michael Burgess’s contribution to the literature on Canadian federalism.

Running through this debate is what John McGarry, Brendan O’Leary and Richard Simeon have identified as an ‘integration–accommodation continuum’. The authors have joined with those who promote various forms and different levels of accommodation for national minorities. Although, it ought to be mentioned that they are generally supportive of the claims emanating from national minorities in existing states, so long as minorities comply with established democratic practices and do not undermine or challenge the stability of existing regimes.

Qualitatively, this position is very different from that of other researchers who argue that accommodation practices in terms of positive action for minorities (as well as in terms of education and religious rights) can, in Sujit Choudhry’s (2008: 14) words, ‘entrench, perpetuate and exacerbate the very divisions they are designed to manage’.

Here it is useful to return to Arend Lijphart’s pioneering study of consociational democracies. Lijphart warned of the dangers in denying the existence of national minorities or of trying to shift their allegiance to, for example, a broader political community or majority nation. According to Lijphart,

Although the replacement of segmental loyalties by a common national allegiance appears to be a logical answer to the problems posed by a plural society, it is extremely dangerous to attempt it. Because of the tenacity of primordial loyalties, any effort to eradicate them not only is quite unlikely to succeed, especially in the short run, but may well be counterproductive and may stimulate segmental cohesion and intersegmental violence rather than national cohesion. (Lijphart, 1977: 24)

The use of the integration–accommodation dyad appears to lead to an impasse and, from my account, simply contributes to soothing the consciences of majority nations. In fact, the integration–accommodation dyad preserves hierarchical power relations. A majority nation might employ integration policies in cases where the minority nations are dispersed, but use more or less ambitious accommodation policies when minority nations are concentrated and may put up political resistance. Yet, the intention remains the same: the perpetuation of power relationships that are unfavourable to minority nations, and this intention feeds minority nations’ distrust of dominant groups.1

Consider O’Leary’s provoking text on the subject of the importance of having a ‘Federal Staatsvolk’ for states’ stability. O’Leary argues that the survival of democratic federations depends on there being a ‘Staatsvolk’, in other words, the presence of a nation or ethnic group that can demographically and electorally dominate intra-national communities. O’Leary suggests that the minimum demographic threshold must be 50 per cent of the population in the territory in question and,

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.