This module unpacks three ideas that are at the core of federalism, self-rule and shared-rule, division of powers, these are the foundational ideas underpinning federalism. These ideas lie behind decentralization as well, but not as pronounced as in federalism. Put simply, different orders of government do different things, some on their own, some together. This who-does-what of division of responsibilities defines federalism. In some policy areas, the regional governments have the final say. In others, the central government, and yet in others, they share power. This power is composed of three political functions of the Trias Politica, legislative, executive, and judiciary. In federalism, regional states have all three functions to varying degrees. In decentralization, we see a weaker application of the same federal principle. And we see more of the executive power devolved to regional and local levels, and some limited legislative power is required for the administration of these devolved policy areas. Now all this talk is a big part of federalism of course, some might say this is what federalism is. But if we take a broader and a more holistic view, governments, constitutions, law do not function in isolation from the people. Ours is not a world inhabited by governments. It is one inhabited by people, and it is the people who are subjected multiple orders of government, therefore, we cannot fully capture federal thinking without looking at the people. People who live in different countries with multiple orders of government, and who deal with local, regional and central levels of government in their daily lives. The core idea here is that different issues, different political loyalties, and different priorities guide the citizens' relationship with multiple orders of government. We can be different people when dealing with different governments. Okay. What does that really mean, being different people when dealing with different governments? Some of you might be familiar with a type of self-identification questionnaire that asked respondents, do you feel more British or Scottish, and have options like British only, Scottish only, both, more Scottish than British, more British than Scottish and so on. This, we see in Africa as well. One could feel more Nigerian than say Igbo or the way around, or feel both to varying degrees. Federalism provides an outlet for these divided sentiments and identification. Since citizens have to deal with different orders of government, having multiple identities is a natural state of affairs for federalism. Sometimes different component parts of our multiple identities could change with time. We might be more of a firebrand regional nationalist in our youth but evolved towards a more conservative nationwide politics with age, so the results of self-identification questionnaires might be different when 25 years old and when 65. And sometimes, the different component parts of our multiple identities could change with place. One might feel more British living in Edinburgh in Scotland, disagree with Scottish Nationalist policies, oppose the separation of Scotland and identify with Great Britain. But the very same person might change their views once they relocate to England. Here, in another part of the union, it is not unlikely that the former supporter of British unity, an opponent of Scottish nationalism might discover his or her attachment to Scottishness. Something that was not an issue when surrounded by Scots in Scotland. But there is something else than just having multiple identities that are liable to evolve with time and place. Policy areas matter too. Different issues, priorities and loyalties guide our relationship with different levels of government. In some policy areas, particularly those that are closely related to identity issues like education and culture, we might hold strongly regionalist views, expecting the regional state to be the order of government with autonomy. But on say, natural resources, we might be of the view that these belong to the entire country, regardless of where they are extracted, and therefore, some sort of regional equity should be ensured throughout the country through the corporation of regional states and the center. So depending on the policy area, we could be both centralist and regionalist at the same time, hence being different people when dealing with different governments. The division of power between the central region and local levels of government means that they all do different things. By extension, it also means that we expect different things of them. So the policy area in question matters in terms of our priorities. So our political preferences are not set in stone. For example, supporter anger towards one level of government could easily spill over into the nether. So we might be incensed with what the central government has done in foreign policy, so we'll switch our support to another political party at the regional level. Without going too much into electoral behavior and party politics, suffice to say that it is important to remember that our political preferences are not immutable and are likely to change across orders of government, issues and time. Instead of seeing this as a chaotic inconsistency, a more generous view is to see it as an indispensable part of politics in a system defined by multiple orders of government. Political disagreement is an indispensable part of democratic politics. Hence, expect everything to be defined by consensus can inadvertently lead to the oppressive weight of majority prejudice. While federalism, and to a certain extent, decentralization, often come with citizens with multiple identities, there is a territorial element here. The territorially concentrated political identities have more voice than other type of identities. What I mean here is that both federalism and decentralization empower political identities that are territorially concentrated. The regional and local levels of government become venues for these identities. Federalism and decentralization are quite helpless when it comes to political identities that lack such concentration. Neither the regional nor the local government can become the voice. And ethnic group could have a sizable number but might be spread throughout the country preventing it from translating its demographic strength into political strength. But a much smaller ethnic group might have federal political representation. Sometimes proportionally higher than their share of the population because they live in a compact, cohesive, concentrated territory that is or can become a regional state. We had started this video lecture by saying that government's constitutions, laws did not function in isolation from the people. At the same time, identities of individuals gain political meaning through representation. Different electoral systems emphasize different components of those multiple identities to play out. I don't want to start a detailed comparative discussion of electoral systems here, but at the same time, we cannot ignore the role electoral systems play in molding identities into political preferences. In very simple terms, we can have what is known as the first-past-the-post system that is single-member electoral districts sending in the candidate with the largest share of the vote. Or, we can have an electoral system of proportional representation, seats within multiple-member electoral seats would be divided between candidates, based on the proportion of the votes they receive. First-past-the-post tends to create fewer parties as it forces pre-election alliances seeking the largest share of the vote. Quite simply because small parties cannot survive in this system. Proportional representation, on the other hand, tends to create a number of political parties. But often elections are followed by lengthy coalition building negotiations because no single party can muster parliamentary majority. There is no hard set rule to this but the general tendencies that first-past-the-post does not allow a full representation of a country's diversity, if that diversity is nationwide. But if the ethnic groups making up the country live in territorially concentrated form, it becomes easier to win the largest share of the vote in a single member electoral district. First-past-the-post then leads to electoral strength, even if this is one part of the country. Proportional electoral systems, on the other hand, can capture nationwide diversity. But it will intensify the political rivalries at the regional level with the risk of polarizing the relationship between ethnic communities. Now I hope the pieces are starting to come together now, the constitutional division of responsibilities, separation of power, identity politics, electoral systems, party politics, legal systems. It seems we have to look at everything under the sun in order to make sense of federals. Now, is that good or bad? Well, I'll have to leave you with that cliff hanger. But do not miss our video overview of module two where we revisit some of these foundational issues that lie at the heart of all this. Until then, a little bit of suspense.
