In this political science course you will learn about the twin concepts of federalism and decentralization. You will develop an understanding of the core ideas that federalism and decentralization rest on, and study the building blocks that make them both work. Following a general overview of both federalism and decentralization, we will examine a number of case-studies from Africa where federalism and decentralization have been changing the continent’s political landscape in the last twenty years, coinciding with unprecedented levels of economic growth. What is federalism and how is it different from decentralization? What are the core ideas behind these concepts? Do federalism and decentralization enhance democracy, governance and diversity? Is that why virtually all countries south of the Sahara are now either federal or decentralized? We will be looking at Africa's track-record in order to answer these questions. By the end of the course, you will have acquired a general knowledge of federalism/decentralization and additional empirical knowledge of a number of African cases. Upon completion you will also acquire the ability to unpack and understand a variety of potential consequences of federalism/decentralization reforms in the developing world.
Overview - Foundational Issues
Loading...
來自 Universiteit Leiden 的課程
Federalism & Decentralization: Evaluating Africa's Track Record
79 個評分
從本節課中
Core Ideas in Federalism and Decentralization
This module will cover important concepts such as shared-rule and self-rule, autonomy, multiple identities and distributed authority. Don't forget to keep up with the readings for optimal understanding and application of this week's material. Do you have any questions, statements, remarks or other points you would like to discuss? Do not hesitate to post them in the Discussion Forums and a staff member or other course participants will be able to help you out.
與講師見面
Dr. Jan Erk
Fellow, Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study, (STIAS)
Welcome to the final video lecture of module two devoted to examining the core
ideas in federalism and decentralization.
I hope, by now, you're slowly gaining a sense
of the twin concepts of federalism and decentralization.
I think in this overview,
it is important to highlight a couple of the big foundational questions.
One of the reasons why the 1990s witnessed federal and decentralization
reform throughout sub-Saharan Africa was partly due to the simplified
understanding of both concepts, and the accompanying inflated promises.
Both were concepts simplified into easy sound bites and
the accompanying complexity was erased out of the picture.
Not surprisingly, the promise of 20 years ago now give way to disappointment.
This will be a topic that we will examine in depth in the concluding module six.
However, at this point, it is important to highlight one thing that might have
been obvious to some of you who have prior knowledge of some of the political science
and development economics, literature on federalism and decentralization.
For those who are only now becoming acquainted with the twin concepts and
an explanatory note here might be warranted.
Our course follows an interdisciplinary approach and
seeks a holistic understanding of both federalism and decentralization.
The disciplines of constitutional law, electoral politics, political philosophy,
public administration, comparative politics are all put to use.
We look at the broader political, social, economic, cultural, historical,
demographic and geographical context in order to understand what is going on.
Ours is not a quest for a simplified understanding.
If we were to stick only to explicitly federal issues and
ignore background factors to all the broader context,
we will get a somewhat distorted picture of federalism.
But the promises and pitfalls have reasons beyond federalism in a strict sense.
But differently,
federalism is too important to have its significance exaggerated.
If you're expecting simplified sound bites, instant fixes, quick solutions, and
magic formulas, well then this is not your course.
Had there been easy answers in the world, we would have already found them.
The second foundational issue I want to address in this overview is the need to
see both federalism and decentralization as more than technical matters, and
the need to adopt a bigger perspective of democratic politics.
This means the need to reign in our majoritarian impulses
when evaluating federalism and decentralization.
In video lecture three, we talked about how political disagreement was
an indispensable part of democratic politics, and
to expect everything to be defined by consensus
could inadvertently lead to the oppressive weight of majority prejudice.
In his book on Liberty, published in 1859, the English philosopher, John Stuart Mill,
wrote on how a potential for the tyranny of majority exists in democracies,
and how important it was for the minority
to be protected against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling.
Sure, working together in consensus sounds like the best way forward, so what
could be wrong with shared jurisdiction between regions and the center?
And doing things together for national priorities, but if you are the little guy
working together with a BMF, that might not sound that good, or
if you're the little guy but have to work with a bunch of little
guys who don't like you, then life could become pretty miserable.
The central government is bigger, richer and
it can easily turn the majority view against the so-called dissenters,
trouble makers, separatists who don't tow the line.
But in many ways, these dissenters, trouble makers and
separatists play a big role in consolidating federalism
by legitimizing democratically expressed dissent.
These are like Canada's Quebec, Belgium's Flanders, Spain's Catalonia and
Basque provinces.
These ethnolinguistically distinct regions set the parameters of autonomy for
other regions to follow over the years.
Once trailblazed by these distinct regions,
dissent becomes acceptable to other regions who might not have such distinct
historic, ethnic linguistic roots.
The experience then shows that disagreement need
not automatically mean civil war.
Over time,
the acceptance that multiple points of view exist in itself is a success.
This then showcases federalism's ability to manage ethnolinguistic divisions.
And this is an important point on the line.
Federalism is not about solving divisions, and
please be suspicious of those who peddle final solutions to problems.
Federalism is about managing divisions, and
by legitimizing minority views, dissent and disagreement.
Federalism is about the management of political divisions.
It is about dividing political power in order to prevent
its unaccountable concentration.
And it is about the non-majoritarian protection of minorities.
And all this is done through corporate representation
that coexists with individual representation.
For many of you,
the contemporary use corporate is often a reference to economic corporations.
Now this is not what I mean by corporate representation.
The word corporate comes from the Latin corpus meaning body.
And corporate representation means that collective groups.
Regional and local governments, in this case, have representation.
It is a non-majoritarian democratic system based on orders of government and
not a simple one citizen, one vote system.
I believe most of you are somewhat familiar with American politics and
their presidential system.
Now this might be an opportunity to unpack what I mean here.
The United States of America is a federation composed of 50 regional states.
When Americans vote for their President, that is not an election that unites
the entire country in a one citizen, one vote unity.
Instead, Americans vote in the states they inhabit for
an electoral college who then votes for the president.
The electoral college votes are tallied by adding the number of House seats with
the Senate seats.
Each American state has two senators based on the federal principle of equality, but
America is also a country of 50 states, so there is also a need for a one citizen,
one vote representation to accompany the regional state's corporate representation.
House of Representative seats are designed to this end, that is, designed to
represent American citizens regardless of which regional state they inhabit.
Wyoming is the smallest state in population so
it has only one House seat, but of course, as a regional state, it has two senators.
Adding these together gives you the number of electoral college votes.
So Wyoming has three.
California, on the other hand, has the largest population, so
it has 53 House seats.
It automatically gets those two senators, so it has 55 electoral college votes.
Americans do not vote for their President, they vote for
an electoral college of their regional state who then votes for the President.
This might not appear ideal to some of you and
might violate our majoritarian impulses.
But it is worth reflecting on how Americans have avoided a tyranny of
majority by providing corporate representation and thereby preventing
the 50% plus one imposing their will on the 49%.
In this final overview of module two, we had a chance to revisit some of
the foundational issues that did not come out during the previous lectures.
One of the key issues here is to avoid seeing federalism and
decentralization as merely technical issues, and
the need to adopt an interdisciplinary broad framework.
The second foundational issue that we revisited in this overview is the need to
see both federalism and decentralization as part of democratic politics in general.
And, that is the need to combine tolerance for dissent, disagreement, and
multiplicity of views.
Now having covered those two foundational issues,
I think we're ready to start module three.
