Many states, especially in the developing world are torn between entrenched mononationalism and the need to keep with the changing world. It is precisely because the ultimate aim of all human efforts should be to help shape the world into a better and safe place for all, that the normative value of the study of the relationship between federalism and nationalism becomes urgent. To that end as Burgess has convincingly argued, a true multinational federation holds promises not just for an individual state but as a possible future order in a globalised world. Therefore it is important to focus on federalism as a ‘peace-creating’ government model, because enough evidence suggests that federalism holds the capacity to engage with nationalism in a creative manner. What are the conditions under which federalism will be considered favourably? What are the challenges for this endeavour? How to conquer them? What is the most acceptable way to introduce federalism as a political solution to many states that are bleeding? Is it possible for a universal institute like the UN to create a charter on federalism for ratification by member states? These are questions that needs further, long term academic, empirical and experimental endeavours.
Suren Raghavan, a researcher at University of Ottawa, explores the symbiotic relationship between nationalism and federalism. As he goes on to note:
The relationship between federalism as an institutional arrangement to accommodate the social force of nationalism could be seen from different ways states have dealt with them. There are at least two opposing approaches observable, both largely influenced by the constitutional nature of a state.
1. Nationalism by sub groups is a reality and could be incorporated into national politics with institutional arrangements. India stands as the best example of this approach. Followed by Canada. Two factors could promote this process of ‘incorporation’. First the incorporated national group is smaller, in compared with the rest of the federation, as in the case of Nunavut of Canada and all the new states created in India. Secondly, the presence of a stronger political identity between the region and federal body through a national party like the Indian Congress or UMNO in Malaysia. As shown earlier, all these states have some form of federalism.
2. More states often have tried to coerce demands of sub national groups. History is full of examples of such approach, and the human suffering that followed. Turkey’s response to the Kurdish national demand , Sri Lanka’s response to the Tamil political aspirations, all have produced long drawn social conflicts. When used, coercion has produced long term negative results even in developed world, as witnessed during the Thatcher regime towards IRA. It is clear; these states are unitary in their constitutions.
It is not difficult to decide which institutional system has dealt with nationalism in a positive manner. Why then, state political elites like those in Sri Lanka fear federalism, they rather engage in a destructive civil war than to consider a form of federalism? This is a question that brings furthers difficult questions.
Download the article in full as a PDF here.