|
Federal
federation federalism
WORLD
CONSTITUTION
WORLD
CONSTITUION
|
Federal federation
federalism - Some Approaches
The word federal is derived from the Latin foedus, meaning an alliance,
covenant or treaty. The founders of the US Federal Constitution (1789),
still in full vigour, unfortunately sowed confusion - which persists to
this day - by using the terms federation and confederation interchangeably.
It is important nowadays to make a clear distinction between these diametrically
opposed expressions, the difference between them being as vital as that
between peace and war.
"Confederation" is applied to a pact between (sovereign) States
associated in a sort of league. This was the case with the League of Nations,
created after WW I: it is again the case with UN - its genetic successor
despite certain non-essential differences.
A "federation" or federal union is a compact between peoples,
who retain their regional autonomy and cultural identity. It entails the
delegation of power over international affairs to a body separate from
the national governments. This is the federal solution, logical, rational
and practical.
Thus, although "federation" and "confederation" both
suggest a kind of treaty, they differ quite fundamentally.
Similarly, the terms "federal government" and "central
government" are often confused. "Federal" is opposed to
"central" in the sense that if the central government has power
to interfere in regional matters the system is not federal.
"Federal government means a division of functions between authorities
which in no way are subordinate to each other either in the extent or
in the exercise of their allotted functions."
Prof. K.C.WHEARE -
"What Federal Government is
It is unfortunate that the pioneer federalists did not coin a completely
new name for the novel system they discovered. This would have obviated
much subsequent confusion, and perhaps also the rather pejorative connotation
attached to the term "federation" nowadays. Applying Wheare's
criteria, we thus have in the modern world four true federations: the
USA, Canada, Switzerland and Australia. When it becomes federal, the European
Union will be unique. A world-wide democratic federation would no doubt
be completely different from any of these models, its powers being essentially
restricted to maintaining just and enduring peace.
There is much talk about reforming the UN, by improving its ability to
reach and enforce decisions. This aim may be desirable, but we must not
create a Prætorian Guard without ensuring that it is under democratic
control. Otherwise we shall have a Super-State, a tyranny.
The world must decide whether to re-create a world-wide international
organization that cannot be a government, or to devise an international
government that cannot at the outset cover the entire globe. One solution
is to leave the security side of the UN as it is - a diplomatic bourse,
a debating society - and to construct alongside it a model of the new
world order, designed on scientific lines.
In this connection it seems paradoxical that the teachings of federalists
such as Washington, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Streit, Curry, Reves, Curtis
and Nash are now being ignored or forgotten by would-be builders of the
new world order.
These are the fundamental principles of federalism:
(a) The primary cause of war is national sovereignty.
(b) The cure for international anarchy is international government. ("Government
is the only alternative to solution by combat that mankind has discovered."
W.B.Curry, "The Case for Federal Union." )
(c) An international government must derive its authority
from the governed - its citizens.
(d) Its laws must act directly on the citizens. (Law cannot be enforced
without violence unless it acts directly on individuals.)
(e) Its parliament must therefore be directly elected by the
citizens.
(f) Its powers must be explicitly restricted to international affairs
only, all other powers being left with the national parliaments and citizens
where they already rest. This division of powers would make the system
federal.
Such a union should be open to all other nations able and willing to meet
the democratic requirements of the constitution.
The modern world needs to be united in many respects and wishes to remain
separate in most others. There is tremendous potential in these apparently
conflicting desiderata, which federalism can reconcile. There is thus
every reason why the federalist movement - in the face of such urgent
problems - should rapidly conquer public opinion by chain reaction. It
should begin by demonstrating that federation can give the world what
it needs and wants: both unity and individuality. The world is a global
village, made up of its separate
households. Federalism is a counter to war, in the sense that for
the first time in history a political movement adopts peace as the
ideal to be followed, just as liberalism adopted democracy, and socialism
the ideals of liberty, equality and social justice. In particular, European
federalism was born out of the horrors of fascism and of WW II, without
which the idea might have still remained a theoretical speculation. Similarly,
federalism can open the way of escape from an alarming international situation,
in view of the scores of armed conflicts which continue to ravage the
world.
Federalism represents that stage in human emancipation of which
the objective is no longer to liberate the human being as a member of
a class or of a nation but as a person in his complex global identity,
as a member - without discrimination - of the human race and at the same
time as an individual member of his local community.
Ideas and text Harold S. BIDMEAD* and Joseph PESCHON for FCE,
B.P. 208, L-2012 LUXEMBOURG (* author of THE PARLIAMENT OF MAN, The Federation
of the World (#) 256pp incl.index £8.95 UK)
We grant free licence to publish, in whole or in part, provided two printed
copies are sent to us. This MS is on disk - WordPerfect 5.1 H.S.B. J.P.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
#) Distributor bankrupt. HSB bought small remaining stock; Hopes to break
even at following prices: £5 each, but 9 for £45, 18 for £70,
post free.
ORDER: To Harold S. Bidmead, Nedre Slottsg.4 N-0157 Oslo Norway:
Please arrange to send me ...... copies of "THE PARLIAMENT OF MAN"
for £.....post free, for which I enclose £, NOK, $ or CHF
cheque/ M.O/ bank draft or equivalent in convertible currency/notes.
Name (block caps.please)...................... Address ....................
Town, Zip code, ................... Country .............................
WORLD
CONSTITUTION
A world-wide federal constitution might read as follows:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THIS FEDERAL COMMONWEALTH ("The UNION"), determined
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to ensure that
decisions are made by those most closely concerned, and to secure a better
defence of the fundamental human rights, do hereby establish this as our
Constitution:
1. For the purpose of abolishing war, the Union shall have a common legislature
("PARLIAMENT") to which we delegate full and exclusive powers
in matters of defence and foreign policy, (including powers over civil
aviation, nuclear energy, and authority to tax adequately for such purposes).
Certain powers, e.g. over the environment, may be shared between
the Union and the States (the states ratifying this Constitution) on mutually
agreed formulae. All other powers shall remain where they already rest,
with the States or with the people. Disputes concerning the division of
powers between the Union and the States shall be settled by the Union
Supreme Court. The rights not expressly given to the Union by this Constitution
nor forbidden by it to the States or to the people are reserved by it
to the States respectively, or to the people.
2. In principle, the laws of the Union shall apply only on individuals,
and shall be enforced with the minimum of violence. (Here might follow
sub- sections outlining how laws applying e.g. to legal entities will
be enforced by making their responsible officers liable to punishment
for infringement).
3. Nothing in this Constitution shall prevent any member State from making
treaties or the like (relating to matters within its constitutional purview)
with the Union or other member States for their mutual benefit, in order
to facilitate e.g. free trade*. Any treaty to which a member State is
a party when this Constitution enters into force shall, to the extent
that it relates to matters within the purview of the Union, be administered
by the Union Board, to be terminated or re-negotiated at its discretion.
§4. Membership of the Union is open to all other peace-loving states
that accept the obligations contained in this Constitution and which,
in the judgment of the Union, are able and willing to perform these obligations.
§5. The principal organs of the Union are the PARLIAMENT
(comprising two Houses: the Senate consisting of Senators elected by the
states on a weighted system of representation (cf.§6a), and the House
of Deputies consisting of Deputies, elected, on a different system of
weighted representation (cf.§6b), from the constituencies into which
the Commonwealth has been divided - cf.§6b.ii -, the BOARD
(in which the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested by the Parliament),
and the UNION SUPREME COURT.
a) Citizens' voting rights: Qualifications.........
§6. Composition, powers and functions of the organs of the Union,
and qualifications for membership.
a) Senate: Number of Senators per State. .......
b) House of Deputies: .......
i) Number of Deputies per constituency. .....
ii) Boundaries and population of each constituency......
c) Board: ..............
d) Union Supreme Court ......... (Nominations and dismissals shall not
be within the effective power of the Union or of the States.)
§7. The Union shall guarantee to every State a democratic form
of government and shall protect each of them and all Union territory
against invasion.
a) Minimum democratic criteria......
§8. Each State may guarantee to its people greater rights than those
enumerated in this Constitution.
§9. The power to amend this Constitution is vested in the citizens
of the Union acting by qualified majority.
a) Such majority shall consist of no fewer than ...% of those voting in
each
State and of no fewer than ...% of those in the Union eligible to vote.
Suggestions- illustrative only. Taxation: Union taxes collected by State
revenue authorities, but each taxpayer personally liable to the Union.
Parliamentary pro- cedures must also be democratic: mode of election will
ensure that opposition parties are represented, and national bloc voting
minimized. §3: Reason for this cumbersome Article is that a wide-flung
federation may at present be attainable only if the Union purview is restricted
to defence alone, and that all other matters will therefore have to be
decided by the old wasteful method of cooperation ("muddling through").
The following proviso might be added where asterisked: "provided
that all such benefits shall automatically extend to all member States."
N.B. This would make it more difficult to ratify the Constitution.
§7: There would doubtless be provisions regarding State police, and
permitted strength of Militia (if it is impossible to secure ratification
without Militia being allowed). N.B. The existence of Militia might defeat
the intentions of §1.!
"THE PARLIAMENT
OF MAN, The Federation of the World"
256pp by Harold S. Bidmead £ 8.95
incl.index Patton Publications UK
------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a book that argues that, in this technical age, the future world
order must be based on scientific principles. Its main message is that
politicians who offer both national sovereignty and peace are professing
to cure the disease of war without harming the germ that causes it.
What is needed, the author argues, is an international federal government,
springing from a parliament popularly elected to look after affairs of
common concern. Being federal, its business would be restricted solely
to such matters, all other powers being left with the national parliaments
where they already rest.
Discussing the United Nations, the author concludes:
"The formidable imperfections of this new World League
render it nothing better than temporary accommodation.
We must lay elsewhere the foundations of the permanent structure that
will one day shelter the Earth."
Regarding United Europe he predicts:
"At the Hague Congress in May 1948 I realized that the Europe we
were building would be a functional entity, driven by federalists who
were determined to convert it into a nucleus Federal Union open to all
nations able and willing to join. This motive force consists of men
and women who realize that they are trying to bridge a
gulf, and that until the keystone of federalism is in place there is the
danger that the whole edifice will collapse and crush us beneath its ruins."
Despite occasional flippancy, this is a serious book, written by a former
member of the Federal Union National Council and associate member of the
Royal Institute of International Affairs. Some chapters make light, amusing
reading. Others are profound, and are sure to be avidly read by concerned
students of world affairs.
The readers may consider appeasement to be worse than war, or vice versa.
This book suggests a cure for both evils.
Gerald Moore
Dr G.Moore (Ret'd) M.Sc(Med), L.AH(Dublin) LDS.MGDS, RCS(Eng)
Late of 53 Wimpole St., London W1.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Distributor bankrupt. HSB bought small remaining stock; Hopes to break
even at following prices: £6 each, but 6 for £30,
12 for £48, post free.
ORDER:To Harold S.Bidmead, Nedre Slottsg.4 0157 Oslo, Norway:
Please arrange to send me ...... copies of "THE PARLIAMENT OF MAN"
for £.....post free, for which I enclose £, NOK, $ or CHF
cheque/M.O/bank draft or equivalent in convertible currency/ notes. NAME
(block caps.please)...................... ADDRESS ....................
Town, Zip code, ................. Country ....................
CONSTITUTION
DRAFTING
If our strategy is sound, we can afford to make tactical mistakes and
still win through to victory. If our strategy is unsound, no amount of
tactical brilliance will redeem us from disaster.Admiral Mahon
The United Nations charter is officially due for revision. The world would
have been a better place if such revision had taken place immediately
after the Charter was signed, 50 years ago. Revision of the European Union
treaty complex will also take place in 1997.
Most statesmen, politicians and diplomats worship an idol with feet of
clay, national sovereignty (the claim to act as judge and jury in one's
own case). Therefore, the terms of reference for the revisers will most
probably be "to amend, reform and/or improve the status quo."
To federalists, faced with this gloomy prospect, it is some consolation
to recall that when the American League of Friendship failed so ignominiously
some two hundred years ago, those charged with the task of patching it
up resolved to ignore their mandate and to scrap the league in favour
of the federal constitution that has endured to this day. They found such
radical, material, intrinsic and fundamental vices in all cooperative
systems among sovereign states that no prudent person could be expected
to trust any league. Let us hope that our present-day "revisers"
will prove as courageous as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and their
lesser known colleagues.
All those who realize that the world cannot have both peace and national
sovereignty must exert every effort to steer the blind leaders of the
blind in the right direction, towards some system of peacefully (policefully)
enforceable law, acting on individuals. Law cannot be enforced without
violence unless it operates directly on the individual.
There is thus a pressing need for Constituent Assemblies for both the
UN and for Europe to correct the criminal follies of the past. In order
to save valuable time at such conferences, draft constitutions will be
invaluable. These fall into two categories, which I shall call the tactical
(those that go into every detail) and the strategic, i.e. those that outline
the broad requirements if any system is to be workable.
TACTICAL. Although detailed drafts (of which there are many)* may be of
value in demonstrating to doubters that every little hitch is capable
of solution, they are illustrative only. They may also save much of the
valuable time of the many sub- committees of the Assembly that will be
needed to draft the details of the constitution when the time arrives.
Current proposals will of course have to be updated to meet the exigencies
of the time.
The Parliamentary Committee on Institutional Affairs on the Constitution
of the European Union has already drafted what it calls a "federal"
constitution, though this is not entirely federal. It adheres too closely
to the Maastricht Treaty, which the Committee nevertheless admits is "a
legal hotch-potch that is difficult to understand even for the initiated".
This, too, must be counted among the tactical drafts.
____________________
* The bibliography of my book "The Parliament of Man, the Federation
of the World" asterisked books containing drafts: Curry, Wynner &
Lloyd, Culbertson, Streit. There are of course others.
N.B. In the present context the definition of a Democracy is any
professedly demo- cratic state that sufficiently trusts another such state
to federate with it.
STRATEGIC: At the present time, however, our main attention should be
directed to the broad lines along which Europe and the world must travel
if we are to find workable solutions. For this reason, the proponents
of tactical drafts should be encouraged to publicize the strategic considerations
behind their proposals. The devising of new strategic outline drafts should
also be encouraged and discussed. Practising what I preach, I humbly submit
one such herewith (Appendix).
In my opinion our main objective must be a system of peacefully (policefully)
enforceable law. There are many proposals aimed at providing the world
with effective international law, but few attempts to make such "law"
peacefully enforceable. We must cease trying to maintain peace by means
of military or economic warfare, which punishes the innocent, the poor
and the weak instead of the guilty. This is the main UN principle that
must be scrapped, a solecism in theory and an abomination in practice.
Law must act on individuals, not merely on states or whole communities
as such.
Surely the second strategic aim must be to ensure that such peacefully
enforceable law is just and equitable law. If not, it will not long remain
enforceable without violence. To a democrat, this would seem to lead inevitably
to laws made by the citizens themselves, not law imposed upon them by
some despotic agency. It would seem that the UN principle of universality
will have to be sacrificed to democracy, if only in the interest of efficacy.
This indicates direct elections.
Care must also be taken to minimize the risk of national bloc voting.
Elections as direct as practicable (even if via electoral colleges such
as in US Presidential elections) would probably ensure this automatically,
cf. the European "parliament", where voting is already along
ideological lines.
In order to ensure the adherence of the greatest practical number of democracies
to the new constitution, it is strategically necessary to deny to the
general government powers over purely national affairs. (The fact that
this is one of the main principles of federalism is in this context purely
incidental). In other words, the powers of the general government must
be strictly limited to duties essential for the attainment and maintenance
of just and enduring peace: e.g. defence, foreign policy, civil aviation,
nuclear energy and taxation for its own financing. (The list could be
longer for Europe than for the world). Even this limited list will make
general ratification difficult. Realists must resist efforts from woolly
idealists to lengthen the list and thus shorten the list of accessions.
For the world-embracing commonwealth, any functions beyond peacekeeping
could continue to be dealt with by the old wasteful method of treaty-making,
which the diplomats call "cooperation" and the man-in-the street
"muddling through".
Another strategic aim is to ensure that the new commonwealth does not
lack the necessary funds to carry out its duties. The UN system of voluntary
contributions, carrying the hat round, must give way to taxation. Considering
the vast savings inherent in a federal system, as compared with trying
to make every nation more powerful than every other, federal taxation
would represent no real burden on the commonwealth, and would probably
- like most federal activities - pass almost unnoticed by the populace.
The fact that, in the present state of political science, such a system
would inevitably be federal is of minor importance, since we should recall
Cromwell's entreaty and realize that some future genius might conceivably
come up with an even better solution.
Nor must we expect the new commonwealth to be called "federal".
In a world where two of the world's four true federations are officially
mis-styled Confederations (i.e. leagues), the United Peoples of America
keeps its old name of U.S.A., the new League of Nations is called "United"
and the European semi-league a "Union", we need not complain
if our new creations bear names that do not perpetuate the term federation.
After all, the ignorant believe the word "federal" to be a dirty
word.
Finally, if only to satisfy the universalists, the new Commonwealth should
be open to all other states able and willing to satisfy the democratic
requirements of the Constitution. That consent to accession would probably
be placed in the hands of the Commonwealth I place in the category of
tactics, not strategy. There will probably be no serious dissention on
this point.
Democracy must leap the frontiers!
HAROLD S. BIDMEAD
author of THE PARLIAMENT OF MAN - The Federation of the World"
(Patton Publications, EX32 OPL UK) 256pp, £8.95 UK
|