Introduction
Scholars continue to envision a world in which different national and ethnic groups can co-exist under the ambit of democratic institutions that combine shared rule with self-rule. However, the development and entrenchment of multinational and multiethnic federalism continues to lag behind. Despite this striking contrast, there has been very little discussion on the obstacles to and opportunities for the development and entrenchment of a sustainable, representative and deeply democratic multinational federalism. Authors mobilized for this project bring these issues to the fore. Our hope is that this volume can play an important role in helping to fulfill, at the outset of the twenty-first century, the federal promise of multinational democracies built on the dual principles of unity and diversity.
We are presented with a striking puzzle when we contrast recent developments in federal theory with the institutional status quo in multinational polities. On the one hand, there is ever-growing scholarly agreement on the value of institutionalizing multinational federalism, a framework for a division of powers that reflects, respects and accommodates territorially concentrated diversity and that is meant to empower minority nations and large ethnic groups. This ever-growing agreement has been buttressed by the emergence of the paradigm of âliberal nationalismâ, according to which âit is a legitimate function of the state to protect and promote the national cultures and languages of the nations within its bordersâ (Kymlicka 2001, p. 39).
On the other hand, there has also been a glaring absence of institutional and substantive transitions to multinational federalism in deeply diverse multinational and multiethnic polities. As Leonce Röth and AndrĂ© Kaiser (2019, p. 557) put it: âConcessions via autonomy or asymmetric decentralization have been a familiar, albeit rarely implemented, mechanism of statecraft to accommodate the demands of territorially based ethnic groups for at least the past two centuries.â In fact, the recent referenda on independence in Scotland (in 2014) and Catalonia (in 2017) can be taken as indications that the UK and Spanish governments, respectively, failed to respond to proponents of multinational federalism much as the Canadian government did in the lead-up to the Quebec referenda in 1980 and 1995 (see Gagnon 2010, p. 5).
In brief, the emerging normative consensus on multinational federalism and demands for national recognition have yet to translate into the development and entrenchment of a sustainable, representative and substantively democratic multinational federalism in and across deeply diverse states. In light of these contrasting trends, this volume asks the following questions: Why is this happening? What are the main âroadblocksâ to the institutionalization of multinational federalism? Can we imagine âroadmapsâ that can help policymakers and state managers achieve multinational federalism in the twenty-first century?
The chapters in this volume contribute, albeit in different ways and to different degrees, to developing answers to these questionsâwhich are summarized in the volumeâs conclusion. The volumeâs chapters also intersect with other concerns in the scholarly discussion on federalism and national diversity and, in so doing, explore other puzzles of multinational federalism. Some chapters identify the factors that have led multinational federations to fail despite democratic consolidation and legacies of sub-national accommodation, while others set out to understand why some types of multinational federations have succeeded despite multinational federalismâs seemingly âabysmal track recordâ (McGarry and OâLeary 2015, p. 43). Other chapters focus on cases that show no signs of moving towards multinational federalism despite indications of increasing national polarization (the U.S. for example) and previous optimistic accounts (in the 2000s for the China-Hong Kong case). Several chapters explore cases that, despite their seeming openness to the accommodation of national diversity, obviate or neglect minority groups that can and should be considered under the ambit of multinational federalism.
Overall, this volumeâs chapters address an array of puzzles of multinational federalism. They aid in identifying, understanding and explaining both the main challenges to and the opportunities for truly fulfilling, at the outset of the twenty-first century, the federal promise of multinational democracies built on the dual principles of unity and diversity. This endeavour is both important and timely, for despite the mainstreaming of an anti-diversity public discourse, national minorities as well as other collective identities continue to demand greater institutional recognition in democracies, in democratising states and in âfederalizingâ polities.
Context and Background
This volume situates itself against the backdrop of renewed interest in the study of federalism, driven in recent years by a critique of the American tradition of federalism. This critique is based first and foremost on the acknowledgement that many modern democracies, emerging democracies and democratising polities comprise multiple demoi/peoples or, in other words, are multinational and multiethnic in composition. In turn, a growing number of social scientists and philosophers (e.g. Tillin 2007; Smith 2007; Seymour and Laforest 2011; Stepan et al. 2011; Seymour and Gagnon 2012; Burgess 2013; Gagnon 2010; Gagnon and Schwartz 2015; Keil 2016; Requejo 2016) now advocate the design and implementation of multinational federalismâalbeit with some disagreement over specific institutional arrangements as a way of both âholding-togetherâ (Stepan 1999) deeply diverse societies and recognizing and empowering the polityâs constituent nations and ethnic groups.
A multinational or multiethnic polity (e.g. Canada, South Africa, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Ethiopia, Spain) comprises a national majority as well as one or several minority nations/national minorities/territorially concentrated ethnic groups. Public institutions in multinational or multiethnic polities (we use the terms interchangeably in this volume) tend to reflect the culture, language, customs, traditions and religion of the national majority. Consequently, many minority nations/national minorities/territorially concentrated ethnic groups have made and continue to make demands for the recognition of group-differentiated rights (i.e. demands for linguistic, religious autonomy) that, in a federal setting, would require the design and implementation of an asymmetrical federal arrangement. However, the American tradition of federalism views all constituent units of a federation as equal and therefore advocates a federalism that is âconstitutionally symmetricalâ (Stepan 1999, p. 21). At a more fundamental level, the American tradition of federalism embraces a territorial logic that fails to recognize the co-existence of different âpeoplesâ within the same state (Seymour and Gagnon 2012).
Studies that examine deeply diverse democracies (e.g. Codagnone and Filippov 2000; McGarry and OâLeary 2005; De Schutter 2011; Gagnon and Tremblay 2019) agree that the American tradition of federalism is antiquated and that democracies marked by deep national and ethnic diversity must embrace a type of federalism with institutions that reflect, respect, accommodate, enrich and protect this diversity. To be clear, akin to an American-inspired model of federalism, a multinational federation would also constitutionally enshrine a division of powers between different levels of government, yet it would also differ in significant ways. Examples of its unique institutional features could include: the formal recognition of the distinct status of national minorities, the inclusion of national minorities in foreign policymaking and asymmetrical federal arrangements (McGarry and OâLeary 2005). Perhaps what is less clear is how multinational federalism might differ from other diversity-oriented federal models, such as âmulticultural federalismâ (Tremblay 2005).
Despite the developing consensus on the desirability of multinational federalism, there are also a number of critical concerns about the near and longer-term prospects of multinational federal arrangements. For one, studies of federalism show that very few multinational democracies have in fact formally institutionalized multinational federalism (Kymlicka 1998; Habtu 2005; Gagnon and Iacovino 2007; Gagnon et al. 2017) and that, where this project has been undertaken, multinational federal institutions have a symbolic/âinconsequentialâ effect (Caron and Laforest 2009). Recent studies of federalism also show that national/central/federal governments tend to be driven by âunitaristâ or centralizing imperatives and, consequently, that they rarely accept that sub-national governments are their equal partners (Requejo 2004; Bohman 2007; Lajoie 2009). And emerging trends in the study of federalism illustrate that transitions to multinational federalism have, in many cases, failed (McGarry 2004; Kavalski and ƻóĆkoĆ 2008; Basta et al. 2015). They also show that multinational federalism is rooted in a âmultinationalismâ that may be neglecting Indigenous Peoples, the distinct cultures of minorities borne out of individual and familial immigration as well as those of collective identities, including those founded on lifestyles, gender and sexual orientation (Karmis 2008, 2009; Smith 2010; Woods 2012; Dubois and Saunders 2013).
This volume therefore situates itself at the cross-roads of the developing consensus on the desirability of multinational federalism, continued demands for national recognition (evidenced in part by recent referenda in Scotland and Catalonia) and the absence of institutional and substantive transitions to multinational federalism, as well as growing critical concerns about the near and longer-term prospects of multinational federal arrangements. The volumeâs overall goal is to contribute in identifying the challenges to (i.e. âroadblocksâ) and opportunities for (i.e. âroadmapsâ) fulfilling the promise of multinational federalism; that is of democracies built on the dual principles of unity and diversity. Along the way the volume intersects with longstanding and developing concerns in the study of deeply diverse federal polities.
Chapter Overview
The volume consists of 11 chapters divided in three parts as well as an editorsâ conclusion that addresses its main research questions. In examining a range of cases (e.g. Spain, Canada, Belgium, Nigeria), the three chapters in Part I (Multinational Federations at Risk and in Retreat) bring to light factors that may prevent the long-term success/persistence of a multinational federation, such as the implementation of a simple member plurality electoral system, the uneven distribution of economic resources across the multinational federationâs constituent units and ensuring that federalism is both institutionalized but forgetting to âpracticeâ federalism. Cases analysed in Part I also provide evidence that the institutional protection of autonomy can be both beneficial and detrimental to sustainable multinational federalism.
In âDiverse Democracies and the Practice of Federalism,â James Kennedy draws a distinction between the institutions of federalism and the informal practices of federalism within the context of multinational democracies. Building on this distinction, the chapter argues that informal practices of federalism may be just as important, if not more important, than the formal institutions of federalism in reconciling unity and diversity in multinational settings. The argument is developed through a comparison of the workings of four multinational democracies: interwar Czechoslovakia, post-Quiet Revolution QuĂ©bec, post-Franco Spain, and post-devolution United Kingdom. In the chapterâs conclusion, Kennedy applies the argument to understanding the possible implications, in India, of the Modi governmentâs decision to impose direct rule on Jammu and Kashmir.
In âWhen Have Dyadic Federations Succeeded and When Have They Failed? A Comparative Analysis of Bipolar Federalism around the Worldâ, Christoph Niessen, Min Reuchamps, Dejan StjepanoviÄ and Augustin Habra highlight the conditions under which dyadic federationsâa genus of the multinational federation family that comprises federations where two communities or national groups dominate control of sociopolitical institutionsâhave âsucceededâ (i.e. survived) and have âfailedâ (i.e. broken apart). These conditions are identified through a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of all dyadic federations, past and present. In brief, the results of the comparative analysis suggests that a dyadic federation is most likely to âsucceedâ if geographical factors such as the territorial dispersion of the dominant groups play in its favour and in the presence of institutional arrangements such as a proportional electoral system or a national party system. The comparison also shows that a dyadic federation is more likely to succeed the longer it endures, meaning that, under certain conditions, these types of federations might actually âconsolidate.â By contrast, the comparison also suggests that a dyadic federation is more likely to âfailâ (i.e. break-up) in the absence of stabilizing institu...