Forms of

Government
UNIT 6 FEDERAL AND UNITARY SYSTEMS'

Structure

6.0 Objectives
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Understanding Federal System
6.2.1 Evolution of Federal Systems
6.3 Federalism: Essential Features
6.3.1 Division of Power
6.3.2 Written Constitution
6.3.3 Judicial Review

Governments can be classified as federal or unitary systems on the basis of

division of powers between the central, regional and local authorities This
unit brings out the basic features of federal and unitary political systems.
After going through this unit, you should be able to:

• Identify the basic elements of federal and unitary system

• distinguish between federal and unitary system

*Ms. Surbhi Rao, Research Scholar in Political Science, School of Social Sciences, Indira Gandhi
National Open University, New Delhi

76
• explain the changing nature of federal and unitary system Federal and Unitary
Systems

6.1 INTRODUCTION
The early modem states that emerged in Europe were absolute monarchies.
They were predominantly hierarchic or organic states with power vested in
the hands of the monarch. But as their economies underwent change
culminating in the industrial revolution, political ideas about how people
should be governed too underwent a change. The American and French
revolutions in the latter half of the 18th century gave a blow to monarchy and
brought about republican and democratic forms of government. Even in
countries where democratic ideas had not gained popularity, the rulers
realized that the power can't be managed entirely by a central authority and
that there was a need for decentralisation. The two major political systems
which emerged on the basis of distribution of power between different
political units of a state were unitary and federal systems. With

gg
America in the late 18* century. When the thirteen colonies became free from
British colonial control in the War of American Independence (1775-83), they
first established a confederation. As this confederation proved inadequate to
meet the needs of the situation, the representatives of states met together in a
convention in 1789 and drafted a federal constitution. The states created a
structure of government at the centre and conferred on it certain specified
powers, retaining the residual powers with themselves. This constitution has
become a model for over a score of federal polities that came into being in the
subsequent years.
The American states, even while uniting to establish a federal government,
took care to hedge the powers of the central or federal government in order to
protect their interests. For instance, the Senate, a part of the federal
legislature, gave equal representation to the states. They also ensured that the
constitution itself could not be amended without the consent of three fourths
of the states. For a time, it was held that the states and the federal government 77
held dual sovereignty.
Forms of
Government This matter reached a point of crisis when some of the states in the south
attempted to assert their sovereignty and seceded on the question of slavery.
The Civil War that followed decided once for all that the United States was an
‘indestructible union of indestructible states’.
Although the US federation has undergone a change through formal
amendments, judicial interpretations and political processes, it became a
prototype, a model of federal polity for many to emulate. The first country to
follow the US example was Canada which adopted a federal system in 1867.
The British colonies in Australia too adopted a federal polity when it attained
dominion status in 1901. In Europe, the Swiss cantons had already organised
themselves into a federation. Soon after the Bolshevik revolution, Soviet
Union and Yugoslavia adopted a federal constitution. Following
decolonisation, several newly independent countries in Asia and Africa saw
federalism as a mechanism for accommodating diversities. India, Pakistan,
Malaysia, Nigeria and Cameroon adopted federal system for this purpose. In
Latin America too, large state like Argentina, Brazil and Mexico have become
federations.

system is that of the USA. Second form is when the characteristics of a

particular political system are federal in nature, but with strong centralization
tendencies. For instance, in India, which is not formed on the basis of a pre-
agreed arrangement and where despite the division of power between the
centre and the states, the centre holds the major power, even of altering the
states geographical area without their consent. Thirdly, there are 'decentralized
unions', which though being primarily unitary, have various sub-national units
which are given considerable amount of autonomy to manage their affairs so
their identity doesn't get threatened. For instance, Scotland in United Kingdom
has autonomy to handle a wide range of matters including legal system and
local administration.
From the above it is clear that the federal form of government has been
adopted when there is a large geographical area or when there are particular
regions having concentration of different social groups. In some cases, both
the reasons act side by side. For instance, though India opted to be union of
78
state due to its large geographical expanse, later it recognised the need for
reorganising states on linguistic and ethnic basis thus providing for the
accommodation of the diversity.
In a large geographical area, federal system helps in better administration and Federal and Unitary
governance. And when a federal system is adopted to address the political Systems
cleavage, it provides firm basis for holding the diversity together by providing
them a degree of autonomy to govern their own affairs. For instance, in 1993,
Belgium adopted a federal system to prevent its three different linguistic
regions from falling apart.

6.3 FEDERALISM: ESSENTIAL FEATURES

Whether a federal system comes into being as a result of independent political
units coming together (as in America) or as a result of unitary states
constitutionally devolving powers to the states (as in India), all federal forms
of government have some common features. Let us examine these common
features.

6.3.1 Division of Power

constitution. The constitution is supreme in a federal set up. Every power, -

executive, legislative or judicial-whether it belongs to the centre or the states
is subordinate to, and is controlled by the constitution. Neither the centre nor
the states can make a law violating the provisions of the constitution. Given
the centrality of the constitution, most federations have provisions which
make it difficult to alter the constitution unilaterally, either by the centre or
the states. Because of the difficult procedures prescribed for the amendment
of the constitution, especially its federal provisions, federal constitutions are
regarded as rigid constitutions.

6.3.3 Judicial Review

The legal supremacy of the constitution, which is an essential future of a
federal system, makes it necessary that there is a body above both the federal
government and the state governments to decide whether they are operating
within the powers given to them. This function of interpreting the Constitution 79
is
Forms of
Government usually given to the Supreme Court. It is the Supreme Court which decides the
legal disputes arising between the centre and states or between two or more
states. It can declare any act or law unconstitutional and void if it goes against
the constitution and its spirit. In some cases, this function can be entrusted to
an independent body. For a long time, this function relating to the Canadian
constitution was performed by the Privy Council in England. The power of
the Supreme Courts to decide the constitutional validity of laws is called the
power ofjudicial review.

6.4 CHANGING NATURE OF FEDERALISM

As mentioned earlier, there is no fixed meaning of federalism and its meaning
keep on evolving with the changing times. The earliest understanding of
federalism as put by Johannes Althusius, the German thinker in the early 17
century is that every human association is formed by a pact and that pact forms
the fundamental basis for living together, which then further leads to the

the name of achieving welfare of the citizens, led to centralisation of powers,

effectively reducing the autonomy and authority of the state governments.
In the recent times, several federal studies scholars have advanced the notion
of interdependent federalism in which the two governments would neither be
fully independent as is the feature of dual federalism nor would be
subordinate to other, as is the case in the cooperative federalism. Elazar
stresses that federalism as an institutional arrangement is based on the
principles of ‘self-rule plus shared rule’. Self-rule is permitted exclusively in
the matters of local importance, and shared rule is exercised through
interactive partnership between two levels of government to take decisions on
matters of common interests. This takes out federalism from a mere structural
category to a process ‘by which a number of separate political communities
enter into an arrangement for working out solutions, adopting joint policies,
and making joint decisions on joint problems’ (CJ Friedrich 1968).

80
In India too, the federal process has been in the direction of centralisation. This Federal and Unitary
is largely attributable to the growing responsibilities of the modern state. The Systems
Indian state was expected to play interventionist role in socio-economic
development as well as to wield a highly segmented society into an integrated
national and political entity. Given the enormity of these tasks, it is not
surprising that the union or central government has come to assume the
position of leadership or primacy. A major factor shaping federal politics in
India has been the very development strategy by the state. The development
policies adopted by Independent India have succeeded in increasing the
production base of the economy and improving the quality of life, but have
failed to ensure a balanced and equitable development of different sections
and regions of the country. This has led to tensions between different regions
and ethnic communities, occasionally straining the federal balance
(secessionist movement in Tamil Nadu in the 1960s and Punjab in the 1980s).
Other factors, such as the role of the party system in shaping federal
arrangement in India have been discussed in the BPSC
132. Here, you should note that despite the centralising trends, the process has

6.5
UNDERSTANDING UNITARY SYSTEM
Unitary systems are much older than federal systems. As said earlier, the
emergence of modern unitary system could be traced to the collapse of the
feudalism and the rise of absolute monarchies in Europe. It is in the context of
the emergence of the king and his ministers as the centre of political power
that monistic theories of sovereignty were put forward by thinkers like
Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin. The central government claimed political
supremacy. Since the 19th century, the ideology of nationalism which sought
integration of diverse regions or people under one command has further
strengthened this tendency. As nations came to be organised on the basis of
common language, sometimes in combination with religion, England, France,
Italy, Holland and other European states emerged as nation-states. All these
nation-states had unitary form of government, though the extent of 81
centralisation of power varied among them.
Forms of
Government 6.5.1 Unitary Systems: Basic Features
This is a political system where the powers (legislative, executive and
judicial) are vested in a centralized authority (whether a republican authority or
monarch), which may or may not devolve power at lower level; and which
may or may not provide for local (or regional or provincial or sub national)
autonomy.
In simpler terms, in a unitary form of government, all powers are vested in a
central authority. At the central level, there may be a separation of power
between the three organs of the government, but there is no division of power
between the centre and the geographical sub-units. This doesn't imply that the
sub-units may not have any powers. The central government can ‘devolve’
certain power to the lower levels if it finds it difficult to administer the entire
state by itself. The power thus devolved to the sub-units at the local or
regional level is not permanent. It can be revoked by the centre at any time
without even having to provide any justification. This is because the sub-units
do not derive their powers from the constitution but from the legislative
enactments of the

power is with central authority which might depending on the situation

devolve some amount of power to the peripheries, and it might appear that the
peripheries have significant power but in reality the source of power and
authority is with the core only. The classic example for this core periphery
form of unitary system is Britain. Here, Scotland (periphery) has autonomous
power to regulated large number of issues but that power has been delegated
by the UK parliament (core). It is now clear that in a unitary form of
government the power flows either from the top to the bottom or from core to
the periphery and not the other way round.

Check your Progress 1

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with that given at the end of the unit
1) What are core features of a federal system?
 Federal and Unitary
Systems

2) Nature of federalism has kept on evolving. Comment.

3) What is a unitary system? Give examples.

6.6 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL AND

UNITARY SYSTEMS

which devolves the power to the lower units. So, in the case of unitary system,
the source of power for the lower units is the central authority rather than the
constitution.

6.6.2 Nature of Power

In federal system, the power is inherent in the constituent units and thus is of a
permanent nature and can't be altered or taken away by the federal
government on its whims and fancies. Thus, in a federal system there is power
sharing rather than just devolution of power. The power to the constituent units
is guaranteed by the constitution and can be only altered within the
constitutional framework with their prior consent. Whereas in a unitary form of
government the power which is devolved or decentralized is not of permanent
nature and can be retrieved by the central authority as and when they wish
without any consent of the lower units. Further, there is a hierarchical relation
between the central and lower units which
83
Forms of
Government is subordinate to the former. Thus, the power of the constituent unit in federal
system is permanent and temporary in the unitary system.

6.6.3 Territorial Demarcation

In the case of a federal system when the units are divided or when various
units come together it is mainly for the purpose of accommodating the
diversity and providing scope for pluralism. While on the other hand when a
territory is demarcated into smaller units in a unitary system, then the main
objective is effective administration of the territory Although this is not a
concrete parameter for distinguishing between the two but the former tends to
be associated with the normative dimension of accommodating the diversity
which is missing in the unitary system.

6.6.4 Decentralization v/s Non-Centralization

relative autonomy and independence in their working. The sub units are thus
self- sustaining centres of power. Therefore, the powers of the state
government can't be taken away unilaterally by the federal government and as
there is no particular one centre, recentralization can't happen. The classic
example of non- centralization is USA.

6.6.5 Functional Autonomy

In a federal system, the constituent units have greater degree of functional
autonomy and have substantive functional powers. The constituent units
embody the ideas of ‘self-rule’ and ‘power- sharing’. On the other hand, when
the power is decentralized in a unitary system, the regional administration
enjoys a limited functional autonomy. As when the power is devolved to the
lower level it leads to ‘off-loading’ of some of the functions for the purpose of
administrative convenience rather than providing for substantive autonomy in
decision making.
84
Check your Progress 2 Federal and Unitary
Systems
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your answer with that given at the end of the unit
1) Compare and contrast federal and unitary system.

2) Differentiate between decentralization of power and non-centralization of

with its values of toleration and consensus is congenial to a federation. Elazar

pointed out that ‘despite the advantages of federalism, it is by no means
suitable for all peoples or polities In order to succeed, there must be a will
to federate,
sufficient goodwill to make federal arrangements work, and a political culture
able to bear those arrangements with the combination of moderation,
willingness to negotiate and compromise, and a spirit of comity needed to
make shared-rule relationships work’.
A unitary system is on the other hand is characterised by concentration of
political powers in the central government, a sovereign legislature and a
strong spirit of national unity.
In recent years, there has been a trend towards centralisation of power in a
federation. This has been largely due to the compulsions of achieving rapid
development and security. In developing countries, the pressures of diversity
on the one hand and the centralisation tendencies on the other continue to
85
strained the federal balance.
Forms of
Government 6.8 REFERENCES
Baldi, Brunetta. (1999). Beyond the Federal- Unitary Dichotomy, Berkeley,
University of California.
Burgess, Michael and Alain-G. Gagnon (eds). (1993). Comparative
Federalism and Federation: Competing Traditions and Future Directions,
New York, Harvester, Wheatsheaf.
Burgess, Michael. (2006). Comparative Federalism: Theory and Practice.
New York, Routledge.
Elazar, J Daniel. (1995). Federalism: An Overview. Pretoria, HSRC.
Friedrich J Carl. (1968). Trends of Federalism in Theory and Practice. New
York, Praeger.

6.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS EXERCISES

1) Source of power (constitution v/s central government); Nature of power

(permanent v/s temporary); territorial demarcation (normative v/s
administrative purpose); power (non-centralized v/s decentralized);
functional autonomy (substantial v/s limited autonomy).
2) Explain how the nature of power and source of power result in the
difference between purposive decentralization and non-centralization.
Cite the example of Spain or UK and USA to make the distinction clear.

86