The Drone Service Providers Alliance (DSPA) warns that drone federalism the idea that states and local government should share control of the airspace could be added to the budget bill under discussion in Congress today. The group is calling on the industry to contact their representatives about the issue.

Republic Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced a Drone Integration and Zoning Act in 2019 that would have designated all airspace under 200 feet under the jurisdiction of state law. This proposal, which didnt make it out of the Senate and was widely criticized, followed a proposal by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, known as the Drone Federalism Act. Feinsteins proposal would also have granted states sweeping powers over the airspace.

Now, says the DSPA, Lee appears to be attempting to add a drone federalism segment to the Budget Bill before voting.

Why Drone Federalism is an Issue

These proposals could cause problems for the drone industry, and for the FAA. The FAA claims pre-emption, which means that they regulate all of the airspace in the United States. Thats all of the airspace, down to the ground. Thats a problematic concept for some homeowners, especially in the age of drones: and as its an issue without clear precedent, its one that is likely to be debated for many years to come.

While the FAA has tried through the UAS Integration Pilot Project (IPP) and its next phase, the BEYOND program, to bring state and local governments into the decision-making process, the issue of whether states should be allowed to regulate drones remains. If states are able to gain control over some of the airspace, that could result in a patchwork quilt of drone regulations across the United States and open the door to different fee structures or taxation for use of the airspace.

Drones have become a new battleground issue for politicians from security and privacy fears to private property rights. Its up to the drone industry to educate lawmakers on the issues and potential unforeseen consequences of any regulation being considered.

Miriam McNabb is the Editor-in-Chief of DRONELIFE and CEO of JobForDrones, a professional drone services marketplace, and a fascinated observer of the emerging drone industry and the regulatory environment for drones. Miriam has penned over 3,000 articles focused on the commercial drone space and is an international speaker and recognized figure in the industry. Miriam has a degree from the University of Chicago and over 20 years of experience in high tech sales and marketing for new technologies.For drone industry consulting or writing,Email Miriam.

TWITTER:@spaldingbarker

Subscribe to DroneLife here.

See the original post here:

Drone Federalism Bil Could Be Added to Budget Bill - DRONELIFE - DroneLife

NewsOpinionColumnistsThe people of Scotland will be given their voice. A referendum on independence will come.

Tuesday, 2nd February 2021, 7:00 am

However, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed that this will only happen once the health emergency is over.

She also committed to holding a legal referendum, likely requiring agreement with Westminster. Given the present position of the Prime Minister on the issue, achieving such agreement may also take some time.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

A gap of at least a year, or more likely two years, between the May elections and a referendum would in any event be useful.

A referendum squeezes a complex and complicated issue into a simple, binary choice: Yes or no to independence. But what is missing thus far is the other side of the equation. What would the alternative to independence be?

A scramble for solutions

The Westminster parties have only just started the process of articulating their answer. The Cabinet Office under Michael Gove is said to have begun studying alternatives. Labour under Sir Keir Starmer has commissioned noted Scot and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown to head a broad consultation on future constitutional arrangements in the UK.

Already some years back, several members of parliament formed a Constitutional Reform Group. This sustained work has resulted in a Private Members Bill on an Act of Union that has had its first reading in the Lords. More recently, a Commons committee on constitutional issues was announced in the Queens speech, although its remit remains unexplained.

It is not clear how these diverse ventures will yield one single, firm proposal that could be offered as an alternative to independence. Then again, most efforts are led by outspoken unionists. Will they really put forward what best meets the needs of the people of Scotland, or will the exercise be seen as a scheme to blunt the momentum towards independence?

Michael Gove and Sir Keir Starmer have indicated that they are willing to consider significant constitutional change in order to tempt Scotland away from independence. In reality, they seem to be merely heading for further devolution. However, the previous promise of devo-max, made in the so-called Pledge of the principal unionist political parties just days before the 2014 Scotland referendum, has devalued that approach.

Few people in Scotland have experienced significant change after 2014. A promise of further devolution is unlikely to inspire a great deal of public support as an alternative to independence. If the unionists want to make a credible case for Remain, they will have to learn to live with the federal option.

The F-word

The word federal was until fairly recently taboo in the British constitutional dictionary. Federalism appeared to be inconsistent with the British constitutional tradition. It was seen as an alien, continental concept, best left to others. Moreover, federalism was taken to be a slippery stepping-stone, legitimising eventual independence.

This latter concern has little meaning where Scotland is concerned. It is already heading for possible independence. Offering a federal solution does not add further legitimacy to the claim to statehood. This entitlement already exists and is not disputed in principle by Westminster. Hence the referendum of 2014.

In truth, a federal alternative to independence is quite inconvenient for both unionists and for those seeking independence alike. A federal option goes against the sense of unionists that things should stay as they are, having proven their value and worth over centuries.

On the other side, a credible federal option would undermine the case for independence favoured by the SNP. If federalism is possible, could it offer the advantages that independence might bring, without running the risk of going it alone in a rather uncertain global environment?

And there are major uncertainties. Could an independent Scotland sustain the present standard of living of its population? The oil-price has sunk dramatically and oil and gas are running out as we are heading towards a zero-carbon world.

Would Scotland standing alone lose out on trade and security, especially if renewed EU membership is uncertain? What about the ability to draw on a far larger, national infrastructure to tackle emergencies like Covid-19?

Posing a reasoned alternative

These are difficult questions that need answering, calmly, objectively and without prejudice. And unionists and the SNP alike owe it to the people of Scotland to consider the federal option as the alternative, to weigh the respective benefits and risks.

Of course, some in Scotland will go for union or independence whatever the arguments, perhaps driven by sentiment. Sentiment is a legitimate source of political choice when confronted with hundreds of years of contested and, for many, painful history between the two nations.

The 2014 referendum has however shown that most in Scotland want to go beyond emotions and consider the actual facts. While the emotional appeal of independence may be high, the economic and political risks of independence may be too significant to be ignored or replaced by simple hope. At least the trade-off, if there is one, needs to be examined in the cool light of day and with a rational, open mind.

This means that a federal alternative has to be, first of all, defined and expressed.

A unique solution for Scotland and Britain

Form follows function in state design. So, the starting point for the people of Scotland is to achieve clarity about their aims, their needs and interests. What, specifically is independence meant to deliver, and what more is required to meet these needs?

Is it the need to give greater expression to Scottish culture and history? Is it the wish to escape perceived economic marginalisation by Westminster, or perhaps the ambition to construct a more equitable and enlightened society? Is it a more visible and independent role in shaping global affairs?

Once these needs have been articulated, a federal option can be designed to meet them. Clearly, finding a federal formula for Britain will be difficult. This is not a case of copying the Canadian, German or Swiss model. A bespoke solution has to be found that is likely to be as unusual as the circumstances that prevail at present in the UK.

Thus far, the UK has developed through devolution. Powers have been gradually handed down to three of the four constituent units of the union. These powers were granted by acts of the UK parliament, which remains the dominant layer of legislative authority. Controversially, devolution can even be reversed unilaterally by the centre, simply through changing the legislation on each of the devolved entities.

Federalism is different. A federal constitution will define the constituent entities and their powers and institutions, along with the remaining authority of the central bodies of the federation. The shape of the federal units is permanent and cannot be changed without their consent.

Federalism as an exercise of sovereignty for Scotland?

There are two types of federation, depending on the founding myth that underpins them. Some federations claim that they came about through the voluntary union of entities that are, in principle, sovereign. They have pooled their sovereignty in certain areas to achieve a limited set of common functions through federal organs. But they retain so-called residual authority over all areas of competence not expressly assigned to the centre in the constitutional compact.

In other cases, it is made clear that sovereignty is held collectively by all the nations and people of the overall state, taken as one. Power is then shared out from the centre to the individual federal units. The legal personality of the constituent units is derived from the centre.

In this case, unionists might point to the Treaty of Union of 1706. The Articles of Union promise that the two kingdoms of Scotland and England shall be united forever after into one kingdom. This would have extinguished the legal identity of Scotland as a source of sovereignty, making its re-emergence as a federal entity dependent on a grant of authority from London.

On the other hand, for many Scots a federal solution would presumably only be acceptable if it visibly revives their proud tradition and heritage, re-consecrating Scottish sovereignty. Joining the new federal system would be taken as an exercise of renewed sovereignty, and not as a denial of the claim to sovereignty. This logic may seem like dancing on the head of pin, but the symbolism involved in this kind of question can make or break the chances for a federal settlement.

Forms of federation

The next issue is the basic shape of the federal system. Ordinarily, a federation is characterised by a number of equal federal units, each having the same powers and institutional furniture. Clearly, that will not be the case in the UK a composite of four nations, each of which has a different history and system of governance.

It is also possible to construct a federation as a so-called federacy. This would mean that the rest of the UK remains more or less untouched, while the status of Scotland is upgraded to that of a federal subject enjoying a unique legal identity of its own.

A third option is that of an asymmetrical federation. This would accept that Wales retains powers and institutions different to those held by, say, Northern Ireland. This is partly due to different histories, traditions and needs. It is also due to the Northern Ireland settlement, which involves the Republic of Ireland.

Moreover, the so-called West Lothian question would finally be addressed. England, too, would become a federal subject, enjoying its own distinct competences and institutions, perhaps giving more expression to its own regions or major cities.

Within such an asymmetric set-up, Scotland could express its identity to a very considerably enhanced extent. It would feel like its own state, without incurring the penalties and costs of setting one up.

More power?

The second major issue arising in federations is competences. Inevitably, there will be exclusive competences exercised by the centre. This may concern defence and national security, border and customs, transport and communications, a national framework for economic development, protection of genuine democracy and human rights, etc.

Then there may be competences shared between the centre and federal units. For instance, the centre may establish a joint framework for educational attainment in schools, while the federal entities will adopt legislation to implement this in their own way.

Finally, in accordance with the key principle of subsidiarity, the competences that can be best exercised within the federal units will be exclusively assigned to them.

The present devolved settlements for each region already contain detailed schedules assigning competences to the different levels of government. It would be useful for Scotland, or the SNP, to articulate clearly what additional powers it seeks to gain through independence. It would then be possible to see whether or not a federal model can accommodate such a demand.

Changing institutions and finance

Third, there is the issue of institutions. This poses few problems for the UK as three of the four regions have their own, highly developed institutional architecture. England would, of course, need to decide whether it wishes to establish its own, dedicated layer of legislature, executive and judiciary.

Of course, a federation is not only about powers of the federal units. A number of central functions and federal institutions will remain.

Where powers are retained by, or transferred to, the centre, the question of power-sharing arises. The weighting of seats in the national parliament might need consideration, to ensure that each region can have a significant voice of its own in relation to matters of national policy.

The more significant change would occur in relation to the House of Lords. In addition to its function as a federal revising chamber, it would assume the role of safe-guarding the rights and interests of the federal units in national decision-making. Its composition would therefore need to reflect the identities of the four federated nations.

Happily, the move to the Supreme Court as an institution separate from the House of Lords makes it easier to ensure that legal disputes between the constitutive units, or between them and the central authorities, can be addressed.

There might also be provision for executive power-sharing, ensuring that all nations are fully and meaningfully represented in government and the national civil service, and can shape common decisions on defence, external relations and other central competences.

Finally, the important question of funding arises. At present, Scotland receives most of its budget in the form of a block grant from Westminster. In a federal system, funding follows function. Central funding would be increased according to the additional competences administered by the federal units. More likely, the federal units would be given their own income by shifting the powers of taxation and raising duties, perhaps supplemented by federal funding.

An element of federal funding would not only be needed to cover central services of the federation. It would also be required to meet unexpected needs of a federal unit, say in case of a natural disaster, and to balance out inequities between the units due to geography or economic development. This balancing function, or safety net, would be lost in case of independence likely a significant loss of Scotland.

Overall, it would be possible to construct a federal solution that takes account of the particular history of Britain while significantly enhancing Scotlands sense of identity and powers as a state within a federal union. However, such a vision needs to be developed and expressed in some detail, before it can be judged against the needs articulated by the people of Scotland, and against the alternative of independence.

Marc Weller is professor of international law and international constitutional studies at the University of Cambridge and a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

Excerpt from:

Federalism could make Scotland feel like an independent state without the costs of becoming one Professor Marc Weller - The Scotsman

KP Oli who spent years in prison to overthrow the monarchy cant think of reinstating it

KATHMANDU, Feb 5:

Amid widespread speculations that Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli might make a surprise announcement regarding secularism, federalism and monarchy at the mass gathering organized in Kathmandu on Friday, PM Oli chose not to make any controversial statement. Instead, he said that the country would move forward implementing federalism and republicanism in the country.

PM Oli, while addressing the mass gathering organized by his faction of the ruling Nepal Communist Party (NCP) in front of the Narayanhiti Royal Palace Museum on Friday, assured the public that he was not in favour of reinstating monarchy in the country as rumored in the market.

KP Oli, who spent years in prison to overthrow the monarchy, can't think of reinstating it. Well proceed ahead through the effective implementation of the federal democratic republican system, Oli said.

On the occasion, he took his time to laud the efforts made by the local units in the governments fight against COVID-19 pandemic.

Oli, who has been blamed for taking an unconstitutional move through the dissolution of the House of Representatives on December 20 earlier in the last year, said that forthcoming April-May polls will further strengthen democracy in the country. The government has announced elections for April 30 and May 10 later this year. His move, however, has been objected by various political parties including a rival faction of the NCP led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Madhav Kumar Nepal.

Visit link:

PM Oli clarifies his stance on monarchy and federalism - MyRepublica

Marew Abebe, Lecturer of Federalism Studies at Debark University, Ethiopia; Contact him via marewobu@gmail.com; ID

Introduction

During the last three decades of federalism experiences in Ethiopia, it was the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)the ruling government since the inception of the federal system political ideology not the constitution that dictates the countrys federalism promises. The EPRDF party composed of four ethic based parties did follow only centralized decision making and ordered member parties of the coalition to channel its political interest within their respective constituencies. Following the coming of new PM Abyi Ahmed and the dissolution of the EPRDFthat claimed itself as patronage of Ethiopian federalismthe government has struggled to hold the country together.

Federalism by constitution and unitary in practice

In December 2019, EPRDF ceased and was rebranded as the new Prosperity Party with three former parties. The Prosperity Party has also dismantled the old age decentralized decision making and the partys ideology have been challenged and forced to change its top down order to local governments. As the result when the local governments, as the independent administration regions of most federal states, trying to exercise their own constitutional granted rights for their own internal matters shakes the long-held federalism practice in Ethiopia. It becomes risky to the very federal system when the federal government still wants to retain its status quobeing the higher government. This conundrum between the federal and local government was evident when the Tigray region, one of the ten members of the Ethiopian federation, unilaterally decided and held regional elections amidst the pandemic that was postponed by the federal government. The Tigray regions decision of holding election on 9 September 2020 for its State Council in explicit defiance of federal government severely exacerbated the situation and has remained one of the greatest litmus tests to the Ethiopian ethnic based federalism. Later this led to the full scale war between the Ethiopian federal and the Tigray regional governments.

Recently, the vertical federalism arrangement between the federal and regional governments becomes fragile due to the federalism culture not being embedded by constitutionalism but has long been guided by political ideologies and considerations. When parties change and ideologies shift, the very states structure (federalism) is, now, without guardian. This is due the Ethiopian federalism has long been handing on the single party willingness and directives. The intergovernmental situation, the horizontal relationships among regional governments themselves, also deteriorates due to, among other things, border conflicts between regional governments, competitions over scarce resources and competing nationalisms. Moreover, the Ethiopian federalism has not any legal frameworks that would have guided the intergovernmental relations and has not set any common mode of communications, although as a matter of fact Amharic has been used.

Wheare in his 1946 seminal work on Federal Government defined federalism as follows: by the federal principle I mean the method of dividing powers so that the general and regional governments are each, within a sphere, co-ordinate and independent. Thus, in federalism state structure, as opposed to unitary one, there exists a compound polity in which two co-equally supreme levels of governments both acted directly on the citizen through their own law, under a written constitution. Federalism, by its very nature, needs a common written law (constitution) and an observance of it, what is called constitutionalism. This is exactly what the Ethiopian federalism lacks, constitutionalism, as neither the federal nor the states act based on the common covenant document, the Ethiopian federal Constitution. It was arbitrary rule and mere political agreements among and between groups, short of political parties at the expense of the constitutional provisions, rules the country.

According to Berihune Adugna (2020), federalism inEthiopia has operated in a single-party system run by the EPRDF with a blatant disregard of theEthiopian Constitution andofficialrejection of liberal democracy. The Constitution has merely been often cited as a justification for the authoritarian and undemocratic actions of the EPRDF, its leading ideology of revolutionary democracy and the party practice of democratic centralism hasplayed the real constitutional function in practice. Since the introduction of federalism, multi-party democracy, respect for human rights, and constitutionalism have been put aside and given way to the emergence of the EPRDF as the only viable political party in the country. The Ethiopian federalism has been submissive to the short lived political ideologies of a single party. And there were not genuine federalism experiences; rather there was more a unitary state in its practices as the real power comes from the center and from the party.

Generally, after three decades of ethnic federalism experiences, the dominant rhetorical figure in Ethiopian politics is that of ethnicity, which has permeated daily life and overtaken democratic decision-making and shared issue-politics. This overshadowed real federalism exercise in Ethiopia. The regional governments had been accorded nominal decentralized power and the government has developed structures of central control and top-down rule that preclude local initiative and autonomy.

The way outs

This highly combustible mixturea divided political center, an ineffective and ambiguous regional elite, ethnic based federalism, competing nationalism and the liberation struggleis at the root of todays unrest. But how these are to be reconciled and what scope they can have still remains unclear. To quell the masses and to heralded genuine federalism, the government in Ethiopia must work hard to respect for political liberties, human rights and economic equality. Recognizing the fundamental unity, rights and solidarity of all Ethiopians requires positive, constructive attitude and should be based on the umpire constitution.

Marew Abebe

Read the rest here:

Federalism without the Guardian: Ethiopia in the Row - Satenaw Ethiopian News/Breaking News | Your right to know!

On Monday, Canada hit a dark milestone of over 20,000 deaths from COVID-19. One reason for this disturbing statistic is the intergovernmental finger-pointing 10 months into the pandemic; the ability of Canadian federalism to meet this national crisis continues to be tested.

Theres a sharp contrast between Canada and Australia, also a federal state, in how each country has managed the pandemic. Australia crushed the curve, while Canadas approach has been much less successful. Canadians are justified in asking why.

Despite the challenges of heading a coalition government, Australias Liberal prime minister has navigated the rocky shoals between federal and state governments to implement significant measures including lockdowns affecting businesses, minority groups, and those less advantaged. In contrast, Canadas federal-provincial coordination has been mixed, which may have resulted in higher rates of infection and death than in Australia.

A Canadian consensus to act decisively and co-operatively was evident earlier in the pandemic. Last March, premiers were unanimous in their support of lockdowns. They also publicly supported their public health officials, and mobilized health ministries and procurement authorities. Together, the latter snapped into action, acquiring and distributing personal protective equipment, collaborating, and sharing public-health guidance across jurisdictions. Fluid and dynamic conversations were had at a dizzying and productive pace among leaders from all orders of government in the federation: local, provincial/territorial, federal, and Indigenous. Indigenous governments and leaders managed to attract billions of federal dollars, and to get support from the Canadian Armed Forces. Federalism in Canada was indeed working.

However, by summers end, such informal co-operation between governments began to fray. Canadas Constitution provides few formal mechanisms for national coordination. The Peace, Order and Good Government clause in section 91 of the Constitution Act has been interpreted as giving the federal government emergency powers, but its use is controversial. The federal Emergencies Act would seem tailor-made for this situation (a public-welfare emergency being one of four kinds contemplated by the Act), but the Act requires consultation with the provinces. Provinces were unanimous in opposing its invocation as an intrusion in an area squarely within their jurisdiction under the Constitution Act.

Throughout the fall, COVID infections multiplied. At a meeting of first ministers in December, Ottawa briefed them on its vaccine plans, and shared data on national and regional trends. The provinces and territories decided to use their collective voice to ask Ottawa for more health-transfer money. Meanwhile, Australia was locking down again.

That meeting may be remembered as a low point for Canadian federalism. Clearly, an opportunity for the federation to serve Canadians was missed. Was that really the time for provinces and territories to argue for perennial increases in health-care transfers?

Instead, they could have forged a joint plan of action, with coordinated lockdowns, travel restrictions, and bans timed according to vaccine distribution. Australia has shown that, with vaccines in sight, a hard shutdown to crush the curve is not only tolerable, but popular. Canada got its first shipment of vaccine 10 days after that December meeting.

According to a recent Angus Reid Poll, 51 per cent of Canadians say the No. 1 problem the federal government should be dealing with right now is the pandemic. Thats the highest proportion saying so since the pandemic began. Health care is second on the priority list, at 38 per cent, and the economy is third, at 29 per cent.

In the collective best interest of Canadians, maybe premiers could agree to a coordinated 90-day lockdown (excepting schools). Imagine what the federation could achieve: stabilize vaccine supply and distribution; relieve pressure on hospitals intensive-care units; bend the curve; and limit the spread of the virus and its variants.

After 90 days, the federation could be as effective and strong as Australias.

Stephen Van Dine is the senior vice-president at the Institute on Governance.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the authors alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

More from iPolitics

Read the original here:

A tale of two federations and their (mis)handling of the pandemic - iPolitics.ca

Against this backdrop, Jonathan who chaired the event called on the National Assembly to factor into the amendment process the yearnings and aspirations of the people. He pointed out some of the pathologies of the Nigerian crisis, namely, nepotism, ethnic and religious differences and lack of patriotism as some of the teething challenges plaguing the country.

He stressed the point that in addressing the contradictions besetting the country the expectations of the people must never be undermined. Beyond redrawing the state architecture to meet the quest for federalism, the former president said that restructuring was two-fold and the second aspect is the restructuring of the mind. According to him, if there is no attitudinal change, whatever the shape and content of the state, the many problems confronting the country would still rear their ugly heads. On this, the former president waxed poetic by a quote of the famous lines of William Shakespeare in his Julius Caesar. In his words,As a country, we have our peculiar challenges and we should devise means of solving them, but we should not continue to vent our spleen on the amalgamationAs Shakespeare in Julius Caesar said, the fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves My conviction is that discussion on restructuring will not help except we restructure our minds because some of the challenging issues at the national level still exist at the state and local levels. He likened leadership and nation building as multilayered process but the goal is to builda nation that is conducive for all. He sounded off on the establishment trope of the unity and indivisibility of the country.

The former president was not alone on the restructuring question. The immediate past President General ofOhanaezeNdigbo, John Nnia Nwodo argued that the 1999 constitution upended the foundational structure of the country laid by the founding fathers, namely, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Ahmadu Bello and Obafemi Awolowo. The blame was placed on the door step of the military, which atomised the federal essentiality of the Nigerian state through constitutionality, i. e. arbitrary rule-making process of the military. While underlining the objective manifestation of the contradictions of the polity, namely, the truncation of the sovereignty of the regions over their resources and domestic security with a consequent decay in all facets of the society, he urged that restructuring should hold before 2023 general elections.Chief Ayo Adebanjo, theAfenifere chieftain and elder statesman followed the same path with Nwodo by a call to return to the 1963 Constitution, which to a great deal was federal and preserved the autonomous spheres of the federating region.

On his part, former Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof. Attahiru Jega held the view that the call for restructuring was being driven by incompetent and self-serving leadership, at all tiers of government. Also, the professor of political science noted that the failure of governance to satisfy the needs and aspirations of citizens and the corresponding poverty have been drivers of the clamour for restructuring. He went further to suggest incremental amendment of the constitution rather than going through the process in one fell swoop.

The interlocutors at the Daily Trust Dialogue have spoken well. There are, however, matters arising. Mr. Jonathans take on the unity and indivisibility of the country is a play to the gallery, in both theory and practice. Nations are not permanent entities, and they undergo changes in their dialectical entanglement. But certain variables can make nations to endure, such as its ability to ensure justice for all, a platonic requirement for the polis. To blame Nigerias problems on the mind of its people may be partly right but its smacks of idealism as objective realities influence the minds. The devastating impact of nepotism today and the inability of the government to secure lives and property cannot engender a congenial attitude to the presently constituted Nigerian state.

Also we do not agree with Prof. Jegas position that it is mere inept leadership that is driving the call for restructuring, nor do we agree with his call for piecemeal amendment. The policy output of the dominant ruling elite in Nigerian is hegemonic by design, if not, commonsense would have prevailed to note that a multiethnic entity like Nigeria cannot be dominated by what experts on the state have called state-nation mainstreaming its preferences over the rest nationality. This today is the primary contradiction and cannot be resolved by sheer incremental amendment of the constitution that cannot alter the rotten integument of the present Nigerian state. In the main, this newspaper believes that the most viable alternative to the disintegration of the country is total overhaul of the current state structure to meet the governability attractions of federalism for multi-ethnic nations.

On the whole, the Daily Trust Dialogue on clamour for federalism in the nations capital was indeed a veritable colloquium on the inevitability of restoration of organic federalism we lost to the soldiers of fortune in 1966. There should be more of such significant, civic engagements on what has become an idea whose time has indeed come.

Excerpt from:

Federalism is the answer, after all - Part 15 | The Guardian Nigeria News - Nigeria and World NewsOpinion The Guardian Nigeria News Nigeria and...

NewsOpinionColumnistsLess than a week from Boris Johnsons first visit to Scotland of the year, the Union of which he has appointed himself minister has rarely looked in such poor shape.

Tuesday, 2nd February 2021, 4:45 pm

If we are to believe SNP minister Mike Russell, there could be a second Scottish independence referendum legal or not before 2021 grinds to a close, while polling suggests that support for Irish unification has risen. Even in previously staunchly unionist Wales, flickers of separatist sentiment have emerged.

It will take more than a few flying visits from a divisive Prime Minister to restore harmony to our house of four nations. It is time to fix the foundations on which this house stands.

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

Sign up to our Opinion newsletter

It is a conventional assumption that, in times of trouble, societies are motivated by cooperation and selflessness. But in the medical, social, and financial crisis which envelops Scotland it would seem otherwise.

Referendum fever

Day-after-day the First Minister uses the podium the virus has given her to take pot shots at the Prime Minister. The divisive political issue which continues to rival coronavirus is that of independence.

This is most readily evidenced by the clamour for a referendum by leaders of the SNP, including the logic-defying notion that one is needed soon whatever the state of the health of the nation or the stage of the recovery.

The idea of a referendum while the scars of the virus remain raw finds little support outside the most fevered of nationalists but so long as that fever infects many of the present SNP leadership, it remains a threat.

If the current First Minister and the Prime Minister will not handle the Union with care, others must rise to the challenge.

The Liberal Democrats argue that, for Scotland and the United Kingdom alike, a partnership with proper separation of powers among the four nations is the most fruitful and stabilising of constitutional settlements. That partnership is best served by federalism.

Post-Cold War settlement is over

Never has there been globally such a period of uncertainty both domestically and abroad.

The United States is seeking to recover from the nationalist excesses of the Trump presidency. China, buoyed up by its continuing economic success and the political and military assertiveness which that allows, pursues worldwide influence like a colonial power. Russia, under the seemingly perpetual reign of Mr Putin, tries to assuage unrest at home with meddling abroad.

Make no mistake, the informal post-Cold War settlement is over. The apparent stability which it brought is fractured and nationalism is on the rise. But in these four nations of ours we have more in common with each other than with any other four nations in the world.

This is a strength to be built upon in an increasingly uncertain environment and neither to be undermined nor squandered.

But Liberal Democrat conviction that the four nations of the United Kingdom are best served by partnership needs constitutional reform to match. The structure of the United Kingdom must reflect the aspirations of all of its people and support the demands of a modern democracy, with particular emphasis on fairness and better internal systems to ensure that government at all levels is transparent and responsive.

UKs broad shoulders

Through the pandemic we have seen what federalism could look like and also why it is essential.

With health protection measures devolved, but with the virus a threat to us all, it has been necessary to cooperate across the four nations with practical measures like protective equipment and vaccination, while allowing variation in the restrictions on our freedoms reflecting the state of the virus in each part of the country.

Meanwhile on the economic front, Scotland has benefited from the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom economy, while still having the ability to design business-support packages tailored to Scottish needs.

Yet there have been unnecessary disagreements which could have been resolved by a formal partnership structure. That is the opportunity that reform presents.

I relish the opportunity to refresh the work I led for the Scottish Liberal Democrats a decade ago. That work shaped the successful reforms that were ultimately delivered through the Smith Commission. Now the task is to reform the United Kingdoms governing architecture to make our country more suited to the modern need.

Our objective is a system of government which allows for the expression of different identities and builds additional influence and strength with co-operation and common purpose; which embraces joint action when necessary and enhances effectiveness; decentralisation of power where practicable and desirable; and which is based on proportionality and subsidiarity.

Only a settlement based on these principles will strengthen our ties with the other nations of the United Kingdom and maintain a Union at peace with itself.

A mood for change

While the Prime Minister seems either content or oblivious to the risk of separatism, we see indications that other parties are sympathetic to our approach and that there is momentum building to reform the United Kingdom.

Under the influence of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Labour are exploring reform once more, which presents an opportunity for our two parties to work together and with others of like mind.

In English cities, regional mayors have fought hard for their communities and held the feet of national politicians to the fire. There is a mood for change consistent with our proposals throughout the United Kingdom.

With Liberal Democrat knowledge and expertise in constitutional reform, we are able to join that effort. We reject the idea that the only choice is between independence and the status quo and will be setting out a coherent and modern alternative for the United Kingdom.

Menzies Campbell is former leader of the Liberal Democrats and former MP for North-East Fife

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

See the article here:

With Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon both posing threats to the Union, federalism is now essential to save the UK Menzies Campbell - The Scotsman

This analysis was featured in Critical State, a weekly newsletter from The World and Inkstick Media.Subscribe here.

Last week, Critical State looked at how the distance between national governments and the people who actually implement their repressive policies both enables and limits the violence states can do to their own people. In the Philippines, the deadliness of President Rodrigo Dutertes ultra-violent drug war varies based on the political networks of the various mayors charged with carrying it out. This week, well look at a case where the distance has served an opposite function, making it very difficult for the national government to get its violence-implementers to stop repressing people.

Related: Federalism in violence: Part I

In Mexico, police torture civilians accused of crimes at an astonishing rate.

In Mexico, police torture civilians accused of crimes at an astonishing rate. In a survey of prisoners in Mexico, nearly 60% reported being beaten by police before being put in custody of a public prosecutor, and nearly 40% reported being beaten while in public prosecutor custody. Over 35% report being victims of simulated drowning before being turned over to public prosecutors and 25% were subjected to waterboarding or similar techniques by public prosecutors. Electric shocks, being crushed with heavy objects, and burns are also frequently inflicted on people unfortunate enough to come in contact with the Mexican criminal justice system.

Related:InMexico, the unendingdrugwar takes its toll

Mexico instituted a sweeping criminal justice reform law in 2008 that, among other things, aimed to end torture as a major component of Mexican policing and prosecution.

All this is true, despite the fact that Mexico instituted a sweeping criminal justice reform law in 2008 that, among other things, aimed to end torture as a major component of Mexican policing and prosecution. The national government, in other words, told its on-the-ground violence-implementers to chill. Twelve years on, that hasnt really happened. In a new article in the American Political Science Review, Beatriz Magaloni and Luis Rodriguez investigate why torture is so embedded at the implementation level of Mexican justice.

Related:Cartel gunmen terrorizeMexicancity to free El Chapo's son

Tortures outsized role in Mexico stems from the countrys colonial past.

Tortures outsized role in Mexico stems from the countrys colonial past. Mexico inherited an inquisitional justice system from Spain, in which confessions are a crucial part of securing convictions. Since inquisitional systems (as the name suggests) are agnostic about whether those confessions are coerced or not, torture to produce coerced confessions became an institutionalized aspect of how the justice system functioned. The 2008 reforms ended inquisitional justice by changing evidentiary standards to make coerced confessions functionally inadmissible. Magaloni and Rodriguez used data from the survey of Mexican prisoners to test the laws effectiveness. After the reforms, they found, there was a drop in torture, but the reforms were only responsible for between 4 and 8 percentage points of the drop hardly at the levels that might have been expected given the content of the new laws.

Reforms did move the needle on torture, but police and prosecutors had to institute the reforms on themselves.

Part of the reason for the laws limited effect came from the durability of the inquisitional institutions even in the face of democratic intervention. Police forces and prosecutors had a way of doing things, and the states actual ability to change those practices on the fly was extremely limited. Over time, as judicial oversight threw out more and more coerced confessions, the reforms did move the needle on torture, but police and prosecutors had to institute the reforms on themselves.

In Mexico, local police and military forces sometimes engage in joint operations against drug cartels, blurring the line between law enforcement and punitive raids.

Another issue Magaloni and Rodriguez identified was the increasingly militarized nature of Mexican policing, driven in part by Mexicos approach to its drug war. In Mexico, local police and military forces sometimes engage in joint operations against drug cartels, blurring the line between law enforcement and punitive raids. These joint operations, the researchers found, increased police torture in the area by between 5 to 10%, even controlling for areas where high levels of drug cartel violence might make the war on drugs more war-like than usual.

A national government working at cross purposes to itself will have a particularly hard time curbing its footsoldiers violent tendencies.

Mexican justice had a hard enough time implementing reforms from the national level, but the militarization of the drug war created a set of mixed signals that, in some communities, wiped away the positive effects of the reform entirely. A national government working at cross purposes withitself will have a particularly hard time curbing its footsoldiers violent tendencies.

Critical State is your weekly fix of foreign policy without all the stuff you don't need. It'stop news and accessible analysis for those who want an inside take without all the insider bs.Subscribe here.

Continue reading here:

Federalism in violence: Part II - The World

The flags of Wales, Scotland, England and the UK. Picture by Joowwww.

Ioan Phillips and Jac Brown

It is highly ironic that the UK has established federal political systems around the world, yet remains reluctant to embrace this form of governance for itself.

With Brexit and Covid-19 underscoring the sclerotic nature of the British state, one of the most centralised in Western Europe, the federal ideal has been resurrected most recently by Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who today promised a wave of decentralisation.

There is, however, the real danger that to channel the nineteenth-century historian, Edward Freeman advocates of a federal UK end up championing the concept without giving any meaningful though to what it actually means in practice.

Yet we should not be too hasty to condemn. The vacuity of some federalists does not mean a federal UK is necessarily an outright bad idea.

The Constitution Reform Group (CRG) proposes a new act of union that would see the four nations of the UK given beefed-up powers as part of a federal set-up in which only a core handful of responsibilities over defence, foreign affairs, immigration, and currency, would remain at a UK level. Structurally at least, this would be a significant reshaping of the way politics in the UK is conducted, stripping power away from the centre.

Federalism also gives unionists and nationalists a chance to test their arguments. Unionists can argue that reform pacifies the nationalist yearning for independence, while bringing further autonomy. Nationalist governments could utilise new powers to diverge more from Westminster, preparing the ground for eventual independence.

Practicality

The fact remains, though: federalism is an unviable pipedream.

The most immediate obstacle is that those most in favour of a federal solution Labour and the Liberal Democrats are in the political wilderness, and will likely be for the foreseeable future.

To obtain a majority of one, Labour needs to gain an unprecedented 120 seats a task made more difficult by the partys ongoing struggles in Scotland.

Furthermore, the rise of independence in Welsh and Scottish political consciousness means that the constitutional debates there have shifted beyond areas federalism would be able to address.

Foreign policy is a case in point. Federalism would not have prevented Brexit. Nor would it have any mechanism for preventing some of the more ill-judged military interventions of the past two decades.

In addition, the successful realisation of federalism requires mutual respect between the different administrations of the UK.

Would a Conservative government in England work with its Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish counterparts in that spirit? The evidence suggests otherwise. It has regularly ridden roughshod over the views of the devolved governments on Brexit, while attempting to deliver COVID policy by diktat.

The other elephant in the room is that an English parliament would make a Westminster government fairly redundant, with the preferences of England still dominating this streamlined body.

Supporters of federalism retort that federal regions would guard against Englands preponderance although such an approach could well see power taken from councils, rather than central government.

Ultimately, the proliferation of pro-independence sentiment is not motivated by a desire for control over arcane pension policy rule. It is instead a question of identity.

Looking at UK politics today, it is hard to escape the feeling that we are on a very different path one where the main constitutional juncture is unionism against independence.

For unionists, federalism might be a comforting if abstract panacea, but it is an idea past its political sell-by date.

Go here to see the original:

Federalism is an attractive idea for unionists - but past its political sell-by date - Nation.Cymru

NewsOpinionColumnistsThe astonishing decline of support for Labour, once the dominant force in Scottish politics, has been once of the stories of devolution.

Sunday, 20th December 2020, 7:00 am

In the 2003 Holyrood election, under Jack McConnell, the party won 50 seats to the SNPs 27, while in the 2010 UK election 41 Scottish seats elected a Labour MP, compared to just six for the SNP.

Fast-forward to December 2019, and the SNP secured 48 Westminster seats to Labours one, a result that may have partly reflected confused messaging over whether the then leader Jeremy Corbyn would or would not agree to a second independence referendum.

So, for some, it might be tempting to write off Scottish Labour as we look ahead to next Mays elections. And indeed, both the SNP and Conservatives have sought to bill this as a straight-forward choice between two parties and two options: independence or the Union.

However, Keir Starmer is a considerably more formidable figure than Corbyn and it is clear he has identified Scotland as a place where the party must radically transform its fortunes to have a chance of success at the next UK election.

With that in mind, he, Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard and others in the party are attempting to add a third option to the mix with radical proposals for a modernisation of the British constitution that would see greater decentralisation and devolution to not just Scotland, but the whole of the UK.

In January this year, Starmer, who is due to give a speech on the issue this week, said: We need a new constitutional settlement: a large-scale devolution of power and resources. This will involve building a new long-term political and constitutional consensus. I believe that could best be built on the principle of federalism.

Right now, it seems clear that Labour has its work cut out to get this third option onto the ballot sheet in the event of a second referendum, let alone convince people of its merits. But, it could be that as the debate heats up that those on both sides of the debate start to see the merits.

For unionists, a home rule or devo max option might just keep the United Kingdom united. For nationalists, it could be a halfway house towards their ultimate aim of independence. Devolution may have contributed to the rise in support for independence so more of the same could boost support.

With polls showing record levels of support for independence, that might not seem like an attractive option, but if the numbers narrow as during what will be a hotly contested election campaign, it could become more appealing.

And for those not completely wedded to the status quo or the idea of a new nation, it is an option to consider, it does at least deserve a hearing as part of what we hope will be a reasoned and civil debate about Scotlands future.

For anyone in any doubt, the 2014 referendum showed this is an issue that people care most passionately about and that is absolutely fine, but we all must learn to control our emotions and respect those with whom we disagree and the outcome of the democratic process.

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

See more here:

Scottish independence, the status quo or federalism: Why Labour's third way deserves a fair hearing Scotsman comment - The Scotsman

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 23

Calling for a united nationwide initiative for a federal structure in the country, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) today extended solidarity with West Bengal Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress (TMC) chairperson Mamata Banerjee for the TMC kisan rally.

SAD president Sukhbir Singh Badal said here today that Punjab and West Bengal had always led the nations fight for political autonomy to the states for making India a strong federal country. We must continue with this tradition and invite more like-minded parties to take a stand for the genuine federal structure in the country, in keeping with the sentiments of our Constitution makers. We have allowed the powers of the states to be eroded in one way or another, due to which things have come to such an extent that the Centre has also legislated on a state subject agriculture. This has resulted in the ongoing mass kisan movement in the country.

Badal also applauded Banerjee for sending a five-member team of TMC MPs to hold talks with the protesting farmers and interact with the farmers leaders directly today. You have strengthened the farmers agitation by announcing a series of protests from the next week to demand revocation of the three agricultural laws. This will go a long way in making the farmers movement a national movement, he added.

The SAD president also informed the TMC leader that the party had formed a three-member sub-committee, comprising senior leaders Balwinder Singh Bhundur, Prof Prem Singh Chandumajra and Sikander Singh Maluka to coordinate with like-minded parties on the issue.

Original post:

SAD: Will work with TMC to strengthen federalism - The Tribune India

BOLPUR: Union home minister Amit Shah on Sunday took the state government head-on, saying the Centres requisition of three IPS officers was well within the federal structure, daring the state to cite which rules had been broken. His comment drew a sharp response from chief minister Mamata Banerjee, who called the transfers a blatant misuse of emergency provisions of the law, aimed at demoralising officers serving in Bengal. The state government would not allow this brazen att-empt by the Centre to control the state machinery by proxy, she added. She tweeted her thanks to the several opposition leaders who had supported her anti-federalism charge over the last two days. The state had conveyed its inability to relieve the trio Rajeev Mishra IGP, South Bengal; Praveen Tripathi, DIG, Presidency Range; and Bholanath Pandey, Diamond Harbour SP on the ground that the directive went against the bas-ic tenets of federal structure. The three IPS officers were in charge of BJP president J P Naddas security on December 10, when stones were thrown at his convoy en route to a rally in Diamond Harbour. The Centre has requisitioned the three officers within the framework of the federal structure, Shah said on Sunday. If the state feels the Centres letter to the IPS officers contravenes the federal structure, it can cite the rules under which it does, he challenged. On Sunday, CM Banerjee took to Twitter to reiterate her stand on the issue. Centre is brazenly interfering with the State governments functioning by transferring police officers. My gratitude to Bhupesh Baghel, Arvind Kejriwal, Amarinder Singh, Ashok Gehlot and M.K. Stalin for showing solidarity to people of Bengal and reaffirming their commitment to federalism. Thank you! she wrote. Four chief ministers Punjabs Amarinder Singh, Delhis Arvind Kejriwal, Chhattisgarhs Bhupesh Baghel and Rajasthans Ashok Gehlot had backed Banerjees stance on the IPS transfer issue on Saturday. On Sunday, DMK president M K Stalin and former union minister Yashwant Sinha also lent their weight behind Banerjee on the issue. NCP leader Sharad Pawar even spoke to her over a larger opposition alliance against the Centres repeated interference in state issues. The Centre has turned down the Bengals governments objection to relieve the three IPS officers. The state government has indicated that it would move Supreme Court if the Centre tried to force its hand. According to the provisions in rule 6(1) of IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, if theres a disagreement between the state and Centre, the state is requested to relieve the officer immediately to take up the central posting. On Thursday, the Centre informed the state government and the three IPS officers that the latter were being posted in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) and the Bureau of Police Research and Development for a period of three to five years. Shah also referred to the J P Nadda incident to argue that the ruling Trinamool was trying to suppress the voice of the opposition in Bengal. Parties have the right to reach out to people in a democracy. The ruling party has the responsibility to ensure that they can do so. But the Trinamool isnt allowing that. Power has gone to their head. We are not going to backtrack, he said.

See more here:

Amit Shah rebuts Bengal govts attack on federalism charge - Times of India

Guy Parmelin will assume the rotating Swiss presidency for the first time on January 1. He will have the difficult tasks of guiding Switzerland through the Covid-19 pandemic and defending the institutional agreement with the European Union against the wishes of his right-wing party.

Journalist and deputy head of the swissinfo.cheditorial group for German, French and Italian. Earlier, worked for Teletext and Switzerlands French-language national broadcaster.

More about the author| French Department

The 61-year-old economics minister spoke to SWI swissinfo.ch during a ten-day quarantine, which he was forced to enter after returning from London on December 14.

swissinfo.ch: In recent months economic interests have played a major role in Switzerlands policy against Covid-19. The magazine Foreign Policy, for example, ran the headline Switzerland is choosing austerity over life. Did Switzerland choose austerity over life?

Guy Parmelin: No, Im opposed to this view, which presents Switzerland as a selfish country in its handling of the coronavirus crisis. We have always put the health of the population first. That said, balancing health measures and their economic effects is obviously necessary. So far, weve managed to do that pretty well.

We regularly review our system. In recent weeks the cantons have begun to coordinate better and to apply stricter measures than the national standards allow. This demonstrates the responsibility they have taken in managing this crisis.

Guy Parmelin was born on November 9, 1959. He comes from the village of Bursins, on the shores of Lake Geneva in French-speaking western Switzerland.

Trained as a farmer and winegrower, he focused on politics early on. After being president of the Swiss Peoples Party for canton Vaud, he joined the House of Representatives in 2003.

In 2015 he was elected to Switzerlands seven-member government. He was given the defence and sports portfolio. In 2019 he took over at the economics ministry.

swissinfo.ch: But in Austria and Germany, two neighbouring countries with comparable health systems, relative mortality rates are much lower. How do you explain this?

G.P.: Each country is dealing with the crisis in its own way. Germany, which is a federalist country comparable to ours, was less affected at the beginning of the crisis this spring. Austria acted very firmly at the beginning, then opted for liberal measures in the summer before tightening them again.

Switzerland is constantly carrying out its own analysis of the situation. One can always criticise the governments decisions and feel that it should have acted differently. But we are taking responsibility for our choices, which were made in coordination with the cantons. We have clear rules and criteria thats how things work here.

swissinfo.ch: This autumn a lot of noise was made about the measures of varying sizes decided by the cantons, which caused a fair bit of irritation. Will federalism emerge unscathed from this crisis?

G.P.: Im convinced that its not a question of a failure of federalism, even if its necessary to have a look certain aspects of it. Federalism must work not only in good weather but also in a storm. There have sometimes been delays and poor coordination between the various levels of the state. Lessons must be learnt. But its not true that methods used in centralised countries have been better than ours. We are all committed to federalism and national cohesion; were not going to throw them away at the first crisis that comes along.

swissinfo.ch: Confidence in the government is at an all-time low, according to polls. How do you intend to win back the hearts of the Swiss?

G.P.: What is really difficult in this crisis is to enable people and businesses to plan for the future. This leads to growing dissatisfaction with our decisions which I completely understand. I also sense a certain fatigue among the population. The arrival of the vaccines should help relax the atmosphere and gradually return things to normal. But lets be clear: the damage has been done; it will be long-term. Our role will be to minimise it and ensure that Switzerland is ready when the recovery comes.

swissinfo.ch: The crisis has already cost the government more than CHF30 billion ($33.7 billion). But at just under 30% of GDP Switzerlands debt ratio is still very low by international standards. Isnt it time for the state to play a greater role and develop an investment plan to revive the economy?

G.P.: Economists are almost unanimous: a stimulus package would not make sense at the moment. The financial stimuli and the billions of francs that have been freed up allow the economic machine to continue to function and to withstand temporary difficulties.

At the same time, we are investing heavily in the future. Parliament decided in its last session to grant a credit of CHF28 billion for research and education over the next four years. Measures were also decided to support the export industry and SMEs [small and medium-sized businesses] that want to invest in research and development projects.

The government has set up a special innovation promotion programme worth CHF130 million for the next two years. This means that up to 2024 a total of CHF260 million will be made available to encourage companies to invest in innovation by relieving them of part of their costs. Tourism, sport and the cultural sector will also benefit from other specific types of support.

swissinfo.ch: Is the Swiss economy resilient enough to recover quickly from the crisis or is it likely to suffer serious damage?

G.P.: The damage has been done. Itvaries greatly from one economic sector to another. Within a single industry, the situation is very uneven. For example, hotels in cities are suffering much more than those in the mountains.

However, the latest statistics show that the bankruptcy rate in 2020 was lower than in previous years. This proves that the state has intervened in a targeted and effective manner, even if it may be keeping economic structures alive artificially.

The way out of the crisis will depend on the rate at which we can vaccinate the population and regain control of the epidemic. I believe that the best recovery plan is one that allows people to work.

swissinfo.ch: You place a lot of hope in vaccinating the population. However, compared internationally, the Swiss are particularly sceptical about the Covid vaccine. Are you going to get vaccinated in public to set an example?

G.P.: Of course Im going to get vaccinated, and Im prepared to do it in the middle of a football stadium if necessary (laughs). Vaccination is a civic act towards people at risk and it is the best way to quickly return to a certain normality.

That said, the fears and questions of part of the population are perfectly legitimate. The Swiss authorities will demonstrate maximum transparency over the coming months, both on the composition and effectiveness of this vaccine and on its possible side effects.

swissinfo.ch: As president, you will also be expected to report on the institutional framework agreement with the EU if this is successful. Are you ready to put your signature at the bottom of this document in Brussels?

G.P.: Before signing this agreement, the negotiations and discussions currently underway must be completed. The government will take note of this and then decide on the way forward. If there is the outcome you mention, the Swiss president should in principle initial the document.

swissinfo.ch: You will then be completely at odds with your party, the Swiss Peoples Party, which steadfastly rejects this agreement.

G.P.: Every cabinet minister represents the views of a political party. But then discussions take place, decisions are taken and they are supported by the entire government. This is called collegiality. In this particular case, it will be no different. When you are elected to the government, you know the rules of the game. If you dont want to stick to them, you shouldnt run for election.

Translated from French by Thomas Stephens

Original post:

New president says Switzerland 'always puts the health of its population first' - swissinfo.ch

The outcome of elections of 1967 gave a staggering blow to Congressdominance and generally considered as an important turning point in Indiaspolitics by putting an end to the era of one Party dominance. In this electionalthough Congress retained a bare majority in the Parliament-284 in a house of520 but it was unseated in eight out of sixteen state Assemblies including thepopulous heartland States of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The Party lost itsdominance in other six States- West Bengal, Orissa, Madras, Kerala, Rajasthanand Punjab. Latent social forces were coming to the fore in the states. It wassignificant that new tendencies were appearing not at the national but at theregional level. This shift of centre of gravity of public life from the centreto the periphery marked a qualitative change in politics. Integrative politicsof the kind that was needed for nation building in the past at the all-Indialevel is now needed in the states. In other words, they required politicalleadership of a high order in terms of vision and skills.

Beginning ofchallenges for federalism

In this newenvironment the issue of federalism came to be affected more by the ideologicalposition, political strategy and support base of the new governments. It wasfound that many of the coalitions, in the face of urge for power of theirpartners, joined hands only in opposition to Mrs. Gandhis government, but weresharply divided on the vital issue of Centre- State relations. In regards twoschools of thought were identified; one stands for a thorough re-examinationand introduction of amendments of far-reaching importance in the Constitutionso that Centre-State relations could be rearranged to suit the needs of thechanged political context and its unitary bias could be shed. The other school,however, does not consider all this necessary, and was content with a generalreappraisal of the Constitution which may admit of a broad review ofCentre-State relations within the existing Constitutional framework. Adescriptive hypothesis which perhaps best summed up the then situation was thatcooperative federalism in India having lost support base in the Congress systemwas in search of a new anchorage amidst pressures of democracy, nationaldevelopment, regional growth and State autonomy.

But above all the emergence of coalition politics had brought forward anew power equation in which smaller states have found important position in thefederal governance. Without going into the theoretical position of greaternationalism, lesser nationalism, little nationalism, and the like one candraw the conclusion that in the newly created political arrangement, smallerstates with greater political capability in the field of power manipulation canplay a very decisive role in the federal process. The experiences that theIndian state has gained over the years show that all types of regional or localissues create situations for the emergence of new types of demands-sometimesdemand for autonomy and sometimes the creation of the state. Among the pointsof growing tension in India federalism is the feeling in some communities thattheir cultural message for the world at large is not being promoted. Someothers have grievances in economic matters. In the changed situation the Centremust learn to play an effective mediatory role even as it continues tosafeguard the countrys integrity and independence. But since regionalmovements struggling for greater expression also wish to uphold the nationalidentity, the country is now in a position to move forward constructively inre-ordering CentreState relations. It can also play a more creative role infurthering the emergence of new global institutions and values.

Relation amongparties

From thefunctional point of view it may be noted that there have been sharp changes inthe relationship between the Congress Party and other non-Congress regionalpolitical parties. It is true that in most of the cases, before the emergenceof coalition politics and because of the dominant position of the Congress Party,the local or the regional parties did not enjoy any influential authority inthe total political process. But there have been significant changes since 1967and a climate of bargaining politics had taken its roots and in this processlocal or regional parties have been able to come forward with their agenda ofaction. It was for the first time that the hegemonic position of the Congresswitnessed opposition from regional or local political parties. It may not be anexaggeration to say that the seeds of regionalization of Indian politics hadbeen sown during the 4th General Elections. Looking from the pointof view of socio-economic configuration, it may be seen that a new social andeconomic class, mostly in the middle order, emerged and began to exercise theirinfluence in the policy making process. No longer the issue of relativeautonomy of states found favor with the national political parties and in itsplace the politics of bargaining came to the surface in which states began toassert themselves in the federal governing process.

Federalism andviews of parties

The newenvironment encouraged political parties of the time to speak in favour andagainst of the nature of Indian Constitution. Among the parties the erstwhileJana Sangh and present Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has stood for a centralisedfederalism. By its theory of Hindu revivalism it favoured a strong nationalgovernment. It was of the view that only a powerful national government was thesolution for checking the fissiparous tendencies threatening nationalintegration and encouraging foreign invasion. Therefore, the BJP propagated theidea that in the interest of nation and preserving national unity it stood forsome kind of a decentralised unitary system in place of federal set up. TheLeft Parties wanted a system of governance which would ensure substantialautonomy to the states. The Socialists, despite their awareness of the need forsubstantial regional autonomy, were in favour of a strong national governmentboth for the maintenance of national unity and the accomplishment of concrete,time- bound socialist programme. Of all the regional political parties, DMK andAIADMK, the Akali Dal and later on AGP in Assam demanded more devolution ofauthority for the regions. The changes brought about since 1967 had created asituation where there have been radical changes in the party positions all overthe country. With the emergence of the Non-Congress government in severalstates and reduction in the Congress strength in Parliament after the 1967General Elections the position of the states vis-a-vis the Union wasstrengthened. In 1968, the Communist Party of India stood for changes in thefederal constitution of the country so as to divest the union government of itsoverriding powers to interfere in the affairs of the states and in order towiden the autonomy of states especially in the matter of finance and stateeconomy. In line the CPI (M) favored widest autonomy for the various statescomprising the Indian federation.

(Author is Professor and Head, Department ofPolitical Science, B.N.Mandal University, Bihar)

More:

Relation between Federalism and Indian Party System - Rising Kashmir

BBC Scotlands newly appointed political editor, Glenn Campbell, wasted little time in signalling his gratitude for his lofty new position. In a tweet on Monday, he provided the future coordinates for the corporations tongue in respect of the UK Labour leaders fundament. This will get lost in the turmoil of today but Keir Starmers speech on redesigning UK could come to be seen as a hugely significant moment in our constitutional debate, which is why the staunchest Unionists/nationalists will seek to trash it.

Campbell is a classic BBC apparatchik whose main qualifications for the job (as with all his predecessors) are longevity,obsequiousness to senior politicians, and the ability to walk and read an autocue at the same time. Hell not be expected to break any new stories; no fresh or original political perspective will be demanded of him. Like those who went before him, hell have been given a standard issue pen-knife for the purposes of extracting skelves from all the fences upon which hell be expected to sit.

Campbells tweet afforded Starmers speech on re-hashed federalism (part 67 in a series) a respect it failed to merit. Worse than this, it channelled the kind of supercilious contempt that Scotlands political classes reserve for those who exhibit any kind of passion about politics.

READ MORE:'Blatant propaganda': BBC slammed for pro-Tory 'bias' in climate change story

If you are pro-Scottish independence and feel, after many years of incoherent ideas about federalism, that it fails to meet your aspirations for Scotland, you now know where you stand with BBC Scotlands political department: you are to be considered staunch and your opinions thus deemed to be worthless.

Starmer, of course, is a dream come true for the BBCs political journalists on either side of the Border. He is of Tony Blairs vanilla left, which is to say that his radicalism stretches no further than being sufficiently left of the Conservatives to justify the role of opposition leader. And thence to retain it until such times as the electorate simply tires of the Tories and makes him prime minister instead.

He wont exhibit any of Jeremy Corbyns alarming tendencies actually to promulgate core Labour values around collectivism, trade union rights and seeking a fair share in the nations wealth for those who produce it: the actual workers. The BBC, chiefly through the grotesque and unprofessional bias of its UK political editor, sought to portray Corbyn as an extremist while failing to show him any measure of the respect, bordering on sycophancy, she accords Conservative administrations. This permits her unfettered access to those fabled Downing Street sources. Her predecessor, Nick Robinson, deployed a similar degree of unprofessional partiality in his coverage of the 2014 referendum.

Thus, Starmer is a sufficiently safe Labour leader who will give no cause for alarm to the BBC or those print barons who control the right-wing press and whose duty it is to assemble firing squads when anyone gets dangerously close to threatening the UK legislature with something approaching socialism.

He is also a gift to those within the Labour Party who seek an easy life and the opportunity to solicit greasy handshakes on their progress through Parliament for the purposes of ensuring a tidy wee lordship or a few non-execs. Over the last two decades, these have been the ultimate career goals of most of Scotlands Labour grandees.

Federalism neatly encapsulates Labours race to the middle without making a nuisance of itself to vested interests. It sounds interesting and a little thrilling, implying as it does a radical challenge to the existing constitutional arrangements. Of course, its not really. Proper federalism brings parity of esteem economically and culturally and rests on the willingness of an enlightened government to reinforce it with the instruments and finances for regional authorities to flourish.

Nothing in the present Tory administrations direction of travel suggests theyd grant anything like this. Meanwhile, the presence of London, a city state behemoth whose population alone swallows up that of the second-largest constituent country of the UK, renders the concept obsolete. In the hands of a Labour Party absolutely committed to employees rights in the workplace and trade union activism, then who knows perhaps it might be made to work after a fashion.

But Starmer, and those other fake Labour politicians, have already shown us what they were all about in this respect. Even as Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 was securing more votes than Tony Blair did in his last two elections, they were seeking to undermine him. Against all odds and the combined forces of the UK establishment, the BBC and most of the press, Corbyn destroyed Theresa Mays seemingly impregnable majority and came within a whisker of defeating her. If Starmer and Stephen Kinnock and the rest of their treacherous gang had shown loyalty to their leader instead of actively campaigning against him, theres every chance that under a Corbyn premiership the UK would already have departed Europe with a statesmanlike deal with the EU.

READ MORE:Covid variant border chaos has exposed Brexiteer's 'sovereignty' as fantasy

Nor did it take long for Gordon Brown to be wheeled out again to reinforce Starmers message. Brown, the former iron chancellor, is now reduced to the role of an old performing circus clown whose old-fashioned act sparks feelings of nostalgia among the grandparents. That the centrists of London Labour still believe him to be a touchstone for pro-Union sentiment in Scotland betrays the fundamental ignorance of the party about Scottish politics and the dynamics which have produced 17 successive opinion polls indicating clear majority support for independence. The reliance on Brown is just part of this long flight of ignorance. The other is that Labour simply needs to get its act together in Scotland to reclaim its hinterlands and thus skewer the SNP. That ship, though, sailed a long time ago. It fails to acknowledge that the SNP first defeated Labour in Scotland 13 years ago, when Blair was still in power.

The political dynamic of the UK has changed so radically in the space of six years that ideas around federalism are now about as radical and profound as a department stores 10% discount. In terms of a serious challenge to the embedded corruption at the heart of the UK gangster state, Scottish independence is the only game in town, as it has been since 2014.

Starmers federalism intervention came after he had failed to urge Boris Johnson to seek an extension on trade negotiations with the EU. Of greater concern to Labour voters across the UK is their leader continuing in his role effectively as Boris Johnsons minister without portfolio.

Read the original post:

Kevin McKenna: New BBC political editor wasted no time taking seat on the fence - The National