Monthly Archives: February 2022

Welcome to The India Fix by Shoaib Daniyal, a newsletter on Indian politics. To get it in your inbox every Monday, sign up here. Have feedback, interesting links or memes? Send them to shoaib@scroll.in.

On Wednesday, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi made waves for a combative speech in Parliament during the debate on the motion of thanks to the Presidents address. While he criticised the Narendra Modi government and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, one bit especially stood out: his argument that India was a federation of its states and not a European-style unitary country.

India is not described as a nation [in the Constitution], it is described as a Union of States, Gandhi said, referring to Article 1 of the Indian Constitution: India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.

This argument led to an immediate response from the ruling BJP. Amit Malviya, head of the partys fearsome IT cell, said in a tweet that by characterising India as such, Gandhi was calling for the balkanisation of India.

The Congress is the countrys main opposition party, having garnered nearly 12 crore votes in the previous Lok Sabha election. That the ruling party could accuse it of wanting to break up India is a sign of the current dysfunction of Indian democracy. However, it was also an indication of how important the debate was for the BJP, both ideologically and electorally.

Well into the 1990s, secularism was a major ideological and rhetorical force in Indian politics, It was often used in speeches to attack the BJP. However, the past seven years has seen the near-complete decimation of secularism as an ideological issue in Indian politics.

The Samajwadi Party, which once fought elections on the plank that its government had even opened fire to protect the Babri Masjid, is today stepping gingerly to make sure it is not identified too strongly as a Muslim party in the upcoming Uttar Pradesh elections. It isnt the only one: from the Congress to the Trinamool, old-style Indian secularism is on its way out and there is an urgent rush to appear exclusively Hindu.

In this vacuum, the major ideological challenge to the BJP is increasingly becoming federalism and state identity.

The best example of this was, of course, in the 2021 West Bengal Assembly elections. Before this, state identity was rarely used explicitly in the states politics. In fact, till 2011, Bengals two major poles, the CPI(M) and the Congress, were both national parties with high commands based in Delhi.

Although the Trinamool, which came to power in 2011, was based in West Bengal, it did not have any particular state-based identity either. In fact, Banerjees first decision as chief minister was to significantly expand the list of West Bengals official languages to add four more Punjabi, Nepali, Santhali, Oriya, Hindi and Urdu on top of English and Bengali. (Contrast this with long-standing identity politics in states such as Tamil Nadu.)

Yet, when faced with a fearsome BJP juggernaut and its aggressive Hindu nationalism, the Trinamool, with its back to the wall, reached for an obvious, ideological weapon: paint the BJP as an outsider to Bengal. The attacks on the saffron party were strong, even vicious. The Trinamool used words like outsider and even borgi, a reference to the brutal Maratha invasions Bengal suffered in the 18th century, to paint the BJP not only as a poor choice for voters but alien to the state.

The BJP was genuinely stumped by this new form of populism. It was used to the electorally favourable ideological contests of Hindutva versus secularism a binary that appeals greatly to worried Muslims but to which most voting Hindus were, at best, apathetic. Right till the end of the election, when it suffered a complete rout, the party had not thought of a response.

This wasnt the only instance. Through 2021, Punjabi farmers used an aggressive idiom of federalism in order to oppose the Modi governments three new farm laws. Like all good mass politics, the thrust was based on a constitutional element did the Union have a right to pass these laws? as well as an appeal to populist sentiment around Punjabi identity.

In the end, the Union government buckled, withdrawing the laws with Modi himself apologising for moving them. Moreover, the BJP is practically persona non grata now in Punjab. Even its oldest ally, the Akali Dal, broke ties with it.

Spurred on by these successes, more and more politicians are getting incentivised to adopt a federal idiom as a way to oppose the BJP. On February 1, the chief minister of Telangana complained about how the Union government has usurped state powers a problem he thought so grave that he floated the idea of drafting a new Constitution. Before this, Congress-ruled Karnataka had taken a leaf out of Tamil Nadus book and launched an anti-Hindi campaign (a politics that the BJP did not obviously continue when it came to power in 2019).

Curiously, even in states where there is no explicit federal politics, the BJP has a tough time in state elections. In fact, there is now a marked pattern of the BJP performing better in national elections than in state polls. In the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, for example, the BJP managed an incredible 58% of the vote in Haryana. Yet, in the state elections a few months later, its vote share crashed to only 37% .

While in most cases, the growth of state identity is bad news for a national party like the BJP, once the idea acquires enough momentum, it will itself have to adopt it given the pressures of an electoral system (similar to how almost every Opposition party now signals Hindu identity).

In Haryana, for example, the BJP-led government itself passed a jobs reservations law for state residents. In fact, there is now an emerging political consensus around state reservations, even though the consequences could be jarring for Indian federalism.

Of course, while increasing federalism is good news for the Opposition during state elections, the opposite is true during Lok Sabha polls, where there is no contest with the BJP and Narendra Modis popularity. If this Centre-state gulf keeps widening, the centralised federation envisaged by the Constitution might come under new, powerful strains. Signs of this, in fact, are already appearing.

Public debt usually gets a bad rap. But really, its critical to keep the wheels of governance running. So this new book might be an interesting read.

Remember the job riots in the previous India Fix over railway jobs? While we tackled the overall unemployment crisis in the country, one micro reason for that riot was that the Union government is drastically cutting back on railway jobs.

For the past few decades, Indians have been in a curious situation of their leaders telling them that they are right around the corner to great prosperity even as their present condition remains one of the worst in the world.

First there was #IndiaSuperpower2020, then came Acche Din and now we have the finance minsters idea of Amrit Kal, auspicious time.

All of which is a bit frustrating if youre a citizen. But makes for good material if youre a cartoonist.

Original post:

The India Fix: How big a force is federalism on the ground in Indian politics? - Scroll.in

This is the season of harvesting maze and paddy. Some could not harvest their paddy, and most of the IDPs did not have a chance to collect their corns, a woman in the IDP camp told SHAN.

The intense fight between one Shan armed group and northern alliance armed groups in Mong Kung township, Southern Shan State, has led to thousands of IDPs fleeing their homes in January 2022 according to the woman who was displaced.

Some residents also said that they had to run away because of the conflict between Restoration Council of Shan State (RCSS/SSA) and Shan State Progressive Party (SSPP/SSA) started in the second week of September 2021.

According to the data collected in January 2022, 798 households comprising 2,635 people have been displaced, Over thirty villages have been relocated, quoted by a person who is helping the IDPs around that area.

The IDPs who are staying at a monastery compound, where seasonal festivals are usually celebrated in Mong Kung, cannot go back home yet because the armed groups are still positioning in their villages.

Those IDPs arrived at that monastery on 6 January 2022, and some has returned; however, some cannot return due to the armed groups are still in their villages. They are making a request to stop the fights and leave from their villages because the villagers need to harvest their crops.

They are also worried about their properties and livestock at home since they had to flee urgently when the fight broke out.

If we do not work for a day, we will not have enough for a week. If we do not work for a month, we will have difficulties for the whole year. I need to pick my green tea, and I need to get back to work, an internally displaced woman who lives in Huay Tuay village told SHAN.

The locals mentioned another pressing issue about the forced enlisting made by the ethnic armed groups in Shan State due to the severe fight between the groups.

The locals added that those ethnic armed groups have a policy to enlist new soldiers every year which made the young men in the village to run away during the enlisting season.

The common goal of these ethnic armed groups were to overthrow the military dictatorship and to establish a federal union or to gain self-determination.

However, it is questionable why these ethnics armed groups, which have the same common goal, are fighting one another.

According to the history, the 34 townships in Shan State, including Ko Kang region, were freely administered by their respective Sawbwar though it was a feudalism system.

Even though Myanmar was fallen under British colonization after the fall of Mandalay in 1885, the British colony only came to Shan State in 1886.

After that, Sawbwars still freely administered the 34 townships in Shan State along with British colony until Myanmars independence.

According to the Panglong agreement made on 12 February 1947, the Shan hills got independence with mainland Myanmar from the British. After that, Myanmar political issues started to influence into Shan State.

Because of the Kuomintang or Chinese Nationalist Party soldiers invaded into Shan State in 1952, the Myanmar central government spent three years fighting and chasing CNP soldiers out of Shan State.

During the warfare operation in Shan State, the central government announced the state of emergency in Shan State and oppressed Shan civilians, and the Sawbwars and Shan youth could not stand that. So, two dialogues were made, one in 1954 and the other in 1957, in Mong Yai to discuss about the Panglong agreement promises and whether to secede from the union of Myanmar after ten years from the signing agreement date.

After the central government could not decide on the seceding issue, military coup occurred. As a consequence, the military took over the power in 1962 and abolished the Sawbwars feudalism system, and it was the reason and the start of Shan armed revolution establishment.

It can be concluded that the establishment of Shan armed revolution was due to the abolishment of Sawbwars feudalism and Myanmar military oppression. The nowadays Shan ethnics armed groups conflict could be influenced by the idea of the revolution started in those days.

Today, the two Shan armed groups said they are opened to a political dialogue to solve the conflicts between them. However, the fight is still ongoing in Mong Kung township, Southern Shan State, and Kyuakme and Hsipaw township, Northern Shan State.

Because of the fight, thousands of people have to flee their homes and relocate to somewhere safe.

We always open the doors for a political dialogue. It is not just for RCSS, but also for the political parties, venerable monks groups, and peace building groups, we welcome them all for a political dialogue, SSPP/SSA spokesperson, Major Sai Phone Harn told SHAN.

RCSS/SSA spokesperson Major Kham Sam said that they are ready for a dialogue to find solutions regarding the conflicts with SSPP/SSA; however, it has not happened as Shan civilians expected so far.

We are always ready for a dialogue. We expressed this idea in the past, but it did not happen. Only more conflicts are escalating between us currently, the RCSS/SSA spokesperson quoted.

The two armed groups are accusing one another over the territorial issues, and the fights only led to thousands of people relocating again and again.

In order for the two Shan armed groups to reconcile, one of the most respected Shan political leaders U Khun Htun Oo used to be the middleman trying to solve the issues between them before his retirement. However, it was not a success.

He (U Khun Htun Oo) was very disappointed in them, a person who is closed to U Khun Htun Oo said.

Additionally, Committee for Shan State Unity (CSSU) has tried to reconcile the two groups and to stop the conflicts between them, and a statement was released on 1 January 2022; however, the fight is still ongoing in Shan State.

The current tension and fight in Mong Kung has led to thousands of locals to run and take refuge in the city of Mong Kung township, and nearby township like Laikha. Plus there are many IDPs in Northern Shan State because of the war in Kyaukme and Hsipaw township.

It is not that we want this battle to occur, we truly do not want this too because there are casualties on both sides and civilians. The question is who started this fight, and who is going to end this, SSPP/SSA spokesperson, Major Sai Phone Harn told SHAN.

We understand and feel the pain of our Shan civilians, we will redevelop and reconstruct the loss of the civilians Major Sai Phone Harn added.

Regarding the current tension, RCSS/SSA said that if the offensive fights are ended, there will not be any war, In order to stop the conflict, the other side must stop their offensive moves. It is all depending on their side, quoted by RCSS/SSA spokesperson Major Kham Sam.

One of the consequences of the conflict was that a woman who lives in Maung Leng village, Pan Kay Thu tract, Mong Kung township, has stepped on a land mine set up by the two armed groups and severely injured herself.

If RCSS/SSA will still be active in the areas where SSPP/SSA is controlling, the ongoing fight would spread into Nam Sang Kholam township warned by SSPP/SSA Lt. Col. Sai Su.

Additionally, on 11 January 2022, one humanitarian car was shot while it was going to the IDPs camp near the entry signboard of Mong Kung township to collect things from the camp.

Recently, fights broke out in Northern Shan State between Kyaukme and Hsipaw township along the Mandalay Muse highway. Because of that, the IDPs from Hsipaw township are relocated to Pawjo monastery, and the IDPs from Kyaukme township are taking refuge at Nam Sit Lin monastery in the city, and some are staying at their relatives house.

It is clearly indicated that local residents have long been the victims of the so called battle-cry to establish a federal union or to overthrow the military dictatorship of these Shan armed groups.

The civilians are interested to see how these ethnic armed groups, who claimed their common enemy is the Myanmar military junta, will get involved in the current nationwide armed revolution.

Currently, there are over 2,500 IDPs in the city of Mong Kung, over 800 in Laikha, Southern Shan State, and thousands have been displaced in Kyuakme township, Northern Shan State.

Read the original post:

The Victims of The So Called Federalism Battle-cry - Burma News International

The State Administration Council (SAC) made an announcement on February 6 inviting all ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) to the grand ceremony of the Diamond Jubilee Union Day as well as the pre-coordination meeting on perpetual peace talks to build the Union based on democracy and federalism during the ceremony of the Diamond Jubilee Union Day, State-run newspapers reported.

The SAC has invited all the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) signatories and non-signatories, except those declared as terrorist groups.

The announcement says it is necessary to focus on the perpetual peace by seeking solution through negotiation in accord with the democratic practices in order to solve the political problems politically that have existed in successive eras as internal affairs of the country.

The SAC also urges the entire ethnic national people to negotiate all stakeholders to attend the free peace talks without preconditions and the Diamond Jubilee Union Day for restoration of the perpetual peace of the government.

The announcement points out that although Myanmar has regained its independence for 75 years, the strengthening of sovereignty and development of the nation do not have improvement as expected due to occurrences of internal armed conflicts and the country loses the strength and capabilities. It is necessary to restore the perpetual peace to apply these strength and capabilities for the State development at full capacity.

Restoration of the perpetual peace is very important for building the Union based on democracy and federalism.

The statement says the majority of political parties focused their discussions on construction of the Union based on democracy and federalism within five years.

See the original post:

All EAOs invited to Diamond Jubilee Union Day celebration, preliminary peace talks - Eleven Myanmar

Communities Secretary Michael Gove

MICHAEL Goves been writing love letters. Hes finally published the long-awaited Levelling Up White Paper, a Valentines card to Red Wall voters thats supposed to keep them feeling warm and fuzzy about the Tories.

Unfortunately, it felt like a love letter Boris Johnson had written full of gushing promises youd be very unwise to take on face value.

But it did have a certain significance for the union between Scotland and England. Amid all the breathless vision stuff about turning places like Sunderland and Bolton into the bestest places in the world to live ever, Mr Gove talked of greater devolution to the English regions and this matters. Why? Because it reflects a growing appetite in England for stronger regions. Stronger English regions make federalism a viable option for the UK, creating a potentially popular alternative to independence.

The problem is that baby steps towards greater autonomy for individual counties and cities, as Mr Gove is offering, will lead to a messy and incoherent whole, when whats needed is a proper reimagining of the way the UK is governed. That has to include the abolition of the woefully outdated House of Lords in favour of a Senate of the Nations and Regions, and directly elected and accountable assemblies for any region that wants one.

READ MORE REBECCA: Don't bet on Labour to win next election

That model would rebalance England to an unprecedented degree and change the game when it came to options for the UKs future.

The usual rejoinder to this is that English voters have to want it; you cant impose greater autonomy on the English regions. Well, its true that for a long time they didnt seem to want it but that is changing before our eyes. Andy Burnham, Steve Rotherham and others, as energetic advocates for their areas, have created mayor envy in other, undevolved parts of England. Momentum is building. And as we know in Scotland, once voters get a taste for more local decision-making, they tend to want more of it.

Story continues

The implications for the Scottish debate are obvious. If there is one thing that has become increasingly clear over the last eight years, its that the choice between independence and the status quo is a false dichotomy.

There is a great proliferation of constitutional options, even just under the broad heading of independence. Independence supporters themselves are split over how close relations should be with a post-Brexit Europe and a UK thats no longer in the EU, over currency, the monarchy and tackling debt. The constitutional options are on a continuum, with isolation at one end and total integration at the other. Independence and federalism come in a range of guises in between.

Politicians who insist on trying to force a binary choice onto the Scottish people are therefore distorting the debate. There is an alternative to independence in federalism, with more powerful English regions counterbalancing the might of London and a reformed UK parliament reflecting the concerns of the nations and regions. Radical federalism is not far removed from softer forms of independence.

The question is whether the UK government, with its past instinct for centralisation, is finally seeing the value in developing this third option.

The Levelling Up White Paper offers a nod in that direction, though it should be treated with caution. It notes, for instance, that the UK is highly centralised compared to other OECD countries and theres a need to widen, deepen and simplify devolution. Even in areas of England which have seen devolution local leaders have comparatively limited powers, it declares, with the mayors of New York and Paris having much greater clout as well as more revenue-raising powers.

READ MORE REBECCA: Scots Tories must go their own way

By 2030, every part of England that wants one will have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement, promises Mr Gove. With talk like that, hes in danger of sounding enthusiastic.

But his concrete offer is less ambitious than this makes it sound. What hes really talking about are more mayors for counties and cities.

That would be significant, but not a game-changer in itself. At the moment, mayors are directly elected but their teams are not. For instance, Andy Burnhams cabinet of 10 are the leaders of the 10 local councils in greater Manchester.

In London, by contrast, the 25 members of the London Assembly are directly elected. Are we on the cusp of seeing small, directly elected regional authorities spring up all over England? There is no indication of that.

And it would be surprising if we were. After all, as the Institute for Government notes in a paper this week, this is a government that has shown a willingness to override the devolved institutions in areas of their own responsibility a government, in other words, that likes to assert its primacy which seems to jar with ideas of muscular devolution for the English regions.

But thats whats needed. The constitutional monolith that is England does need to be broken up a bit, or inevitably, the London government will always dominate.

An English parliament would be sensible, but that would not solve the problem.

Decentralising power in England is key. Having regional assemblies with clout would be the best way to make UK federalism work.

The UK Government plans to let the English regions devolve at different speeds and in different ways, according to what local people want. That is the right thing to do, but you are left wondering if its also a convenient way for a government which likes to hoard power to avoid passing too much more of it down the chain too quickly.

There is a danger that all this talk of devolution within England is just a superficial sop to keep Red Wall voters onside, rather a sign of genuine commitment to change the way the UK is run.

It would be a lost opportunity if that were true.

The polls, for years now, have shown the Scottish population more or less evenly split over the independence question. This was confirmed by last Mays Scottish election and even by the latest two polls this month, which show a dead heat between Yes and No.

Scottish politics sometimes seems condemned to this attrition, but thats only true if the third way option continues to be ignored.

The Scottish Government frequently makes common cause with Wales; well in future it could find fresh allies in the north-east, north-west and midlands of England, assuming Scottish ministers did not consider it beneath them to parly with mere regions. The ongoing dominance of London and Whitehall is no longer a given.

But the UK government cant just play at this. Do they want to reinvigorate the UK or dont they? Its time to decide.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.

Go here to see the original:

Rebecca McQuillan: The real threat to independence that could save the Union - Yahoo News UK

In early November 2021, the African Union envoy former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo stated that he saw a small window of opportunity to end the ongoing civil war in the Ethiopian Tigray region. However, that slim glimmer of hope now seems elusive, as panic has mounted due to rebel forces claiming more cities in the Amhara region and preparing to launch an assault on Addis Ababa, Ethiopias capital city. Abiy Ahmed, Ethiopian Prime Minister and Nobel laureate, responded by putting on a military uniform and calling for public rallies on Facebook, vowing to lead troops in the war against advancing Tigray rebels.

The conflict was sparked in November 2020 by clashes between the federal government of Abiy Ahmed and the Tigrayan Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF). The TPLF, representing the Tigrayan ethnic minority, ruled Ethiopia for nearly 27 years without political division. In 2018, the election of Abiy Ahmed and the establishment of an Ethiopian federal government of Oromo ethnic origin removed the TPLF from the government sphere. Accusing the Ethiopian government of marginalizing the Tigrayan ethnic group, the TPLF has sincestatedits objective: fighting against the centralized power handled by Abiy Ahmed in Ethiopia and freeing Tigray. The rebels armed themselves heavily, held independent legislative elections in 2020, and the war was officially started by theattackon a federal army barracks on the night of November 3. Ethiopia has now reached the heart of the conflict between the coalition of the TPLF rebel forces and the alliance of Oromo and Amhara militias, helped by the Eritrean army, which the Prime Minister allowed to intervene.

It is necessary to understand that the federal government and TPFL are not the only belligerents involved; the reality is a much more complex narrative. Ethnicity plays a crucial but not exclusive role in Ethiopian politics, as the country is home to more than 80 different ethnic groups. The ruling Prime Minister is part of the largest group, as the Oromo compose a third of the national population. Next comes the Amhara, representing a quarter of the Ethiopians. Finally, the Tigrean population, which resides mainly in the Tigray region, accounts for seven per cent of the Ethiopians.

However, presenting ethnic heterogeneity in the Ethiopian population is not sufficient to understand the causes of this complex crisis. An analysis of the regions history is also necessary to explain the embedded obstacles to peaceful settlements. Opposition between the central power and its peripheries has existed since the very formation of the Ethiopian state. This ancient Shoa dynasty, which ended under Menelik in the 19th century, was marked by regionalist insurgencies. In the 1970s, while Ethiopia was ruled by Emperor Haile Selassie I, socialist-influenced movements enabled the rise of a progressive popular revolution. In 1974, the Coordinating Committee of the Armed Forces (the Derg) joined the revolution and overthrew the emperor. Thereupon, a military dictatorship controlled the country between 1975 and 1991.

The Ethiopian military junta pursuedcentralized controlthat managed to wipe out all contending political opposition through widespread violence and repression against various communities. Thus, in the early 1980s, the TPLF gained strength and a broad base of popular support. It became a regional liberation movement for Tigray and, with its allies, fought the military equally to take power and to reinvent the conception of the Ethiopian state. Therefore, a coalition of other regional movements with the TPLF created the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), which overthrew the Derg in 1991 and reformed the country after numerous resurgences. The autonomist and regional parties in the coalition thus drafted the 1994 Ethiopian constitution.

Ethnic federalismis enshrined in Ethiopias 1994 Constitution, whichstatesthat every Nation, Nationality, and People in Ethiopia has a right to self-determination, including the right to secession. Although it is hard to achieve because of legal conditions, this embedded right to secession and federalist rhetoric left a lasting legacy on Ethiopian politics. Today, for Amhara and national elites, ethnic federalismimpedesthe creation of a strong, unitary nation-state that Abiy Ahmed has been seeking since 2018. Ethnic federalism is not enough of a compromise for ethnonational rebel groups; a peaceful ceasefire could still be an option and a highly desirable one in the eyes of the international community, but it seems unlikely considering the ongoing progress made by rebel groups.

One year later, the crisis has transformed into a disastrous humanitarian situation in the Horn of Africa region, emphasized by the recent escalations of violence. North of Ethiopia, 400,000 people in Tigray live in famine conditions. The Ethiopian governments efforts to constrict the flow of aid into a region controlled by Tigrayan rebel forces only reduce the likelihood of successful negotiations. Indeed, the government denying permission totrucks filled with food,medicine, and fuel to move from neighbouring regions to Tigray enhanced has only incentivized the TPFL to undertake an aggressive strategy for the TPLF.

In late October 2021, after the fall of two cities close to the capital, the Ethiopian government declareda state of emergency. In a Facebook post since deleted for accusations of hate, Abiy Ahmed called on citizens to arm themselves. Such a message was conveyed as the United Nations released a report on the region, which depicts the violence of the conflict as having forced more than1.2million Ethiopians to be displaced. Evidence is mounting of human rights violations by both sides, particularly reflecting numerous abuses against women. The conflict has resulted more broadly in violence against all civilians as thousands, whether Tigrayans considered traitors by the TPLF Amhara civilians or enemies of the central government military forces, have been killed.

Finally, in late December 2021, Ethiopia witnessed a new turnaround in the situation caused by an increase in the strength of the federal army. The governmentannouncedthe non-advancement of troops to Tigray, giving hope to the international community of open negotiations. However, the situation has recently fallen back into extreme violence.

The legacy of historical secessionist movements, the horrors committed since the beginning of the conflict, and a society based on ethnic federalism make the incentives for a diplomatic resolution extremely limited. Even worse, the latest government messages promoting violence to permanently destroy the TPLF justifiably worries experts about giving rise to the expansion of combat operations andintercommunal violence. The airstrikes witnessed in December 2021 correspond to more preemptive government military actions rather than negotiations. These attacks have left a bitter taste to Abiy Ahmeds Nobel Peace Prize, as the Prime Minister seems unable to resolve the Ethiopian civil war.

Featured image: Ville gens rue banniere by Brett Sayles is licensed under Pexels.

Edited by Joshua Poggianti

See the original post here:

The Extreme Difficulty of Diplomatically Resolving the Ethiopian War - The McGill International Review

Before the pandemic, at most of my speeches to business and civil society groups, a question or comment was almost always made about why we dont abolish state governments. The reasons were many and varied but all around a theme: a basic concern was that Australia is overgoverned; concern about the counterproductive consequences of the governance structures, in terms of blame and competition, or competitive federalism; that there are too many politicians; and that government is too expensive.

Reform has always been difficult, but more so now. State border closures have been seen by many as a significant retrograde step, harking back to the inefficiencies and disruptions of the days of separate rail gauges, but they have also been popular. The situation has been further complicated by the overlapping of responsibilities and unnecessary duplication in the bureaucracies engaged in the provision of government services, as well as the resistance to ensuring the consistency of regulations across borders in most policy areas.

Another complication from the pandemic has been the concept and role of the so-called national cabinet. It is not really a cabinet, nor is it fully representative. It was simply an initiative of a desperate prime minister wanting to ensure some engagement and relevance in the response to Covid-19. It was sold as a co-ordinating body, but it has clearly failed.

Essentially, national cabinet operates along the following lines: the states agree on a way forward on the various challenges, and then Scott Morrison announces it, writing his government into the process, trying to make it look as though he is in charge. This obviously resulted in some very real tensions within the federation, which Morrison has compounded by shirking or ducking clear responsibility.

For example, the Commonwealth has constitutional responsibility for quarantine yet he failed to underwrite purpose-built national quarantine facilities. Similarly with aged care, where Morrison sought to blame the states as Covid-19 ran amok, despite having clear obligations set out by the royal commission into the sector.

I must admit that I got very enthusiastic when Tony Abbott announced, as an early initiative of his government, that he would have two inquiries one into the structure and operation of our federation and one into the tax system. It is important that these issues are looked at together reform is a two-staged process, which first must agree on a structure of our federation, with a clear allocation of responsibilities, minimising duplication, and which then must consider the most effective and fair way to fund this structure.

Unfortunately, these Abbott inquiries never happened as initially announced. Although the federation review was established, it was soon terminated as it began to look like some of the issues could become politically difficult for his government. The terms of reference for the tax review were never issued, so that went nowhere.

Both issues have been left to drift. Our tax system has limped along with some very serious structural weaknesses, the reform of which is fast becoming an imperative. Discussions of the clear allocation of responsibilities to one level or other of government have identified a number of important criteria. For example, the effectiveness of service delivery.

As the states, not the Commonwealth, own schools and hospitals, it has been accepted that they should carry direct responsibility here, yet many feel we need a national framework to set and enforce national standards and a curriculum.

Of course, education extends well beyond schools, from preschool education through to universities, which are mostly state-owned. Again, it seems sensible that education overall should be a state responsibility. Indeed, it raises the obvious question as to whether we actually need a minister for education in the national government. Canada, for example, doesnt have one education is entirely a provincial responsibility. Similar considerations apply to hospitals. The scope to reduce duplication and to cut the costs of government significantly is potentially quite significant in these two areas.

Nevertheless, there are important exceptions. The Great Barrier Reef is a significant national asset, the responsibility for which should be national. Other areas are also clearly of national significance, such as industrial relations, transport regulation, climate, manufacturing industry and so on.

Aged care stands as a disturbing example of a lack of precision in the allocation of responsibility. The national government currently sets the policy and does the funding and regulation. Therefore, it has been seen to carry overarching responsibility. Several of the states used to own and operate nursing homes but sold or closed them. The Howard governments Aged Care Act opened the door to more privatisation, which has been less than successful in terms of the quality, cost and availability of care, as well as putting pressure on and creating a wasteful bureaucracy.

In recent years concern has grown about the failures of governments in the delivery of essential services such as power and telecommunications, as well as health and aged care. In many cases these responsibilities have been abrogated to the private sector, which is driven more by profitability than cost-effective delivery of quality services.

Another contentious area has been climate change, where the failure of the national government to develop a relevant and deliverable policy has seen the states step up to fill the void. They have acknowledged a climate emergency, adopted net-zero targets, and funded technology development. The result while positive at a state level has been a mishmash of initiatives and considerable uncertainty for the private sector and its financiers.

Service delivery is another major issue. Most federal departments have no experience in it. This was most conspicuous during the pink batt scandal, where the Rudd government attempted to deliver that policy by relying on the federal Environment Department, which had no experience in service delivery. The results were disastrous. Morrison compounded these kinds of issues during his initial briefing to the national public service, where his instruction was that their primary role and responsibility was in service delivery rather than policy development, which he said was the domain of him and his ministers. Clearly neither the public service nor his ministers were qualified for these roles, most often with no coalface experience.

Federation reform is emerging as an issue for the next election. Anthony Albanese was asked about his plans in this respect at his recent address at the National Press Club, particularly as to the future of national cabinet. His response was most instructive: ... you cant say that you want to work with states and territories and then impose things from the Commonwealth. But what you can do is engage in a spirit of goodwill. And can I say that I have spoken to premiers, not just Labor premiers, on an off-the-record basis, and youd expect me to do that. We need a clearer delineation of who is responsible for what.

Albanese seems to get it. He acknowledges the need for federation reform as part of what he calls the growth agenda and the microeconomic reform and productivity agenda. He has the experience to push a collaborative agenda that will inevitably require a deal with the states. But would it be a priority of an Albanese government? It certainly should be a priority of the next government it would be overwhelmingly in our national interest. Going by Morrisons past attitudes and actions, it is unlikely to be a priority for him.

Tax reform is complicated as both the Commonwealth and the states have tax bases and a couple of the state taxes, such as land and payroll, are potentially among the most effective tax bases but have been neutered in a process of competitive federalism where the states compete to attract people and business to their states.

Also, as politically clever as it may have been at the time for Howard to commit all goods and services tax revenue to the states, in practice it has only ensured what has become a yearly shit fight about its distribution. More than that, it is difficult to increase its coverage or increase the rate without the full agreement of the states. The GST is also a pressure point because it has not been the growth tax that the states had hoped, given that the spending it is levied on is growing less fast than the spending it is not levied on.

There are a number of other tax system complications and issues, including the overall resilience of the system; the sustainability of the profit-based corporate tax system; the many inequities favouring the wealthy, including on housing and superannuation; trusts; and the many corporates that dont pay any tax. These and others are important in themselves, but they complicate overall systemic tax reform.

It is ridiculous to most Australians that our state and federal governments cannot work together in the national interest. The bottom line is problems dont get solved. People are tired of weasel words, abrogated responsibility and the blame game. At a time when people are worried and stressed about their futures, the governments we elect need to remember who put them there and why.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper onFeb 5, 2022 as "On the levels".

A free press is one you pay for. In the short term, the economic fallout from coronavirus has taken about a third of our revenue. We will survive this crisis, but we need the support of readers. Now is the time to subscribe.

Read the original here:

Why federation reform should be an urgent priority - The Saturday Paper