Page 10«..9101112..2030..»

Category Archives: Federalism

Deuba’s one year in office marked by misrule and tactic from Oli’s playbook – The Kathmandu Post

Posted: July 13, 2022 at 9:20 am

On July 12 last year, the Supreme Court issued a verdict that was quite expected, yet unusual. It overturned then KP Sharma Oli governments decision to dissolve the House, just as it directed the Presidents Office to appoint Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba as the countrys prime minister within 24 hours.

The very next day, President Bidya Devi Bhandari administered Deuba the oath of office and secrecy.

The ground for the order to appoint Deuba as the prime minister, however, was laid by Oli himself. Congress and other parties had vehemently opposed Olis move of dissolving the House twice, his way of running the country through ordinances and the rise of political corruption under his watch.

Even the leaders from his party CPN-UML, who later formed the CPN (Unified Socialist), had taken to the streets demanding Olis ouster.

This was the first time in Nepals history that a prime minister was being appointed as per a court order.

Deuba returned to power for the fifth time, a feat no one has achieved in Nepal.

On Wednesday, he will complete his one year in office, leading a coalition government of five parties.

Theres hardly anything to mention when it comes to governance in Deubas tenure; instead, he has followed in Olis footsteps in earnest, experts and observers say.

We didnt have much expectation from the Deuba government but we were hopeful that he wont be a repeat of Oli, Achyut Wagle, a professor at Kathmandu University who writes on political economy, told the Post. Sadly, he has done exactly what Oli did.

Oli was hugely criticised for his actions which observers said were a direct threat to the constitution, democracy and rule of law.

Deuba may not be as aggressive as Oli in flouting the constitutional spirit and democratic principles, but he has fared poorly on all the fronts, including governance, according to experts.

As the opposition party, Deubas Congress was fierce in criticising the Oli government for issuing ordinances one after another, saying that such moves undermined the dignity of the Parliament.

On July 18, when Deuba was seeking the vote of confidence, Congress leader Minendra Rijal said that they would show how the government should be run.

After winning the vote of confidence from the House of Representatives on July 18 last year, Deuba government prorogued the Parliaments session.

Within a month, on August 17, the Deuba government issued an ordinance to amend the Political Parties Act so as to ease a split of parties. He had prorogued the House session on August 16.

Revising an earlier provision which required the backing of at least 40 percent of Central Committee and Parliamentary Party members to register a new party, the ordinance lowered the ceiling. After the amendment, any group having support of over 20 percent of Central Committee or Parliamentary Party members could register a new party at the Election Commission.

The ordinance was issued to ease the split of the CPN-UML.

Deubas party had once lashed out at the Oli government for issuing a similar ordinance in April 2020.

Again in December 2020, Congress denounced Olis move of issuing an ordinance to amend the Constitutional Council Act (Functions, Duties and Procedures) 2010. But on Friday, the Deuba government registered a bill at the National Assembly retaining most of the provisions in the ordinance brought by Oli.

Just like Oli turned a blind eye to his ministers shenanigans and even defended Gokul Baskota, then communications minister, who was embroiled in a corruption controversy, Deuba maintained silence when political chicanery of his ministers Prem Ale and Janardan Sharma were reported.

Ale resigned after his party, the CPN (Unified Socialist), recalled him, while Sharma stepped down following the formation of a parliamentary committee to investigate allegations that he had committed financial crime.

Other than playing a constructive role in endorsing the Millennium Challenge Corporation Nepal Compact, holding local elections and keeping the ruling alliance intact, this government has failed on all other fronts, Puranjan Acharya, a political analyst with a leaning to the Congress, told the Post. He has disappeared from leadership. It seems somebody else, not Deuba, is running the government.

Acharya said corruption is rampant, inflation has gone up, governance is poor and the foreign policy is unstable while Deuba is openly seen siding with the Americans.

When Deuba succeeded Oli, ruling parties claimed that protecting the constitution, strengthening federalism and controlling corruption would be the governments priorities.

Experts say the incumbent government had an opportunity to ensure good governance, consolidate federalism and give due focus to the countrys economy.

However, on the contrary, the government has failed miserably in public service delivery and seems to be working at the behest of some interest groups, according to them.

And Deuba is least bothered about criticism, said Wagle.

The country has adopted a cooperative model of federalism where the federal government has a role of facilitation, says Wagle. And in addition to delaying the promulgation of the laws needed to implement federalism, the present government has never taken any step for its facilitation, according to him.

The Inter-Provincial Council led by the prime minister is a platform to resolve differences between the federal and provincial governments. However, Deuba hasnt held a single meeting of the council yet.

According to Wagle, Deuba had taken some good policy decisions like forming women and Dalit commissions in his first and second tenures as a prime minister but over the years he has grown as a self-centred politician who is least bothered about performance and only concerned about being in power.

He wants to govern every sector by the people of his choice, he said. He doesnt mind keeping the positions vacant if he doesnt get the people he wants. His rule is simple, either my people or no one.

Congress leaders say the present government had two major tasks to perform: first, bringing the constitution on track and holding the elections. They claim the government has performed its job effectively while also has kept the international relations balanced which was not the case earlier.

Despite that, its a fact that the government hasnt fared well in governance and service delivery, Gagan Thapa, Congress general secretary, admitted. Similarly, some of the moves of the Oli government which we criticised as the opposition have been repeated. This is wrong. The government must be sensitive to such issues.

Some political experts agree that the incumbent government has brought diplomatic relations on track.

Nepals relations with India and the Western world have become cordial after Deuba came to power, according to them.

I appreciate Deuba governments effective vaccine diplomacy and efforts in bringing Nepals diplomatic relationship with different countries in order, said Vijay Kant Karna, a professor of Political Science at Tribhuvan University. However, Deuba has failed in correcting the constitutional order which was derailed by the Oli government. He has also failed on the governance and service delivery fronts.

The problem with Deuba is that he only gives space to the people from his faction and not to the competent people which is the reason for his poor performance, according to Karna.

He might be a clever politician but his governance has always been poor because he promotes just a small group of people, he said.

Deuba is leading a coalition government of five parties. Any of the parties, except for the Rastriya Janamorcha, pulling out the support might result in the fall of his government.

Being a person who always wants to be in power, Deubas entire focus is in keeping the coalition intact at any cost, according to experts.

Deubas entire focus is on keeping the coalition alive as it ensures his longevity in power. Therefore, he has little time to pay attention to governance, said senior advocate Shree Hari Aryal, former chief of Transparency International Nepal, an anti-corruption institution.

Wagle, the professor, says elections are approaching and its the time when people give their verdict.

Lets see if people will punish or reward him, he said.

Link:

Deuba's one year in office marked by misrule and tactic from Oli's playbook - The Kathmandu Post

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Deuba’s one year in office marked by misrule and tactic from Oli’s playbook – The Kathmandu Post

Restoring States’ Rights & Adhering to Cooperative Federalism in Environmental Policy Essay in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy -…

Posted: June 30, 2022 at 9:00 pm

WASHINGTONU.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), member of the Senate Environment andPublic Works Committee, penned an essay for the Harvard Journal of Law &Public Policy on restoring states rights and adhering to cooperativefederalism in environmental policy. In the essay, Senator Cramer examines theClean Air Act, specifically Section 111(d), the Clean Water Act, Waters of theUnited States, and the Water Supply Rule.

Inmy ten years as a state regulator, six years as a U.S. House member, and nowthree years as a U.S. Senator, I have seen time and again the imposition of thefederal governments mediocrity on North Dakotas excellence,wroteSenator Cramer.

Overthe years, cooperative federalism has been understood as the relationshipbetween the states and the federal government, with heavy deference towards thelatter. Common sense would infer this to mean states should cooperate with thefederal government when in reality the foundation of federalism is the exactopposite. In theory, cooperative federalism and environmental policy shouldpeacefully and easily coexist,continued Senator Cramer.

Environmentalstatutes have been repeatedly used by administrations to federalize naturalresources policy. This enables not-so-thinly-veiled federal power grabs underthe guise of protecting the environment. Restoring the rightful place ofcooperative federalism requires a major re-prioritization of responsibilitiesof the Legislative and Executive Branches. Legislators must be tasked with moreprescriptive lawmaking to precisely define congressional intent. This, in turn,will provide better direction to Executive Branch agencies to execute theirmission in the absence of an emboldened bureaucracy,concluded SenatorCramer.

SenatorCramer dedicated the essay to late North Dakota Attorney General WayneStenehjem.

Clickheretoreadthe pre-publication version of theessay.

See the article here:

Restoring States' Rights & Adhering to Cooperative Federalism in Environmental Policy Essay in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy -...

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Restoring States’ Rights & Adhering to Cooperative Federalism in Environmental Policy Essay in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy -…

How to boost the message of progressive federalism? – Morning Star Online

Posted: at 9:00 pm

WELSH Labour leader Mark Drakeford has suggested that the UK Labour Party should promote local identities as part of its work to engage with the public.

The connection between geographic identities and political affiliation had perhaps been noticed a bit earlier in Wales, Drakeford said at an event marking 100 years since Labour won the popular vote in Wales.

He also suggested Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham was making progress in linking peoples identification with Manchester with Labour values.

I welcome his comments generally and think these topics are well worth exploring.

The public identify with communities, localities, regions and nations, and with concepts such as sovereignty and control.

Conversations about geographic issues can lead to conversations about power, decision-making and class politics.

Geographic, territorial justice requires class and economic justice. Britains north-south divide has illustrated this for decades.

Morning Star editor Ben Chacko reported on June 18how progressive federalism and regional questions have been raised at recent AGMs of the Peoples Press Printing Society, the co-op which runs the newspaper. Hopefully the Star can help develop the conversation on ideas for a future federal Britain.

Discussions on British regional and national issues are also under way in the Communist Party of Britains new progressive federalism commission.

It was launched to develop ideas and public support for a federal Britain with new democratic arrangements between England, Scotland and Wales.

It followed the publication of a party pamphlet on post-Brexit Britain, entitled Johnsons Post-EU Britain or Progressive Federalism?

By coincidence, members of the Spanish Communist Party, the PCE, living in Britain have recently been promoting a similar discussion about a future plurinational federal arrangement between Spain, Catalonia and the Basque country, based on consent and democracy rather than outdated, unfair systems and force.

Likewise, the aim of Communist Party of Britains new progressive federalism commission is to build a fairer, federal Britain where sovereignty democratic decision-making and economic powers to intervene on the publics behalf genuinely lies with the people and is distributed fairly nationally and regionally for the benefit of ordinary people.

There have been many developments in Britain Scotland, Wales and England in recent years which illustrate important regional and national questions.

Examples include Brexit, the Scottish and Welsh parliaments which include some elements of proportional representation and votes for 16-year-olds, English devolution deals, regional combined authorities and regional elected mayors. We also seeing reform of English district and county councils, such as Cumbria and North Yorkshire.

However, these many developments have been inconsistent and there are various democratic deficits.

Different governments, left and right, and different movements have shaped these events at different times. And the change is ongoing.

In Westminster regional development changes, we have seen the ending of the old regional development agencies, the comings and goings of regional development corporations, the launch of local enterprise partnerships, the Northern Powerhouse project, freeports, town deals, levellingup etc.

But one of the common characteristics of these has been the lack of public participation. Overwhelmingly, these have been projects focused on regional business communities and some regional politicians.

The general public may have been aware of the big landmark ideas or developments successes or failures but the public have been spectators rather than participants and decision-makers.

Some developments over the past 20 or 30 years may seem profound. Others may seem trivial, constitutionally dry, bureaucratic, undemocratic or a distraction to the urgent issues.

But I believe everyone interested in progressive politics needs to understand what has happened, regardless of whether they agree or not, so they can then engage the public to explore better solutions.

In particular, I believe the English left needs to be wellaware of all these developments and to engage with them confidently.

Importantly, the left needs to link these sometimes confusing developments to peoples everyday lives, experiences and struggles, to community, geographic and class identities.

Hope and optimism are needed too. How can progressive federalism boost political participation and help put decision-making powers into localities and regions?

If the mainstream English left doesnt enter this conversation, other movements will. Recent years have seen the rise of new regional political parties and movements, such as the Yorkshire Party and North-East Party.

In the West Yorkshire mayor elections of 2021, the Yorkshire Party gained 58,000 votes. There are also a number of smaller ultra-local parties in north-west England across Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Cumbria.

By not promoting local, regional and national democratic, economic intervention and sovereignty discussions and proposals, the English left risks allowing the political right to set the agenda about post-Brexit Britain and the right to be perceived as being innovative in regional change.

The current Westminster government is regularly making headlines about levelling-up, town fund deals, devolution deals and regional freeports. But what does the left propose?

The left needs to promote positive ideas about national and regional change which can engage with peoples community and geographic identitiesand connect with the politicallydisillusioned.

National and regional characteristics and identities are not set in stone. These change over time, reflecting the dominant political, economic and social forces of different eras.

Progressives in England need to get to grips with these developments and also create engaging new proposals for a federal Britain.

Go here to read the rest:

How to boost the message of progressive federalism? - Morning Star Online

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on How to boost the message of progressive federalism? – Morning Star Online

With Padilla’s election to Senate, is it time to talk about federalism again? – Philstar.com

Posted: June 11, 2022 at 1:10 am

MANILA, Philippines Actor Robin Padilla's electionto the Senate and his potential assignment as chair of the committee on constitutional amendments may revive a push for federalism that lost steam during the Duterte administration.

In an interviewafter the May 9 election, Padilla said he believes that Filipinos voted for him because his platform geared towardcharter change and federalism."Iyan siguro ang yakap ng ating taumbayan kaya siguro ako nangunguna (I think that is what the people want, that is why I am leading)," Padilla, who received the most votes in the senatorial race, said.

While it is good to discuss options about reforms and changes, University of the Philippines (UP) political scientist Maria Ela Atienza says that more ground work should be done to help the public understand the current system of governance.

She said the country might notbe ready for the shift to federalism, which would involvethe sharing of powers between two levels of government national or federal, and the states or regional.

In a unitary system the system in place in the Philippines the central government makes nearly all of the policies and decisions. In a federal system, the central government has limited powers, as state governments can handle local affairs based on the political desires of their constituents, according to German political foundation Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS).

Some powers have been devolved to local government units under the Local Government Code.

"It is always good to discuss options for institutional reforms and changes. However, there is a need to have massive information drive to discuss with the public the current institutional setup and evaluate it comprehensively before discussing the possible changes," Atienza told Philstar.com.

Surveys conducted during the first three years of President Rodrigo Duterte's term showed that less than half of the population understood the 1987 Constitution, she said.

Meanwhile, aMarch 2018 survey conducted by the Social Weather Stations showed that only one in four Filipino adultsknew about the federal system, while the remaining 75% said they only learned of it during the course of the survey.

Atienza also pointed out charter change, which would have to happen for that shift to a federal Philippines, may not be the first priority of the Philippine government as the country continues to recover from the impacts of the pandemic.

Although he is chair of the Partido Federal ng Pilipinas, president-elect Ferdinand Marcos Jr. did not mention charter change or a shift to federalism during the campaign.In a DZRH radio interview in January, Marcos Jr. said he believed that the federal system "fits" the Philippines, but admitted that pursuing charter change may be difficult as the public has historically seen these as attempts by incumbents to stay in power.

"At the same time, 2022 is the beginning of the implementation of the Mandanas-Garcia ruling of the Supreme Court and [Executive Order]138 which promotes full devolution," Atienza said.

"Many local government units as well as national agencies are in the process of adjusting to these. [Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao]is still on its first few years as an autonomous regional government," she also said. "It may be premature to advocate for a shift to federalism immediately."

Padilla is a vocaladvocate offederalism, which he believes is what the public wants.Hours after the vote counting of the 2022 polls began, he said in a radio interview that the people wanted power to be given to different regions, which would be able to craft laws based on their culture and traditions.

Federalism may be ideal for places where groups with diverse traditions and populations are present, Atienza said in an interview in 2018. In a way, federalism might be able to help them preserve their identities, she said.

The shift to federalism was among President Rodrigo Duterte's campaign promisesbut lack of public interest relegated charter change from the government's priorities. In 2019, an interagency task force on federalism and constitutional reformpushed instead for "surgical amendments" to the Constitution.

RELATED:Mocha stirs fresh outrage over vulgar 'federalism' dance

Policymakers in Manila the capital, and sometimes referred to as Imperial Manila have historically been making decisions for the entire country, to the frustration of those in provinces who feel that they have little say, according to Bob Herrera-Lim, the managing director of Teneo, a global consulting and advisory firm.

"People in the provinces feel that is unfair. They have their own problems but sometimes or a lot of times, they are limited by the fact that many of...the decisions, the policies coming are based from a Manila perspective,so I think that's where [the clamor for] federalism comes from," Lim, who specializes in political and business risk in the Philippines and other parts of Southeast Asia, told Philstar.com.

Issues related to education, real estate taxes, health and transportation are influenced by local conditions, which may not be addressed by decision makers based in Manila, he said.

Asked if there is a chance that federalism can happen under the incoming Marcos administration, Lim said he expects economic managers to resist moves towardscharter change because of potential losses in efficiency if the shift is not done properly.

Former socioeconomic planning secretary Ernesto Pernia previously said he is "not keen" about federalism, as development across regions has been slow and unequal.

In a recent interview on OneNewsPH, he indicated that the presence of federal states or regions will not help solve the problem of unequal growth and resources.

"I'm not an advocate for federalism," he said, echoing his earlier sentiments.

While federalism might balancerelations and powers between the central government and peripheral areas, it will not necessarily solve issues of inequality.

"It will not solve the political dynasties, the existence of political parties that are in name only. It will not prevent turncoatism. It will not prevent inequality and poverty," UP's Atienza said.

She said giving power to local governments that may bepoorly equipped to wield them may cause more problems. Corruption can also still take place in a federal system and the unitary style of governance if the laws are not firmly applied, Atienza added.

READ:Incoming admin must prioritize economic growth over federalism

Independent policy analyst and constitutionalist Michael Henry Yusingco saidhe is not sure about the chances of federalism in the incoming adminstration, because it is not clear what political system should replace the current one.

"If you want to push for a federal system, my suggestion is, do it the right way.Go down to the communities. Ask them, what structure do you want?"

"What are the powers that are going to be shared? What is the extent of autonomy and then what are the mechanisms for cooperation and coordination between the different levels of government?" he said in an interview with Philstar.com.

Yusingco said the government should take"bottom-up" approach in charter change because attempts to change the constitution would need the trust of the citizens and the engagement of civil society organization who could advocate on their behalf.

He explained those who push for charter change have historically employed the "top-down" approach which only strengthens inherent distrust in political elites.

"Constitutional reform might work, but it's very important to make sure that the citizens are onboard first and foremost," he said.

For Teneo's Lim, opening up the process of constitutional change will likely open up other proposals unrelated to federalism, such as the shift to a parliamentary system and removing economic restrictions among others.

"If you are Bongbong Marcos, you know it will be a very noisy, difficult and heavy lift. Do you do it first, when you are looking at problems such as inflation, geopolitics, getting as fully out of the pandemic, having an economic recovery, [and] dealing with all your critics? It's not going to be easy," he said.

Originally posted here:

With Padilla's election to Senate, is it time to talk about federalism again? - Philstar.com

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on With Padilla’s election to Senate, is it time to talk about federalism again? – Philstar.com

The Swiss constitution a mix of democracy and federalism – SWI swissinfo.ch in English

Posted: at 1:10 am

The first version of the Swiss constitution was a breakthrough on the road to democratisation. It gave the cantons more autonomy and paved the way for creating one of the greatest democracies in Europe. However, it was far from perfect. It triggered numerous crises and failed to put an end to injustice.

The filmmaker from Italy, who was raised in Africa, calls Switzerland home now. Carlo studied film directing at the Italian National Film School, worked as a documentary editor and director/producer in Berlin and Vienna. He crafts multimedia into engaging narratives.

Studied history and politics at University of Bern. Worked at Reuters, the newspapers Der Bund and Berner Zeitung, and the Frderband radio station. I am concerned with the Swiss practice of modern direct democracy in all its aspects and at all levels, my constant focus being the citizen.

Claude Longchamp (text), Carlo Pisani (video), Renat Kuenzi (concept)

On September 12, 1848, the Federal Diet, a legislative assembly bringing together the Swiss cantons, adopted the first federal constitution. The cantons representatives drafted it in less than 50 days during their regular meetings at a Bern restaurant which is now known as Zum Aeusseren Stand. These were the first steps towards a modern state.

The first parliamentary elections to select the cantons representatives for the two chambers the House of Representatives and the Senate were called only two days after the constitution was adopted. The House of Representatives and the Senate worked quickly to elect the members of the Federal Council, which in turn formed the national government. The speed of these endeavors sent a clear message to the world: a new democracy was born.

This series in several parts is tailored for our author: Claude Longchamps expertise makes him the man who can bring alive the places where important things happened.

Longchamp was a founder of the research institute gfs.bern and is the most experienced political analyst in Switzerland. He is also a historian. Combining these disciplines, Longchamp has for many years given highly acclaimed historic tours of Bern and other sites.

Longchamp performs democracy, was one journalists headline on a report about a city tour.

This multimedia series, which the author is producing exclusively for SWIswissinfo.ch, doesnt concentrate on cities instead its focus is on important places.

He also posts regular contributions onFacebookExternal link,InstagramExternal linkandTwitterExternal link.

This was the third attempt to establish a modern democracy. The first attempt was triggered by the French invasion of Switzerland in 1798, but it failed dismally after five years. The second attempt came in 1830-31, when the autonomous cantons wanted to introduce a new federal constitution. It was met with huge resistance by the Conservatives and Radicals and never got off the ground.

"The third attempt succeeded by striking the right balance between principles of pure democracy and federalism."

The third attempt succeeded by striking the right balance between principles of pure democracy and federalism. It created the largest possible domestic market for the emerging industrial economies and had the support of Britain on a political and diplomatic level. None of this would have happened had Switzerland not gone through a civil war ten months prior to the founding of the state.

While Switzerland succeeded in establishing a democracy, neighbouring countries tried and failed to do so. Bourgeois revolutions took place in Paris, Munich, Berlin, Vienna, Palermo and Venice, but they did not manage to establish a lasting democratic state. Their monarchs always regained power.

The leap into a modern democratic world carried some risks for Switzerland. The Alpine nation could not quit the federal treaty which was adopted by the Congress of Vienna in March 1815 on its own. It was in place and that was that.

After the Liberals and Radicals reunited to become the Radical-Liberal party, they emerged as the biggest winner of the 1848 parliamentary elections achieving a 70% majority in the federal assembly. This gave them the freedom to allocate the seats of the Federal Council to their liking.

The cantons of Bern, Zurich and Vaud were each allocated a permanent seat while the remaining four seats were divided between the other cantons. The French and Italian speaking minorities received one representative each, the Catholics got two.

On November 16, 1848, seven members of the Radical-Liberal party were elected to the Federal Council which was clear sign for the new beginning. The seven ministers represented the different political perspectives of the moderate Liberals and the assertive Radicals which gave them sufficient sovereignty enough to abrogate the old federal treaty. At the end of 1848, Bern became the seat of the government making it a federal city, but not the capital.

Even though Switzerlands government structure was based on the US model, the composition of parliament and the election of the Federal Council were two major bones of contention in the democratisation process.

In the end, it was decided that parliament should be composed of two chambers with equal powers; the cantons should retain their sovereignty unless national matters were concerned; and, mirroring the US, the seven members of the Federal Council should not be elected by the people but by parliament.

The governing Radical-Liberals agreed that all elected ministers had to step down at the end of their three-year term and run for the House of Representatives if they wanted to be re-elected into the government.

Even though it was not laid down in the constitution, this two-tier system survived until the 1890s when it was finally abolished as it did not concur with the separation of powers.

The adoption of the new constitution turned out to be tricky as the Swiss did not vote on a national but on a cantonal level. In the end, 15 cantons voted in favour of the new constitution and 6 and a halfrejected it, which was sufficient for the Federal Diet to adopt it.

The cantons that voted against the constitution had to decide whether they wanted to accept the overall ruling, which was their democratic right, or not. But in the end, they were all forced to adopt it. This was a turning point for modern Swiss politics.

Switzerlands democracy was far from perfect. Women were not allowed to vote and the male-dominated society, which was strengthened by the civil war, did not even think about entertaining womens suffrage. Nationwide voting was only introduced in 1874; there was no permanent federal court; and criminal law was under the jurisdiction of the Federal Council.

Switzerland has a hybrid system of government unlike other nations that either use a parliamentary or a presidential system.

Even though the government is not directly elected by the people, there is no provision for a parliamentary no-confidence motion for an individual minister or for the dissolution of parliament before it has finished its four-year-term.

Parliament has declined to re-elect a sitting cabinet minister only four times in Swiss history. The first was in 1854 when the Radical Partys Ulrich Ochsenbein was voted out of office, and the last time was in 2007 when Christoph Blocher was ousted in his bid for re-election.

This is typical for directorial systems which allow parliament to elect a government but not to oust it. Collective governments like Switzerland, South Africa or Botswana use such directorial systems which was instituted in France in 1795, but has since been abolished.

The Swiss constitution stated that Switzerland was a Christian state which was a serious mistake as it soon led to a constitutional crisis. It was not inclusive of its Jewish population.

France, the US and the Netherlands threatened to impose economic sanctions on Switzerland unless the non-Swiss Jewish were given the same rights as Swiss Christians. This required an amendment of the constitution which had not been envisaged. Hence in 1866, the first small constitutional reform was carried out with referendums on nine individual articles. Members of the Jewish community were eventually granted freedom of domicile, but only obtained the freedom to practise their religion in 1874.

Ueli Ochsenbein, military leader and head of the Radicals of Bern, was a tragic figure during the formation of the young federal state. After serving his two terms as minister, the actual founding father of the 1848 constitution was voted out of office. The ruling Radicals turned their backs on him because he had supported the Radicals, Liberals and Conservatives in forming a political party in canton Bern.

After being dismissed from his post as military leader, Ochsenbein joined the French army where he was promoted to the rank of general. Joining a foreign army would be inconceivable in modern times, however, it was only prohibited in Switzerland in 1874.

Ochsenbein, who sunk into oblivion in Swiss history, has recently been rehabilitated thanks to a comprehensive biography. He is due to regain his place in history during the official celebrations of the 175th anniversary of the federal constitution in 2023.

Translated by Billi Bierling, edited by Dominique Soguel

Read more:

The Swiss constitution a mix of democracy and federalism - SWI swissinfo.ch in English

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on The Swiss constitution a mix of democracy and federalism – SWI swissinfo.ch in English

What’s the matter with the IAA? Taking a Closer Look at the Alberta Court of Appeal’s Constitutional Analysis – Lexology

Posted: at 1:10 am

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently assessed the constitutionality of the federal Impact Assessment Act [1] and Physical Activities Regulations [2] (collectively the Assessment Regime). The case is summarized here. The majority, led by Chief Justice Fraser, found the Assessment Regime to be unconstitutional [3]. Justice Greckol, writing in dissent, found the Assessment Regime to be constitutionally valid. Although the respective approaches of the Justices do not follow identical paths, both decisions contain a thorough division of powers analysis, and it is those analyses that we will explore in this post.

The reference question

The question referred to the Court by the Government of Alberta was:

Analytical framework

Despite arriving at different conclusions, both the majority and dissent utilized the same framework in analyzing the jurisdictional validity of the IAA the long-established pith and substance test, first characterizing the matter of the impugned law (considering both purpose of the law and its effects), and then classifying that matter under one (or more) of the established heads of legislative power. Both the majority and the dissent considered the Physical Activities Regulations to be an integral part of the statutory scheme, such that the Assessment Regime had to be considered as a whole.

The analyses

The majority found that the purpose of the Assessment Regime was to establish a federal regime to review and regulate all effects of designated projects [4], both federal and intra-provincial, noting that this regime applies even in cases where the intra-provincial designated projects otherwise fell within exclusive provincial jurisdiction and despite all effects of such projects not being within federal heads of power. Moving to the effects of the Assessment Regime, the majority found that its legal and practical effect was to, in essence, authorize the federal executive to regulate all intra-provincial designated projects from inception to completion. As such, the majority concluded that the pith and substance of the Assessment Regime was the establishment of a federal impact assessment and regulatory regime that subjects all activities designated by the federal executive to an assessment of all their effects and federal oversight and approval [5].

At the classification stage, the majority concluded that the subject matter of the Assessment Regime, when applied to intra-provincial designated projects, fell clearly within provincial jurisdiction, including the provinces powers over development and management of natural resources; proprietary rights as owners of public lands; local works and undertakings; management of public lands; property and civil rights; and local or private matters. Here, the majority noted that, if upheld, the unavoidable effect of the Assessment Regime would be the centralization of governance to the point that Canada would no longer be recognized as a true federation [6].

The majority further noted that while the environment is not a head of power assigned to either Parliament or provincial Legislatures, when either level of government legislates for purposes relating to the environment, that legislation must be linked to a specific head of power within its jurisdiction. A meritorious motive protection of the environment does not by itself found constitutional jurisdiction for either level of government. Accordingly, Parliament was not entitled to require federal oversight and approval of intra-provincial activities otherwise within provincial jurisdiction on the basis that the environmental effects of those projects affected a federal head of power.

Dissent

Justice Greckol concluded that the Assessment Regime is a valid exercise of Parliaments authority to legislate on the matter of the environment. This conclusion was largely based on her interpretation of the Assessment Regime as the regulation of effects. She concluded that the purpose of the IAA is to foster sustainability by establishing a federal project-based impact assessment regime that seeks to limit adverse effects on identified areas of claimed federal jurisdiction by subjecting certain projects to review to determine whether said effects are in the public interest [7]. The effects of the law are simply the requirement for affected projects to comply with the Assessment regime, the time and resource costs to do so, and the penalties and permit rejections that might result from not doing so. As such, she concluded that the pith and substance of the Assessment Regime is to establish a federal environmental assessment regime that facilitates planning and information gathering with respect to specific projects to inform decision-making, cooperatively with other jurisdictions, as to whether the project should be authorized to proceed on the basis that identified adverse environmental effects purported to be within federal jurisdiction are in the public interest (emphasis added) [8]. In other words, the Assessment Regime targets effects in federal jurisdiction.

At the classification stage, Justice Greckol found that the language used in [the IAA] is jurisdiction-limiting [9]. Some designated projects, such as those within national parks and offshore oil and gas facilities were not controversial, as they clearly fell within areas of federal jurisdiction. However, the controversial set of designated projects (i.e. those that are intra-provincial and prima facie within provincial jurisdiction, such as mines and metal mills and oil and gas facilities), may still have effects on areas of federal jurisdiction, such as fish habitat, federal lands, or Indigenous peoples. She found that the Assessment Regime therefore fell within many federal heads of power.

Justice Greckol further supported her decision with the principles of the presumption of constitutionality, double aspect doctrine, and cooperative federalism. She noted that the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the environment is a diffuse subject that cuts across both provincial and federal jurisdiction and that governments should work cooperatively on issues of overlapping jurisdictions such as this [10]. As provincial resources and environments do not exist in isolation, effects from provincial projects will necessarily have impacts across the country [11].

Conclusion

It will come as no surprise to anyone that there is a continued push-and-pull between the Federal and Provincial governments when it comes to jurisdiction over the environment. There is no disagreement that environmental protection is critically important, or that there is a role for both the Federal and Provincial governments in effecting this goal. The contentious point is where the limits of cooperative federalism lie.

It is noteworthy that when the majority of the Court assessed the matter (pith and substance) of the IAA, the emphasis was on the activities being regulated, while Greckol, JA, focused on the effects of those activities. It is therefore not entirely surprising that, despite using a similar analytic approach, the opinions diverged significantly on the ultimate constitutionality of the IAA. Evidently, each approach is underpinned by a distinctly different philosophy, with the majority warning that [t]he concept is cooperative, not coercive, federalism [12], and Greckol, JA noting that [w]e in this country are all in the same boat. The division of powers provides multiple oars and in many instances no assurance that we will all row in the same direction. But constitutional interpretation can and should at least allow for such cooperation, where feasible [13].

This case is sure to draw parallels between the dissenting judgments in References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (both in the Supreme Court of Canada [14] and the Courts of Appeal below [15]) and given the Federal Governments pledge to appeal the present case to the Supreme Court of Canada, it will be interesting to see which approach to federalism prevails.

More:

What's the matter with the IAA? Taking a Closer Look at the Alberta Court of Appeal's Constitutional Analysis - Lexology

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on What’s the matter with the IAA? Taking a Closer Look at the Alberta Court of Appeal’s Constitutional Analysis – Lexology

Why Is Federalism Important? – The Freeman Online

Posted: June 7, 2022 at 1:39 am

Federalism is the separation of power that exists between the states and the federal government. In America, the subject of federalism is one that comes up quite often. This is as a result of the constitution. The tenth amendment is in the constitution and it empowers the state government with any power that is not given to the federal government. There is always a conflict when dealing with the supremacy clause that is in the sixth article.

The clause got interpreted to imply that federal law exceeds state laws. So why is federalism important? We will take a look at some of the reasons why this system is much debated. The American constitution is such that it gives powers to the federal government far beyond the states. The constitution appears to be more concerned about what the states cannot do. Federalism is a system that separates governmental powers into state and federal governments.

Why is federalism important?

Federalism derives its importance based on politics. For instance, liberals believe that the Federal government ought to handle things more often than not. The conservatives think that the State Governments should be more involved in such matters. This implies that whenever liberals desire to do something such as education or healthcare, there would be a conflict. Federalism is also considered very important because it is often chosen for the wrong reasons. The major reason in this regard is for the protection of the centers where the wealth gets concentrated. This is as a result of the tendency to impede tyranny even though the problem does not end there. Federalism is also believed to impede democracy and obstruct populism also. This obstructive feature makes it be of great benefit to the rich minority and the oligarchs as well.

Federalism can get used in such a manner that it can lead to the destruction of democracy. It is important to note that the two systems may not get used because true democracy may only function within a unitary system of government. One other challenge with this system is that there is an absence of an accepted definition of what the word federalism implies.

The federalism practiced by America back then is quite different from what is currently obtainable. By default, the state governments were quite influential in their sphere while the same was the case with the federal government. The reach of power of each one was well defined and preserved. The reason for this is that there was some measure of apprehension about the possibility of a too strong central government. This made them view the federal government as a threat to their progress. This is the main reason why a limited federal government got created in the American constitution.

In the beginning, the federal government got fashioned to serve the state governments. The power of the federal government only reaches some points in this system of government.

There is a change in the way federalism is now practiced these days. The change has seen the state governments becoming servants to the federal governments. Also, the senate unlike before is no longer elected by the state representatives but by the people. This meant the removal of the most potent means of state sovereignty and autonomy. Also, because the federal has enlarged its coffers using income tax, it has been able to negotiate powers from states in exchange for federal funding. Also, the constant invasion of the state by the federal has made people accept the fact that the federal is superior to the states.

This has lead to a situation where the states have only succeeded in becoming not more than the administrative arms of the government.

In the system of federalism practiced in America, there are several merits and demerits associated with it. Here is a breakdown of what makes federalism in America:

The first merit of federalism is that it acts as a protection against tyranny. This system is such that ensures a spread of the powers among the three arms which all act as checks and balances to one another. This makes it the ideal system to check the excesses of people who may have dictatorial tendencies. The reason why American society does not accommodate tyrannical governments is that we run a system that does not give them the right breeding ground.

It also has the benefit of diffusing power in that the form of federalism which we practice here ensures that power gets divided into three different branches. This makes sure that all the power is not focused on a single individual. This prevents a situation where excess power gets into the head of whoever may be in power.

Also, federalism as a system ensures that there is efficiency in running the government. When some of the power gets shared among the different levels of government, it gives the states some room to resolve some of their challenges. One drawback of having a national solution to certain issues is that when implemented, they could be more effective in some states than others.

Federalism is one system that allows for increased citizens participation. The reason for this is that when power gets shared in levels, the citizens can influence policies, people who govern them and the likes. Also, federalism makes the management of conflicts quite easier. This is because of the flexibility in creating policies by states. This also means that people with different ideologies and approaches to issues can live in different areas. They can also come up with unique solutions. More often than not, such solutions may not be agreeable with people in other places.

Furthermore, there is the possibility of increased responsiveness of the state governments to the needs of the people. This is because the closer a government is to the people, the quicker and more effective its response would be to their unique needs. Also, the states would always be better disposed to responding to the needs of the people than the federal would be. Added to this is the fact that legal and policy innovations get encouraged in this system of government. The reason for this is that federalism allows different sets of policies per time. When doing this, the one found to be effective gets adopted in other states.

There are several reasons some people argue against federalism as the ideal system. We believed that it had a history of segregation and protection of slavery. This is because while slavery persisted, it could not get tackled on a federal level. Federalism is also perceived to breed inequality among the states that make up the country. For instance, under this system, funding for certain things like education would not be the same on a statewide basis. This means that some states would have to spend more.

There is also this belief that under federalism, states will seek to compete against themselves. They do this in the sense that they will seek ways to reduce certain benefits. This is usually done to encourage its residents to move to neighboring states. This thus causes a reduction in operational costs. Furthermore, some states may go as far as blocking Nationalist policies.

The supremacy clause is one of the most vital components of federalism. This is the part of the U.S. Constitution that states that federal laws and constitution are the highest laws of the land. The motivation for this clause stems from the fact that the creators saw the weakness that existed in the articles of confederation. They didnt want a repeat of the situation where the states were stronger than the federal governments. This clause is in Article 6 section 2 which defines the powers the federal government has and the one it doesnt. In a case where there is a conflict between the state and federal laws, the supremacy clause rises to invalidate the state law. This clause also ensures that the states cannot interfere with or control federal issues.

We have been able to establish that federalism comes with unique benefits. These benefits include the distribution of power, protection from all forms of tyranny. It also comes with increased citizens participation and effectiveness. We have also seen that it has some disadvantages. These include inequality among states, protection of segregation and slavery. There is also the obstruction of national policies by states. One thing established with this piece is that the merits of federalism far outweigh the perceived demerits.

You May Like These Articles As Well:

Head Of State Vs. Head Of Government: A Guide

Is Texas Bigger Than England? Comparing Texas With England, UK

Can A Felon Run For President?

Read this article:

Why Is Federalism Important? - The Freeman Online

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Why Is Federalism Important? – The Freeman Online

God Save the Queen! The Special Relationship and US Federalism – AMAC

Posted: at 1:39 am

AMAC Exclusive by David P. Deavel

This past weekend marked the end of the four days of celebration for the entire United Kingdom marking the 70th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth IIs reignan event likely to bring much commentary in the weeks and months ahead. And for this American who loves his country but has more than a bit of Anglophilia its been a thrill to be in the U.K. celebrating this grand ladys remarkable career. The dignity, gravity, and personal probity of Elizabeth II represents that older English understanding of duty, patriotism, sacrifice, and service that is both admirable and all too often lost in todays world. A true Christian, she radiates a resilience that goes beyond the mere proverbial stiff upper lip. As I stood on the bank of the Thames and watched British military planes in formation fly over Londonthe last of them trailing red, white, and bluein salute I couldnt help but be moved to greater love for the old queen, the mother country, and my own.

But its not just that the tough, lovable old monarch is admirable. Those traditional values that she represents are seen in another aspect of recent British life. In the 2016 Brexit vote many of us saw some of the same spark of independence and rebellion against the forces of the global and national ruling classeswho want to erase individual liberty and melt nations downthat were present in President Trumps 2016 electoral victory and his subsequent presidential action. Thats why it is disappointing even if it is not surprising that the Biden Administration has been giving the cold shoulder to the U.K. with regard to a trade agreementa shocking thing in light of what has been seen for almost a century as the special relationship between the U. S. and the mother country. Nevertheless, there are some good signs that the special relationship will continue, and if perhaps less so at the federal level for these next few years, then at least at the state level.

As the Heritage Foundations Anthony Kim wrote at The Daily Signal: Rather than standing still, post-Brexit Britainwhich has been securing groundbreaking, innovative trade dealshas proactively decided to move ahead on its own. What the U. K. has done is to engage in visits and direct talks with a number of states including Arkansas, California, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Texas, among others. And as a proud Hoosier native, Im happy to say that the first bi-lateral economic deal (albeit non-binding) signed was on May 27 with Indiana. Kim wants all 50 states to engage in more of these talks with our allies.

Its incredibly frustrating that the Biden Administration is not interested in talking to one of our allies, but as noted, its not surprising. For all the modern Democrats talk about democracy being in peril, all this means is that liberals are not getting their wayeven, or especially, when they arent getting their way because of a popular vote as in Brexit or the election of Donald Trump. Thus, a post-Brexit Britain is an entity that cannot be trusted to go along with whatever progressives in the U. S. and abroad say The Current Thing is. The only special relationships they recognize are the ones in which submission is given to them and the international groups they acknowledge as legitimately superior.

This attitude is not limited to Britain and other countries unfortunately. It is the same attitude they take to the American states that do not do what they want. Like the special relationship, progressives think federalism is really only about the absolute supremacy of the federal governmentat least when they are in chargeand those same international groups.

In addition to giving Britain a stiff-arm on trade, earlier this year the Biden Administration proposed 13 amendments to the International Health Regulations being pushed by the World Health Organization at their World Health Assembly meeting at the end of May. The amendments were all geared toward eliminating the approval and consultation of the State party in areas of public health. In other words, this was yet another push to end popular sovereignty on the pretext of saving lives. That these amendments were done in secret and only discovered by a researcher in April and opened for public comment in May indicates that the Biden Administration knew this was not something Americans or our allies would approve.

While they eventually withdrew 12 of the 13 amendments (all but one that allows the WHO to fast-track amendments), the WHO can continue to debate these amendments at hearings on June 16-17. They are also working on a separate Global Pandemic Treaty to be discussed in August. As Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver observed, . . .one amendment remains, the other 12 can return, and we know the WHO will hold more meetings on these amendments and on a new Pandemic Treaty that will vest considerable global power in this agency of the United Nations. Americas sovereignty is not for sale.

As with British trade, what has been cheering about this threat in the name of public health was that states were among the first to speak up. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis spoke up in a May press conference on the subject: We in Florida, there is no way we will ever support this W.H.O. thing thats not going to happen.

The special relationship may not be so special in the highest reaches of American government right now, but I think it has a good chance in the various American states where citizens and their governments are ready to trade with free peoples and stand up against the encroachments of international organizations to which we owe no obedience.

God save the Queen! God bless America! Im raising a pint to Elizabeth and the British people who said no to the EU today. And Im also raising one to the Hoosier state and the Sunshine state. May they lead the way in returning us to a situation in which we work together with the British People for good.

David P. Deavel is editor ofLogos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, and a visiting professor at the University of St. Thomas (MN). He is the co-host of theDeep Down Thingspodcast. Follow him on GETTR @davidpdeavel.

We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...

Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.

Continued here:

God Save the Queen! The Special Relationship and US Federalism - AMAC

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on God Save the Queen! The Special Relationship and US Federalism – AMAC

‘I want to be the premier of all Quebecers,’ Dominique Anglade says – Montreal Gazette

Posted: at 1:39 am

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Liberal leader says Franois Legault is trying to divide Quebecers and create tensions with Ottawa, while ignoring real problems.

Author of the article:

The CAQs recent recruitment of former sovereignist candidates shows Franois Legault plans to pick fights with Ottawa if elected to a second mandate, Quebec Liberal Leader Dominique Anglade warned.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Last week, the ruling CAQ party announced that former PQ minister Bernard Drainville will return to politics, to run for the CAQ in Octobers election in the Lvis riding near Quebec City.

Drainville was a PQ MNA and minister from 2007 to 2016. As a cabinet minister in the Marois government, he was responsible for the drafting of Bill 60 in 2013 better knownas the charter of values which proposed a total ban on religious symbols in the public sector.

The CAQ also announced over the weekend that former Bloc Qubcois MP and former Longueuil mayor Caroline St-Hilaire will run in the Sherbrooke riding.

Speaking Monday at the announcement of her own new candidate in the Notre-Dame-de-Grce riding, Anglade was asked about the CAQs new candidates. She said it shows Legaults fights with Ottawa are meant to distract from the governments dismal record on health care, climate change and the economy.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Were facing many crises, like inflation, climate change, housing, and Franois Legault is trying to pick a fight with Ottawa on false premises; hes trying to create his own crisis, Anglade said at the St. Raymonds Centre alongside new candidate Dsire McGraw and outgoing candidate Kathleen Weil. And by recruiting people that have been fighting for the separation of Quebec, hes sending a clear message. I dont think he wants to work with Ottawa.

She added that in passing Bill 96and Bill 21, the CAQ is trying to drive a wedge through Quebecers, while the Liberals would work on uniting the province. She called Drainvilles charter of values, which influenced the CAQs Bill 21, la charte de la chicane, in French, meaning a charter of squabbles.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Politics of division have no place in Quebec, Anglade said. Franois Legault wants to be the premier of certain Quebecers. I want to be the premier of all Quebecers.

McGraw also weighed in, saying the coming election will be a crucial one, and she believes Quebecers will reject the CAQs message.

Its a time when instead of focusing on real crises, this government is trying to drive us backward and create false divisions in Quebec and in our community, she said.

However, Economy Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon said last week there is no evidence the government is turning away from federalism.

The CAQ is neither sovereignist nor nationalist, Fitzgibbon said. We are working in the context of a federation we respect. I am federalist. I enjoy working with my counterparts in Ottawa. There is no danger of our caucus becoming sovereignist.

Anglade was also asked about the steady of stream of resignations from her party, as 13 sitting MNAs have announced they wont seek another term, nearly half the caucus. Anglade said its good news, because the party is in a period of renewal.

Yes, there are people leaving, but there are a lot of people coming, and thats the message were sending Quebecers, that we are renewing the party, Anglade said.

jmagder@postmedia.com

twitter.com/jasonmagder

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive daily headline news from the Montreal Gazette, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Montreal Gazette Headline News will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Here is the original post:

'I want to be the premier of all Quebecers,' Dominique Anglade says - Montreal Gazette

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on ‘I want to be the premier of all Quebecers,’ Dominique Anglade says – Montreal Gazette

Political Line | Technology and Hindutva; dog walkers and federalism; Nitish turns the tables on the BJP – The Hindu

Posted: June 5, 2022 at 2:49 am

Here is the latest edition of the Political Line newsletter curated by Varghese K. George

Here is the latest edition of the Political Line newsletter curated by Varghese K. George

(The Political Line newsletter isIndias political landscape explained every week by Varghese K. George, senior editor atThe Hindu . You can subscribehereto get the newsletter in your inbox every Friday.)

Technology before and after 2014

Twice in two days, Prime Minister Narendra Modi proclaimed fidelity to science, and rationality. Not only that, he went a step ahead to point out that some of the secular opponents of his politics are actually purveyors of superstition and irrationality. He cited Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath who visits Noida, dismissing and disproving a long-held notion among UP observers that Chief Ministers who visit the place would lose the next election. His predecessors, Akhilesh Yadav and Mayawati, had avoided visiting the UP city that abuts the national capital, for fear of losing power, which any way they did! In a reference to Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao, who is trying to emerge as his challenger at the national stage, Mr. Modi said it was dangerous to have a person trusting more in superstitions and blind beliefs in power as they cannot do justice with a constricted point of view. I was once told in Gujarat not to visit a place as the CMs chair will go away, but I still went there nevertheless because I have faith in knowledge and technology, Mr. Modi declared on May 26. I want to see a drone in every farm, phone in every hand, he said on May 27, at an event that showcased drone applications.

According to Mr. Modi, before 2014 - that is when he became the PM - technology was working to the disadvantage of the poor, or at the very least, was perceived to be so. What changed the whole scenario in favour of the poor was his intervention, and now technology works to the advantage of the poor.

2014 as a historical cut-off point is a defining component of Mr. Modis politics. India is seeing a cultural revival since 2014, Home Minister Amit Shah said at a pre-release screening of the film Samrat Prithvirajthis week. Prithviraj had begun the independence struggle of India that lasted for a 1000 years, he said, adding 1947 and 2014 as two milestones in Indias progress towards freedom and progress. Incidentally, there are many more films in the pipeline that will recast Indian history, in service of the Hindutva project, ahead of the 2024 general election.

Unhappy Brahmins?

In Maharashtra and Haryana, Brahmins,at least a section of them, think it is time one of them became the CM. In Haryana, the BJP is in power. In Maharashtra the wishes for a Brahmin CM come from a BJP Union Minister.

Two dog-walkers and a rogue taxman: What their transfers say about Indian federalism

The Centre recently transferred two IAS officers, husband and wife, from Delhi, one to Ladakh and the other to Arunachal Pradesh, following media reports that the couple used to capture an entire stadium every evening for themselves and their dog.This is not something uncharacteristic of IAS officers, the backbone of Indias central bureaucracy. All India services remain an efficient instrument of the Centre to keep the regions in check, mirroring an imperial system that evolved before the Republic was born.

Zonal Director of NCB Mumbai Sameer Wankhede arrives at NCB office, in Mumbai.| Photo Credit: PTI

A flamboyant officer of the Indian Revenue Service (IRS), who shot tonational limelight by arresting the son of Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan, has been later found to have led a shoddy investigation by his department. He has now been transferred to Chennai.

Central Services officers enforce order and collect taxes -- two functions that the Centre wants to control more and more. The implicit message that the peripheries of the Indian Union are lesser than the heartland from New Delhis perspective was evident in these transfers.Officers posted in the northeastern State consider it as a punishment posting, though the more permissive nature of government spending in these border regions allows for opportunities for corruption. People in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh are not happy at being considered as dumping grounds for officers found unwanted in Delhi, and understandably so.

The Northeast was officially termed the frontier, and most of the region was under the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) until the early 1970s.The regions relationship with the Centre,whether Imperial or Republican, remained in a flux.That continues to be a matter of negotiation. It is unthinkable to accept the Naga national flag as a cultural flag as hinted by the Government of India. The Naga national flag that symbolises Naga political identity is not negotiable,the National Socialist Council of Nagaland or NSCN (I-M) said recently.

On the one hand India, under the Hindu nationalist dispensation, is trying to precisely demarcate and tightly control the borders in the Northeast, but on the other, it is also trying to make it more open to commercial exchanges with neighbouring countriesis that possible? What happens when the Northeast, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Myanmar get more deeply intertwined? Each of them stands to benefit from more access, opportunities, resources and markets. These endeavours will literally bring ASEAN closer to us, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said recently in Guwahati in Assam.

The logic of neoliberal understanding of border it remains open for everything else but the movement of people- is tested in the northeastern region of India. People living in these border areas have close cultural and familial ties across political boundaries. The demarcations are difficult to enforce in a landscape that people have crisscrossed for centuries. The Chief Minister of Mizoram openly challenged a directive of the Centreto not welcome refugees from Myanmar. They are ethnically our Mizo brethren with whom we have been having close contacts throughout all these years even before India became independent, the CM wrote to the Centre last year.

Nitish turns the tables, again, on the BJP

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar addresses a press conference after an all-party meeting on the caste-based census in the state, at Samvad Hall in Patna. RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav is also seen.| Photo Credit: PTI

The BJP and its alliance partner Nitish Kumar have been playing a cat and mouse game for a long time now. The BJP wants to corner Mr. Kumar and wrest the leadership of the alliance in Bihar, but it is not easy. Bihar is not yet ripe for an upper caste takeover as the BJP has managed in neighbouring UP. Mr. Kumar was made the CM in 2020 even though his party, the JD(U), won fewer seats than the BJP because he represented the OBCs. Two things are happening since then -- the BJP began to look for ways to clip his wings, and his popularity began to slide, dramatically. Mr. Kumar seems to have turned the tables on the BJP for now. He cornered the BJP into accepting his move for a caste count - a demand that the party has rejected nationally.In Bihar, that position would have been suicidal for the BJP. The last word on the BJP-Nitish equation has not been said yet though.

Subscribe here

Read this article:

Political Line | Technology and Hindutva; dog walkers and federalism; Nitish turns the tables on the BJP - The Hindu

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Political Line | Technology and Hindutva; dog walkers and federalism; Nitish turns the tables on the BJP – The Hindu

Page 10«..9101112..2030..»