Category Archives: Federalism

Over the years, one of the direst consequences of Nigeria`s leadership failures is that an increasing and almost unbearable amount of pressure has come to be put on the structures which make the Giant of Africa one country.

This amount of pressure which has constantly continued to result in friction between the different participants in Nigeria`s political processes, and fissures in the different layers of the country has constantly come to be generated because there has not been a lot of clarity or sustainability about the way the country is currently set up and run.

Nigeria`s inability to clarify the roles of the different players within it over the years has led to no little disillusionment. Many of those who have been consistent in taking Nigeria to task over the awkward federalism it practices have been consistent in pointing out the flaws of the country`s own version of federalism. With 35 states and the center, Nigeria`s federal system of government is built to ape that of the United States. However, in Nigeria, in spite of what appears to be clarity in the constitution, there been no little locking of horns in the last few years over who gets what in Nigeria.

Friction between the state, but especially deep-seated suspicion that the country`s federalism has become too unwieldy for its own good has been at the heart of the calls and cries of all those say that they have been hoping and holding out for better Nigeria for the country to be restructured.

The question of restructuring the country has been a burning one for many years now as stakeholders in the Nigerian project have come to the unmistakable realization that the power-sharing arrangement in the country is simply not working to give the country the best chance of becoming what its teeming population expects it to be.

However, over the years, the question of restructuring Nigeria has always been met by stiff opposition by some ethnic sections of the country in an epic demonstration of just how much the country is divided along ethnic lines.

A state at bay

Nigeria`s nightmarish torture at the hands of insecurity in the last decade has not been equally distributed even if it has been evenly distributed. Some states have been more affected than others. Of the states that have been more affected than others, Benue State will take some beating.

Dubbed the food basket of the nation for the prodigious farming prowess of its people, the state has always prided itself on its ability to produce enough food not just for itself but for the entire country, and even for export.

However, in the last couple of years, the tension between the state where many rural dwellers live on nothing but their farms, and herdsmen who move their cattle from place to place in search of greener pastures have gone up a notch to exacerbate Nigeria`s gripping and blinding struggle with insecurity.

The rest of the country has got used to being haunted by news of death and destruction coming out of Benue State as a result of clashes between farmers and herdsmen. Hundreds have been slaughtered with many communities razed. Countless people have become displaced within the state as a result of these clashes which have seemingly defied every solution.

So audacious have the attackers of Benue people grown in recent times that some years ago, a sacrilegious attempt was made on the life of the state governor Mr. Samuel Ortom when he visited his farm within the state.

A bilious bickering

The toll these conflicts have taken on the lives of the long-suffering people of Benue State in the last decade or so has been unimaginable. While these attacks that compel national attention have raged unchecked, politicians within the ranks of the Benue State Government and the Federal Government have bickered and squabbled over political differences in scenes that amount to playing politics with the lives and property of people who have inexcusably known so little peace for far too long. The bickering has especially increased since the Mr. Samuel Ortom dumped the ruling All Progressives Congress for the opposition Peoples Democratic Party to drag the state into the wilderness of opposition politics.

A recent move by the Governor has raised eyebrows. On Thursday, October 13,2022, the first batch of conscripts into the newly established Benue State Community Volunteer Guards was inducted during an elaborate ceremony in Makurdi, the Benue State Capital.

At the ceremony, Mr. Ortom launched into a lamentation of the security situation in Benue State before talking up community policing as a first step to state police while further lamenting that a request to the federal government to procure arms for the newly established guards have gone unanswered for more than three months now.

It was not long ago that Mr. Rotimi Akeredolu the Governor of Ondo State made a similar lamentation. It is not really about state governments getting on a warpath with the Federal Government. Rather, it is about the security of lives and property. If the Federal Government is saying that there is no need for community vigilantes in the states to bear arms, then it must demonstrate that its commitment to securing lives and property in every state in Nigeria is total and trumps every other consideration.

Failing that, what moral authority would it have to ask states not to arm vigilantes to safeguard communities torn apart by terrorism and threats of terrorist attacks? None, it appears. Absolutely none.

Kene Obiezu,

Twitter:@kenobiezu

Post Views:494

The rest is here:

Nigeria And The Intrigues Of Insecurity -By Kene Obiezu - Opinion Nigeria

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau listens to a question after announcing sanctions on Iran, in Ottawa, on Oct. 7.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

Canada is dangerously divided. Prime Minister Justin Trudeaus aggressive federalism is to blame.

When Stephen Harper was prime minister, he practised passive federalism. Ottawa raised revenue and sent money to the provinces to help fund health care, education and other services. It did not try to impose programs or standards or taxes on provincial governments without their consent.

After a decade of Mr. Harpers Conservative rule, the last separatist Parti Qubcois government had come and gone in Quebec, at least for the foreseeable future. At the federal level, the separatist Bloc Qubcois was virtually extinct, and after a contretemps with Newfoundland and Labrador premier Danny Williams that eventually blew over, Ottawa and the provinces were at peace something not seen since the 1950s.

But Mr. Trudeau, when he became Prime Minister in 2015, wanted to get things done. And he wasnt prepared to waste time seeking provincial consent. Aggressive federalism.

Things began well, with the Prime Minister and then-finance minister Bill Morneau convincing the premiers to increase Canada Pension Plan premiums to enhance the program.

Seas got stormier when the Trudeau Liberals promised additional funding for health care, but only if provincial governments agreed to improve the quality of mental-health services and home care. It took a while, but all provinces eventually agreed, some more reluctantly than others.

Then Ottawa demanded that the provinces impose some form of carbon tax to fight climate change. Those that refused had the tax imposed on them. This infuriated the premiers in Ontario and the Prairies.

In an effort to show Ottawa was not completely opposed to further developing the oil sands, the Liberals nationalized and forced through the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which angered British Columbias government.

The latest federal-provincial agreement involves subsidized child care, and there is a new dental program for children in low-income families that Ottawa is funding on its own.

Progressives across the country have every reason to support the Trudeau governments record of new social and environmental programs. With more action coming on housing, whats not to like?

Setting aside the fact these programs have contributed to record deficits and increased government debt, there is the cost to national unity. Aggressive federalism takes its toll.

Quebec is effectively self-governing. After almost voting to leave the country in 1995, the province has demanded and been given a broad range of powers by both Conservative and Liberal governments.

It now invokes the constitutions notwithstanding clause at the drop of a hat to protect its cultural and language legislation. Premier Franois Legaults Coalition Avenir Quebec, fresh off another election win, is demanding increased control over immigration. Quebec will get it, eventually, under this or another prime minister.

When Mr. Trudeau came to power seven years ago, the sovereigntist Bloc Qubcois held 10 seats in the House of Commons. They now hold 32 of Quebecs 78 seats. Mr. Trudeau pushed provinces on social and environmental programs; Quebec voters pushed back.

Albertans are so angry at Ottawa that premier-designate Danielle Smith is promising to introduce a sovereignty act, which would effectively nullify federal legislation in areas of the provinces jurisdiction.

It sounds wildly unconstitutional, and the NDP will probably scrap the new law if it comes to power after next years election. But Central Canadians should ask themselves how much responsibility they bear for supporting a Liberal government that makes Westerners this angry. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe is only one step behind Alberta in demanding autonomy for his province.

There may have not been a formal declaration, but make no mistake: Saskatchewan is at war with Ottawa, historian Bill Waiser wrote in The Globe and Mail in August.

The only good news for Mr. Trudeau is that Ontario Premier Doug Ford has toned things down. But that province has joined with others in demanding the same control over immigration that Quebec enjoys.

It may be Justin Trudeaus most ironic legacy if his aggressive federalism ends up leaving Ottawa weaker than when he arrived.

Editors note: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the Liberals hold no seats from Alberta in the House of Commons. In fact they hold two.

Continued here:

Trudeau's aggressive federalism may leave Ottawa weaker than before - The Globe and Mail

What is Federalism and Its Governmental Forms?

As a principle, federalism is concerned with combining self-rule and shared rule and linking individuals, groups, and polities in lasting but limited union so as to provide for the energetic pursuit of common ends while sustaining the integrity of each partner, thereby fostering unity and diversity, while checking forces of centralization and anarchy. The federal principle aims at establishing justice among the consenting partners and ensuring liberty.

A federal arrangement is a partnership, established and regulated by a covenant. A covenant is a voluntary agreement, often written, between co-equals who agree to come together and form a lasting union for certain purposes such as the common defense and general welfare. In contrast to a social contract, the word covenant suggests a moral dimension and appeal to a higher moral source. The U.S. Declaration of Independence is an example.

The internal relationships of a federal system reflect a special kind of sharing that must prevail among the partners based on a mutual recognition of the integrity of each partner and the attempt to foster a special unity among them. As a political principle, federalism is concerned with the constitutional diffusion of power so that the constituting members in a federal arrangement share in the process of common policy-making and administration by right, while the activities of the general government are conducted in ways that maintain the integrities of the constituting members. Federal systems do this by constitutionally distributing power among general and constituent governing bodies in a manner intended to protect the existence and authority of all. Basic policies are ideally made and implemented through negotiation based on mutual consent among the members so that all share in the systems decision-making and executing processes. As such, federalism is both a structure and a process.

Accordingly, federalism is a voluntary form of government and mode of governance that establishes unity while preserving diversity by constitutionally uniting separate political communities (e.g., the 13 original U.S. states) into a limited, but encompassing, political community (e.g., the United States) called a federal polity. Federalism may also be used to establish and organize nongovernmental organizations such as interest groups and political parties a common practice in federal polities.

Powers in a federal polity are constitutionally divided and shared between a general government having certain responsibilities for general matters such as the common defense affecting the whole political community and constituent governments having certain local or regional responsibilities. Both the general government and the constituent governments have constitutional authority to govern individuals directly (e.g., regulate behavior and levy taxes), and each has final decision-making authority over certain constitutionally delegated or reserved matters. Some constitutional powers belong exclusively to the general government; others belong exclusively to the constituent governments. Still others are concurrentthat is, exercised by both the general and constituent governments. Some federal constitutions contain a list of concurrent powers. Some federal constitutions delegate powers to the general government and reserve all other powers to the constituent governments (e.g., the United States); other constitutions delegate powers to the constituent governments and reserve all other powers to the general government (e.g., Canada).

A federal polity, therefore, can be thought of as a matrix of governments looking something like a Rubiks Cube or honeycomb composed of multiple cells of power. Constituent governments represent the cells of the matrix with a narrower scope of authority than the general government. However, these are differences of scale not status. By contrast, most unitary systems are organized along the lines of a hierarchical pyramid having levels of government in which differences are based on higher or lower status of authority. The imagery is important. Federal systems have no single center; hence, they are non-centralized rather than decentralized in form. In a federal system, public policies are ideally formulated by negotiation and implemented by collaboration.

Some federal polities, such as the United States, have a dualistic structure in which the general and constituent governments independently exercise certain separate powers; other federal polities, such as Germany, have integrated structures in which the general government enacts framework legislation that is implemented by the constituent governments. Most federal polities reflect some mixture of dualism and integration.

Most federal polities have two sets of constitutional government: a general government and regional constituent governments. A few federal polities, such as India and Nigeria, constitutionally recognize local government as the third order of constituent government.

In various federal countries, the general government is called the federal, national, union, or central government. Constituent governments may be called autonomous communities, cantons, Lnder, provinces, regions, or states.

In some federal polities, all or some of the constituent political communities have a distinct linguistic, ethnic, racial, religious, and/or national identity (e.g., Belgium, Canada, India, and Switzerland). In others, such as Germany, Mexico, and the United States, the constituent political communities have distinct, but not ethnic national, political identities forged over time by the people who inhabit each territorial jurisdiction.

Some federal polities are formed by uniting previously separate political communities (e.g., Australia and the United States); others are formed by devolving powers from a centralized unitary polity to regional governments (e.g., Belgium and South Africa). A few, such as India, reflect both types of formation. Some of the worlds oldest modern federations are the United States (1789), Mexico (1824), Switzerland (1848), Canada (1867), and Australia (1901).

Whatever the precise form of federalism, most federal polities experience widespread relations among their governments called intergovernmental relations. These may entail relations between the general and constituent governments, as well as local governments, among the constituent governments themselves (e.g., interstate relations in the United States), between the constituent governments and their local governments (e.g., state-local relations in the United States), and relations among local governments themselves (e.g., interlocal relations). Ideally, intergovernmental relations are cooperative, collaborative, and competitive with mutual coordination and adjustment. However, partisan differences, personal ambition, social movements, and many other factors can make intergovernmental relations collusive, cooptive, conflictual, and/or coercive.

Different federal polities have different purposes and values. The American federal system, wrote James Madison, is intended to secure individual liberty and make republican government possible on a continental scale, in part by establishing a common market among the states to foster economic prosperity and by uniting the states for a common defense of the country. Most federal countries are democracies but some countries with federal constitutions, such as Russia, are not democratic. A federal democracy ordinarily requires a supportive political or civic culture that values federalism, democracy, and constitutional government.

An older form of federalism is called confederation. The principal differences between a confederation and a federation (which is the form of federalism invented by the U.S. founders in 1787) is that a confederation cannot legislate for individuals (e.g., levy taxes, regulate behavior, and conscript people into the military). Each constituent political community has one vote in the confederation assembly, and constituent political communities can secede from the confederation. In practice, the line between a federal and confederal system can be blurred, as in the European Union, which has a few federal features along with many confederal features.

There is no single, best model of federalism. Most federal polities are products of mutual accommodations achieved through bargaining and negotiation. The features of a countrys federal system reflect the influences of history, circumstances, and configurations of political forces at the founding and over time. Every federal polity experiences change, usually around periods of more centralization or more noncentralization.

Although there are only 21 to 27 federal countries (depending on how strictly one defines federalism), federal countries house slightly more than 40 percent of the worlds population. This is due to the large population sizes of some federal countries, especially India, the United States, and Nigeria, and to the fact that seven of the worlds eight territorially largest countries are federal.

An important historical feature of modern federalism is that it enabled democracy to be viable on a large scale for the first time in human history. Prior to the formation of the American federal union, most territorially large political systems were imperial empires; the few other large systems were weak and usually short-lived leagues or confederations.

See the original post here:

What is Federalism? | CSF

The report submitted by the Official Language committee headed by union home minister Amit Shah on making Hindi the medium of instruction among several other recommendations has invited strong objections from southern states.

The recommendation to use English as the medium of instruction only where it is necessary and replacing it with Hindi gradually has not gone well with the southern states. The committee has also recommended carrying out other activities in Hindi in the technical and non-technical institutions and making English optional has also irked the states.

Kerala joined Tamil Nadu in raising dissent against the recommendations of the committee. Both states termed the move as an attack on Indias soul and unity in diversity.

The committee of Parliament on Official Language was set up in 1976, under the Official Languages Act, of 1963. The work assigned to the committee reads as follows:

In accordance with section 4 (3) of the Official Language Act, 1963, it is the duty of the Committee to review the progress made in the use of Hindi for the official purpose of the Union and to submit a report to the president making recommendations thereon.

The report presented by union home minister Amit Shah is the 11th such report, with 112 recommendations including making Hindi the medium of instruction replacing English gradually, and shifting to Hindi-medium question papers for recruitment exams among others.

Voices of dissent were raised as soon as the recommendations were made public, with Tamil Nadu chief minister M K Stalin asking not to impose another language war by imposing Hindi.

The Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan in a tweet said, Union Govts Hindi Imposition move is an onslaught on India's cherished ideal, unity in diversity. It will disadvantage a vast majority of Indians in matters of education and employment. This callous move, an affront to cooperative federalism, has to be opposed unitedly.

The minister for Municipal Admin & Urban Development in the government of Telangana K T Rama Rao, tweeted, India does NOT have a National language & Hindi is one among the many official languages To impose Hindi by way of mandating in IITs & central Govt recruitments, NDA Govt is flouting the federal spirit.

All the leaders raised serious concerns over the autonomy of the states, which continuously faces threats ever since the BJP captured power.

Pinarayi Vijayan, in a letter, addressed to the Prime Minister has opposed the recommendations of the committee. In the letter, the CM has insisted the use of all the languages specified in our constitution is to be encouraged.

Raising concerns over the recommendation to make Hindi the language of instruction in higher education institutions, the CM added, The state-specific aspects in the educational sector have to be recognised. There cannot be a hasty decision in this matter.

The union home minister, in his Hindi Diwas speech in September 2019 has openly called for one nation, one language. The recommendations presented now could be easily correlated to the policies of the RSS.

While communicating among themselves, people of India residing in various states have assimilated knowledge of other languages and appreciated the similarities. India has many languages and there cannot be a single language which can be termed as the countrys language, the letter insisted.

Dr Thomas Isaac, former finance minister of Kerala and a central committee member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] told NewsClick, India is being ruled by a party that does not believe in the diversity of the country. How else could it insist on knowledge of Hindi as a precondition for central government employment by insisting that the recruitment tests would be only in Hindi?.

Referring to the diverse nature of the country and the harmony among the cultural, linguistic and religious diversity, the CM flagged the concerns of the younger generation aspiring for jobs who are now feeling alienated.

While the younger generation must be encouraged to learn languages other than their mother tongue too, any attempt which will be even remotely perceived as an imposition of language will give rise to apprehensions among the people in general and job aspirants in particular, the letter added.

Our youth has limited job opportunities in the Government sector and any attempt to put a substantial section of them at a relative disadvantage will not be in the best interest of our society, the letter said referring to the recommendation on changing the question papers in Hindi.

More here:

Kerala Against Hindi Imposition; Terms Recommendations Attack on Federalism and Diversity of Nation - NewsClick

Udora Orizu in Abuja

The Urhobo Progressive Union (UPU) has stated that over six million Urhobo people in Nigeria will be meticulous in the choice of leaders they will vote for during the 2023 polls, noting that only a presidential candidate committed to federalism, diversity and so on will get their support.

The Union, in a statement by its President General, Joe Omene, said Urhobo people, who are the fourth largest ethnic group in the country, have suffered so much on account of the enormous and untrammeled powers vested in the office of the president that has been used to hold down the development of the component parts of so-called federation contrary to the charter of agreement before independence.

According to him, Urbobos are unhappy the way the most powerful office in the land has mis-managed our diversity, security, economy and the entire social fabric of Nigeria.

This is why, he said the Urhobos across Nigeria will troop out en mass in the forth coming 2023 election to vote in the next election in a way and they have never done to elect leaders at all levels.

Omene said: The 2019 Presidential election was won with a vote margin of about three million votes. There are over six million Urhobos in Nigeria, that is why the Urhobo people more than ever before and conscious of the suffering of our people and the consequences of the election of bad or ineffective democratic leaders. That is why the Urhobo across Nigeria will troop out en mass in the forth coming 2023 election to make a demographic political statement with our numbers of who should be the president of Nigeria on the basis of key issues that matter to the Urhobo people.We are calling on all sons and daughters of Urhobo nation to vote in 2023, a Governorship and Presidential candidate that commits publicly to further reform the electoral system and enthrone a culture of credible election where votes count.

Our people need to examine and scrutinize the history of all persons aspiring for public offices to ensure that they have no public record of association with treasury looting, carting away of public funds where they are sorely needed for collective development to horde in developed Western nations for their personal and family use only. Urhobo people do not want a president who gets to power with their votes to be begged and cajoled to sign future bills from parliament to improve the quality of elections in our country but will only sign when he or she is not on the ballot. Politicians who have proven records of frustrating free and fair elections at Local government, state or federal elections, who have affiliations with election riggers, distortion of results at collation centres, bribing of pliant judges, and sponsorship of ballot box snatchers or thugs would be avoided and shall not get the votes of the Urhobo people in the 2023 election.

Follow this link:

2023: Well Vote for Candidate Committed to Federalism, Diversity, Says UPU - THISDAY Newspapers

HELENA Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsenpushed backtodayagainst aBiden administration rule requiring Montana and all other states to reduce on-road carbon dioxide emissions to net-zero by 2050 intwo sets offormal comments filed with the U.S. Department of Transportation. The rule, proposed by the Federal Highway Administration, would require the State of Montana to track emissions from drivers on interstate highways and other major roadsand ultimately reduce them to net-zero.

The proposed rule exceeds the authority given to the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fails to considerthe Major Questions doctrine, which was strengthened in a Supreme Court decisionearlier this year following a lawsuit by Attorney GeneralKnudsen and other state attorneys general.

Federal agencies cannot enact a major policy changes without clear Congressional authorization for the power they claim. Requiring Montana and all other states to track and eliminate tailpipe emissions is clearly a major policy change,Attorney General Knudsen said. This is one of a longline of unlawful attempts by the Biden administration to reach in and overregulate the day-to-day lives of Montanans.

The rule alsoviolates federalism principles by requiring states to implement a federal regulatory program, violates the Appropriation Clause, and mirrors arule the agency previously repealed because it was burdensome and duplicative.

Click here to read the first set of comments. Click here to read the second.

Originally posted here:

Attorney General Knudsen fights Biden administration rule requiring states to reach net-zero highway emissions - Montana Department of Justice

HE was cranky on the campaign trial, cantankerous even. Francois Legault, the firm favourite in this weeks Quebec elections, had always been unapologetically nationalistic.

Now or so his critics said the sitting premier also sounded downright chauvinistic. The 65-year-old said increased immigration beyond 50,000 a year would be suicidal for his French-speaking province, or, rather, his nation within Canada.

Mr Legault, in another testy episode, even appeared to imply a link between newcomers and the threat of violence and extremism.

Earlier his immigration minister blurted out that 80% of immigrants go to Montreal, do not work, do not speak French or do not adhere to the values of Quebec society.

For opponents of Mr Legault and his ruling Coalition Avenir Quebec or CAQ this was evidence of a xenophobic mask slipping. These words are dangerous, because they are feeding fear of others, said Dominique Anglade, leader of Quebecs Liberals and the daughter of very eminent Haitian exiles.

Her retort made her headlines. But not any headway. Mr Legault on Monday secured a second and increased majority in Quebecs National Assembly. He took 90 out of its 125 seats on just 41% of the vote, thanks to the first-past the-post system Canada inherited from Britain.

He painted the electoral map powder blue, his partys colour, sweeping almost all of rural and suburban Quebec. His opponents, including Ms Anglade, were left little more than urban redoubts, most on the cosmopolitan and multi-lingual island of Montreal.

CAQ holds Francophone Quebec. How? Well, because Mr Legault has found the way to move la belle province beyond its politics of Yes and No. His secret? Nationalism without independence.

For decades Quebec politics has been dominated by one question: whether to stay in Canada. Power at the National Assembly has ebbed and flowed between two great forces: the sovereigntists f of the Parti Qubcois (PQ), those who wanted independence, and the federalists of the Liberals (PLQ), who did not.

Twice PQ held referendums, in 1980 and 1995. And twice they lost, the second time by a whisker. The final result was so close the distressed pro-independence leader Jacques Parizeau blamed money and the ethnic vote. His side had been winning. Until ballots from Montreal started kicking in. There are still Quebecers of colour who remember the abuse which followed Mr Parizeaus heat-of-the-moment remarks. Some of his supporters eager to recruit Anglophone and allophone voters were horrified. Quebec politics for at least two decades more remained stuck, calcified, in to Oui and Non camps.

An accountant and airline executive (he was one of the founders of Air Transat), Mr Legault had been a passionate sovereigntist in his youth. He served under two PQ premiers in the late 1990s early 2000s. But he quit the National Assembly in 2009 before setting up CAQ two years later. His plan: to find a way out of binary constitutional politics.

Lots of commentators see Mr Legaults party as more than just a coalition in name, but as a vehicle for uniting people and politicians who once stood on opposite sides of the debate. CAQ is often described as neutral. Is it? Not really, says ric Blanger, a professor of political science at Montreals McGill University.

There is a third way, it is being federalist but nationalist, he explains. For a long time Mr Legault and the CAQ tried to propose a third way that was kind of in between federalism and independence. But they were never able to create interest in that. Then, at a policy congress in 2015, they decided to take sides in the debate rather than sitting on the fence. They basically said that they were federalists.

This, for Prof Blanger, was essentially Mr Legault, a long-time sovereigntist, accepting the political reality that Quebecers were not up for a third independence vote. In 2015 he came to terms with the fact a majority of Quebeckers are not sovereignists but are very much nationalists.

Mr Legault had found what other analysts, such as such as polling guru Cristian Bourque of Lger, have called Quebecs sweet spot. His party unashamedly champions the nation, its secular values and its French language sometimes making noises critics see as chauvinistic. But it makes clear it supports the federation, including during this campaign. Just not, as Prof Blanger says, always very loudly. CAQ still wants to hoover up pro-independence votes.

Studies, however, show that, if asked, CAQ supporters are more federalist than independentist, says Prof Blanger.

But Legault and his allies have not just hammered traditional sovereignties of the PQ, which got just three seats and 14.6% of the vote, its all-time low. They have buried mainstream federalism too. The PLQ on Monday did even worse than the PQ, collecting just 14.4% of the vote, less than ever before. Ms Anglade, however, will be leader of the opposition after picking up 21 seats, most in Montreal.

Another federalist party, the newly formed Conservatives borne on a wave of a culture-warsy libertarian protest against Covid restrictions, took 12.9% of the vote but no seats. Its shock jock radio host leader complained of a distortion of democracy.

Not all federalists are convinced by Mr Legaults conversion, or his third way. Some, including in English-speaking Canada, think he a kind of stealth sovereigntist, a separatist in the closet, who will seek ructions with Ottawa. Some of his voters will be hoping so.

Quebecs independence supporters have not completely disappeared. Polls suggest more than a third of adults in the province want their own state. However, there are big demographic trends here. Diehard sovereigntists tend to be older, conservative Baby Boomers of Mr Legaults generation who speak French. Younger Quebecers, in contrast to Scotland, tend not to be that bothered by the issue.

That is the simple reading. But sovereigntists like federalists defy pigeon holes. This week second place was taken by another party breaking the mould of the provinces politics: Quebec Solidaire (QS). It beat both the PQ and the PLQ on share of the vote, running up 11 seats on 15.4%. This party is sovereigntist but, unlike the PQ, does not put independence front and centre. And its green-friendly, social-democratic, pro-immigration policies mean it does well in Montreal, even luring federalist votes.

The old Yes bloc is split three ways. Some sovereigntists remain with PQ, explains Prof Blanger. Some have gone to QS. Some have gone to CAQ. There is no glue or element to bring them back together at the moment.

PQ and QS have flirted with merging. But these are parties with very little in common beyond independence.

And they clashed bitterly ahead of this weeks polls, not least on culture wars and identity issues. The PQ leader in one debate goaded his QS counterpart to say the French equivalent of the n-word out loud. It did not go down well.

Canada is currently suffering a massive labour shortage and at a federal level is trying to lure new workers. So are Quebec businesses. So why not the supposedly enterprise-friendly CAQ? Mr Legault is proposing a cap of 50,000 a year (PQ tried to undercut him with a figure of 35,000).

Bluntly, both CAQ and PQ want lower numbers which they believe their society can assimilate. What is this about? Well, angst, fear that Francophones are in decline in North America.

Prof Blanger said: There is kind of a new divide that has emerged between pro-immigration people and those who are not so pro-immigration, he said. There is an insecurity behind this. There has been a clash of values, following the debate we had over reasonable accommodations around 2007. There is a fear that the secular values of the Quebec majority might be threatened by immigration.

That has become a concern to the most nationalist Quebecers.

CAQ is not just about holding down numbers. It has also pursued a series of new laws designed to cement Quebec values. There is Bill 21, which bans new public officials from public displays of religion, including head and face coverings. And then there is Bill 96, which further tightens previous rules designed to ensure French has primacy in Quebec.

The last law, which came in to effect this summer, has enraged many Anglophones. So much so that some have turned on their traditional federalist politicians for not doing enough to oppose it.

For many sovereigntists independence was always about safeguarding their language and culture. Without their own state, Francophones are choosing CAQ and its immigration rhetoric and language laws to protect what they see as a society under long-term threat.

Even within Quebec the number of people who speak French has been slowly but steadily declining, explains Prof Blanger. There is the sense that we do not want to disappear. Since we said no to independence twice, we need to find ways to survive while staying within the Canadian ensemble. With the victories of CAQ we are witnessing the consequences of Quebecers rejecting independence.

Original post:

How Scotland can learn from Quebec's third way on constitution - HeraldScotland

simonkolawole! by simon kolawole

As I was saying, assuming we elect a messiah as president, could he still fail to deliver the goods? In my previous article, I argued that Nigerian presidents fail, or fail to live up to expectations, for a million reasons, out of which I listed five: one, excessive pre-election marketing of candidates; two, our warped understanding of federalism which shapes our assessment of presidents; three, mismanagement of Nigerias socio-political dynamics which could be quite destabilising; four, poor understanding of development planning which hampers continuity; and five, domination of power by the predatory, rather than the developmental, elite. The limitations and complications are huge.

My opening argument was that presidential candidates and their fans often resort to overmarketing during elections but Nigeria will not change overnight and national transformation will not be pain-free. Something has to give. I will attempt to compress the rest of my arguments into this article, but first a clarification: this is not an attempt to excuse the failures of our presidents. Rather, I seek to highlight obstacles that must be navigated, otherwise our presidents will continue to shoot off-target and we will keep classifying them as failures. Even if the best of us ascend to power, they can still fail to deliver development outcomes as a result of several intertwined and complicated factors.

Now to my second argument: our warped understanding and practice of federalism in Nigeria can be a major obstacle to the success, or perceived success, of any president. When we say federalism in Nigeria, it is obvious that we are not discussing the role of every tier of government in the overall development of the country. We are more focused on how rich states should keep their resources in the spirit of true federalism ostensibly to spite the so-called parasites. The roles of the 774 councils and 36 states in delivering development in a federal set-up are often downplayed, and the president carries virtually all the responsibility. Yet, national development is the sum of all parts.

Let me explain myself a bit. All federally collected revenues are shared monthly. While the federal government takes the lions share of 48.50 percent, states and councils take 26.72 percent and 20.6 percent respectively. The rest goes to other statutory allocations. Effectively, states and their appendage councils control 47.32 percent combined which is completely out of the control of the federal government. While our primary interest in federation allocation has been the fight for derivation and fiscal federalism and all-what-not, we hardly discuss how much of the 47.32 percent that currently goes to the states and councils can be judiciously utilised for national development.

In any modern human society, these are some of the basic indices of human development: access to quality education, sanitation and clean water, healthcare and roads as well as social inclusion. All tiers of government are allowed to promote agriculture, industry, technology and job creation. Education, as we know, is the bedrock of modern development. But when it is reported that 12 million children are out of school, the blame goes to the president, who is then adjudged to have failed. Yet, basic education is under states and councils, not government. When basic education is in a mess, what magic can a president perform in Abuja? This hardly features in the federalism debate.

Let us talk about corruption. The average Nigerian is wired to think that it is only the president, or the federal government, that should fight corruption. You would think governors are barred from fighting corruption. It seems the deal is that the duty of government officials is to perpetrate corruption and the duty of the president is to fight it. The constitution empowers every state and LGA to prosecute looters. But for some reason, for instance, President Goodluck Jonathan took all the blame for the corruption at all levels of government during his tenure. The universal conclusion was that it was Jonathan that failed to fight corruption. That is our special practice of federalism.

I can go on and on, but my key point here is that no president can develop Nigeria singlehanded. All tiers of government must still do their parts for us to make progress. Only the military, or a unitary system, can enforce a single development agenda on the country. A democratic president in a federal, multiparty set-up cannot command states and councils to fall in line with his policies. Agreed, the president controls economic policy, but that is not all there is to good governance. Providing a productive environment for job creation is not the sole responsibility of the president. In fact, a presidents best efforts can be frustrated by uncooperative states in enforcing federalism.

President Olusegun Obasanjo, a retired general, forced the excess crude account (ECA) on us against every norm of federalism. From the savings, he forced us to build 15 power projects which we are relying on till today to achieve stable supply. Governors fought against the savings, insisting that ECA was unconstitutional (which is legally true). They wanted the money shared. Jonathan conceded to heavy pressure from the governors when he assumed power in 2010 and shared the ECA savings to fight food crisis. After Obasanjo, we never did anything substantial with ECA again. Jonathan met it at $20bn and left it at $2bn. Cooperative federalism is not our thing in Nigeria.

My third argument: the management of Nigerias socio-political dynamics can be a major factor in the success of a president. There are many dimensions to this particular argument which I am unable to fully explore here, but Nigeria is complicated. Ethno-religious emotions are at the centre of national life. Policies, projects and appointments always have ethno-religious flavours. Federal character, developed to create a sense of belonging, can mean different things to different regions at different times. Even a messiah can be destabilised by the agitations and may lose direction as different parts of Nigeria tear at him from all angles. A messiah will need more than wisdom!

For instance, reflecting our diversity at the federal level can be cumbersome. There will always be cries of margination which can derail even the most focused government. Check some of the interests: north, south, Hausa-Fulani, Igbo, Yoruba, minorities, Niger Delta, middle belt Muslims, Yoruba Muslims, Hausa Christians, Catholics, Pentecostals, Protestants, northern Yoruba, south-south Igbo, women, youth, etc. When Mr E.L. Adamu, a Christian from Gombe, was appointed deputy governor of CBN in 2018, many northern Christians rejoiced while some southerners complained that it was another northerner. Identity politics can be very fluid and plastic.

Also, if Alhaji Atiku Abubakar becomes president and launches an offensive against IPOB, the narration will be Fulanisation. If Mr Peter Obi wins and goes after bandits, it will be framed as an Igbo president killing northerners. If Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu wins and does not get rid of Yoruba Nation activists, that is automatically Afenifere agenda. Many Nigerians oppose/demonise or praise/idolise a president solely out of ethnic or religious sentiments. Every president faces allegations of bias. Whether true or not, perception becomes reality. Even Obasanjo that was generally thought to be fair to all was, at some point, accused of pursuing Afenifere agenda.

My fourth argument: poor development thinking. Remember I am assuming that the president is competent, patriotic and purposeful. But he is coming into a settled system where he will inherit projects he did not start and will start projects he will not complete. Development stems from a plan covering policies and projects, along with timelines and deliverables. Some presidents with good intentions and a desire to do things right may stumble because they inherit things that look shady and they may throw the baby away with the bath water, thereby doing more harm than good. A well-intentioned move to cleanse the rotten system can pull back development by decades.

I will give just one example. When President Umaru Musa YarAdua, widely acknowledged as a very decent man, came to office in 2007, he was unhappy with the unconstitutional funding of power projects from the ECA as well as the sale of refineries to Alhaji Aliko Dangote and Mr Femi Otedola, whom he obviously saw as Obasanjos cronies. He stalled on the power projects and reversed the sale of refineries. His intentions appeared altruistic, but his actions provided poor development outcomes and dragged us back. We are yet to recover. The overall plans for the power and petroleum sectors were in phases but YarAdua saw only the pixels and missed the bigger picture.

My fifth argument: a good president can still get things wrong because of the mentality of the Nigerian elite inside and outside of power. There is the developmental elite and there is the predatory elite. There are those who pursue policies and negotiations with the interest of Nigeria at heart and there are those whose overriding interest is personal gain at the expense of Nigeria. The predators are everywhere: civil servants, politicians, political appointees, lawmakers, business moguls, etc. You can select a good team but can you change the system all by yourself? Im told YarAdua often marvelled anytime a big man visited him without asking for favours. It was rare.

I often blame leadership for Nigerias slow development, but I also recognise the limitations that can hinder even a messiah. In my book, Fellow Nigerians, Its All Politics now available for pre-order on the website of Roving Heights I argue that whoever wins in 2023 will be flawed. The president may have good intentions but the terrain is full of landmines that he must skillfully tip-toe. He has to deliver the goods. Failure is not an option. No excuses will be accepted. If you cant stand the heat, why enter the kitchen in the first place? Ironically, Nigerians are not so hard to please just assure us, in word and in deed, that you are leading us on the right path to national development. Simple.

AND FOUR OTHER THINGS

SUBSIDY SHOCKER

How would Nigerians feel if a new president comes in and immediately removes petrol subsidy? That is exactly what President William Ruto of Kenya has done to relieve the crushing burden on public finance. It is a painful pill from someone who just got the peoples mandate, but there is no better time to administer this than during the honeymoon. If the gains are well managed, it will be to the benefit of the same people. I overheard some Nigerians accuse the UK of hypocrisy recently over its proposed gas and electricity subsidy. The difference, though, is that the UK is a productive, $3trn economy and the subsidy will eventually be recovered through taxes. No free lunch. Draining.

MAMU IN A MUDDLE

Alhaji Tukur Mamu, publisher of Desert Herald, media consultant to Sheikh Ahmad Abubakar Gumi and hostage negotiator, has been charged to court by the Department of State Services (DSS) for allegedly aiding and abetting terrorism. The secret police alleged that Mamu is involved in the funding of international and local terrorism and that he shares information with terrorists. These are serious allegations. I hope the case is prosecuted diligently and justice is done. The Kaduna train hostage crisis was so irritating because despite claims that the bandits demands were painfully met by the federal government, they still collected huge ransoms to release their victims. Humiliating.

SAYS BUHARI

President Buhari cut the picture of a disappointed man in Owerri, Imo state capital, on Tuesday. In his brief address while inaugurating projects, he lamented that his administration has done commendably well in the midst of dwindling revenue but those who should say so are not talking. He pointed in particular to the liberation of Borno state from Boko Haram and the construction of the new Niger bridge. To be frank with you, he said, I blame the Nigerian elite for not sitting and thinking hard about our country. To be frank with Buhari, it is not the job of his opponents to celebrate him. Their job is to say he has failed. It is left to his team to tell his success stories. Politics.

CYBER TIGERS

Dr Ifeanyi Okowa, governor of Delta state and vice-presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), beamed his focus on cyber bullying at a lecture on Tuesday. We are beginning to see bullying in the cyberspace of our country, I think that everybody should have space, time, to be able to think, make comments without being bullied, he said. I hate to disappoint him but cyber bullying is not going to have a solution any time soon, certainly not before the 2023 elections. Social media has considerably lowered the quality of public debates and the race to the bottom who can say the vilest things? has become more competitive than ever. It is the new world order. Tragic.

Continued here:

Federalism and Why Presidents Fail - THISDAY Newspapers

There was a time when railway ministers were accused of favouring their home states while launching new trains in railway budgets. Those memories came rushing back when Anil Agarwals Vedanta Ltd decided to house its proposed semiconductor joint venture unit in Gujarat despite Maharashtra apparently providing the company with a better deal and an ideal ecosystem for manufacturing. Speculation is rifethat intervention from New Delhi forced the last-minute change in favour of Gujarat. Impassioned arguments by Vedanta and its promoter Anil Agarwal to dispel those notions notwithstanding, they havent managed to put a lid on the issue yet.

The controversy again brought forth troubling questions over growing fissures in Centre-state relationships. Till now, strains in the relationships were visible only in non-BJP states. That changed as in the Vedanta case, one BJP-ruled state was favoured over another. Given that the Central government has always promoted healthy competition among states, speculation that the Centre is taking projects from other states to Gujarat are not a good endorsement of cooperative federalism. Mumbai had earlier lost out to Gandhinagar in Gujarat in establishing an international financial services centre (IFSC). When in 2007 the Percy Mistry Committee had recommended setting up IFSC on the lines of Singapore, the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had apparently proposed Mumbai to house it. But after a change in government at the Centre in 2014, Gift City Gandhinagar was favoured in place of Mumbai. As the Gift City continues to attract foreign and domestic financial institutions with favourable tax laws and easier compliances, many fear Mumbai may lose out to Gandhinagar in the long run.

Centre-state relationships have been awkward ever since the implementation of GST. They worsened recently as the period for compensation promised to states under the GST ended in 2022. There are other issues as well. The latest is the debate over freebies. The prime minister terming freebies offered by some state governments as revdi culture led to an eruption of protest by some statesparticularly Tamil Nadu and Delhi. It is not that the Centre and states have not fought in the past during previous regimes. But recent events indicate the spirit of cooperative federalism is sorely missing. Merely paying lip service to it cannot be the way forward.

Read more:

Vedanta and the missing spirit of federalism - The New Indian Express

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Jasti Chelameswar on Saturday remarked the the idea of Federalism is the most suitable idea for India, in view of its diversity.

"The minute you try to centralize the whole thing and create a model which you believe is good for the entire country and for all the states and all the classes of people, then we are into trouble", he said.

He was talking at a panel discussion as part of the Dakshin Dialogues 2022 A conclave held by the South First Media Group on the topic of Federalism and Judiciary.

Justice Chelameswar explained that the scheme of the Constitution indicates that more powers are to be invested in the Union Government.

Talking about the Indian Constitution he stated that, "now essentially the tendency of Indian Constitution is to create more and more power in favour of the Union Government and in the process in the last 70 years on various occasions wittingly or unwittingly various constitutional organs fell a prey to this trap."

A member of the audience raised a query before Justice Chelameswar that, "We have grown up with the belief that you are the last resort in the sense that the Supreme Court of India is the last resort for the people in the context of federalism for the states. Please tell us honestly do you think we are now in a situation where the Supreme Court can be considered as a last resort where the interest of states and the people are going to be protected. We are hearing fabulous grand statement made by your brother judges in seminars and workshops but in terms of orders being delivered there things appear to be different."

Justice Chelameswar in a lighter vein remarked that, "Those grand statement are widely published by you and your ilk. It is because of you these statements come please remember that, don't blame anybody first blame yourself and first of all your question 'please tell us honestly' what makes you believe that I will not give an honest answer I don't understand".

Responding to the query put forward he stated, "You said the Supreme Court, I don't believe that there is a Supreme Court, there are 16 Supreme Courts in the country as of today, the highest court of this country doesn't sit enblock. What is decided by two judges sitting in a bench today this morning might be disagreed to by another bench in the afternoon session. I am not blaming anybody. I am giving you the factual in which case what Supreme Court are you talking about. I am not saying it for the first time here, something like this I said it when I had the privilege of delivering Late Justice H. R. Khanna memorial lecture sometime in 2015 and its not I who invented it, it all started long back.

Justice Hidayatullah former Chief Justice of India in this city delivering a lecture made the statement, it's become a two judge quote, he said, in our days most of the important matters were decided by Constitution benches and nowadays everything is being decided by two judges and the next morning another two judges reverse it. It happens because naturally it is such a system where the highest court sits enblock on any issue a decision would be a decision of the court. Even when the entire court sits together, there can be differences of opinion, but the majority opinion would be won and that would be binding on the country. When you have 15 or 16 benches of the Supreme Court, every decision of the bench is binding on the rest of the country. This is a system which perhaps requires some attention to be paid. Something is to be done about it because without meaning any disrespect, people who are in control of the executive power would always love this kind of a system because it is always comfortable to handle situations. If the entire Supreme Court of 30 judges or 20 judges were to sit together and decide the matter and if the judgment is not palatable to the government which ever may be the party, it may take a decade or two before it can be reviewed because to pursuade the 20 judges that earlier judgment requires reconsideration because of xyz factors it takes a lot of time. If matters are decided by two judges or three judges much easier to persuade two judges or three judges that earlier judgment requires reconsideration. Therefore, nobody bothers about this thing. If debating these matters let us debate about these things".

Read more here:

Federalism Most Suited Idea For India In View Of Its Diversity, Centralising Whole Things Will Lead To... - Live Law - Indian Legal News