In a world where anti-Americanism seems to be prevalent, especially in the developing world, the U.S. model has a lot to offer countries seeking to escape ethnic and religious strife. Known as checks and balances, this concept reflects the founding Fathers’ belief and fear that no one branch of government should possess all the power. The checks and balances they devised not only protected the emerging Republic from executive tyranny, but also protected the rights and interests of smaller states. There are at least three essential features.
The first feature and by far the most important is the division of power into three branches of government: namely, the Legislature (Congress), whose purpose is to draft and pass laws; the Executive (President), with a commander in chief responsible for signing bills into law; and the judiciary, whose role is to interpret laws and make sure the other two branches of government act in a manner respectful of the Constitution. One has only to think of President Nixon’s forced resignation to see how the checks and balance system works. Had he not resigned, Nixon would most likely have been impeached by the United States Congress.
Secondly, and in an attempt to protect the rights of smaller states, a legislative system was created with a bi-cameral house. The House of Representative is the lower house with each state assigned a certain number of Congressmen and women based on the state’s population. In contrast, the upper house or Senate is based on equal representation. Each state consequently is assigned two senators regardless of population size. While this may seem undemocratic, the purpose of this rule is to make certain that no one state receives too much power at the expense of the smaller states. Interestingly, some of America’s finest senators come from the smaller states. One has only to think of Arizona and Vermont where Senators John McCain & Patrick Leahey have distinguished themselves as thoughtful protectors of the public interest. And in a world where liberty matters as much as democracy, creating viable states that protect minority rights will be impossible if representation is based solely on which ethnic group has the biggest population.
The third feature is based on the Electoral College system which is easier to understand than it seems. Rather than selecting the President on the basis of which candidate receives the greatest number of votes, an Electoral College system was created. Each state is assigned a certain number of votes that then meets to formally vote for the President. There are 538 votes dispersed over 50 states based on population and since these electoral voters are selected by the parties themselves, the votes are guaranteed. To take one example, California receives 55 votes. Say the Democrats carry the state in a presidential election, all 55 votes would go to the Democratic Party. The effect of such a system is to give a disproportionate amount of power to smaller states since each electoral vote counts.
We live in a world where a number of failed states (Somalia), and failing (Pakistan & Afghanistan) states, are threatening the peace and stability of specific regions of the world. The world faces an uncertain future. Hunger and poverty, scarcity of resources, water and environmental issues, human rights violations, and poverty cannot be solely solved at the international level; national & local governments still count. In other words, countries do matter, and unitary states have failed to adequately address these problems. In an ideal world, viably functioning states with real federal systems where power is dispersed based on local realities could come together at the International level to deal with world issues like combating poverty & environmental degradation. NGOs can only do so such and the United Nations cannot do anything for a state like the former Belgian Congo if the legal and political realities of that country are disastrous. Of course, the United States has its own cultural, historical & political realities, but this should not prevent developing nations from borrowing certain ideas where merited. Some ideas are universal in nature regardless of what the leaders of China may think!,
One last point: What exactly do we mean by Federalism? In sum, the definition as applied here refers to a constitutional system whereby a nation has a central government usually referred to as a federal government, and smaller states or provinces (called cantons in Switzerland) led by provincial premiers or governors. The central government is normally in charge of international affairs and matters affecting the nation as a whole. State governments in contrast are responsible for taking care of local matters. The system I am recommending is not an excuse for creating a de-centralized state where the federal government has few if any powers. A good example is Bosnia where most of the powers lie with regional governments. Nor am I suggesting that we create states that are federal in theory but overly centralized in practice. A good example is Russia, where most of the power continues to lie with the central government. This of course has always been the case in that vast country, whether under the Czars, the Communist leaders, or with today’s rulers, who are at least in theory democratically elected.
Of course, neither the U.S. nor the Canadian systems (discussed in a previous blog) are perfect models for other countries to adopt. Both these two countries are in some ways too de-centralized, especially in business and economic matters. Foreign leaders should borrow and adopt from these two models. Since the aim is to find a working model, ideology should be set aside where necessary.
