The Revival of Federalism in Normative Political Theory

  • Dimitrios Karmis
  • Wayne Norman


In its most general sense, federalism is an arrangement in which two or more self-governing communities share the same political space. Citizens of federal states (or superstates, as in the case of the European Union) are members of both their subunit (sometimes called a province, canton, land or, confusingly, a state) and the larger federation as a whole. For a number of largely unrelated reasons, interest in both the theory and practice of federalism has exploded in the years following the collapse of Communism in Europe.


Federal State Political Theory Political Theorist Federal System National Minority 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer contributed significantly to such debates with his famous speech of May 12, 2000. See Joschka Fischer, “De la confederation à la federation, réflexion sur la finalité de l’intégration européenne,” in Le nouveau débat sur l’Europe, ed., Hartmut Marhold (Nice: Presses d’Europe, 2002), pp. 176–189. For a French response to Fischer, see Hubert Védrine, “Réponse à Joschka Fischer,” in ibid., pp. 190–194. More generally, the opposition between a federal union and a union of nation-states has been a recurrent theme in the recent talks about the enlargement of Europe and the drafting of a European constitution.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See Will Kymlicka and Wayne Norman, eds., Citizenship in Diverse Societies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Examples include Murray Forsyth, ed., Federalism and Nationalism (London: Leicester University Press, 1989);Google Scholar
  4. Bertus de Villiers, ed., Evaluating Federal Systems (Cape Town/Dordrecht: Juta/Martinus Nijhoff, 1994);Google Scholar
  5. Stephen J. Randall and Roger Gibbins, eds., Federalism and the New World Order (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1994);Google Scholar
  6. Graham Smith, ed., Federalism: The Multiethnic Challenge (London: Longman, 1995);Google Scholar
  7. Karen Knop, Sylvia Ostry, Richard Simeon, and Katherine Swinton, eds., Rethinking Federalism: Citizens, Markets, and Governments in a Changing World (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1995);Google Scholar
  8. Daniel Elazar, Constitutionalizing Globalization: The Postmodern Revival of Confederal Arrangements (Lanham, Md.: Rowan & Littlefield, 1998);Google Scholar
  9. Kalypso Nicolaidis and Robert Howse, eds., The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); andGoogle Scholar
  10. David McKay, Designing Europe: Comparative Lessons from the Federal Experience (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 4.
    Examples include Murray Forsyth, Union of States: The Theory and Practice of Confederation (London: Leicester University Press, 1981);Google Scholar
  12. Daniel J. Elazar, ed., Federalism as Grand Design: Political Philosophers and the Federal Principle (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America and Center for the Study of Federalism, 1987);Google Scholar
  13. Michael Burgess and Alain-G. Gagnon, eds., Comparative Federalism and Federation: Competing Traditions and Future Directions (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993);Google Scholar
  14. Daniel J. Elazar, Federalism and the Way to Peace (Kingston, Ont.: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University, 1994);Google Scholar
  15. Michael Burgess, The British Federal Tradition (London: Leicester University Press, 1995);Google Scholar
  16. S. Rufus Davis, Theory and Reality: Federal Ideas in Australia, England and Europe (University of Queensland Press, 1995);Google Scholar
  17. Joachim Jens Hesse and Vincent Wright, eds., Federalizing Europe? The Costs, Benefits, and Preconditions of Federal Political Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996);Google Scholar
  18. Samuel LaSelva, The Moral Foundations of Canadian Federalism: Paradoxes, Achievements, and Tragedies of Nationhood (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996);Google Scholar
  19. Thomas Hueglin, Early Modern Concepts for a Late Modern World: Althusius on Community and Federalism (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1999);Google Scholar
  20. Frederick K. Lister, The Early Security Confederations: From the Ancient Greeks to the United Colonies of New England (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1999); andGoogle Scholar
  21. Anthony Pagden, ed., The Idea of Europe: From Antiquity to the European Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  22. 5.
    A consequentialist argument is one that recommends a particular institutional arrangement not because of its intrinsic features (such as its fairness or its conformity to the demands of political equality) but because of the sorts of results or consequences it is likely to produce over the long run. For more on the structure of normative arguments for federal arrangements, see Wayne Norman, “Federalism and Confederalism,” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed., Edward Craig (London: Routledge, 1998), volume 3, pp. 572–574; and “Towards a Philosophy of Federalism,” in Group Rights, ed., J. Baker (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994), pp. 79–100.Google Scholar
  23. 6.
    Among the first and most well-known versions of this thesis is Daniel J. Elazar’s in his Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa, Al.: University of Alabama Press, 1987).Google Scholar
  24. 7.
    K.C. Wheare, Federal Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964 [1946]), p. 1;Google Scholar
  25. Bernard Voyenne, Histoire de Vidée fédéraliste, volume I: Les sources (Paris: Presses d’Europe, 1976), p. 42; and Elazar, Exploring Federalism, p. 147.Google Scholar
  26. 10.
    On the meaning of foedus, see Bernard Voyenne, Histoire de Vidée fédéraliste, volume I, p. 27 and Solomon Rufus Davis, The Federal Principle: A Journey Through Time in Quest of a Meaning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), pp. 215–216.Google Scholar
  27. 11.
    Martin Diamond, “What the Framers Meant by Federalism,” in A Nation of States: Essays on the American Federal System, ed., Robert A. Goldwin (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1961), p. 27.Google Scholar
  28. 15.
    Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (Springfield, Mass.: George and Charles Merriam, 1856), pp. 245 and 444.Google Scholar
  29. 17.
    Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist (New York: The Colonial Press, 1901), paper XXXIX, p. 211.Google Scholar
  30. 21.
    Adams cited in Daniel J. Boorstin, The Americans: The National Experience (New York: Random House, 1965), p. 413.Google Scholar
  31. 22.
    Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (London and New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1889), volume I, p. 156.Google Scholar
  32. 23.
    According to Diamond, in the case of Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, it is very likely that they did that “to allay the fears of the ‘true federalists’ “ (Martin Diamond, “The Federalist’s View of Federalism,” in Essays in Federalism, ed., Georges C. S. Benson [Claremont: Claremont Men’s College, 1961], p. 24).Google Scholar
  33. 25.
    Thomas Hueglin, “Federalism at the Crossroads: Old Meanings, New Significance,” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 36:2 (June 2003), p. 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 30.
    Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Oeuvres complètes de P.-J. Proudhon, volume 14: Du principe fédératif et oeuvres diverses sur les problèmes politiques européens (Paris: Marcel Rivière, 1959), p. 335.Google Scholar
  35. 32.
    The eighteenth century was marked by the beginning of the fusion of the old language of republican patriotism with the new language of nationalism. For a critical overview of this process and a plea for “patriotism without nationalism,” see Maurizio Viroli, For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  36. 33.
    Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “Discourse on Political Economy,” in Rousseau’s Political Writings (New York: W. W. Norton, 1988), p. 69.Google Scholar
  37. 34.
    Rousseau cited in Josep R. Llobera, The God of Modernity: The Development of Nationalism in Western Europe (Oxford: Berg, 1994), pp. 153–154.Google Scholar
  38. 42.
    Some evidence suggests that Tocqueville did not believe in the possibility of viable multinational federations. For example, although he knew the Canadian case, Tocqueville did not prescribe, or even really consider, a federal solution in any other case than the United States and Switzerland. And even in these two cases, he did not consider a federal system with Aboriginal peoples as an option in America, while he presented Switzerland as historical exception very unlikely to be reproduced (see Dimitrios Karmis, “Fédéralisme et relations intercommunautaires chez Tocqueville: entre prudence et négation des possibles,” Politique et sociétés 17:3 [1998], pp. 59–91).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 44.
    John C. Calhoun, “A Disquisition on Government,” in Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C Calhoun (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1992), p. 11.Google Scholar
  40. 45.
    John C. Calhoun, “On the relation which the States and General Government bear to each other [The Fort Hill Address],” in The Works of John Calhoun, volume VI: Reports and Public Letters of John Calhoun (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1855), pp. 63–64.Google Scholar
  41. 46.
    John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Considerations on Representative Government (London: J. M. Dent, 1993), p. 392.Google Scholar
  42. 50.
    Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, La fédération et l’unité en Italie (Paris: E. Dentu, 1863), p. 118 (our translation).Google Scholar
  43. 53.
    See notably Samuel LaSelva, The Moral Foundations of Canadian Federalism, chap. 1; and Will Kymlicka, Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998), chap. 13.Google Scholar
  44. 56.
    See Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, as well as commentary in Wayne Norman, “Domesticating Secession,” in Secession and Self-Determination, eds., Stephen Macedo and Allen Buchanan, NOMOS XLV (New York: New York University Press, 2003), pp. 193–237.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dimitrios Karmis and Wayne Norman 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitrios Karmis
  • Wayne Norman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations