Critique of Federalism

James Madison continues his defense of the federalist idea by rebutting the claim that the
physical extent of the proposed country would be too large for effective and equitable
governance. Today, Oil Age transportation and communication technology have made
this a moot point, though how long it will remain so as we pass beyond the oil Peak is an
open question. At any rate, physical logistics in themselves have thus far not seemed to
play much of a role, and on that point at least Madison appears vindicated so far.

But in the course of his argument he takes the opportunity for some peculiar asides
regarding democracy which Ill examine in this piece.

Before proceeding Ill describe again where Im coming from, and what I think is
politically needful today.

As aspiring relocalizers were of course skeptical on its face of any alleged timelessness
of Madisons pro-federalist argument. We now believe in positive democracy. Its a
normative value in itself, a moral imperative, and, as a matter of practicality, the only
form of government which is not a proven failure (unlike representative
democracy). Meanwhile, we know the decentralized economy can also be run by the
people. This has been proven, for example, in the Spanish cooperatives of the 1930s. So
all forms of economic paternalism, from Madison to Lenin, have been proven false.
Weve long since come of age and must no longer let thugs convince us that we cant run
our own affairs. We can do for ourselves. Its precisely those parasites who have no right
to exist, morally or as a practical matter.

So heres the call:

1. Participatory democracy and economy, as a positive good.

2. Political and economic relocalization as a political imperative vs. tyranny.

3. Political and economic relocalization as a physical imperative in the face of Peak Oil.

Its in the sunshine of this framework that we unfold the critique of federalism and call
for the devolution of federalism, levering the real center of powers gravity close to the
soil from which it grows in the first place.

In what follows, its always the case that much of Madisons argument becomes
both obsolete, since energy descents enforced relocalization renders the federalists
imperial aspirations moot; and beside the point, since weve recognized the political
failure of the republic form, and democracy remains our only option, unless we wish to
submit to slavery once and for all. So in both cases, the decision is determined by
circumstances and argument is moot.

But lets proceed. Madison opens up with the question of whether the proposed country is
too big and the claim that only a republic can be politically capacious enough to
encompass ever-greater geographical scales.

The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and
refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and
prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the
former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these
forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people
meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer
it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a
small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

This is quite presumptuous, since he starts with the dogma that the union has to become a
great empire, then acts as if this is self-evident truth as he goes on to prove that we
cant have democracy because it cant scale up, and then accuses opponents, at
least many of whom oppose the imperial assumption in the first place, of being confused
about the different capacities of democracy and republic to sustain empire. (Madison and
Hamilton both consistently take the desirability of this centralized empire-seeking
republic for granted, then argue as if theyve proven its the best system and that all they
have to do is dispose of some technical arguments. Its begging the question throughout.)

Well, thats also a moot argument. Americas imperial days are over. Its clear today that
the only purpose of the empire is to enable corporate looting of taxpayer money, and at
the same time only the most larcenous extractions enable the propping up of this empire
at all. Its a monstrous rathole from any point of view. The imperialist strivings of
federalism are utterly discredited, and we can declare those arguments dead and buried.
Today reality and our political desires are trending in the opposite direction
from Madisons day. We have the bloated tyrannical empire and want to guide its
inevitable unwind in such a way as to be as beneficial to the people as possible.

Madison then goes on to describe in detail the geography of the states in order to prove
transportation problems arent insuperable. Its interesting that he cites Britain as one
of the examples with which the size of the union was comparable, since the US had just
won independence in part by exploiting the British empires physical extension, which
under those economic and military conditions became overextension. (And did he recall
how the patriots quickly dropped in their own counsels any serious demand for
parliamentary representation, since any effective logistics for that were clearly
impossible?) This is so obvious its hard to believe Madison was unaware of it as he
wrote. At any rate, it reminds us again of the modern USs extreme military and
economic overextension. Hundreds of bases, hundreds of thousands of troops, a dozen
aircraft carrier groups to patrol tens of thousands of miles of sea lanes, and all of it to
prop up a wealth-destroying system.

That geographical lunacy highlights how, during the Oil Age at any rate, geographical
power concentration, the way Madison and Hamilton emphasize, is a misdirectional
concept. For geographical centers we have to substitute power concentrations, as wielded
by disembodied corporations*, and the disempowered people for regional extremities.

Having satisfied himself on the geography, Madison goes on to make some political
points.

He claims a version of the idea later to be encoded in the 10th Amendment.

In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged
with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to
certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are
not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which
can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will
retain their due authority and activity. Were it proposed by the plan of the convention to
abolish the governments of the particular States, its adversaries would have some ground
for their objection; though it would not be difficult to show that if they were abolished the
general government would be compelled, by the principle of self-preservation, to
reinstate them in their proper jurisdiction.

The fact that the federalists furiously resisted the enshrining of a Bill of Rights is already
suspicious, and we know how the 10th Amendment turned out in practice: A demagogic
political meme at most, something always to be cited and deployed in a purely cynical,
hypocritical manner. (Once Bush came in, every Republican suddenly forgot where he
put his little pocket Constitution.)

Whats most interesting to me about that Madison quote is how, even though it seems to
concede a real federalist spirit, it does so only from the point of view of the interests of
the central government. The guarantor of the integrity of state governments is to be how
useful and necessary they are for the weal of the federal government. But we true
democrats dont care about the efficacy of government as a value in itself, but only
insofar as a more effective government is more effective at promoting our democratic
endeavor, the vibrancy of our freedom, and our economic opportunity and prosperity. As
James Otis said of the English constitution, its end, its use, its designation, drift, and
scope must be liberty above all. This was universally agreed among the rebels, who saw
how the British governments actions were abrogating this imperative. So we today
recognize the same obligation of our constitution, and measure a system of government
by how well it embodies this responsibility, or with what depravity it derogates it.

Therefore its good that Madison moves next to conceding in advance the integrity of our
endeavor.

A second observation to be made is that the immediate object of the federal Constitution
is to secure the union of the thirteen primitive States, which we know to be practicable;
and to add to them such other States as may arise in their own bosoms, or in their
neighborhoods, which we cannot doubt to be equally practicable. The arrangements that
may be necessary for those angles and fractions of our territory which lie on our
northwestern frontier, must be left to those whom further discoveries and experience will
render more equal to the task.

Therefore the project is to be considered always in flux, in accordance with the needs of
the age. That includes geographical features and it implicitly includes political forms. (As
proven by the radical morphological action, for which it had no explicit authority, of the
late Convention of whose work Madison and Hamilton were now acting as champions.)

Finally he reiterates the idea of how the benefits of unions as well as the power lines
can run directly or inversely with geographical extremity.

[A]lmost every State will, on one side or other, be a frontier, and will thus find, in regard
to its safety, an inducement to make some sacrifices for the sake of the general
protection; so the States which lie at the greatest distance from the heart of the Union,
and which, of course, may partake least of the ordinary circulation of its benefits, will be
at the same time immediately contiguous to foreign nations, and will consequently stand,
on particular occasions, in greatest need of its strength and resources. It may be
inconvenient for Georgia, or the States forming our western or northeastern borders, to
send their representatives to the seat of government; but they would find it more so to
struggle alone against an invading enemy, or even to support alone the whole expense of
those precautions which may be dictated by the neighborhood of continual danger. If they
should derive less benefit, therefore, from the Union in some respects than the less distant
States, they will derive greater benefit from it in other respects, and thus the proper
equilibrium will be maintained throughout.

But as we discussed, we know today benefits, responsibilities, power, have no necessary
connection with mere geographical extent. The most far-flung geographical tentacles can
nevertheless leverage their influence to extract the most absurd and tyrannical subsidies
from the center, or conversely anyplace can become a quarry and a mine and a dump. Just
look at whats happening in Madisons very core with the Marcellus Shale.

At the end Madison gives his great peroration, calling upon the people to reject the
naysayers and heed the call to union. Its moving indeed, except that today we know
much of what the anti-federalist writers prophecied has come true, while much of what
the federalists promised has been betrayed.

Madison asks an excellent question: Why is the experiment of an extended republic to
be rejected merely because it may comprise what is new? He asked that in the day of a
failing system which needed to be replaced.

And we today must and may ask the same question, and demand the same willingness to
experiment toward something new.

Federalism and Inequality in India


The empowerment of Indias sub-national political actors rolls on with the
news that the Samajwadi Party are set to triumph in the elections of Uttar
Pradesh, a huge state in North-East India with a population of over 200
million people. Widely reported as being a state-of-the-nation litmus test for
public opinion towards the ruling coalition headed by the Congress Party,
the results indicate the continuation of emergent trends and, potentially, the
increased opposition to entrenched problems, within Indias politics.
Congress currently look likely to finish fourth in the polls, despite vigorous
campaigning from party darling Rahul Gandhi, whilst the incumbent
Mayawati, of the Dalit-oriented Bahujan Samaj Party, has failed to hold onto
control.
Post-Cold War transformation in India has seen a shift, in economic,
political, and social affairs, away from a heavily centralised model to a new,
equally choatic but more dispersed structure. This is not to say that the
monolithic Indian state of old no longer exists, but as economic policy has
empowered states to develop their own models, so political power has
drifted away from the centre, with concurrent impacts on social
mobilisation. Victory of the Samajwadi Party further institutionalises the
new reality of weakened national parties, coalition government, and the
empowerment of state-level actors and authority.
This is a process that has been ongoing for decades but the elections in Uttar
Pradesh (UP) bring three key areas into focus: the division of the electoral
dividend created by anti-corruption campaigning and sentiment, the
enduring validity of dynastic political control, and the aforementioned
impact of a redefined federalism. There is, of course, a fourth meta-point
that never disappears: the role of caste politics.
Whilst the high profile leader of last year's protests against governmental
corruption, Anna Hazare, has largely disappeared from the political scene,
the discontent on which he capitalised, and the lack of resolution to the
problems he broadly addressed, remains. Corruption is no stranger to Indian
politics but there is certainly an increasing dismay at the extent to which it
appears endemic and immovable. At a time when the political paralysis
caused by clientalism and rent-seeking behaviour poses grave danger for the
rising India vision that middle classes have bought into, the spluttering of
the growth engine exacerbates outrage at an increasingly dishevelled
establishment. With GDP forecasts reduced, and inflation rising, the ruling
United Progressive Alliance coalition headed by Congress needed to
dynamically demonstrate that it is in touch with an India in flux. Despite
this, in entrusting reinvigoration to the latest product of the Nehru-Gandhi
dynasty, Congress may have compounded its own crisis.
Rahul Gandhi is the latest in a long-line of politicians drawn from the
bloodline of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indias central founding father and first
Prime Minister. At 41 he is General-Secretary of the Congress Party and,
following in the footsteps of other prominent family members such as
former Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, and current Congress
President Sonia Gandhi (widow of Rajiv), Rahul is the most high profile
face of a new generation of politicians within a party whose current leader,
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is 79. During the UP elections he
campaigned vigorously, making over 200 appearances on the stump to
promote his partys message. Whilst honestly accepting responsibility for
the defeat is commendable, the reality of failure may indicate a wider loss of
legitimacy relating to one of the bones of contention highlighted by
Ramachandra Guha recently as emblamatic of stagnation within Indias
democracy the stifling of credible politicians at the hands of dynastic
elites.
With all this in mind, the reinvigoration of representative democracy within
India is likely to come from the local level (though obviously local is a bit
relative when UP is the size of Brazil). Mayawati, incumbent Chief Minister
since 2007, is a much-debated example of this possible trend. Rising to
power on the back of an electoral base in the Dalit (untouchable)
community, Mayawati has faced criticism for a huge rise in her personal
wealth since assuming office and also for constructing prominent statues of
herself and other members of the Bahujan Samaj Party throughout the state.
This fuzziness over corruption, while possibly not the central factor in her
failure to retain office, is certainly a weakness and may have played into the
Samajwadi Partys successful campaigning within Other Backward Caste
communities left out of the alleged patrimonial spoils.
The great success of India as a democracy has been the endurance of
pluralism amidst stupendous diversity. Devolution of political power is a
logical extension of this, even more so half a century out from independence
as the contemporaries of Gandhi and Nehru depart the scene. Nonetheless
the central institutions of the Indian state are essential, and they surely
demand strong mass parties capable of leading coalitions and responding
proactively to the needs of the majority of Indians who are yet to reap the
tangible benefits of recent resurgence. There is, arguably, an increasing
sense that simply trotting out the latest Nehruvian prince, however gifted, is
not sufficient to placate the demands of a majority who are hungry for their
piece of the much-heralded bigtime.
As regards Indias role in the world, the management of inequality is
completely central. Where India presents itself as the worlds largest free
market democracy it is hindered by enduring mass poverty, especially in a
political system where the voting poor cannot be sidelined. Equally, linked
to the Nehruvian foreign policy angle that presented India as a representative
of the global poor seeking to construct an equitable global order away from
post-colonial power politics, an argument that presents India as a potential
global swing state is undercut by attempting to speak morally
internationally without having solved the same problems domestically. India
is, very obviously, not China. Nor is it Russia. Defining its worldwide
identity as a democratic force for the global good means ensuring the
economic success story continues to lift people out of poverty. It means, in
short, backing up some old-school great power rhetoric with some
iconoclastic great power responsibility. That example, successfully
achieved, would be phenomenal.
It is not a gigantic step for an electorate appalled by public corruption to
zero in upon issues relating to wider economic inequality. The UK itself is
an example of this, where public outrage towards MPs expenses and cash for
questions has drawn a line whose precedent is undermined by turning a blind
eye to bank bailouts, big business tax avoidance, and the simultaneous
imposition of austerity policies. The solidification of such a position within
India could coalesce around a series of sub-national groups, linked to caste
status, that may force not only significant reform upon central parties such as
Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party, but also challenge the accelerated
model of federalised liberalisation that has empowered and caught the
imagination of the new Indian middle classes. This faultline, between the
passengers and the baggage in the Indian transformation, will represent the
pivotal issue around which continued reform turns and Indias new global
role is defined.