As a logical fallout of their argument for existence of multiple interests in society, pluralist thinkers advocate decentralization of authority. Developments in the field of political federalism add yet another dimension in the pluralistic arguments for federal nature of authority. Writers like Sidney and Beatrice Webb, G. D. H. Cole and H. J. Laski have argued for federal and decentralized authority both in economic and political terms.
Cole who is associated with the Guild Socialist theory has advocated functional democracy. This implies that political representation or power and responsibility in society should be related and in proportion to the importance of the functions, which individuals perform in the service of the community.18 Though guild socialism primarily applies to industrial relations, Cole stressed that legislative power must be divided between several bodies or ‘parliaments’. This is meant to make, as Hsiao opines, the legislative function as a constitutional instrument, a system of balance of powers between many independent functions or organized interests so that every one of them should be supreme in its own sphere. A further exposition of this thesis is found in the writings of the Webbs (A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain) who envisage representation in two forms—political and social. ‘Social Parliament’ is envisaged to represent individuals as members in a social democracy and ‘Political Parliament’ to represent them in capacity of citizens in a political democracy. Though they sound impractical, these formulations nevertheless bring to fore the need for functional representation and diversification of authority in society.
Laski has been one of the clearest advocates of federal authority. Laski’s federalist conception of society applies both to economic as well as political spheres. He advocates a concept of society in which authority is not hierarchical (emanating from a single sovereign) but co-ordinate (equal and co-existing). His pluralism manifests in three dimensions—industrial federalism, administrative decentralization and political federalism. Laski suggests autonomy for trade unions as part of general defence of corporate rights of all associations and groups. Here Laski suggests division of power upon the basis of functions. As a corollary of his general disdain for accumulation of power in the hands of the State, Laski recommends administrative decentralization, which he posits as a counter to monistic and hierarchical structure of power. His conception of federal authority also gets support from the emergence of federal politics as response to need for accommodating diversity in society. For example, generally, though not without exception, Indian federal structure at present presents a response to accommodate linguistic and cultural identities in the form of provinces. Further, the Indian Constitution presents a three-tiered federalism, which includes unions, states and local bodies, all three with constitutionally demarcated authority. As centralization is viewed as supportive of unlimited sovereignty, political federalism is considered as a necessary ally towards political pluralism.
Pluralists treated federal organization of state as an important ally of their argument for federalization of authority. As federalism represents a theory of constitutional organization, which is seen as a counterpoise to a unified state, pluralists see this as an important stage towards establishment of a pluralist state. Moreover, the example of a federally organized state is cited as a difficulty in locating the sovereign in the Austinian sense.
Despite the optimism reposed by the pluralist in federal set-up, it can be easily argued that in practice we do not see any sign of federal states like USA or India moving to be a pluralist state. Further, federalism can be best understood as a governmental arrangement and not as division of sovereignty. After all, the authority of all the federal levels flow from the same source—the constitution or a written code. As such, the locational problem of sovereignty should not mislead us in treating federalism as a theory of anti-monism. Hsiao, in fact, alludes to this when he says ‘federalism and monism are not incompatible terms’. If we do not confuse government with sovereignty, this mistake can be avoided.
Leave a Reply