Introduction
Revisiting Unity and Diversity in Federal Countries: Changing Concepts, Reform Proposals and New Institutional Realities
The principal aim of this book is to revisit the basic theme of “unity and diversity” that remains at the heart of research into federalism and federation. It is time to take another look at its contemporary relevance to ascertain how far the bifocal relationship between unity and diversity has evolved over the years and has been translated into changing conceptual lenses, practical reform proposals and in some cases new institutional practices.
As Daniel Elazar has argued, these two concepts should be seen not as polar opposites but rather as congruent partners in the federal idea. The opposite of unity is not diversity; it is disunity while the opposite of diversity is a singular uniform homogeneity. The essence of the federal idea is that these two concepts can be situated comfortably together to produce a particular kind of unity: federal unity. It is important to place this fundamental conceptual partnership in different empirical contexts because each federal or federalizing country has its own historical specificity so that unity and diversity will play out very differently in each case. There are different understandings as to what these concepts mean and how they have changed over time. The original conceptual basis may have changed due to new socio-economic or cultural-ideological challenges that render it less relevant or redundant leading to the emergence of new or revised concepts that will more accurately reflect these new realities and govern practical approaches to meeting emerging challenges.
This book comes out of an international meeting held in Montréal 1–3 October 2015 by members of the International Association of Centers for Federal Studies (iacfs). The event was sponsored by the Canada Research Chair in Quebec and Canadian Studies (creqc)/Interdisciplinary Research Center on Diversity and Democracy (cridaq) based at the Université du Québec in Montréal.
Special steps have been taken so that participants in this project include in their contributions a brief summary of what they take unity and diversity to mean in their own case studies, whether it is spelled out in the written constitution or in some other way. This will represent the original conceptual benchmark against which scholars can demonstrate its subsequent evolution. It is precisely from this approach that new reform proposals are generated
Conference participants were also invited to present papers in different disciplines with different approaches but with a uniformity of purpose. As a collective, authors had the responsibility to elaborate a conceptual understanding of what unity and diversity mean in each case study and how it is expressed in terms of values and principles in the preamble to the written constitution, and in historical traditions and legacies. Special efforts were made to identify contemporary empirical change and challenges to this understanding, in particular references to new social cleavages having constitutional and/or political salience, new political movements, and civil society mobilisation. Authors were also encouraged to discuss conceptual reactions and responses to these empirical challenges and changes leading to conceptual reformation in terms of public discourses, parliamentary debates, and media analyses. Building on these analyses it was then possible to measure how far the public awareness of “unity and diversity” has been compelled to rethink and revise this understanding. It was then possible to appraise why in certain contexts political and social actors tended to undermine “diversity” or why they prefer “unity” over “diversity.” This was done through an in-depth exploration of constitutional cases, political debates, elite deliberations as well as public discourse(s). Authors were also invited to include practical reform proposals (even if not fully implemented) that demonstrated a constitutional and/or political discourse(s) derived from and based upon this new conceptual understanding of how and why the meaning of the “unity and diversity” axis has changed. To enrich the project, authors also examine new institutional practices, including constitutional, political, legal, economic and sociological changes and reforms. Authors were finally asked not to neglect the existence of any tangible, concrete empirical institutional outcomes that have appeared to reflect the contemporary realities born of conceptual change. These might have taken different forms among which might be senate reform, parliamentary declarations and legislative changes, and institutional change and innovations. We had in mind the example of the creation, in Canada, of the Council of the Federation in 2004. But they could include also the presence of various informal practices revolving around new conventions, new forms of political and economic behaviour as well as new organised interest groups, and/or civil society activism that have gradually become important in current-day politics.
This book is structured around four main parts: (1) the evolving conception of diversity over time and across continents; (2) the interplay between unity and diversity in complex settings; (3) federalism as decision-making and new institutional practices that have been put forward and tested; and (4) constitutional design and asymmetrical federalism as a way to respond to legitimate and insisting claims and political demands. The book closes with a sharp prospective look under the pen of Michael Burgess, a foremost student of federalism who has contributed like no one else to advance the federal spirit both in the United Kingdom and internationally.1 The closing chapter by Michael Burgess summarises some of the findings that constitute significant conceptual, theoretical and empirical reflexions from a comparative perspective. This summary is supplemented by some of his own thoughts about the nature of the relationship between unity and diversity that were both implicit and explicit in the Introduction of the book.
The work of Michael Burgess has been celebrated by his colleagues in a recent Festschrift, see Alain-G. Gagnon, Soeren Keil and Sean Mueller, ed. Understanding Federalism and Federation, London, Ashgate-Routledge, 2015.