Abstract

Abstract The most prominent conceptualization of federalism is as a political organization combining “self-rule” with “shared rule”. The abstractness that makes this formula so attractive has, however, opened the door to misinterpretation and, in turn, encouraged misconceptions about the essential nature of federalism. “Shared rule” has been misinterpreted as meaning participation of the constituent units in central-government decision-making, or co-determination. This confuses common aspects of federal design, such as bicameralism, or important elements of federal practice, such as intergovernmental relations, with the essential or defining features of a federal system. The analysis here clarifies the meaning of shared rule and confirms that the existence of two constitutionally guaranteed orders of government, each enjoying a direct relationship with the people and exercising meaningful powers, is both necessary and sufficient for a political system to be characterized as a federation.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call