• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

A Response to Richard Vernon's Article - The Federal Citizen

Extracts from this document...


A Response to Richard Vernon's Article: The Federal Citizen Henning Fotland B00339586 Prof. Mellon 29th January 2003 In this response I will attempt to prove that federalism is not an ideologically determined system, and that the basis of its structure is visible in all types of political orientation, such as the United States, the former Soviet Union and Canada. In this response to Richard Vernon's article The Federal Citizen, I will attempt to prove that the essence of federalism is actually a general theme that is available for extraction in all levels of human interaction, from the individual in society to the highest level of supra-government. As Vernon concludes, the three conceptions which necessitate federalism as a constitutional entity are; "democratic responsiveness, the openness of choice of identification, and the preservation of politics from (unqualified) nationalism."1 To begin an assessment of Vernon's argument for federalism it is first necessary to have a working definition of what this system is and what the goals of its implementation are. It appears to be the idea of 'dual citizenship', which distinguishes the aspirations of federalism from other systems. This entails belonging to an upper-level national government as well as identifying oneself with a sub level provincial or territorial government. ...read more.


Only by narrowing the focus and reducing the size of the government and its population can the institution of government be representative of its people. This theory is considered to be a co-operative model of federalism, where all actions of government are a direct result of popular will. Unfortunately, this theory does little to support the case of minority populations and would necessitate an environment of dispassionate compromise and would pose a threat to groups that tried to distinguish themselves culturally or otherwise. This model is contrasted by a political view of pluralism, where divisions of territory are seen not as cultural demarcations but as fractions of the whole system, where power is checked and balanced by other delegates of power. This picture conflicts with the intended co-operative spirit, and would be just as likely to lead to the restraining of beneficial government action as it would be to enabling it. A division of territory will inevitably lead to inequalities between provinces, consequently, if these divisions are placed in conflict with each other there will doubtlessly be victors and vanquished. It seems fantastic that a single political system could sustain being equally present on opposite sides of the political arena. ...read more.


By setting ideological parameters on a universal principle such as awareness, they blinded their own awareness to the essential truth of what they were exploring. Instead of seeing the ability to juggle several conflicting alliances simultaneously as a natural and necessary condition of human and therefore societal existence, Vernon attempted to establish an absolute truth within a very specific theoretical framework. What he failed to realize was that this basic condition of awareness was the absolute truth and that it existed independent of any political system or framework. I would like to challenge Vernon to find any extant political or social system that could not be interpreted as having his general federalist structure. In conclusion, I would argue that the importance of federalism as a dualist system is a misconception and that all politically aware people exist and view themselves in a multi-levelled society. Vernon's ideological claims are not best represented by federalism from an individualistic, ideological, economic or political standpoint. The basic tenants of federalism, as outlined in his closing remarks are not representative of the broad political spectrum which the system crosses. I believe that for federalism to become a concrete political system would require a much closer definition of its constitutional framework. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree UK Government & Parliamentary Studies section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree UK Government & Parliamentary Studies essays

  1. Explain the role and importance of Federalism in the Constitutional system of government.

    Thus the potential for corrupting influences within central government is minimal, due to the powers attributed to the States, keeping a check on any such incidence. Indeed the tenth amendment of The Constitution did not exclusively enumerate powers to the States; instead it left broad scope for interpretation, through non-specification

  2. Hogwood and Gunn's Framework for Policy Analysis

    That is not to say, in their minds, that issue definition is not a vital element of the policy process but that in approaching it, policy analysts must conscious of its significance and the problems it can present. 4) Forecasting Although a potentially risky business, in that you can never

  1. Examine the role of Gandhi in the development of Indian nationalism

    However during this period opinions grew and it seemed unlikely a solution could come other than the emergence of a new Muslim state. In 1939 the talks of independence came back to front Indian politics. The outbreak of war and now taken the British attention away from India.

  2. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two philosophers who thought extensively on the subject ...

    Although this generous parental attitude might help to prevent or solve problems, sadly, it does not guarantee the safety and stability of a nation. In The Prince, Machiavelli demonstrates how a nation successfully deals with international conflict while maintaining control of his own society.

  1. Sovereignty and Democracy in the European Union.

    Edward Heath referred several times to the 'pooling of sovereignty'. As I observed just now, so did Mrs.Thatcher. But that was the small print. It was not the popular perception, nor even the perception in Westminster. The 1975 referendum was about resolving an internal problem within the Labour Party.

  2. Outline and Critically Assess ‘Rhodes’ Argument About ‘Hollowing Out of the State’

    In terms of the administration of government, all issues in either Brussels or London do not effect each institution in equal measure. Rather than Europe swamping or negating British government, there is an argument for mutual accommodation, illustrated by Smith (1999), "Departments have attempted to integrate the EU throughout the

  1. What are the differences between federalism and devolution?

    creations', emerging from a settlement, for example, the 1787 meeting of 13 state representatives in America. In contrast to this, devolution is merely a process that arises when regional disparities exert a high level of pressure on the centre. In this sense, devolution has to have an end ambition and cannot survive as a static situation.

  2. History of the European Union.

    on most proposals with council > Assent required for enlargement of European Union and agreement with third countries Budgetary > Can modify certain proposed expenditure > Approval required for annual budget > Budgetary Control Committee checks expenditure (together with Court of Auditors)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work