Comparative Studies on Islamic Countries Law

Comparative Studies on Islamic Countries Law

An Evaluation of The Relationship Between Federalism and Democracy with refrence to the law of Emirates an Malaysia

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Mohammad Jalali 1
Sogol Soodbar 2
1 Assistant Professor of Public Law, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.(Corresponding Author)
2 PhD student in Public Law, Department of public law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran,Iran
10.22034/lcs.2022.251770
Abstract
Federalism refers to the distribution and configuration of power between the central government and its constituent units. As can be deduced from this definition, when studying federal systems, one must always consider the relationship between the two levels of government. In some federal Islamic states, like the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia and in some other federal countries such as the United States of America and Canada, the boundaries of powers between the federal state and its constituting states and provinces are blurred, and each acts independently in advancing the political life of that state (dual federalism). In others, such as Germany, there is a mechanism for cooperating and synergy of the tasks of the two levels of government (cooperative federalism). There’s no doubt that the type of interaction between the federal government and its constituent units affects the implementation of democracy in a federal government. On the other hand, how a federal government adheres to the requirements of democracy, such as collective participation or guaranteeing the citizen equality principle, is a result of that state's political system type (parliamentary or presidential). Studying federalism and democracy, we realize that although federalism and democracy intersect in many aspects, they are different in conception. Federalism looks at how power is distributed between two levels of government, which is ultimately a diagram of the legal and political form of government, while regarding democracy, we move from the form of government to the realm of ensuring the political participation of equal citizens. The main concern of the present article is to examine the relationship and integration of democracy and federalism in political society. The main finding of this study is that despite the compatibility of federalism with democracy in terms of providing a platform to ensure pluralism, in federal governments, due to the existence of two levels of government, the implementation of democracy faces legal and political complications.
Keywords
Consensus Democracy
Dual Federalism
Cooperative Federalism
Majority Democracy
Presidential Democracy
  1. عزیزمحمدی، فاطمه،1391 ش، نظام حقوق اساسی فدرال با تأکید بر ایالات‌متحده آمریکا و جمهوری فدرال آلمان، پایان‌نامه برای اخذ درجه کارشناسی ارشد حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
  2. غفاری، هدی؛ افشاری، فاطمه، ۱۳۹۵ ش، «آسیب‌شناسی نظام عدم تمرکز در مالزی با رویکردی تطبیقی به نظام انگلستان»، فصلنامه دولت‌پژوهی،‌ ش ۶.
  3. هریسی‌نژاد، کمال‌الدین،1396 ش، حقوق اساسی تطبیقی نظام‌های پارلمانی ریاستی مختلط و اقتدارگرا، تبریز، آیدین.
  4. همیلتون، الکساندر، مدیسون، ‌جیمز، جی، جان،2018 م، مقالات فدرالیست، باقر پرهام. E-Collaborative for Civic Education.
  5. Andaya, Barbara; Andaya, Leonard )2001(, A History of Malaysia., second edition. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  6. Béhar, Pierre (1996), “Repenser le couple franco-allemand”. Le Monde diplomatique,
    1. 506
  7. Benz, Arthur (1999), “From Unitary to Asymmetric Federalism in Germany: Taking Stock after 50 Years”, Publius 29, no. 4: 58-59
    1. doi:10.2307/3330908.
  8. --------------- (2020), “Reconciling Federalism and Parliamentary Democracy: Political Competition and Negotiated Policy-Making in Canadian Federalism”, Canadian Federalism and Its Future, edited by Alain-G. Gagnon and Johanne Poirier, 199-222. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
  9. Benz, Arthur; Sonnicksen, Jared (2015), “Patterns of federal democracy: tensions, friction, or balance between two government dimensions”, European Political Science Review 9: 3 - 25. doi:10.1017/S1755773915000259
  10. Beer, Samuel H (1978), “Federalism, Nationalism, and Democracy in America”, The American Political Science Review 72, no. 1: 9-21.
    1. doi:10.2307/1953596.
  11. Bolleyer, Nicole (2006), “Federal Dynamics in Canada, the United States, and Switzerland: How Substates' Internal Organization Affects Intergovernmental Relations”, Publius-the Journal of Federalism 36: 471-502.
  12. Bunce, Valerie (1999), Subversive Institutions: The Design and Destruction of Socialism and the State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Constitution of Malaysia (1957).
  14. Constitution of United Arab Emirates (1996). https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/48eca8132.pdf
  15. Davis, S. Rufus (2021), The Federal Principle: A Journey Through Time in Quest of Meaning. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  16. Elazar, Daniel J (1987), Exploring Federalism, Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
  17. Filippov, Mikhail; Shvetsova, Olga (2013),“Federalism, democracy, and democratization”, Federal Dynamics: Continuity, Change, and the Varieties of Federalism, edited by Arthur Benz, and Jörg Broschek. 167-184. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199652990.003.0008.
  18. Fischer, Manuel; Sciarini, Pascal; Treaber, Denise (2010), “The Silent Reform of Swiss Federalism: The New Constitutional Articles on Education”, Swiss Political Science Review 16, no.4:747-771. Doi:10.1002/j.1662-6370.2010.tb00447.
  19. Katharina, Füglister; Wasserfallen, Fabio (2014), “Swiss federalism in a changing environment”, Comparative European Politics 12: 404-421.
  20. Gardner, James A (2018), “The Theory and Practice of Contestatory Federalism”, William & Marry Law Review 60, no.2: 507-588.
  21. Gel'man, Vladimir (2009), “Leviathan’s return: the policy of recentralization in contemporary Russia”, Federalism and Local Politics in Russia, edited by Cameron Ross and Adrian Campbell, 1-24. New York: Routledge.
  22. Hueglin, Thomas O (2017), “Federalism and Democracy: A Critical Reassessment”, The Global Promise of Federalism, edited by Grace Skogstad, David Cameron, Martin Papillon and keith Banting, 17-42. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Doi:3138/9781442619197-003.
  23. Karmis, Dimitrios; Noramn, Wayne (2005), “The Revival of Federalism in Normative Political theory”, Theories of Federalism: A Reader, edited by Dimitrios Karmis and Wayne Norman, 3-21. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  24. Kincaid, John (2015),“George W. Bush and the Spirit of Coercive Federalism”, Understanding Federalism and Federation, edited by Alain-G. Gagnon, Soeren Keil and Sean Mueller, 82-107. New York, Routledge.
  25. Lake, David A; Rothchild, Donald (2005),“Territorial Decentralization and Civil War Settlements”, Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars, edited by Philip G. Roeder and Donald Rothchild,109-132.Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  26. Lépine, Frédéric (2015),“Federalism: essence, values and ideologies”, Understanding Federalism and Federation, edited by Alain-G. Gagnon, Soeren Keil and Sean Mueller.50-80. New York, Routledge.
  27. Linder, Wolf (2010), Swiss Democracy: Possible Solutions to Conflict in Multicultural Societies, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  28. Malesky, Edmund J.; Hutchinson,Francis E (2016) “Varieties of Disappointment: Why Has Decentralization Not Delivered on Its Promises in Southeast Asia?” Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, vol. 33, no. 2, ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute,, pp. 125–38,.
  29. Ostwald, Kai (2017), “Federalism without decentralization: Power consolidation in Malaysia”. Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 488-506
  30. Papillon, Martin (2012), “Adapting Federalism: Indigenous Multilevel Governance in Canada and the United States”, Publius 42, no. 2: 289-312.
  31. Polten, Eric P; Glezl, Peter (2014), Federalism in Canada and Germany: Overview and Comparison, Toronto, CA: Polten & Associates.
  32. Riker, William H (1955), “The Senate and American Federalism”, The American Political Science Review 49, no. 2: 452-69. doi:10.2307/1951814.
  33. Stepan, Alfred C (1999), “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S. Model”, Journal of Democracy 10, no. 4: 19-34. doi:10.1353/jod.1999.0072.
  34. Scharpf, Fritz W (1997), Games Real Actors Play: Actor Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder: Westview.
  35. ------------------------(1988), “The Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration”, Public Administration 66. no.3: 239-278. doi:1111/j.1467-9299.1988.tb00694.x.
  36. Thompson, Frank J (2013), “The Rise of Executive Federalism: Implications for the Picket Fence and IGM”, The American Review of Public Administration 43, no. 1: 3–25. Doi:10.1177/0275074012461561.
  37. Yaghi, Abdulfattah (2014), “Decentralization in the United Arab Emirates”, The theories of decentralization and local government, Stephen F. Austin States University Press: 83-98.

 

 

Comparative Studies on Islamic Countries Law
Volume 1, Issue 1
Winter 2023
Pages 1-25