We saw
that power distribution is a sine qua non for the effective operation of modern states. Power is usually
distributed among different parts and levels of the state.
The
amount of power held by the central government determines the system of
government a state has.
In this post, we will consider the
meaning and characteristics of confederation as another form of political or administrative system. We will also
discuss the factors that
may encourage a country to take the path of confederation.
We will
then wrap up the discussion with case studies of some states that have either tried
the confederal option or where the
model has been suggested or contemplated, at one time or the other.
Meaning of
Confederation
A confederation has
been defined as an administrative cum constitutional arrangement in which two
or more sovereign and independent states agree to come together to have a
central but weak government.
Put differently, the
term confederation applies to the union of states, which is less binding in its
character than a federation. A confederation is a union of states with a commonly
recognized authority in certain matters affecting the whole, and in respect of
external relations.
Confederation is a league or union of many sovereign states for a common purpose.
In principle,
the states in a confederal structure would not lose their separate identities
but would retain the right of secession.
In practice, though
this right might be difficult to exercise and the constituent units of a
confederation might appear to be little different from those of any other
federal states.
But confederation differs
essentially from a federation in that it is a league of sovereign states,
unlike the latter (federation) where the component states give up their
sovereignty in favor of the new state, or even where the center can create more
states, as it has been from the example of the Nigerian federation.
In a confederation,
power resides more with the component states rather than the centre.
In other words,
there is a weak centre and strong component parts.
The United States adopted a confederal structure in the early years of her independence. But the structure was later rejected by the conferees at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention on the ground that it was “weak at the centre and strong at the circumference”.
Other examples of confederal states apart from
the failed United States’ experience include the United Netherlands in 1579,
the German constitutions of 1815 to 1867 and 1867 to 1871(before and after the
unification of Prussia with other German states).
Features of Confederation
1) Right to Secede: In
a confederation, the component units have the right to secede from the
arrangement. This is not the case in a federation where any attempt by any or a
combination of the federating states to secede is met with resistance. This was
the case in the United States between 1861 and
2) The autonomy of
the Federating States: Another feature of a confederation is
that the states within the confederal structure would not lose their separate
identities through the political arrangement but will still retain their
distinct separate independence.
In other words, the
component units are autonomous in all spheres of influence except in defense,
external relations, currency and a few other subjects conceded to the central authority.
3) Supremacy lies
with the confederates: The supreme power belongs to the
co-ordinate states. Therefore, the coordinate States dominate the
central government as the constitution is usually not rigid since most
confederations are run based on agreements reached by the states.
4) Weak Central
Authority: The central authority is usually weak in a
confederation while the units are stronger and more powerful. The experience of
countries like the United States, Senegal and Gambia under a confederation, and
Nigeria where the model was also suggested, will be used to illustrate this
point in the subsequent units.
1865 when the
attempt by 13 southern states was militarily resisted by Abraham Lincoln. A
similar case occurred in Nigeria when Yakubu Gowon, then Nigeria’s Military
Head of State forced the then Eastern Region of the country back into the
federation.
Selected Case Studies of Attempts at Confederation
United States’ Articles of Confederation
After it had
recorded victory in the War of Independence with Britain the United States
began self-government with the adoption of the Articles of Confederation by the
Congress on 15th November 1777.
The Articles were actually
written between 1776 and 1777 and was not actually ratified by all the 13
states until 1781. The Articles of Confederation established the Congress as
the only central political institution for what was then called ‘Association of
States’, but the congress was limited in its power since it lacked any binding
or enforcement powers in its relations with the states.
The Articles did not
even make any provision for the office of the president or an executive organ
of any hue. It would appear that Americans opted for a confederation because of
the bitter experience they had with Britain. A country they believed was
suffocating under the weight of an overbearing central government.
In theory, the
Articles of Confederation gave the Congress the powers to conduct foreign
policy, appoint military officers and declare war, borrow money from the
states, without the power to tax and regulate postal services.
But in reality, the
Articles of Confederation did not give the Congress the power to enforce its
requests to the states for money or troops. The first sign of trouble with the
U.S. Confederal structure after the American War of Independence was that
Congress could not pay back the states the debts it had accumulated to
prosecute the war campaigns.
Quite unfortunate
for the new American nation the ineffectiveness of the congress continued in
the face of growing assertions by the 13 that were insisting on their rights to
take independent decisions and actions.
By the end of1786, the Articles of confederation in the United States eventually collapsed due to the failure and incapacity of Congress to keep the states together.
Despite its
failure, the confederal framework gave the then newly independent American nation
an unforgettable instructional experience in peaceful, self-government after the
turbulence of the war period.
The American
experience with confederation and especially its operation in the country for
about close to twelve years revealed major lessons about the inherent
weaknesses in confederation.
These were taken into
account by the American founding fathers when they met at the
Philadelphia
Constitutional Convention in 1787 and decided in favor of federalism as the
most suitable model of political administration for their country.
Suggestions for Confederation in Nigeria
The former British
colonial power seemed to have settled the controversy over the appropriate
constitutional structure for Nigeria when it introduced the federal system of
government for the country in 1954.
However, when the collapse of parliamentary democracy in the First Republic was partly blamed on excessive regionalism in the country, there was a renewed call that Nigerians should take a second look at the issue of appropriate administrative structure for the country.
This was the major reason why Maj. Gen J.T.U. Aguiyi Ironsi
promulgated the unification decree in 1966 which abolished the then four
regions in the country and replaced them with group of provinces.
His action effectively
transformed Nigeria from a federal to a unitary state. But what Ironsi thought would
provide a solution to the developing constitutional crisis in the country
further fueled it, and degenerated into a worse political stalemate, which
later engulfed the whole
nation in a civil
war.
Before the outbreak
of the war, attempts were made from within and outside the country to find a
more acceptable model of government for the country. The views among prominent
leaders who spoke under the auspices of the ‘leaders of thought’ or
consultative assemblies ranged from the outright dissolution of the country, a
strong federal structure to a confederation.
The main thrust of
the disagreement between Gowon and Ojukwu on the correct interpretation of the
Aburi Accord, the outcome of a meeting of Nigeria’s Supreme Military Council,
called at the instance of General Ankara, the then Ghanaian Military Head of
State, was on whether the meeting agreed to a federal or a confederal structure
for Nigeria.
Indeed, the Nigerian
civil war which lasted for thirty months was fought largely to determine
whether or not the country would remain a federation with a twelve-state
structure as Col. Gowon wanted, or would be organized along the old regional,
but under a new confederal arrangement, as advocated by Col Ojukwu, then
military governor of Eastern State.
Since the end of the
civil war in 1970, political leaders in Nigeria, military and civilian alike,
seem to be more favorably disposed to the country remaining a federal state.
The only sticky point
where opinions differ is on the nature and character of the Nigerian federal
system. The desire to return the country to what has been variously described
as ‘true federalism’, ‘fiscal
federalism’ or
‘resource control’ appears to be more popular than the isolated calls that
Nigeria should try or experiment with the confederal idea, or the strident
agitations for self-determination by some social movements within the minority
ethnic groups in the country. Understandably, the long decades of military rule
in the country can easily be identified and blamed for the centralized
character of Nigeria’s federal structure.
Yet, there is
optimism that the democratic system which is now being consolidated offers the
best opportunity for the political leadership in Nigeria to restructure the
country’s federal system to a more acceptable form.
Senegambia
Confederation
Sir Dauda Jawara,
then president of the Gambia was in Britain in late 1981 attending the wedding
ceremony of Prince Charles, heir to the British throne to Diana, Princess of
Wales, when the soldiers struck in Banjul, the country’s seat of power in an
attempt to topple his government.
With the help of Senegalese
troops, the military insurrection was put down. The urge for personal interest
of self-preservation for himself, and his government, and the larger interest
of defence for his country forced Jawara to forge a confederation tie between
the smaller Gambia and relatively bigger Senegal.
Thus, the agreement
of what became known as Senegambia Confederation was reached in November 1981,
and it came into force three months later in1982.
Under the terms of
the confederation agreement each country was to retain its independence, but they
were required to take central steps towards a union with the objectives of
integrating their military and security forces; form an economic and monetary
bloc; co-ordinate their foreign policies and communications and establish
confederal institutions.
Implementation of
the confederal agreements began in July 1982 when a Senegambia executive and legislature
were established. But before long Senegal began to dominate the major political
institutions, since it controlled the confederal presidency, in addition to
having two-thirds representation in the joint parliament.
The growing concern
in the Gambia about its marginalization, coupled with the domineering position
of Senegal in the confederation, led to cracks which eventually led to the
dissolution of the Senegambia confederation in1989.
This form of
disagreement is not uncommon in most attempts to form a union among former
sovereign states, including those who styled their own as a federation of
states.
A similar fate
befell the Ghana-Guinea-Mali Union in the early sixties, the East African Federation
that was formed between Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya in the seventies, as well as
the United Arab Republic, a union of Egypt, Libya and Sudan.
Other factors that
usually work against former sovereign states coming together include the
divisive impact of their colonial background, ideological differences among the
leaders and states and neo-colonial intrigues.
In spite of many
instances of its failure to become an enduring form of political administration
in those states that have experimented it, in any discourse of models of
government, the confederal form of government is and will continue to be
mentioned.
It still holds
attraction among leaders of states that are willing to come together but are
still suspicious of the prospects of a stronger bond in future.
In this type of
situation, confederation seems to have more appeal since its constitution
usually gives room for a peaceful breakup or outright secession.
In this article, we
have examined the confederal form of political administration, its major
features and the factors that can make a country adopt the confederal political
structure. After examining its major advantages and disadvantages.
we finally noted
that history has painfully recorded that confederation has not particularly
been a popular or successful model of political administration in the few
countries that we used in this unit as case studies.
0 Comments