THE FEDERALISM QUESTION: A FEW CONSIDERATIONS

By Yasin Maoni

A federal system of government is not a bad idea. It works for many countries. Whether a nation adopts a federal or unitary system of government is merely a matter of choice. It is a choice of the architects of a nation, ordinarily representative of the will of the people, or the people themselves who determine the kind of governance system that is to apply. In most cases there are historical events coupled with other geographical, economic, political and ethnic considerations that influence the formation of a particular governance system.

As the debate on the proposal to adopt a federal system of government rages on, it is clear that it is a time of choice for the people of Malawi; to decide whether to go federal or remain unitary. In this kind of scenario there are many factors to consider. Here are just a few, especially for the proponents of federalism in Malawi.

For starters, federalism is a form of a decentralized system of government whereby certain powers and functions are reserved for regional governments in most cases referred to as state government. Other powers and functions are then shared between the federal government and the local governments. Malawi already embarked on a decentralization program after the 1998 Nation Decentralization Policy which has faced a lot of challenges. One challenge has been the absence of Councillors, an integral part of the system, for a period of nine years. This was due to a decision of political masters who thought having the system fully operational with Councillors was expensive.

The question for the proponents of the federal idea is; if we have failed to successfully undertake a wave of decentralization to local governments under this program, is it prudent that we should be thinking of an additional wave length of a decentralized formation? Is it logical to further decentralize national powers and functions to regional governments when the decentralization to local governments has not be completed and taken stock of?

The foregoing also raises a question of cost. Perhaps the political masters who thought having Councillors was costly had a valid point. The current governance system has two tiers; the national and local government. There is already a high cost for sustaining the national executive, Parliament and Councillors from the consolidated fund. Going federal will add a third tier of government at the regional level with executive, legislative body and supporting staff. This entails a further cost from the consolidated fund already overstretched. It is an economic question for the proponents of federalism to consider.

Related to the issue of cost is the question of competent personnel. One of the challenges of the decentralization program has been the inability of local governments to attract competent personnel with requisite skills. Creating one more tier of government will require specific skilled personnel. Isn’t this going to pose a challenge on the proposed system?

Allied to the issue of cost and skilled personnel is the question of the electoral method. The electoral method recently introduced, namely, the tripartite elections of combining elections of the president, MPs and Councillors caused confusion to the electorate many of whom are illiterate and encountered a number of logistical challenges. Adding another tier of government will require another set of elections for the regional executive and legislature.  Could this be added on top of the tripartite method or it will require an alternative electoral period? If the former is the option, the complication is compounded. In case of the latter is opted, then we are adding on the cost of instituting our government. The sad part is that we mostly rely on donors to assist us to successfully conduct these elections as the electoral bill is substantively high. These additions seem to elude economic sensibility.

There is also an inter-governmental relations question. With only two tiers of government there is a confusion of roles and functions between the central government and the local governments. One may argue that the powers and functions between these two are not clearly delineated. There is also a conflict and overlap between the role of MPs and those of Councillors. The proposition of federalism intends to add on regional executives and legislators to the quagmire. This needs a little more homework than we did with the current setup, otherwise it will result into a chaotic system.

A question of logic also crops in. Apart from identity of a people and historical reasons, population and size of a country informs the decision making whether to divide the country’s governance formation into regional governments for better administration. Though population may be on the high scale, the land mass of 118,484 km², which includes 24,404 km² of water surface, is quite small and does not make logical sense to divide that into a three tier government with addition of regional governments.

It is also prudent that the proponents of the idea realize that federalism is not a panacea to the problems being cited. The main motivation for the proposal is that the northern region should also have a fair share of national development. This entails allocation of financial resources to the northern region to address such developmental need. It is not a given fact that a federal system will deliver that solution. In allocation of national financial resources to regional or local governments one of the usual variables factored into a formula for financial distribution is population density. Given that the northern region is the less populated region in the country, it is also likely to receive less of the national cake, probably less than what is allocated in the current system where government discretion rules.

On the issue of financial resources, it is also the northern region that is likely to face challenges in raising revenue locally as it is less populated and has less economic activity compared with the rest of the country. This makes self-sustenance for the northern region difficult and is more probable that it will end up relying on the grants or transfers from the national government to support its development efforts. The latter scenario does not make any difference with what is obtaining currently. The question then is whether going federal is worth the trouble.

The issues aforementioned should not undermine the benefits that the federal system may bring. Going federal conforms with the principle of subsidiarity which dictates that governmental function should be left to the level of government that can best address the needs of a particular locality. In this case it mean that, in line with the principle, the people of the north are well placed to address their needs and aspirations. The same applies to other regions. Secondly, the creation of another tier of government will result in a division of labour which may lead to efficiency as well as job creation for the created positions in the regional level of government. These pros, however, need to be weighed against the issues raised earlier.

Whilst the agitation for a federal state riles, the onus is wholly on the federalist to convince Malawians how the issues raised will be addressed if the proposal carries the day. The decision to change Malawi to a federal state, which is different with a decision for the northern region to secede, will have to be decided by the whole of Malawi and not the northern region alone. If it is a campaign for federalism, it has to be convincing across the country with clear reform and strategic points. Let the federalists get to work.