ederalism, according to Tekena Tamuno, is a political phenomenon in which constituent units of a state not only share powers but also participate in making key decisions. There are 28 countries with a federal system in the world. These include the United States of America, Canada, Argentina, Iraq, Brazil, Ethiopia and Pakistan. No less than 40 percent of the world’s population lives under federal arrangements.

AV Dicey, the famous British jurist and constitutional theorist, defines federalism as a political arrangement intended to reconcile national unity with maintenance of state rights. Federalism is primarily concerned with developing a manageable system of governance by creating a two-layered power structure: the central and the provincial. In essence, federalism involves a division of powers between the centre and the federating units for a smooth functioning of the state. As federalism involves the division of powers between a central body and a number of territorial units, each level of government is allocated powers, resources and functions. This division of powers and functions is enshrined in the constitution.

Federalism is not a perfect arrangement. Conflicts can arise over powers and resources, as there are few ethnically homogeneous states with abundant resources. Conflict is often informed by diversity and scarcity. Pakistan is a diverse state with limited resources. It has been facing difficulties in achieving national cohesion, and by extension, a well-functioning federal state.

Since its inception, Pakistan has been in search of a truly federal system in which disparate ethnic groups live sufficiently autonomous lives under the overarching identity of Pakistan. There have been efforts to impose a state identity from above with scant regard for deep-rooted ethnic/ regional identities. These efforts have led to more disharmony and cleavages than bringing about unity. The gap between formal federalism and informal unitary tendencies has led to unrest in unrest in many parts of the country. Some of the key factors that led to such a sorry state of federal affairs in Pakistan are listed here.

First, Pakistan inherited an abysmal institutional structure from the British. According to Dr Muhammad Waseem, unlike many post-colonial states, Pakistan lacked continuity in terms of a political centre. It had to start from scratch to build a state. It had to face massive challenges including the establishment of a federal capital and erecting a solid institutional structure for the day-to-day affairs of the government and the rehabilitation of millions of refugees. It also faced external threats.

The use of religion as a political ploy has affected the strength of federalism in Pakistan. Some of the early leaders of Pakistan tried to unify the heterogeneous population through religion and language rather than creating a robust federal system.

Second, Pakistan had to strengthen itself militarily in order to cope with a much bigger, stronger foe. The security problem, coupled with the onset of the Cold War, affected the nature of the state. What was meant to be a modern, democratic state, was turned into a security state.

Third, the obsession with security led to the predominance of the non-representative institutions. An oligarchic establishment ran the show. A serious consequence of this governance system was the centralisation of authority. Such tendencies undermine the essence of federalism, as pointed out by Dr Waseem. Waseem holds that the rule by an oligarchy is incompatible with federalism. The former prefers centralisation while the latter revolves around decentralisation. Mehrunnisa Ali argues in her book Politics of Federalism in Pakistan that though the three constitutions (1956, 1962 and 1973) were federal in character, yet the state remained non-federal in practice. The use of the 1935 Government of India Act was symptomatic of the non-federal inclinations of the elites. The Act was federal in name but governance was highly centralised in practice. Pakistan thus inherited authoritarianism and over-centralisation from British.

Fourth, the use of religion as a political ploy affected the strength of federalism. Some of the early leaders of Pakistan tried to unify the heterogeneous population through religion and a single national language rather than by creating a robust federal system.

Finally, constitutional amendments have given rise to institutional structures that effect the nature of the state. There a tussle going on between centralising and decentralising tendencies. The constitutional history is a testimony to that fact. The current constitution has a federal structure. However, aspirations of the federalists are yet to be fully satisfied. The Eighteenth Amendment (2010) was a significant step in the right direction.

All stakeholders need to come together and work towards establishing a genuine federal state in which the federating units proudly take part within the constitutional framework of Pakistan. Also, there needs to be credible progress towards genuine democracy. State institutions need to recognize that Pakistan is home to disparate ethnic groups who are proud of their cultural heritage and historical identities. That recognition will pave the way for a united Pakistan where people live together freely within a federal framework. This will bring economic stability and political accountability.

The writer is a researcher and columnist based in Mardan. He can be reachedatzakiir9669@gmail.com