Description

A group of organisations, without ending their independant existence, create a new common institution to advance their common interests.

Motivation and Discussion

In government, as in other parts of life, great advantages can be gained by scale. Federation is an attempt to gain the benefits of scale without surrendering the identity or idiosyncratic power of the component organisations. War is one of the most obvious areas where scale is advantageous and mutual interest is greatly similar. By contrast with a simple merger or takeover of organisations, Federations are formed on a a principle of subsidiarity, where powers are held by default at the smallest and most individual scale.  

Federations are plastic and high maintenance institutions, prone to deform over time under the many forces acting on them. The new central organisation brought into being by a federation will, like all institutions, tend to draw power to itself. Over time a successful central government can take over more and more responsibilities originally assigned to the component organisations. This is often given philosophical support by appealling to the shared values and economies of scale that initially brought the component organisations together.  As popular allegiance to the central institution grows, the division of power to unevenly sized component organisations may increasingly seem unfair.

Federations involve multiple executives, at the central and component level. They therefore have higher maintenance costs and involve more officials than either a single central institution, or the several component organisations which preceded the Federation. These costs increase as the central institution draws power to itself, duplicating responsibilities nominally vested in the component organisations.  Avoiding an entropic collapse to the centre requires continual revision of the terms of Federation.  

By contrast, when the central institution is trusted with few responsibilities, its capability for advancing the common interest is diminished, and its reason for existence decreases. Where a common interest is no longer apparent, Federations dissolve with unpredictable violence back to their originating organisations.

Examples

Switzerland has been an evolving and enduring federation from 1291 to today, excepting a 5 year interruption under French republican occupation. The original confederacy of three cantons was formed to make common military cause against the Holy Roman Empire, and to manage trade and other shared interests. This fairly lightweight original alliance expanded over time, and under external pressure, to include eight canton communities and more territory under a patchwork of individual treaties. Cities such as Zürich and Berne continued to pursue their own interests including similar alliances with their other neighbours. In 1529 and 1531 inter-cantonal religious civil wars broke out, though due in part to the reputation of Swiss mercenaries Swiss territory was never a major battlefield of the Thirty Years War.  A Switzerland of thirteen cantons achieved formal legal independence at the end of that war with the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. This regime endured until Switzerland was engulfed by French revolutionary forces in 1798; the occupying army established a centralized Helvetic Republic.

The Helvetic Republic was hugely unpopular, and a political and economic failure. Intervention by Napoleon in 1803 restored some power to the cantons, and Swiss independence was fully restored at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, along with a last expansion of the included cantons, and formal guarantee of its (armed) neutrality by the Great Powers of the day. The political upheaval, tied up with other questions of reform such as the universality of suffrage and the role of the Church in the state, continued amongst domestic political parties until the outbreak of a brief and not particularly deadly Catholic/Protestant civil war in 1847. The victorious Protestant Free Democrat Party promulgated the first singular federal constitution in 1848; it was heavily influenced by the American and French constitutions. This constitution has since been periodically revised, including being wholly revised in 1874, the introduction of continual partial revision by voters in 1899, proportional appointment of the Federal Council in 1959, female suffrage in 1971, and another complete revision in 1999.

The United States of America was created in 1780 as a federation of geographically proximate colonies which declared independence from the British Empire. The initial version of this federation, the Continental Congress, was found to be powerless to the point of uselessness. The revised constitution gave more powers to the federal government, in return for explicit recognition of the rights of individuals within the founding document, as insurance against tyranny. Even then the resulting federation was on very loose, Swiss, lines. Over the two centuries since, a variety of internal and external shocks, including civil war, have seen the central government assume much more power at the expense of the states. Although the written constitution has had around 20 amendments, some as fundamental as banning slavery or alcohol, most of the assumption of power has been through evolutionary processes such as common law or Paymaster techniques.

Yugoslavia was a federation of Balkan states and ethnic communities united and shattered multiple times during the 20th century. The 19th century saw the Balkans be a violent playground for Great Powers, during the disintegration of the Ottoman and Austrian empires, and the expansion of Russian and other interests in the region. This competition culminated as World War I, and in its aftermath the constitutional monarchy, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, was established for mutual defence. This endured only until 1941 when it was invaded by Axis powers as part of WWII. They established a proxy government run by the sympathetic Ustase, extreme Croatian nationalists. At the end of WWII, and with the agreement amongst Great Powers that these states would be under a Soviet sphere of influence, Yugoslavia became a federation of communist republics. Although the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia retained the contempt for individual rights and market economics typical of communist regimes, regional and ethnic politics remained important, and useful elements of political leverage for the federal government. A potent example occurred in the early 1970s, during a resurgence of political liberalism. Marshall Tito supported greater regional autonomy as a way of stealing the liberals' most popular issue, then crushed the liberal movement using standard totalitarian techniques. Nevertheless, an extraordinarily complex constitution was amended in 1974 to include the right of republics to secede, and giving greater autonomy to regions such as Kosovo. This autonomy was expressed in practice even under Tito, and it later made legal secession easier for Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia. After multi-party elections in 1990 following the collapse of Eastern European communism, these republics declared independence in 1991, though their legal right to do so didn't prevent those secessions sparking a violent civil war.

Other successful states such as Australia, Brazil, Canada and Malaysia have been also established along federal lines and without civil war amongst the constituent states.

Unions such as the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) or the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) have been created from smaller unions in order to gain benefits of scale in negotiations with employers and governments. Different trade unions have common interests in their members' working conditions, as well as ensuring the organisation itself plays a role in wage negotiations and setting conditions of work. Trade unions financially and organisationally support political causes, even having formal roles within major political parties in the case of the Labor parties in Britain and Australia. Federated trade unions also suffer from diseconomies of scale - for instance in 2005 several component trade unions threatened to withdraw from the AFL-CIO due to philosophical differences over which politicians to support.

Related Patterns

Suffrage, Paymaster

The Australian Government recently announced that it would expand the Army by two Battalions to reduce some of the pressure on the large number of deployments Australia has committed to, and seemingly, the expectation of a long infantry-based conflict with extremists and guerrillas in the Middle East. Fourth Generation Warfare [4GW] is the current buzzword, and has been put into modern language by John Robb who writes about the effects of Global Guerrillas and their effect on modern state and economic structures.

There is also the suggestion that all nation-states will feel some kind of domestic 4GW disturbance, such as France did recently, and that the technology of the nation-state and its military structure is ill-equipped to handle it.

The professional military rose in the nation-state due to the high capital investment that was required in the nation-state's military capability. In the 18th Century the Navy was the dominant form of projection and nation-state power. Ships and maritime technology development was highly expensive and the civil and military bureaucracy that supported them was both expensive and complex. John Reeve writes in The Navy and the Nation ;

Navies have been, for centuries, probably the most complex institutional creations of human society and certainly of human governments. The British Navy - the strategic weapon which built the greatest empire the world has ever seen - was, by the eighteenth century, arguably the largest and certainly the most sophisticated organisation within British society.

To build and sustain a navy has, traditionally, required the balancing and integration of human, technological, environmental, fiscal, economic, political, diplomatic and military factors.

The development of armoured warfare and precision based aerospace warfare place similar demands on the nation-state which develops, supports and sustains such a structure in government, civil and martial backing.

Capitalism is the process of commoditisation of economic products. It works with a fury toward this end until anything on the market approaches its cost of production. Military technology has not been immune to the process of capitalism. Much of the military technology that was unique to nation-states, solely for reasons of capitalisation, are now becoming cheap enough that non-state actors can afford them; satellites, UAVs, chemical weapons, etc.

Governments like professional militaries as they are far more obedient than volunteer, conscripted or militia forces. The American and Australian experience of Vietnam being a case in point. Both countries used conscription and faced social disturbance at home with what was an unpopular war. The coercion of civilians into the military forces spread the social dissatisfaction. New Zealand, in contrast, only sent regular forces to Vietnam, and did not face the same civil disruptions domestically.

Militia

The strength of civilian armies, or militia, has been a basis of republican government for a long time. Machiavelli advocated for militia forces as he believed they were more committed to the state than mercenaries. Presumably this isn't a concern of the modern-state but the conflict in Iraq has shown a disconcerting outsourcing of military functions. Though this may be for domestic political purposes, in order to deflect the true size and cost of the military deployment.

The Jefferson and Madison advocacy for militia was based on the fear of a standing army usurping the constitution; something we saw recently in Thailand, and not so long ago in Pakistan. On our borders we have also seen Suharto's Indonesia where the military become indiscernible from civil government in an unhealthy mix which Indonesia is still struggling to remove from their system. Jefferson wrote in 1799;

I am for relying, for internal defence, on our militia solely, till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbours from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in times of peace, which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy, which, by its own expenses and eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens, and sink us under them.

Capital costs of defence and the level of specialisation in the 1800s quickly surpassed Jefferson's beliefs and the United States ended up with a standing army and navy. It is pretty unavoidable given the level of capitalisation and organisation required - only a nation-state can do it.

Australian Militia

Australia has a strong militia tradition which has only been dropped in the last forty years or so, though it still exists civilly in organisations such as the Bush Fire Brigade and State Emergency Services. The Defence Act of the 1900s enforced a morality on the government's approach to military affairs by requiring that only volunteers serve outside of Australia. This was a very moral law .

This meant that the First and Second Imperial Force's were volunteer forces. The Citizen's Military also played a massive role in World War II, especially in New Guinea which was an Australian territory at the time so the government could send militia units there without contradicting the Defence Act. By the end of the war though the Curtin government had moved the definition of Australia as being somewhere just short of the Phillipines. However, Kokoda was one of the great militia victories.

Australia used to maintain militia air squadrons in the 1950s as well but increasing costs of airwarfare platforms eventually scuttled it. The modern professional military is only a recent thing and prior to the 1960s a large component of the Australian military and readiness was wrapped up in militia.

Australian Militia and 4GW

The modern fourth generation of warfare is exposing the weakness of centrally controlled regular units who rely on firepower and force multipliers to complete their mission. The Iraqi experience has shown that local para-military groups are far more effective in rooting out and destroying insurgents and guerrillas.

Jim Hoagland wrote on the insurgency in Iraq and the realisation that the media and punditry are coming to on the issue of fourth generation warfare;

"Insurgency is here to stay," Jeb Nadaner, deputy assistant defense secretary for stability operations, said at a recent U.S.-British conference in Washington on reorganizing governments to fight irregular warfare.

Other speakers -- including conference organizer John Hillen, the State Department's top political-military expert -- spoke bluntly to the group about the continuing failure of the U.S. military and civilian bureaucracies to adapt to an era in which armor and infantry battles occupy only a small space on the overall battlefield and are in any event too costly to be carried on for very long.

As France has shown there are implications when fourth generation warfare is applied locally. At the domestic level it should be handled by civil responses, such as the police force and in extreme circumstances of emergency the Bush Fire Brigade and State Emergency Services but if the issue does spiral to armed militia the Australian military will be of limited to no use.

The other issue Australia is facing is that it will have great difficulty expanding its Army in a tight labor market and one where soldiers are being deployed everywhere and anywhere. It is best to make up a reserve pool by increasing the militia franchise outside of the Army Reserve format. The Swiss have an interesting compulsory system which is something between a regular and volunteer force. Not unlike the mixes Australia used to have in the early 1900s.

Given the decentralised nature of terrorism and systems disruption, it is probably a good idea to train as many as possible in emergency response, civil (BFB and SES) and military (Regular and Irregular) incase the nation-state suffers catastrophic collapse. I do not think Australia will, but it is wise to lay the foundations of social organisation so that if something of that nature does occur it is quickly and easily dealt with.

We may have to change our thinking of state on state violence as well. It is possible that the capital intensive form of warfare and military sustenance in the industrial era was an aberration which we will not see again. It certainly appears that 4GW has more in common with pre-industrial warfare than twentieth century violence.

I think we should change the structure of the ADF from an industrial military force to a more decentralised one; and this means moving as much of the knowledge and expertise into militia structures as possible.

Via mefi; a popular initiative in Switzerland has banned the building of minarets. This is at the federal level and cannot be judicially reviewed. Previously there has been attempts to put through popular initiatives against minarets at the canton level (state level in USian/Auian terms) but these have failed. Canton popular initiatives can be judicially reviewed. Interestingly, the Swiss Government and Assembly opposed the initiative.

This is definitely an illiberal action and shows the worst aspects of mob democracy where a majority will happily vote away the rights of minorities. We have seen this in the United States with gay marriage where it was granted by the legislature in California and soon after removed by popular initiative. Fareed Zakaria has argued in the past that too much direct democracy has led to bad governance in California, though I cannot recall if he also argued that direct democracy led to illiberal governance as well.

Judging by the article on wiki the minaret that inspired the initiative and ban is pretty lame and hardly worth the fears or efforts that it provoked. It seems the neighbors tried to control it through building codes and complaints at the local level. So it seems a popular initiative to ban all minarets was not necessary anyway, especially as there are only four minarets in total in Switzerland anyway.

It appears that this initiative was more a proxy for fear of the muslim religion being open visual in the local communities and the Swiss nation. It appears to be more about phobias than building code issues. From the article:

"Forced marriages and other things like cemeteries separating the pure and impure - we don't have that in Switzerland and we don't want to introduce it," said Ulrich Schluer, co-president of the Initiative Committee to ban minarets.

That seems more like scare tactics than anything else and if the goal is to remove muslim worship from Switzerland then banning minarets is not going to achieve it. Place me on the side of those concerned that the right to religion and prayer as fundamental rights and if places of worship can meet building codes and pass local committees then there should be no problem with it. I think this initiative will be seen as more and more illiberal as time goes on.