Symposium Introduction: Federal Coalitions and Subnational Democracy

Elisabeth Alber

Eurac Research Institute for Comparative Federalism

2024 is the biggest election year in over a century, with citizens in 60 countries called to cast their votes. Indeed, countries holding national elections this year make up nearly half of the world’s population: some of the world’s most populous countries have elections, the federal democracies of India, the US and Mexico included. The election super-cycle in 2024 arrives amidst a climate of profound uncertainty, with candidates and political parties proposing potentially transformative policy agendas, such that this year might translate into a make-or-break year for democracy in the world.

In the last decade, political factions have emerged that challenge some of the core institutions, conventions, and norms of liberal democratic life. Right-wing populist parties, once confined to the political margins, now experience success even in mature liberal democracies like Germany, and hold a share of government or participate in governing coalitions in Italy and Austria. The Freedom Party (FPÖ) in Austria, one of the most longstanding and successful populist radical right parties in Western Europe, is now the largest of five parties in the National Council, and is also represented in all nine state legislatures. Branding the Brothers of Italy (FdI) as yet another Italian anomaly would be a mistake. Indeed, the party stands at the crossroads between an established political tradition, that of the post-fascist and conservative right, and the more recent populist waves that have affected many mature liberal democracies.

These trends exemplify how subnational political contestation shapes national politics and  how political decentralization can “accelerate or retard” democratic backsliding in times in which healthy discursive infrastructures need to be restored. The latest data confirm that more than one-third of the world’s population lives in political systems backsliding from liberal democracy toward autocracy. Indeed, democracy is in a (worrying) decline worldwide. It faces significant challenges related to political representation, democratic participation and fundamental rights. Credibility of elections continues to deteriorate as voter turnout has declined, protests and riots have become more frequent, and elections are increasingly being challenged: between mid-2020 and mid-2024 one in five elections faced legal challenges.

This blog symposium contributes to the ongoing debate about the worldwide state of democracy. It discusses election results and recent developments in some federal democracies (Austria, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, India, US) and federal-like multilevel systems (the EU, Italy). It argues that in times when traditional democratic legitimacy is increasingly challenged, federalism as a pragmatic and adaptable tool for governance should gain momentum, as it accounts for participation, separation of powers and democratic accountability. It poses the question whether and, if so, under which conditions federalism can (once again) be a governance tool that effectively acts as a guardrail for democracy by providing “a double security”, as anticipated by James Madison in The Federalist No. 51. In comparison with the question on what role formal and informal institutions can have as bulwark of democracy, the question on how federalism can perform in this respect is understudied.

Although a quantitative analysis of all democracies between 1974 and 2021 demonstrates that there is no statistically significant relationship between federalism and the occurrence, pace, or severity of democratic backsliding, the question still matters. This is for three reasons. First, constitutional reality shows that almost half of the world’s population lives in federal or federal-like systems: there are 28 countries that either identify themselves as federal or (in part) function as such. Consequently, and second, for scholars concerned with the state of democracy, it is crucial to study the many qualitative variations federal systems have, to try to grasp the robustness of a system; this is in preference to an overly literal focus on the most readily quantifiable aspects of electoral practice that play directly into “autocratic legalism”, the strategy by which modern authoritarians maintain the outward appearance of democratic legitimacy by complying with the formalities of democratic elections while stripping them of any significance. Third, research on and the use of federalism are mostly confined to a collection of case studies (which are valuable in their own right), or a means to avoid further conflicts by granting self-government arrangements that tend to neglect shared rule and are thus unsustainable.

Scholars concerned about the state of democracy should therefore pay more attention to federal dynamics, in federal and federal-like systems. This includes the study of the interdependent relation between federalism and constitutionalism, the one of deliberative federalism as a part of deliberative constitutionalism, and analyses regarding the complex relationship between federalism and democracy. While federalism refers to a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent units, like states or provinces, democracy emphasizes popular sovereignty, political equality, and citizen participation in governance. This makes the relationship between federalism and democracy intricate, and tense.

There are four main reasons why federalism is beneficial for advancing democracy. First, federalism enhances democracy by distributing power, which helps prevent the concentration of authority and encourages policy innovation. Second, federal systems often allow for greater local representation, and citizens are more likely to engage with local governments. Third, federalism provides a system of checks and balances by dividing powers among different levels of government as it mitigates the risks of tyranny and promotes accountability. Fourth, federalism accommodates cultural and regional differences within a country, enhancing democratic legitimacy through inclusivity.

However, despite its advantages, federalism can also pose challenges to democracy. First, federalism can create challenges in ensuring equitable representation; smaller states may have disproportionately high representation in a federal legislature. Second, disparities in resources among states can lead to unequal access to services and undermine the principle of equality. Third, the different levels of government can create complexity and induce citizens to disengage with the democratic process. Fourth, diverging interests between state and federal governments can result in complex governance that hinders a more inclusive democratic process, potentially leading to a lack of coherence in governance, or conversely, populist leaders may exploit federal systems to weaken opposition parties and consolidate power; federalism thus becomes a far less effective bulwark as the ruling party expands its power across the states, and co-partisans begin to accept autocratic abuses.

Thus, it is no surprise at all that the success of the relationship between federalism and democracy depends on the specific design of the system and the political culture in which it operates. Careful design and management are needed to ensure that both democratic principles and federal structures work effectively together.

This blog symposium explores the intricate relationship between federalism and (subnational) democracy in maintaining the integrity of democratic federal governance. It discusses the effectiveness of federalism and subnational democracy vis-à-vis the threat of democratic backsliding, and recent developments of democratic regression in federal-like multilevel systems. Of course, particular caution is warranted in drawing prescriptions from the contributions: the innumerable differences between federal and federal-like systems make the effects of elections and transformative policy agendas often unpredictable. These effects may have a transformative impact on forms of state, that is the different ways in which the three constituent elements of the state - people, territory and government (sovereignty) - play out (state-community-order, in short). Alternatively, these effects may impact forms of government, that is the government in the strict sense of the arrangement of public powers that concern the different ways in which policy-making is exercised by the various constitutional organs (the state apparatus, in short). Empirically, any rearticulation of forms of state and forms of government are intrinsically linked. In the end, for any system to be stable, forms of state and forms of government must be compatible.

My hope is that the posts of this symposium help enrich the debates about the state of (federal) democracy and provide accounts that so far have received limited attention. Many thanks go to the editorial team of the IACL-AIDC Blog for hosting and assisting this blog symposium, and to all authors and the IACL Research Group on Constitutionalism and Societal Pluralism: Diversity Governance Compared.

Elisabeth Alber is senior researcher and leads the research group ‘Participation and Innovations’ at the Eurac Research Institute for Comparative Federalism (Italy). She also heads the Eurac Research Federal Scholar in Residence Program.

Suggested Citation: Elisabeth Alber, ‘Symposium Introduction: Federal Coalitions and Subnational Democracy’ IACL-AIDC Blog (31 October 2024) Symposium Introduction: Federal Coalitions and Subnational Democracy — IACL-IADC Blog