The lack of national pluralism in federal theory and federations

In federal analysis it is usual to stress the contrast that exists between the kind of federal theory that situates the normative centre of gravity at the “union” that arises from the pact between the parties to the agreement, and the kind of theory that situates this centre of gravity with this parties: in other words, the contrast between Madison's and Althusius' approaches to federalism. The latter are closer to what one might call the spirit of confederations (or to a form of consociational federalism). The classic notion of sovereignty is understood here in terms of negotiation and sharing. In this case, one of the objectives of the “federal pact” will be the preservation of the plurality of the particular identities of the subjects of the pact. ¹ In contrast, the American federalist tradition interprets federalism from a much more federal than confederal standpoint. Here the centre of gravity is situated in the governance of a “nation-state” and the consequent supremacy of the central power. The Union is considered more important than the Units (Federalist Papers, 10, 37, 51 – Madison; and 9, 35 – Hamilton). Here, the establishment of a federation should not fall back on existing social and territorial divisions, but should try to build a new polity that subsumes the old divisions by establishing new state-building and nation-building processes. ²