ABSTRACT
In the post-colonial and post-communist era, it has become commonplace to state, like Will Kymlicka, that federations are “the best [form of ‘togetherness’] we can hope” in contemporary multinational democracies. However, as Kymlicka himself admits, “the nature of this looser form of togetherness” is “somewhat mysterious” and “there is very little in contemporary political theory that sheds light on it”.1 In other words, while federal arrangements appear to be a major piece of the democratic puzzle in contemporary multinational states, we still have a very porous understanding of what it means to be together in a multinational federal democracy. How can we understand this somewhat surprising failure of contemporary political theory? What does it mean and how can we cope with it? At first glance, two obvious reasons may help us to understand – and, to a certain extent, justify – why contemporary theorists of multinational federal democracies have not been able to shed much light on the “mystery” of federal togetherness. First, in the context of what Charles Taylor called the “politics of recognition”,2 most theorists of multinational federal democracies have spent their best efforts at understanding and justifying the “separateness” dimension of federalism rather than its “togetherness” side. Among other things, they have emphasized that multinational federalism may contribute to the maintenance and development of cultural diversity by granting self-government and asymmetric recognition and powers to territorially concentrated minority nations. Second, those who have devoted serious thought to the togetherness side of federalism have been mostly preoccupied by finding just and efficient ways of preventing instability and secession in multinational federations. In other words – and I say it without irony – contemporary political theory has been preoccupied by saving a form of togetherness it does not understand very well. What does it mean to be together in a multinational federal democracy? Does it make sense to talk about a nation of nations? Through what institutions and forms of encounters and dialogues should the nations of a multinational federal democracy interact? What role should the central government institutions adopt
to engage multinational encounter and dialogue? What are the main forms of multinational encounters and dialogues that may occur in multinational federal democracies? What are the basic requirements and benefits of federal togetherness? What particular civic virtues do multinational federal citizens need? Since multinational federal democracies are complex and used to living with tensions, what type of tensions should be seen as exceptional and dangerous? If one accepts that federal democracy represents the best form of togetherness contemporary multinational democracies may aspire to, contemporary political theory must address such difficult questions and many others. However, from the perspective of the history of political thought, the first step on the road towards a deeper understanding of federal togetherness is a better grasp of the failure of contemporary political theory to make a more serious effort at understanding it. In this chapter, I want to retrace the sources of this failure. On a general level, I suggest that one of the most important sources lies in nineteenth-century political thought. Since modern federalism and federation have been largely structured by the nineteenth-century debate on the nature of the new form of federalism adopted by the United States of America (USA), established by the constitution of 1787, we may assume that nineteenth-century writings on federalism have had a major impact on our theories, concepts, and typologies, notably the now classical distinction between unitary state, federation, and confederation. This should not be too contentious. On a more specific – and perhaps more contentious – level, I contend that the strong influence of nationalism and colonialism in that century made it particularly difficult for political thinkers to theorize – and even imagine – multinational encounters and dialogues as major features of federations. Based on these findings, contemporary political theorists should wonder to what extent they have internalized nineteenth-century nationalist and colonialist assumptions about federalism. This thesis is supported through a study of the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville and, to a lesser extent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. This seemingly unorthodox selection is justified on two grounds. First, both Tocqueville and Proudhon are rarely associated with nationalism and/or colonialism. Showing that nationalism and/or colonialism led them to neglect the theorizing of federal togetherness says a lot about the impact of nationalism and colonialism on Western federal thinking. Second, while Tocqueville’s selection makes obvious sense – since he is a major representative of the dominant tradition of federal thinking3 – Proudhon is also important as a key figure of an alternative and more marginal one.4 In other words, the nineteenth century’s theoretical neglect of federal togetherness cuts across various trends. This chapter is divided into two parts. In the first part, I argue that Tocqueville’s neglect of the togetherness side of federalism derives largely from an equivocal and monistic defence of federalism. More precisely, Tocqueville’s strong nationalism and colonialism made him incapable of imagining – and, still less, of predicting and supporting – multinational federalism in his work. The second part of the Chapter is devoted to Proudhon’s alternative and much more
apologetic conception of federalism. We will see that his obsessive fear of Jacobinism helps us to understand his ‘small is beautiful’ nationalism and his confederalist view of the federal government as a ‘subordinate function’ without executive capacity.5 In other words, Proudhon’s anti-Jacobin nationalism led him to support confederal arrangements in which togetherness is very much limited in scope and amounts to nothing more than the sum of its parts. Finally, in conclusion, I briefly discuss two prerequisites for a more serious and sustained reflection on federal togetherness in contemporary multinational federal democracies.
