ABSTRACT
Federalism implies democracy in the political-institutional sense of the term. World-wide, the majority of people who live in democracy also live in federalism. In this chapter the relation between federalism and democracy is critically reviewed in the context of current literature on the subject. The case materials from India, Malaysia and Pakistan are presented critically. Conventional knowledge suggests that federalism, to be successful, ought to have free political institutions and free elections. I raise a new question: what does federalism do? I argue here the meeting the diversity-claims (demands of recognition and accommodation of ethnic identity etc.) has dominated the discourse of federalism, which is a diversity-problematic. The fulfillment of this demand has contributed to better political order and legitimacy. But such legitimacy may be short-lived if the equality-claims are not met. The latter takes us to the realm of distributive conflicts, which, if not resolved, may result in categorical conflicts. The findings show that absolute lack of democracy under successive military rule has stood in the way of working federalism in Pakistan; a regular political democracy has not, in the case of India, produced enough redistribution; and a limited democracy in Malaysia has better tackled poverty and income inequality.
