By Linus Kawuondi

This article explores the potential of federalism as a tool for managing identity-based conflicts in Africa. While much attention has been given to federalism’s role in legislative and administrative relations, its application in addressing ethnic tensions has been overlooked. The article begins by examining the global debate on whether federalism is effective in reducing ethnic conflicts, drawing insights from cases in Canada, Spain, Nigeria, and other nations. It argues that federalism offers a promising framework for regulating identity-based conflicts, particularly in African countries such as Kenya, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Introduction

Most of the studies in federalism are centered on the legislative, financial, and administrative relations between the Centre and the States (Paleker, 2006, p. 303). Less attention is given to federalism as an instrument for regulating ethnic and identity-based conflict. Baogang (2006) points out that conflict over ethnic homeland,  governance, the right to territorial autonomy, and even nation-statehood have played out in Asia and other parts of the world, where it has been debated whether federalism is the best system to reduce or contain ethnic conflict (p. 29).  There has been a question of whether the multinational federalism models in Canada and Spain can be applied to other countries in Asia and Africa. The international community has also questioned whether the underlying norms of federalism, that is, the right to territorial autonomy, the right to self-determination, and the right to remain unassimilated, are universally acceptable (Baogang, 2006, p. 29).

While federalism has been successful in dealing with minority issues in Canada and Spain, and at the same time regulating ethnic conflict in Nigeria, it failed to contain the separation of India and Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia, and Ethiopia and Eritrea. Nonetheless, countries like the United States, India, and Australia have developed strong federal institutions that function autonomously and have solved the problem of identity-based conflict.

Therefore, this article asserts that federalism as a theory works better in regulating identity-based conflict. The federal system of government is an appropriate form of dealing with minority and identity-based issues in Kenya, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and other African countries in crisis due to ethnic conflict. This article discusses federalism, its origin and development, the relationship between federalism and identity-based conflict, and finally, investigates how federalism regulates identity-based conflict.

What is Federalism?

Riker defines federalism as a political organisation in which the activities of government are divided between regional governments and a central government in such a way that each kind of government has some activities in that it makes final decisions (Craig, 2004, p. 91). The fact that the central government only controls a category of action while giving the regional government the freedom to decide on other matters shows the autonomy given to the state government. However, this definition does not consider the important element of sovereignty highlighted in the Constitution. Rather, it is based on bargaining, mutual agreement, and understanding due to other external factors like security threats.

According to Elazar (1987) federalism has to do with the need of people and polities to unite for common purposes yet remain separate to preserve their respective integrities (p. 33). It is a system of government in which states that are independent and are self-reliant on the running of their internal affairs form a unity but still remain autonomous. Robert Garan, a classical theorist, emphasises the nature of autonomy in the federal system of government. For him, sovereignty and political power are important elements that must be divided between the Central and Local Governments so that each of them within its own sphere is independent of the other (Paleker, 2006, p. 304). Hence, there must be a distinction between the action of the Federal Government and the State  Government. 

Consequently, classical theorists enunciate that a federal system must have a written constitution, the constitution must be rigid, there must be an independent judiciary, both levels of government must operate directly on the life of the citizens, and finally, there should be allocation of adequate resources for the government at each level (Paleker, 2006, p. 304). This theory explains federalism in juristic terms, which enables one to distinguish a federal system from a devolution or unitary state.

Ideologically, federalism is interpreted as the celebration of unity in diversity. The four essential features of a federation are: its representation is predominantly territorial, this territorial representation is characteristically secured on at least two sub-national levels, the regional units are incorporated electorally, or perhaps otherwise, into the decision-making procedure of the national center, and finally, the incorporation of the regions into the decision procedure of the center can only be altered by extraordinary constitutional measures, not for example by resort to a simple majority vote of the national legislature or by autonomous decision of the national executive (Smith, 1995, p. 7). These components distinguish a federation from other forms of government.

Identity-Based Conflict

It is common knowledge that individuals, whether people, entities, families, organisations, ethnic groups, and nations, construct, develop, and formulate independent and different pictures of reality. Each individual has the need to assign meaning to the primordial experience of his/her consciousness and self. Establishing and maintaining our knowing is the basic and most profound element of our consciousness. Thus, in our endeavours to understand the world while being conscious of the reality around us, we are also establishing our identities. Our physical survival and psychological stability are so completely rooted in our ability to assign meaning. Hence, in our encounter with others, it is a natural tendency to assume that what we see is true and real and that our picture of reality is accurate while the others are not. Such differences cause agitation, aggression, and violence. 

Thus, identity-based conflicts arise from the clash of values and goals. When an individual or group with a shared identity perceives another to be interfering unjustly with their ability to satisfy what they feel is an essential need or core value, conflict will inevitably result. An individual’s ability to fulfill their needs and live their values is intrinsic to their sense of autonomy and self-worth.

In the late twentieth century, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, and Rwanda experienced violent identity-based conflicts. In the twenty-first century, South Sudan, the youngest state in the world, has been destabilised due to violence arising from ethnic identity. Other nations that have presently been in identity-based conflict in Africa are the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Central African Republic, Kenya, Burkina Faso, Somalia, Senegal, Mali, Cameroon, and Libya. Hence, there is a need to search for an effective way of dealing with identity-based conflict in Africa. Kenneth and Fuat (1997) argue that a relational, historical, and dynamic understanding of identity is crucial not only for coming to terms with the connections between security and ethnic identity but also for constructing effective strategies for the management or resolution of conflict (p. 311). Federalism, as a theory, is a compound form of government that is informed by identity issues. Hence, being plural by nature, it promotes cultural diversity within a state and safeguards the rights of minority groups. It, therefore, serves as an effective way of managing identity-based conflicts.

Federalism as an Instrument for Conflict Resolution in Identity-Based Conflict

Conflict resolution refers to a process of transforming violent conflicts “into more constructive relations between states, peoples and groups” (Wallensteen, 2007, p. 3). However, conflict resolution is an action that does not necessarily finish with the end of violence. It is a process in which deep-rooted conflicts are addressed and transformed. 

In Kenya, the Turkana people and other ethnic minority groups had been ignored for a very long period of time, in terms of development and other policy issues. The central government only focused on dealing with the interests of the majority groups that always dominated the political spaces. In such cases, the federal system of government offers a solution as the minority groups that are territorially concentrated demand for independence, autonomy, and recognition. This is because they have been ignored and are not represented in public institutions and even the government that makes important decisions on their well-being. For instance, in Mombasa, a faction of individuals who perceived neglect from the Kenyan government took to the streets to protest, asserting that the area does not belong to Kenya. This was due to the history of neglect that brought about their struggle for independence. Such fights for recognition and autonomy may take different forms of warfare, such as terrorist and guerrilla acts, and may lead to a protracted conflict. 

The common feature of identity-based conflict is that it tangles and opposes other nation-building projects. This is due to the fact that these projects ignore their interests. An example is the case of Canada, where the people of Quebec’s quest for recognition interfered with the nation-building project even though it never erupted in large-scale violent conflict. In the case of Rwanda, a nation with two identity groups, that is, Tutsi and Hutu, violence erupted due to a history of alienation of one identity group. Hence, the quest for recognition and autonomy of one ethnic group resulted in violence in which the dominant ethnic group was eliminating the minority group. Hence, in most identity-based conflicts, the respective groups fight for the recognition of diversity.

A federal society, according to Livingstone is that which contains within its fold elements of diversity (Paleker, 2006, p. 304). Thus, a federation celebrates and promotes cultural diversity while protecting the rights of minority groups. It ensures that the various identity group interests are taken care of and appropriate measures are taken to ensure that the quest for recognition does not turn out to be a demand for independence. On the other hand, the allocation of equal resources to both the federal states and the national government ensures that all regions receive an equal share. Hence, the chances of identity groups fighting as a result of being left out in terms of development are minimised. Federations also ensure that power is distributed, and thus, all identity groups have representatives in both governments.

Federations, by their very nature, combine elements of duality. Burgess and Gagnon note that tolerance, respect, compromise, bargaining, and mutual recognition are the watchdog of democratic federations combined simultaneously with autonomy (Smith, 1995, p. 8). Perhaps the primary rationale for federalism today is that it helps accommodate multiple political identities. Dimitrios Karmis and Wayne Norman (2005) characterise this as “federal identity,” that is, “a dual or plural identity that both generates and reflects the duality or plurality of political levels characteristic of federal systems” (p. 9). 

Some scholars think the federations may interfere with nationalism in the sense that an individual may feel more attached to the federal government than the national government. Hence, this may affect how citizens respond to issues that pertain to the national government’s interest. However, Feeley and Edward Rubin observe that:

Political identity need not be universal, exclusive, or even primary in order to be an important determinant of people’s attitudes. It only needs to be a means of self-interpretation that is readily and widely deployed in a variety of situations. That is sufficient for it to serve as an important consideration in virtually any political setting and as a determinative one in a good number of situations (p. 11)

Conclusion

Federalism regulates identity-based conflicts when the issues that result from conflict are about recognition, autonomy, and sharing of power in central institutions. Nonetheless, it ignores the role of veto powers and elites in fueling identity-based conflict. Some other scholars also point out that granting a regional federal status may turn out to be the demand for independence. Regardless,  federalism gives identity groups equitable positions in the state and allows all identities to have a share in the resources of the state. Hence, it regulates identity-based conflict. As such, African nations like Kenya, the Central African Republic, Sudan, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which are struggling with identity-based conflicts, ought to think about switching to federal forms of government. This change may grant regional governments more authority, enabling minority groups to be more fully represented and involved in decision-making. Additionally, governments should pursue constitutional amendments that align with the ideas of federalism. These reforms should address the allocation of resources to promote equal development throughout regions. Finally, federalism should be accompanied by robust dialogue and reconciliation processes to address historical grievances and build trust among diverse ethnic and cultural groups. Civil society organisations, religious institutions, and community leaders can play crucial roles in facilitating such dialogue initiatives.

References

Bush, K., & Keyman, E. (1997). Identity-Based Conflict: Rethinking Security in a Post–Cold War World. Global Governance, 3(3), 311-328. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27800174

Elazar, D.J. (1987) Exploring Federalism, London: The University of Alabama Press.

Feeley & Rubin, Federalism.

He, B. (2006). The Federal Solution to Ethnic Conflicts. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 7(2), 29-36. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43134116

Karmis, D. & Norman, W. (2005) “The Revival of Federalism in Normative Political Theory,” in Karmis, D. & Norman, W. eds., Theories of Federalism: A Reader, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Kymlicka, W. (2000) “Federalism and Secession: At Home and Abroad,” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, Vol. 13, No. 2: 207-224.

Smith, G. ed. (1995) Federalism: The Multiethnic Challenge, New York: Longman Group Limited.

Paleker, S. (2006). FEDERALISM: A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 67(2), 303-310. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41856217 

Volden, C. (2004). Origin, Operation, and Significance: The Federalism of William H. Riker. Publius, 34(4), 89-107. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20184927

Wallensteen, P. (2007) Understanding Conflict Resolution: War, Peace and the International System, New Delhi and Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.