Federalism in question: an American retrospective

Federalists and anti-federalists clashed violently during the revision of the U.S. Constitution in the second half of the 18th century^th century. This divide sheds light, like no other in history, on the debate between the center and the periphery. It is hard not to see in it a reflection of contemporary issues.

«Are we able to resist or repel the aggression? We have neither troops, nor a treasury, nor a government. […] Is respectability in the eyes of foreign powers a guarantee against foreign encroachments? The incompetence of our government prevents them from even dealing with us. Our ambassadors abroad are nothing more than the trappings of a fictitious sovereignty.» Two hundred and forty years later, it is difficult to recognize in these lines by Alexander Hamilton—one of the architects of the U.S. Constitution—a description of today’s leading world power: here it appears weak, divided, and incapable of action. The reader would be more inclined to see in them the situation—this time a contemporary one—of a European Union (EU) that is rich but divided; powerful, yet incapable of taking action.

From its beginnings in the 1950s to the present day, a divide has raged between advocates of a «Europe of nations» and proponents of a more united—and, in a sense, more federal—Europe. Despite the significant differences in time and context between the two situations—that of the young Confederation of the United States of America and that of the current EU—one political divide nonetheless sheds light on another.

Reactions «bordering on hysteria»

In 1776, with the Declaration of Independence, the American colonies laid the first cornerstone of their young country’s independence. To that end, they launched a process lasting more than a decade, during which the foundations of the young republic would be laid. In 1787, the Philadelphia Convention convened, during which the U.S. Constitution was adopted. The Constitution established a new type of government: the federal republic.

But the debates are not yet over. In order to take effect, the new constitution must be accepted and ratified by at least nine of the thirteen states. The proposed federal constitution «is provoking mixed reactions, at times bordering on hysteria among the most fanatical anti-federalists,» notes Denis Lacorne, a specialist on the United States and professor emeritus at Sciences Po, in The Invention of the American Republic. It was against this backdrop of intense and sometimes heated debates that an impressive number of pamphlets, speeches, and articles appeared, either defending or criticizing the new constitution.

Federalists and the Fear of a Weak State

Deux camps se font face: les fédéralistes, partisans de la constitution fédérale, et les anti-fédéralistes, qui s’y opposent. Le point central des débats concerne donc l’étendue des pouvoirs que les Etats membres doivent déléguer au gouvernement central. Aux yeux des fédéralistes, l’expérience de la Confédération est un échec. «[Hamilton] déplore[…] l’extrême faiblesse d’un « système national » qui précipite l’Amérique vers l’abîme d’une « anarchie imminente ». La menace est grande d’un despotisme des faibles.»

Furthermore, if a war were to break out, the government would be ill-equipped to deal with the danger. For the federalists, the countless peculiarities of each state even prevent trade from developing freely. Their solution is the creation of a federal state with broad powers, particularly in the areas of diplomacy and trade.

However, the federalists have taken it a step further: they propose that the central government be able to impose its will on the member states in order to maintain the nation’s cohesion through the «so-called supremacy clause,» which gives federal law precedence over state law. Whether it be Congress, the Supreme Court, or the president, federal institutions as a whole must have the power to compel the states to comply.

Federalists are not, however, advocates of a monarchy, even an elective one. Their main concern—and the point on which they must be most patient in explaining—is the importance of preventing the emergence of any form of tyranny: «How can we curb the inevitable excesses of democracy without destroying it? How can we prevent a factional majority from imposing an unjust conception of the common good?» Hence the infinite complexity of the system of checks and balances established among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The federalists« goal is to »reverse the constitutional framework« in which the states hold supremacy. They seek to »subordinate the periphery of the states to the supremacy of the center.”

Anti-federalism and State Sovereignty

The anti-federalists, contrary to what their name might suggest, «are not opposed to all reform. They recognize the shortcomings of the Confederation […].» But like Thomas Jefferson, they fear «that the nationalist drive will go too far. They [are] alarmed by plans to create a strong, unitary federal executive.» In his view, as in that of most anti-Federalists, the Federalists are «monarchists in the making.» Their opponents« fear is that »the new federal nation, with its imperial dimensions, its aristocratic Senate, and its presidential monarchy, risks behaving like any absolutist monarchy”: wars of prestige, the pursuit of glory, the conquest of new territories, sumptuous palaces, etc.

The anti-federalists, most of whom were men deeply rooted in their respective states, believed that sovereignty should not be divided between two levels of government. It is the states that possess the original legitimacy and subsequently delegate certain tasks to the central government. The possibility that a central government—which might be far removed—could dictate their conduct and impose its decisions on them is particularly intolerable to the anti-federalists. They «unanimously denounce the so-called supremacy clause.».

A Contemporary Legacy

Même si la constitution fédérale finit par être adoptée par une majorité d’Etats, l’anti-fédéralisme ne disparaît pas pour autant. «Certains de leurs arguments devaient réapparaître à l’époque de la Guerre civile[…]» A bien des égards, «les critiques de l’establishment washingtonien, les contempteurs du « gouvernement des juges » sont tous, d’une certaine façon, les héritiers modernes des anti-fédéralistes.» Donald Trump y compris. Ainsi, le débat qui exista à la fin du XVIII^th That century in the United States finds a distant echo today.

Read also | Covid management in Switzerland: too much federalism... or not enough?

Similarly, the EU’s weaknesses—including its inability to defend itself and act swiftly without being held hostage by some tyranny of the minority (whether from Hungary or elsewhere)—can be compared to the United States Confederation, weak, incoherent, and at the mercy of foreign influences, little respected, and incapable of action. At a time when the first proposals for reforms aimed at increasing the EU’s capacity for action in many areas are emerging, Alexander Hamilton’s words and recommendations remain relevant. Provided, of course, that we avoid the pitfalls already highlighted more than two centuries ago by both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists: the tyranny of the majority, the disregard for popular representation, and the rule of the judges.

Write to the author: [email protected]

Photo credit: © Pixabay

You have just read an analysis from our dossier «Today’s Divisions», in our print edition (Le Regard Libre No. 90).