L'état des fédérations, Tome 1: l'unité dans la diversité par Christophe Parent (review)

Parent's first of two volumes on federal theory and multi-nationality joins the ranks of those troubled by the uniformizing nature of federal pacts that were intended to preserve cultural and political diversity. The first section highlights the "law of centralization" and explores the plentiful attempts to define the elusive and stretched federal concept. From Alexis de Tocqueville, who insisted on the importance of cultural homogeneity for a federation's success, to James Bryce, who saw federalism as the transitory step to a government's unity, Parent reviews the thought feeding federal ambitions prior to the twentieth century, which focused on centrifugal and centripetal tendencies of the model. The models of monarchy and republicanism are juxtaposed in the following section, with the resulting assertion that it was believed impossible to conciliate distinct political cultures within a federal model. Montesquieu's "republic of republics" is presented to assert the importance of political homogeneity, leading to the discussion of cultural homogeneity as a precondition of federalism. Tocqueville and Mill re-enter the dialogue, mobilizing observations derived from the American model suggesting that effective ties between individuals speaking the same language were essential for realizing a republic's general public opinion. The thought of British theorist James Bryce is mobilized to contrast this republican approach, adding that if the absence of cohesive cultural identity may hurt a union, its presence by no means guarantees its survival. Parent summarizes this dialogue by isolating the function of homogeneity in federal theory, which he identifies as a sociological response to what is fundamentally a legal aporia… "moins une donnée culturaliste qu'une clause de sauvegarde" (106). Homogeneity is thus pursued with one goal: to avoid conflicts over sovereignty. Chapter 3 reviews the doctrinal origins of a federation of peoples. The postwar period of Europe dominates this review, as this period incarnated a paroxysm of will to avoid conflict. Kenneth Wheare is prominent in this discussion for his assertion that a desire to unify is more important than nationality for a precondition to federalism. Oliver Beaud joins this perspective, underlining the contractual origins of federalism as a pact or an institution. Chapter 4 reveals the thesis of Parent's work, denouncing functional presuppositions of federalism for their ignorance of the intrinsic richness of the essence of the concept. Parent detaches the Federation from the State, both for the Federation and for the federated. He further stresses that nationalization of political life of the Federation automatically undercuts the federal principle. This non-state and anti-nation-state understanding of federalism affirms the Federation as a pluralist legal order, in which the depository of power are not the demos, but the demoi (241). Thus Parent does not agree that federalism is an individualistic principle, which might favor monopolizing norms. He asserts that its vocation is in fact a form of cultural isomorphism. Parent offers a rich theoretical review and analysis of the state of federalism, with blatant willingness to resist the State as the political organizer of diverse societies.