Postcolonial Federalism: A Conceptual Analysis for Tracing State-Formation in the Global South

Abstract

This paper dissects and compares the British colonial venture in Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Malaysia, and their historical journeys toward federalism. It explores whether these postcolonial federations align with Stepan’s categories of the genesis of federations. Expanding on Stepan’s contribution, the concept of postcolonial federalism develops a new lens to scrutinize the complex relationship between colonialism and federalism, especially for its proposed cases, highlighting their unique structuring through colonial socio-political engineering. Moreover, it argues that the creation of these federations was carried out to facilitate colonial administration with complete disregard for the existing linguistic, ethnic, cultural, and religious cleavages leaving federalization as the only alternative to gain sovereignty. Finally, this paper discusses the scope of postcolonial federalism and its unique characteristics compared to Stepan’s typology on the genesis of federations. This paper acts as a safeguard against the notion of the federal arrangement only being a product of democratic, liberal, and contractual phenomena. At the same time, the concept of postcolonial federalism offers a new lens to conduct further research on federalism in the Global South.

Acknowledgments

I thank my supervisor Dr. Marc Sanjaume-Calvet (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain) and Dr. Johanne Poirier (McGill University, Canada) for their academic support and believing in the novelty of my doctoral thesis. I also acknowledge the works of Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph, Katherine Adeney, Harihar Bhattacharya, and Adiele Afigbo for their historical investigation that helped shape this paper.

Notes

1 For a detailed account of Lord Macaulay’s minutes from 1835, see Columbia online.

2 Martin Papillon, “Towards Postcolonial Federalism? The Challenges of Aboriginal Self-Determination in the Canadian Context,” in Foundations, Traditions, Institutions (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009), 405–27. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442687721-016.

3 Alfred Stepan, “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S. Model,” Journal of Democracy 10, no. 4 (1999): 19–34.

4 Stepan, “Federalism and Democracy.”

5 Daniel J. Elazar, Exploring Federalism (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1987).

6 Elazar, Exploring Federalism, 5.

7 The notion of federalism and democracy, along with political liberalism, stands at loggerheads with colonially engineered federations. Instead of complementing each other, the intrinsic character of these federations limits individual liberties, freedom, and equality.

8 James Madison argued for a division of power for the rights of the people through inter-governmental checks and balances, see Federalist No. 51 (J. Madison, “Federalist No. 51: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments,” The Federalist Papers (1788). Retrieved from the Avalon Project: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp).

9 William H. Riker, Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964), 611.

10 Alain G. Gagnon, and Guy Laforest, “The Future of Federalism: Lessons from Canada and Quebec,” International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis 48, no. 3 (1993): 470–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/002070209304800304.

11 The depth of this statement acknowledges the room and gap for alternate federal thoughts such as postcolonial federalism. Normatively, federalism leads to the creation of federations. Agreeing with this notion, I contest that not all federations were created on these ideals.

12 Stepan, “Federalism and Democracy,” 319.

13 Stepan’s strict approach limits the scope of States that can be considered federations. Federations that do not fit the proposed criteria of Stepan’s typologies, still work and operate as federations.

14 Stepan, “Federalism and Democracy,” 319.

15 Stepan, “Federalism and Democracy.”

16 Patricia Popelier, Dynamic Federalism: A New Theory for Cohesion and Regional Autonomy, 1st ed. (London: Routledge, 2021), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003128762.

17 Andreas Schedler, “Concept Formation in Political Science,” CIDE Working Papers (2010). http://works.bepress.com/andreas_schedler/28/.

18 Schelder, “Concept Formation in Political Science,” 16.

19 Ronald L. Watts, “Federalism, Federal Political Systems, and Federations,” Annual Review of Political Science 1, no. 1 (1965): 117–37. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.117.

20 Watts, “Federalism, Federal Political Systems, and Federations,” 6.

21 Stepan, “Federalism and Democracy.”

22 Schelder, “Concept Formation in Political Science,” 1.

23 Ibid., 11.

24 Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennet, Case Studies and Theory Development in Social Sciences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005).

25 George and Bennet, Case Studies and Theory Development in Social Sciences.

26 Michael Burgess, The British Tradition of Federalism (London: Leicester University Press, 1995), 77.

27 The third wave of federalism pertains to federations that were created in the latter half of the 20^th century. The genesis of postcolonial federations limits itself to the second wave of federalism, initiated after the Second World War and decolonization.

28 George and Bennet, Case Studies and Theory Development in Social Sciences.

29 The idea of an Imperial Federation, as a federation of Great Britain’s colonies, was concerned with the possibility of closer cooperation between Westminster and its self-governing colonies. For a critical discussion of the imperial federation and its history, see W. R. Smith, “British Imperial Federation,” Political Science Quarterly 36, no. 2 (1921): 274–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/2142255; and B. Knox, “The Rise of Colonial Federation as an Object of British Policy, 1850-1870,” Journal of British Studies 11, no. 1 (1971): 92–112. doi:10.1086/385619.

30 Michael Collins, “Decolonisation and the ‘Federal Moment’,” Diplomacy & Statecraft 24, no. 1 (2013): 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2013.762881.

31 Ronald L. Watts, “New Federations. Experiments in the Commonwealth,” International Journal 22 (1966): 6–25.

32 Collins, “Decolonisation and the ‘Federal Moment’,” 26.

33 Burgess, The British Tradition of Federalism.

34 Sumit Sarkar, “Indian Democracy: The Historical Inheritance,” in The Success of India’s Democracy, edited by Atul Kohli (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 23–47.

35 Burgess, The British Tradition of Federalism, 77.

36 Richard Morrock, “Heritage of Strife: The Effects of Colonialist ‘Divide and Rule’ Strategy upon the Colonized Peoples,” 130–5.

37 Morrock, “Heritage of Strife,” 130.

38 Adiele E. Afigbo, “Background to Nigerian Federalism: Federal Features in the Colonial State,” Publius 21, no. 4 (1991): 13–29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3330308.

39 Afigbo, “Background to Nigerian Federalism.”

40 Uma O. Eleazu, Federalism and Nation-Building: The Nigerian Experience 1945-1964 (Devon, UK: Arthur Stockwell Ltd, 1977).

41 Eleazu, Federalism and Nation-Building, 3.

42 Matthew Lange, Tay Jeong, and Charlotte Gaudreau, “A Tale of Two Empires: Models of Political Community in British and French Colonies,” Nations and Nationalism 28, no. 3 (2022): 972–89.

43 Jeremy J. White, Central Administration in Nigeria, 1914–1948 (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1981), 292.

44 Crawford Young, “Ethnicity and the Colonial and Post-Colonial State in Africa,” in Ethnic Groups and the State (Taylor & Francis, 1985), 57–93; Dominika Koter, “Accidental Nation-Building in Africa,” Nations and Nationalism 27, no. 3 (2021): 862–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12750.

45 Joseph C. Anene, 1966. Southern Nigeria in Transition 1885-1906: Theory and Practice in a Colonial Protectorate (Cambridge University Press), 17. https://books.google.es/books?id=EuHuFctUS1QC.

46 Afigbo, “Background to Nigerian Federalism,” 20.

47 For the detailed nuances behind F. D. Lugard’s Amalgamation Report, see Amalgamation of Southern and Northern Nigeria 1919 online.

48 Afigbo, “Background to Nigerian Federalism.”

49 Frederick August Otto Schwartz, Nigeria: The Tribes, the Nation, or the Race; the Politics of Independence (M.I.T. Press, 1965), 63.

50 Robert Heussler, The British in Northern Nigeria (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), 170.

51 John Hutchinson, “The Past, Present, and the Future of the Nation-State,” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 4, no. 1 (2003): 5–12. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43134436

52 Katherine Adeney, Federalism and Ethnic Conflict Regulation in India and Pakistan (New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2007), 24. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230601949.

53 Mughal Emperor Akbar was considered the leading statesman of the dynasty—especially for his formula of alliances, which included marrying out of religion for the security and peace of the Mughal Empire.

54 Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne H. Rudolph, “Federalism as State Formation in India: A Theory of Shared and Negotiated Sovereignty,” International Political Science Review 31, no. 5 (2010): 553–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512110388634.

55 Sir Percival Griffiths, The British Impact on India (Routledge, 1952), 154. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429057656.

56 John Keay, The Honourable Company: A History of the English East India Company (Harper Collins, 1991), 233.

57 Philip Mason, A Matter of Honour: An Account of the Indian Army Its Officers and Men (London: Macmillan, 1974), 343.

58 Rudolph and Rudolph, “Federalism as State Formation in India,” 561.

59 Adeney, Federalism and Ethnic Conflict Regulation, 30.

60 Ibid., 31.

61 Rudolph and Rudolph, “Federalism as State Formation in India,” 561.

62 R. Coupland, The Indian Problem 1883–1935 (London: Oxford University Press, 1942), 44–45.

63 Burgess, The British Tradition of Federalism, 70.

64 Christian R. Burset, An Empire of Laws: Legal Pluralism in British Colonial Policy (Yale University Press, 2023), 9. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.5666741.

65 Asok K. Chanda, Federalism in India: A Study of Union-State Relations (G. Allen & Unwin, 1965), 16.

66 The Simon Commission Report 1930 discussed a “unity embracing” all of India—in the hope for a federal future. It was agreed that the federal idea was “distant” but they looked forward to the federation of Greater India. This also marked the start of entering into formal federal relations with British India, see V. P. Menon, The Story of the Integration of the Indian States. Calcutta: Orient Longman Ltd. (1956) (Sani Pahnwar online).

67 Rudolph and Rudolph, “Federalism as State Formation in India,” 562.

68 Mohammad Waseem, “Pakistan: A Majority-Constraining Federalism,” India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs 67, no. 3 (2011): 213–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45073024

69 The Princely States of India were semi-sovereign feudatory territories of the British Empire governed indirectly through local Indian rulers. These were States not directly annexed but lived under agreement with British India. The exact number of these States before Indian independence in 1947 is contested—but all accounts have them at more than 560.

70 Zarina Salamat, Pakistan 1947-58: An Historical Overview (Islamabad: National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research, 1992), 66–8.

71 Waseem, “Pakistan,” 215.

72 Matthew Lange, “Developmental Crises: A Comparative-Historical Analysis of State-Building in Colonial Botswana and Malaysia,” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 47, no. 1 (2009): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14662040802659066.

73 Watts, “New Federations,” 25.

74 Harihar Bhattacharyya, Federalism in Asia: India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nepal, and Myanmar, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2020). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367821630.

75 Watts, “New Federations,” 25.

76 H. Bhattacharyya, Federalism in Asia: India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nepal, and Myanmar, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2020), 48. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367821630.

77 Burgess builds the idea on the initial thought and argumentation created by Ronald L. Watts for the necessity of such distinctions, see Watts, “New Federations,” 25.

78 Dickson B. Obonyano, Asikaogu J. Joannes, and Ikechukwu C. Uche, “Tyranny of the Majority: Problem to Nigerian Democracy,” International Journal of Humanities and Arts 4, no. 1 (2022): 39–44.

79 Stepan, “Federalism and Democracy,” 22.

80 For a detailed account of B.R. Ambedkar’s statement on the draft constitution in the constituent assembly, see OECD online.

81 Stepan, “Federalism and Democracy,” 22.

82 M. Burgess, Comparative Federalism: theory and Practice (London: Routledge, 2006), 98.

83 Watts, “Federalism, Federal Political Systems, and Federations”; Watts, “New Federations,” 25.

84 Burgess, The British Tradition of Federalism; Burgess, Comparative Federalism.

85 Kenneth C. Wheare, Federal Government, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1953), 53.

86 Elazar, Exploring Federalism, 64.

87 Richard W. Gable, Ralph Braibanti, Richard Symonds, A. L. Adu, Guthrie S. Birkhead, and Khalid B. Sayeed, “Bureaucratic Transition: The Case of the British Colonies,” Public Administration Review 27, no. 5 (1967): 474–85. https://doi.org/10.2307/973405.

88 Even though the Pakistani Federation’s Land Reform Commission 1959 abolished the colonial structure of Zamindari, it still permitted an individual to hold 500 acres of irrigated and 1,000 acres of non-irrigated land. This allowed the continuation of feudalism in its rawest essence—despite the cosmetic reforms.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Higher Education Commission, Pakistan.

Notes on contributors

Shahal Khoso

Shahal Khoso is a PhD candidate and researcher at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain. His doctoral work focuses on theories of federalism and federations with a colonial history - tracing de jure and de facto legacies of colonial rule. He also teaches Comparative Politics & Democratization at Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals, Spain, and works as a research assistant for ETHNICGOODs - an ERC project that maps nation-building policies and their consequences. This paper was awarded the 1st prize at the Baxter Competition on Federalism (Faculty of Law, McGill University) and the Ronald L. Watts Young Researcher Award 2023 (International Association of Centers for Federal Studies).