The Australian Federalism System

AuthorJean Holmes
DOI10.1177/019251218400500406
Published date01 October 1984
Date01 October 1984
Subject MatterArticles
397
THE
AUSTRALIAN
FEDERALISM
SYSTEM
JEAN
HOLMES
With
a
largely
homogenous
population
and
tradition
of
"radical
conservatism,"
there
is
little
basis
for
hierarchy
in
Australia.
The
party
system,
based
on
the
states
divides
Labor
and
non-Labor
on
ideological
lines.
The
parties
no
longer
satisfy
the
electors,
as
shown
in
statistical
measures
of
attitudes
and
policy
preference.
The
problem
for
the
future
is
the
adaptability
of
the
party
system
to
the
growing
disappearance
of
class
cleavage.
The
political
perspective
of
those
who
live
in
federations
includes
a
sense
of
place
derived
from
the
&dquo;building
blocks&dquo;
from
which
federal
systems
are
constructed.
Affective
ties
to
home
provinces/
states
run
parallel
with
national
loyalties
in
the
&dquo;dual
citizen&dquo;
political
cultures
of
federal
governing
systems.
As
the
Canadian
political
scientist
Elkins
(1980)
comments,
federalism
is
both
an
expedient
device
at
a
historical
point
in
time
for
responding
to
local
place
loyalties
and
a
canonization
of
those
loyalties
in
legally
defined
political
entities
that
preserves
their
existence.
The
Australian
federal
system
has
often
been
described
as
a
curiosity
in
the
real
world
of
federalism.
In
due
course
it
was
expected
to
trans-
form
itself
into
the
unitary
political
system
deemed
more
appropriate
to
its
homogeneous
national
population.
Only
an
accident
of
history,
a
pattern
of
settlement
in
separate
British
colonies
appeared
to
define
the
constitutional
boundaries
to
our
separate
political
entities.
To
quote
Riker
( 1967:
113),
the
divisions
in
Australian
culture ... seem
to
[have]
hardly
any
geogra-
phical
base.
Hence
there
seems
to
be
an
Australian
patriotism
unob-
structed
by
loyalties
to
the
states ...
one
wonders
indeed
why
they
bother
with
federalism
in
Australia.
Yet
Australian
federalism
is
coming
up
to
its
centenary,
and
must
therefore
be
accounted
a
viable
and
stable
example
of
government
based
on
the
geographical
distribution
of
political
authority
between
terri-
398
torial
national
and
subnational
units.
Definitions
of
federalism
have
always
been
a
problem
for
federal
studies,
for
while
it
is
comparatively
easy
to
describe
different
aspects
of
federal
political
systems,
it
has
proved
more
difficult
to
come
to
an
understanding
of
the
&dquo;essence&dquo;
of
federalism.
Writers
such
as
Livingston
(1963)
have
argued
that
federalism
is
the
product
of
social
forces,
making
the
political
system
the
dependent
variable.
Others
like
Wheare
(1963)
have
stressed
the
pre-eminence
of
the
federal
form,
taking
the
constitution
to
be
the
independent
variable
and
social
outcomes
the
dependent
consequence.
Riker
(1966)
con-
sidered
the
party
system
to
be
the
crucial
federal
variable,
while
others
argued
that
intergovernmental
institutions
were
critical
for
structuring
political
and
social
interaction
(Bakvis,1981 ).
Elazar
(1966)
even
went
so
far
as
to
argue
that
definition
should
be
eschewed
until
theory
and
practice
could
be
linked
more
satisfactorily.
In
his
view
the
key
to
federal
systems
is
the
dispersion
of
political
power
as
a
safeguard
against
autocracy,
and
characteristic
federal
bargaining
and
negotiating
practices
are
the
logical
outcome
of
that
power
dispersion.
Certainly
much
of
the
federal
debate
is
about
the
allocation
of
political
power
among
the
units
of
government
and
the
subsequent
problems
of
coordination
(Leach,
1974:
16-20).
Of
necessity
a
federal
political
structure
is
open-ended,
its
main
function
being
to
offer
a
guide
to
ongoing
permissible
political
activity
in
a
system
where
political
power
is
dispersed
(Davis
1979).
Thus
most
federal
systems
have
shown
a
considerable
degree
of
adaptability
over
time,
their
divided
power
centers
appearing
to
be
most
effective
in
responding
to
the
variety
of
contemporary
social,
political
and
institutional
demands
that
charac-
terize
contemporary
polities.
I
The
citizens
of
democratic
societies
seek
suitable
avenues
for
the
expression
of
their
interests,
but
for
their
governments,
the
problem
is
one
of
reconciling
the
collective
national
interest
with
their
sectional
interests.
While
the
homogeneity
of
the
Australian
political
culture
simplifies
the
government’s
task
of
identifying
the
collective
interest,
the
problem
of
expressing
citizen
sectional
interests
remains,
and
the
politi-
cal
diversity
defined
by
our
historical
state
boundaries
is
an
important
channel
for
its
expression.
U nilingualism
does
not
pre-empt
the
convic-
tion
that
political
authority
should
be
dispersed
rather
than
con-
centrated-an
ideological
preference
that
constitutes
Australia’s
quali-
fication
for
membership
of
the
world
federal
league.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT