Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

40 Michael BurgessAustrian federation is highly centralized. As with all federations, there areever-present efforts by the constituent units (the nine Länder) to put pressureon the federal government for decentralist reforms, but it remains the casethat Austria is, like Germany, a unitary-federal state.The historical legacy of centralization in many former British colonies thatlater became federations is also striking. Unlike Russia, India, Malaysia andNigeria each owed their federal heritage to the devolution of British imperialpower, but today their existence as highly centralized federations has in somecases developed to the point where their federal credentials have beenbrought into question. After the British left India in 1947, the imperialadministrative legacy ensured that the federal idea began its life in a multilingual,multicultural and multinational federation with the notion of astrong central authority. The reasons for this are many and complex but theyinclude the following: the British desire to bring together within a singleconstitutional system the parts of India under indirect rule – the princelystates – and those under direct rule – the British provinces with representativeinstitutions; the British concern with Muslim anxieties that overshadowedand subordinated issues of states’ rights; the experience ofpartition in 1947 demonstrated the inherent dangers of separatism to thoseconstructing the constitution and predisposed them to favour centralization;the national goals of economic development and modernization seemed torequire a strong central authority capable of directing the economy; and theexistence of a highly centralized hegemonic mass-based political party in theabsence of a strong state and regional parties supported a centralized federalformula. 44 It is no accident that the Union government has very substantialpowers, including the unitary powers of intervention and pre-emption inemergencies together with the power – as in Russia – to appoint the formalheads of the constituent states, the governors. These factors combined toproduce a federation that possessed such a strong centre that one distinguishedscholar of comparative federalism, Kenneth Wheare, felt compelledto describe it as ‘quasi-federal’. 45 Indeed, the term ‘federal’ was notused at all in the constitution.In terms of centralization, Malaysia is even closer to the Russian federalmodel than India. Here the historical legacies of centralization are palpablyclear: Malaysia has to be understood largely in terms of its overriding concernfor order, stability and national unity in a society that can be describedas multiethnic, multiracial, multilingual, multicultural and multinational. 46In short, the high degree of social heterogeneity has placed a premium onnational unity but this primary concern for the internal security of the federationhas led to repeated accusations of an ‘overweening executive arm ofgovernment’ so much so that ‘the fine line between constitutional governmentand outright authoritarian rule has become even finer’. 47 The basis forcriticisms like this derive from the many constitutional and legal proceduresand practices that have clearly tilted the balance of power in the federationin favour of the federal government in Kuala Lumpur: Article 75 of the