Classic Federations

In federalism scholarship there is no unanimous consensus on the definition and features of a federal state, as each federation is unique and reflects the specific socio-economic, cultural and ethnic features of the territory.

First, the constitution of a pure federation^[21] entrenches a division of legis­lative powers between central and peripheral units, although the way these powers are divided may vary significantly among federations. In fact, in order to have a federation,

[t]here must be some matter, even if only one matter, which comes under the exclusive control, actual or potential, of the general government and something likewise under the regional governments. If there were not, that would be the end of federalism.

WHEARE 1963, p. 75

Another feature characterizing classic federations is the presence of an Upper Chamber or Senate representing the interests of the periphery at the centre, providing a forum at national level to advance their claims and participate in national legislation. Third, fullyfledged federal systems are characterized by a Constitutional or Supreme Court, settling conflicts of attribution between central and peripheral governments with, ideally, some of thejustices being appointed by the peripheral entities. Fourth, in pure federations, each level of government enjoys financial and fiscal autonomy, so that they can exercise their powers independently from each other.

Fifth, classic federations are characterized by the involvement of territo­rial entities in the revision process of the constitution. In fact, the constitu­tion would not be amendable unilaterally (for example, by the federal gov­ernment only), but would require the participation of peripheral units, thus corroborating the idea that both levels of government are equally import­ant and sovereign in their own sphere of powers.

Until some decades ago, the US model entrenched in the 1787 constitution was considered the archetypal federal system; schemes that did not fit into this mould were considered non-federal. This thin understanding of federal­ism, however, is no longer viable, as federal models have evolved into sophisti­cated schemes. While this has allowed a more flexible approach to federalism, it has also made classification more complex. The consequence is that, if the federal features just outlined may help distinguish a federal from a unitary model, they are less helpful in clarifying the differences between a federal and regional system, as the next subsection illustrates.

2.2