Which is the better form of government: a unitary system or a federal system?

[greenforest32]

Which is superior and why?

[minionofmidas]

Depends for what.

Also, depends what's meant by "federal" - an actually federal system, ie one that retains some obvious traits of being a federation rather than a country, is a bad idea for any sort of country.
Believe me. I live in perhaps the most clearcut example.

[The Mikado]

Depends for what.

Also, depends what's meant by "federal" - an actually federal system, ie one that retains some obvious traits of being a federation rather than a country, is a bad idea for any sort of country.
Believe me. I live in perhaps the most clearcut example.

The Holy Roman Empire?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Depends from case to case. Some countries are best fit for unitary systems, some for federal. I don't believe in one size fits all. 

[Franzl]

Federal is usually better, IMO. I certainly believe the US and Germany are better as federal states than they would be otherwise.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Depends from case to case. Some countries are best fit for unitary systems, some for federal. I don't believe in one size fits all. 

I couldn't see a some large counties, such as U.S. or India, or medium ones, like Germany, functioning under unitary.

I couldn't see such country like Poland functioning under federal either.

[Hash]

Federal is of course the only solution for large countries or states composed of many nations, ethnicities, linguistic groups or races. Unitary systems are largely inefficient and outdated. Devolution of any kind is always preferable.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Federal is of course the only solution for large countries or states composed of many nations, ethnicities, linguistic groups or races. Unitary systems are largely inefficient and outdated. Devolution of any kind is always preferable.

Of course there are small countries with federal system. Switzerland for example. Yet, Swiss have a long tradition of federalism. I wouldn't see any purpose of converting a not-large country with unitary history (and pretty unified society), like Poland into federal one.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It depends from the country. Countries as big and diverse as the US naturally need a federal system to work (though even then I find the amount of US federalism excessive). European countries are fine with unitary government, though some amount of regional authonomy is needed.

[ZuWo]

Federal is of course the only solution for large countries or states composed of many nations, ethnicities, linguistic groups or races. Unitary systems are largely inefficient and outdated. Devolution of any kind is always preferable.

Of course there are small countries with federal system. Switzerland for example. Yet, Swiss have a long tradition of federalism.

Indeed. Napoleon (note that I'm referring to Bonaparte, not the Atlas Napoleon) tried to force a unitary system on Switzerland in 1798 but that unitarian system collapsed after a couple of years. It really depends on a country's history and the extent of regionalism.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I prefer a federal system since it brings the rulers a little closer to the ruled by delegating powers to more local authorities that are more in tune with the local issues. It would be better still to just have smaller countries (but still with federal systems ), though.

[angus]

Which is superior and why?

unitary, with a strong dictatorship, is best.

For large states, compare the economic growth rates of India and China, for example.  If China wants a dam that will displace five million people and extinguish many endemic species of wildlife, it builds a dam that displaces five million people and extinguishes the wildlife.  No protest, no delays. 

Obviously, if we insist on defending the quaint notions of human rights and the democratic process, then the answer isn't so clear.  But in the abstract, and taking the question at face value, I think that a unitary state with absolute and centralized power is the best growth engine.

[republicanism]

Federal is of course the only solution for large countries or states composed of many nations, ethnicities, linguistic groups or races. Unitary systems are largely inefficient and outdated. Devolution of any kind is always preferable.

Strongly agree. I wouldn't limit this position on nations/states that are large or culturally very diverse though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Devolution is good, I suppose, but I'm inclined to be vaguely suspicious if it's at the expense of strong local government. Devolution is also better than a genuinely federal system; I find the latter to be undemocratic at a fairly fundamental level. In fact I might (gulp) actually prefer a genuinely unitary State to a genuinely federal one.

[republicanism]

Devolution is also better than a genuinely federal system; I find the latter to be undemocratic at a fairly fundamental level.

Why that?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Devolution is also better than a genuinely federal system; I find the latter to be undemocratic at a fairly fundamental level.

Why that?

Because if regional/state/etc governments have an important role in national policymaking (which is the main - or most important - distinguishing feature of a genuinely federal system) then the importance of the main election (whatever it is, and there's always one) is devalued and the link between the decision of the electorate and the direction of national policy is weakened.

[republicanism]

Devolution is also better than a genuinely federal system; I find the latter to be undemocratic at a fairly fundamental level.

Why that?

Because if regional/state/etc governments have an important role in national policymaking (which is the main - or most important - distinguishing feature of a genuinely federal system) then the importance of the main election (whatever it is, and there's always one) is devalued and the link between the decision of the electorate and the direction of national policy is weakened.

That's certainly true for the German system (of which I'm not quite a fan), but not, for example, for the American or the Swiss system, where state governments basically don't interfere in national politics, but on the other hand can do a lot in their own right (and vice versa the national government doesn't interfere there).

And these two nations definitely are "genuinely federal systems" if such ever existed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's certainly true for the German system (of which I'm not quite a fan), but not, for example, for the American or the Swiss system, where state governments basically don't interfere in national politics, but on the other hand can do a lot in their own right (and vice versa the national government doesn't interfere there).

And these two nations definitely are "genuinely federal systems" if such ever existed.

I don't know much about how the Swiss system of government works (tried once, gave up), but, actually, I don't think that the U.S is genuinely federal in practice, even if it certainly is in theory (and in terms of self-perception, political language and so on). It could be argued that the one big theme in American politics (since there ever was such a thing) has been the slow transition away from that sort of government, even if that was rarely intentional. Of course that hasn't been as associated with as much democratisation as might be hoped.

[lowtech redneck]

I don't know much about how the Swiss system of government works (tried once, gave up), but, actually, I don't think that the U.S is genuinely federal in practice, even if it certainly is in theory (and in terms of self-perception, political language and so on).

Sadly, I have to agree; an overly expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause has effectively nullified the Tenth Amendment, making American federalism more resemble the faux-federalist practice of subsidiarity in the EU.

[minionofmidas]

Also, depends what's meant by "federal" - an actually federal system, ie one that retains some obvious traits of being a federation rather than a country, is a bad idea for any sort of country.

In case anybody didn't get it the first time... an actually federal system means that the member state executives have at least some de facto and de jure say on central decisions.
And yes, that is true in Germany.

Ie, Al and me are off on the same tangent. (Except he also used the very British term "Devolution" for places outside Britain. Something I'd never dream of doing. "Regionalization" or "Decentralisation" are better terms for that. And even they don't describe the US or Swiss cases accurately.)

[minionofmidas]

Though I should add that my main original complaint was not the ademocratic (predemocratic might be the better word) nature of that arrangement - reduplicated and worse in the EU, of course - but simply the eternal gridlock and bizarre compromises it causes.

[angus]

the one big theme in American politics (since there ever was such a thing) has been the slow transition away from that sort of government, even if that was rarely intentional. Of course that hasn't been as associated with as much democratisation as might be hoped.

excellent, if tangential, point.

By about 1840, more than two decades before the debate between strong central government and states rights was settled at the point of a bayonnet, the language in the popular literature had already changed from "these United States are..." to "the United States is..." 

Except in the minds of some Libertarians and extreme States Rights types, the supremacy of DC over the various state legislatures has long been accepted.

[Simfan34]

I find a unitary system that clearly devolves (thus being granted by the central authority) certain powers to the subdivisions to be ideal. Federalism in the United States is excessive. Many other federations are merely in name.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I find a unitary system that clearly devolves (thus being granted by the central authority) certain powers to the subdivisions to be ideal. Federalism in the United States is excessive. Many other federations are merely in name.

The main fault with the current Federal system in the U.S. is that the lines between the Federal and State governments are too often blurred.  Take for example, Medicaid.  Ideally it should be either a pure Federal program like Medicare is or a set of pure State programs with no Federal input.

[Simfan34]

Agreed. The lines need to be more clear cut.