Cyprus-Forum.com

[Andros]

Book Meaning of Federalism

A federal structure has two systems of governments - the centre and the regions - both exist on the basis of equality, both act directly on the people within their own spheres of authority and neither has powers to encroach on the authority of the other. The sovereignty in a federal system is divided between the centre and the federated regions. Authors for federalism identify the following main features:


1. A written constitution that spells out the division of powers of the two systems of government – the centre and the regions.

2. A bicameral parliament in which one chamber represents the people at large and the other the constituent regions of the federation. The chamber that represents the constituent regions of the federation has equal number of members per region regardless of the size of the region.

3. The amendment to the federal constitution requires the consent of the regions, thus removing the monopoly of the central government in the amendment process.

4. Federated regions are given authority to write their own constitutions within their allotted powers and to alter their constitutions unilaterally.

5. Federated regions have permanent and guaranteed autonomy.

6. Regional governments’ share of powers is relatively large in federations in comparison with that of regional governments in unitary states.


Please tell me if the above is exactly what you are all venting for Cyprus. Is this the "BOOK" solution that we are seeking, as this is exactly how the EU, UK, UK and the U.S see it.

[Andros]

Swiss and Belgian Models (in details):

5.1 Belgium

Belgium has three communities namely – the Flemish speaking community (Dutch), the French speaking community and the German speaking community, and three regions – Flanders, Walloon and Brussels. Germans live in east part of Wallon and Brussels is a bilingual region. The linguistic proportion of the Flemish, the French and the German communities are about 60%, 40% and less than 1% respectively. The official languages are Dutch, French, and German. Belgium has a parliamentary executive system.

Belgium has seen four constitutional reforms of 1970, 1980, 1988-89 and 1993 and these progressive and peaceful reforms have transformed the country from a unitarian state into a federal state. The 1970 reforms constitutionally recognised three cultural communities based on language – a Flemish, a French and a German. The 1993 constitutional revision has furthered devolution into a federation and has left the Belgian federal government responsible for little more than finance, foreign policy, justice and defence. Belgium has three levels of government – federal, regional and linguistic community. Belgium is a good example of territorial and non-territorial federalism. The regional councils serve as territorial federation, and the community councils serve as non-territorial federalism since some members are elected to the Flemish and French community councils from Brussels region.

Although the federal executive power belongs to the king, he exercises the power through the Prime Minister and his council of ministers. The Belgian constitution requires formally that the executive include ministers of the Dutch speaking and the French speaking communities. This formal rule came into existence in 1970. Art.99 of the federal constitution specifies that the Council of Ministers includes fifteen members at most. With the possible exception of the Prime Minister, the Council of Ministers includes as many French-speaking members as Dutch-speaking members. This means that the cabinet contains an equal number of French and Flemish speaking ministers, requiring the government to have a coalition. The Prime Minister can be from any community. Practically, the political parties are divided along linguistic lines.

The federal parliament consists of two chambers, the chamber of representatives and the senate. The members of the federal parliament are elected for a period of four years. The election is on the basis of proportional representation. The chamber of representatives has 150 deputies elected by the population at large. The senate has 71 members representing the communities and regions and are divided into three categories:


40 directly-elected senators (25 from the Dutch-speaking electoral college and 15 from the French-speaking electoral college);


21 community senators (10 from the Flemish Community, 10 from the French Community and 1 from the German-speaking Community), appointed by the legislative assemblies of the three Communities;


10 co-opted senators, six of whom appointed by the Dutch-speaking linguistic group and four by the French-speaking linguistic group.

The two chambers no longer have the same powers, but in some fields the two houses have equal powers. These fields are: the revision of the Constitution, the fundamental laws concerning the Belgian state structure, the approval of international treaties, laws relating to the Council of State, proposals of candidates for the Court of Arbitration, the Court of Cassation and the Council of State.

The positions of the Flemish and Dutch communities in both houses are approximately according to the population proportion. Accordingly, the Flemish community gets about 60% representation in both houses. In accordance with the constitutional formula, the Dutch gets 41 senators, the French gets 29 and the German gets 1 in the senate. A true federation would have distributed equal number of members in the senate between the Dutch and French communities. The minority veto is still possible in the senate because of the constitutional requirement of the qualified two-third majority for amending the constitution and the Dutch do not have 48 members in the senate.

The Regions and Communities each have their own parliament. The three regions and the three linguistic groups are represented by the following directly elected councils:


A combined council for the Flanders Regional Council and the Flemish Community Council. This combined council has members from the Flanders regions and some members from the Dutch-language group of the Brussels-Capital Council.


The Council of the Brussels-Capital Region consists of members from the Dutch-language group and the French-language group since the region is bilingual.


The Council of the Walloon Region consists of members from the Waloon region.


The Council of the French Community consists of members from the Walloon Region Council plus some members from the French-language group of the Brussels-Capital Council.


The German Community Council has members from the German-speaking Community.

The constitution can be amended by two-third majority in both houses of the parliament. Article 4 provides that the limits of the four linguistic regions can only be changed or modified by a law adopted by majority vote in each linguistic group in each Chamber, on the condition that the majority of the members of each group are gathered together and from the moment that the total of affirmative votes given by the two linguistic groups is equal to at least two-thirds of the votes expressed. In other words, this must be passed with a two-thirds majority including the concurrent majority of each linguistic group.Belgium particularly in their reform process looked for the idea of government by grand coalition to protect the minority Walloon region. This grand coalition has been in existence in Belgium since 1970 and the executive has been equally divided except for the Prime Minister. Their reforms established executive power sharing and linguistic autonomy firstly under the unitary state but the reforms did not satisfy the aspirations of the communities. This finally drove them to go for a federation. This clearly exhibits that any power sharing deal between diverse groups in a unitary state is always under pressure to go for a federation.


5.2 Switzerland

Switzerland has three major communities namely – the Germans, the French and the Italians. The linguistic proportions of the above are 63.6%, 19.2% and 7.6% respectively. The official languages are German, French, Italian and Romanash. Swiss has twenty-six cantons – twenty full cantons and six half cantons.

The Swiss federal constitution was adopted in 1848 and it was revised substantially in 1874. The 1874 constitution has been replaced by a new constitution, which has been formally adopted by referendum on 18 April 1999. The new constitution has not changed the structure of the Swiss federation, but it solidifies the framework of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Switzerland has a hybrid form of government. Switzerland had not followed the USA model with regard to the election of the President because they felt that the US President had enormous powers. In Switzerland, executive power is vested in a federal council consisting of seven members. The seven members are elected to four years term by the federal assembly. The Federal Assembly elects one of the seven members as President and another as Vice-President for a term of one year. The constitution prohibits their re-election for the following year. The President is not eligible to serve as Vice-President for the following year. The federal council operates as a collective body in making decisions.

All the governments in Switzerland since 1848 have been coalition governments. The ruling federal council is selected from the main political parties – Social Democrats, Radical Free Democrats, Christian Democrats and Swiss Peoples Party. The coalition government is based on the ‘magic formula’ of 2:2:2:1 established in 1959. This political arrangement is strictly followed even though it is not a formal requirement. The major communities the Germans, the French and the Italians are represented in the federal council.

Switzerland’s bicameralism is a true and full one because both houses enjoy equal status in passing legislation. The National Council is composed of 200 members elected directly by the people according to the system of proportional representation. Each canton is an electoral district. The Council of states consists of 46 delegates and members of this council are elected by their respective cantons, two from each full canton and one from each half canton. The elections of the council of states are determined by the cantons. In some cantons members are elected by the people and in others members are elected by the cantons' legislatures.

Direct democracy is encouraged through referendum. Amendments to the constitution are to be approved in a referendum by a majority of all the electors voting and by a majority of the electors voting in a majority of the cantons. This special majority is required for the decision to join collective security organization or international bodies. It is also possible for 100,000 Swiss Citizens to initiate a revision of the constitution. Sovereign citizens can challenge the validity of the federal law. Either 50,000 citizens entitled to vote or of eight cantons demand a referendum on a law passed by the federal parliament so that the referendum can either confirm its constitutional validity or annul it. A simple majority is enough for this purpose and the majority of cantons is not required.

The federal court is the highest federal authority. The federal court deals with disputes between the federation and the cantons and between the cantons. In addition it deals with disputes of international law, intercantonal law and cantonal constitutional rights. However, the acts of the federal assembly and the federal council cannot be contested before the federal court. According to article 191(b) the cantons establish judicial authorities for the adjudication of civil law and public law disputes as well as criminal cases.The organization of the judiciary, civil and criminal justice, and execution of criminal penalties and measures are matters for the cantons in accordance with articles 122(2) and 123(2). The cantons have their own cantonal courts and they exercise jurisdiction to apply both the laws of the federal government and the laws of the cantons.

They have 26 cantons because their aspirations of self-government have been historically attached to cantons and the cantons are not willing to merge with any other cantons of the same linguistic group. For example, Jura (French speaking), which was a part of canton Bern (German), became a new canton in 1979 and did not have a desire to join with the rest of the French speaking cantons. Swiss is one of the models of exceptional federation.

5.3 Summary

Swiss always has a federal tradition while Belgium has not. Swiss people organised themselves as a federal people after centuries of existing as a confederation. Although both countries operate a consensus model, Belgium has formally adopted the consensus model. Both federations have satisfied the four principles - two primary principles (grand coalition and segmental autonomy) and two secondary principles (proportionality and minority veto) formulated by Arend Lijphart. Minority veto in Belgium is exercised through the senate. As mentioned earlier, all changes in the Swiss constitution must be approved in a referendum by a majority of all votes cast and by a majority of cantons. This gives special protection to the smaller cantons and they can block any amendment if they are united. This is generally some sort of veto.

The amendment process with regard to Belgium and Switzerland is entirely different. Usually in a federal system an amendment to the constitution is authorised by (i) resolution of both Houses of the federal parliament and (ii) ratification by a majority of component regions. For example, the amendment of the Constitution of the USA is to be approved by a majority of two-thirds of the members of both Houses of the Congress. The amendment is then to be ratified by three-fourths of the legislatures of the States (Article 5). The amendment to the Constitution of Canada is now governed by Section 38 of the Constitution Act 1982. Amendment is authorised by resolution of both Houses and ratification by resolution of the Legislative Assemblies of at least two-third of the Provinces having at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces according to the latest general census. Article 368 of the Indian Constitution prescribes approval by a majority of the total membership of both Houses of Parliament and no less than two thirds of the members present and voting. If, however, the amendment is concerned with the federal distribution of powers, it must be also ratified by no less than one half of the States.

[DT.]

Book Meaning of Federalism

A federal structure has two systems of governments - the centre and the regions - both exist on the basis of equality, both act directly on the people within their own spheres of authority and neither has powers to encroach on the authority of the other. The sovereignty in a federal system is divided between the centre and the federated regions. Authors for federalism identify the following main features:


1. A written constitution that spells out the division of powers of the two systems of government – the centre and the regions.

2. A bicameral parliament in which one chamber represents the people at large and the other the constituent regions of the federation. The chamber that represents the constituent regions of the federation has equal number of members per region regardless of the size of the region.

3. The amendment to the federal constitution requires the consent of the regions, thus removing the monopoly of the central government in the amendment process.

4. Federated regions are given authority to write their own constitutions within their allotted powers and to alter their constitutions unilaterally.

5. Federated regions have permanent and guaranteed autonomy.

6. Regional governments’ share of powers is relatively large in federations in comparison with that of regional governments in unitary states.


Please tell me if the above is exactly what you are all venting for Cyprus. Is this the "BOOK" solution that we are seeking, as this is exactly how the EU, UK, UK and the U.S see it.

ever heard of asymmetric federalism?

[Piratis]

Andros, or should I call you Mehmet, can you please tell me why your source is the Tamil separatists of Sri Lanka? http://www.tamilcanadian.com/page.php?cat=40&id=1457 I hope you do not expect your separatist propaganda to be taken as facts.

What is definite is that:

1) No federation was formed by ethnically cleansing the majority of the population from an area. The TCs being a minority in all parts of Cyprus do not have the right for a separate state on land that belongs by 80% to Greek Cypriots. Therefore when we made the compromise for a federation we never implied that we would accept whatever kind of federation the Turks wanted, but a federation with a strong central goverment, like Russia for example.

2) In all federations citizens are free to move and settle anywhere they want with full political rights. The Turks do not even accept this, since they want to forcefully and artificially create some Turkish region on land that has belonged to Greek Cypriots for 1000s of years.

[Andros]

Piratis - or shall we call you the Cyprus-Forum administrator!!!
regardless - please read the following.....as it was confirmed by MARIOS MATSAKIS (Don't worry about his view at the moment, please just read the text below):

You said;

No federation was formed by ethnically cleansing the majority of the population from an area

EXACTLY my Greek Cypriot Brother - then why are we chancing such a federal solution?

Do you not realise that the leaders and international community have already agreed on an Annan Plan 6 version! A plan that envisages a "LOOSE" Central government with two autonomous Constituent States - self-governing, with the ability to change their internal laws. Then, I say as simply as possible, why are we all calling for such an agreement of a "Pure" federal-STRONG central government THAT is NOT what is being, or can be, proposed.

What you are saying is EXACTLY what I have been saying all along, and is exactly what Christofias has admitted can not happen in any future FEDERAL solution for Cyprus - WHY?

Because of the High Level 1977 agreements signed by both leaders for a solution based on a BICOMMUNAL, BI-ZONAL Structure only. Why do you think the Turkish Cypriots were able to form the TURKISH CYPRIOT FEDERATED STATE immediately after the 1977 agreements - and retain many of the international based companies in the north (such as Barclays bank and etc) until they stupidly chose to delare independence as the TRNC? Do you not realise that if the Turkish Cypriots had remain as the Federated Turkish Cypriot State until this day, the Annan Plan idea woul dhave Automatically been accepted by default! Their declaration as the TRNC was our key to EU membership! And, now that the Turks have realised their mistakes, a Confederal plan similar to the former Annan Plan with all of its constituent two state areas and loose federal entities is exactly what they are wishing for. Are we going to allow them to go full-circle of their master plan?

It's this Annan Plan style con-federal, BIZONAL plan the Turks were so desperately waiting for from the 1974 invasion to their so-called independence as the TRNC in 1983. And now, President Christofias has confirmed their dream of a Federal structure with two constituent/federated states!!!

Are you seriously happy about this?

We all want a Pure federal structure with a STRONG central government, but please Piratis, let's be honest here, if Clerides and PAPDOPOULOS can be FORCED into accepting the Annan Plan, in my opinion, President (Mr Softy) Christofias will get nowhere besides selling out more to the Turks.

Agreed Partition may seem unfair in some way at the moment, but one day when we are living on a a con-federal island with a LOOSE/Weak central government with no power, and a northern Turkish Cypriot constituent state completely controlled by Turkey (thus influencing the overall politics of the ENTIRE island) we will cry as to how we lost the Republic of Cyprus of here and now.

Mark my words - don't be fooled. It's all a Turkish plan - Equality, Federated, dissolution of the ROC, loose central government and two constituents states - I can't believe we're so kind-hearted and blind!!!!

[DT.]

I must admire your insistence. Despite the fact that nearly everyone knows you are not a GC you are still determined to carry out this "cunning" plan.

P.S leave out the brother part. Not really a GC thing.

Και πες στον φιλο σου που σου μεταφραζει οταν σου γραφουμε στα ελληνικα, οτι ειναι ενας μαλακας.

[Andros]

D.T,

When a future Annan 6 agrement is signed and a number of years pass - I assure you, you will say "That Andros guy was so bloody right, we fell straight into a Turkish plan with this BIZONAL Federal lark based on a Loose Federal government that means nothing". Please read the Article below from the Cyprus Mail - perhaps the quote from Christofias will convince you",

There is no plan B
By Jean Christou

One state with one sovereignty is the only way forward says Christofias

IT WAS high time Greek Cypriots understood that the solution to the Cyprus problem would be a bicommunal, bizonal federation, President Christofias said yesterday.

“It was decided in 1977 and 1979 that we would have a painful solution and that will be a bicommunal, bizonal federation, which will change our lives,” Christofias told a ‘state of the union’ news conference.

“It’s high time people started to understand that in Cyprus we are going to have a federation. I hope we are going to understand this eventually.”

Christofias said some quarters on the Greek Cypriot side did not wish to have a federal solution. This was evident, he said.

Greek Cypriots needed to understand that they are partners with Turkish Cypriots since 1960. "Unfortunately foreign intervention and chauvinist elements on both sides didn't let that work,’ he said.

Christofias said he has the support of the political parties for new negotiations with Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat, despite reservations from some individual quarters in the Greek Cypriot political arena.

“I don’t have a Plan B. I want you to know this,” said Christofias. “And I want to believe Mr Talat doesn’t have a Plan B either. We will continue the effort to start direct talks. There is no alternative solution,” he added.

The two leaders are due to meet again on July 25 when they will decide whether to go ahead and start negotiations.

“There is no deadline for starting talks. We tried time limits and deadlines in 2004 and both communities have bitter experiences of that,” said the President.

He said the clarification of the negotiating basis for new talks, as set down in the leaders’ agreements of March 21, May 23 and July 1 was an important way forward.

“This means two constituent states with equal status and regimes. There have been some efforts to misinterpret this,” he said.

“The basis for talks is clear, unless you want to play with words. It’s clear we are going to have one state with one sovereignty.”

Christofias also credited Talat for the positive developments but said he was not willing to bend over backwards either for the Turkish Cypriot leader who has been facing heavy criticism over the sovereignty issue.

“I can’t facilitate Mr Talat by going against my principles and I told him too. Each one has his own struggle,” said Christofias.

“We hear complaints about Christofias criticising Turkey. I want to make it clear the critics will just have to get used to that. We have an occupation. Turkey is the key for a solution. We do have a say because our fate is interwoven with that happens there,” he added referring to the current crisis there.

The President said the obstacles ahead were many, complicated and complex but said his government had fulfilled its pledge to end the stagnation of the last five years.

Mobility, dialogue, prospects for the commencement of talks, dialogue with Talat, international interest and the reversal of the negative climate against Greek Cypriots were evidence of his commitment to his election promises, the President said.

“The results so far justify our policy,” he added. “If I don’t take steps forward we will remain stagnant.”




Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2008

If you are ALL happy with the above soltuion scenario then I will hang-my gloves and go along with President Christofias on this, and remove my self from posting on this issue ever again. But, please take note of my initial objections to such a plan, just in case I am right and you do suddenly realise at some point in the future.

I'll be happy reading your posts -

Good Bye from Andros. I really thought the people on this forum would spend more time in meaningful discussions and realistic ideas instead of accusing and condemning in a condescending way.

I wish this forum luck -

Let's say hello to a New Cyprus with Equal representation of 50% Turk and 50% Greek - (even though the population is 18% Turk and at least 78% Greek Cypriot).

Perhaps Turkey is more clever than I ever thought!! Especially against our blind Greek Cypriot people at home and abroad.

Nice knowing you all.

ACCUSSING ME OF BEING A TURK IS INSULTING, IT'S ALMOST LIKE CALLING THOSE WHO SERVED and died on the Kyrenia beaches IN THE CYPRUS NATIONAL FORCES IN 1974 AGAINST THE EOKA A BUNCH OF TURK LOVERS. You seriously need to re-read your history before accussing a Greek Cypriot Patriot that he is a Turk - If I were a Turk - you'd know about it!!!!

[CBBB]

Why no comment on D.T.s Greek phrase?

[DT.]

Why no comment on D.T.s Greek phrase?

His Greek mate is still in bed

[Piratis]

Piratis - or shall we call you the Cyprus-Forum administrator!!!
regardless - please read the following.....as it was confirmed by MARIOS MATSAKIS (Don't worry about his view at the moment, please just read the text below):

You said;

No federation was formed by ethnically cleansing the majority of the population from an area

EXACTLY my Greek Cypriot Brother - then why are we chancing such a federal solution?

Do you not realise that the leaders and international community have already agreed on an Annan Plan 6 version! A plan that envisages a "LOOSE" Central government with two autonomous Constituent States - self-governing, with the ability to change their internal laws. Then, I say as simply as possible, why are we all calling for such an agreement of a "Pure" federal-STRONG central government THAT is NOT what is being, or can be, proposed.

What you are saying is EXACTLY what I have been saying all along, and is exactly what Christofias has admitted can not happen in any future FEDERAL solution for Cyprus - WHY?

Because of the High Level 1977 agreements signed by both leaders for a solution based on a BICOMMUNAL, BI-ZONAL Structure only. Why do you think the Turkish Cypriots were able to form the TURKISH CYPRIOT FEDERATED STATE immediately after the 1977 agreements - and retain many of the international based companies in the north (such as Barclays bank and etc) until they stupidly chose to delare independence as the TRNC? Do you not realise that if the Turkish Cypriots had remain as the Federated Turkish Cypriot State until this day, the Annan Plan idea woul dhave Automatically been accepted by default! Their declaration as the TRNC was our key to EU membership! And, now that the Turks have realised their mistakes, a Confederal plan similar to the former Annan Plan with all of its constituent two state areas and loose federal entities is exactly what they are wishing for. Are we going to allow them to go full-circle of their master plan?

It's this Annan Plan style con-federal, BIZONAL plan the Turks were so desperately waiting for from the 1974 invasion to their so-called independence as the TRNC in 1983. And now, President Christofias has confirmed their dream of a Federal structure with two constituent/federated states!!!

Are you seriously happy about this?

We all want a Pure federal structure with a STRONG central government, but please Piratis, let's be honest here, if Clerides and PAPDOPOULOS can be FORCED into accepting the Annan Plan, in my opinion, President (Mr Softy) Christofias will get nowhere besides selling out more to the Turks.

Agreed Partition may seem unfair in some way at the moment, but one day when we are living on a a con-federal island with a LOOSE/Weak central government with no power, and a northern Turkish Cypriot constituent state completely controlled by Turkey (thus influencing the overall politics of the ENTIRE island) we will cry as to how we lost the Republic of Cyprus of here and now.

Mark my words - don't be fooled. It's all a Turkish plan - Equality, Federated, dissolution of the ROC, loose central government and two constituents states - I can't believe we're so kind-hearted and blind!!!!

Andors, you can "upgrade" my position in the forum if you like but that doesn't answer my question: Why did you use as your source for the meaning of Federalism what was written by the separatists of Sri Lanka?

Also you are very wrong in what you say about the "Turkish Cypriot federated state". It was just as illegal and unrecognized as the "trnc" is.

The compromises we agreed we would make are indeed a lot (too much in my opinion) but are nowhere as much as you present them. For example we never agreed that "politcal equality" means 50%-50% power share. Thats just what the Turks say.

Furthermore we might agreed what compromises we would be willing to make if the Turkish side also made compromises of equivalent magnitude and if we decided that the solution in general was acceptable to us. Until then the the Republic of Cyprus as agreed in 1959 is the only legal thing that exists. No BBF, no two states, nothing else.

Personally I would accept a BBF solution as long as the GC state is at least 82% of the land and coast line of Cyprus, and as long as the TCs make compromises of equivalent magnitude from their 1959 rights (the way we are willing to make compromises from our rights). If these conditions are not met, I and I believe the majority of GCs will not accept anything else and therefore Republic of Cyprus will continue to exist as it exists today, and the Turks will continue to illegally keep 1/3rd of RoC and face the consequences that such illegality entails.