About pseudo-federations
Article 65
Anyone who has studied the history of mankind knows that fashion is observed not only in the field of clothing, but in all spheres of life. People are imitative and imitative; It is much more difficult for them to invent something new than to adopt something ready-made from others. Here the law of economy of strength, and laziness, and mental infection, and strong-willed suggestion, and the fear of “falling behind the times” are manifested. And of course, another (rather stupid) reasoning: “what is good for someone else is good for me”; “He succeeded, and I will do even better.” In politics, this is accompanied by other factors: on the one hand, the influence of a strong and rich country; on the other hand, propaganda, partly ideological and open, partly behind-the-scenes and conspiratorial. The revolution carries its own infection and the reaction carries its own. Peoples adopt from each other - both government institutions and political crimes (like the murder of a monarch).
It was the same with the federal system.
That real, legally meaningful and politically successful federation, which was realized in the United States in 1787, gave rise to a number of groundless and fictitious imitations in other states of middle and south America, where politicians throughout the 19th century believed that the Constitution of the United States had given them supposedly an ideal model for all times and peoples, providing every country with state power and economic prosperity. In fact, this imitation of the new fashion led either to a long and bloody disintegration of political and national life, or to a unitary state with autonomous provinces.
Here is a brief overview of these pseudo-federal attempts.
As the states of Central and South America freed themselves from Spanish or Portuguese sovereignty, they tried to work out a new constitution for themselves, almost everywhere there were two parties: the Federalist Liberals, who wanted to imitate the United States, and the Conservative Unitarian Centralists, who understood that such imitation will only lead to greater unrest. Federalist attempts have been made in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Chile. The political prerequisites for such a system existed only in Argentina and Brazil.
In Argentina - the provinces, after their liberation, governed themselves for several years and were independent of each other; Therefore, they rejected the very first centralist constitution of 1826. They subsequently managed to nominate their own federalist-minded deputies and even dictators and wage civil wars with the Unitarians. As a result, each province received the opportunity to develop for itself a special provincial constitution and self-govern within the limits and to the extent provided to it. This did not in any way protect the Argentines from unrest, civil wars and coups. And they had to seek salvation in a unitary statehood. Now Argentina should be classified as a unitary state with a certain provincial autonomy.
A similar thing happened in vast Brazil, where the provinces, according to the constitution of 1824, had their own “States General,” renamed in 1834 into Provincial Legislative Assemblies with fairly broad powers. At the same time, Brazil, until 1889, was saved from greater decay by its monarchical form. By transforming from a monarchy into a republic in 1889, Brazil reaffirmed its supposedly “federal” nature. structure, and its huge provinces still enjoy autonomous self-government. There is no need to talk about a real federation here.
In all other American states, there was either no federal system at all, or it failed due to the lack of real state prerequisites.
All these states have been, since their liberation, an eternal field of civil wars, revolutions and coups. They constantly develop new constitutions, the fate of which is very curious: either they do not meet with sympathy and approval and immediately cause a “pronunciamento” (military coup) and civil war; or they remain unused, dead (as in Uruguay 1830-1890); or they have the shortest duration - two months or six months; or they are "implemented" but simply not actually enforced (as in Honduras); sometimes they are "born" two per year (Venezuela 1858, Peru 1860). Sometimes these states live without a constitution at all (Chile 1825-1828, Costa Rica 1871-1882). Each of them is always on the eve of an unexpected revolution; none of them are guaranteed against civil war tomorrow. It is clear how much the “federal tendency” favors all this: in the absence of loyalty and a strong sense of justice, each new group of dissatisfied figures easily finds in itself this or that province, and this or that territorial military unit (land or sea), which helps it take over hands "all the power." State-speaking, in these countries the entire political system is illusory (from the word illusion), ephemeral (that is, it has a “one-day” duration) and fictitious (that is, it is a fiction). By virtue of this alone, no federal form, which always requires special strength and loyalty to the national sense of justice, is impossible here.
Thus, Mexico declared itself a “federation” in 1823, declaring its 19 provinces and 4 territories “states” (fiction!). Civil wars began. The Unitarians won in 1835 and introduced a Unitarian Constitution. Negotiations followed, one after another. In 1847, the Federalists won. In 1853 they sought salvation in dictatorship. 1856 Centralists in power. 1857 - Federalists. 1857-1861 civil war. 1861 - dictatorship of the neutralists. 1863 - seek salvation in the monarchy; 1867 - the monarch is assassinated. Since 1867, centralist rule has been punctuated by civil wars. This is the Mexican pseudo-federation.
Bolivia declared itself a “confederation” in 1836, attempting to annex two Peruvian provinces; military failure thwarted this attempt. The usual story began; written constitutions were disrupted by military coups and civil wars. In 50 years, 12 constitutions have changed. Dictator Morales was killed. The federations did not take place.
Venezuela sought salvation in a special combination of federal and unitary principles; however, these constitutions did not satisfy anyone. Since 1830, military coups and unrest rocked the country to its core. Since 1857 it got even worse: they sought salvation in dictatorships and overthrew their dictators. In 1864, a groundless attempt was made to implement a federal system. Finally, in 1881, 20 provinces, previously declared fictitious states, were turned into simply autonomous provinces, but with the proud name “Grandes Estados”. The country's heyday dates back to the era of dictatorships of 1870-1892. This is the Venezuelan pseudo-federation.
Columbia was declared in 1811-1814. a revolutionary "confederation" that was suppressed and abolished by the Spanish. The constitution of 1821 gave way in 1824 to dictatorship. Internecine wars began. The Federal Constitution of 1853 was met with an uprising in 1854. In 1858, a new attempt to declare a federation caused a long civil war. The Federal Constitution of 1863 lasted, despite civil wars, for 23 years and during this time revealed its inconsistency to such an extent that in 1886 the country returned to a unitary structure in which territorial "departments" were governed by governors.
Costa Rica is a “federation” in name only. The history of this country is similar to the history of neighboring countries.
Chile has a different history. A federal constitution was proclaimed in 1828, after which a bitter civil war began. By 1830, the conservatives had won and created a unitary constitution with a strong central government, which ensured order in the country for a long time and gave the Chileans the opportunity to successfully fight a number of international wars. Only in 1881 did the liberals, who by this time had already lost their federal pathos, come to power for the first time and all further conflicts in the country were not catastrophic.
As for the small Dominican Republic (on the island of Haiti), the history of this “federation”, consisting of five tiny provinces, tells of an endless chain of unrest, unrest and uprisings.
Contemplating the fate of these pseudo-federations, you come to two main conclusions: 1. The federal system has its own necessary state and spiritual prerequisites; 2. Where these vital prerequisites do not exist, the introduction of a federation inevitably causes eternal unrest, absurd provincial enmity, civil wars, state weakness and cultural backwardness of the people.
What are the prerequisites for a healthy federation, and do we have them in Russia?