Introduction
Federalism is considered a mixed or compound mode of government. This mode of government wok by combining regional and general governments in a single and unique system of politics while dividing the power between these two governments. Daniel Elazar is believed to be one of the leading political specialists and scientists, particularly in federalism study. Elazar was a political science professor at Temple University. During this time, Elazar founded and directed the center of study in consideration of Federalism. The institution is the leading research institution for Federalism. This paper will present an analysis and review of the book “Exploring Federalism” by Daniel Elazar. Elazar played a major role in the comparative study of Federalism. The book presents an idea that can be used in defining political justice. This idea acts as an important strategy that can shape political-related behaviors and direct people towards the adoption of specific and appropriate civic synthesis. In the book, Elazar focused on different models of Federalism. These models are made in different or unique ways as they can be related to specific political theories.
Elazar & Competing Models of Federalism
Elazar’s models of Federalism use covenants, particularly from the bible, with the primary aim of illustrating Federalism. As a result, the book compares the relationships between God and the Israelites and, in some cases, relationships between the twelve tribes of Israel. These relationships play a critical role in demonstrating examples of covenantal Federalism. For example, the relationship shows a shared rule between God and the Israelites. In this case, the two parties were viewed as equal, while the covenant can be considered as their referee. At that time, self-rule existed among these tribes (Roberts, 2001). Besides, they also had unique intertribal rules. Ezalar, in this case, tries to show how the relationship between God and the Israelites can be compared to the relationships between federal and state governments. The relationships between these tribes, on the other hand, can be related to the relationships between state governments. According to Ezalar, there is a strong reformation and, most importantly, biblical influences in most American foundations. Ezalar, in this case, tries to argue that covenantal Federalism can be used for its inclusion of different government types and its ability to be adapted in the American system of governance in federal and state governments (Elazar, 1987).
Dual Federalism is another model that can be compared to Elazar’s model. It is mainly a system of governments where the state and national governments are independent. However, the governments have equal powers. Logically, there is a concurrent power focused on balancing these two governments. As a result, each branch is responsible for creating and enforcing policies specific to the areas they govern. This model has similarities to Elazar’s model because both the state and federal governments tend to co-exist. Besides, both models present them as equally powerful entities. However, these two branches tend to be independent in dual federalization. As a result, they tend to have a distinct function. In Elazar’s model, the two branches depend on each other. This case means that they all perform similar roles. Therefore, self-rule and shared rule are major characteristics, unlike in dual federalism models where each government has control over its specific area of governance.
Cooperative Federalism is also another important model of Federalism. Logically, the model involves competition between the state and federal governments. In this case, there is a transparent ranking in consideration to states and, in some cases, districts in different sectors, which is based mainly on quantitative objectives criteria with a primary focus of encouraging them to ensure effectiveness in improving their general performance. As a result, this model tends to contrast to the conventional model by Elazar because states will not be equally powerful, but the power that the state will have will be directly proportional to how it has been ranked. Besides, there is also competition between the state and local governments (Elazar, 1987). As a result, the competition results in creating overlapping in consideration of their roles. As a result, it results in an unclear distinction of specific responsibilities of one branch from another. One major similarity between these models is that state and federal governments tend to be self-ruled despite the existing competition. Besides, there is also a shred rule between these branches of government in each state. The main reason is that competition plays a major role in creating an overlap of different responsibilities of branches.
Elazar & the Biblical Worldview
Currently, Elazar’s model of Federalism is considered to be the best model reviewed. The main reason is that it can be adapted easily in consideration of the structure of existing governments. Besides, it can be adapted both by state and central governments without having any negative impacts on the roles of these governments and, most importantly, their existing relationships.
The model is also best preferred because it plays an important role in ensuring the specific responsibilities of different government branches. Technically, these branches are expected to ensure effectiveness and positive outcomes in defining the role, which is important in ensuring the prosperity of the whole nation (Elazar, 1987). Accountability and transparency can only be achieved by ensuring duties in each branch have been defined clearly. Typically, the bible also focuses on encouraging accountability and transparency in governance. For a nation like Israel to become successful, it needed a government focused on accountability and good governance because all people would give their accounts to God.
The equal power of these branches makes the model a good fit as each branch act in similar ways. It plays a critical role in ensuring that all laws and policies passed will significantly benefit all the involved parties. Besides, the model ensures the interests of all people are considered, thus promoting a proper representation in different levels and diversity of opinions. In the bible, parties involved in any covenant were considered equal in different ways, ensuring more benefits from the contract (Roberts, 2001).
Using this model also helps in improving cohesion. Allowing the two branches to work together ensures specific laws are made in one state, which can diffuse easily into both state and central government. This case means the country will develop standard laws to promote and ensure equal distribution of resources (Elazar, 1987). The bibles also play an important role in advocating for equal treatment of all people as all people are created in one image and likeness.
Conclusion
Elazar’s model of Federalism is not only one important during the bible era and the 1980s but also most in modern societies. The model plays an important role in ensuring the fair representation of all people within any country. Besides, it also focuses on creating a symbiotic relationship between different branches related to general governance. As a result, the model can be seen as an exemplary example of the strides countries can achieve, particularly when Federalism has been defined effectively based on the religious standpoint.
References
Elazar, D. J. (1987). Exploring Federalism. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. 12 Different Types of Federalism (with Examples and Pros & Cons). (2020, September 6). Retrieved from Elawtalk: https://elawtalk.com/types-federalism/
Roberts, T. M. (2001). Roberts on Elazar and Kincaid, ‘The Covenant Connection: From Federal Theology to Modern Federalism’. H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online, 1. Romans14:12. (n.d.). New King James Version (NKJV). Oxford University Press.
Leave a Reply