Framing the Debate
In the domain of politics which concerns itself with the relationship between federalism and foreign policy, there is an ongoing debate regarding the optimal distribution of power necessary for effective international behaviour (Nossal, 328). On one end of the spectrum, there are the centralists. Their argument is conveyed aptly by scholar Kenneth C. Wheare, who claimed foreign policy decision-making is the jurisdiction of the federal government – regardless of whether the central power chooses to exercise this ultimate authority or not (Federal Government, 169). On the other end of the spectrum are the advocates of multi-level governance. In Localizing Foreign Policy, Brian Hocking explains that changes in the international system have resulted in the “internationalization” and “localization” of foreign policy issues, such that modern circumstance “demands that decision makers operate in a number of political arenas” (9 -11).
Global trends indicate that paradiplomacy is on the rise, and this pattern is reflected in Canadian politics (Nossal, 326). Thus the crucial question is whether this trend is one that we as Canadians wish to embrace, or one wish to halt. It may also be helpful to ask whether we in fact have a say on the matter, or whether this is a phenomena too large in its scope for the will of any single state to have a tangible impact on its orchestration. The objective of this paper is to address these questions by analyzing the claims made about the two schools during an in-conference debate and interpret those findings to determine what improvements can be made to have a more productive discourse.
In- Conference Debate
Regarding which school of thought was superior, there was no consensus. For nearly every strength there is an accompanying weakness which challenges either theories legitimacy. Upon reviewing the concerns that were raised, it became clear that three particular areas demanded our focus: efficiency, promoting cooperation, and advancing Canadian interests. These elements are integral to our effectiveness in foreign policy and yet neither school can offer a satisfactory definition of success in these arenas.
Firstly, neither school offered an adequate solution to the issue of efficiency. While the efficiency of centralization is rooted in the ability to make time-sensitive decisions on state-craft without the need for approval from sub-state actors, further discussion revealed that this definition of efficiency is limited in scope. Individuals pointed out that the central government is ill-equipped in certain arenas, such as climate change. This is due to the fact that the federal government is constrained by “coalition politics” and “commercial interests” as well as the need to be measured and methodical in their actions. (326)
Secondly, regarding cooperation, it appears that centralization was optimal in the sense that the federal government, having ultimate authority, could put to rest any conflicts by exercising veto power. While multi-level governance is not necessarily conflictual, it was acknowledged that its complex nature could contribute to more instances of contention – with either side perceiving itself as the legitimate authority on a matter.
This question of conflicting jurisdiction lead our discussion to the third and final point: Who is better equipped to advance Canadian interests? It appeared undeniable that provinces, because of their small scale, are well equipped to listen to and advance Canadian interests. As previously stated, they can under certain circumstances, achieve this objective more effectively than the central government.
Interpreting Findings
On these three areas of focus the schools of thought offers a valuable, but limited perspective. It appears to align oneself with either side is to ignore the valid concerns of its counterpart. This discrepancy is rooted in the conflictual premises of the two schools; centralists view the international system from a realist perspective, while proponents of multi-level governance adopt a more liberalist view of international relations and state behaviour. In order to develop a productive debate it is important to choose a paradigm that can encompass more comprehensive definitions of success. Patterns that emerged from conference discussion serve as a useful starting point in this objective. In the following paragraphs I will identify the valuable takeaway that resulted from conference discussion and propose an alternative way of conducting the debate regarding power distribution, such that is more productive.
Firstly, the effective formulation and advancement of the national interest will require a definition of success that encompasses the centralist concern for time-sensitivity with the multi-level governance advantage of adeptness to certain issue-areas. Secondly, discussion of cooperation and jurisdiction reveal that multi-level governance creates more issues than it can solve and that conversely, centralization is simplifies international behaviour. In there most extreme form, concerns about the undesirable effects of multi-level governance manifest as a concern that the national identity will ‘dismember’ (Kukucha, 22). ’
Identifying Solutions
The severity of such an outcome would seem to suggest that the multi-level governance approach is faulty. Furthermore, the volume of potentially negative ramifications suggest that regardless of its logic, it is a theory that cannot be effective in practice. However, it would be fallacious to embrace centralization on the basis that multi-level governance presents logistical challenges, or that it conflicts with the current political culture.
In order to propose a valid solution to today’s challenge, it is important to accurately identify the problem. Currently, the two schools of thought disagree on the challenges that face states, because they do not share conceptions of the international system. As opposed to the multi-level governance approach, centralization does not account for the realities of a globalized world (Nossal, 328). For this reason alone the centralization school does not merit consideration in today’s discourse on power distribution. That said, there is insight to be gained from assessing the concerns they have raised about multi-level governance. These concerns could contribute greatly to a more constructive debate. Such a debate would focus exclusively on which multi-level and centralist practices to implement under which circumstances.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate between centralists and advocats of multi-level governance represents an obsolete dichotomy. Further discourse cannot produce perspectives or solutions that are beneficial to policy-makers. As Hocking insists, globalization “ multilevel politics ” are a “reality” not a hypothetical – this is a premise that must be accepted on both sides of a fruitful debate (11). This suggested debate would centre around the implementation of both centralist and multi-level practices such that Canadian foreign policy is as efficient, cooperative and effective as possible. Such a debate would also provide a framework to channel the concerns raised by centralists about the potentially undesirable outcomes of multi-level governance, without dismissing its legitimacy. A new, more nuanced approach to the question of power distribution will allow Canada to be more proactive about the challenges that the complexity of the modern global system has produced, and gain a competitive advantage over other federations that refuse to accept this reality due to the inconveniences it may pose the existing state of government affairs.