Introduction

Introduction Every federal country faces a difficult task in trying to decide how its national capital should be governed. The problem of governing any capital is difficult because there is always a conflict of interests between the national government and the people who live in the capital city. The government wishes to control and develop the capital in the interests of the nation as a whole, while the people of the city naturally wish to govern themselves to the greatest extent possible. In addition, the government of a federal capital presents a special problem which is inherent in the very nature of federalism : if the national capital of a federal union comes under the government of any one state of the union, that state is in a position to dominate the federation's capital, and the central government does not have control over its own seat of government. John Hamilton Gray, one of the fathers of the Canadian Confederation, foresaw this problem very clearly, and in 1872 gave the following eloquent exposition of it: At the time ofthe [Confederation] Convention, one mistake occurred : no provision was made for creating a Federal District for the capital, and withdrawing it from the exclusive control of the local legislature of one of the Provinces. That which was designed to be the capital of the Confederation, might fairly rest its claim for support on the people of the Dominion. Its order, well being, sanitary arrange- ments, police regulations, adornments and improvements are essential to the comfort and security, not only of the representatives who attend Parliament, but of all those who are compelled to resort to it as the capital of the country in the discharge of the various duties attendant upon the administration of public affairs. Its reputation should be national, not provincial. It belongs no more to Ontario than it does to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec or any of the provinces constituting the Confederation .. [yet] the legislation for the capital in all civil matters is entirely under the control of one province, differing in its laws from the others .... Thus we see that the character of a national capital, the security of those who attend it, the elimination of sectional and provincial interests in its government the preservation of the national public property, the protection of the public xii INTRODUCTION interests, and the maintenance of the national reputation of its status, are too important to be left to local councils, however good they may be. Americans have their capital, Canadians have no capital for their country. They borrow a municipality from Ontario, and whether they come from the Provinces of the Atlantic or the Pacific, or whether from Quebec or Manitoba, their representatives in the Dominion Parliament have no power to legislate on any matter touch- ing the property or civil rights of the so-called capital of the Dominion, however great the wrong to be redressed or the evil to be remedied. This should not be. 1 It was this line of reasoning, then, that was the basis for the federal district idea - the proposition that a federal capital should be governed within a federal district or territory under the exclusive jurisdiction of the central government. The early creation of the District of Columbia in the United States was a recognition of this principle that the federal capital should not be governed for state and local purposes by only one of the states of the union. The South American federations, which were heavily influenced by the United States, also recognized this principle, and some others copied it in their constitutions. It should be noted, however, that many federations did not create a federal district for the capital. These considerations indicate that two of the most important questions regarding the government of a federal capital are: "Should the capital be in a federal district?" and "How much self-government should the residents of the capital area have?" The second is a question which arises regardless of whether there is a federal district, although it is a more serious question in the federal district kind of arrangement. If the capital is not in a federal district, the problem becomes one of too much emphasis upon provincial and local views, to the neglect of the national interest. This is the complaint that has been made of Ottawa: that the government of Ontario and the city council of Ottawa do not pay enough attention to the requirements of the national capital as a seat of government and as a symbol of the nation. On the other hand, if the capital is in a federal district, then the reverse problem presents itself. The danger is domination by the central government, lack of self-government in the federal district, and neglect of local interests. In May 1967 the Australian Ministry of Interior, which is responsible for governing the Australian Capital Territory, issued a special report on self-government for Canberra. In that report the problem was expressed this way: The object of this current and continuing study is to advise on the practicability, desirability and form of government that would assign to the community of the Australian Capital Territory the benefits and responsibilities of accepted democratic processes, while protecting the interests of the Commonwealth. The problem INTRODUCTION xiii is thus one of balance. To extend to the community the full range of authority normally exercised through state and municipal governmental organizations would be to place that community in substantial control of the national capital, whereas the national capital was always intended to be the responsibility of the people of the Commonwealth as a whole and to exist for the benefit of the nation as a whole. On the other hand, to consider only the position of Canberra as the seat of government and national capital at the expense of all community participation in government would unjustly deprive the members of the local community of their fundamental democratic rights and responsibilities.1 In view of the similar interest in the United States in greater self-government for Washington, it is surprising that no previous comparative study has ever been made of how federal capitals are actually governed. The present study arose out of the recent revival of the proposal that Canada's capital should be governed as a federal district. Dissatisfaction with the fact that the central government in Canada has no direct control over its own seat of government has existed ever since Confederation, and a federal district has been frequently proposed. But in the discussions of this proposal references are made almost exclusively to Washington and Canberra, and it is usually concluded that a federal district is undesirable because these capital cities have no self-government. I knew that there were several other federations with capital districts and that some of them had more self-government than Washington or Canberra. I also knew that several federal capitals were, like Ottawa, governed by state and local governments. I therefore felt that a survey of how all other federal capitals are governed would be useful. I also realized that such a comparative survey might be useful to other federations, since neither those whose capitals were governed by one of the states nor those whose capitals were within federal districts seemed entirely satisfied with the system of government for their capital. In fact, several federations were in the process of reorganizing this system. In addition to Canada, such federations included Australia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, the United States, and West Germany. I therefore set about to gather as much information as I could on the subject. The number of countries that can be identified as federations, depends, of course, on the definition used. For purposes of this study I tried to include all countries that have a federal constitution. Using this as a basis, I identified seventeen federations: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Switzer- land, the USA, the USSR, Venezuela, West Germany, and Yugoslavia. It should be noted that the study included only existing federations and their present capitals. Though the federation of East and West Pakistan xiv INTRODUCTION perished in December 1971, after this book had gone to press, West Pakistan had been divided into its four former provinces in April 1970. Hence Pakistan can still be counted as a federation.3 Much can also be learned from a study of how former federal capitals were governed, capitals such as Karachi, Rio de Janeiro, and Berlin under the Weimar Republic. It would also be useful to study the recent proposals for Brussels, which may become a future federal capital. Because of Belgium's serious bilingual- bicultural problem, some political parties in that country are now proposing that Belgium should be turned into a federation. In February 1970 the government of Belgium proposed that the country should be divided into three semi-autonomous regions, one of which would cover the metropolitan area of Brussels. The northern region would be Dutch-speaking and Flemish, the southern region French-speaking and Walloon, while the region surrounding Brussels would be a bilingual mixture, with about 200,000 Flemings and about a million Walloons. To date, however, this proposal has not been approved by the necessary two-thirds constitutional majority of Parliament. The various proposals made for the government of Brussels within a federation or quasi-federation will be of special interest in Canada, which has a similar bilingual-bicultural problem. Among the seventeen existing federations, it is interesting that seven have federal capital districts while eight have a capital which comes under the jurisdiction of a state.

Load more