‘n Nasie Staat is die enigste waarborg van Vryheid en oorlewing ter wêreld, al is dit ‘n Bondstaat van Nasie State…

Hoe verhoed mens dat 1994 nooit weer gebeur nie? Dat ‘n niksvermoedende, vertrouend, gemaklike Volk nie weer verlei of verraai word om sy voorouers en nasate se erfenis te verloor of verbaster nie?

Ernst Roets reken by die krisisberaad vandag, 5 Mei, dat hulle glo aan gemeenskapsfederalisme. Huh? Kan hy dit ooit spel.
Gemeenskap…hoe lyk sy gemeenskap?

Soos FW s’n? Soos die DA s’n? Soos die ANC s’n?

Ons het mos nou al hoeveel keer gesien dat dit presies dieselfde gemeenskap is as al 3 die ander…

  • ‘n Etnies geïntegreerde grys gemeenskap wat eufories saam floreer solank daar net nie op die Blankes se tone getrap word nie…
  • ‘n Gemeenskap waarin die boere vrywillig 50% van hul plase afstaan aan die “swaarkry” werkers, solank hulle net nie kom moor en steel en roof nie…
  • ‘n Gemeenskap wat eerder hul monumente en standbeelde sal verwyder en in ‘n sentrale park gaan sit, solank niemand dit met hammers en dinge bykom nie…
  • ‘n Gemeenskap waar swart “conmen” ondersteun word om honderde km te stap vir Wit sake en die Wittes gladweg beroof van hul sms-gelde…
  • ‘n Samelewing waar die DA ondersteun word om te vertel dat plaasmoorde nie polities is nie, maar krimineel soos onlangs in die Wes Tvl gebeur het ter ondersteuning van die TLU…
  • …moet ek regtig sy gemeenskap nog verder verduidelik?

Kom ons kyk dan na sy begrip van federalisme…’.n FW de Klerk staat? Of ‘n Mandela (Dagon) staat? ‘n DA staat of ‘n ANC staat? Of sommer alles in 1? Hieronder is ‘n skrywe t.o.v. konfederalisme en federalisme: (nou sal ek my verwonder waar Ernst Roets se federalisme inpas of het hy sy eie definisie?)

2.2. The Federation (J. Fischer) or Federation of Nation States (J. Delors)

There is evidence of the fact that the choice of the term `federation’ raised a problem for the German Foreign Minister. In the Chevènement-Fischer dialogue that appeared in Le Monde on 21 June 2000 (p. 15-17), the French Minister of the Interior said, in connection with the European Union, that `It is neither a federation nor a confederation. It is something that has never been described anywhere, and does not even resemble the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.’ Joschka Fischer clarifies as follows: `We sought a neutral word in German instead of, and in place of, federation. Translated into French or English, it still remains federation; so we resigned ourselves. We have to accept the fact that federation is the word that best suits.

It is easy to see why the word federation embarrassed the German Minister: in ordinary language, just as in the language of constitutionalists, `federation’ immediately evokes the `federal state,’ and this is what has to be avoided, even at the cost of a polemical vocabulary which is absent from the rest of his speech at the Humboldt University. Thus, he says:
Only if European integration takes the nation-states along with it into such a Federation, only if their institutions are not devalued or even made to disappear, will such a project, in spite of all the difficulties, be workable. In other words, the existing concept of a federal European state replacing the old nation-states and their democracies as the new sovereign power reveals itself to be an artificial construct which ignores the established realities in Europe. (p. 9-10, our emphasis).

But, at first sight, the solution Fischer offers to the Community’s problem looks enormously like a federal state. Thus, again on page 9, he writes that for all the problems of enlargement of the Union:
There is a very simple answer: the transition from a Union of states to full parliamentarisation as a European Federation …. And this means nothing less than a European Parliament and a European government which really do exercise legislative and executive power within the federation. This federation will have to be based on a constituent treaty.

If it is added that this European Parliament is to have two chambers, one to represent the Europe of nation-states (a `senate’ on the American or German model, p. 10), with a European government able to be formed from the national governments (p. 10) or else opting for the direct election of a president with `far-reaching executive powers,’ distinct from the Commission, which would become a mere administrative body,6 one may legitimately ask what would really separate this federation, which, like Jacques Delors, he calls a `federation of nation-states’ (p. 13), from a classical federal state.

This point is a capital one politically, as his French colleague H. Vedrine showed in his `reply to Joschka Fischer’ published in Le Monde on 11-12 June 2000, by dotting the i’s as follows:
The core of the ideas is the concept of federation and of federation of nation-states. Does this, at the end of the day, amount to one and the same thing, classical federalism? In that case, we are moving towards an impasse.

Everything in the constitutional model presented by the German minister, thus depends on the survival of the nation-states. They would not disappear as in a federal state, or rather, taking up what might be a slip of the pen, not disappear `complètement’.7 It is one thing to affirm the co-existence of the federation and the nation-states, but quite another to present a convincing picture of it. But we have seen that, in this federation, there is to be a European Parliament made up of two chambers and endowed with legislative powers, a European government (perhaps under the aegis of a President of the Union) to act as an executive, and also a `constituent treaty which lays down what is to be regulated at European level and what has still to be regulated at national level’ (p. 11).

But instead of what the Minister rightly calls `inductive communitarisation,’ there will be `a clear definition of the competences of the Union and the nation-states respectively in a European constituent treaty, with core sovereignties and matters which absolutely have to be regulated at European level being the domain of the federation, whereas everything else-the least essential bits, let us not forget-would remain the responsibility of the nation-states’ (p. 11).

To know what this `finalised federation’ (p. 11) might look like, one can again go to the description Fischer gives of the federation that might be set up among the Member States belonging to the `centre of gravity’ that are resolved to go forward without waiting for all EU states to be ready to do so. Here is how the Minister sees the action of the states belonging to the centre of gravity:
Such a group of states would conclude a new European framework treaty, the nucleus of the constitution of a federation. On the basis of this treaty, the Federation would develop its own institutions, establish a government which within the EU should speak with one voice on behalf of the members of the group on as many issues as possible, a strong parliament and a directly elected president. Such a centre of gravity would have to be the avant-garde, the driving force for the completion of political integration, and should, from the start, comprise all the elements of the future Federation. (p. 14).

Without dwelling on the feasibility of this sort of federation within the Union, one should note that the `militant’ aspect of this federation, that might be called `interior’ and would still, in principle, fail to be a federal state, is, after all, hard to reconcile with a constitutional model in which the nation-states conserve their sovereignties: the federation speaks with a single voice on as large a number of questions as possible, and has a strong parliament and a directly elected president.

But this interior federation foreshadows the European Federation which is the last stage of European integration (p. 15). Can one, in these circumstances, be satisfied with the assertion that:
… All this will not mean the abolition of the nation-state. Because even for the finalised Federation, the nation-state, with its cultural and democratic traditions, will be irreplaceable in ensuring the legitimation of a union of citizens and states that is wholly accepted by the people’ (p. 11).

Or again:
The completion of European integration can only be successfully conceived if it is done on the basis of a division of sovereignty between Europe and the nation-state. So what must one understand by the term `division of sovereignty’? As I said, Europe will not emerge in a political vacuum, and so a further fact in our European reality is, therefore, the different national political cultures and their democratic publics, additionally separated by linguistic boundaries (p. 10)

Marius Smith

‘n Bondstaat van Nasie State is dus die enigste antwoord…


Enjoyed this post? Share it!