Balancing Unity And Diversity: The Foundations Of Federal Governance

Federal system of government is a style of political organization by which different states or other politics exist within a larger geo-political unity while retaining their individual political structures. Federal systems do this by insisting that essential policies have to be both formulated and administered through bargaining in some way so that all members are involved in the decision making and implementation processes. The theory of politics that underpins federal systems propounds the virtues of bargaining and coordinated bargaining among several power locations; it extols decentralised power locations as a way of protecting individual and local freedoms. 

It is important to say that the different political systems which are referred to as federal are rather different. There are, however, some features and norms which are inherent in all real federal states. 

I.    Written Constitution 
First, the federal relationship is a creation of or needs to be brought into existence by a perpetual covenant or compact of union; there is usually a written charter that lays down the terms of the partition of or of the division of powers and this charter or constitution cannot be altered save in a most extraordinary manner. These constitutions can be distinguished for not being mere contracts between a ruling authority and the governed, but the people, general government and the states which forms the federal union. The constituent states, moreover, retain constitution-making rights of their own more often than not. 

II.    Noncentralization 
Second, the political system as an institution must resemble the constitution in the sense of genuinely decentralizing power to a number of rather autonomously sustaining centres. It would therefore be rightful, to call such a diffusion of power non-centralization. Noncentralization is a practical method of guaranteeing in effect that the authority to participate in the exercise of political power cannot be withdrawn from the general or the state governments without their own voluntary decision. 

III.    Areal division of power 
The third condition of any federal system is what has been known in the United States as territorial democracy. This has two faces: the employment of areal divisions for a non-discriminatory basis of the polity’s various components and the employment of the divisions for local self-rule and representation for various groups within the single civil society. Territorial neutrality has thus been found very useful in societies where change is taking place as it is possible to represent new interests in proportion to the strength of their supporters by letting them vote in relatively equal territorial subdivisions. Similarly, provision of territorial bases for very heterogeneous groups whose differences may be far more profound than variable, has helped to strengthen the capacity of federal systems of maintaining political integration and at the same time sustaining democracy. An example of this system may be illustrated by the case of Canada where attached people belong to the French origin and they inhabit the Quebec province.

IV.    Elements maintaining union 
Contemporary federations, as a rule, establish the straight relations between the population and all of the governments that function for it. It is true that the people may and usually do elect representatives to all the governments, and all of them may and usually do run programs that touch the individual citizen’s life. 

Such direct contacts are part of what set federations apart from leagues or confederations of some sort. And it is usually founded on the feeling of common nationality which exists between the constituent polities as well as people. Thus in Germany it has been inherited in a certain measure while in United States of America, Argentina and Australia it has at least to be partly created. Canada and Switzerland had to develop this sense as a means of keeping together territorially closely knit but socially quite dissimilar nationality groups. 

Geopolitical imperative has contributed to the process of preserving unity in federal states. There are the natural factors like the Mississippi Valley in the United States, the Alps in Switzerland, the island character of the Australian continent, mountain and jungle surrounding Brazil; there are influences promoting unity such as pressures for Canadian union from its position on border of the United States, or The pressures upon the German states from neighbors east and west. In this respect, the need to collectively defend against common foes has been the reason to strive for a federal union in the first place, and to sustain it. 

V.    Elements maintaining noncentralization 
The constituent polities in a federal system must therefore be either equally populated or equally wealthy or else have their inequalities spatial in nature or evenly numerically apportioned. In the United States, the series of areas has always encompassed both large states and small states. In Canada the stratification between two most diverse and two wealthiest provinces have always kept them from ganging up against the other provinces. This has been the case because, throughout its evolution, Swiss federalism has been based on the groups of cantons of various sizes and of religio-linguistic distinctiveness. As with any other successful federation, similar distributions exist, and this paper will explore them. 

One of the causes of collapse in federal systems has been attributed to the imbalance that exist in the polities that are incorporated into the system. For the other states in the German federal empire of the late 19th century, the domination of Prussia deprived them of the chance to offer national leadership or even a reasonably powerful alternative to the policy of the king and government. In the Soviet period (1917–90/91) the RSFSR, controlling three–fourths of the territory and three–fifths of the population, greatly reduced the chances of true federal relations in that state even if the communism system did not.

However, there are a few very significant exceptions whereby noncentralization is supported by the provision for different systems of law in the polity by the constitution. In the United States, every state’s legal system derives directly and to some extent exclusively from the English (and in one case, French) tradition, while federal law is confined to a relatively small number of subjects which tie the systems of the 50 states together. The mixture of laws in the end retains the administration of justice principally non-centralized, though in federal courts. In Canada, two legal systems coexist, common-law and civil-law through which French-Canadian culture has been maintained. More regularly, federal systems accord a possibility to amend national codes as to the special local requirements by the subnational governments as in the case of Switzerland. 

The point has been cited repeatedly that in a real federal system the constituent polities should have considerable say in the formal or informal constitutional-amending process. Since it is often said that constitutional changes may take place not only formally through amendment but in other ways as well, the place of the constituent polities must be such that fundamental shifts in the political order can occur only through the will of dispersed majorities that correspond to the division of the area of authority. Federal theorists have claimed that this is crucial for popular government as well as for federalism. 

Noncentralization is also reinforced through granting the constituent polities protected seats in the national legislature and, more often than not, a protected political status at the national level. The latter is ensured in the written constitutions of the United States of America and Switzerland. In other systems for instance the Canadian or the systems of Latin America, the constituent polities have attained certain powers of participation and these are accorded in the system as part of the principles of the unwritten constitution.

Several of the devices present in federal systems are instrumental in preserving the federal principle per se. Two of these are of specific significance.
→ The effective retention of federalism presupposes substantial identical autonomy of central government and constituent polities possessing complete though alterable governing bodies and the right of autonomy confined only by compact to alter their bodies unilaterally. These, therefore, are some of the valid reasons why there is need to have separate legislative and separate administrative institutions.
→ The division and allocation of public responsibilities in a contractual manner between all governments in the system seems to be probably the most seminal feature of federalism. Sharing in its broadest sense refers to the common participation in policy making processes, financing and administration. Such may be on an official basis or otherwise; in federal countries, sharing usually presupposes contractual relations. The contract is used in formulating legal means whereby governments can cooperate in matters that require multiple contribution while they are still separate entities. Where there is no treaty, it may be observed that the spirit of federalism is quite conducive to the introduction of the contractual relationships sense.

NATURE OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: FEDERAL OR QUASI-FEDERAL

What is a quasi-federal state?
Quasi-federal means that the powers of the government are not divided equally between the federal authority and the state authorities. Thus, India has a centralized structure with a very powerful central apparatus; it is a federal state but with a strong unitary tendency, and that is why it is called a quasi-federal state. The first time that a federal structure for India was suggested was in the Government of India Act of 1935 though from the Government of India Act of 1919 the process of decentralisation and devolution of power had started. Unlike in other countries, the federal system does not exist as a result of operation of multiple federal factors and components as well as agreements and treaties between states that constitute the country, India. And after the constitution came into existence, the unitary system of the government in India was replaced by the federal one. The founding fathers of the Indian constitution decided upon a federal structure in the country because of its size and complexity.

Real complaints by States must be addressed within the Federal Constitution to counteract secessionist dispositions that are inimical to the unity of the country. Given the plethora of options it had, the Constituent Assembly was right to select the Government of India Act, 1935 as the bedrock of its new constitutional dispensation. 

Why is India federal? 
To gain a systematic coverage of the area it is best to study what constitutes the federal system. These qualities accrued to present a true picture of what federalism was all about. Let us, therefore, get to know them well-Know their abilities, their potentialities, their vision, and their goals. 

1. Bi-cameral legislature- This is a principal characteristic of federalism in which there are at least two levels of government in the country. There can even be more than two levels of governance but the power is distributed and cannot be with one government at a time.
2. Single Citizenship – All forms of government with their varying degrees of authority control the same people. Thus, the only way is to make laws, legislate and implement these laws by each level of government with their definite power.
3. Written Constitution – The second one is that the federalism as form of the organization of the power is provided by the written constitution. It means that the constitution of that country where is the federal system of government prescribe all the powers and duties in the written form of all the levels of government. Where there is no written constitution, there is no federation in the system of government. For instance, the UK cannot be regarded as a federal country because there isn’t a constitution in this state. If we look in to the written constitution it can easily be seen that stability exists in the governance as well as in the total management of the country. Lack of written constitution implies the fact that Centre and State may have to face conflict and misunderstanding arising where they are likely to encroach upon each other’s jurisdiction.
4. Participation of the Centre and State: From the above, statement it is clear that federalism of a country has to be controlled by the constitution. It is also vital to note that the amendment and changes, cannot be done unilaterally, on the main parts or the essential provisions of the constitution. For a change or amendment to this law to be processed for enactment, it also requires the approval of all the tiers of government.
5. Dual Government: It is also stated that while there are two governments one having its jurisdiction and one having its duties. There must be a possibility of the two governments to develop a conflict. It becomes the mandate of the courts on a federal state to intervene in such a case and have a disposition to this kind of conflict and come up with a solution.
6. Revenue Sharing: In case of a federal country there should be a system of Revenue-Sharing between the Center and the State just as there should be a system of Power-Sharing between the two levels of government. 

What is the reason as to why India is not a federal nation? 
A unitary system is governed constitutionally as a single entity, having a single body of constitutionally established legislative. Every power contributes to the buying of the highest authority. A unitary state means that all the powers exercised in one single unit in which the central authority is the final power to promulgate laws for the country. 
The following are certain unitary features in the constitution by which it can at least be argued that India is quasi-federal to an extent: 

1. Strong Centre: It is appointed by the central government as has the unitary authority for the appointment of the Governors for different states. Governor is the agent of the central government and at the same time he is also the head of the state under the constitution of the country. According to the Constitution under article 355, it is the responsibility of the central government that there is no failure of the constitutional system in the state and states have to be safeguarded against internal onslaughts and external aggression and wars.Article 356 empowers the President to proclaim the Governor’s rule and it is the responsibility of the governor of the concerned state to make a report to the center as to why the constitutional structure of the state has failed for political or any other cause. As with the President, Governor also has some powers over withholding the bill for the consideration of the president. Thus, the unitary feature of the Indian constitution is the power of the central government to appoint governors who would be the head of the particular states.
2. Single Citizenship: This constitution has had one and equal citizenship for the entire country excluding the dual citizenship of other countries. But, in a federation as for USA citizenship is also federal where a citizen is firstly and mainly responsible to the state and only secondly to the federation. But in the case of India there is single citizenship despite the fact that it is also a federal country. It directed that all the Indian citizens bear loyalty to the Indian Union and not for the state as well. Any citizen of the country has the civil and political rights throughout the Indian in all the states and union territories regardless of his place of birth.
3. Integrated Judiciary: In India, the Supreme Court at apex laid down the principle of Unified Judiciary which went against the federal structure of the country to have a duality of the courts. In the unitary system of courts there is always the top of the pyramid, and this top is occupied by Supreme Court. It is a fact that the decision and the judgement of the Supreme Courts of free India are obligatory on an inferior court of India.
4. Appointment of the Highest Position Machinery: All the appointment on the highest positions is made by the Union Government such as the Chief Election Commissioner, the Comptroller, and Auditor General and All India Services such as IAS and IPS have been created which are kept under the control of the Union.

Kuldip Nair & another vs Union of India & others

Issue- In this case, the issue was that prior to an amendment in 2003 there was domicile requirement that was done away with in 2003 and it was claimed that the amendment was in violation of the federal character.

Court Held- SC said that a particular type of federalism or a US type model may not be part of writing of the Indian Constitution. The Indian Federalism is unique in its kind and is designed according to the Indian context bring so much tailored made to the country. Federalism is one of the most defining features of the Constitution of India as the ‘Union of India ‘is permanent and incapable of dissolution.

Hence it would not be wrong in saying that as envisaged by many historians like KC Wheare, the constitution of India is not really a federal one but is quasi federal. Thus, according to D. D. Basu, the constitution of India is of compound federal and unitary form: it is neither purely federal nor purely unitary.

DIVISION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE CENTRE AND STATES

The division of legislative authority between the Central and the Provincial governments is provided in the Government of India Act of 1935 which was also adopted in the Constitution. Parry legislative relations – The parry legislative relations concern handing out of powers of lawmaking and governing between the Union and the States. The rules and regulations were framed under the provisions of the Part XI of the Indian Constitution and are governed under articles 245 to 255. Articles 78 and 86 concern the legislative powers of the President.

→ Article 245
It has powers of legislation for the whole or any part of the country.
A state legislature may, therefore, make laws for the whole or any part of the state.
The law of Parliament cannot be rendered inexistent even in as much as the result relates to outside the country.

→ Article 246 
It refers to the Parliament Acts and the Acts that originates from the State. 

→ Article 247 
The Parliament also may legally create additional courts in order to effectively address the laws of the country. 

→ Article 248 
The Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws with regard to any of the matters not included in the State List or the Concurrent List. 

→ Article 249 
The Parliament regulates the State list subject matters in matters of national interest with absolute power provided that it has a two-thirds majority of the whole number. 

→ Article 250 
In emergencies, the law-making power intersects into the Parliament’s realm of exclusive legislation over the State. 

→ Article 251 
Even with respect to the provisions of articles 249 and 250, the state shall continue to legislate in the normal way, but it can be confined as inert in so far as the parliamentary legislation is concerned. 
This State legislation remains without action until the order of the Parliament is fulfilled. 

→ Article 252 
The Parliamentary law can only be repealed by another law that has been enacted by the Parliament. 
This cannot be done by legislation at the state level at all. 

→ Article 253 
A decision may be taken by the Parliament with regard to any international treaty or agreement for the whole or any part of the country. 

→ Article 254 
It discusses issues to do with State and Parliamentary legislation as being disharmonized. 

Article 255 
Through the discussion of the formerly enacted laws and recommendations, it does so. 

Union List 
The Union List has 97 members. The Parliament has ultimate authority with respect to the items in this list. It is provided in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The original jurisdiction of the Union List is based on the entry 1: the matters of national interest such as defence, banking, foreign affairs, railway, etc. 

State List 
The State List has 61 items. The items that are stated on this list are exclusive under the authority of the State Legislature. It is placed under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The State List covers subjects regarding production, transport, manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors; public health; agricultural education and research; state public services etc. 

Concurrent List 
The item within the Concurrent List is of a total of 52 items. The items on this list are within the exclusive domain of both the Union and the States. Constituted under the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. The Concurrent List refers to, criminal law and procedure, forests and related wild life, industrial disputes, population control and so on.

EMERGENCY PROVISIONS: SI

A) NATIONAL EMERGENCY UNDER ARTICLE 352
Definition of National Emergency in India
Within the framework of the Indian Constitution, a National Emergency (Article 352) is delineated as a period characterized by a severe threat to the nation's security. During this period, the constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals may be temporarily restricted, and the authority of the central government is significantly augmented to address perceived threats to the nation's integrity. The term "Proclamation of Emergency" is employed in the Indian Constitution to signify the declaration of a National Emergency.

Implications of National Emergency
A National Emergency grants the Central government the authority to enact swift and decisive measures to protect the security, integrity, and sovereignty of the nation.

Legal Framework
The provisions pertaining to National Emergency are contained within Articles 352 to 354 in Part XVIII of the Indian Constitution.

Justification for Declaration of National Emergency
The President of India may declare a National Emergency under Article 352 when the security of India or a specific region thereof is at risk due to:
- War
- External aggression
- Armed rebellion
Initially, the Constitution outlined "Internal Disturbance" as the third justification for the proclamation of a National Emergency. However, due to the ambiguity and vagueness of the term "Internal Disturbance," it was substituted with "Armed Rebellion" by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978. Furthermore, the President has the authority to declare a National Emergency even before the occurrence of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion, should he be convinced of an imminent threat to the nation. Additionally, the President may issue proclamations, whether or not there is an existing proclamation in effect, and such a proclamation is still operational. This provision was introduced by the 38th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975.

Terms Used to Describe National Emergency
Depending on the justification for the declaration, a National Emergency may be referred to as either an "External Emergency," which is declared on the grounds of War or External Aggression, or an "Internal Emergency," which is declared on the grounds of Armed Rebellion.

B) STATE EMERGENCY UNDER ARTICLE 356

Understanding the President's Rule
The President's Rule, also referred to as the Governor's Rule, denotes a period in which the constitutional machinery within a State has ceased to function effectively, rendering the State government incapable of operating in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. During this time, the autonomy of the State Government is temporarily suspended, and the Central government assumes direct control over the administration of the State. This period is also recognized as a 'Constitutional Emergency' or 'State Emergency'. However, the Indian Constitution does not employ the term 'Emergency' to describe this situation.

The Imposition of the President's Rule
The President's Rule grants the Central government the authority to suspend the State Legislature and govern the State through the office of the Governor. This centralization of power is designed to restore constitutional order, ensure the continuity of governance, and safeguard the interests of the citizens when the regular State machinery is unable to function effectively.

Constitutional Provisions Related to the President's Rule
The Indian Constitution encompasses Article 355 to Article 357 in Part XVIII and Article 365 in Part XIX.

Grounds for Imposition of the President's Rule
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution stipulates that the President may declare a state of President’s Rule if he/she is convinced that a situation has arisen in which the government of a State is unable to function in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. This declaration can be made either on the basis of a report from the Governor of the State or without the Governor's report.

Consequences of the President's Rule
During the operation of the President's Rule, the President gains extraordinary powers concerning the concerned state:
- The President can assume the functions and powers vested in the Governor or any other executive authority within the State.
- The President can declare that the powers of the State Legislature are to be exercised by Parliament.
- The President can undertake all necessary steps, including the suspension of constitutional provisions relating to any body or authority within the State.

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFLICTS

Border Disputes:
States possess certain claims over territories that are adjacent to their own. While language often serves as the foundation for delineating state boundaries, the areas adjacent to these boundaries frequently host populations that speak multiple languages. Consequently, resolving these disputes based on linguistic majorities proves to be a challenging task.
Some of the longstanding border disputes include:

1. The Belgaum dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka.
2. The long-standing border dispute between Manipur and Nagaland.
3. The dispute over Chandigarh City between Haryana and Punjab, which dates back to 1985. At that time, the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi reached an agreement with Punjab's leadership for Chandigarh to be transferred to Punjab, but this transfer has yet to occur.

Water Disputes:
Disputes over river waters often test the patience and cooperative spirit of the states involved, as rivers are a vital resource. These disputes can be particularly contentious, with examples including:
1. The Cauvery water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, which is considered a critical issue.
2. The Narmada water dispute involving Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra.

Extraordinary Features of a Federal Government:
One of the most remarkable aspects of the federal system established in India is the differential treatment afforded to various states. The Constitution of India outlines a division of powers that is uniform across all states, yet it includes special provisions for some states due to their unique social and historical contexts.

Special Provisions:
While the Constitution provides a common framework of powers for all states, it also includes specific provisions for certain states owing to their distinct social and historical backgrounds. This includes:
1. The significant provisions for northeastern states (such as Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, etc.), largely attributed to their sizable indigenous tribal populations, each with their own distinct history and culture.
2. The exceptional provisions for states like Himachal Pradesh, among others (such as Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Sikkim, and Telangana), which are considered "uneven states."
3. The special status of Jammu and Kashmir, which was granted under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.

Water Tribunals:
To address disputes related to inter-state rivers and the water of river valleys, the Inter-State River Water Disputes (ISRWD) Act, 1956 was enacted. This legislation is designed to facilitate the resolution of water disputes. When a state government submits a request under this Act, and the central government determines that the dispute cannot be resolved through negotiations, a Water Disputes Tribunal is established for adjudication. Currently, there are five active Water Disputes Tribunals, including:
1. The Ravi & Beas Water Tribunal.
2. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal - II.
3. The Vansadhara Water Disputes Tribunal.
4. The Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal.
5. The Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal.

SPECIAL STATUS OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the President possesses the authority to issue orders for the application of provisions of the Constitution, including modifications, exceptions, and amendments. This authority has been recognized and upheld by the Supreme Court in various cases, such as P. L. Lakhanpal vs the State of J&K.
As previously mentioned, for the application of provisions of the Indian Constitution to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the sole available mechanism was the issuance of a Constitutional Application Order. This process required consultation and the agreement of the State Government. Presidential Orders, broadly speaking, encompass the following subjects:
- Expansion of the Parliament's jurisdiction to enact laws in the State of Jammu and Kashmir from the Union List.
- Legislation related to the increase or reduction in the State's area.
- Provisions for the return of permanent residents of the State who migrated to territories included in Pakistan under settlement permits.
- Constitutional safeguards for laws pertaining to permanent residents of the State, including their special rights and privileges, employment under the Government, acquisition of immovable property, settlement in the State, scholarships.
- Allocation of seats in the House of the People, excluding areas under Pakistani occupation.
- Provision for the delimitation of Parliamentary Constituencies.
- Transfer of judges from the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir to the said court.
- Exclusion of matters falling under the State List.
- Provision concerning decisions affecting the disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
- Acquisition and requisition of immovable property on behalf of and at the expense of the Union.
- Provision relating to the use of the official language of the Union in proceedings before the Supreme Court.
- Provision for the proclamation of an emergency.
- Provision for the non-application of amendments made by the Parliament of India to the Constitution of India.
- Provision concerning the Governor and the Election Commission.
In 1954, the Constitutional Application Order 1950 was renamed as the Constitutional Application Order 1954, marking the first encroachment on the constitutional autonomy of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This trend continued with the issuance of the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019, which further weakened Article 370, which had remained in the Constitution for 70 years.

FEDERAL STRUCTURE IN OTHER COUNTRIES VERSUS INDIA

USA
The United States is characterized by its meticulousness and strictness, evident in the concise nature of its constitution, which spans merely a few pages. Conversely, the Indian Constitution is notably extensive, reflecting the complexity of its governance structure. The rigidity of the United States Constitution's provisions for amendment is a testament to its steadfastness, with only 33 modifications recorded since its inception. In contrast, the Indian Constitution has undergone 104 amendments since its establishment in 1950, illustrating a more fluid approach to constitutional change.
The presidency in the United States is the pinnacle of the executive branch, leading to a Presidential form of government. In contrast, India operates under a Parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister and his cabinet hold substantive power, with the President serving primarily as a ceremonial figurehead. The tenure of the President in the United States is limited to four years, whereas the Prime Minister of India enjoys a five-year term, contingent upon the majority support of his political party within the Lok Sabha. The political landscape in the United States is characterized by a bipartisan approach, whereas India navigates a multi-party system with its own set of challenges in the electoral process.
In terms of judicial systems, the United States boasts a highly developed and complex court system. India, on the other hand, is in the process of evolving its legal framework, demonstrating a dynamic approach to legal reform. The tenure of a judge in the United States is determined by their capability to fulfill their duties, with specific age limits for each judicial post. According to the Indian Constitution, a District Judge serves until the age of 58, a High Court Judge until 62, and a Supreme Court Judge until 65. Additionally, the United States Constitution allows for the creation of state constitutions, granting state governments the authority to legislate on a variety of issues within their jurisdictions, as long as these laws do not conflict with federal or state laws. The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution, underscores the supremacy of federal law over state legislation and state constitutions. Unlike India, the United States Constitution permits dual citizenship, enabling a US citizen to hold citizenship in another country.

Switzerland
In Switzerland, the authority of the executive is vested in the federal council, in contrast to India, where this power is vested in the President. Unlike India, where the President is elected by the electoral college, the Swiss federal council is elected by the federal assembly. The concept of party-based governance is absent, and states have the autonomy to conclude treaties, a feature not present in India. Additionally, the judiciary in Switzerland lacks the power of judicial review, unlike India's supremacy of the judiciary. The possibility of a Referendum is also available in Switzerland.
The Swiss Confederation is composed of 26 cantons, which are considered federation member states and enjoy a considerable degree of autonomy. The governance structure is divided into three levels: Federal, cantonal, and communal.
The Preamble to the Swiss Constitution articulates that the Swiss people and the cantons fully acknowledge their collective achievements and responsibilities towards future generations. This document is legally binding and was developed by a Swiss Parliament committee in 1848, subsequently ratified by the Swiss Federal Parliament, the Cantons, and the Swiss populace. The constitution underwent a comprehensive revision in 2000, which came into effect on January 1st of that year.
The Swiss Constitution is a stringent document, embodying a supreme nature. Furthermore, each canton has its own constitution. The process for amending the constitution is detailed and challenging. Proposals for comprehensive or partial constitutional reforms can originate from either the Swiss Federal Parliament or grassroots campaigns supported by at least 100,000 individuals. Such proposals are only incorporated into the constitution through a majority vote from Swiss citizens and a majority vote from the Cantons in a referendum. The inclusion of a comprehensive bill of rights in the 2000 Swiss Constitution marked a significant milestone, with the Swiss people's basic, civil, social, and political rights currently delineated in Title 2 Chapters 1 and 2, and Articles 7 to 40 of the Constitution.