Hi, this is our third video lecture wherewe continue exploring the three promisesof federalism and decentralization.The first two video lectures,I introduced the twin concepts,bringing in non-majoritarian recognitionand protection to regional andlocal levels of government in the issueareas under their responsibility.It should be clear by now that the termswe use, the meanings we attribute to them,and the official designation of politicalsystems say, a federal republic ordecentralized unitary state,is inseparable from what we study.Furthermore, the terms themselves canbecome controversial and divisive.This is why despite a heavy doseof federalism in their politics,countries like South Africa andSpain officially refrain fromcalling themselves federations.In fact, in some countries federalismcan carry with it negative connotations,suggesting separatism and dismemberment.Here federalism is seen as a principleadvocating radical decentralization,perhaps even the beginning ofthe break up of a country.This is generally the case incountries whose history containsthe trauma of deep internal divisions orin unitary countries with a strong degreeof centralization, where any loosening ofpolitical power out the center engendersfears of political dissolution.And in yet other countries federalism cancarry with it centralist connotations,favoring more nationwide politics andmore central government involvement.This tends to be the case in establishedolder federations, where the wordfederal has come to denote a shorthand forthe federal government, hence the center.The United States andCanada are such examples.After all, the very Federalist Papers ofthe late 18th century were written forthe purpose of advocatinga stronger role forthe federal governmentin the United States.So, as we proceed intoour third video lecture,please remember thatthe workings of federalism andthe public perception of it, can besomewhat different in different countries.This means that not every nationalexperience from one country neatly andautomatically translates into lessons forothers.This caveat is directed at those ofyou from different federal countries.Please wait fora few more modules before assuming thatthe way federal politics works inyour country holds for each andevery country where federalism anddecentralization exists.A number of diverse factors play a roleinfluencing federalism's track record, andthat is precisely what we wantto examine in this course.You'll see that sometimesthe terms federalism andfederation are used interchangeably.While this could be the practicein some countries, andindeed academic disciplines, conceptually,the two represent different things.Federalism is a non-majoritarianpolitical principle that favorsterritorially-divided political authority,where regions in the centerboth share power and have autonomyin the areas under their control.This principle could be accepted andimplemented in varying degreeswhen the state architecturefully implements the principles offederalism, we get a federation.A federation is the constitutionalembodiment of federalism.It is a formal designation ofa type of political architectureenshrined in a country's constitution.We could have a unitary statewhose political foundationsrest on the principles of one nation,one state, one legal system.We could also have a federation, whosepolitical foundations rest on federalism.That is, the division of powers betweenthe center and the regional states.Now, the tricky thing is wecould have federalism, butthis might stop short of a full fledgedformal title of being a federation.For example, the Spanish stateis formally not a federation.But it also has fairly strong andconstitutional regional states,called autonomous communities,which have autonomy over a number of issueareas where they have the final say.Other areas that fall underthe autonomy of the central state.And yet other areas, where the regionalstates and the center work together.So, there is indeed federalismin Spain for sure, butthe country is notdesignated a federation.This is closely relatedto the caveat aboutterminology that we startedour video lecture with.Because federalism carried with itnegative connotation, a bad break up,and separatism for many Spaniards,the country's new political architecturefollowing the death of itsauthority ruler General Franco,formally avoided the constitutionallabel federation.Yet the new Spain made up of autonomouscommunities was certainly influencedby the political principle of federalism,both in design and in practice.This certainly holds for Africa as well,particularly with deeppolitical divisions exist.The terminology could play an importantrole in either exacerbatingthe divisions orhelping provide a path to accommodation.The very term federalism itself isa loaded one in some parts of Africa.In some countries, it representsthe country's very own self-image,as it is the case with Nigeria.But in other cases, say, like inSouth Africa, the term federal could carryconnotations of past political episodes,and therefore become a liability.Despite strong federal characteristics,South African constitution avoidsthe formal label federation forthe political system it introduces.In module four, we will go intothe details of South Africa andNigeria and Ethiopia.But at this point, suffice to say thatdo not take the formal constitutionaldesignation of a country to bethe final verdict on its politics.As Shakespeare wrote,that which we call rose would smellas sweet under any other name.Now, I'm not sure whether federalism isindeed a rose, or whether or not it smellssweet, but certainly its flowers andits thorns feed from the same roots.So far, we have called decentralizationfederalism's less flashy sibling.It devolves some responsibility to thelower levels of that administration, butwithout the full fledged regionalautonomy we see in federalism.At this point, it is important to notethat the scholarly literatures on publicadministration and development economicsview territorial decentralization as butone facet of the broaderconcept of decentralization.There are other ways to decentralizepolitical power, under deconcentrationthe powers at the center could be sharedbetween branches of state bureaucracy.Under delegation,powers at the center could betemporarily transferred tosemi-public bodies or third parties.For our purposes in this course and indeedin the academic field of comparativefederalism, decentralizationdenotes the territorialdevolution of political power toregional and local levels of government.And this power involves administrative,financial, legislative responsibilitiesrather than the limited andpartial transfer common indeconcentration and delegation.So, in this course, it should beclear that our interest is only onthe territorial form of decentralization.In our first video lecture, we talkedabout how the end of the Cold War broughtan end to the proxy wars inAfrica fought by pro-Soviet andpro-Western groups and how liberaldemocratic ideas, if not practices,emerged triumphant in the early 1990s.The liberal consensus meant that theentire continent was now open to variousinternational organizations, particularlywestern aids and donor agencies.Foreign aid was often conditionalon structural reforms anddecentralization and it's various guises,including territorial devolution,deconcentration and delegation wasa key component of these reforms.Decentralization was particularlyprominent in the agendaof international organizations.Like the world bank and the internationalmonetary fund who encouraged, supported,and often even financed political andeconomic reforms in sub-saharan Africa.Many international donors to this daycontinue to support such reforms,particularly in the fieldof development economics.Decentralist policies are increasinglyprescribed as the cure.We'll revisit this theme andits relevance to the politics ofdevelopment in our final module.Federal and decentralist reforms have beenthe defining characteristic of almostevery democratic reform initiativein the last 20 years in Africa.The reforms have received stronginternational involvement and support.Most importantly, in all cases,decentralization was presented asa way to bring a better democracy,better public policy formulation anddelivery, economic development and growth.In due course, the political landscapeof the entire continent is changed.But have both federalism anddecentralization livedup to their promises?Well, when we fast forward 20 years,the track record of federalism inAfrica tends to be somewhat mixed.In the coming modules, we will see thatnot all promises of federalism anddecentralization have been met.There are thus diverse lessons,both positive andnegative, which necessitatea comprehensive andsystematic treatment of the track recordof federalism and decentralization.In comparative federalism,we are still at the stage of analysis.One should not prescribe any medicinebefore a proper diagnosis is made.This is not a course driven bya desire to recommend federalismas a cure to all ills.This is a course that seeks toanalyze the workings of federalism anddecentralization, both with plusses andminuses.Our goals are analyticalrather than prescriptive.And now that thisimportant caveat is made,I think we can concludethis video lecture.I'll see you in the next video overviewof module one, where we will revisitsome of these themes in order to reflecton some of the inherent normative andethical questions around federalism anddecentralization.I'll see you in the next video lecture.