Federalism

[1] A term whose often contested and ambiguous meaning is partly explained by its derivation from nothing more specific than the Latin foedus (“league” or “covenant”). It tends to apply, most readily but not exclusively in situations of competing ethnicity, to arrangements whereby some central form of government over a given territory exists alongside at least two, and often many more, regional authorities that also lay claim to statehood or at least to a significant measure of provincial autonomy. Within such federations the balance of power as between center and periphery has varied according to time and circumstance. Thus we find “federal” being confusingly applied sometimes to the more centralizing and sometimes to the more decentralizing aspects of the interaction. Where the emphasis falls on structures aimed at strict limitation of central control alternative resort has often been made to the term “confederation.” This is, most notably, the label still applied to the constitutional framework for Switzerland, which ever since the late thirteenth century has provided for a significant degree of cantonal autonomy (albeit one somewhat eroded over recent decades). Greater fluctuation in the balance between central and periphery has characterized most of the course of modern German history (see e. g. confederation OF THE RHINE; GERMAN CONFEDERATION; FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF Germany), where the ambiguities have fed particularly on the flexibility of the word Bund, used to designate both the federative and the more confederative modes of association. The most important example of federalism in twentieth-century Europe was the constitution of the SOVIET union, inaugurated in 1922. Upon its dissolution in 1991 most of the component republics then formed the more loosely confederal

COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES. More recent instances of the federative habit include the arrangements adopted by Belgium in 1993, and those formulated for bosnia-herzegovina through the dayton accord of 1995 (following the collapse into civil war of the broader federation that had been operative in former Yugoslavia). At the opening of the twenty-first century arguments about federalism remained central to debates on the future course of European integration. In essence, these focused on whether the European Union was turning from a Staatenbund (indicating an association that privileged the sovereignty of its constituent states, very much in the plural) into a Bundesstaat (implying a tighter grouping where the emphasis lay rather on the clear supremacy of one single centralizing form of state authority).

[2] “Federalism” also has a particular connotation (though one still related to the previous discussion) in the context of events stemming from the french revolution of 1789. There, in 1793, it was used negatively by the jacobins. Wishing to avoid the dispersal of political authority enshrined in the federal constitution of the new USA, they were eager to condemn growing provincial protests against their own far more centralizing vision of republican unity. They depicted this “federal revolt” as a royalist plot. originating in opposition to conscription, it gathered force particularly after the expulsion of the GIRONDINS from the convention in May-June 1793. Lack of coordination between the areas of provincial dissidence made it all the easier for ROBESPIERRE and his colleagues to organize the crushing of this rebellion between August and December. The brutality of its repression, best exemplified by the mass killings in Toulon and Lyon, forms part of the wider history of the Jacobin terror.

Feminism Concept used to describe the diverse social, cultural, and political movements that have campaigned for women’s freedoms and for equality between the sexes (see also gender; sexuality). The term was initially employed at the First International Women’s Conference in Paris in 1892, but did not find common usage until the 1920s. Much earlier feminists such as Mary WOLLSTONECRAFT had been important in arguing that the inferior status of women resulted not from physiological but from socio-cultural constraints, but those pioneers did not possess a shared agenda. This was not to emerge until the late nineteenth century when activists from different backgrounds found solidarity as they coalesced particularly around the right to vote. In the pre-1914 period this was denied to all European women, except in Finland and Norway (from 1906 and 1913 respectively). There flourished a variety of relevant campaigning movements, among them the Women’s Social and Political Union, the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, and the German Union for Women’s

Suffrage. Whereas some protesters (e. g. the Pank-hursts in Britain) occasionally resorted to militant action, others deployed more subtle forms of dissent, such as refusing to complete census and tax returns or defying traditional conventions of femininity. world war i raised further issues about gender roles as “the second sex” entered jobs hitherto associated almost solely with men. Women were also prominent in pacifist organizations and voluntary groups, which led to disagreements among feminists as to how they should assist the war effort. The conflict did at least bring female franchise to a larger range of countries, even though in most cases it related only to those over 30 years of age: Denmark and Iceland in 1915; Britain, Germany, and Austria in 1918; the Netherlands and Czechoslovakia in 1919; Sweden in 1921; and Ireland in 1922. It would take the experience of world war ii, and particularly the contribution that women made to RESISTANCE movements, for universal suffrage to be introduced in Italy and France; and, as for Switzerland, there the breakthrough was delayed until 1971 with respect to the federal polls. Following the initial victories on the voting issue, the feminists of the 1920s had disagreed over their next goals: whether to press hardest for equal rights, or welfare reforms, or sexual freedoms. With the exception of Scandinavia, where women were prominent in Social Democratic parties (see socialism), the interwar years did not provide a particularly conducive environment for such campaigns. The great depression[2] and the rise of FASCISM strengthened traditional gender roles. Paradoxically these were hardened in the post-1945 period when the appearance of glossy magazines, haute couture, and labor-saving devices in the home - all responses to the austerity of the war years - reinforced notions of the “ideal” mother and housewife. These were questioned by a “second wave” of feminism in the 1970s which had special appeal to those who had taken advantage of widening access to higher education. Inspired by writers such as Simone de Beauvoir, and emboldened by the Civil Rights Movement in the USA and the student revolts of 1968, feminists now campaigned for personal equality across a wider agenda of concerns. Here such issues as the abuse oflanguage and visual imagery, including the crude objectification of females in the mass media of communications, bulked large.

According to some commentators, the years of the 1990s and beyond have witnessed another wave of feminism critical of its immediate predecessor for underplaying the racial, social, and sexual differences that exist among women themselves. Such periodization is not entirely unhelpful, though it does tend to obscure much of the complexity that continues to surround the categorization of feminist movements.

Ferdinand I (1793-1875), Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, and last crowned King of Bohemia (1835-48). He suffered from epilepsy, and was also mentally disabled. However, his father, FRANCIS II, and metternich insisted that Ferdinand should succeed to the throne of the habsburg EMPIRE in order to preserve the strict line of legitimacy. A State Conference, comprising Archduke Louis (his brother), Metternich, and kolow-RAT, was established to advise him, but in effect acted as a regency council throughout his reign. Indeed, it was said that the only clear command he ever gave was to insist on dumplings when counseled against eating them. During the revolutions OF 1848-9 he was forced to flee from Vienna, returning after its recapture, but was almost immediately persuaded by the new prime minister, SCHWARZENBERG, to abdicate in favor of his 18-year-old nephew, who succeeded him as Francis JOSEPH I. Ferdinand spent the remainder of his life in Prague, where he was known as “the Good.”

Ferry, Jules (1832-93), French politician. He is best remembered for promoting empire (see imperialism) and for undermining the role of the church within primary schooling (see Catholicism; education). a lawyer by training, he turned to republican politics and was a fierce opponent of NAPOLEON iii’s Second Empire. In 1870, he was appointed prefect of the Seine at the time of the PARIS COMMUNE, where he made plain his dislike of the far left. With the founding of the third REPUBLIC, he found it expedient to step out of the limelight, though he was elected deputy for the Vosges in 1873. In parliament, he became one of the leaders of the so-called Opportunists, a moderate group of republicans. Influenced by a faith in science and reason (see also positivism), and committed to promoting economic wellbeing, they were nonetheless cautious about advocating reform until the moment was “opportune.” In the 1880s this grouping dominated parliament, and Ferry was minister of public instruction three times (1879-81, 1882, and 1883), prime minister twice (1880-1, and 1883-5), and minister of foreign affairs (1883-5), before becoming president of the senate in 1893. To promote his vision of a modernized France, he aimed to curtail the church’s influence over schooling. Thus in 1882 he sponsored the measures known as the Lois Ferry, banning religious instruction in state schools and making primary education free and compulsory for all children aged between 6 and 13. In the aftermath of the franco-prussian war, Ferry was also determined to promote French colonial interests. under his direction, France established a protectorate over Tunisia (1881), explored the Congo and the Niger regions, occupied Madagascar (1885), and conquered Annan and Tonkin in the Far East (1883-5), leading to war with China. Within France, however, there were those, on both left and right, who believed that the nation should be concentrating on recovering its status within Europe, and that dispatching troops to Indo-China left the country vulnerable to German invasion. Such feelings were best articulated by clemenceau who engineered Ferry’s fall from power in 1885. Though the latter considered standing for the presidency, he never returned to ministerial office, and died in 1893 after being shot by a right-wing nationalist.

Fifth Republic (France) Regime established in 1958 following the fourth republic’s failure to resolve the issues posed by the Algerian war. Its constitution directly reflected the thinking of DE GAULLE, whose inaugurating presidency lasted until 1969. His successors have been pompidou (1969-74), GISCARD D’ESTAING (1974-81), MITTERRAND (1981-95), CHIRAC (1995-2007), and SARKOZY (2007-). In an attempt to avoid the continuance of IMMOBILISME, de Gaulle had insisted on strong presidential authority: the right to call referenda, dissolve parliament (albeit only once in a 12-month period), assume emergency powers, and appoint the prime minister. Conversely, he reduced the influence both of the chamber of deputies and of the senate. In practice, however, the president and prime minister have remained ultimately responsible to parliament, which has retained the final say in approving legislation. The presidents have also been highly dependent on their premiers for the conduct of day-to-day business. It is in the so-called domaine reserv'e - foreign, defense, and colonial policy - that the executive has continued to possess the most extensive powers.

For Gaullists the key to the durability of the Fifth Republic has been the flexibility of its constitution, and the manner in which politicians have used this. The structures proved robust, even during periods of cohabitation when the result of parliamentary elections required a president to work with a prime minister from a rival party. This has happened on three occasions - during the premierships of Chirac (1986-8), Balladur (1993-5), and Jospin (1997-2002). Though these periods were also marked by cohabitension, both sides knew not to overstep the mark. In 2000 the presidential term of office was reduced from seven years to five, making such power-sharing less likely in the future. However, cohabitation had proved quite acceptable to an electorate tired of partisanship, and this may help to explain Sarkozy’s recent readiness to build pluralist cabinets.

The Fifth Republic has also been fortunate in not having to confront the kind of opposition which the Fourth encountered both from communists and Gaullists, equal in their determination to overthrow that earlier system. Since the late 1960s the Communist Party has been in decline, while on the extreme right the front NATIONAL has only been a fringe player despite LE pen’s strong showing in the 2002 presidential elections. In this situation, the Fifth Republic has evolved towards an Anglo-Saxon two-party system in which the centre-right is dominated by the Gaullists and the centre-left by the Socialists. Growing party discipline, though still loose by British standards, has enabled France largely to avoid the ministerial instability of yesteryear.

Consistency in government has benefited from the dulling of old ideological conflicts, notably over ANTICLERICALISM. Even so, the post-1958 Republic has had its fair share of difficulties. Until 1962-3 the problem of Algerian independence was dominant, and could quite easily have toppled the regime. Thereafter social and cultural issues became more central, and erupted in the STUDENT REVOLTS OF 1968. Despite his talk of modernization, de Gaulle was in danger of being out of kilter with longer-term economic changes.

That challenge was partially met under the Pompidou and Giscard presidencies. Such issues of modernization focused attention on the role of the state, which since the epoch of the Fourth Republic had been at the forefront of economic and social planning. As elsewhere in western Europe, French governments (both socialist and conservative) now relaxed central controls and pressed ahead with privatizations. Yet quite formidable powers remained vested in the state, which provided a major source of employment, supervised the market, and acted frequently as a key instrument of social change.

Transformation was indeed the watchword of Mitterrand’s first presidency, marked in its early stages by a series of liberal reforms - such as the abolition of the death penalty, the dismantling of military courts, and greater liberalization of the media. Nonetheless his two successive terms of office became dominated by other issues, including immigration and race, endemic governmental corruption, and the legacy of the vichy regime which returned to prominence through attempts to prosecute former officials for crimes against humanity and through revelations about Mitterrand’s own shady wartime record. Allegations of corruption also dogged Chirac’s presidency, during which many voters appeared increasingly disenchanted with politics. That feeling was exacerbated by the French experience of EUROPEAN INTEGRATION. Though few denied its contribution towards ending Franco-German hostility, many feared that (as de Gaulle himself had often warned) its processes threatened an increasing loss of national sovereignty and cultural distinctiveness. In its foreign policies the Fifth Republic has long sustained much of its founder’s pursuit of grandeur. This has been evident in France’s continuing influence over former colonies, its retention of its own nuclear deterrent, its partnership with Germany, and its flirting with the Soviet Union and thereafter with post-communist Russia. Not least, since the time of de Gaulle’s own presidency, there have been repeated attempts to avoid undue identification with many of the aims and interests espoused by the USA.

By the early twenty-first century the Fifth Republic appeared to have achieved a solidity that few would have predicted in 1958. In the process, it might even have gone far towards resolving the problem of political instability central to so much of French history since 1789.

Final Solution Translation of German End-I'osung, the euphemism used by hitler and his associates to denote Nazism’s campaign for the genocidal destruction of the European jews. Two further designations, originating amongst survivors, have subsequently become current as more sensitive synonyms for this project: “the Holocaust” (deriving from rituals of burnt sacrifice) and “the Shoah” (Hebrewfor “catastrophe”). Over recent decades the topic has stimulated - quite apart from an unscholarly and noxiously-motivated literature of “Holocaust denial” - extensive historiographical debate focused particularly on the merits of “intentionalist” versus “structuralist” or “functionalist” interpretations of the relevant policy-making. In essence, the issues are whether Hitler had clear long-laid plans for the total extermination of the jewish race, or did the antisemitism that always pervaded the Nazi movement become radicalized into a distinctively genocidal form only as a matter of opportunistic improvization under the pressures of WORLD WAR II. Whatever their answer to that, most historians now tend towards viewing the campaign as being already well under way by the end of 1941 (six months after the launching of Operation barbarossa), and towards assessing the secret wannsee conference of January 1942 as a vital stage in coordinating (rather than simply launching) its implementation. Under the general supervision of himmler and his schutzstaffel (SS) the bulk of the mass murders were committed, increasingly using poisonous gas, within purpose-built extermination centers located in Poland. These included Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka, as well as the Birkenau camp set within the broader forced-labor complex at Auschwitz (see concentration camps). Across Nazi-occupied Europe the processes of arrest and transportation essential to the Holocaust depended not only on German initiative but also on varying degrees of cooperation from the local authorities and populations. A high measure of Dutch compliance, for example, stood in contrast to the more defiant stance taken by italians or Bulgarians. The most reliable estimates suggest that by May 1945 around 6 million Jews (some two-thirds of the European total) had been murdered by Hitler’s regime. So too had some 250,000 Sinti and Roma, as “gypsies” victimized with similar genocidal intent.

Finland A Baltic country that lies on the eastern side of the Gulf of Bothnia and has land borders with Russia, Norway, and Sweden. Finns constitute more than 90 percent of a population (currently estimated at around 5.3 million overall) that also comprises a swedish minority together with fewer than 10,000 Saami (Lapps). In its language and ethnic origins this Finnish majority is sharply distinguishable from both the slavic and the Nordic peoples of the neighboring states, and the history of Finland since medieval times has often been shaped by the territory’s role in geopolitical rivalries between Russia and sweden.

From 1568 until the opening of the nineteenth century it was the swedish monarchy that held most of Finland, according it the status of a grand duchy with its own assembly and a substantial measure of autonomy. During the Napoleonic WARS, however, the 1807 tilsit treaty between napoleon I and Tsar Alexander i gave the latter a free hand to bring the region into the Russian empire. There Finland remained from 1809 down to the early twentieth century. it still ranked as a grand duchy, and preserved sufficient autonomy to ensure, for example, that serfdom would not be imposed upon its free peasantry. in the face ofthe tsarist regime’s attempts to impose russification, the Finns increasingly developed a nationalism focused on the goal of independence. in 1899 NICHOLAS II sought to combat this by cancelling their autonomous rights. However, following the RUSSIAN revolution of 1905, the tsar not only reversed this policy but also conceded universal male and female (see also feminism; gender) franchise to Finland. When world war i began, autonomy was again withdrawn. only amidst the RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONS OF 1917 were the Finns at last able to declare their sovereign independence. They formally inaugurated a democratic republic in July 1919, after a phase of civil war in which the “Whites” of the ex-tsarist army officer Gustav von Mannerheim prevailed over a counter-force of BOLSHEVIKS. In 1920 Finland joined the league OF NATIONS, and used this new organization to settle peacefully and advantageously a dispute with Sweden over the aaland islands. During the 1920s and 1930s, and particularly in the aftermath

(see under french re-

Of the GREAT depression[2], the fledgling state was weakened by governmental instability. In 1932 the proto-fascist (see fascism) Lapua movement mounted an unsuccessful coup. Following the NAZI-SOVIET PACT and the outbreak of world war ii, the Soviet Union seized the opportunity of attacking Finland. Though widely admired for their valiant resistance, the Finns lacked allies. Thus the russo-finnish war (the “Winter War”) of 1939-40 ended with their loss of Karelia and Petsamo. However, when hitler implemented Operation barbarossa against the USSR in June 1941, the Helsinki government entered the wider conflict on the axis side with a view to regaining these areas and possibly establishing a “Greater Finland.” By September 1944 it was clear that the gamble had failed. stalin forced the Finns to accept an armistice on punitive terms that included large reparation payments and the displacement of some 450,000 people from the lost regions (see also migration). This was the sacrifice, confirmed by the 1947 paris treaty, that the UssR demanded as the price of avoiding direct occupation by the red army. Stalin also insisted that the neutrality now required from Finland should involve a broadly pro-Soviet orientation of policy. This aim (often referred to as “Finlandization”) was assisted by the presence within the country of an influential, and genuinely popular, Communist Party (see communism).

Though Finland’s identification with the Soviet sphere survived to some degree throughout the COLD WAR era, it was also increasingly eroded after Stalin’s death. kekkonen, the leading Finnish statesman during the period 1950-81, managed, without ever directly defying the Kremlin, to preserve effective parliamentary government and to develop a form of social-democratic welfarism modeled along swedish rather than soviet lines. The delicacy of Finland’s position between East and West made its hosting of the 1975 Helsinki CONFERENCE all the more apt. The revolutions of 1989-91 across the soviet bloc disrupted much of the Finns’ export trade and plunged them into a period of economic crisis. Over the longer term, however, their country became much freer to strengthen its westward orientation. Having joined the nordic council as early as 1955, Finland could now strengthen its claim to be treated, despite the ethnic anomaly, as an integral part of SCANDINAVIA. It also associated itself with the processes of European integration. It joined the COUNCIL OF EUROPE in 1989, and in 1995 accompanied Sweden into entry of the European Union. in 1999 Finland became the first member of the Nordic grouping to agree to participate in the “euro” system of single currency.

First Empire (France)  (see under napoleon i)

First International (see under the international)