Federal State, however, is not free from several weaknesses and shortcomings. They are as follows:
Federalism is a source of weakness for the State. Federalism means a double system of government of the Centre and the Units. This duality is a source of conflicts in administration, legislation, finance and other government activities. As the functions, powers and authority in the federal State are divided between the central and units governments, the work of the federal State can only proceed through negotiations and even protracted correspondence and compromises between the Centre and the Units, which cause delays and also wastage of time and energy of the two governments. There is also possibility of a conflict in administration, jurisdiction and financial matters between the two, especially if the constitution is hastily and badly drafted as the American Constitution was. These conflicts, delays and wastages create inefficiency and weakness in the State, which contrast sharply with the promptitude, efficiency and simplicity of the unitary State.
Federalism prevents uniformity of law and policy for the whole State. The distribution of powers, the autonomy of the federal units and the dual system of government in the Federal State produce diversity or lack of uniformity in laws and policy. This diversity of laws becomes a source of trouble for the citizens when they move from one component unit to another where there is a different set of laws. It also hinders the administration of justice, for the law-courts of one unit have no jurisdiction in the other. These defects are particularly noticeable in the U.S.A., where the constitution has granted a large “reserve of powers” to the component States in many matters, such as marriage, divorce, education, etc.
The distribution of powers cannot be perfect for all times. Federalism is essentially based on the distribution of powers between the Centre and the Units. But it cannot be a perfect distribution which may be valid for all times. The reason is simple. Howsoever exact and exhaustive the present scheme of distribution of powers may be, it cannot foresee the needs, demands, views and changes in the future. Really speaking, there is no definite principle by which a matter can be finally declared to be of national or local importance, what is today considered a matter of local importance may become tomorrow a matter of national importance. But the national government cannot acquire the new power without a constitutional amendment or judicial interpretation. Yet the constitution cannot be quickly amended, because it is rigid, while the judicial interpretation is a slow and circuitous process. That is the reason why federal constitutions are necessarily conservative. The principle of concurrent jurisdiction and powers and the doctrine of implied powers are attempts to remedy this defect of federalism, but they also do not go very far, nor very fast.
The rigidity of the federal constitution is also an obstacle to the harmony and progress of the federal State. The double government and the distribution of powers in a federation divide the governmental operations into watertight compartments. The rigidity of the constitution clogs the wheels of progress and prevents the constitution to adapt itself to the changing conditions in the social life of the country. This is particularly true of the American Constitution which is one of the most rigid constitutions in the world.
Federation is an obstacle to the conduct of a vigorous foreign and home policy. Unlike the central government of a unitary State, the central government of a federal State cannot conduct a vigorous foreign policy, because it has to secure the consent and approval of the unit governments, which may not be forthcoming so quickly or willingly as the central government would like. This is the peculiar difficulty of the American government which endeavours to remedy this defect by means of mass propaganda.
Similarly, in home affairs the central government of a federation is handicapped by the division of powers, which defines and limits the powers of both the Centre and the Units. One or more of the unit governments may refuse to accept the policy of the centre, or may not pass necessary legislation in respect of matters of the provincial list or the concurrent list. As regards the provincial matters the national government cannot do anything except hope and pray. It may, of course, prod an unwilling unit into activity by exercising its powers of concurrent jurisdiction. But even this method has not the promptitude, simplicity and efficacy of the instructions and fiats of the unitary government to its subordinate local authorities and officials. Protracted negotiatibp between the Centre and the Units, resulting in compromises, delays and dilly-dillying are the necessary weaknesses of the federal State. This was the main weakness of the 1956 C’onstitution of Pakistan.
Federal form of State is also expensive and uneconomic. Federation is expensive and uneconomic because of the duplication of governmental machinery of the Centre and the Units and of the central and provincial public services. There are two sets of governments and two sets of public services and departments, which entail far greater expenditure than in a unitary government. Moreover, some of the component units are not very careful in planning and utilising their own natural resources in men ,ind material, as they would be under a single, central supervision and planning. The federal form of the State also becomes uneconomic, for agriculture, industry and other natural resources are allocated by the constitution to the provincial sphere. The central government is prevented from interfering in them by the principle of federalism or provincial autonomy.
Federation is exposed to the danger of secession. The components units of a federation may be inclined to secede from the federal union due to their differences or grievances over language, culture, religion, race, economic inequality and the like. As eadi unit has its own government and constitution, the tendency towards secession is vqjy, Strong in a federation than in a unitary State. Thus a federal State is exposed to the dangers of disunity and disintegration. Such a danger once threatened the Swiss Confederation in 1847 and the U.S.A.’ in 1861. It led, for instance, to the secession of East Pakistan in 1971, which became Bangladesh. It is also the course of the present-day Sikh trouble in India who want to establish an independent State of Khalistan.