Many writers are of the opinion that federal structure of the State is a transitory and temporary stage in the evolution of the unitary State. They cite the fact that almost all federal States are becoming more and more centralized because the central government in them acquires ever more authority and powers. The national government is extending the scope of its powers, while the unit or provincial governments increasingly look to it for financial assistance, planning and regulatory measures. One of the federal States, the German Empire, actually became a unitary State under the Nazi policy of centralisation. There is some truth in this criticism. In modem times, the structure of the federal State is under three strong pressures for centralisation.
They are economic, social and military. Economic Forces and needs have always been stronger than political formulas and rules. The framers of a federal constitution may consider that industry and agriculture, trade and tariffs are of local importance and interest. But economic needs and plans of industrialisation, trade and tariffs, the needs to regulate the relations between capital and labour, the questions of inflation and scarcity, recession and the conditions of the working classes, etc., are such problems and pressures which can temporarily be tackled locally, but can permanently be solved only on the national plane. A provincial government in a federation is too puny in resources and too narrow-minded in outlook to plan and solve them. The same is true of the demands and needs for social reforms, and cultural, intellectual and educational developments. Here also the national government can undertake these developments on national scale better than a provincial government. This also requires centralisation of governmental authority and powers. Above all the dangers and threats of war in modern times are great causes for centralisation. War is always a great centraliser. When a State is threatened by war, it meets the ‘challenge by concentrating all its resources and powers under a single seat of
authority. That is why in respect of military organisation and war, a federal State behaves like a unitary State. In fact, “a dispersion of powers, as the federal principle implies, is incompatible with the troubled politics of a world that is scared by past wars and scared of new ones.” In the face of these dangers and demands, the old patterns of decentralisation and autonomy cannot exist any longer.
But all this does not imply that the days of federalism are over, or that it is to be scraped from the organisation of the modem State system. On the contrary, we notice several tendencies and needs for federalism in the modem State and society. In fact, modem State and society are crisscrossed by contrary forces towards centralisation and decentralisation. Many economic and social forces and tendencies require them to be federally organised and governed. Even unitary States have adopted several forms of federalism. Moreover, as Laski said, ‘modem society is so complex and varied in interest and functions, that it should not be centrally controlled and directed, but should be federally organised’. He said that just as “in the Middle Ages the tendency was towards feudalism, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries towards absolutism, so in the present time the movement seems to be towards federalism.” Lastly, federalism is the only possible form of the future world-State, if and when it comes.