Ukraine Drafting Notes: State Structure

State Structure

During negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, the Russian side may demand that Ukraine adjusts its state structure to provide a higher level of autonomy to certain regions, as it did during the negotiations of the Minsk Protocols.  When negotiating a revised state structure, there are two issues that need to be considered:

• Models for State Structure:  Examining different models, such as asymmetrical federalism, devolved state, regional state, and autonomous regions, that offer varying degrees of autonomy and power-sharing.  

• Defining the Powers of Decentralized Units within the State Structure:  Defining the scope of authority that decentralized regions will have within the chosen structure.  

Models for State Structure

The selection of the state structure model has implications for regional identity, cohesion, and the central government’s ability to maintain control, and each carries unique risks that could affect long-term stability.  

• Asymmetrical Federalism:  In an asymmetrical federal system, certain regions are granted greater autonomy than others, often in recognition of cultural, linguistic, or historical distinctions.  This model allows for tailored governance, enabling regions with distinct identities or specific needs to manage local issues—such as education, health, and cultural policy—while the central government retains authority over national matters.  However, regions with high levels of autonomy may cultivate distinct political identities that could diverge from national objectives, weakening national unity over time.  The complexity of governing a state with multiple levels of autonomy can also create challenges for coordination and oversight, leading to inconsistencies in national policy implementation.  Finally, this model can result in regional power imbalances, particularly if autonomous regions control significant resources, fostering economic disparities that may affect overall stability.

• Devolved State:  In a devolved state, power is decentralized within a unitary framework, with local governments granted authority over specific areas such as health, transportation, and education.  These powers are often defined by legislation and can be adjusted or rescinded by the central government.  A devolved state allows for flexibility, as decentralization can be modified to adapt to changing national priorities or local needs.  However, this structure creates an inherent uncertainty for regional authorities, as their powers are not constitutionally protected, potentially limiting their effectiveness and stability.  This model’s centralization of ultimate authority can prove to be dissatisfactory to the actors calling for more autonomy to the respective regions, reducing their willingness to maintain stability. 

• Regional State:  A regional state divides the country into constitutionally recognized regions, each with its legislative framework and powers over areas like public health, education, and local economic development.  These powers are constitutionally protected, providing regions with a stable degree of autonomy while maintaining a strong central authority over national concerns.  This structure balances regional representation with a unified national framework.  However, the stability of a regional state model relies heavily on cooperation between regional and central authorities.  Conflicts may arise if regions pursue policies perceived to conflict with national interests or if local leaders prioritize regional over national identity, potentially leading to divisive politics.  Additionally, the permanent nature of constitutionally guaranteed powers may make it difficult for the central government to reclaim authority in times of national crisis or when regional policies conflict with broader national goals.  The model’s permanence can limit flexibility, potentially slowing the ability of the central government to respond to new challenges and compromising rapid policy adaptations that could benefit the entire country.

• Autonomous Regions:  Autonomous regions enjoy extensive control over their internal affairs while the central government retains authority over defense, foreign policy, and other essential national matters.  While such a model can be most effective at satisfying the demands of regions calling for autonomy or even independence, autonomous regions can present substantial risks to national cohesion.  Regions with significant autonomy may develop distinct political systems or foreign relationships that conflict with national priorities, creating potential internal divisions or even secessionist tendencies.  Autonomous regions also face the risk of becoming economically or politically isolated if they prioritize regional over national interests.  The high degree of independence afforded to these regions can also make it difficult for the central government to monitor and address issues such as corruption, discrimination, or other governance challenges within these areas.  The risk of reduced national integration may be particularly high if autonomous regions do not align their educational or cultural policies with those of the broader nation, potentially weakening citizens’ identification with the central state over time.

Defining the Powers of Decentralized Units within the State Structure

The following options outline potential powers for decentralized units within various state structure models.

• Local Control over Education and Cultural Policy:  Decentralized units could be empowered to manage education systems, including curricula, language policies, and cultural education programs that reflect regional identities.  This would allow for cultural preservation and inclusion of minority communities while aligning with national educational goals.  However, the risk is that localized curricula could contribute to regional divisions, undermining national unity and cohesion.

• Health and Social Services Administration:  Decentralized units could manage healthcare and social services, allowing for policies tailored to regional needs.  This could improve service delivery and responsiveness.  However, a lack of uniformity across regions could lead to disparities in the quality of healthcare, and coordination challenges might arise between regional and national policies, potentially undermining overall efficiency.

• Regional Economic Policy and Infrastructure Development:  Regions could have authority over local economic policies, infrastructure projects, and development initiatives.  However, conflicting regional policies may hinder national economic objectives and coordination.

• Limited Taxation Authority for Local Revenue Generation:  Decentralized units could be granted powers to levy taxes or fees, enabling them to raise revenue for local services and projects.  However, these powers must be carefully balanced to prevent disparities in revenue generation across regions and ensure that regional taxation does not conflict with national fiscal policies.

• Law Enforcement and Judicial Authority with National Oversight:  Local law enforcement and judicial systems could be managed by decentralized units for minor offenses and civil matters, with national oversight for more significant criminal activities and national security concerns.  While this allows regions to develop localized approaches to justice, inconsistent legal frameworks between regional and national authorities could create challenges in maintaining the rule of law and handling cross-regional criminal activities.

• Establishing Relationships with Foreign States:  Decentralized units could be granted limited powers to establish relationships with foreign states, particularly in areas such as trade, culture, or regional security cooperation.  However, such powers carry significant risks, including the potential for foreign states to use regional entities to exert influence over national policy or even to undermine national sovereignty.  Moreover, conflicts could arise if regional foreign relations contradict national foreign policy or compromise national security.

• Control over Natural Resources:  Decentralized units could be granted authority over natural resources within their territories, including mineral resources, energy production, and land management.  However, this power might lead to disputes over resource allocation between regions, and the central government would need to ensure that national interests—such as equitable resource distribution and environmental protection—are maintained.

• Security Forces and Local Defense:  In certain cases, decentralized units could be authorized to maintain their own security forces or regional defense capabilities.  While this could enhance the security of the region, the risk is that it might encourage regional separatism or create tensions with the central government, especially if these forces are used for purposes beyond local security.

• Control Over Local Media and Communications:  Decentralized units could have powers over regional media and communication policies.  However, this power could result in media that reinforces regionalist rhetoric, deepening divisions and potentially undermining efforts to maintain national unity.  

• Customs and Trade Regulations:  In some models, decentralized units could have limited authority to regulate trade and impose customs duties on goods entering their regions.  However, the risk is that customs duties and trade barriers between regions could create economic fragmentation, hamper national economic integration, and potentially violate international trade agreements.

• Cultural and Religious Autonomy:  Regions could be given authority over religious practices and the organization of religious institutions within their territory.  While this promotes religious and cultural freedom, there is a risk that religious autonomy could be used to perpetuate divisions or even fuel sectarian tensions, particularly if regions seek to align with external religious or cultural influences.