Why Australian federalism works better than Spain's

Australian federalism works better than Spain's thanks to an electoral system that empowers the individual MP over the party, thereby strengthening Parliament and the relationship between the central state and the territorial entities.

The Australian parliamentary system still deserves that name. Parliament retains a power that in Spain has been diluted, notably by keeping the monopoly on passing rules with the force of law. There is no normative instrument there similar to the Spanish decreto-ley (emergency decree-law). The closest equivalents are framework acts and delegated legislation, a technique barely used in Spain since the 1980s.

## The Australian Parliament, a real power

The relationship between Parliament and Government in Australia is not as skewed in favour of the latter as it is in Spain. The Australian Parliament has a strength that allows it to pass laws, something that in Spain has been steadily losing ground to the executive. This is no small difference, since a strong parliament is the foundation of a healthy democracy.

The Australian Constitution, from **1900**, laid the foundations of dual federalism, granting considerable power to the territorial governments. Over time, however, the Federation's powers have been reinforced. This process, socially accepted despite state reluctance, reflects the need for greater coordination in the modern world. In Spain, the autonomous state trinc a markedly centrifugal dynamic, and when regional services fail, the blame falls on state funding or excuses are found to recentralise without it being noticed. One example is the creation of the Unidad Militar de Emergencies (UME, a military emergency unit) to deal with disasters.

## Territorial disputes: interests over ideology

Disputes between the central government and the autonomous communities in Spain are usually tinged with a strong partisan bias. It is common to see clashes between regions governed by one party and a central government led by another. This dynamic, which has alternated over time, is not seen as clearly in Australia.

Although ideology carries weight in Australia, territorial interests come first. This very summer, **Anthony Albanese**'s Labor government proposed abolishing the extra private health insurance rebate for those over 65, which several states opposed, including the Labor government of **New South Wales**. At the same time, the government of **Victoria**, also Labor, is challenging the current system for distributing the GST (the Australian equivalent of VAT) among the states, a system that a technical commission has confirmed disproportionately favours **Western Australia**. This would be comparable to a Spanish regional leader publicly criticising the Basque and Navarrese fiscal quotas (cupos).

## Political culture and the electoral system

The great difference in how things work, beyond the rules, between Australia and Spain lies in political culture. Decades of practising parliamentarism and federalism, with party obedience taking a back seat, have cemented this difference. In my view, this culture has been strengthened by an electoral system that allows politicians to believe in what they say.

Visiting the Parliament of **Queensland** is a revealing experience. Past the security check, you come across a large panel displaying photos of the 93 current state MPs, with their constituency below their name, but without specifying the party. Walking down the corridors, you encounter photos of past legislatures. This visual prominence of individual representatives is repeated in other state parliaments and in the Federal Parliament in **Canberra**. The message is clear: the institution is made up of individual representatives, not just parties or leaders.

In Spain, this visibility of the individual MP is practically non-existent, beyond the portrait galleries of former presidents. The reason is simple: in Spain, parliamentarians cede the spotlight to the political groups, whereas in Australia MPs have a standing of their own.

## The individual MP versus the closed list

The main cause of this difference lies in the electoral system. The Spanish Congress is elected through closed, blocked lists. The voter chooses a candidacy drawn up by the party, which means the MP owes much of his or her political career to those who draw up those lists.

Australia, by contrast, trinc a different system. The House of Representatives is elected in single-member districts. Citizens vote for specific candidates, by name, even though the party they belong to appears below. The party matters, yes, but the MP has a much more direct relationship with his or her constituency and with the voters who renew their trust at each election. This does not eliminate party discipline, but it introduces a crucial element: territorial loyalty. The MP knows he or she represents a district and that his or her political survival depends not only on the party's electoral committee but also on the judgement of the voters. As **Ortega y Gasset** aptly noted in **1929**, "The health of democracies, whatever their type and degree, depends on one wretched technical detail: the electoral procedure. Everything else is secondary."