This post is about how to create a failed state composed of regions and how to prevent this failure from happening.

But first, it’s important to understand the concept of Overton Window.

What is the Overton window?

The Overton Window is a concept in political science that describes the range of policies or ideas that are considered acceptable or mainstream in public discourse at a given time. Ideas within this "window" are seen as politically feasible, while those outside it are viewed as too extreme or radical to gain widespread support.

The work of activists and pressure groups is to move their policy ideas from the edge into the mainstream while parties that pose themselves for election take a pro or contra position against such policies.

Ideas can shift to the center and out of acceptance over time, for example Prohibition was very popular in 1919 when it was framed as an anti-crime and strongly christian policy. In fact, it was so popular it was enacted through a constitutional amendment which required 75% of the votes.

However, by 1933 support for Prohibition declined to such an extent that another amendment passed to repeal it, again requiring 75% of the vote.

Today, it is unthinkable to ban alcohol in the United States.

In this post I will use the policy idea of building more nuclear power stations as an example to illustrate how national policy can fail when regional policies Overton windows don’t align.

Politicians do not champion ideas outside the Overton window.

Imagine a politician today arguing for Prohibition, you’d think he would be from another planet.

Likewise with more radical policies such as giving men the option to refuse any financial responsibility for kids during the period of the pregnancy where abortion is still possible.

What makes a failed federation?

Not all federations fail, the United States is a clearly successful one despite having fought a bloody civil war over slavery at the time. A policy idea that today sits on the Unthinkable axis of US politics.

For ease of discussion, I will consider confederations and federations the same. Both try to form policy at the top-level and enact those in all their regions.

1. Failed federations suffer from the inability to create a shared identity that is stronger than its regional ones.
   Whether it’s Quebec, Bavarian, Catalan or Flemish. People inhabiting these regions identify themselves to various levels as the national level. Catalan identity is particularly strong today, while Flemish is also strong but secessionist sentiment is much less.

2. Failed federations have strong secessionist parties

   Splitting off is an option that is openly discussed and promoted by politicians.

   In the context of the EU, Brexit comes to mind but also Flemish and Catalan independence movements qualify.

3. Regions have veto rights over federal policies

   While Catalans feel Spain does not represent them, this is insufficient to qualify for a failed federation. Federal policy in Spain is enacted and executed over the objections of its regions.

   
   This is not the case in Belgium and the EU.

It’s clear that this is not the case in successful federations like the United States and that federations that have some criteria but not all maintain functional governance.

If you are Catalan, you probably disagree strongly but Catalonia does not have veto rights (not by population size and not by constitution) which keeps Spain governable.

Regionally elected politicians without federal veto powers will always create unhappy populations but if they don’t have a veto that does not result in a failed federation.

Historically, failed federations eventually dissolve.

Historically, ungovernable countries and federations eventually split or were invaded which led to their dissolution. Examples include the United States of Belgium (lasted for 11 months in 1790), the Holy Roman Empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Gran Colombia, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and the Hanseatic league.

It’s little known but the United states actually was a confederation for 5 years after it won the Revolutionary war with each state carrying a veto but the inability to support a national army and the inability to enact and police inter-state commerce paved the way for a radical overhaul of their constitution.

Only the United states transitioned to a functional federation voluntarily.

They did so for the same reasons the EU would make this step today.

What makes federations with regional vetoes ungovernable?

As a Belgian and a European, I have seen this dynamic play out many times and fundamentally it’s caused by a mismatch in Overton windows between the member states.

First off, it’s important to acknowledge that politicians are only elected in their region and therefore are only subjected to the Overton windows of their region.

Consider the policy of building more nuclear power plants today.

This policy would be somewhat ok in Belgium and it’s actually a policy France is enacting but then in Germany there is an almost religious opposition to the idea of even keeping the existing nuclear power plants open.

If this were to come up on the EU level, Germany would veto it always.

Should the EU enact it without German approval, this would feel non-democratic to Germans and German politicians would spin narratives that this was forced upon them by the EU. They would be victims of federal overreach.

I have seen this dynamic play out in Belgian politics many times.

Flemish politicians who don’t stand for election in Wallonia, blame Walloon politicians for forcing policies on them that are deeply unpopular in Flanders.

Walloon politicians do the same.

In effect, this is why Belgium holds the world-record of government formation and why secessionists parties keep gaining strength. If not for the strong Flemish resistance against giving up Brussels, the country would have been split decades ago.

Would nuclear policy be inside the Overton window if we look at all the 450 million europeans?

Suppose that there is actually a majority in the EU for it, then the regional veto of Germany would be undemocratic for the EU as a whole.

But how would we actually know that this is a majority opinion in the EU.

We would have to create a EU-wide Overton windows and then we would have to have an election to understand what is really popular and what is not.

Political debate as the means to merge windows

Stimulating cross-border debate and bringing viewpoints from both Germany and France together will create a shared understanding of policy ideas and arguments pro and contra for them.

This shared understanding expands the “unthinkable” aspects of both France and Germany in opposite directions.

But how do we know which one is actually popular?

Elections reset the center of the Overton window

Elections where politicians stand to gain votes in every region stimulates debate and incentivized politicians to promote a common viewpoint between the regions.

This becomes part of their election-platform and when they win, that is the most clear indication their platform is popular.

Elections with regionally elected parties would never lead to consensus

Regional electoral spheres would spark only separate political debates.

Politicians up for election will not campaign or even enter into debate in regions where they are not up for election. It’s just a waste of their time and it’s doubtful Sweden would really care what an Italian politician has to say in order to win an Italian election.

This creates a playing field where regionally elected politicians can say whatever they want to their constituencies. In fact, German politicians will be anti-nuclear and even if they are pro-nuclear, they will probably avoid making this a point of debate.

This does not allow the German population to hear divergent opinions and expand the Overton window of acceptable discourse but it actually hardens policy positions further and they become entrenched.

Opposition politicians can score easy points by arguing against federal policies.

It’s policy their population does not agree with a federal policy (e.g. freedom of movement), they can only win votes by positioning against that.

This is destructive for the unity of the federation and ultimately why all those federations disappear.

Although the United States has regional elections (senate, house of representative), the main political discourse is federal and often only policies from other parties are criticized in order to not jeopardize their national career.

They will try not to argue for deeply unpopular national policies.

Federal electoral spheres create the required Overton alignments between the regions.

Federal elections work because they create both

1. Cross-border debate

2. Disincentivize politicians to gain votes by anti-federal positioning

3. Create an election that clearly settles where majority opinion is.

4. It incentivizes politicians to pay attention to grievances in all the regions and not just their own.

Having the same person on the ballot in every state is critical to stimulate debate and create a clear signal of acceptable discourse.

The longer the election campaign lasts, the more merged the regional Overton windows become and the more clear the final choice will be.

Moreover, politicians will have good things to say about the federal level because majority in opinion is how they will get elected.

The solution to the Overton deadlock is a unified electoral sphere.

1. Promotes National Cohesion:

   Candidates must appeal to a broad audience, crossing regional, linguistic, or ethnic divides.

2. Balances Regional and National Interests:

   Leaders are incentivized to address concerns from all parts of the country, not just their base region.

3. Strengthens Shared Identity:

   A single national leader symbolizes unity and shared governance across the federation.

Leaders elected through such a broad electoral sphere will have the mandate to enact deep reforms and override local state concerns into a cohesive national policy.

The evidence is in the strong national identities and lack of secessionist parties in presidential systems

The United States used to be divided but now the American identity supersedes any local state identity.

The same for the French and many Latin American countries such as Brazil.

All those countries have widely divergent regions but they are successful federations.