Federalism

Executive and judicial institutions
Executive institutions
Where federalism is a response to cleavages of culture or identity in society, other 
forms of inclusion for the distinct subdivisions of society may be incorporated 
into central institutions, and this can extend to both executive institutions and 
legislatures:
• In Belgium, the cabinet must consist of an equal number of French-
speaking and Dutch-speaking members.
• In Switzerland, the presidency rotates around the seven-member executive 
council, which, by convention (although not by any constitutional law), 
always has a balance of members from French-speaking, German-speaking 
and Italian-speaking cantons.
• In Nigeria, a presidential candidate must win not only a plurality of votes 
cast but also at least 25 per cent of the votes in two-thirds of the 36 states 
(article 133). This rule is designed to promote the inclusion of different 
ethnic and religious communities in national politics by making it difficult 
for a divisive candidate to be elected.

---

International IDEA 37
9. Federalism and the constitution as a whole
Judicial institutions
The judiciary in a federation is often called upon to resolve disputes between the 
different levels of government and to make pronouncements on the powers and 
responsibilities of each level. This places a special responsibility on the supreme or 
constitutional court at the apex of the judicial system, which must have an 
unassailable reputation for independence, neutrality and competence. In countries 
where federalism is a response to cultural diversity, there might be a need to 
ensure the representation of different communities on the court or their balanced 
participation in the judicial appointments process. In Canada, for example, one-
third of the members of the Supreme Court must be appointed from Quebec. For 
more information on the composition of supreme or constitutional courts, see 
International IDEA Constitution-Building Primer No. 4, Judicial Appointments.