Document Type : Original Article
Highlights
خلاصه انگلیسی مقاله «برداشت بریتانیایی از تمرکززدایی»
Decentralization has a history of ups and downs. France can be considered as a leading and exemplary country in this field to the extent that today most countries in the world follow the French decentralization model. However, since the legal form of the British nation-state and decentralization in this country seem different from the common models in the world, the main topic and question of this research is the organization of British decentralization. There has always been both "change" and "continuity" in British constitutional arrangements. We have seen rapid changes in Britain's political, economic and social spheres since the Labor Party took office following the 1997 general election. Across the United Kingdom, national political institutions have rapidly changed their structures to provide the conditions for the exercise of power. According to the findings of this study, the incorporating union referred to in the domestic legal literature as the legal form of the British nation-state, like regionalism, is a kind of political centralism and at the same time administrative decentralization, but at the same time compared to regionalism, It is closer to political decentralization and federalism.
Decentralization in Britain, known as Devolution, has a relatively long process rather than an instantaneous trend. Various factors such as culture, nationality, ethnicity, race, economic inequality, etc make The decentralization process in Britain faced many challenges and has had many effects on it. The effects that are now apparent, given the scope of the United Kingdom's territories jurisdiction. In fact, these factors and their importance for it's member have led to differences - both in terms of time and quality - in determining the limits of competence of members. This is perhaps one of the unique features of decentralization in the UK, known as "asymmetry". Asymmetry means that the delegated powers and competencies are not the same in terms of time and quality. The powers conferred on Scotland are greater than those of Northern Ireland and those conferred on Northern Ireland are more than Wales, and above these three countries is England, which is in fact the center of British political and administrative weight. Another feature of decentralization in Britain is the absolute rule of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Thus the Parliament of Westminster oversees all laws passed by the parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and may authorize the repeal or amendment of such laws. Granting a high degree of freedom of action to local units, a unique financing system and a bottom-up design are other features of the decentralization system in the UK. Based on these characteristics, it can be said that the British perception of the of decentralization is different from the common models around the world, so much so that it can be said that decentralization in Britain has a special and unique pattern.
But can a study and analysis of the British decentralization model lead to suggestions for redesigning the decentralization system in Iran? Since the Iranian legal-political system is structurally not similar to the British legal-political system, the comparison between the two seems futile, but an important point that has always been the cause of various challenges in both countries, is the issues such as ethnicity, religion and race. In multi-ethnic countries, if the central power can not properly guide and strengthen the "national consensus", in conditions of instability, the country will diverge. It seems that given the political geography and demands of different ethnic groups in Iran, who sometimes make separatist claims, now is the time to make a fundamental change to change the status of decentralized institutions in Iran from a place to distribute rent and corruption to a more participatory one in which People are involved in local and regional decision-making and the development of participatory democracy in all regions and for all ethnicities. In other words, perhaps the British experience of keeping four countries with four different cultures, races, ethnicities and nationalities together by using decentralization tools with its own perception can be a good model for resolving the chaotic situation of decentralized institutions in Iran. ; On the one hand, in Iran, issues such as ethnicity, religion and race, and the central government's lack of attention to these issues have always caused tensions in different parts of the country, On the other hand, following the French view of decentralization has so far not been very effective for the Iranian legal system and decentralization, and federalism is not very compatible with Iran's political geography and territorial texture and can distort the principles of national unity and territorial integrity of Iran.
