Federalism and the Way to Peace

Elazar argues that federal arrangements—constitutionally protected power-sharing among multiple centers, grounded in covenant—offer the best path to peace within and between divided societies. He rejects both the centralized unitary nation-state, which suppresses distinct communities, and partition, which he sees as creating unstable, hostile successor states. For Elazar, peace requires partnership among communities that retain their own political identity while sharing rule at the common level. This is an application of his general federalism theory to conflict resolution and international order.

Elazar treats covenant as a binding agreement among parties who retain their separate identities while creating a shared framework of governance—a partnership rather than a merger. Applied to peacemaking, covenant means adversaries negotiate a common structure without either side being absorbed or eliminated. He contrasts this with conquest, assimilation, or imposed centralization, which generate resentment and renewed conflict. The covenantal model is drawn from the biblical and Puritan traditions and is presented as a generalizable political principle for plural societies and even for international federation.

Exploring Federalism is Elazar's general theoretical statement—defining federalism as non-centralization, self-rule plus shared rule, and covenant. Federalism and the Way to Peace is an application of that theory to conflict resolution and international order, arguing that federal solutions can secure peace in divided societies and among states. The later book is more normative and prescriptive, using case material from Switzerland, the European Community, and the Middle East. Together they form a theoretical core and an applied extension of the same covenantal argument.

The argument has been cited in debates over multinational federalism, consociationalism, and conflict resolution, and it anticipates later work on federal solutions to ethnic conflict by scholars like Michael Burgess and Will Kymlicka. However, critics note that federal arrangements have sometimes failed to prevent conflict or have collapsed into centralized rule or partition—cases Elazar's framework handles less convincingly. His Middle East proposals in particular were not adopted, and the book remains more influential as normative theory than as a tested policy prescription.

Elazar draws on Switzerland as a model of multi-ethnic, multilingual federal stability; the European Community (later Union) as an emerging federal arrangement; and proposals for Middle East peace, including federal or confederal solutions for Israel and its neighbors. He also references the United States, Canada, and other federal systems as evidence that shared rule can accommodate diversity. The cases are used illustratively rather than as systematic comparative tests, which is one reason the book is read as normative theory rather than empirical political science.

A common misconception is that Elazar proposes world government or a single global federation. He does not: his argument is about federal partnerships at multiple levels, including regional and functional arrangements, not a centralized world state. Another misreading assumes he treats federalism as a guaranteed peace formula. Elazar presents it as a promising path requiring covenantal commitment from all parties, not an automatic mechanism. The book is a normative case for federal solutions, not a claim that any federal design will produce peace.