A longstanding assumption in the study of decentralization and multilevel governance is that federal systems are inherently more democratic. The logic is intuitive: by constitutionally dividing power and creating multiple arenas for representation and decision-making, federalism expands opportunities for citizen engagement. But does this institutional architecture actually translate into greater democratic participation?
A recent policy brief by the Forum of Federations offers a timely and empirically grounded answer. Focusing on voter turnout at the regional (or constituent unit) level, the study provides one of the clearest comparative assessments to date of whether federalism makes a measurable difference.
Federalism as more than institutional design
The starting point for the analysis is not controversial: federal systems are built on the principle of self-rule, with constitutionally recognized constituent units exercising authority in defined policy domains. This has long led scholars to associate federalism with democratic deepening—both as a safeguard against centralized authoritarianism and as a mechanism to accommodate territorial diversity.
Yet federalism is not just a distribution of powers; it also reflects a vision of governance that values autonomy, recognizes multiple political communities, and embeds these communities within an enduring constitutional framework. The question, then, is whether citizens respond to this structure by engaging more actively in political life—particularly at subnational levels.
The empirical test: turnout in federal vs. unitary systems
The study examines voter turnout in regional elections across a range of federal and unitary countries. The findings are striking.
Regional turnout in federal systems is consistently and significantly higher than in unitary states. On average, turnout is about eight percentage points higher in federations. Moreover, while turnout in unitary systems varies widely—sometimes dropping to very low levels—federal systems show both higher and more stable participation rates. In fact, in all federal countries included in the analysis, regional turnout exceeds 50 percent, reaching as high as the upper 80s in some cases.
Perhaps most interestingly, this relationship holds regardless of the formal level of autonomy enjoyed by regional governments. In other words, it is not simply the amount of power that drives participation. Rather, it appears to be the nature of the political system itself—the constitutional recognition, permanence, and legitimacy of constituent units—that shapes citizen engagement.
Why federalism appears to mobilize voters
The explanation offered in the brief is both intuitive and important. In federal systems, constituent units are not administrative conveniences; they are genuine political communities. Their existence is constitutionally guaranteed, their authority is institutionally embedded, and their role in governance is durable over time.
This permanence matters. Citizens are more likely to invest in political participation when they believe that the institutions they engage with are meaningful and enduring. In contrast, regional governments in unitary systems are often perceived as contingent—subject to reform, restructuring, or recentralization—which may dampen incentives for sustained engagement.
Federalism, in this sense, creates what might be called “communities of communities”: layered political identities in which citizens can meaningfully participate at multiple levels without perceiving these arenas as competing or transient.
What this means for multilevel governance
The Forum of Federations brief offers a modest but important contribution to ongoing debates about decentralization and democratic performance. Its core finding—that federal systems are associated with higher and more consistent voter turnout at the regional level—provides empirical backing to a long-held intuition in the field. More importantly, it clarifies that this effect is not primarily about the formal strength of subnational governments, but about their constitutional standing and political legitimacy as enduring arenas of democratic life.
For policymakers and practitioners, this suggests that strengthening multilevel governance is not simply a matter of reallocating functions or fiscal resources. Participation appears to depend just as much on whether citizens perceive subnational institutions as real political communities—stable, meaningful, and worth engaging with over time. Where regional or local governments are seen as administratively weak, politically contingent, or easily reversible, participation is likely to lag, regardless of their formal mandates.
At the same time, the findings should temper concerns that decentralization necessarily fragments national political life. The evidence indicates no trade-off between participation at the national and subnational levels: federal systems sustain engagement across both. In that sense, well-designed multilevel governance arrangements can deepen democratic participation without undermining national cohesion.
Taken together, the study reinforces a broader lesson for the decentralization community. Institutional design matters—but not only in technical terms. The deeper challenge is to build systems in which subnational governance is not merely delegated, but genuinely constituted as part of the democratic fabric. Where that happens, citizens appear more willing to show up.
Read the full policy brief on the webstre of the Forum of Federations:
André Lecours, Daniel Stockemer, Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau. 2026. Voter Turnout: Does Federalism Make a Difference? Forum of Federations Policy Brief.
