Introducing the opportunities for separate states to set specific standards and regulations reflecting the needs of local citizens can be seen as one of the core characteristics of federalism. In the U.S. context, what Pickerill and Bowling (2014) refer to as the “bottom-up federalism” reflects the idea of citizens themselves shaping the legal system and the relevant regulations by means of engaging in political activism (p 369). As the example of the movements associated with fighting for the rights of marginalized populations indicates, bottom-up federalism can be implemented as the means of shaping the state policies by citizens and, therefore, defining the legal standards on a federal level. Therefore, bottom-up federalism can be explained as the process of citizens and local organizations affecting legal standards by demanding rights for specific populations.
The specified change will entail certain implications for the domestic policy in the U.DSD. Specifically, as citizens shape the legal standards on local levels, the extent to which the government is capable of affecting local businesses is expected to be reduced. As a result, local entrepreneurship will receive a boost since it will no longer be constrained by the influence of the bodies that have little understanding of the individual factors shaping companies’ performance (Kincaid & Cole, 2014). Therefore, the domestic policy will be affected significantly on local levels, causing a rise in the efficacy of local organizations’ performance. Additionally, the issue at hand affects sociopolitical and sociocultural relationships, defining the efficacy of meeting the rights and needs of specific categories within the local population, particularly vulnerable and marginalized community members.
However, for bottom-up activism and the related processes to produce the necessary effect, certain conditions must be met. Specifically, awareness must be actively promoted among general audiences so that citizens can embrace their power to shape the legal system and participate actively in the introduction of social justice into the present-day legal system. The specified requirement implies the need to encourage engagement in shaping the political system in the target population (Pickerill & Bowling, 2014). Furthermore, for bottom-up activism to emerge and blossom into a coherent movement that can potentially shape the legal framework within a specific community, sociocultural issues need to be resolved, at least to some extent. Rivlin (2012) warns that the presence of financial restrictions, as well as the problem of government distrust and political polarization within society can serve as the factors reducing the likelihood of bottom-up activism and the resulting positive change within the legal system.
The conditions in question can be seen as percolating into the future development of premises for positive change within the legal system. Though new sociopolitical and socioeconomic trends will inevitably emerge, shaping the context in which federalist principles are implemented and where activism affects the emergence of new legal standards, the core issues linked to the underrepresentation of specific minority groups, the presence of implicit social bias, and political tensions caused by the discrepancies in the public interpretation of specific issues will continue to represent obstacles to successful management of legal concerns. Therefore, the conditions mentioned above, specifically the p[the problem of marginalized groups being underrepresented and, therefore, struggling to voice their concerns, will remain a factor defining the development and shaping of activism linked to the implementation of federalist principles and the emergence of new legal standards defining relationships within specific communities.
References
Kincaid, J., & Cole, R. L. (2014). Is federalism still the “dark continent” of political science teaching? Yes and no. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(4), 877-883.
Pickerill, J. M., & Bowling, C. J. (2014). Polarized parties, politics, and policies: Fragmented federalism in 2013–2014. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 44(3), 369-398.
Rivlin, A. M. (2012). Rethinking federalism for more effective governance. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 42(3), 387-400.