Our unexpected, recent economic woes and political controversies with powder-keg potential have helped push the proposed move to federalism to the back burner of the national discourse. According to one government official, it is merely taking a “power nap,” while others say it is “dead in the water.”
Whatever the case, federalism has become a contentious issue. The former Chief Justice who chaired the hastily formed Consultative Committee, which expeditiously came up with “A Draft Constitution for a Permanent Indissoluble Federal Republic,” has enthusiastically hailed federalism as the country’s road to salvation.
Meanwhile, another former Chief Justice has branded it as the road to perdition. Still other skeptical critics say that federalism through charter change is a Trojan horse hiding a more sinister, self-serving agenda.
The credible key economic managers of the government have expressed their unequivocal reservations, based mainly on the vagueness of some provisions and the projected high cost of the shift (estimated by Neda at P156.6 billion to P253.5 billion for the first year alone). They fear this would seriously strain the country’s fiscal resources and jeopardize its hard-earned international credit rating.
Supporting their view, many sectoral organizations issued a unanimous position urging prudence, thorough study and inclusive dialogue before the country took the plunge.
As a private citizen who may later be called to vote on the proposed shift, and starting with an objective attitude, I waded through the various sources in the internet, as well as numerous column opinions and independent articles on the subject.
I summarize my findings and my simplified conclusion below.
About Federalism
In its most basic form, federalism is a system in which there are two levels of government of equal status, the central (or federal) government and the regional (state, province, territory or other subunit) government, sharing an agreed-upon division of powers.
It seems that federalism has as many variations as there are countries practicing it. Depending on each country’s particular history and situation, it is a dynamic system which can adjust to the differing requirements of its individual component units.
Today there are 25 federalist countries, mostly large ones, which account for about 40 percent of the world’s population.
Prominent examples are the US (forerunner of modern federalism), Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Australia, India, Pakistan and Nigeria.
Some so-called federalist countries have unitarian features and vice versa, leading to varying opinions. For example federalist India is also called semifederalist because it has unitarian features.
Spain, which is supposed to be unitarian, has a high level of decentralization in its effort to accommodate secession-minded regions.
Historically, where there were formerly strong independent states, the trend was toward establishing a strong central government. For example, the US started as the union of the 13 original states that took part in the American revolution. This is reflected in the national motto “E Plubirus Unum” (Out of many, One).
There are successful federal countries and there are also failed or struggling ones. The same holds true for unitarian states.
The only conclusion I can make is that the success or failure of any form of government seems to depend on the country’s unique history, its present situation, and its culture and values, taking into account ethnic, religious and geographical groupings.
But the real key to a nation’s success, regardless of the form of government, is the quality of governance by the people who run it.
Advantages
Theoretically, federalism is supposed to have advantages. In the Philippine context, the main argument given by its proponents is that giving more powers to the proposed 18 federated regions will allow them to maximize their individual economic, social and political potentials, making them practically independent of “imperial Manila,” where political power, economic benefits and social development are concentrated.
In short, a shift to federalism will accelerate regional progress, contributing synergistically to the progress of the whole nation.
Arguments against
To simplify, the main argument against federalism seems to be: We do not need it. There will be a huge cost in shifting to and maintaining a bloated, two-level and highly duplicated federal bureaucracy; the great disparity in the present strengths and resources of the proposed regions will only exacerbate, not alleviate, the present situation because it will put more pressure on the central government to prop up the poorer regions, which greatly outnumber the viable ones.
The transformation of the existing LGUs into wider regions will only worsen political exploitation by the entrenched political dynasties; with less oversight and monitoring from central authorities, the potential for rebellion and secession will be enhanced, not diminished.
Lastly, the existing Local Government Code (with the necessary implementing laws) under the present Constitution is sufficient to achieve the objectives of the proposed federal system without its attendant costs.
Bad governance
Given the above, let me cite a column article by a former Neda secretary on what keeps us behind our neighbors. After conducting a personal survey among his fellow economists and associates, he concluded that the main reason the Philippines has been the perennial tail-ender in high and inclusive economic growth in Asean was bad governance.
To emphasize his point, one of his respondents cited that the top three components of bad governance were corruption, corruption and corruption.
We may also add perennial bureaucratic inefficiency.
These unremedied governance defects have significantly and continuously dissipated our country’s otherwise productive resources.
I don’t think many will dispute this. The President himself, in utter frustration over his failure to eradicate “endemic corruption,” recently said he was considering resigning because his futile efforts had left him exhausted.
Given that corruption is the major feature of misgovernance in every level of government, making it the primary obstacle to our country’s progress on all development fronts (as reflected in global performance indices), can anyone seriously believe that changing our government system will automatically put us on the right path?
On the contrary, multiplying and duplicating the number of elective, appointive and career positions in the government bureaucracy will only increase the opportunities for corruption.
Forget the huge initial organizational expense and the recurring operating expenses. The ensuing potential for corruption will probably exceed these legitimate expenses many times over.
Just think about it: more duplication of functions; more elective and appointive officials; more government agencies; more judicial courts; more red tape; more infrastructure, health and social welfare projects; more suppliers, contractors and middlemen to milk. The list goes on.
The ship of state
Using the classic analogy, our nation’s “ship of state” is a unitarian government. But sadly, many of its officers and crew are inefficient and undisciplined (corrupt), seriously hampering our voyage.
Will transferring all the passengers to another vessel (federalism), as the ship’s captain proposes, using the same crew and adding more, speed up or further slow down our voyage?
I believe the solution is to transform or change the crew, not the ship. —CONTRIBUTED