The Arguments for a Federal System of Government
By Christopher Ryan Maboloc, PhD
The political exclusion of the South has had
tremendous social and economic costs. The Philippines has achieved sustained Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) growth under President Benigno Aquino III in the last
six years, and yet, this wealth has not really trickled down to the poorest
households.[1]
The lack of opportunities in the South, for example, has resulted to the
diminished lives of our people and in the absence of lasting peace.[2] If
we are to grow as one nation and end the great divide between North and South,
then we have to look for a political solution somewhere.
Dr. Jose Abueva, in
“Some Advantages of Federalism and Parliamentary Government for the
Philippines,” argues that a federal-parliamentary system of government will
result to “greater human and institutional capability for good governance.”
(Abueva 2005) Indeed, the weakness of our country’s institutions can be traced
to the lack of people empowerment, most especially in the rural areas and in
its poorest regions. For this reason, the devolution of power away from Central
Manila, considering years of neglect, will always make sense.
In his important
paper entitled “Understanding Federalism,” Raphael Montes Jr. of the UP Center
for Local and Regional Governance, enumerates at least three important
arguments for a federal form of government. This is a very short exposition of
the points that he has presented in that paper.
The
Arguments for Federalism
1. A Free Market – Markets work well in a free environment.
Business thrives when there is less government interference. The promotion of a
free market means independence in terms of economic policy making, one that
allows greater diversity and the free flow of market goods at the local level.
This will reduce the power, influence, and dominance of big multi-national
corporations headquartered in the capital. At present, the oligarchic nature of
the Philippine economy is due to the concentration of power in Manila. Centralized
planning often stifles local growth because of delays in the implementation of
projects. The Airport in Panglao, Bohol, which took many generations to plan, is
a case in point. In this regard, the tendency of the central government to
control economic policy making will have to be limited (Montes 2006) and local
units will have to be empowered for them to be able to make and implement their
economic plans and policies based on their needs and capacities. Furthermore, resources
must be made available by the national government to the regions equitably in
order to make growth sustainable at the local level.
2. Management of Political Conflicts – With a federal system, ethnic
and multi-cultural conflicts can be managed with more positive results given
the sense of understanding of the various stakeholders at the local level. Federalism,
as a matter of principle, makes possible the sharing of political power between
the majority and the minority. It also helps rectify historical wrongs. According
to Will Kymlicka, people who have been previously colonized are often divided
by religion, culture and linguistic barriers, (Kymlicka 2007) which often
result to social-economic exclusion, political domination, and cultural
marginalization of communities or regions. Given such, secessionist activities exist
due to the blatant disregard of the basic rights of minorities. Obviously, the
lack of economic development in some regions helps ignite armed conflict. In
this sense, the problem needs to be fixed by means of a paradigm shift. Citing
the situation in the ARMM, Francisco Lara makes an interesting point for the
above case in his recent book, Insurgents,
Clans and States:
The
foundations of economic underdevelopment in Muslim Mindanao can be traced to
the period before the foreign conquest of the region. Before the Spanish
colonizers arrived in the country and attempted to conquer Mindanao, the region
had been under the domain of Muslim sultanates that operated as feudal states
that governed these large territories. (Lara 2014, 127)
Massive poverty inspires rebellion. The lack of jobs often
motivates young men to take up arms against the established authority. But
there is a more fundamental problem when a group of people feel betrayed by the
dominant majority – the lack of respect for their dignity and culture. Charles
Taylor, in this respect, argues that there is a need to recognize the situated
identities of peoples. (Taylor 1994) Advocates for federalism believe that it is
an effective instrument that thwarts “disintegration and secession by providing
constitutional means for conflict management and self-determination.” (Montes
2006, 161) For instance, the proposal for an asymmetric model of federalism may
provide group-differentiated rights based on language, culture, and religion,
including local taxing powers and control in the extraction of natural resources.
[3]
3. Governance and Democratization – Born with less in life, many
ethnic groups are often denied their basic economic rights. Analysts point to
unjust colonial structures. But the greater problem emanates from the fact that
economic development has not been democratized. The basic point, theorists
argue, is that federalism is an instrument for authentic democratization. For
instance, by means of the devolution of power, local political units will be
able to exercise their sense of subsidiarity. This will make them more
responsible for their own future.
The above idea is grounded in the contextualization of government
power. It is meant to address the need to be sensitive to the desires, dreams,
and longings of local peoples. To achieve such, government decision making should
not be dependent on the national government. National leaders are often
controlled by their political parties and by those with vested political or
economic interests. By means of decentralizing the decision making processes, the
people will have a greater say in terms of social policy, including the design
of laws and public rules on health, education and revenue generation.
Three
Common Features of Federalism
There are at least
three common features or basic principles that characterize a federal system of
government as identified by Montes.
1. Division of
Powers – The basic division of powers between the federal government and its
constituent units will have to be constitutionally determined. Constitutional
guarantees must secure the autonomy of local units. The responsibilities
pertaining to defense, foreign affairs, immigration policy, currency, and
international trade belong to the federal level of government. (Montes 2006)
This also includes human rights, the courts and customs. (Abueva 2005) The
burden of the national government, in this regard, will be limited and national
leaders will be more focused, especially in handling international affairs. It
can, for instance, concentrate on forging favorable trade deals for the
country, given the reality of globalization. For Montes, the decentralization of
power is expected to foster economic growth and sustainable development. (Montes
2006) As an institutional mechanism, it is expected to ease the delivery of
basic services to the poorest population by streamlining and localizing the decision
making processes of governance. Abueva also thinks that corruption will be
easier to detect and punish because there will be greater transparency and
accessibility at the local level of governance. (Abueva 2005)
2. Fiscal
Equalization – Economic development depends on sustainable investments. Amartya
Sen thinks that the goal of human development is closely related to the
political freedoms of people, which includes transparency and laws on
competition. (Sen 1999) People, from a human development perspective, according
to Mahbub Ul Haq, must be seen “as the real wealth of the nation.” (HDR 1996) The
country has to generate more permanent jobs. To improve the quality of life of
the people, the poorest regions should be prioritized in the distribution of resources.
According to Montes, tax collection is usually done at the federal level.
(Montes 2006) This means that the federal government has the political burden
to share its resources to the different regions for their operations and the
delivery of government services. John Kincaid affirms this point in his
suggestion that there must be equalization in the sharing of revenues from
richer regions to poor constituencies in order to ensure comparable levels of
public services. (Kincaid 2005)
3. Accommodation of Diversity – For Montes, multi-cultural
communities characterize most federal forms of government. Canada and its
Quebec region are a case in point. Multiculturalism is grounded in the basic
recognition of the distinct identities of peoples and the diversity of their cultures
and religious beliefs. The economic, social and political exclusion of minority
groups often threaten national solidarity. Montes says that a federal system is
seen as a way to maintain territorial integrity. (Montes 2006) He writes:
“Whatever
kind of diversity may be present in federal countries, the recognition of the
distinctness of each constituent community is paramount to facilitate peaceful
co-existence of peoples.” (Ibid. 168)
Conclusion
and Challenges
In following the
arguments presented by Montes, it can be said that not only cultural and
economic inequalities precipitate the devolution of power to local
constituencies (Montes 2006), but I think there has been varying degrees of social
exclusion and religious discrimination as well. For this reason, the protection
and promotion of the political freedoms of the people will also require the
recognition of their human rights and group-differentiated entitlements to
language, religious and cultural rituals, including the power to extract and
benefit from natural resources. Development, as Sen rightly points out, “is the
expansion of the freedoms of people.” (Sen 1999, 150)
Still, there are
various challenges that must be met. Alex Brillantes (2002) thinks that the
need for a federal system is in view of the imperative to develop self-reliance
on the part of local governments. However, he also thinks that in order to
achieve the authentic devolution of power, governance at the local level must
also be strengthened. The Local Government Code of 1991 is good, but it is not
good enough. The way I see it, some of the deep-seated problems that need to be
addressed include the reality of local dynasties and the possible emergence of
new oligarchs as power players who will surely want to exercise their influence
on local leaders, many of whom have become little tyrants.
References
Abueva, Jose. 2005. “Some advantages of federalism and
parliamentary government for the Philippines.” Accessed from: http://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/Abueva-Federalism.pdf
Brillantes, Alex
and Moscare, Donna. 2002. “Decentralization and Federalism in the Philippines,”
UP NCPAG. Discussion Paper. Accessed from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/eropa/unpan032065.pdf
Kincaid, John. 2005. “Comparative
Observations,” in Constitutional Origins,
Structure and Change in Federal Countries,Volume1, John Kincaid and G. Alan
Tarr, eds., McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal.
Kymlicka, Will.
2007. Contemporary Political Philosophy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lara Jr., Francisco. 2014. Insurgents,
Clans and States. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
McGarry, John.
2005. “Asymmetrical Federalism and Plurinational State,” A Position Paper.
Accessed from: http://www.federalism2005.be/home/attachment/i/580
Montes, Raphael.
2006. “Understanding Federalism,” in Federalism
and Multiculturalism, Center for Local and Regional Governance. Accessed
from: http://localgov.up.edu.ph/uploads/1/4/0/0/14001967/montes_understanding_federalism.pdf
Sen, Amartya.
1999. Development as Freedom. New
York: Knopf.
Taylor, Charles.
1994. “The Politics of Recognition,” in Multiculturalism,
ed. by Charles Taylor, Princeton University Press.
Ul Haq, Mahbub.
1996. Human Development Report. UNDP.
[1] Average
incomes in the ARMM are lowest among all other regions of the Philippines, with
poverty incidence of 45% according to UNDP (2005). The poverty rate in the ARMM
is at 48% (NSCB 2012).
[2] For
instance, the conflict in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao may be
correlated with the lack of educational opportunities for its people. In the
ARMM, only 26% of children of school age participate in primary school compared
to 43% of Mindanao and 45% for the rest of the country. Of those that are able
to enter school, completion rates are lowest in the ARMM, with only 37% of
students entering the elementary grade (Grade 1) making it to sixth grade,
versus 53% for Mindanao and 66% for the rest of the country. Economic downturns
were occasioned in the region by the economic recession in 1997, the full-scale
war in 2000-2001 and the resurgence of armed conflict in 2003. (Lara 2014)
[3]
Asymmetry
is a situation in which local units or regions enjoy a distinct form of
autonomy. (McGarry 2005)
