Federal Republic of the Philippines??? - The Pros and Cons of Federalism

Last Monday, the headline of a popular tabloid in the Philippines read as follows:

As most of you might be aware, Sen. Bongbong Marcos had guested in "Gikan sa Masa, Para sa Masa," a radio talk show in Davao City (the first national politician to do so) that frequently features the controversial Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, last Sunday, June 14. Marcos' guesting on the show raised speculations about a possible tandem between the two in the upcoming 2016 elections, since it is interesting to note that Sen. Marcos is supporting Mayor Duterte’s advocacy to amend the Constitution into a federal form of government, which, in turn, was initially proposed by former Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr.

Since the headline was written in a tabloid, this does not necessarily mean the tabloid itself is not credible. However, I will still take this as a grain of salt for now, unless there is a formal announcement confirming or denying this.

But somehow, I find the new charter change issue very interesting to me. If you are following the news, charter change has been an on-and-off issue over the years, though the proposed form of government varies. Some prefer federalism, while others prefer the parliamentary form. I personally prefer federalism, if you ask me, because in a parliamentary form of government, though the head of state may be elected by popular vote, the Prime Minister, who is the head of the government that will control the nation, will be elected by the Parliament itself. Because of this, there will be a tendency that the Prime Minister prolongs his/her term further, depending on certain circumstances, such as performance, satisfaction or power struggles. However, in this current scenario, this does not mean I have already decided to vote for them should this tandem would materialize. Currently I am still unsure who exactly I am rooting for in 2016, And since I understand the sensitive nature of Philippine politics, I have decided that I would simply keep my personal choices to myself.

So for this article, we will tackle about the advantages and disadvantages of having a federal form of government. What is federalism, anyway?

Federalism, in a general sense, is a division of governing power between national and state governments, which, in turn, further divided among many types of local governments. It is usually interpreted by some people as a form of decentralization (where local and regional governments have their own competences), delegation (where lower-level governments act as agents of the central government), deconcentration (where the central government is dispersed to regional branch offices), and even subsidiarity.

CENTRALIZATION VS DECENTRALIZATION

At this point, I presume some of you who will read this article would think I am indeed supporting federalism since I mentioned in the above paragraphs that I favor it more than the parliamentary form should charter change would be approved. In fact, I am somehow satisfied with our current form of government, as long as the president ruling this country is capable, competent, and most of all, incorruptible.

As a republic, with the governing power centralized in Malacanang, the spill-overs are being taken into account by central coordination. Accordingly, the economies of scale can be exploited; there will be better coordination; minimal provision of certain public goods can be guaranteed; redistribution of policy becomes feasible; and effective stabilization policy becomes possible.

However, if the government is decentralized, the regionally differing preferences can be better taken into account. There will be lower planning and administrative costs as bureaucracy can be reduced. Moreover, smallness and competition favor organizational and political innovations, and the politics will be more efficient as the citizens have more influence. I think the netizens may find the last point appealing to their cause, since they always voice out their opinion through social media, to the point they have been criticizing the government regarding certain issues which they think is unacceptablet to them. With an increased influence in a federal form of government, it will be possible for ordinary people to make a difference in their respective communities without any hindrances.

But aside from the points given in the abovementioned paragraphs, what are exactly the advantages and disadvantages of federalism?

An example of a Federal division of the Philippines.

  
The Pros

1. Federalism permits diversity. As previously stated, local governments may deal directly with local problems, and the entire country is not enveloped with a standard policy to which every province, city and barangay must conform. Provincial and local governments may be better suited to deal with specific respective issues. Besides, in my own perspective, bureaucrats in Manila do not always know the best solution for problems in the rural provinces, especially in Mindanao.

2. Federalism helps manage conflict. Permitting provinces and cities to pursue their own policies reduces the pressures that would build up in Malacanang if the national government had to decide everything. And with citizens having increased influence, they can be able to decide on various things at the provincial and local levels, thus avoiding battling over single national policies to be uniformly applied throughout the nation.

3. Federalism disperses power. The widespread distribution of power is generally regarded as a protection against tyranny, including dictatorship. People who lived in the Martial Law era may easily understand this. In the case of the United States, to the extent that pluralism thrives in the Union, state and local governments have contributed to its success. In addition, provincial and local governments may also provide a political base for the survival of the opposition party should they lose the national elections. So if the official national ticket of the opposition would lose, there will be a possibility to grab a hold of influence provincially, should their local tickets win in their respective provinces.

4. Federalism increases political participation. This would prove to be convenient in Philippine politics since we have a multi-party system, as it allows more people to run for and hold political office. In the Philippines, thousands of people hold some kind of political office in barangays, barrios, sitios, districts, municipalities, and cities. These local leaders are often regarded as closer to the people than those in Malacanang, as they can be easily approached. And I am certain many would agree with me by saying that local governments are more manageable and responsive than the national government (I do not mean our national government is incompetent, though).

5. Federalism improves efficiency. Even though we may think of eighty thousand governments as inefficient, some people, if not most, believe that governing the entire nation from Malacanang would be even worse. Imagine the bureaucracy, red tape, delays, and confusion if every government activity in every community in the nation—police, schools, roads, fire departments, garbage collections, sewage disposal, street lighting, and so on—were controlled by a central government in Malacanang (Actually it is currently happening. Example of which is law enforcement, as I observe they are still lacking with the necessary and state-of-the-art firearms and equipment due to lack of funds). Even in Russia, when she was then called the Soviet Union, leaders have been forced to resort to decentralization simply as a practical matter, though centralized discipline and party control are a matter of political ideology. But with federalism, experimentation and innovation in public policy in the provinces are highly encouraged.

Of course, federalism also has its drawbacks.

The Cons

1. Federalism allows special interests to protect their privileges. For many years, segregationists in the United States used the argument of states' rights to avoid federal laws designed to guarantee equality and prevent discrimination. Indeed, the states' rights argument has been used so often in defense of racial discrimination that it has become a code word for racism. Though it may apply in other issues, there will be a possibility that this same form of argument can be used by some people with hidden agendas should federalism is applied in the Philippines.

2. Federalism allows local leaders to frustrate national policy. They can obstruct not only civil rights policies, but also policies in areas as diverse as energy, poverty, and pollution. This is because, like I've said earlier, the country is not entirely under a standard national policy, and that the provincial and local governments have varied ordinances which they think might prove beneficial to their advancement. As a result, the influence of their national counterparts will be negated, as there could be certain points that the provincial governments feel would cause inconvenience for their constituents.

3. Federalism allows the benefits and costs of government to be spread unevenly. In the United States, on the aspect of education, some states spend more than twice as much per capita as other states. Sometimes, even in the same state, some wealthy school districts spend twice or thrice as much as the poorer ones. For taxes, meanwhile, some states are much higher than in others. In fact, five states have no state income tax at all. This is the reason why the cost of living in New York City and Los Angeles are so high, compared to the medium cost of living in Las Vegas.

4. Federalism creates disadvantages in poorer states and communities, which generally provide lower levels of education, health, and welfare services; police protection; and environmental protection than wealthier states and communities. Some provinces are experiencing this right now, so I won’t be surprised if this would prove true should federalism be implemented. However, I still hope that these provinces would still prosper somehow, especially since each of them will be given autonomy to govern from within.

5. Federalism obstructs action on national issues. Although decentralization may reduce conflict at the national level, some very serious national issues may be swept under the rug. Such as the case in the United States, wherein for many years, the issue of civil rights, being decentralized, allowed segregation to flourish. Only when the issue was nationalized in the 1960s by the civil rights movement was there any significant progress. If implemented in the Philippines, there will be a tendency that minorities (such as those in the agricultural and industrial sectors) can usually expect better treatment by national agencies rather than by provincial or local authorities. Same as with #4 above, I also hope this won’t happen, either.

Now that the advantages and disadvantages were already explained, I hope this may give you an idea of what will happen if the Philippines becomes a federation.

I, the Pooch, have spoken.

Sources:

Eichenberger, Reiner; "The Benefits of Federalism and the Risk of Overcentralization", KYKLOS, Vol. 47 (1994), Fasc. 3, pp. 403-420.