The false promise of federalism
TALK is abuzz in academic, political and business circles about an imminent shift in our system of government from a unitary to a federal system. This move is one of the major changes promised by the newly installed Duterte administration.
Proponents of federalism in the Philippines argue that a federal system of government offers the best way of bringing together our fractured society, and is the most promising solution for solving the problems that plague the nation.
On deeper reflection, however, I believe, as do many other sceptics, that the disadvantages of federalism in the context of Philippine society far outweigh the perceived advantages.
There are several reasons why I think that we should avoid moving precipitously in this direction and proceed instead with extreme care and discretion, lest we fumble and stumble along the way.
We focus on three reasons for caution.
Federalism is an ineffective strategy for achieving social well-being
Philippine society is made up of a multiplicity of interconnected and highly interdependent and interacting parts—political subdivisions, geographic regions, communities, ethnic groups, political, economic, religious and other types of institutions, and so on. Choices made and actions taken in any of these components of society in pursuit of their respective interests invariably affect the rest of the country, both positively and negatively.
For example, strategies for tourism development adopted in the Cordillera Autonomous Region are bound to affect income from tourism in the Cagayan Valley and other adjoining regions. Efforts to solve the burgeoning traffic problem in the National Capital Region will have important consequences on transport costs in Central Luzon and the Calabarzon Region. Forest conservation measures implemented in Western Mindanao may affect water supplies in the adjoining areas. Local and regional environmental policies are especially far-reaching in their external effects.
It also seems intuitively clear that competition among the various “states” in the proposed federal system, each pursuing its own developmental strategy, is bound to have an adverse effect on the overall development of society. Indeed, there is more sense in encouraging collaboration among the various segments of society with the end in view of maximizing their combined contribution to our collective well-being.
To achieve this ultimate goal of public policy, there is an obvious need for a centralized administrative mechanism to holistically manage the external and residual effects of choices made at the regional and local levels, and to ensure that these are brought into coherence. This ideal situation is more likely under a unitary system of government than under a federal system.
Federalism will further dismember Philippine society
What the country needs is a system of government that will unify our fragmented society. I believe that federalism will have the opposite effect because it will effectively break up our already divided country into virtually self-contained fiefdoms where powerful families can continue to hold sway. Homegrown oligarchs will tend to pursue their own parochial interests, all too often at the expense of the interests of society.
There is therefore a need for an overarching mechanism to co-align and reconcile the conflicting interests of the various segments of society, and to ensure that the pursuit of their own objectives will contribute maximally to social well-being.
The political, social and economic institutions in Philippine society are still at the embryonic stages and cannot be expected to effectively play the role of intermediating between the interest of society and those of its component parts.
An abrupt shift in our form of government is an inappropriate change strategy
Changing our system of government in one fell swoop from the present unitary to a federal system of government, either through a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention held for that purpose, will be very disruptive and may well lead to a semi-permanent state of chaos.
In the absence of well-developed social, political and economic institutions to facilitate a smooth transition from one system to the other, such a change strategy is fraught with unseen risks and is bound to flounder and eventually fail.
Retaining our present unitary system lock, stock and barrel is an equally unpalatable option. The bureaucratic machinery, administrative procedures and legal infrastructure in place are in varying states of disrepair and in urgent need of retooling. This, to my mind, is the more urgent task at hand.
I leave it therefore to our enlightened national leadership to tweak the existing dysfunctional system to correct itself—one small step at a time—to better serve the emergent needs and aspirations of our evolving nation.
(This article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the official stand of the Management Association of the Philippines. The author is a retired U.P. Professor, and until recently was Professorial Lecturer at the U.P. School of Economics. Feedback at <[email protected]> and < [email protected]>. For previous articles, please visit <map.org.ph>)
