The Dilemma of Federalists
Our dilemma is simply this: federalism requires constitutional change and cha-cha (charter change) has been copyrighted by the occupants of Malacanang whose motives are always suspect. Our dilemma is Mrs. Gloria Arroyo.
Many supporters of federalism squirmed when the President announced her support for federalism (again!). While at this, why is it that she suddenly remembers federalism when her administration is in trouble? I remember she campaigned assiduously for federalism at the height of the “Hello Garci” crisis. Now, she rediscovers federalism amidst the controversy generated by her government’s inept handling of the peace process with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
As far as the first effort was concerned, she dangled federalism to move ahead with efforts to pursue a shift to a parliamentary system but dropped it (to the disappointment of Dr. Jose Abueva and the CMFP–Citizens Movement for a Federal Philippines). Now, she’s doing it again.
But let us make some points clear:
First, federalism is an excellent idea. This country needs federalism more than a parliamentary government. tIt aims to constitutionally redistribute powers from the center to the periphery (that is the difference between autonomy and federalism, autonomous local units get their powers from the center thereby subject to its whims; federalism enshrines such power arrangements in the constitution). In short, the principal effect of federalism is that it will make the central government irrelevant. This is also the reason why some opponents of federalism are those who are afraid of this power shift. Here lies the radicalism of federalism–the arena for democratic struggles in a federal arrangement is smaller hence more effective.
Some anti-federalists claim that a shift to a federal form will entrench local oligarchs. That is a valid claim but local oligarchs are already entrenched! In fact, some of them have captured national power to strengthen their hold to power at the local level. Federalism will deprive these local oligarchs of a lifeblood from the national repository of power and influence. State oligarchs (if and when they proliferate upon a shift to federalism) can expect stiff competition from a highly diversified elite class as well as a strengthened democratic citizenry because the arena for participative politics has also improved. The theory is this: Access to politicians in a federal set-up is likely to be easier and information about the state government’s—as well as politicians’—activities more readily available when government is small. With lower costs to participation, participation should increase.
Second, the sitting President supporting federalism (and hence charter change) is a bad idea. She cannot be trusted. And it is not paranoia to think that she will just use federalism to move forward her agenda to extend her term. Remember she said in 2000 that she will not seek reelection. Well, she not only reneged on that and ran for president; she also cheated her way to Malacanang. She doesn’t have the credibility to support federalism because under her watch the powers of the central government especially the executive actually expanded. She has also mastered the skill of manipulating local government leaders to achieve her own ends. Arroyo espousing federalism is like Joseph Estrada advocating marital infidelity.
So how do we deal with this dilemma? Do we just ignore her calls and be fence-sitters? No!
Federalists should get together and defend federalism from being hijacked once again by this administration. By all means, let us debate federalism. Let us start the national discourse on shifting the power arrangement in favor of local peoples. But let us also resist the attempt to prostitute an noble idea. If charter change is to be done to shift to federalism, it has to be through a constitutional convention. Some of GMA’s lackeys claim that concon costs more and takes more time. Well, had we proceeded with concon before rather than waste government resources on the doomed people’s initiative movement, we should have been done by now. Federalism is a radical change in government. It has to be the product of a national consensus. It cannot be rushed. It certainly cannot be fast tracked before she leaves office (it will probably be fast tracked once she’s gone).
Some people call GMA’s endorsement of federalism a kiss of death. I agree. But we cannot let her kill federalism. The same way she attempted to kill democracy in this country.
August 26, 2008 at 4:19 am
“First, federalism is an excellent idea.” Based on what?
“… that is the difference between autonomy and federalism, autonomous local units get their powers from the center thereby subject to its whims; federalism enshrines such power arrangements in the constitution.”
This is deceptive. Local autonomy is enshrined in the Constitution. It is mandated. It did not limit local autonomy to what is contained in the LGC. Congress did. That it was subjected to somebody’s whim was not the Constitution’ or LGC’s fault. It was a problem of enforcement, something that is beyond the realm of legislation or of any Constitution.
“In short, the principal effect of federalism is that it will make the central government irrelevant.” Federalism makes central government irrelevant by replacing it with more of the same. They call it States. So, what’s the use? On the other hand, legislated local autonomy can effectively release LGU’s from the stranglehold of Imperial Manila. Period.
“Here lies the radicalism of federalism–the arena for democratic struggles in a federal arrangement is smaller hence more effective.” Which is smaller and more conducive to democratic struggles, a State or a province?
“The theory is this: Access to politicians in a federal set-up is likely to be easier and information about the state government’s—as well as politicians’—activities more readily available when government is small. With lower costs to participation, participation should increase.” Isn’t this statement more applicable to cities and provinces than States?
Decentralization, to be truly effective, should be more radical than federalism. It can only be done through a revolution. It is a coup that could preempt all other coups. Or should. It will not only free us from rapacious Glorias but also from a system that cramps citizen initiative and stunts our growth.
September 21, 2008 at 11:00 pm
“Local autonomy is enshrined in the Constitution. It is mandated. It did not limit local autonomy to what is contained in the LGC. Congress did. That it was subjected to somebody’s whim was not the Constitution’ or LGC’s fault. It was a problem of enforcement, something that is beyond the realm of legislation or of any Constitution.” THIS IS DECEPTIVE..and naive if I may add. Yes the constitution provides for local autonomy but it leaves to government the determination of the vertical distribution of powers. In federalist states, the division of power between the national and local are provided by the constitution. I agree, it was a problem of implementation. which brings me back to my point: this government will find it difficult to implement genuine autonomy because it cannot resist the concentration of power. Let me reiterate: IF autonomy will genuinely be implemented then there is no need for federalism (again, Spain’s model shows this). But my argument is that, under the set up of government that we have, this will never happen.
“Federalism makes central government irrelevant by replacing it with more of the same. They call it States. So, what’s the use? On the other hand, legislated local autonomy can effectively release LGU’s from the stranglehold of Imperial Manila. Period.” But legislated autonomy has not, and will not work. Not under Gloria, not under any administration because its implementation is controled by those people who do not want to decentralize powers.
But let me address this argument: imperial manila will just be replaced by imperial states in federalism. well, that is a possibility in any system of government. but look, under the present system you have an imperial manila and local chieftains who control their provinces as fiefdoms anyway! Even assuming that some states under a federal system will become imperious, the point that i am making is that the arena for struggle is precisely smaller and more accessible compared to the national government. that’s the beauty of a federal set up: power arrangements can be negotiated even by smaller units. certainly provinces are smaller arenas but under the present set up their capacities are not being harnessed because of the overpowering central government.