MAP Insights
By Antonio T. Hernandez
Federalism: For better or for worse?
(First of two parts)
Federalism has been a hot national issue ever since the present administration assumed the reins of government. As one of its campaign propositions in the last presidential elections, it must have been one major factor that propelled this present dispensation to power!
However, when the draft of the proposed federalist Constitution came out (but before any serious campaign or debate on its merits could be had), it did not rate high in the surveys — as to its necessity nor as to its timeliness in changing the existing Constitution — apparently for reasons of lack of adequate public information at the time.
As is usual in vibrant liberal democracies, doubts arouse, specially from skeptics and traditional oppositionists, as to: (1) whether Federalism is the right way to spur and cascade development to the provinces; (2) whether we can afford the cost of the shift to a new federalist political order; and, (3) whether the regions by themselves are prepared to administer and economically sustain the new governance structure.
These macro-points of uncertainties boil down to the question of which is better for the country and its people: to continue with the existing unitary centralized political system (which this country has had since Philippine independence to-date), or to shift to the proposed federal political order (involving the territorial division of power between constituent regions and a strong central government marked by a combination of shared rule and self-rule enshrined in the Constitution)?
ON OUR EXISTING UNITARY SYSTEM
To tackle this question is to get down to brass tacks, and ask ourselves: Is our existing unitary system a good fit to our territorially based population subsets? Does its centralized governance orientation augur well to spur development preferences and/or alternatives in those disparate “portions of our geography and population” far from the center of power… distant from the policy-making authority? Has the delegation of powers to provincial units, under the local government code passed by Congress (which Congress itself can take back or change anytime on its own) brought out the desired results in terms of human development and equitable economic progress for all?
The condition of body politic to date doesn’t seem to reflect the desired end-goals expected of a just political order, where the blessings of a free market economy should have provided nationwide beneficial results that go beyond the circle of the elite. Inclusive growth and/or wide dispersal of an equitable economic development — geographic or demographic — remains an elusive dream. For obviously, development is highly concentrated in Metro Manila and the two regions close to the center of power, resulting in the now legendary congestion at the center.
Whereas, the majority of the regions (which are wittingly or unwittingly under-represented, particularly in the Legislature’s upper chamber) are haplessly left behind and very much smarting from:
• The unsettled issue of poverty and surplus that haunts the vast countryside;
• The highly protectionist industrial posturing in business/commerce under a scenario of oligarchic opportunism that constrains broad economic development;
• The widening gap between the have and the have-nots in a setting of jobless growth;
• The desperation that leads to criminality, corruption and/or drug addiction, which unfortunately are already upon us.
Since the last century, our political system hasn’t gotten us far enough when it comes to how best to equitably improve our economic wellbeing and general human welfare. Meanwhile, advances in all aspects of human affairs have been doing great amongst our neighbors in the ASEAN over the last three decades.
WHERE LIES THE FLAW?
Surveys tell us that as “you go further away from the center of power…, of economic activity,” the poverty incidence goes up as household income and productivity decline, attributed generally to underdevelopment occasioned by official neglect, if not by the unmitigated mal-exploitation, of available natural and human resources abetted by regulatory indifference under a centrist political order. It is said that about two-thirds of the country’s economic wealth is produced and consumed in only three regions while the remaining third is shared by the other 14 regions far from the center. As it is, we have decelerated almost to the tail-end in the ASEAN in terms of economic development.
Could it be that we simply have been electing to positions of power pedantic personable political stewards who proved to be square pegs in round holes? Garbage in, garbage out so to speak? Or we have just been the naïve victims of our own political system? “Of a system where administrative and fiscal powers is a monopoly of a central government; where economic power is a monopoly of the oligarchy; and where political power is a monopoly of political dynasties?” A system operating under a constraining structural framework where even lofty constitutional provisions, though beneficial to the collective interest of a people, may be sidelined and be unimplemented (especially when such provisions go against the self-interest of policy-makers and/or legislators), and so easily at that, all because they are not framed as self-executing provisions? One example is the laudable anti-dynasty provision featured in the 1987 Constitution. But because it needs further legislation to get it implemented, nothing positive ever happened in the legislative front over three decades to date!
Or could it be because we are more deeply into western liberal democracy with a strong focus on the rule of free market forces and the primacy of individual rights and interest, as against our Asian neighbours, who “chose to also seriously consider the collective interest, and gave due weight to the interest of the community/nation at large”?
Given this post-EDSA sorry governance backdrop, what logic have we to continue with a unitary political system that does not seem to work for the general welfare? As Albert Einstein puts it, “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different result is Insanity.”
This article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the official stand of the Management Association of the Philippines or the MAP.
Antonio T. Hernandez is management and development finance consultant; Past President& Advisory Council member of the Government Association of CPAs; Past Director – PICPA; and former Senior officer of Land Bank of the Philippines.
