A Crisis Needing a Surgical Solution

This concludes last week’s ‘Federalism: The Antidote to Separatism?’, a brief overview of the proposal by political scientist Jose Abueva for a change in the system of government. This critique reminds the chief exponent of federalism that shifting to a new government model is not as ingenious as he thinks it is since the problem he describes is complex and warrants a thoroughgoing response.

(Last of two parts)

By Edmundo Santuario III

“Federalism,” says Jose Abueva, “is the antidote to secession.” Abueva, a political scientist and former president of the University of the Philippines, is a leading exponent of federalism to replace the present unitary system of government.

He considers federalism the ultimate panacea to the nation’s political ills. The new system, which will reorganize the country’s 14 administrative regions into 10 “proto-states” enjoying some independent powers, will unleash local leaders’ creativity and break their age-old dependence on the central government in addressing local problems, the proposal goes.

The proposal, now adopted into a Senate bill backed by Senate President Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. and by at least three other senators including Miriam Defensor-Santiago, is also seen as an immediate solution to the Moro separatist struggle. The scheme will reconstitute the Moro communities into the Bangsa Moro region, with the rest of Mindanao divided into western and eastern regions. No part of the southern Philippines will be severed as opposed to the demand of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) for an independent Islamic state.

The Abueva plan abbreviates the nation’s socio-economic and political woes as essentially political in nature or, more specifically, as a fundamental problem in the system of government. Blame for poor governance and, impliedly, for the systemic graft and corruption that riddles the whole state bureaucracy is placed on the current unitary or presidential system’s “excessive centralization.”

It is true that in the unitary system, traditional patronage politics enables whoever is in power to take command of the country’s treasury and resources. For instance, the allocation of the so-called countrywide development fund (more popularly known as “pork barrel”) by the Department of Budget and Management which is under the president allows the latter to wield tremendous power and influence over Congress.

Similarly, the internal revenue allocation (IRA) also forces local government executives to toe the line of the chief executive in order to secure a favorable share of the IRA.

Shifting to a new system of government—federalism—is quite naively applying a simplistic solution to what appears to be a complex problem. In a developing country like the Philippines where neocolonial and semifeudal structures remain dominant, poverty, unemployment, landlessness, corruption and other basic problems cannot be described as solely a problem of government misrule as if to suggest that all these are rooted in the flawed unitary system.

The political scientist in Abueva seems to compress societal problems in purely political terms, forgetting that his own field of discipline has matured through the decades. Today, political science explores society with the use of diverse perspectives ranging from sociology, history, human behavior and socio-economic theories, among many others.

Using any or a combination of these models—plus practical exposure to politics and social movements—readily provides more clear-cut answers to the ills that continue to afflict Philippine society. One will realize, for instance, that the government is nothing but the political institution of the ruling elite in their bid to stay in power and arbitrate social conflicts in their favor. Changing the system of government without uprooting the economic and social conditions that breed elite rule will solve nothing.

Elite rule

In fact, federalism will aggravate elitist rule and the culture of corruption particularly in the provinces. The proposal will only bestow more powers to the traditional elite including the warlords and gangsters-turned-politicians thus leaving the people even more at their (local powers-that-be) mercy.

The roots of war—whether of the national democratic type or the MILF—cannot simply be linked to a flawed system of government. Who will agree that a simple change in the system of government, with practically the same elite at its helm, offers the magic formula to eliminating rebellion?

Abueva who, we are sure, has the skills and expertise to dissect intricate issues, may have missed the whole point. There is every reason to hold in suspect his sweeping conclusion where he describes with utmost confidence that his federalist paradigm and constitutional change is a cure-all for the country’s multifaceted woes. It is plausible that his formula is the product of a study commissioned by some politicians, like Pimentel, for some political agenda.

Pimentel, who is again eyeing the presidency in 2004, authored the local government code which seeks to improve local governance and enhance grassroots empowerment. More than 10 years after the code’s implementation, local governance is as inept as ever and people empowerment remains an illusion.

The health devolution strategy which is part of the local government act, for instance, is being reconsidered by some Department of Health officials themselves simply because it has not improved the health delivery system and medical costs remain a heavy burden on the poor.

Federalism is the latest in the series of devices being propagated by the political elite and reactionary institutions purportedly to make democracy more accessible to the marginal and to improve the economy. It is essentially a reformist remedy to a crisis needing a surgical solution.  #