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. #