Federalism’s real goal
While we’re all agog over talk of federalism and Cha-cha, none of the essential details (form of government, bicameral or unicameral legislature, regional council, presidential or parliamentary) have been settled.
Rather, as I’ve heard, in forums conducted nationwide, government spokespersons concentrate on what local governments—at the municipal or city, provincial or regional levels—stand to gain from it. The unique selling proposition, to borrow from advertising terminology, is that federalism is a means to break up the power and monopoly of “Imperial Manila” over the affairs of people in far-flung areas.
Given that there is, indeed, a kernel of resentment among local government officials and constituents against centralized powers, those critical or skeptical of the solution being peddled by federalism’s champions cannot just dismiss outright the feelings of those on the “margins” of the power structure.
But contrary to the promise of “equity” between national and local interests, particularly in income-sharing and division of the spoils of development, federalism, it turns out, will not only make poor areas poorer, it could also stall development where it is needed most.
For now, studies show, 60 percent of GDP is concentrated in only three regions in Luzon: the NCR, Calabarzon and Central Luzon. Majority of the country’s 17 regions still depend on their share of the Internal Revenue Allotment to meet expenditures for government services, including health and education. Depending on the outcome of the negotiations over federalism, some provinces/regions might lose their access to assistance from the national government altogether, plunging their people even deeper into poverty.
Already much discussed is another aspect of federalism: the entrenchment of political dynasties in areas where they currently hold sway (some for generations now).
A study has found that 81 percent of governors and 78 percent of congressional representatives belong to a political dynasty. Should federalism (of whatever form) become the prevailing structure of governance here, without any antidynasty laws or policies, these same families will in effect hold power over the majority of the country.
The same study shows that “fat” dynasties (with members holding positions across the various levels of governance) cause greater poverty in their areas outside of Metro Manila. The logic seems unassailable: What need would dynastic leaders have to distribute economic gains when they don’t need to “court” voters with good performance? What is to stop them from amassing wealth through generations to benefit them and members of the family?
Finally, there is a need to ask, as social media memes have done: “If federalism is the answer, what is the question?”
And one question that begs an answer is: What is federalism all about? Is it really for power-sharing? Or for power consolidation?
We all need to pay particular attention to the transitory provision(s) in the law creating (if ever) a federalist system.
Former congressman Neri Colmenares, who belonged to the Makabayan (Nationalist) bloc in the House, points out the alarming implications of some “suggested” features of the Transitory Provision. Upon the passage of a Federalism Law, he notes, Congress shall be dissolved and the concurrent president (guess who?) will exercise legislative powers until the federal government is established or its officials are elected.
There is no timeline attached to this scenario, and this could very well be the end-point of the road to pseudo-federalism: one-man rule.
Which is why we have to be hypervigilant in these days of peril. We have to let the powers-that-be know that we are watching closely how the quo warranto case filed against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno plays out. Once she is unceremoniously ousted, the judiciary would well and truly be in the pocket of Mr. Duterte, with the House and Senate in the other. This might very well be the “question” we want to know from those who say federalism is the answer.
