Federalism: The Dismemberment of the Philippine Nation

FEDERALISM: THE DISMEMBERMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE NATION

FEDERALIZATION’S FALSE PROMISES

By: Hermenegildo C. Cruz - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:25 AM December 20, 2018

Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has just revived the proposal to amend our Charter, converting the government from unitary to federal form. Advocates of federalization claim that the unitary government has not worked and, therefore, we should federalize. This approach, they say, will hasten economic development and solve ethnic divisions in our country. Also, these developments will happen quickly, and without extra costs.

Really? The facts are as follows:

Three countries with federal forms of government — the United States, Canada and Australia — progressed from being less developed countries or LDCs (vis-à-vis Europe) to First World countries. However, they all failed in assimilating their minorities. The blacks and Native Americans in the United States, the Quebecois and native Indians in Canada, and the Aborigines in Australia are living testimonies that assimilation has not been achieved in these three countries.

At approximately the same period, three countries became independent in Latin America, with federal forms of government: Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. The social structures of these three countries remain as in colonial times — the criollos (full-blooded Spaniards) on top, then the mestizos, and, at the bottom, the indigenous Indians. These countries have “arrested developments,” remaining LDCs with unassimilated minorities.

There are federal unions that imploded recently, namely the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. The United States and Nigeria survived as federal forms, but only after bloody civil wars.

On the basis of the foregoing, no country in the world with a federal form of government has achieved the twin goals of economic development and elimination of ethnic divisions. In short, our federalists are promising something that has not yet been achieved.

The federalists also advocate a shift to the parliamentary system of government, saying this will insure that the federal system will work. But I served tours of duty in three federal unions under different systems of government: Canada (parliamentary), the United States (presidential) and the Soviet Union (dictatorial). All three unions are failed unions.

The case of Yugoslavia is interesting. Upon its establishment, it was a monarchy, then a constitutional monarchy, then a military dictatorship and, finally, a communist totalitarian regime. Nonetheless, its federation collapsed. Thus, the form of government has no bearing on the success of a federation.

Establishing a federation is a long process. The United States had to fight a bloody civil war in 1861 to save the union 75 years after its independence in 1776. As noted, the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, 74 years after its de facto creation in 1917. Yugoslavia  was established in 1918 and broke up in 1991 after 73 years.

It appears from this record that it takes about 70 years before one can conclude whether a federal system does work, and is not the instant success our federalists are depicting.

Federalization is a complex issue, and the possibility of failure is high. Thus, a meaningful discussion of federalization must include the issue of what should be done in case the experiment fails. Do we fight a civil war to keep our country together, as the Americans and the Nigerians did? Or do we peacefully divorce, as the Soviets and the Czechs did?

One must note that contemporary civil wars are bloody and endless affairs, as shown by events in Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, with each combatant bringing in outside help.

The proponents of federalization are thus engaged in a massive deception. Each time they claim that this will be a cake walk for the prosperity and peace of the Philippines, they are actually laying the groundwork for the dismemberment of our country.

* * *

Hermenegildo C. Cruz served as ambassador to Chile and Bolivia from 1989 to 1993.

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/118282/federalizations-false-promises#ixzz5aeYobEd7

Filipinos are very poorly prepared to build, defend, and practice democracy. Philippine society has not yet crossed over into modernity. It is trapped in a sort of pre-modern elitism, feudalism, and corruption. Filipinos are “liberals in law, tribal in life.” (Raul Pangalangan)

Switching to a federal or parliamentary structure promotes fiefdoms and secession, the latter the very problem this radical constitutional change seeks to solve. A federal or parliamentary structure will aggravate existing divisions based on geography, language, history, and culture, sowing seeds of ethnic conflict. In this respect, federalism will not inhibit the Bangsamoro secession but rather incite it.

The tendency of an archipelagic political group is to break up, e.g. ancient Greece. Island groups disintegrate, politically. I wouldn't encourage this tendency through a federal or parliamentary structure. We want to maintain archipelagic integrity because in this dangerous world, size matters. We don’t want to become smaller. Look at how weak Brunei is.

The problem is not the existing political structure but rather it is how this structure is being used by the elites. Federalism is a system that reinforces the existence and use of private armies. It entrenches dynasties in power, supports corruption, and co-opts plunder.

It is not necessary to change the charter to reform massively corrupt political dynasties and a weak political party system fatally crippled by endemic turncoatism. They are the two principal defects bedeviling the Philippine political system, undermining democracy and enabling plunder. The proper, effective reforms can be enacted and implemented by the existing legislature WITHOUT charter change.

Two types of laws must be passed and implemented:

- ANTI-DYNASTY LAW

We need this law. We do not need more Ampatuan fiefdoms. An anti-dynasty law is like antitrust regulation in the private sector. The anti-dynasty law seeks to open public office to equal opportunity and to fair competition. A more competitive political environment promotes products and services of better quality (read: better government services) and lower prices (read: less corruption).

See: http://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/08/20/15/why-philippines-needs-anti-dynasty-law

- ANTI-POLITICAL TURNCOATISM LAW

See, for example: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2015/04/11/senators-want-end-turncoatism-ph-politics-402027

Persons and groups who are pushing for a federal or parliamentary structure are elites who want to maintain their own fiefdoms and not subject themselves to term limits in the legislature. They do not have the interest of the polity in mind.

Besides, federalism is inconsistent with our long history so that the population is not in fact clamoring for it. It is the politicians in power who are pushing the federalism agenda.

Instituting federalism to solve the Bangsamoro secession is needless and unwarranted. Federalism for the sake of peace with one secessionist political group while the rest of the country is largely content with one central unitary government, is overkill. It is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

The Philippine people need to instill in themselves and in the coming generations the values and principles of democracy. We need to strengthen and build democratic institutions. Our advancement and economic development as a nation depends on good governance and democracy. The peace and order, and development problems of this nation will not be solved through the actions and policies of a criminal, massively corrupt, fascist government.

See: https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/03/no-to-federalism.html