|
|
|
|
||
|
On Federalism
Posted February 20, 2006 by Josua L. Jaena A Problem�Form of Government. In the Presidential government, the president is both head of state and head of government�she is the chief executive. The president has a fixed term of office, and cannot be terminated by a vote of confidence. There is also a check and balance mechanism between the executive and the legislative branches of government. But party affiliations and political patronage has practically defeated its purpose. For years, this climate of party-coalition loyalty and political maneuvering to preserve personal interests in power has sidelined the issues of the people. Often, local governments are often forced to revise or abandon their priorities and plans, which are based on the situation on the ground, in favor of the agenda set by the national government� agenda that are usually detached from grassroots realities. The system has only perpetuated a cycle of political and economic instability, and to some extent, produced groups of secessionist movements calling for regional autonomy. The most appropriate government system, therefore, should be one which encourages and empowers the constituency to produce more, where results of their efforts are being rewarded back to them through services and usable infrastructures. They should not be at the mercy of dole-outs from the national government, whose primary focus anyway is image-building at the center of power. The concept of decentralization of power and governance is more appropriate in our culturally diverse and geographically distributed island-nation. Thus, the federal form of government is more applicable and promises better economic viability than the unitary form of government. The Federal System. No more mayors and governors flocking to Malaca�ang to lobby for projects. Or, as critics say, no more President Arroyo to keep local officials indebted to her by deciding what towns and provinces the funds should go. Essentially, federalism, in the Philippine context, would radically change how we view government. Under a unitary setup, the point of reference is the national government. Even with the Local Government Code, Manila is still the center of government with policies and guidelines emanating from it. Manila still sets the parameters of general governance. Federalism can scale up the gains of decentralization and local autonomy. It would strengthen local governments and empower the people and communities through full decentralization. In a federal setup, there would be meaningful financial decentralization�LGUs will have improved tax collection responsibilities; there will be fiscal equalization from the national to LGUs, and from one LGU to another; improved local expenditure management; and improved public service delivery. It would provide clearer division of powers between central authority and sub-national governments, specifying the exclusive powers and shared responsibilities. Federalism would contribute to greater political stability and accountability by transferring greater responsibility from the central government down to the local level or unit, also known as vertical power sharing. It would accommodate a quasi-sovereign Muslim Mindanao to transform secession into a political exercise and not an armed struggle. Mechanisms will be put in place to improve intergovernmental relations and cooperation, thereby enabling contiguous local governments to work together in providing policy solutions and coordinated actions to issues that have inter-jurisdictional effects. Federalism is the next logical step after devolution. Experiences around the globe show that federalism is an alternative�or even a solution�to linguistic, regional, economic, and cultural differences among political units, national, and local government units. It would promote unity in diversity and ease the tension between the ethno-linguistic regions and �Imperial Manila.� Federalism would create an environment where nation building emanates from the regional and local units to the national level�from the bottom upward. It would strengthen people empowerment and political participation in local and national decisions. It would provide proportional representation of different political cultures and enable political integration. Of critical importance, it would provide coherent planning, direction, and action of sub-units within federal states or regional governments toward improving service delivery and reducing poverty, ultimately contributing to national economic growth and the attainment of development goals. What Happens to Metro Manila? If federalism were to help the country develop as a nation, it should contribute to the transformation of Metro Manila from a metropolis where power, wealth, and income are concentrated, into a region whose development is based on mutually empowering relationships with the rest of the country. Metro Manila will need to develop healthy relationships with the other regions for food, water, and other products. It would be to their mutual benefit to do so because Metro Manila relies less on itself and more on the rest of the country as a market for its products and services. Metro Manila needs to be convinced that it needs the cooperation and mutual support from its federal co-states, just as much as the co-federal states need it. Rather than compete with their neighbors, Metro Manila citizens and governments must look for win-win solutions to their own problems without creating problems for the rest of the country. Federalism should get Metro Manila to set its house in order, but it should not erode�on the contrary, it should develop�a sense of nationhood in the people of Metro Manila. Federalism is not so much about the government structure as it is about communities being empowered by law and the political setup. With the current dismal state of our political affairs, seemingly perpetuated by the unitary presidential form of government, federalism may be our last hope reclaiming our image as Asia�s most envied nation. |
Barrio is a Spanish word meaning district or neighborhood. In Mexico, the Philippines and other Latin American countries, barrios are generally cohesive places: sharing, for example, a church and traditions such as feast days. 
Webmaster: REACTIONS: | ||||
|
Website of Josua L. Jaena | |||||
