Abellanosa: Federalism and local dynasties

MOST proponents of a federal system keep on telling us that structural or systemic change is the solution to many of our country’s problems. This is a rather old argument. It is the favorite refrain of those who believe that political behavior follows the political system. Those who are quite scholarly among the believers of federalism would explain with some sophistication that political agencies are only secondary to the system.

Fortunately, such a perspective is not the only perspective in political science. There are many ways to read politics. And another way of doing so is to analyze political life through the lens of culture. Culture is to man as water is to fish. Culture is as binding as the law. Because it is practically influential in the life of citizens, some would even think rather radically, i.e. culture determines the system. Although we need not subscribe to this view, we cannot disregard the truth that culture cannot just be dismissed as irrelevant in politics.

The “system vs. culture” debate is an old debate in political science. Literature in politics would tell you that some analysts read with the lens of system-analysis while others do so through the lens of culture. It is important to keep this in mind so that we will not easily give in to the sweet promises of politicians. These promises go with the assertion that federalism is the end all and be-all of Philippine politics.

Those who dogmatize federalism are either unrealistic or dishonest or both. After all, if federalism is really the answer to a country’s problems, then other non-federal states should have long entertained or pushed for federalism.

Fortunately, a country/state’s choice to federalize or not is a product of political evolution. There are advantages and disadvantages in each political system. At the end of the day choosing between federalism and other governmental systems is not an issue of good and evil. Truth be told, some of those who are sold out to federalism consciously or unconsciously repeat arguments that have never been critically examined. It’s as if the assumptions are like doctrines sent from heaven without the need of being subjected to dissent.

A more honest way of arguing in favor of federalism is to also admit and highlight this early its limitations and flaws. One of which is the fact that political dynasties are sustained problems or challenges in Philippine politics. No system would be so effective if it would remain controlled by selfish oligarchs.

Political dynasties cannot be eliminated by legislation. Least should we forget that no less than the Party List System was a victim if not a casualty of rotten Filipino political culture. Party Lists were originally intended as mechanisms of sectoral participation. It was conceived as a way to expand structural justice and people participation. Sadly, the sectoral representation ended even before it could fully succeed or even begin.

The point here is this: like the Party List System, we do not have a full proof guarantee that a shift to federalism will change anything significant in the way politics is done in this country. There is indeed an inconvenient truth that no matter how much we arrange our system, no transformation would happen so long as citizens remain hostage by the interests of the powerful view.

So if Mocha Uson should succeed in giving genuine political education to Filipinos about federalism, she should also be honest in telling our countrymen that this country has problems that cannot be solved by a mere system overhaul no matter how grand it may be. More so, she should honestly inform her fellow Filipino citizens about the woes caused by the interests of the oligarchs.

Trending

No stories found.

Just in

No stories found.

Branded Content

No stories found.
SunStar Publishing Inc.
www.sunstar.com.ph