Federalism refers to the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a

general government (the central or 'federal' government) with regional

governments (provincial, state, Land, cantonal, territorial or other sub-unit
governments) in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the
founding example of modern federalism of the United States of America under
the Constitution of 1789, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of
government established.[1] It can thus be defined as a form of government in which
there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status. [2]
Federalism is distinguished from confederalism, in which the general level of
government is subordinate to the regional level, and from devolution within a
unitary state, in which the regional level of government is subordinate to the
general level.[3] It represents the central form in the pathway of regional integration
or separation,[4] bounded on the less integrated side by confederalism and on the
more integrated side by devolution within a unitary state. [5]
Leading examples of the federation or federal state include the United
States, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, Australiaand India. Some also today
characterize the European Union as the pioneering example of federalism in a multistate setting, in a concept termed the federal union of states.[6]
Federalism is a system of government in which entities such as states or provinces
share power with a national government. The United States government functions
according to the principles of federalism.
The U.S. political system evolved from the philosophy of federalism. Remember The
Federalist Papers, the essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James
Madison between 1787 and 1788, to convince people to approve the Constitution?
Federalism helps explain why each state has its own constitution and powers such
as being able to choose what kind of ballots it uses, even in national elections. The
national government oversees the election results, but each state controls its own
voting procedures.
Federalisms Disadvantages
Critics argue that federalism falls short in two ways:

Prevents the creation of a national policy: The United States does not
have a single policy on issues; instead, it has fifty-one policies, which often
leads to confusion.

Leads to a lack of accountability: The overlap of the boundaries among

national and state governments makes it tricky to assign blame for failed
policies.

Citizen Ignorance

Critics argue that federalism cannot function well due to ignorance. Most Americans
know little about their state and local governments, and turnout in state and local
elections is often less than 25 percent. Citizens consequently often ignore state and
local governments, even though these governments have a lot of power to affect
peoples lives.
8 Far-Reaching Pros and Cons of Federalism
AUGUST 10, 2015
PROS AND CONS
Basically, federalism is a governmental structure and political concept, where
people are bound together with a representative leader. It often involves power that
is divided constitutionally between separate government units, such as provinces or
states. With governing shared between national and state organizations, its
distribution of power is greater than other types of localized government. Generally,
countries can be broken down into either unitary states or federalism, depending on
whether or not power is divided into a more local level.
A great example of a federalist system is the US, there is the national government
having the ability to carry out policies, laws and anything that individual states
cannot effectively do on their own. Aside from this, the country is also comprised of
several states having individual policies and laws with regards to certain things. So,
is this government, which we are accustomed to, the best to have? Let us take a
closer look at its pros and cons to come up with a well- informed decision.
List of Pros of Federalism
1. It prevents the centralization of power.
Unlike tyranny, where the rule of the many by the few occurs more easily in its
unitary governmental system and power is centralized in a single location, a
federalist system uses the right of the states to ensure that power will be divided
between the overarching government and participating entities all the time. As a
result, these two parties should work together to accomplish a certain objective,
which makes actual tyranny and centralization of power very difficult to occur.
2. It encourages a greater level of civic participation.
While many people criticize the low turn-out rates in the national and local elections
in the US, the federal system on which the country operates does create a
surprising amount of activism and local governmental participation, which are rarely
seen on the national level. With the substantial level of power given to state and
local governments, people would feel closer to the power structure and would be
more capable of making important changes when it is necessary. From activism by
individuals to state-wide and non-profit organizations, officials and citizens will be
brought closer to the power with federalism in place. Moreover, many bigger

national organizations can jump-start on the state or local level and eventually rise
up to national prominence when their missions importance becomes known across
the whole country.
3. It makes it easier to create tailored laws.
Sometimes, national laws do not work across the entire country. In the US, certain
laws, like those governing fishing, hunting and mining, might work fantastically in
one state, but would be completely impractical, useless or even dangerous in
another. Unlike a unitary state governmental structure, a federalist system allows
each individual state to create specific laws that can be applied to the conditions
and setting that the state finds itself in. Because of this, laws can be meaningful
and direct to serve a greater purpose to the citizens in the state. Furthermore,
passing laws on the local level can significantly be easier than doing it on the
national level, which should addressing, debating and ratifying of the laws quicker.
4. It encourages research on good policy.
States and local governments as a whole are seen as amazing experimenting
grounds for democracy in a federal form of government. For example, countless
states are devising their own laws with regards the regulating controlled
substances, where each state are having slightly different languages in their laws,
which yield different results. If the national government wants to adopt the best
possible law, it just has to look at the individual states and see what law is
effectively working. A great example of this process was the creation of the
Affordable Care Act, where Massachusetts statewide health care system was
adopted to create the national health care law.
List of Cons of Federalism
1. It can create issues with overlapping jurisdiction.
If you ask the national government about the legality of marijuana, then it considers
it a Schedule 1 Substance (the most harmful and worst of all) and not helpful
medically or legally under any condition. In fact, many individuals have been jailed
for possessing or trying to sell the drug. However, a few states, such as Colorado,
have made marijuana perfectly legal to have, sell, buy and ingest. So, is it legal or
illegal? With a federalist form of government, this type of overlapping jurisdiction in
certain laws can lead to confusion and even a break-down of order.
2. It can create cross-border conflicts.
With federalism, there is always the possibility that individual provinces or states
will compete against one another. For example, there is a huge deal of competition
among states in the US for business, where it is a common practice for them to try
and poach businesses from each other, enticing them to relocate for special perks,
such as better taxes. While this practice might help the state in question, it hurts
the citizens of the country as a whole and does nothing for its betterment.

3. It hinders national policy.

While a federalist government allows the effective passage of laws on a state level,
this slows down passing of other laws on the national level. As mentioned above,
the Affordable Care Act was a landmark legislation that was designed to address the
failing health care standards throughout the country. Whatever opinion you have
about this act, it is clearly known that it took decades for the legislation to be
enacted.
4. It raises greater ignorance on larger issues.
By creating national and state governments, there is a huge possibility that
ignorance with regards to national issues would build up. On the other hand, a
unitary governmental structure would allow individuals to express what they think
about national issues.
Conclusion
So, our federalist form of government has several pros. However, do they outweigh
the cons? On your end and based on the lists given above, do you think that
federalism is the best political system?
Disadvantages
Conflict of Authority
Sharing of power between the center and the states includes both advantages and
disadvantages of a federal organization. Sometimes there can be overlapping of
work and subsequent confusion regarding who is responsible for what. For example,
when Hurricane Katrina hit Greater New Orleans, USA, in 2005, there was delay in
the rescue work, as there was confusion between the state governments and the
federal government on who is responsible for which disaster management work.
This resulted in the loss of many lives.
Can Lead to Corruption
Federal system of government is very expensive as more people are elected to
office, both at the state and the center, than necessary. Thus, it is often said that
only rich countries can afford it. Too many elected representatives with overlapping
roles may also lead to corruption.
Pitches State vs State
Federalism leads to unnecessary competition between different regions. There can
be a rebellion by a regional government against the national government too. Both
scenarios pose a threat to the country's integrity.
Uneven Distribution of Wealth
It promotes regional inequalities. Natural resources, industries, employment
opportunities differ from region to region. Hence, earnings and wealth are unevenly

distributed. Rich states offer more opportunities and benefits to its citizens than
poor states. Thus, the gap between rich and poor states widens.
Promotes Regionalism
It can make state governments selfish and concerned only about their own region's
progress. They can formulate policies which might be detrimental to other regions.
For example, pollution from a province which is promoting industrialization in a big
way can affect another region which depends solely on agriculture and cause crop
damage.
Framing of Incorrect Policies
Federalism does not eliminate poverty. Even in New York, there are poor
neighborhoods like Inwood. The reason for this may be that intellectuals and not the
masses are invited by the local government during policy framing. These
intellectuals may not understand the local needs properly and thus, policies might
not yield good results.
Thus, it is understandable that there have been both pros and cons of federalism in
the USA. There is a general feeling that the rights of the minorities, like blacks, are
compromised in USA. But at the same time, the United States now, has a
democratically elected African-American President. Similarly, there have been
advantages and disadvantages in other countries as well. For this to be truly
successful, it should be accompanied by other ideals like secularism, democracy
and liberalism.
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/advantages-anddisadvantages-of-federalism.html
Some candidates in the 2016 national elections have been vocal about their support
for federalism.
Presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte, and vice presidential bets Alan Peter
Cayetano (his running mate) and Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr, in particular,
have been championing it.
Supporters of federalism say it will evenly distribute wealth across the country
instead of the bulk going to "imperial" Manila. Detractors, like presidential candidate
Grace Poe, say it will further entrench political dynasties in the regions and create
confusion over responsibilities.
Read on to find out more about federalism and its perceived advantages and
disadvantages.
What is federalism?
It is a form of government where sovereignty is constitutionally shared between a
central governing authority and constituent political units called states or regions.

In basic terms, it will break the country into autonomous regions with a national
government focused only on interests with nationwide bearing: foreign policy and
defense, for example.
The autonomous regions or states, divided further into local government units, will
have primary responsibility over developing their industries, public safety,
education, healthcare, transportation, recreation, and culture. These states will have
more power over their finances, development plans, and laws exclusive to ther
jurisdiction.
The central government and states can also share certain powers.
How is it different from what we have now?
We presently have a unitary form of government. Most administrative powers and
resources are with the national government based in Metro Manila. It's Malacaang
that decides how much to give local government units. The process is prone to
abuse, with governors and mayors sometimes having to beg Malacaang for
projects they believe their communities need.

How local government units spend their budget has to be approved by the national
government.
In federalism, the states will have the power to make these decisions with little or
no interference from the national government.
Examples of federal countries: United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, India,
Malaysia.

PROS

Locals decide for themselves. Regions have their own unique problems,
situations, geographic, cultural, social and economic contexts. Federalism allows
them to create solutions to their own problems instead of distant Metro Manila
deciding for them.
The states can establish policies that may not be adopted nationwide. For example,
liberal Metro Manila can allow same-sex marriage which the state of Bangsamoro,
predominantly Muslim, would not allow. In the United States, some states like
Colorado and Washington have legalized recreational marijuana even if other states
have not.
This makes sense in an archipelago of over 7,000 islands and 28 dominant ethnic
groups. For decades, the national government has been struggling to address the
concerns of 79 (now 81) provinces despite challenges posed by geography and
cultural differences.
With national government, and thus power, centered in Metro Manila, it's no
surprise that development in the mega city has spiralled out of control while other
parts of the country are neglected.

More power over funds, resources. Right now, local government units can only
collect real estate tax and business permit fees. In federalism, they can retain more
of their income and are required to turn over only a portion to the state government
they fall under.
Thus, local governments and state governments can channel their own funds
toward their own development instead of the bulk of the money going to the
national government. They can spend the money on programs and policies they see
fit without waiting for the national government's go signal.

Promotes specialization. The national and state governments can specialize in

different policy domains. With most administrative powers now with the regional
governments, the national government can focus on foreign policy, defense, and
other nationwide concerns, like healthcare and taxation.
States have more autonomy to focus on economic development using their core
competencies and industries. The state of Central Luzon can focus on becoming an
agricultural hub. The state of Mimaropa, home to Palawan, can choose to use ecotourism as its primary launch pad.

Possible solution to the Mindanao conflict. The creation of the state of

Bangsamoro within a federalist system may address concerns of separatists who
crave more autonomy over the administration of Muslim Mindanao.

Decongestion of Metro Manila. Through fiscal autonomy for state governments,

federalism will more evenly distribute the country's wealth. In 2015, 35% of the
national budget went to Metro Manila even if it represents only 14% of the
Philippine population.

Lessens dependence on Metro Manila. When there is political upheaval in Metro

Manila, other regions that have nothing to do with the chain of events are left
waiting for the resources that ony the national government can release. With
federalism, regions work independently of Metro Manila for most concerns.

Brings government closer to the people. If detractors say federalism will only
make local political dynasties more powerful, supporters give the argument that, in
fact, it will make all local leaders, including those part of political dynasties, more
accountable to their constituents. State governments will no longer have any
excuse for delays in services or projects that, in the present situation, are often
blamed on choking bureaucracy in Manila.
Assuming more autonomy for regions leads to economic development, there will be
more incentive for Filipinos to live and work in regions outside Metro Manila. More
investors may also decide to put up their businesses there, creating more jobs and
opportunities to attract more people away from the jam-packed mega city.

Encourages competition. With states now more self-reliant and in control of their
development, they will judge themselves relative to how their fellow states are
progressing. The competitive spirit will hopefully motivate state leaders and citizens
to level up in terms of quality of life, economic development, progressive policies,
and governance.
CONS

Possibly divisive. Healthy competition among states can become alienating

creating rivalries and promoting the regionalism that some say already challenges
the sense of unity in the country. It could enflame hostilities between ethnic groups

in the country like Tagalogs, Cebuanos, Bicolanos, Ilocanos, Tausugs, and

Zamboangueos.

Uneven development among states. Some states may not be as ready for
autonomy as others. Some states may not be as rich in natural resources or skilled
labor as others. States with good leaders will progress faster while states with
ineffective ones will degrade more than ever because national government will not
be there to balance them out.
But in some federal countries, the national government doles out funds to help
poorer states. A proposed Equalization Fund will use a portion of tax from rich states
to be given to poorer states.
Confusing overlaps in jurisdiction. Where does the responsibility of state
governments end and where does the responsibility of the national government
begin? Unless these are very clearly stated in the amended Constitution,
ambiguities may arise, leading to conflict and confusion. For instance, in times of
disaster, what is the division of responsibilities between state and national
governments?
May not satisfy separatists in Mindanao. Separatists are calling for their own
country, not just a state that still belongs to a larger federal Philippines. Federalism
may not be enough for them. After all, the conflict continues despite the creation of
the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.
How the Philippines would look when federal
In some proposals, there will be 10 or 11 autonomous states. Senator Aquilino
Pimentel Jr envisioned 11 states plus the Federal Administrative Region of Metro
Manila.
Here's how the Philippines will look like as laid out in Pimentel's 2008 Joint
Resolution Number 10.

Cost of federalism

Shifting to federalism won't come cheap. It would entail billions of pesos to set up
state governments and the delivery of state services. States will then have to spend
for the elections of their officials.
Attempts at federalism in PH

There was an attempt during the administration of President Gloria Macapagal

Arroyo. One of her campaign promises was to reform the 1987 Constitution.
A consultative commission she created recommended federalism as one of the
goals of the proposed charter change. But the attempt failed because of opposition
from various sectors who believed Arroyo wanted to use the reform to extend her
term limit.
(Note that shifting to a federal government does not necessarily mean an extension
of term limits for the sitting president. Such an extension would only take place in a
shift to a parliamentary government.)
In 2008, Pimentel Jr and Bacolod City Representative Monico Puentevella filed joint
resolutions to convene Congress into a constituent assembly with the goal of
amending the constitution to establish a federal form of government
Criticism and efforts to push for federalism
A change in the system of government requires a constitutional change and past
attempts to push for federalism in the country have failed.
In support of Joint Resolution No. 10 which got the backing of 16 senators, Bacolod
Rep. Monico filed the House Concurrent Resolution No. 15 in 2008.
Differing from the Senate resolution which called for the convening of Congress as a
constituent assembly to amend the Constitution, the House version included
constitutional convention as an option.
As mandated by the 1987 Constitution, constitutional amendments could be made
through a constitutional assembly, constitutional convention, or people's initiative.
Then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo supported the constituent assembly
proposal of Pimentel. Under this method, the Constitution states that any
amendments to it may be proposed by Congress "upon a vote of three-fourths of all
its members."
Many, however, saw Arroyo's push for charter change as a ploy to extend her term.
"Charter change is and has been a sensitive topic for us," Go explained. "Any
attempts to introduce change is welcomed by protests and criticisms."
Critics are also wary that federalism will lead to fragmentation given the ethnolinguitic divide in the country.

Many are also divided on whether it could strengthen regional communities or

deepen the hold of political dynasties.
"On the one hand, federalism may indeed empower local political elites and keep
their hold of power. On the other hand, the creation of state governments may pose
as a challenge to political families in different localities," Go explained.