One of the strongest reasons why Mayor Digong Duterte's political campaign for the presidency is making

waves is, aside from his strong advocacy against crimes and drugs, of course, his strategic and trailblazing
platform proposing a federal form of government for the Philippines. In fact, the survey says that most of Mayor
Duterte's supporters are not fixated on his personality or idiosyncrasies but on the need to introduce a
draconian change in governance via federalism. The other presidential candidates are promising ambitious
results by merely seeking to continue the same way of leading and managing the nation.

Federalism is doing well not only in the United States but also in our close neighbor in southeastern Asia,
Malaysia whose people can be comparable to the Filipinos in culture, outlook and ways of looking at
government. Federalism can assure for us an authentic and really working local autonomy, not the same old
pretension of devolution today, where major and even tactical decisions are all done in the imperialistic Metro
Manila. The southern regions today are still marginalized considering that most of the powerful officials are
from Luzon.

Today, the president, the vice president, the speaker of the House, the chief justice and most of the fifteen
Supreme Court justices are from Luzon. Most of the cabinet members are from Luzon. Military officials, bureau
directors are almost all from Luzon. The Visayas and Mindanao citizens are only relied upon as taxpayers, and
as sources of food supplies, mining products, and suppliers of cheap labor both in the domestic and global
labor markets. Even the commanding generals of the army, the navy, and the air force are all from the north.

Once we are under a federal system, all component states collect their own taxes and contribute only a small
fraction of their revenues to the federal or central government for only three centralized functions, namely:
National Defense, including the National Police, Justice and Foreign Affairs. All the rest shall be left to each
state, including health, education, labor and employment, trade, transportation, communication, agriculture,
agrarian reform, justice environment, natural resources. The states will manage mining and forest matters and
shall control all natural resources. Each state will have its own unicameral congress and a separate court of
appeals. There will be only one centralized Supreme Court and one federal senate with three senators from
each state.

The fact that Federalism is not fully understood by the masses has been taken advantage of by a
section of opinion makers who oppose it, citing the lack of financial resources to sustain many
provinces. This could be true in the short run but the fact that without federalism developmental efforts
also suffer is equally true.
Federalism as universally understood is to initiate, own and explore the development of the said region
by the locals. It is not decentralization. It is self-development which means disowning the culture of
holding everybody else responsible for their undergrowth. It is not dictation but a choice, a vision of its
own. It is not a monopoly of ideas and programmes of the centre but a competition of its own creative
ideas, innovation and managerial skills.
Ultimately, provinces will have to be ready to function with the least financial support from the centre.
Provinces have to be able to garner their own resources. The state politicians will have to show their
ingenuity, maturity and astuteness of leadership by accelerating the growth of the region comparatively
much faster. The financial muscles will become stronger as the growth takes place.
However, in Nepal there are people who argue that federalism in Nepal will be divisive and the
formation of provinces on the basis of ethnicity is tantamount to disintegration. Also, federalism in
Nepal is financially unviable, they add.
Initially, to the common people, the above argument may sound alright. The people of Nepal for ages
have been ruled by a few under a unitary system of governance under kingship which always thought
that the kingdom belonged to the King who knows the best what is good for the masses. Any
decentralization was an administrative convenience.
Federalism is sharing power. It is not delegation of power. It is deliberately creating more centres of
responsibility and accountability within an umbrella of central authority. The purpose is giving more
voice, more participation and more initiative to the people of the region. It is also a check-and-balance
measure to the absoluteness of power which may accrue at the centre. Democracy properly functions
only if power is shared by many and there exists a simple mechanism by which that power can be
taken away if it becomes absolute. Federalism is not a division of the country on administrative lines
nor is it a division of resources. It is people-centric. It is recognizing that if left to themselves, the
poorest of the poor can rise and lead their own destiny.
It is not up to the political parties to decide the geographical boundaries of each state. The political
parties can advocate the terms and condition for delineating a state under the provision of the
constitution. It is up to an independent statutory body to recommend the no of states and their
geographical boundaries based upon the primary criterion of concentration of an ethnic group in a
particular region deserving a separate state-hood. Parliament has to take the final decision upon it.
Subsequently, any change and / or bifurcation will have to be okayed by the legislative assembly. The
political parties can advocate, demand and influence the voice of the people for the demand of
statehood but they cannot negotiate the number of states and their boundaries as they have their own
political vested interests.
Initially, no state will be capable of bearing even its administrative expenses, let alone investing in
developmental efforts. At a time when all our developmental efforts are financed by external aid and/or
borrowing, the task becomes easier that such external funds can be diverted to the states where the
projects are located. The state governments will have to be innovative as to not only mobilize internal
resources including that of the private sector but also external funding of all hues and colours. The
productivity of capital invested will also go a long way in augmenting financial resources. The centre
has to respect such provincial initiative and not view them with suspicion. A check and balance
mechanism can be agreed upon between the centre and the states so that the states can be more
autonomous on raising desired levels of financial resources on their own internally and externally.
Unicameral legislative body, sharing apex courts, a common planning commission, and some other
such facilities need not be created exclusively for each state. It is an opportunity for each state to
rethink and restructure its governance model based more on technology, digitization, skill and new set
of rules and regulations which are compatible and comparable to the best in the world. It is not
necessary that the states have to carry forward the governance system inherited from the centre.
Federalism gives a viable opportunity to the states to adopt the latest modern technology of
governance in their domain, thereby not only reducing cost but also bringing about efficiencies in
delivering services to their citizens and controlling corruption. Of course states will take time, say at
least five years, to be equipped fully to govern themselves. The centre should fill in the transition period
and gradually go on handing over the powers of administration to the province over the designated
period of time. A competent team comprising experts of internal and external repute should suggest a
model under federal provincial system which will be efficient as well as least costly based upon today's
technological achievements.
The intellectuals of the country have the duty to facilitate federalism. They should guide in sorting out
the thorny issues. They should explain to the masses the true content of federalism. If federalism does
not spur growth, if it does not better governance, if it does not control corruption then the whole purpose
of federalism will collapse and distortions will double.
American federalism was voluntarily giving up of some of the powers by states to a central authority
as they felt the necessity of a central body which not only co-ordinates the activities of the states but
more importantly binds them together into an organic United States of America. In Nepal, we are doing
the opposite wherein the central authority is giving up some of its powers deliberately to create
provinces so that decision making can take place at different levels according to the needs. In this
devolution of power, there is always a suspicion that the central authority may weaken and the state
may try to overpower to an extent that it may decide to secede from the union. Our constitution has
made enough provisions to avoid such mad dire situations. However, the bonding between the states
and the centre cannot all be left to the so-called voice of the people expressed through their
representatives. It has to be unalterable provision in the constitution which has rightly been enshrined.
However it is not to say that the financial viability is not an important issue and can be left to itself. It
is also not necessary that the administrative set ups need to be copied from the neighboring countries.
We can adopt the best and the least expensive models of federal administration for us.
In a country like ours which is diverse not only geographically and biologically but also ethnically with
so many diverse ethnic groups living here from time immemorial, it is absolutely appropriate that
federalism which gives equal opportunity to each and every minority group to flourish through the
devolution of power to them has been chosen as our country’s prime structure. For hundreds of years,
a chosen few have governed the country and the rest of the people have lived a subsistence life with
no regard for their own dignity, culture and life-styles. With the change in the political set-up, we had
to choose a system which gives maximum equal opportunity of growth to each ethnic group wherever
they live in Nepal. Individuals from these ethnic groups may have done well but taken collectively they
have been denied proportionate opportunities to participate in governance. These anomalies can be
rectified through federalism. Once given power, the recipients become responsible and are denied the
excuse of blaming others for their plight.
Federalism, therefore, is not fragmenting the country but actually it is promoting unity in diversity. The
interests of the local people differ from place to place. Even in a democracy, there is the likelihood that
the specific interests of the local people may get ignored, or the power at the centre may become so
absolute that it may tyrannize individuals and institutions alike. The federal system provides the
necessary check and balance to an otherwise undesired tyranny of absolute power. In this sense,
federalism is a revolutionary reform of the political governance. Democracy has been said to tame the
tyrannies of absolute power and federalism tames the evils of democracy by preventing the accrual of
it at the centre. Competitive governance at different levels and between the states creates an
environment of innovation and “make it happen” culture. However, to make it a success, it is necessary
to constantly debate what are the pitfalls which we need to safeguard against. It is not an experiment,
it is now part of us and our choice is judicious. Therefore, it is up to all of us to accept federalism whole
heartedly and execute this provision of our constitution with full integrity, honesty and pro-federal
approach.
The miseries of the masses and alleviation thereof are the rationale behind the existence of any
political system of governance. The world has experimented with all sorts of political isms starting from
communism to socialism to liberalism to conservatism to globalization now and though all have
contributed to an extent in ameliorating the miseries of the masses, it is found that each system has
more short comings than strengths. These have led to a rat race at the top for grabbing power,
encouraged conspicuous consumption, created an elite group, resulted in disconnect with the masses,
promoted western style extravagance, and derided eastern spiritualism and asceticism.
In the name of promoting individual personality of a person, his innate desire to be gregarious is
suppressed. Federalism is the middle path which has assimilated the good traits of each political
system and stressed the need for connecting with the masses at different levels and involving their
representatives in the decision making, execution and monitoring processes. It is an inclusive concept.
The people themselves take the initiative in deciding their priorities and their growth. If democracy of
all the political system of governance is more suited to address the miseries of the people, federalism
is an improvement upon it. It is a necessity and not choice. The grievances of those who are left out,
disenfranchised and ignored are likely to be addressed once the federal system is properly instituted
which will mark the long-term victory of democracy in Nepal. If the ethnic minorities and the vulnerable
do not get their voice even now, when will they?

Why federalism is necessary

Posted on April 30, 2007 by CFFN
By Yubaraj Sangroula
ABSTRACT
Federalism is basis for ‘consolidating the democracy’, without which the ‘protection of individual
liberty is impossible’. Finally, the federalism is a means of ‘promoting the individual liberty and
freedoms’. To see from this perspective, the scheme of federalism must be agreed by all population,
and its characters need to be set forth by consensus. Without consensus the ‘scheme of federalism’
might be a source of conflict among people.

FULL TEXT
The political scenario is facing crisis to attain legitimacy. Over the last one year, the crisis is mainly
deepening owing to obstinate decline to understand the ‘gravity of the problem’. The game hatched
to ‘prolong the uncertainty’ of the course of unfolding resolution of the crisis is thwarting the
positive transformation of the ‘politics to progress’. The safety of the society is vulnerable. The
breakdown of law and order is serious. The diversity of the population, culture, geography is
gradually marching towards adversely affecting the unity of the country.

In India, for instance, over two dozen civilizations and many languages and ethnic groups have been
able to ‘create it a nation’. Prior to British colonial consolidation, India as a nation was not in
existence. In fact, several kingdoms existed independently. British rulers unified Indian states for the
purpose of ‘facilitating the revenue collection’ by creating a ‘centralized government system’.
However, the independence movement utilized this development as a boon to oust the ’empire’, as
the colonial domination educated ‘Hindustani’ of the importance of unity and necessity to fight for
independence emerging above the ‘regionalism’.

Political leaders from many parts of India under the leadership and guidance of Gandhi united to
‘fight against the colonial rule’ with commitment to ‘build India a democratic’ nation. This scheme
thus made ‘democracy’ as the basis of ‘unity of various civilizations, languages and ethnic diversity’.
India in the wake of fight against colonial rule realized that the ‘co-existence and harmony’ of
different civilizations and other diversities could be protected only if ‘democracy’ was made a
common platform. It was the most prudent ‘vision’ of Ghandi and other leaders. India was thus
declared as a ‘secular state’, which did not recognize any religion or culture as the ‘religion or culture
of India’. Indeed, all civilizations, religions and cultures as well as languages were recognized as
assets of India. The democratic principles and institutions were thus made the ‘basis of India as a
nation state’.

Another example is ‘Switzerland’. Switzerland too is a secular state, which has made the
‘democracy’ as the basis of the unity of the nation. Now the question is why cannot Nepal make
‘democratic principles and institutions’ as the basis of ‘nation state’? Most importantly, the political
parties have failed to ‘consider the restructuring mission’ from this perspective. Political parties have
failed to win over the trust of population with ethnic, linguistic and other diversities.

There are two important issues to consider for ‘giving the discussion of restructuring of the state’ a
definite and meaningful shape. Firstly, the political parties must be aware and clear on ‘the principle
of federality’. Are they going to adopt ‘asymmetrical or symmetrical’ approach while implementing
the plan of ‘federalism’? India has followed the ‘symmetrical model’. In this model, the powers,
authority and privileges of constituent provinces or states are ‘clearly outlined by the Constitution’,
and thus ‘constituent provinces or states’ can possess only those powers, authorities and privileges
that are clearly spelt out in the Constitution. All other residual powers remain with the ‘central
authority’.

Canada has adopted ‘both symmetrical and asymmetrical models. Some provinces in Canada can
enjoy only those powers, authority and privileges that are ‘outlined by the constitution’. Some
provinces have all those powers, authorities and privileges, except those that are specifically spelt out
as powers, authorities and privileges of the central authority. In asymmetrical model, the central
authority’s powers, authorities and privileges are determined and outlined precisely, while the
remaining powers, authorities and privileges are left to the constituent provinces or states. USA has
followed this model. The concept of ‘autonomy largely follow’ the asymmetrical model.

Another important issue relates to ‘demarcation of the geographical boundaries of provinces’. There
may be several principles to follow while demarcating the ‘boundaries’ of the provinces. However,
while doing so, the question as to why ‘the province’s boundaries are set in that shape’ must have a
clear answer in the minds of the people. Creating a province is thus not merely a matter of ‘political
decision’. One of the most important principles to consider while creating provinces is the
‘sentiment’ of the people. A territory generally has a ‘sentiment of people’ for connectivity. It might
be a ‘history’, culture, language, civilization, unique character of geography, and so on. However, the
creation of a province, without any sentimental connectivity, might be doomed to function or
’emerge as a unit of the state’. The political parties have also failed to analyze the situation from this
perspective.

The idea of creation of provinces in any nation state is necessitated by the need of ‘vertical
distribution of the powers’, which in turn is necessary to ‘consolidate the democracy and prevent the
circumstance of central authority as despotic nation or tyranny’. At this point the remarkable point to
remember is that ‘the restructuring of the nation should be governed by two important needs, the first
being the need ‘of consolidating democracy through vertical distribution of powers’, and the second
being the need of ‘maintaining the secular character of the nation’. The federalism therefore is not a
‘concept of dividing the nation into communal units’.

The Democracy, however, does not function in failure of recognizing the ‘diversity’ as a basis of the
unity of nation. In this context, the restructuring policy of Nepal is a ‘drive to transform Nepal from
its feudal, monolithic and static characters to a ‘democratic, divergent and progressive’ nation state.
The constitutionalization of the recognition of cultures, languages and other attributes of population
is the only basis of the ‘unity of Nepal’. The restructuring policy therefore must give due attention to
such issues. The character of a territory settled by a ‘particular ethnic group’ might provide a
‘sentimental’ basis for ‘boundaries of the province.

Obviously, there is no danger to ‘determine the basis of federalism’ on such sentimental grounds.
The determination of federalism on this ground can never mean that ‘the creation of federal unit’ on
such ground is going to give a ‘special power to a group of people’. It is so because ‘the democracy
does not allow to ‘exclude people’ on any ground. The determination of the boundaries of a
‘province is to mean a process of vertical distribution of powers of the state on the basis of ethnic
sentimental connectivity’ of people, but it should never mean in any sense an idea that the ‘vertical
distribution of state powers based on sentimental connectivity’ of the people provides ‘a basis for a
group to isolate or exclude others’ residing in that territory’. The concept of ‘ethnic federalism’ with
a sense of special privilege to a group at the cost of exclusion of others is defective on the basis of
principles of democracy as well as ‘integrity’ of the nation. The powers to devolve to a ‘provincial or
state unit’ are not the ‘special privileges of a group of people’, rather they are the powers of
constituent province to ‘consolidate democracy, progress and protect heterogeneity’ of the society.

The ‘constitutionalization of the heterogeneity of culture, languages and other similar attributes with
a view to prevent the state being autocratic, discriminatory and monolithic power center, and to
‘consolidate the freedoms of people with all powers to rule themselves democratically’ are the basic
needs for ‘restructuring the Nepali state’. Historically, Nepal has been stubbornly ruled by an ‘elite
group’ to the complete exclusion of entire population. The elite group has imposed a typical culture
and religion as the fundamental attribute of the Nepal’s identity. The federalism is therefore
necessary to empower people to ‘have self-governance’. The right to self-determination of a group
within a nation thus must be understood as a right to ‘socio-economic and political empowerment’ as
an essential population constituent of the nation.

Within a nation, as opposed to a colony, the group of people has no right to ‘self-determination’
meaning the right to secede the country. Federalism thus cannot be a prelude to ‘a movement to
secede’ the nation. The concept of federalism in Nepal is thus an idea of ‘breaking or eliminating the
political domination of an elite group’, which, by centralizing the powers with a so-called central
authority, has been monopolizing the governance powers to the exclusion of cultural and linguistic
indigenous communities. The scheme of the restructuring should therefore adopt some principles as
indispensable elements for national integrity.

Firstly, it should recognize that the ‘equality of all cultures and languages’ is the only basis of the
national unity, and for this federalism is indispensable. Secondly, in society like Nepal which has
been exclusively ruled by a centralized form of government cannot transform to a ‘democratic
society’ by devolving the powers vertically so as to enable all groups the powers to rule. Federalism
is thus necessary to transform Nepal into a ‘nation state’, belonging to every Nepali equally.

Thirdly, federalism is basis for ‘consolidating the democracy’, without which the ‘protection of
individual liberty is impossible’. Finally, the federalism is a means of ‘promoting the individual
liberty and freedoms’. To see from this perspective, the scheme of federalism must be agreed by all
population, and its characters need to be set forth by consensus. Without consensus the ‘scheme of
federalism’ might be a source of conflict among people.
Federalism: Its Advantages and Disadvantages

Lea Baluyot

First what is federalism? Federalism is defining as the allocation of power between the national
government and regional government. A system of government in which the power is divided
between a central authority and constituent political units. Is it advisable for a country like us to
adapt this kind of government?

According to Jose Abueva, former president of University of the Philippines and a professor of
public and administration we should take federal kind of government. He said that the Philippines
would take a period of no less than 10 years to make a successful transition to federalism, involving a
period of consolidation of several regions and intensive socioeconomic development in each of
consolidated regions. Advantages of federal government are the following: (1) It ensures that
government remains close to the people because the state government argue that they are more in
tune with the daily needs and aspirations of people especially relevant to small and isolated places.
(2) It encourages development of the nation in a decentralized and regional manner and allows for
unique and innovative methods for attacking social, economic and political problems. (3) It provides
a barrier to the dominance of the majority, while the disadvantages are the following: (1) It can lead
to duplication of government and inefficient, over-lapping or contradictory policies in different parts
of the country. (2) It can lead to inequality between the states and lead to unhealthy competition and
rivalry between them. (3) It cal lead to over-government that will result to corruption. I have cited
both faces of federal government in order to inform all of you that federal government is a good
system of government and a good example of successful federal kind of government is the United
States of America. But the question here is do we really need it? Is it advisable for our country to
change the government into federal?

On my point of view, we do not need here a change of government all we need is to strengthen the
centralized government. And also it’s very expensive to have a federal kind of government. We have
no enough funds because we are still paying our debts. We have already LGU’S and NGO’S to
monitor the needs of people that have a power equal to the national government. We are making our
situation complicated if we change our present government into federal. Lastly, the Philippines is a
third world country and according to survey last September 16, 2006 we have 25 only of the world’s
193 countries have federal political system, and 3 out of 25 is belong in Asia. It only indicates that a
third world country like us is not ready and cannot afford the federal government.
Arguments for Why Federalism is Beneficial:

 As a Protection Against Tyranny – One of the most important points of federalism in

dividing the power between the national government and state governments, and spreading
the national government’s power among three branches that serve as a check and balance on
each other, is that it serves as a deterrent to tyranny and runaway power. The protections we
have in our system against a tyrannical, runaway government are one of the most important
points to why the system was designed the way it was.
 Diffusing Power – The form of federalism that we have in our country, where power is
shared with state governments, and where the federal government is separated into three
branches, serves as a means to make sure that all power is not centralized into a single person
or group of people, since excessive power among a single group tends to be corrupting.
 Increasing Citizen Participation – By not centralizing all power into the hands of a
national government, but sharing that power with state governments, which are closer to the
level of the common citizen, our founders actually increased a citizen’s ability to effect their
government, government policy, and lawmaking.
 More Efficient – When some of the power of the government is dispersed among the states,
giving states the right to solve some of their own problems, you allow for more efficiency within
the system. To try to have a national solution to all problems, which could be refered to as a
‘cookie-cutter method’ of law and policy making, you end up with solutions that are more
effective in some states, and less effective in others. To allow states to create solutions to their
own problems, using policies and laws that work best in their state, means that each state can
come up with its own solution, making government more efficient.
 Conflict Management – By allowing different communities and states to create their own
policies, they allow for people with irreconcilable differences, or very strong disagreements, to
live in separate areas, and create their own solutions, or policies, that would be totally
disagreeable to the other people in other states or regions of the country.
 Innovation in Law and Policy is Encouraged – By allowing for many state governments,
different sets of policies can be tried, and the ones found most effective at solving its problems
 can then be implemented in other states, or on the national level. Imagine Christopher
Columbus trying to get funding to voyage across the Atlantic Ocean if there was a unified
Europe back then, with its head saying ‘no!’ to him; instead, he had several governments from
which he could try to get his funding – he got turned down by several governments before
Spain gave him the okay. The same principle applies today with our many states – something
that is rejected in one state can most likely be tried in another state, with competition leading
the way, based on effectiveness of those laws.
 State Governments Can be More Responsive to Citizen Needs – The closer a
government entity is to its citizens, the more likely it is the respond to the needs of citizens.
States are more likely to listen to citizen needs, and respond to them, than the national
government would be.