OPINION: No more federalism, only charter change

I have always insisted, there is no such thing as bobotante. In the first place, if there are and they really are such, then we or those matalinotante (or intelligent voters or those who think they make an intelligent voter) most likely the educated, even monied people, including of course many of our political leaders, are in fact worst.

We are all part of the whole system, bobotante or not we suffer from corruption, incompetent leadership, insensitivity or overall a generally non-performing government. And yet we are not doing anything of significance to address this, we are not going out of our way to educate the bobotante and if we are not doing that, we surely would not even consider looking at how the system could be reformed.

There’s simply nothing worst than blaming the people for whatever bad happens in government, especially when they make a different, unexpected choice. You curse, sulk, scheme, but do nothing, did nothing of significance when you had the chance to actually effect true and lasting change. You insist on “it depends on the people, especially those who are in power” yet fail to take the extra mile to figure out why regardless who is calling the shots it remains the same. Are we then cursed that there seem to be no one there who could be chosen and lead us well to development?

And then there are those who reiterate that it is our culture that is to blame, that patronage politics is part of our culture. Culture is of course the core of a people’s identity; embodies the country and people’s customs, social institutions, the collective manifestation of human achievement. If patronage politics is part of our culture, are we then saying that there is simply nothing we can do, as it is our identity? The conclusion then is, as the foregoing, we are cursed to remain what we are now.

Then there are those who on hindsight realize it’s the system, that while there is culture it must be distinguished from behavior. The latter is that human character that responds to the environment, to processes, to what “operant conditioning” would refer to as “rewards and punishment.” With this as premise we can conjecture that if we change the system we can expect significant changes in politics and governance. If the rules of the game are changed then political leaders will have incentives and or disincentives to behave accordingly.

Why we have the kind of system that prevents the country from developing has an extensive explanation from our history to the nature of our state and society. There has been significant scholarship in this regard that explains why we are what we are and why we have the kind of system that we have now. Then again even if we can agree that there is something wrong with the system and we can effect changes to it, we have to ask why it remains as it is, why nothing has changed from the time colonial powers left the country.

This despite the repeated calls for a system that is based on, or at least adapted to our culture and history. And this has been advocated by no less than Jose Rizal and Claro M. Recto. As early as the fight for the country’s independence, an appropriate type of government has been advocated yet it remains just that, an advocacy up to now.

There could only be one reason why it is in one’s interest to preserve the system, just change the one leading at the moment, so that you can be in the position and enjoy what the position brings, enjoy the spoils. This is the reason why a good many would do anything, whatever it takes, regardless of the cost and consequence, just to get back in power.

How many times has the President expressed exasperation from the system? And now recently grudgingly declares, ok, don’t pursue Federalism, but says “…not for anything, if you do not want federalism, fine. But change the Constitution that would really change this nation”.

Unless you simply hate the President, his personality and his guts, this will lead you to ask questions why he said what he said. In the first place, if you actually understand your constitution, you know that to have federalism in place is to change the constitution, and the President is advocating just that, change the constitution.

Whether you like him or not, it would be good to ask why, while he’s saying, ok, don’t pursue federalism, but change the constitution. The answer to me is quite simply and rather straightforward: change the rules of the game.

Don't change the rules of the game and be stuck with just a choice between red and yellow forever. You want to change the rules of the game because you want to have more choices of qualified, competent leaders; not just a choice between 2 or 3 or even as much as 11 candidates you cannot even distinguish. The same candidates, same background, the same social and economic class, who are even most likely friends, could even reside from the same village even if they are from different provinces, in other words all coming from the same group of elites.

Don't change the rules of the game and the same people taking turns ruling from the birth of this republic will still rule, keeping the country virtually on a standstill. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has been advancing, including our neighbors who used to just look up to us with envy.

If we don’t change the rules of the game we will still be choosing from among the same group of people, oligarchs or supported by oligarchs. It will appear to be the choice of the people as it will still be the result of elections, but a farcical choice. Even before the people can make their choice, it has already been made as at the very least it is perpetually narrowed down to the same group anyway, essentially the same choice. This explains why regardless of who is in power, the same practice and results of and from government remains.

No non-elite, no middle working class individual can run for office simply because not everyone can run. In the recently concluded elections, a friend of mine backed out from running to be a councilor in a city outside Manila when he found out he needs a million pesos at least for tarpaulins; that's even out of Manila, and only for tarpaulins. You can then imagine how much it takes for one to be a mayor, representative, more so as senator and or President of the Republic.

Then again you can argue to look around, the old formula of elite politics no longer works as before. We elected one who was unlikely to win in 2016 and continues to remain popular with the people. The “experimental path” we have started then, some are inclined to think, will likely continue, especially if we look at the good many new names and faces that won in the recently concluded elections, even spelling the end of many dynasties around the country. We then rest assured the old elites no longer pose a chance to getting back to power.

Then again if you were these elites, what would you have in mind? Would you allow the same scenario where someone you don't know much of and likely would not be inclined to just go along with you win the elections? Will you not be inclined to really organize and prepare earnestly and vigorously this time so that again, someone from your ranks is successfully elected and that essentially get you back in power?

For years you and your group have been in government, is that not a testament that you know the existing rules a lot better than newcomers that you have an advantage? Never doubt, the unexpected election of a virtual outsider in the last 2016 elections is something that remains unacceptable for some groups up to now.

We have to be asking these questions if the chances of electing a good leader is as before, not any different from a toss of a coin. There should be a way to make sure that we will now have better choices of leaders and that the one who wins will not only be the better choice but that we’ll have a list of better choices enabling us to choose the best from it. Equally important is to have incentives and disincentives in the system for elected leaders to remain true with their campaign and ensure accountability and transparency.

As it is now political participation is simply limited to voting periodically, the kind of vote that we have just explained. Every now and then you get to have a candidate who rises from the rather rigid social and economic ladder and offer alternative leadership but such is a very rare occurrence as it entails a rare combination of hard work and luck, in most instances more of the latter. There are without doubt more hard working Filipinos out there, but simply are not and will not be in a position to go beyond where they are and end up in positions of leadership.

There is nothing wrong with having elites rule, even the same elites, but the existing system makes them just that, elites, not enough incentives if any that make them go beyond being elites when in power and putting on a hat of being and serving as a real leader of the country. They remain elites protecting the same interests and pursuing their own interests. In the first place, precisely, they are elites, already possessing and enjoying the advantage. Why change the rules of the game and enable others to compete.

We now have new leaders, especially worth noting is the remarkable changing of the guards at the local level. I can’t help but ask though, we have new leaders, but how sure are we that they are indeed new leaders and will not end up as just new faces? The existing system only allows the choosing of elites, popular elites; qualifications of course will be a factor, but a factor only next to one’s capacity to run a decent campaign and popularity. The last two factor first and foremost. To me, that’s what the President meant; fine no federalism, but change the charter.

(The author is a professor of Modern Local Governance at the Ateneo School of Government.)

Click here for other opinion pieces of Edmund S. Tayao.