Category: Federalism

Federalism is a type of government in which the power is divided between the national government and other governmental units. It contrasts with a unitary government, in which a central authority holds the power, and a confederation, in which states, for example, are clearly dominant. To empower the regions outside Metro Manila as well as avoid the further fragmentation of provinces and towns to suit the interests of some groups or political clans, Federalism is one of the pillars of the campaign promise of President Rodrigo Duterte. The Philippines is a unitary state with the President as both the head of state and the head of government. The government of the Philippines is made up of three interdependent branches which are the legislative, the executive, and the judicial system. Changing our government to Federalism, the autonomous states are even further divided into local government units. They will have the main responsibility over developing their local industries, public health and safety, education, transportation, and culture. These states have more power over their finances, policies, development plans, and laws. But are we ready for this type of government system? Are the people ready for federalism? Momentarily, the Philippines is not under a good state. Rate of poverty gets higher, more crimes and violence are happening, corruption in the government hasn’t still stopped, our president have his own definition of ‘Human Rights’ and do you think that changing our government system to a federalist one will solve all of this? In the list of what can make our country better at this time, given the prevailing political culture, our need for laws to fight corruption ranks much higher in importance and urgency than the need to shift to a federal system of government. The Philippines is under a lot of problems right now, and I believe that changing our government to a federalist system, is not the solution, perhaps it will only be caging our already caged nation.

Federalism will create further divisions and rivalries. Our country, Philippines, already have a brewing rivalry that concerns the Filipinos. Federalism will only add flame to the burning rivalries and will cause worse disunity among the Filipinos. According to retired Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza, a shift to a federal system will weaken our republic, fragment our nation and render at moot the many years we have spent to attain national unity. This country will be fragmented by such an attempt and there will be attempts at cessation. Shifting to a federal form of government would intensify regional differences and would encourage the rise of village tyrants and village dictators. The failure of federalism, which Mendoza referred to as an ‘experiment’, would be long-lasting. “It will not just be like the impact of a Brexit where the sovereign states can return to their former status as independent states in the case of a component state trying to become a federal system. It will mean separation from the moorings, exposure and making yourself easy prey to the cupidity of other states. It is as dangerous as that”, Mendoza said. In addition to that, what our country needs is a system of government that will unify our fragmented society. I believe that federalism will have the opposite effect because it will effectively break up our already divided country into virtually self-contained fiefdoms where powerful families can continue to hold sway. Such change strategy is fraught with unseen risks and is bound to flounder and eventually fail in the absence of well-developed social, political and economic institutions to facilitate a smooth transition from one system to the other.

To add more flame to the burning issue, federalism can cause other states to lag behind. In the Philippines, there are some states that are not as ready to be autonomous compared to other states, which would create a lot of problems. A recent survey done by SWS and Pulse Asia, showed that only about 27% of Filipinos were aware of what federalism really means – this means roughly 1 in 4 Filipinos. Our country is already divided by language, religion and economic inequality, and a federal system of government can be a recipe for disaster. Studies show that only a few regions are capable of raising enough taxes on their own. The vast majority of provinces, which will be submerged into new federal states, lack the basic administrative capacity for generating revenue. Under a federal system, the richer states of the north will have even more resources to enhance their competitiveness, thus deepening the developmental gap with other southern regions. Moreover, a federal system could further strengthen the power of political dynasties and warlords, which control the Philippines’ peripheries. According to academic studies, around 178 so called ‘political dynasties’ – politicians related by kinship and blood – control 73 out of 81 provinces across the country. They also control up to 70% of the legislature, thus they seem likely to remove any proposed restrictions on the proliferation of political dynasties. Imagine weighing all of this in a balance scale, with political dynasty being dominant, the power will not be divided equally. One nation can have more, while the latter can only have few, or worse, none.

Federalism must not be implemented. Federalism is not for the Philippines. Right now, it’s definitely not proven that the current political leaders in the country are trustworthy enough to ‘change the system’ when in the current system they are already failing. I understand that we need a change, but a change this drastic is too costly and too brash at the moment for the country who is reeling from all sorts of problems, most notably corruption. Federalism seems to work for other countries, because that’s the system, they started with in the first place. The Philippines isn’t, so it doesn’t necessarily apply there. Ever notice the current leaders in the country and how ‘dynastic’ most of them are? Giving them power would only lead to more abuse. Moreover, the presently existing federal countries already possessed and practiced for a long time before federation. In the case of the Philippines, such state autonomy will still have to be introduced, structured and developed. These are two sharply contrasting cases. Federalism and the Philippines do not fit together.

According to National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), the shift to a federal form of government will cost up to P253.5 billion and this will be the top of the current cost of running the government, if implemented next year. NEDA said the proposed federal charter would lead to inevitable disruptions to the economy’s growth momentum and progress in infrastructure improvement efforts. In addition to that, an interview after the meeting led by Finance Secretary Carlos G. Dominguez III and Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto M. Pernia, Neda Undersecretary Rosemarie G. Edillon told reporters that the projected added expenses arising from the shift to federalism would bring about ‘fiscal pressures’, and pressure on the budget deficit cap. The proposed federal form of government was also slammed by former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. It could breed a tyrannical, oppressive and unjust regime. “It creates a horribly horrendous, bloated and enlarged bureaucracy to maintain and sustain, which would forever burden the people”, Davide said. Davide also noted the creation of 18 federated regions, with broad exclusive powers, each of which will have its own regional assembly and executive department. He also slammed the concept of the formation of the four supreme courts on the national level as well as regional supreme courts and other lower courts. “The creation of the four federal supreme courts – the Supreme Court, constitutional court, administrative court and electoral court – is unnecessary and would only complicate our justice system, and diminishes and weakens the historic dignity of the single highest court – the Supreme Court”, – according to Davide. “All the reorganizations in the bureaucracy will prompt both the federal and regional governments to impose taxes or to resort to borrowing money. And these wouldn’t be a far reason why the price of almost everything, e.g, food, clothes, medicines, will increase. They create an unbearable burden to the people”, – he finished.

And most of the senators don’t agree with Federalism. Majority of the 24 senators of the country doesn’t support federalism. “My reading is that a great majority of senators are against it. Federalism will only add to the bureaucracy, red tape, more taxes, and greater tension in government. It will only promote political dynasty, will put our credit standing down and this is really bad for our economy”, – Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto said.

Furthermore, implementing federalism in our country will not solve anything for it will worsen everything. The people are not ready and most importantly our budget is not ready. The government will have to reorganize and change everything and it is not guaranteed that this type of government will work in our country, given the current leaders that we have. Federalism will be expensive, because we have to establish the other 17 state governments that would make up of the Federal Republic of the Philippines. Creating a new layer of bureaucracy will cost a lot of money, and where will the Philippines get its budget for that? The expense of the current administration will also be more than what is expected. Pushing for a federal system will not come cheap, and billions of pesos will be spent on building state governments and electing local officials.

However, the sharing of powers in a federal system will ensure that the federal states will have ample powers to develop their own social, economic, and political potentials. With adequate powers the federal states will be able to modernize themselves. As they modernize, the political stability of the whole country will be strengthened. In addition to that, the concentration of power and resources in the president of the Philippines over fiscal resources and appointments in the bureaucracy can be used to secure economic rents and accumulate wealth which can be easily abused, ushering in corruption. When corruption reaches intolerable limits, political conflicts intensify and instability emerges. But, establishing a multi-layer of government structure consisting of central and regional governments will be costly, creating an enlarged and bloated bureaucracy. The Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) puts the additional cost in the range of P44-72 billion, not even counting changes in the judiciary, if there is a shift to a federal system. Federalism will strengthen political dynasties in the regional governments, perpetrate themselves in power and amass vast wealth through corruption. Federalism will make the poor poorer because they will be burdened with taxes of all kinds to support and maintain the federal central government and regional governments. The principles of federalism – local autonomy, subsidiarity and decentralization – are already in the 1987 Constitution. What needs to be done is to operationalize these principles of federalism. The unitary system has carried this nation through tests of fire: the Filipino – American War (1898-1902), World War II against Japan (1941-1944), rebellion, coup attempts and war in Marawi.

I repeat, Federalism is not for the Philippines. I am a firm believer that Federalism will only worsen our current state, so it should not be implemented. I will state my three final points as to why we should not change our government to a federalist one. First, economically backward provinces or regions would have to depend on equalization payments from richer areas. The locally-generated funds of some municipalities are still small and are still dependent on the IRA (Internal Revenue Allotment) for their operations. Second, as many as 70% of Filipino politicians are connected to dynasties who were able to perpetuate themselves in power and amass vast wealth through corruption. Imagine how much more influence and wealth will these dynasties monopolize if more powers from the national government are devolved and handed over to their control. And lastly, this is not a silver bullet solution to the armed uprisings in Mindanao as what many would envision because the Moro’s want a separate nation, not autonomy. We are already a caged nation, breathing still, even though it’s hard. Would you rather watch the fall of the Philippines through Federalism or will you stand with me and fight against it?

References

1. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/08/07/1840327/federalism-breeds-oppressive-unjust-regime-hilario-davide-jr
2. https://www.pids.gov.ph/pids-in-the-news/2560
3. https://business.inquirer.net/256427/shift-federalism-cost-govt-p253-5b-says-neda
4. https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2018/07/09/1831814/federalism-will-not-work-rp
5. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/02/01/1783589/ex-sc-justice-federalism-will-weaken-nation
6. https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/1754575

Since the mobilization of civil society forces to undermine the authoritarian regime under former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, several administrations have proposed amendments to the 1987 Freedom Constitution of the Philippines. It is only justified that there has been a constant rise in public skepticism due to the fact that most interests regarding institutional changes typically serve personal agendas, as observed in the historical dynamics of previous administrations in the country. This is best exemplified in the 1973 Marcos Constitution, which allowed the former personalist dictator to skirt the law and rule the country for two decades. Among those who proposed changes to the Freedom Constitution is Former Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, who has been calling for a charter change for federalism long before he was elected into office in 2016.

As evidenced by various studies regarding the proposed transition to federalism since Duterte assumed office, literature about the transition from a unitary system to a federal system of government in the Philippine context often includes the assertion that the shift will promote more effective governance in the country on one hand, and on the other, raised viable suspicions and concerns. Notwithstanding the advocated benefits of its establishment, the shift to federalism is not met without consequences, as it is, to wit, a paradigm shift in the overall constitutional order. In view of this fact, there is room for doubt regarding the practical implications and consequences of the proposed institutional reform of federalism.

Rationale and Features of Federalism

Foremost, it is important to identify and deliberate over the rationale of the proposed transition to a Federal Republic of the Philippines. There are many reasons as to why federations are formed. In many accounts, the transition to federalism from a unitary system has been a common response to resolve inter-ethnic or cultural conflicts that pose a threat in achieving political stability, which, in this case, is the continuous conflict in Mindanao. Some federations are formed so that internal conflict is mitigated within a constituent unit while still maintaining a central system of government (Kincaid, 1999, as cited in Móntes, 2006). In addition to conflict management, federations can also be formed by the virtue of internal security. The United States of America, as an example, was a product of self-governing communities banding together to form a government that is capable of providing defense and internal security against potential threats to the country (Móntes, 2006).

Decentralization of power is also a common theme as to why countries are considering to shift to a federal state. The concept of decentralization in a federal state is to bring the government closer to its people by dividing the distribution of powers between regional states. It is a way for smaller political units to be given more authority so that they can attend to the immediate needs of the community. The primary motivation of decentralization is rooted from the principle that dispersion of power from the central government to local authorities will yield favorable results as far as improved local governance and accountability (Araral, Hutchcroft, Llanto, Malaya, Mendoza, & Teehankee, 2017).

As such, many advocates for institutional change from a unitary system to a federal state of government agree that the Philippines has a long tradition of practicing centralized power from Metro Manila, the capital of the country. Consequently, the term ‘Imperial Manila’ grew popular among advocates for federalism. The propagation of such term refers to the overconcentration of autonomy in the national capital. As a matter of fact, it is often portrayed by most individuals that federalism is the local autonomy movement against the ‘Imperial Manila’ (Philippine Institute for Development Studies, 2017). Regardless of this fact, there have been various legislations introduced to the country in order to delegate more authority, resources, and responsibilities to empower local authorities, such as the passage of the Local Government Code in 1991. Despite this, however, most advocates for federalism maintain that there is uneven development in the country. Furthermore, there are beliefs of unequal distribution of power between different regions, such that some areas have been unable to acquire the necessary resources needed to attend to their needs, while other regions prosper.

Having discussed the reasons for the transition to a federal government, it is now necessary to study the features of federalism. Federalism is essentially decentralization in its highest degree. The principle of federalism refers to at least two dependent constituent parts of a state that makes up the government system as a whole (Gamper, 2005, as cited in Móntes, 2006). Furthermore, in federalism, sovereignty is divided between a central authority and its constituent units, such as regional governments. A federal state, at its base, can be viewed as a system of government which acts as a constituent unit that also has multiple jurisdictions. Among the highlights of federalism include the central government and the local or state government. Each of the two governments has certain duties and purviews that the other cannot infringe upon. It is worthy to note that among other federal countries, the oldest federations in the world includes the United States of America and Switzerland (Móntes, 2006). Recent discussions have prompted renewed political positions relating to federalism seeing that various federations are considered global economic giants.

In order to formulate an opinion regarding the shift to federalism, it is also imperative to emphasize that there are various types of federal government. Federalism takes several forms. Several types of federal government are distinguished from one another by virtue of the distribution of power among the central government and the local government. The three types of federal governments are written as follows: 1) cooperative federalism, 2) competitive federalism, 3) coercive federalism (Viray, 2007).

Cooperative federalism is a type of federal government in which the central government, as well as the regional or state government, interact with one another to work on solving problems instead of just one. Ethiopia, Germany, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia are examples of countries who practice this type of federalism. Competitive federalism, on the other hand, refers to the concept of federalism wherein the central government has a limited role in the affairs of state or local government. This type of federalism indicates that the distribution power between the central or federal government is significantly reduced as to appoint bigger responsibilities to the local or federal government. Countries that possess this type of federal government includes Pakistan, Belgium, Australia, Brazil, Micronesia, Switzerland as well as the United Kingdom (Viray, 2007).

In contrast to the concept of competitive federalism, however, is coercive federalism. While the power of the central government is limited in competitive federalism, it is the exact opposite in coercive federalism. In coercive federalism, the power lies within the central or federal government for it can take over laws of the state of local government. A notable example is a coercive power in Nigeria (Viray, 2007). These concepts should be reviewed and further evaluated prior to the transition to a federal government. The type and structure of a federal government shall first be made clear to the entire populace. Notwithstanding the numerous accounts advocating and opposing the institutional shift, empirical studies should be conducted to further assess the quality of governance of such systems in the Philippine context.

Federalism in the Philippines

It is not is news that the history of the Philippines is beset with paradigm shifts, as clearly evidenced primarily by significant constitutional reforms such as the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution of the Philippines, the 1973 Constitution under the Marcos regime, and finally, the 1987 Freedom Constitution. At present, the Philippines has a unitary system of government. A unitary system of government refers to the country as a sovereign state that is considered and governed as a single entity.

The Resolution of Both Houses No. 15 or RBH (2018), a draft federal chapter co-authored by House Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Vicente Veloso along with 20 other legislators, has been receiving criticism from the public regarding its controversial provisions. Among the major changes in the draft federal chapter are the following: 1) the removal of the anti-political dynasty provision, 2) no term limits for legislators, 3) the restoration of the two-party system, 4) 3-year term limit for the district and party-list representatives. Most notably, the draft of the federal constitution included transition provisions that has since raised much apprehension.

Mission head, Luis E. Breuer, of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an institution under the United Nations (UN), stated that the IMF respects the provisions penned by the legislators on the issue of federalism (Villanueva, 2018). He further stated that transition to a federal government can be a good opportunity, however, it is not met without risks. Such risks include fiscal responsibilities as well as the transfer of duties to the local government. It is also noteworthy to include that the staff of the Senate President of the Philippines has requested for studies and operational cost for a transition to a federal government from the UN Development Programme (‘A Newsletter on United Nations Constitutional Support’, 2017). The topic on federalism in the Philippines was briefly discussed in the seventh issue of the UN Constitutional, a newsletter jointly produced by the UN Department of Political Affairs (DPA), UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and UN Women, although there has yet to be a clear response from the United Nations regarding the proposed federal form of government in the Philippines.

The Consultative Committee (Con-Com), tasked by President Rodrigo Duterte, had provided transitory provisions within the draft federal charter for an orderly transition to the new form of government in the Philippines. Within these changes include the banning of Duterte’s re-election under the new charter. However, the RBH transition provisions, located in Article 22, leave opportunity for our current president to run for election as the transitory president. According to the draft federal charter, there the Federal Transition Commission shall be established five days after the ratification of the Constitution. The Federal Transition Commission shall be comprised of the President, which in this case is Duterte, who will act as the Chairman of the Federal Transition Commission. As the Chairman of the Transition Commission, he has the power to appoint ten more members.

There are many details worth noting within the transitory provisions. Among these is the amount of power the Transition Commission will hold, in particular, the provision which states that the aforementioned commission is responsible in “promulgating the necessary rules, regulations, orders, decrees, implementations, and other issuance” to ensure the smooth transition to a federal state. In addition to this, the Transition Committee also has the power to “organize, reorganize, and fully establish” the federal government as well as the federated regions of the state. The Federal Transition Commission is also mandated to “exercise all powers necessary and proper” to ensure a smooth transition to a federal government.

Furthermore, the transition provision, also claimed that the Transition Commission shall complete its mandate by June 30, 2022, however, several questions immediately tail the controversial statement. For instance, which acting forces will be overseeing the progress and will be making sure that the Transition Committee will stick with the provided time frame and finish the transitory phase by June 2022 when the committee itself holds so much power? It should be noted that there should be a system of checks and balances to prohibit the abuse of power given to the Commission. Casting the worrying transitory provisions made aside, the removal of the anti-political dynasty provision in the 1987 Constitution as well as the lifting of term limits for lawmakers is also gravely alarming.

RBH 15 (2018) proposes that each of the states will be independent under a federal system of government, however, the creation of the Federal Republic of the Philippines is not met without undesirable effects. Even though the division of powers will ensure the development of each individual state, it still leaves opportunities for political dynasties to exist and thrive within the regional governments. Federalism, in its desire to focus on the development of the federated states, allows for the persistence of political dynasties, which can perpetuate poverty. It is should also be considered that there is room for tyrants to rise within the federated regions, and, to rub salt into the wound, the lifting of the anti-dynasty law shall further allow this. Moreover, should the transition to federalism fail, it is highly probable that there is no turning back to the old system. In view of this fact, there is a probability that federalism will lead to fragmentation of what was once a nation. Failure in the implementation of a federal government can cause strife throughout the land.

Conclusion

Thus far, arguments opposing the transition to a federal government has been established. In summary, this paper has reviewed the common reasons for federalism and has identified the features as well as the different forms of a federal government. To conclude, a federal system for the Philippines is not ideal for the development of the country such that the existence of political dynasties is still prevalent. Not to mention the worrying provisions made in the RBH 15 such as the removal of term limits for legislators as well as the overwhelming power granted to the proposed Transition Commission during the shift to federalism. Notwithstanding the advantages of a becoming a federal state, the Philippines does not need such shift in paradigm to push for decentralization, rather, what the country should focus on is to break up the concentration of power in the central government.

References

1. A Newsletter on United Nations Constitutional Support. (2017). The UN Constitutional. Retrieved from https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/UNConstitutional-Issue7-2017.pdf
2. Araral, E. Jr., Hutchcroft, P. D., Llanto, G. M., Malaya, J. E., Mendoza, R. U., & Teehankee, J. C. (2017). Debate on federal Philippines: A citizen’s handbook. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
3. H. Res. 15, 17th Cong., 3rd Sess. (2018).
4. Móntes, R. N., Jr. (2006). Federalism and multiculturalism.
5. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. (2017). Critical perspectives on federalism for national government. Pasig City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
6. Villanueva, J. (2018). IMF sees sustained growth of PH amid risks. Philippines: Philippine News Agency.
7. Viray, J. R. (2007). Federalism: Issues, risks and disadvantages. Manila: Polytechnic University of the Philippines.

In order to define whether or not federalism is a more sustainable political system compared to devolution, we must first underline what exactly federalism is, alongside devolution, and what is meant by the term sustainable. Federalism is a political system where state sovereignty is divided amongst two-levels of government which are national and regional bodies. Whereas devolution is the transference of powers to regional bodies with a centralized government maintaining ultimate legal power (sovereignty). Throughout this essay, we shall be referring to the political models of the United States of America and the United Kingdom due to their adaptations of federalism and devolution respectively. For either system of government to be more sustainable than the latter, the political system must fulfil current political goals and resource needs without compromising future objectives, whilst also maintaining the support and approval of the public domain. Therefore, in light of the criteria above, evidence suggests that federalism is partially a less-sustainable political system than devolution due to ignorance created towards national unity, the lack of political accountability and the struggles associated with maintaining societal expectations as the principles of the public evolve to the acceptable standard of 21st century Western ideals towards contentious problems such as abortion, slavery and other valence issues.

Firstly, one issue that reinforces the idea that federalism is a less-sustainable political system than devolution is the ignorance that is created and manifested towards national unity as people seek to unify under regional bodies rather than the entire nation. Where devolution aids diversity due to the fact that sovereignty is held within a centralized government, and their acts will always take priority due to this; individuals living within federal regimes often struggle to collaborate over contentious issues due to the potential varied approach from the regional government to national.

For example, whilst the Supreme Court in the United States of America has voiced that abortion is legal in Roe v. Wade on a national level, states such as Louisiana have introduced significant restrictions in order make it harder for women to be able to have an abortion, such as making it illegal to have an abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. De facto, making it almost illegal due to the sheer difficulty associated with achieving one. Citizens also argue that federalism leads to the ignorance towards local governments, not just regional and state. This is showcased in turn out figures of local elections: often being less than 25% citizens ignore compared to devolution; contentious issues such as abortion are always entrusted upon the national government rather than being delegated by regional bodies in order to propose and enforce a uniform approach, sharing the same restrictions between all bodies. Contrariwise, in the United Kingdom abortion was legalized after the Abortion Act 1967; and due to the sovereignty of Parliament, this act cannot be challenged by any institution unless overruled by another act. This also highlighted the process of restrictions, bringing to the foreground an invariable approach amongst devolved state. As a result, devolution encourages uniformity as the only resolution is the one proposed by the national government. This showcases the weak sustainability of federalism compared to devolution as people often unite over either the national body or the regional body, not both. This approach leads to civil unrest as contentious issues are often unanswered, answered poorly, or answered differently compared to the other regional bodies present. With civil unrest, the integrity of a nation’s political sustainability is often criticized heavily as when opinions significantly differ on potential resolutions of issues resolutions cannot be made. Therefore, evidence suggests federalism is less sustainable than devolution.

One argument for federalism that could be considered a more sustainable political system than devolution is that it aids the prevention of tyranny. Tyranny, which is the cruel and oppressive rule of government, thwarts the principle of political sustainability as the unrestrained exercise of power results in the abuse of authority. This misuse of power leads to instability as the members of the public become outraged due to having limited responsibility in the creation of legislation whilst also losing confidence in their political representatives. Federalism stops tyranny by imposing each institution of a political system with equal legal power, avoiding one institution being more powerful than the others, but also, each governmental body having equal sovereignty in order to deal with issues relevant to the region at each given time. For example, in the United States of America Articles 1 (Legislature), 2 (Executive) and 3 (Judiciary) of the US Constitution explain the roles and responsibility of each institution alongside the limitations of their power. Checks and balances were introduced to also support this. In comparison to regimes that have devolved regional bodies, the institutions in which are present in them can be considered quasi-tyrannical. For example, in the United Kingdom the Executive can be regarded as the most substantial in recent years as seen through Boris Johnson’s use of Henry VII powers in order to illegally prorogue Parliament. This was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court, yet Boris Johnson, was not punished. The circumvention of tyranny is vital in ensuring sustainability as it maintains the trust of the electorate, aiding the legislature’s ability to create and scrutinize legislation without civil unrest and frequent criticism from the public regarding the Government’s etiquette. However, whilst tyranny is important to avoid, the 21st century is not as exposed to it as it once was decades ago. Foreign diplomacy and the establishment of political unions have resulted in the tyrannical regimes being phased out through international relations and pressure through trade embargos and other necessary means. The European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) encourage bipartisanship and will often seek to work with regimes with basic democratic regimes rather than regimes plagued with frequent tyranny. Although tyranny is no longer common, it is still extremely important to avoid. So, therefore, federalism is to an extent, more sustainable than devolution due to its ability to avoid tyranny.

Another argument against the sustainability of federalism compared to devolution is through their regional body’s ability to challenge existing laws through the use of the judiciary. For example, as seen through Boumediene v. Bush, foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional right to challenge their detention in United States Courts. Whilst this may be seen as a positive, it is undemocratic due to the fact the judiciary is revoking legislation created by an individual who was elected on the basis of his approach to Governmental duties labelled in his State of Union addressal. His plans and policies were labelled, and he was elected on the consent of the people. Therefore, President Bush was acting in their best interest, yet the court decided otherwise. This is a threat to sustainability as civilians would become restless as ultimately the voice of their representative is silenced. On the other hand, devolution grants their institution dedicated to the creation of legislation the ability to revoke their own statutes rather than the judiciary. For example, in the United Kingdom, Parliament can only revoke national laws, which are in the form of primary legislation, such as statutes and case law. Therefore, the electorate remain civil as their representatives are voted in and act on the manifestos in which they campaigned on. If anyone other than legislature attempted to revoke this right, it would be undemocratic as they were the proposals in which the individual was voted in on. Ultimately showing that federalism is less sustainable than devolution as it proposes more civil unrest.

Lastly, another advantage of devolution in providing a more sustainable political system than federalism is that devolution is more flexible, compared to a federal system’s rigidity due to the definition and entrenchment of power between central and regional governments, protected by a codified constitution. For example, devolution in the United Kingdom has resulted in Westminster having the ability to revoke powers when necessary and give them back. This can be seen via Northern Ireland’s autonomy being removed after 1972, when Westminster abolished Stormont invoking direct rule. Due to the political instability of Northern Ireland after Bloody Sunday. In the United Kingdom, devolution allows Westminster to maintain rule when Northern Ireland can no longer rule themselves, ultimately leading to the suspension of their political assembly. This is important as the flexibility of devolution allows the nation to adapt with the current climate of their state. If an issue arises, the elasticity of the political system allows for a quick resolution with limited opposition. Whether that be in response to a societal movement or a global pandemic such as COVID-19, devolution allows for a coordinated approach from central government usually supported by regional and local bodies. In comparison to federalism, the rigidity of their political system limits their ability to quickly adapt their self to changing political and economic conditions. For example, the United States of America took an extra 50 years compared to the United Kingdom in order to ban slavery, otherwise known as the 13th Amendment. Therefore, federalism is not a more sustainable political system than devolution. Devolution allows for states to be context sensitive; promising quick resolutions to issues that arise, with a better coordination of resources in order to deal with these. These quick resolutions allow for political goals to be fulfilled without trouble and also ensures that future objectives are not compromised as these resolutions can be altered as time changes. Whereas, in comparison to regimes which adopt the political system of federalism, the rigidity associated with checks and balances and the avoidance of tyranny result in important national issues being blocked due to the amendment and ratification procedures. The tough approval process combined with the rise of 21st century partisanship warfare from authoritarian politicians, such as President Trump, result in gridlock being extremely common in federal republics. Partisanship warfare results in the disapproval of opposition parties working together in order to pass legislation, and therefore, when gridlock occurs, parties must work together to overcome it. These two ensure further that legislation will not be amended or created in a process already faulted by a rigid amendment procedure. Therefore, federalism is not more sustainable than devolution. Federalism’s process of creating and scrutinizing legislation is long-winded and faulted by frequent check and balances, a rise of partisanship warfare due to a refusal to work with adversaries. Devolution is flexible and therefore aids future goals.

To conclude, federalism is partially a less-sustainable political system than devolution. Whilst federalism has its advantages over devolution due to its ability to significantly protect against tyranny, tyranny is no longer an issue facing the 21st century as it was decades ago. Superstate-like institutions, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU) protect against the use of tyranny through foreign diplomacy. Devolution’s ability to fulfil its goals and allocate the necessary resources to achieve future objectives is unparallel to the likes of what the political system of federalism can achieve. This is due to the flexibility and elasticity of devolution compared to federalism. Devolution can also keep up to the standards of the consistently evolving social climate whereas federalism struggles to do so due to its severe entrenchment of principles and policies. For federalism to be more sustainable, it must be capable of continuing to function effectively with pure efficacy for centuries to come. As seen by the evidence above, federalism is not capable of being as efficient as devolution. Devolution is able to do everything that federalism can do, whilst having the safety net present to protect the nation’s inhabitants during times of crisis more effectively than a nation who has adopted federalism. Therefore, federalism is partially a less-sustainable political system than devolution.

One way that devolution in the UK differs from federalism in the USA is through the different levels of entrenchment. In the UK, devolved bodies rely on parliament for their existence. Due to doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, parliament maintains the right to dissolve the bodies, such as when Northern Ireland’s virtual autonomy within the UK was ended when the British government restored direct rule in 1972, abolishing the Northern Ireland parliament, Stormont. However, US federalism is entrenched under the 10th amendment, making it an incredibly difficult system to change, shown by the rigorous amendment process, requiring approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. The fact that there have only ever been 33 total amendments to the US constitution shows that the level of entrenchment of US federalism is much stronger than that of the UK devolution.

Another difference is that of the varying levels of power in each ‘unit’, found in devolution, but not in federalism. Devolution in the UK allows differing levels of power and autonomy for the different areas within the nation-state, for example, the difference in power between Scotland and Wales. Comparatively, federalism in the US requires each areastate to have the same power, not making one state have more power and abilities than another.

The origin of the power is also a difference between the two systems. In the UK, devolution is decentralization of powers by the central authority to lower levels, where all power originated from the central government in London. However, federal powers in the US are constitutionally divided, and there is a covenant between the central authority and the state in the division of powers in federalism. Certain powers are given to the national government alone, some to the state governments, and some are shared, making the states somewhat equal to the national government. Comparatively, in the UK, Parliament is sovereign, so each ‘unit’ only has power due to the approval of Parliament.

One difference between the legislative powers of the UK Parliament and the US Congress is the equality of powers between the houses. In the UK, the House of Lords and the House of Commons have unequal levels of power. The Commons has supreme legislative power- the chamber proposes and passes laws, and can stop bills from being passed into law, but the House of Lords can only delay a Bill for up to one year, due to the Parliament Act 1949, and even that power has limitations. This can be explained through the structural political theory. Comparatively, in the US, the House of Senate and House of Representatives are equal in the constitution, so there is no division of legislative power. For a bill to be passed, it must be agreed on by both branches.

A further difference is that of the power of the purse. In the US, it starts off with the President’s proposal to Congress, recommending funding levels for the next fiscal year. The House of Representatives has exclusive power to introduce legislation involving money, but has to be approved by both houses, just like any other legislation. So, despite the House of Representatives having power over the purse, the Senate still has significant power as they can reject the balance sheet and edit it, and send it to be debated again. Again, this can be explained through the structural political theory. However, in the UK, the House of Lords has no power over legislation and it stays mostly in one house. Budgets are usually set once every year, and are announced in the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer after different departments have requested money for different operations. The power remains in parliament as they vote on the funding. If there is a failure then a vote of no confidence can be announced.

Another comparison that can be made, is that of the checks and balances within the legislation. Once again, here, the structural political theory can be applied. In the UK, Parliament is sovereign therefore has most control, and the only way to contest a law that has been passed is by implementing another law or debating it through the houses. In the US, law can be contested through presidential vetoes, in which another supermajority is needed in both houses to implement. Also, the US Supreme Court can nullify the law if it is seen to be unconstitutional, whereas the Supreme Court in the UK cannot, but can reach a conclusion on whether a law infringes on rights already given, such as the Human Rights Act, which does not incite parliament to change legislation.

Federalism is a division of power between local and state governments. Under global emergencies, the local and state governments are the first in-line responders to tackle the crisis.

Federalism expects the federal and state governments to respond to disasters such as floods, fires, earthquakes, or pandemics, for instance, the 2005 Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the 2020 COVID-19 in the United States. Federalism plays a vital role in U.S. public health; it oversees the response to the public and the state’s spending during a disaster. During disasters, the Federal government reserves the power to declare a national emergency and create a standby temporary order just like the “Stay at home” order given during the Coronavirus Pandemic.

The 2005 disaster, Hurricane Katrina, was the largest and most severe natural disaster to have fallen in the United States, precisely New Orleans. The severity of this disaster was measured by the degree of damage, the location of the impact zone, and the impact it had on people’s lives. When Hurricane Katrina hit, many factors contributed to catastrophe such as incomplete evacuation in advance of the storm and poor communication. The government was not prepared to counter the disaster of Hurricane Katrina (Leonard, et, al. 2). While watching the Houston Public Media documentary on Hurricane Katrina, I learned that the local and state officials failed to plan before the storm hit, the U.S military waited too long to take actions during the storm, and the government differed to the poor and black American victims. According to the article, is federalism the reason for policy failure in Hurricane Katrina, “Katrina has been cast as a failure of federal initiative and organization, notwithstanding the inherently intergovernmental nature of disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation in the US,” which explains the flawed government in responding to the people during the emergencies (Birkland, et al).

However, the weather forecast warned federal government officials and everyone about Hurricane Katrina, yet the government failed the prepare for the disaster. Some of the federal failures are confusion about what to do, failure to be prepared, communication breakdown, supply failure, and indecision. The federal officials were not proactive when the storm hit, as they were not trained and there was confusion in the deployments and command structure; FEMA- the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had officials with little to no experience in handling disasters like Katrina. As a result of the storm, there was a complete communication breakdown; in the documentary, the Chief of the U.S National Guard, Legen Steven Blum, gave an excuse as to why people were not evacuated on time, he responded by saying people could not call 911 to ask for help as the flood caused a power outage.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease that affects both the respiratory and vascular systems of the body. On January 15, 2020, the United States first recorded its first victim of the coronavirus at the Province Regional Medical Center, according to a Houston public media documentary. The president and the state failed to control the spread of the virus; just after five days of confirming the first patient, 32 more people tested positive because of the lack of control; the government was too slow to act. The government failure started from the late availability of testing kits; the WHO provided some testing kits to the U.S. but the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) decided not to utilize them, instead, they ordered some bad test kits. When the first case of coronavirus was recorded, the Trump administration tried to downplay the severity of the virus and suspended the WHO; they assured the public that it was a minor issue and there was no cause to panic. If the president did not suspend the WHO, the cases that tested positive would not be a lot. According to the article, Challenges to Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations and Takeaways Amid the COVID-19 Experience, the major failure of the federal government was misinformation and lack of direction in dealing with COVID-19.

Work Cited

1. Benton J. Edwin. “Challenges to Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations and Takeaway Amid the COVID-19 Experience.” The American Review of Public Administration, 15 Jul. 2020 journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0275074020941698
2. Birkland, Thomas, et al. “Is Federalism the Reason for Policy Failure in Hurricane Katrina?”The Journal of Federalism, Vol. 38, issue 4, 29 Jul. 2008 academic.oup.com/publius/article/38/4/692/1853488
3. Leonard Herman, et al. “Preparing for and Responding to Katrina-class Disturbance in the United States.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, Vol. 3, issues= 2, 8 Mar. 2006 www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/research- initiatives/crisisleadership/files/katrina_prelude.pdf
4. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0275074020941698
5. https://academic.oup.com/publius/article/38/4/692/1853488
6. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/research-initiatives/crisisleadership/files/katrina_prelude.pdf
7. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/centers/research-initiatives/crisisleadership/files/katrina_prelude.pdf

Texas tends to not restrict an individual’s right, however; the Texas government in the past seemed to always restrict an individual from gambling. The first Texas constitution banned all types of gambling even though many citizens seemed to enjoy the culture of gambling. The Texas ban on gambling was very strict. Any bet on random chance and any form of gambling was part of the definition of illegal gambling. The ban on gambling stayed relatively the same for quite some time. The first change in attitude toward gambling happened in 1933 when betting on horse racing was made legal. This only lasted for 4 years when horse race betting was made illegal again but made legal again in 1989 in Texas.

The Texas government in the past has attempted to shut down tribal casinos and boat casinos. The Texas ban on casinos was quite imposing and affected tribal lands that had casinos. When the Texas authorities shut down many of the tribe’s gambling sites, the tribes took Texas to Federal courts, where Texas won the right to shut down many of the tribe’s gambling sites. One of the few legal Tribal casinos now is the Lucky Eagle. The Lucky Eagle is located down near the Mexico border and is still operating.1

Texas has also restricted casinos on water in the past. While the Texan government tried to shut down boat casinos, the boat casinos claimed to be operating games in international waters and outside Texas laws and jurisdiction, Texas lawmakers combated this by requiring boat casinos to stay afloat for 24 hours and be docked at a foreign port. This worked quite well to some degree and many Texans would rather cross state borders to gamble than visit a boat casino in Texas.

Although the Texas government tried to wage war against gambling and attempted to push gambling sites outside of state borders, Texans who wish to gamble can simply cross state borders and travel to Louisiana and Oklahoma where gambling laws are less restrictive.1 While the Texas government can ban casinos, gamblers still find a way to continue their activity. Gamblers who still wish to gamble can still visit the last Tribal casinos called the Lucky Eagle and water casinos operating on international waters, and gamblers can even cross state borders into Louisiana or Oklahoma where gambling is less restrictive.

The main reason why Texas and Louisiana have such different laws on gambling is because gambling is because gambling is mainly seen as a state issue. For example, Hawaii and Utah completely outlaw all forms of gambling while Oklahoma and Louisiana are less restrictive on gambling. It is up to the states to decide whether or not to outlaw gambling. Some states have a total ban on gambling and other states have no ban on gambling. The federal government doesn’t have much say on the legality of gambling and leaves it mainly to the states, but the federal government may get involved if an interstate gambling crime is involved. If gambling is illegal in the state and wagering information is sent through phone lines or the internet, then the federal government may get involved. 18 USC 1084 is used by the federal government to help criminalize interstate gambling if gambling is illegal in that state. This is one of the few things that the state gets help from the federal government to help prosecute gamblers if the state is hard on gambling. It seems that the state government and federal government are working well together. If the state is hard on gambling, then the federal government can help regulate interstate gambling crimes if the gambling is across state lines. This seems to be most similar to cooperative federalism where the state government and the federal government have shared powers regarding gambling.

It seems that policy areas regarding gambling have changed over the years in Texas. At first, Texas outlawed all forms of gambling and waged war on gambling, fighting Tribal casinos and boat casinos with success but unable to stop Texans from crossing state borders to Louisiana to gamble. But after some time, the Texas government slowly lessened its restrictions on gambling, first by allowing betting at horse racing events, then giving licenses for charitable gambling with a constitutional amendment in 1980 and later creating the Texas State lottery as income for the state. The federal side of gambling policy has not changed much. The federal government used to make sports betting illegal but the US Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on sports betting unconstitutional, which the US Supreme Court ruling helped make gambling policies up to the states. The federal government also passed 18 USC 1084 helped states criminalize interstate gambling crimes. The federal government seems to have gotten more involved and more willing to help the states when gambling is illegal in the states.

What is interesting is that Texas is now slowly lessening the restrictions on gambling realizing the potential of legalizing gambling and taking advantage of the income received from legalizing gambling. What may have helped Texan legislatures see gambling as a money maker for the state is most likely looking at Louisiana successfully taxing riverboat casinos as well as the Texas state lottery. The Texas state lottery makes about 4 billion dollars with roughly 1.3 billion dollars to pay for education. The income from the state lottery may not be much but the state lottery is still income that can offset some costs. The state lottery is helping Texas pay for schools and education and it seems that recently Texas legislatures have been noticing how much money could be made from allowing gambling into the state. Louisiana’s taxes on gambling from riverboats have contributed over 2 billion dollars to the state. The Louisiana gambling industry has also created 14,000 jobs and 40% of the Louisiana State Police is funded by riverboat taxes. Lawmakers in Texas are taking notice of this and have thought of legalizing gambling and casinos to create more income for the state.

Recent events have made the need for new revenue more important than ever. With the recent school funding overhaul, Texas needs a new source of revenue. Property taxes have been cut and many Texan lawmakers are reluctant to raise property takes to match the school funding overhaul. Roland Gutierrez stated that “Texas is losing billions of dollars annually to neighboring states where full-scale gambling with a slot machine and table games is permitted.” Lawmakers in Texas are acknowledging the potential for a gambling tax and have drafted up TX HB3043. The bill would recognize the operation of 12 licensed casinos in Texas within counties that have approved the casinos. This bill and the state lottery show that Texas’s negative attitude toward gambling is changing slowly. The bill was thought to be unlikely to be passed because most republican legislatures and Governor Abbot are biased against casinos. But now that the Texas legislatures need to find a new source of revenue to pay for the public school overhaul, this bill is likely to pass to help offset the cost.

The Texas state lottery already proved to be effective and helped Texas with financing public schools, but it may not be enough. The new public school funding overhaul without new sources of revenue is disastrous. The new public school funding passed alongside the passing of lowering property taxes is likely to put a strain on the Texas budget. Losing one source of income without creating a new source of income while also increasing spending is not the best decision that our legislatures have drafted. But since this is what our legislatures decided to do, we now need some way of paying for the new public school finance reform that is sustainable and likely to pass. Increasing property taxes is unlikely as Texan legislatures and voters are unlikely to support an increase in property taxes. The state lottery is helping but not by much as most of the money that is gained in the state lottery is given back to the winners with only 27% going to education and the 27% is only about 1 billion dollars. The Texas lottery by itself is not enough to pay for the new public school reforms. The best solution to get new revenue is to legalize gambling and tax it. Following Louisiana’s example by legalizing and taxing a gambling industry will not fully solve the problem but will add a new source of revenue for the state. Louisiana has enjoyed much wealth and economic impact from the legalization of gambling, so it may be wise for Texas to follow that path. Legalizing and taxing the gambling industry is a hidden potential in the state of Texas that legislatures have simply not tapped into. Many Texans already cross state borders to gamble in Louisiana or Oklahoma and many Texans gamble recreationally in a legal social setting. Legalizing casinos will allow Texas to tap into a new source of income without increasing property taxes. While it will not fully finance public schools, it will offset the cost.

Bibliography

1. Louisiana Casino Association. ‘Louisiana Casino Association.’ Louisiana Economic Impact | LA Casino Association. Accessed July 29, 2019. https://www.casinosofla.com/how-louisiana-wins.asp.
2. Gambling Online. Texas Legal Gambling – Legal Poker / Casinos in Texas. Accessed July 29, 2019. https://www.gamblingonline.com/laws/texas/.
3. KCBD. ‘Is the Texas Lottery Funding Education?’ Https://www.kcbd.com. December 15, 2014. Accessed July 30, 2019. https://www.kcbd.com/story/14579932/kcbd-investigates-is-the-tx-lottery-really-funding-education/.
4. Versus Texas ‘Gambling: Is Gambling Illegal in Texas – or under Federal Law?’ Varghese Summersett PLLC | Fort Worth Criminal Defense Attorneys. Accessed July 29, 2019. https://www.versustexas.com/gambling/.
5. Rebekah Allen. ‘Can Texas Afford the School Funding Overhaul? Some Lawmakers Say Not without New Revenue.’ Dallas News. May 27, 2019. Accessed July 29, 2019. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2019/05/26/can-texas-afford-school-funding-overhaul-lawmakers-say-not-without-new-revenue.
6. Devin O’Connor. ‘Texas Casino Bill Introduced Would Permit 12 Destination Resort Venues.’ Casino.org. March 06, 2019. Accessed July 30, 2019. https://www.casino.org/news/texas-casino-bill-introduced-would-permit-12-destination-resort-venues.

Today’s modern world is mainly divided into two putative political systems and those are federal and unitary systems. Both of these systems have their unique political structures along with their unique styles of functioning processes. Federalism is a kind of a system in which states and provinces share power with a national government. Such as United states of America as it functions according to the principles of federalism. On the other hand, the unitary government system is a sovereign state governed as a single party in which the central government is supreme and the administrative divisions only exercise the powers delegated to them by the central government. Subdivisional units are formed and abolished, and the central government may extend and restrict their powers. The United Kingdom, for example, is a unitary state. All the countries base their faith on either of these political systems considering the advantages and disadvantages, while some countries have no options of choosing their own system, as the government itself declares the state of the country, whether it will be governed mainly by government or people of the country will also be involved in the decision making of the country. To find out more about these two putative political structures, this study will further discuss on how both federal and unitary political systems differ from each other and what are the advantages and disadvantages of these systems. This paper will also look into different countries which support these systems and why they support them. Lastly, it will discuss on whether unitary is a good form of political government or federal.

The state comprises the various institutions of government, the bureaucracy, the military, police, courts, social security system and so forth. It very well may be contended that government is ‘a part of the state’. At the end of the day, ‘the state characterises the political network of which government is the official branch. Government is the key to characterise unitary or federal government. The meaning of the word govern is to assert the authority over others. The action of government in its broadest sense involves the power of the government to practice the decision making and to ensure that they are being followed. In other words, an administration comprises of foundations answerable for settling on aggregate choices for society. All the more barely, government alludes to the top political level inside such foundations.

After this concise data, unitary and national governments can be defined. Unitary can be characterised that sway lies only with the central government; sub-national authorities, regardless of whether territorial or local, may make strategy just as execute it yet they do as such by authorisation of the centre. In contrast to unitary government, federal government is the nation dependent on federalism. Federalism is the standard of sharing power among focal and state governments. On account of the division of sovereignty between the centre and the outskirts, from a certain point of view, neither degree of government can infringe upon the forces of the other. Any political system that places this thought into practice is known as a federation. Every system has their strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages, in the same manner federal and unitary government systems have their own sets of pros and cons too.

Advantages of the Federal Government System

Federal systems assures the protection against tranny. As the structure of the system is in itself divided into national and state governments. Federal system is, as we know, the most dominant system in today’s generation. It is because, the history has taught us how the other form of governments could get, such as dictatorship or monarchy. To prevent these government formation federal is the solution.

Devision of power destroys all the possibilities of formation of centralised power, hence, preventing from the excessive power of one party. Which sometimes tends to get corrupted.

One of the major aspects of the federal government systems is the citizen participation. Since the power is not centralised, citizens have some influence on the lawmaking and government policies.

When the responsibilities are distributed amongst the states, it allows the states to look into their own problems. This is a good way of using the resources and manpower efficiently and effectively.

Disadvantages of the Federal Government System

• Inequalities between different states. For instance, rather than training financing all through the nation being the equivalent, since it is a state issue, a few states will spend more, per capita, on instruction than different states, causing what could be viewed as a disparity. The same goes for different things, too, for example, taxes, social insurance projects, and welfare programs.
• The blockage of nationalist policies by states. States can battle against the presence of certain national laws by testing them in court, or making a special effort to not authorise those national laws, or even intentionally discouraging authorisation of national laws.
• Racing to the bottom. One contention given is that states will rival each other in an oppositional way, by diminishing the measure of advantages they provide for welfare beneficiaries contrasted with, state, a neighbouring state, persuading the nuisances to go to the neighbouring state, in this manner decreasing their welfare costs significantly more. This decrease of state advantages to poor has been considered the race to the bottom.

Advantages of Unitary Government System

It is a legislature that can move quickly providing decisive legislative and all the other aspects. Because control rests halfway inside a unitary system, there are less defers engaged with the handling of a choice. In many governments with this system, the intensity of settling on a choice lies with one authoritative unit or even only one individual. That makes it conceivable to be responsive at whatever point there is a risk presented, regardless of whether it is normal, political, or some other issue that must be tended to.

It is a legislature that is less expensive to run. Unitary system may assign certain forces to managerial units, however the last position still rests inside the one government system. That dispenses with the different degrees of legislative organisation that exist inside different systems. Less levels of administration makes less formality to explore, which means lower in general operational costs. Whenever run proficiently, the regulatory taxation rate of the populace under a unitary government can be lower.

It is a legislature that can advance a feeling of unity. Within a unitary system, loyalties are not partitioned. In the United States, for instance, individuals may wind up being faithful to their state or their locale and the government may play an optional job. Since unitary systems make a brought together government that doesn’t make covering locale, a feeling of solidarity can be advanced by the legislature all through society. This offers the capability of decreasing extremity.

Disadvantages of Unitary System

It is a government the can become tyrannical. Not exclusively can authorities or authoritative bodies be effectively controlled inside a unitary system, they can be utilized to misuse the populace. Since there is a lot of intensity, regularly political, that is put into a unitary system, this type of government is one of the in all probability that prompts oppression.

It is a government that remains in the control of a select few. Within a unitary system, there may be national pride, but there are fewer opportunities to get involved with the actual process of governing. The average person is rarely given the opportunity to contact government officials in a meaningful way. If policy changes occur, there are few options available to the average person to create change within their government. Over time, this can lead to high levels of distrust that may eventually cause societal disruption.

It is an administration that remaining parts in the control of a chosen few. Inside a unitary system, there might be national pride, yet there are less chances to engage with the real procedure of administering. The normal individual is infrequently allowed the chance to contact government authorities in an important manner. On the off chance that approach changes happen, there are barely any alternatives accessible to the normal individual to make change inside their administration..

It is an administration which disregards nearby issues. centralised system manages a ‘major picture’ situations. From an administration point of view, that implies residential needs are frequently yielded to deal with outside necessities and dangers. Since the intensity of the administration must be assigned, networks may end up without portrayal when neighbourhood emergencies emerge. Self-administering is regularly energised, however with no power, it can at present be hard to find and utilise assets that might be important for endurance.

Decentralisation

Decentralisation is, quite possibly, the dominating political pattern within recent time period. Major devolutions of power from national to subnational levels have happened in different nations, for example, Africa (e.g., Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana), Asia (e.g., Bangladesh, India), Europe (e.g., Belgium, Britain, France, Italy, and Spain), and Latin America (e.g., Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico). A few new majority rule governments have developed with express sacred assurances for sub-state specialists (e.g., Russia and the European Union). In the interim, older federal polities such as Germany, India, the United States, and Switzerland continue intact.

We know about no vote based system that has moved from the established status of ‘federalism’ to that of its opposite, ‘unitarism.’ As an outcome, most enormous majority rule governments are currently naturally administrative. To be sure, over 56% of the world’s majority rule residents live in government nations at the start of the twenty-first century. In addition to a political fact on the ground, decentralisation is an idea, and an increasingly popular one at that. At mid-century, the three dominant models of development—socialism, export-oriented industrialisation, and import substitution—all featured a leading role for the national state. Presently, the centre has moved to nearby level activities, smaller scale endeavour, NGOs, and the encouraging of majority rule establishments. The present vogue of decentralisation is resounded in scholastic work by most financial analysts and political researchers. Undoubtedly, dissipated proof proposes that scholastics, legislators, and policymakers from over the political range have held onto decentralisation as a key to great administration. While the Old Right safeguarded the privileges of the express, the New Right is stridently antistatist, leaning toward neighbourhood majority rule government, enterprising private enterprise, and intrinsically ensured property rights. On the Left, the centralist model related with communism and socialism is progressively enduring an onslaught. In its place one discovers reestablished enthusiasm for vote based system, responsibility, resident cooperation, common society, social capital, and thought. Therefore, the intrigue of decentralisation cuts over the standard left-right cleavage.

Conclusion

The idea of being competitive has bought no good to the countries nor to the whole world. The history has witnessed the competition nature of industrialisation, which resulted into a nightmare for the world, caused blood baths. Industrialisation was basically competition between countries. Competition of possessing more power (power was arms, machinery, forces, and all the other possible goods a country could produce). Much has been written about the putative virtues of federal and unitary political system government, but little empirical testing of the impact of such systems on the quality of governance has been conducted. Do federal or unitary systems promote better social, political and economic outcomes? In each case, there is room for doubt about the practical impact of federalism on governance. In most cases, a strong empirical relationship between unitarism and good governance obtains, to the extent that these constitutional structures make a difference, unitary systems appear to hold distinct advantages over federal ones. Although the world leaders United states upholds the federal government system it is not necessarily the most fruitful kind of governance, in reality, unitary political system provides better opportunities in many of the aspects, hence, it is a better political system.

References

1. Heywood, H. (1999), Political Theory: An Introduction, MacMillan Press Ltd., London.
2. Hague, R. and Harrop, M. (2001), Comparative Government and Politics: Introduction, Palgrave, Hampshire.

Federalism is a type of government in which the power is divided between the national government and other governmental units. It contrasts with a unitary government, in which a central authority holds the power, and a confederation, in which states, for example, are clearly dominant. To empower the regions outside Metro Manila as well as avoid the further fragmentation of provinces and towns to suit the interests of some groups or political clans, Federalism is one of the pillars of the campaign promise of President Rodrigo Duterte. The Philippines is a unitary state with the President as both the head of state and the head of government. The government of the Philippines is made up of three interdependent branches which are the legislative, the executive, and the judicial system. Changing our government to Federalism, the autonomous states are even further divided into local government units. They will have the main responsibility over developing their local industries, public health and safety, education, transportation, and culture. These states have more power over their finances, policies, development plans, and laws. But are we ready for this type of government system? Are the people ready for federalism? Momentarily, the Philippines is not under a good state. Rate of poverty gets higher, more crimes and violence are happening, corruption in the government hasn’t still stopped, our president have his own definition of ‘Human Rights’ and do you think that changing our government system to a federalist one will solve all of this? In the list of what can make our country better at this time, given the prevailing political culture, our need for laws to fight corruption ranks much higher in importance and urgency than the need to shift to a federal system of government. The Philippines is under a lot of problems right now, and I believe that changing our government to a federalist system, is not the solution, perhaps it will only be caging our already caged nation.

Federalism will create further divisions and rivalries. Our country, Philippines, already have a brewing rivalry that concerns the Filipinos. Federalism will only add flame to the burning rivalries and will cause worse disunity among the Filipinos. According to retired Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza, a shift to a federal system will weaken our republic, fragment our nation and render at moot the many years we have spent to attain national unity. This country will be fragmented by such an attempt and there will be attempts at cessation. Shifting to a federal form of government would intensify regional differences and would encourage the rise of village tyrants and village dictators. The failure of federalism, which Mendoza referred to as an ‘experiment’, would be long-lasting. “It will not just be like the impact of a Brexit where the sovereign states can return to their former status as independent states in the case of a component state trying to become a federal system. It will mean separation from the moorings, exposure and making yourself easy prey to the cupidity of other states. It is as dangerous as that”, Mendoza said. In addition to that, what our country needs is a system of government that will unify our fragmented society. I believe that federalism will have the opposite effect because it will effectively break up our already divided country into virtually self-contained fiefdoms where powerful families can continue to hold sway. Such change strategy is fraught with unseen risks and is bound to flounder and eventually fail in the absence of well-developed social, political and economic institutions to facilitate a smooth transition from one system to the other.

To add more flame to the burning issue, federalism can cause other states to lag behind. In the Philippines, there are some states that are not as ready to be autonomous compared to other states, which would create a lot of problems. A recent survey done by SWS and Pulse Asia, showed that only about 27% of Filipinos were aware of what federalism really means – this means roughly 1 in 4 Filipinos. Our country is already divided by language, religion and economic inequality, and a federal system of government can be a recipe for disaster. Studies show that only a few regions are capable of raising enough taxes on their own. The vast majority of provinces, which will be submerged into new federal states, lack the basic administrative capacity for generating revenue. Under a federal system, the richer states of the north will have even more resources to enhance their competitiveness, thus deepening the developmental gap with other southern regions. Moreover, a federal system could further strengthen the power of political dynasties and warlords, which control the Philippines’ peripheries. According to academic studies, around 178 so called ‘political dynasties’ – politicians related by kinship and blood – control 73 out of 81 provinces across the country. They also control up to 70% of the legislature, thus they seem likely to remove any proposed restrictions on the proliferation of political dynasties. Imagine weighing all of this in a balance scale, with political dynasty being dominant, the power will not be divided equally. One nation can have more, while the latter can only have few, or worse, none.

Federalism must not be implemented. Federalism is not for the Philippines. Right now, it’s definitely not proven that the current political leaders in the country are trustworthy enough to ‘change the system’ when in the current system they are already failing. I understand that we need a change, but a change this drastic is too costly and too brash at the moment for the country who is reeling from all sorts of problems, most notably corruption. Federalism seems to work for other countries, because that’s the system, they started with in the first place. The Philippines isn’t, so it doesn’t necessarily apply there. Ever notice the current leaders in the country and how ‘dynastic’ most of them are? Giving them power would only lead to more abuse. Moreover, the presently existing federal countries already possessed and practiced for a long time before federation. In the case of the Philippines, such state autonomy will still have to be introduced, structured and developed. These are two sharply contrasting cases. Federalism and the Philippines do not fit together.

According to National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), the shift to a federal form of government will cost up to P253.5 billion and this will be the top of the current cost of running the government, if implemented next year. NEDA said the proposed federal charter would lead to inevitable disruptions to the economy’s growth momentum and progress in infrastructure improvement efforts. In addition to that, an interview after the meeting led by Finance Secretary Carlos G. Dominguez III and Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto M. Pernia, Neda Undersecretary Rosemarie G. Edillon told reporters that the projected added expenses arising from the shift to federalism would bring about ‘fiscal pressures’, and pressure on the budget deficit cap. The proposed federal form of government was also slammed by former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. It could breed a tyrannical, oppressive and unjust regime. “It creates a horribly horrendous, bloated and enlarged bureaucracy to maintain and sustain, which would forever burden the people”, Davide said. Davide also noted the creation of 18 federated regions, with broad exclusive powers, each of which will have its own regional assembly and executive department. He also slammed the concept of the formation of the four supreme courts on the national level as well as regional supreme courts and other lower courts. “The creation of the four federal supreme courts – the Supreme Court, constitutional court, administrative court and electoral court – is unnecessary and would only complicate our justice system, and diminishes and weakens the historic dignity of the single highest court – the Supreme Court”, – according to Davide. “All the reorganizations in the bureaucracy will prompt both the federal and regional governments to impose taxes or to resort to borrowing money. And these wouldn’t be a far reason why the price of almost everything, e.g, food, clothes, medicines, will increase. They create an unbearable burden to the people”, – he finished.

And most of the senators don’t agree with Federalism. Majority of the 24 senators of the country doesn’t support federalism. “My reading is that a great majority of senators are against it. Federalism will only add to the bureaucracy, red tape, more taxes, and greater tension in government. It will only promote political dynasty, will put our credit standing down and this is really bad for our economy”, – Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto said.

Furthermore, implementing federalism in our country will not solve anything for it will worsen everything. The people are not ready and most importantly our budget is not ready. The government will have to reorganize and change everything and it is not guaranteed that this type of government will work in our country, given the current leaders that we have. Federalism will be expensive, because we have to establish the other 17 state governments that would make up of the Federal Republic of the Philippines. Creating a new layer of bureaucracy will cost a lot of money, and where will the Philippines get its budget for that? The expense of the current administration will also be more than what is expected. Pushing for a federal system will not come cheap, and billions of pesos will be spent on building state governments and electing local officials.

However, the sharing of powers in a federal system will ensure that the federal states will have ample powers to develop their own social, economic, and political potentials. With adequate powers the federal states will be able to modernize themselves. As they modernize, the political stability of the whole country will be strengthened. In addition to that, the concentration of power and resources in the president of the Philippines over fiscal resources and appointments in the bureaucracy can be used to secure economic rents and accumulate wealth which can be easily abused, ushering in corruption. When corruption reaches intolerable limits, political conflicts intensify and instability emerges. But, establishing a multi-layer of government structure consisting of central and regional governments will be costly, creating an enlarged and bloated bureaucracy. The Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) puts the additional cost in the range of P44-72 billion, not even counting changes in the judiciary, if there is a shift to a federal system. Federalism will strengthen political dynasties in the regional governments, perpetrate themselves in power and amass vast wealth through corruption. Federalism will make the poor poorer because they will be burdened with taxes of all kinds to support and maintain the federal central government and regional governments. The principles of federalism – local autonomy, subsidiarity and decentralization – are already in the 1987 Constitution. What needs to be done is to operationalize these principles of federalism. The unitary system has carried this nation through tests of fire: the Filipino – American War (1898-1902), World War II against Japan (1941-1944), rebellion, coup attempts and war in Marawi.

I repeat, Federalism is not for the Philippines. I am a firm believer that Federalism will only worsen our current state, so it should not be implemented. I will state my three final points as to why we should not change our government to a federalist one. First, economically backward provinces or regions would have to depend on equalization payments from richer areas. The locally-generated funds of some municipalities are still small and are still dependent on the IRA (Internal Revenue Allotment) for their operations. Second, as many as 70% of Filipino politicians are connected to dynasties who were able to perpetuate themselves in power and amass vast wealth through corruption. Imagine how much more influence and wealth will these dynasties monopolize if more powers from the national government are devolved and handed over to their control. And lastly, this is not a silver bullet solution to the armed uprisings in Mindanao as what many would envision because the Moro’s want a separate nation, not autonomy. We are already a caged nation, breathing still, even though it’s hard. Would you rather watch the fall of the Philippines through Federalism or will you stand with me and fight against it?

References

1. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/08/07/1840327/federalism-breeds-oppressive-unjust-regime-hilario-davide-jr
2. https://www.pids.gov.ph/pids-in-the-news/2560
3. https://business.inquirer.net/256427/shift-federalism-cost-govt-p253-5b-says-neda
4. https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2018/07/09/1831814/federalism-will-not-work-rp
5. https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/02/01/1783589/ex-sc-justice-federalism-will-weaken-nation
6. https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/1754575

Since the mobilization of civil society forces to undermine the authoritarian regime under former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, several administrations have proposed amendments to the 1987 Freedom Constitution of the Philippines. It is only justified that there has been a constant rise in public skepticism due to the fact that most interests regarding institutional changes typically serve personal agendas, as observed in the historical dynamics of previous administrations in the country. This is best exemplified in the 1973 Marcos Constitution, which allowed the former personalist dictator to skirt the law and rule the country for two decades. Among those who proposed changes to the Freedom Constitution is Former Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, who has been calling for a charter change for federalism long before he was elected into office in 2016.

As evidenced by various studies regarding the proposed transition to federalism since Duterte assumed office, literature about the transition from a unitary system to a federal system of government in the Philippine context often includes the assertion that the shift will promote more effective governance in the country on one hand, and on the other, raised viable suspicions and concerns. Notwithstanding the advocated benefits of its establishment, the shift to federalism is not met without consequences, as it is, to wit, a paradigm shift in the overall constitutional order. In view of this fact, there is room for doubt regarding the practical implications and consequences of the proposed institutional reform of federalism.

Rationale and Features of Federalism

Foremost, it is important to identify and deliberate over the rationale of the proposed transition to a Federal Republic of the Philippines. There are many reasons as to why federations are formed. In many accounts, the transition to federalism from a unitary system has been a common response to resolve inter-ethnic or cultural conflicts that pose a threat in achieving political stability, which, in this case, is the continuous conflict in Mindanao. Some federations are formed so that internal conflict is mitigated within a constituent unit while still maintaining a central system of government (Kincaid, 1999, as cited in Móntes, 2006). In addition to conflict management, federations can also be formed by the virtue of internal security. The United States of America, as an example, was a product of self-governing communities banding together to form a government that is capable of providing defense and internal security against potential threats to the country (Móntes, 2006).

Decentralization of power is also a common theme as to why countries are considering to shift to a federal state. The concept of decentralization in a federal state is to bring the government closer to its people by dividing the distribution of powers between regional states. It is a way for smaller political units to be given more authority so that they can attend to the immediate needs of the community. The primary motivation of decentralization is rooted from the principle that dispersion of power from the central government to local authorities will yield favorable results as far as improved local governance and accountability (Araral, Hutchcroft, Llanto, Malaya, Mendoza, & Teehankee, 2017).

As such, many advocates for institutional change from a unitary system to a federal state of government agree that the Philippines has a long tradition of practicing centralized power from Metro Manila, the capital of the country. Consequently, the term ‘Imperial Manila’ grew popular among advocates for federalism. The propagation of such term refers to the overconcentration of autonomy in the national capital. As a matter of fact, it is often portrayed by most individuals that federalism is the local autonomy movement against the ‘Imperial Manila’ (Philippine Institute for Development Studies, 2017). Regardless of this fact, there have been various legislations introduced to the country in order to delegate more authority, resources, and responsibilities to empower local authorities, such as the passage of the Local Government Code in 1991. Despite this, however, most advocates for federalism maintain that there is uneven development in the country. Furthermore, there are beliefs of unequal distribution of power between different regions, such that some areas have been unable to acquire the necessary resources needed to attend to their needs, while other regions prosper.

Having discussed the reasons for the transition to a federal government, it is now necessary to study the features of federalism. Federalism is essentially decentralization in its highest degree. The principle of federalism refers to at least two dependent constituent parts of a state that makes up the government system as a whole (Gamper, 2005, as cited in Móntes, 2006). Furthermore, in federalism, sovereignty is divided between a central authority and its constituent units, such as regional governments. A federal state, at its base, can be viewed as a system of government which acts as a constituent unit that also has multiple jurisdictions. Among the highlights of federalism include the central government and the local or state government. Each of the two governments has certain duties and purviews that the other cannot infringe upon. It is worthy to note that among other federal countries, the oldest federations in the world includes the United States of America and Switzerland (Móntes, 2006). Recent discussions have prompted renewed political positions relating to federalism seeing that various federations are considered global economic giants.

In order to formulate an opinion regarding the shift to federalism, it is also imperative to emphasize that there are various types of federal government. Federalism takes several forms. Several types of federal government are distinguished from one another by virtue of the distribution of power among the central government and the local government. The three types of federal governments are written as follows: 1) cooperative federalism, 2) competitive federalism, 3) coercive federalism (Viray, 2007).

Cooperative federalism is a type of federal government in which the central government, as well as the regional or state government, interact with one another to work on solving problems instead of just one. Ethiopia, Germany, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia are examples of countries who practice this type of federalism. Competitive federalism, on the other hand, refers to the concept of federalism wherein the central government has a limited role in the affairs of state or local government. This type of federalism indicates that the distribution power between the central or federal government is significantly reduced as to appoint bigger responsibilities to the local or federal government. Countries that possess this type of federal government includes Pakistan, Belgium, Australia, Brazil, Micronesia, Switzerland as well as the United Kingdom (Viray, 2007).

In contrast to the concept of competitive federalism, however, is coercive federalism. While the power of the central government is limited in competitive federalism, it is the exact opposite in coercive federalism. In coercive federalism, the power lies within the central or federal government for it can take over laws of the state of local government. A notable example is a coercive power in Nigeria (Viray, 2007). These concepts should be reviewed and further evaluated prior to the transition to a federal government. The type and structure of a federal government shall first be made clear to the entire populace. Notwithstanding the numerous accounts advocating and opposing the institutional shift, empirical studies should be conducted to further assess the quality of governance of such systems in the Philippine context.

Federalism in the Philippines

It is not is news that the history of the Philippines is beset with paradigm shifts, as clearly evidenced primarily by significant constitutional reforms such as the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution of the Philippines, the 1973 Constitution under the Marcos regime, and finally, the 1987 Freedom Constitution. At present, the Philippines has a unitary system of government. A unitary system of government refers to the country as a sovereign state that is considered and governed as a single entity.

The Resolution of Both Houses No. 15 or RBH (2018), a draft federal chapter co-authored by House Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Vicente Veloso along with 20 other legislators, has been receiving criticism from the public regarding its controversial provisions. Among the major changes in the draft federal chapter are the following: 1) the removal of the anti-political dynasty provision, 2) no term limits for legislators, 3) the restoration of the two-party system, 4) 3-year term limit for the district and party-list representatives. Most notably, the draft of the federal constitution included transition provisions that has since raised much apprehension.

Mission head, Luis E. Breuer, of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an institution under the United Nations (UN), stated that the IMF respects the provisions penned by the legislators on the issue of federalism (Villanueva, 2018). He further stated that transition to a federal government can be a good opportunity, however, it is not met without risks. Such risks include fiscal responsibilities as well as the transfer of duties to the local government. It is also noteworthy to include that the staff of the Senate President of the Philippines has requested for studies and operational cost for a transition to a federal government from the UN Development Programme (‘A Newsletter on United Nations Constitutional Support’, 2017). The topic on federalism in the Philippines was briefly discussed in the seventh issue of the UN Constitutional, a newsletter jointly produced by the UN Department of Political Affairs (DPA), UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and UN Women, although there has yet to be a clear response from the United Nations regarding the proposed federal form of government in the Philippines.

The Consultative Committee (Con-Com), tasked by President Rodrigo Duterte, had provided transitory provisions within the draft federal charter for an orderly transition to the new form of government in the Philippines. Within these changes include the banning of Duterte’s re-election under the new charter. However, the RBH transition provisions, located in Article 22, leave opportunity for our current president to run for election as the transitory president. According to the draft federal charter, there the Federal Transition Commission shall be established five days after the ratification of the Constitution. The Federal Transition Commission shall be comprised of the President, which in this case is Duterte, who will act as the Chairman of the Federal Transition Commission. As the Chairman of the Transition Commission, he has the power to appoint ten more members.

There are many details worth noting within the transitory provisions. Among these is the amount of power the Transition Commission will hold, in particular, the provision which states that the aforementioned commission is responsible in “promulgating the necessary rules, regulations, orders, decrees, implementations, and other issuance” to ensure the smooth transition to a federal state. In addition to this, the Transition Committee also has the power to “organize, reorganize, and fully establish” the federal government as well as the federated regions of the state. The Federal Transition Commission is also mandated to “exercise all powers necessary and proper” to ensure a smooth transition to a federal government.

Furthermore, the transition provision, also claimed that the Transition Commission shall complete its mandate by June 30, 2022, however, several questions immediately tail the controversial statement. For instance, which acting forces will be overseeing the progress and will be making sure that the Transition Committee will stick with the provided time frame and finish the transitory phase by June 2022 when the committee itself holds so much power? It should be noted that there should be a system of checks and balances to prohibit the abuse of power given to the Commission. Casting the worrying transitory provisions made aside, the removal of the anti-political dynasty provision in the 1987 Constitution as well as the lifting of term limits for lawmakers is also gravely alarming.

RBH 15 (2018) proposes that each of the states will be independent under a federal system of government, however, the creation of the Federal Republic of the Philippines is not met without undesirable effects. Even though the division of powers will ensure the development of each individual state, it still leaves opportunities for political dynasties to exist and thrive within the regional governments. Federalism, in its desire to focus on the development of the federated states, allows for the persistence of political dynasties, which can perpetuate poverty. It is should also be considered that there is room for tyrants to rise within the federated regions, and, to rub salt into the wound, the lifting of the anti-dynasty law shall further allow this. Moreover, should the transition to federalism fail, it is highly probable that there is no turning back to the old system. In view of this fact, there is a probability that federalism will lead to fragmentation of what was once a nation. Failure in the implementation of a federal government can cause strife throughout the land.

Conclusion

Thus far, arguments opposing the transition to a federal government has been established. In summary, this paper has reviewed the common reasons for federalism and has identified the features as well as the different forms of a federal government. To conclude, a federal system for the Philippines is not ideal for the development of the country such that the existence of political dynasties is still prevalent. Not to mention the worrying provisions made in the RBH 15 such as the removal of term limits for legislators as well as the overwhelming power granted to the proposed Transition Commission during the shift to federalism. Notwithstanding the advantages of a becoming a federal state, the Philippines does not need such shift in paradigm to push for decentralization, rather, what the country should focus on is to break up the concentration of power in the central government.

References

1. A Newsletter on United Nations Constitutional Support. (2017). The UN Constitutional. Retrieved from https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/UNConstitutional-Issue7-2017.pdf
2. Araral, E. Jr., Hutchcroft, P. D., Llanto, G. M., Malaya, J. E., Mendoza, R. U., & Teehankee, J. C. (2017). Debate on federal Philippines: A citizen’s handbook. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
3. H. Res. 15, 17th Cong., 3rd Sess. (2018).
4. Móntes, R. N., Jr. (2006). Federalism and multiculturalism.
5. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. (2017). Critical perspectives on federalism for national government. Pasig City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
6. Villanueva, J. (2018). IMF sees sustained growth of PH amid risks. Philippines: Philippine News Agency.
7. Viray, J. R. (2007). Federalism: Issues, risks and disadvantages. Manila: Polytechnic University of the Philippines.

In order to define whether or not federalism is a more sustainable political system compared to devolution, we must first underline what exactly federalism is, alongside devolution, and what is meant by the term sustainable. Federalism is a political system where state sovereignty is divided amongst two-levels of government which are national and regional bodies. Whereas devolution is the transference of powers to regional bodies with a centralized government maintaining ultimate legal power (sovereignty). Throughout this essay, we shall be referring to the political models of the United States of America and the United Kingdom due to their adaptations of federalism and devolution respectively. For either system of government to be more sustainable than the latter, the political system must fulfil current political goals and resource needs without compromising future objectives, whilst also maintaining the support and approval of the public domain. Therefore, in light of the criteria above, evidence suggests that federalism is partially a less-sustainable political system than devolution due to ignorance created towards national unity, the lack of political accountability and the struggles associated with maintaining societal expectations as the principles of the public evolve to the acceptable standard of 21st century Western ideals towards contentious problems such as abortion, slavery and other valence issues.

Firstly, one issue that reinforces the idea that federalism is a less-sustainable political system than devolution is the ignorance that is created and manifested towards national unity as people seek to unify under regional bodies rather than the entire nation. Where devolution aids diversity due to the fact that sovereignty is held within a centralized government, and their acts will always take priority due to this; individuals living within federal regimes often struggle to collaborate over contentious issues due to the potential varied approach from the regional government to national.

For example, whilst the Supreme Court in the United States of America has voiced that abortion is legal in Roe v. Wade on a national level, states such as Louisiana have introduced significant restrictions in order make it harder for women to be able to have an abortion, such as making it illegal to have an abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. De facto, making it almost illegal due to the sheer difficulty associated with achieving one. Citizens also argue that federalism leads to the ignorance towards local governments, not just regional and state. This is showcased in turn out figures of local elections: often being less than 25% citizens ignore compared to devolution; contentious issues such as abortion are always entrusted upon the national government rather than being delegated by regional bodies in order to propose and enforce a uniform approach, sharing the same restrictions between all bodies. Contrariwise, in the United Kingdom abortion was legalized after the Abortion Act 1967; and due to the sovereignty of Parliament, this act cannot be challenged by any institution unless overruled by another act. This also highlighted the process of restrictions, bringing to the foreground an invariable approach amongst devolved state. As a result, devolution encourages uniformity as the only resolution is the one proposed by the national government. This showcases the weak sustainability of federalism compared to devolution as people often unite over either the national body or the regional body, not both. This approach leads to civil unrest as contentious issues are often unanswered, answered poorly, or answered differently compared to the other regional bodies present. With civil unrest, the integrity of a nation’s political sustainability is often criticized heavily as when opinions significantly differ on potential resolutions of issues resolutions cannot be made. Therefore, evidence suggests federalism is less sustainable than devolution.

One argument for federalism that could be considered a more sustainable political system than devolution is that it aids the prevention of tyranny. Tyranny, which is the cruel and oppressive rule of government, thwarts the principle of political sustainability as the unrestrained exercise of power results in the abuse of authority. This misuse of power leads to instability as the members of the public become outraged due to having limited responsibility in the creation of legislation whilst also losing confidence in their political representatives. Federalism stops tyranny by imposing each institution of a political system with equal legal power, avoiding one institution being more powerful than the others, but also, each governmental body having equal sovereignty in order to deal with issues relevant to the region at each given time. For example, in the United States of America Articles 1 (Legislature), 2 (Executive) and 3 (Judiciary) of the US Constitution explain the roles and responsibility of each institution alongside the limitations of their power. Checks and balances were introduced to also support this. In comparison to regimes that have devolved regional bodies, the institutions in which are present in them can be considered quasi-tyrannical. For example, in the United Kingdom the Executive can be regarded as the most substantial in recent years as seen through Boris Johnson’s use of Henry VII powers in order to illegally prorogue Parliament. This was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court, yet Boris Johnson, was not punished. The circumvention of tyranny is vital in ensuring sustainability as it maintains the trust of the electorate, aiding the legislature’s ability to create and scrutinize legislation without civil unrest and frequent criticism from the public regarding the Government’s etiquette. However, whilst tyranny is important to avoid, the 21st century is not as exposed to it as it once was decades ago. Foreign diplomacy and the establishment of political unions have resulted in the tyrannical regimes being phased out through international relations and pressure through trade embargos and other necessary means. The European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) encourage bipartisanship and will often seek to work with regimes with basic democratic regimes rather than regimes plagued with frequent tyranny. Although tyranny is no longer common, it is still extremely important to avoid. So, therefore, federalism is to an extent, more sustainable than devolution due to its ability to avoid tyranny.

Another argument against the sustainability of federalism compared to devolution is through their regional body’s ability to challenge existing laws through the use of the judiciary. For example, as seen through Boumediene v. Bush, foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional right to challenge their detention in United States Courts. Whilst this may be seen as a positive, it is undemocratic due to the fact the judiciary is revoking legislation created by an individual who was elected on the basis of his approach to Governmental duties labelled in his State of Union addressal. His plans and policies were labelled, and he was elected on the consent of the people. Therefore, President Bush was acting in their best interest, yet the court decided otherwise. This is a threat to sustainability as civilians would become restless as ultimately the voice of their representative is silenced. On the other hand, devolution grants their institution dedicated to the creation of legislation the ability to revoke their own statutes rather than the judiciary. For example, in the United Kingdom, Parliament can only revoke national laws, which are in the form of primary legislation, such as statutes and case law. Therefore, the electorate remain civil as their representatives are voted in and act on the manifestos in which they campaigned on. If anyone other than legislature attempted to revoke this right, it would be undemocratic as they were the proposals in which the individual was voted in on. Ultimately showing that federalism is less sustainable than devolution as it proposes more civil unrest.

Lastly, another advantage of devolution in providing a more sustainable political system than federalism is that devolution is more flexible, compared to a federal system’s rigidity due to the definition and entrenchment of power between central and regional governments, protected by a codified constitution. For example, devolution in the United Kingdom has resulted in Westminster having the ability to revoke powers when necessary and give them back. This can be seen via Northern Ireland’s autonomy being removed after 1972, when Westminster abolished Stormont invoking direct rule. Due to the political instability of Northern Ireland after Bloody Sunday. In the United Kingdom, devolution allows Westminster to maintain rule when Northern Ireland can no longer rule themselves, ultimately leading to the suspension of their political assembly. This is important as the flexibility of devolution allows the nation to adapt with the current climate of their state. If an issue arises, the elasticity of the political system allows for a quick resolution with limited opposition. Whether that be in response to a societal movement or a global pandemic such as COVID-19, devolution allows for a coordinated approach from central government usually supported by regional and local bodies. In comparison to federalism, the rigidity of their political system limits their ability to quickly adapt their self to changing political and economic conditions. For example, the United States of America took an extra 50 years compared to the United Kingdom in order to ban slavery, otherwise known as the 13th Amendment. Therefore, federalism is not a more sustainable political system than devolution. Devolution allows for states to be context sensitive; promising quick resolutions to issues that arise, with a better coordination of resources in order to deal with these. These quick resolutions allow for political goals to be fulfilled without trouble and also ensures that future objectives are not compromised as these resolutions can be altered as time changes. Whereas, in comparison to regimes which adopt the political system of federalism, the rigidity associated with checks and balances and the avoidance of tyranny result in important national issues being blocked due to the amendment and ratification procedures. The tough approval process combined with the rise of 21st century partisanship warfare from authoritarian politicians, such as President Trump, result in gridlock being extremely common in federal republics. Partisanship warfare results in the disapproval of opposition parties working together in order to pass legislation, and therefore, when gridlock occurs, parties must work together to overcome it. These two ensure further that legislation will not be amended or created in a process already faulted by a rigid amendment procedure. Therefore, federalism is not more sustainable than devolution. Federalism’s process of creating and scrutinizing legislation is long-winded and faulted by frequent check and balances, a rise of partisanship warfare due to a refusal to work with adversaries. Devolution is flexible and therefore aids future goals.

To conclude, federalism is partially a less-sustainable political system than devolution. Whilst federalism has its advantages over devolution due to its ability to significantly protect against tyranny, tyranny is no longer an issue facing the 21st century as it was decades ago. Superstate-like institutions, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU) protect against the use of tyranny through foreign diplomacy. Devolution’s ability to fulfil its goals and allocate the necessary resources to achieve future objectives is unparallel to the likes of what the political system of federalism can achieve. This is due to the flexibility and elasticity of devolution compared to federalism. Devolution can also keep up to the standards of the consistently evolving social climate whereas federalism struggles to do so due to its severe entrenchment of principles and policies. For federalism to be more sustainable, it must be capable of continuing to function effectively with pure efficacy for centuries to come. As seen by the evidence above, federalism is not capable of being as efficient as devolution. Devolution is able to do everything that federalism can do, whilst having the safety net present to protect the nation’s inhabitants during times of crisis more effectively than a nation who has adopted federalism. Therefore, federalism is partially a less-sustainable political system than devolution.