|
By Juan T. Gatbonton, Editorial Consultant
Those who advocate federalism now may be jumping
the gun. That “there can be no sound decentralization until there
has first been centralization” is apparently an axiom among
students of public administration. And despite the executive
branch’s tremendous de facto powers (that of the purse being the
most potent), we as a people still have a great deal to do to gather
our regions, provinces, cities, towns and villages in one coherent
Philippine state.
From the beginning, geography and history have
combined to make the national sense hard to instill in our people.
No matter what Manila may decree, the law at rice-roots level is all
too often still what the local cacique or factional-machine boss
wishes it to be. We haven’t progressed very far from the time the
Spanish king’s Philippine representatives could choose to “obey
but not to comply.”
Layers of bureaucracy
Given our situation, federalism will merely add
yet another layer of bureaucracy to an already complex network of
public administration. What is worse is that, given the factionalism
of our social life, federalism will likely legitimize the position
of those who already monopolize local power. It will only deepen
what the American thinker Larry Diamond calls “local enclaves of
authoritarianism.”
Of course, federalism might be the ultimate
answer to separatist demands by some of our ethnic minorities. But
surely we could satisfy their longings for self-rule with generous
grants of autonomy.
In my view, our immediate object should be to
simplify government; to make plain to ordinary people just what they
are entitled to expect from their rulers, and what the degrees of
accountability are that they can demand.
Right now, the efficiency of public
administration is actually diminishing. And the simplest measure is
the tax effort, which has been declining since it peaked during the
Ramos administration in 1997. (But even then it was markedly below
the East Asian average.) We need desperately to begin
professionalizing our bureaucracy.
Consider, too, the layer of regional offices
that has been added on beginning in the Marcos period. Regional
offices may have seemed a good idea then, but now they merely
complicate linkages between Cabinet departments and local
governments. We need to focus government on its basic goals and its
core responsibilities. Right now, it’s behaving like the classical
weak state—ranging all over the field of administration, chasing
after quick fixes instead of grappling with real problems.
Focusing on the basic tasks
Let’s face it. Given its abysmal degree of
coherence and effectiveness, the Philippine State cannot hope to do
very much. Hence, it must concentrate on its most basic functions:
on the public tasks that only government and no one else can do. And
these basic tasks must be those of maintaining civil order and
political stability; nurturing the rule of law; setting sound
macroeconomic policy; and building public infrastructure, both
physical and human.
In the developmental states of East Asia,
intelligent authoritarian governments directed “late
industrialization” and imposed the stability and long-term
predictability investors prize. It’s true there was also much
corruption, but a strong state like Park Chung Hee’s South Korea
extracted discipline and efficiency from its chaebols (business
conglomerates) in exchange for the subsidies it awarded them.
Because the Philippine State is so weak,
Philippine development must rely much more than the strong states
did on the play of market forces—on incentives rather than
commands. Development for us must be sensitive to people’s
preferences. Its utmost goal must be to set free the spirit of
Philippine enterprise.
It’s corruption, stupid!
I feel we must strengthen the Philippine State
before we can do anything else. But despite its “Strong
Republic” slogan, the Arroyo government hasn’t done much in that
direction. In fact—as is common toward the fag end of any
administration—the scramble for sleazy transactions seems to have
become more and more frenetic.
As a result, people have come to see corruption
as our biggest problem. And this is dangerous, because an
authoritarian spirit is abroad in the world—counter-flow to the
worldwide trend toward democratic transition—that is fed by
ordinary people’s revulsion at the extent and brazenness of
wrongdoing in office.
A sense of hopelessness has become palpable
among some of our finest young people; while a few of their
respected elders—who should really know better—are actually
beginning to call for “honest” dictatorship! Certainly, we can
no longer take for granted the supremacy of civilian authority over
the military.
That we Filipinos are devoted to democracy so
deeply we’re willing to die for it is one of our most cherished
national myths. But we shouldn’t strain that belief too
greatly—because we may find it rooted only weakly.
(Notes and Comment appears fortnightly.)
|
