Will federal system induce political maturity or stability?

Manny Valdehuesa

BACK in the ’60s till just before Martial Law, there was a good case for arguing the “systems approach” to societal change. The two-party system was chugging along and it was generally believed that all it needed was fine-tuning.

Filipinos then were eager for reforms, and there were respected politicians and statesmen who commanded great following for their vision, wisdom, and mental precocity. Times were favorable for amending the Constitution of 1935. It was hoped that a Constitutional Convention would introduce changes that would bring about a truly democratic Philippines.

One proposal then was to adopt a party-list formula similar to the tried-and-tested western European model—which enable major parties to field quality candidates who otherwise could not win “popularity contests” but whose service and involvement was earnestly desired.

Another proposal centered on electoral reform that would include subsidy for political parties so that election campaigns would not hinge solely on fat personal wallets.

At the time, a wave of nationalism that had potential for propelling the nation forward had washed over Philippine society. Sparked by youth-powered activism—which echoed the worldwide ferment for change that saw Tokyo, Paris, American cities, and other capitals burn—it roused and fired up civil society from Forbes Park to the sacada plantations of Negros to the Ilocos Sur of Bingbong Crisologo… until the bombing of Plaza Miranda.

That bombing literally blew up the opposition and sent its leaders to the hospital, killing nine bystanders. Soon after, Ferdinand Marcos slammed his iron fist smack into the face of an already stunned population, hurling the thunderbolt of Martial Rule as if from Mount Olympus.

As a result, the reform movement screeched to a halt as Marcos threw its leaders including Ninoy Aquino, Jose Diokno, and Francisco “Soc” Rodrigo to the dungeons, scattering the rest to the hills and beyond.

Martial Law radically changed the rules of engagement in our society. The beast had tasted blood. Parliamentary struggle was no longer viable. For many, like Ateneo’s Ed Jopson and activist beauty queen Nelia Sancho, the only alternative was to go underground.

And so, just as the Spanish regime arrested the development of the barangay and our indigenous systems of governance, the Marcos regime halted the development of our democratic institutions. Dictatorship turned the body politic into a culture medium for George Orwell’s totalitarian model.

At that point, in the words of the late Ateneo president Fr. Pacifico A. Ofrtiz S.J., Philippine society lost its “political innocence.”

Like HIV feasting on a person’s internal organs and immune system, Marital Rule gutted the innards of our still immature democracy, distorting and weakening it, while implanting into it two independent variables: military intervention and its antithesis, left-wing rebellion. Until then, the latter appealed to only a minuscule segment of the population.

In no time, “constitutional authoritarianism,” euphemism for the malignant growth that was Martial Law, metastasized throughout the institutions of our developing democracy, vitiating them. In the process, it also poisoned the mind of an entire generation, propagating the belief that democracy is oligarchy, that the military is indispensable to its functioning, and that the right of suffrage is optional.

That conditioning, and the banishment of the true democrats and populists from the scene, altered the landscape of Philippine politics. The circumstances that previously conduced to charter change were scrambled.

To this day, Philippine democracy remains out of shape. We have a malfunctioning party system, and too many politicians with dubious allegiance, whether to party or to democracy. Our party-list scheme mocks tried-and-tested formulas for such a system, while Rule of Law is bastardized by abuse and impunity.

Worse, elections at the primal level of our republic—in barangays where votes for every office, national and local, are cast—are routinely postponed or suspended, depreciating their value.

Meanwhile, as in the Marcos regime, fear and intimidation are fostered by today’s strongman-style of governance, aggravated by reckless violence and state-sanctioned killing with impunity.

As if that isn’t bad enough, social conventions are turned upside down as public discourse is laced with profanity and top-level obscenity. And even as martial law continues in all of Mindanao, talk of declaring it overall hangs like a Sword of Damocles over society, creating uncertainty.

Will our political development be arrested once more? How will our society achieve political maturity in the face of such manipulation?

It’s a sign of the times that no one seems alarmed at the increasing talk of “RevGov”: a palace-initiated takeover of the entire government.

One wonders how shifting to a federal system (with a parliament replacing Congress) will improve the situation or advance our society’s political and economic development.

No less important: can a Constitutional Assembly of congressmen with vested interests and dubious motives be trusted to craft a new Constitution?

(Manny Valdehuesa Jr. is former Unesco regional director for Asia-Pacific and the PPI-Unicef awardee as outstanding columnist. He is chairman/convenor of the Gising Barangay Movement Inc.. E-mail: valdehuesa@gmail.com)