FEDERALISM

Federalism provides a technique of constitutional

organization that permits action by a shared government for
certain common purposes, together with autonomous action by
constituent units of government for purposes that relate to
maintaining their distinctiveness, with each level directly
responsible to its own electorate. It is essentially a system of
voluntary self-rule and shared rule. This is implied in the
derivation of the word ‘federal’, which comes from the Latin
foedus, meaning covenant. A covenant signifies a binding
partnership among co-equals in which the parties to the covenant
retain their individual identity and integrity while creating a
new entity, such as a family or a body politic, that has its own
identity and integrity as well. A covenant also signifies a
morally binding commitment in which the partners behave toward
each other in accord with the spirit of the law rather than
merely the letter of the law.

Multi-level Governance is a concept developed by

academics and policy-makers in the late 1980s and early 1990s in
conjunction with the emergence of a more economically and
politically integrated European Union. It was initially intended
to describe a broadening of the concept of federalism in a
vertical and territorial sense to include the intergovernmental
policy-making structures of more than two levels of government,
but no more than five: international, regional supra-national,
national, regional sub-national and local. In recent years,
however, the concept has also been extended horizontally and
functionally to encompass non-governmental and non-statist
entities such as private sector interest groups and non-profit
organizations and charitable organizations whose role in the
international policy-making process is increasing with economic
globalization. These multi-level governance structures tend to
be more ephemeral and flexible in nature, and more numerous and
fragmented than other intergovernmental policy-making structures
(Hooghe and Marks 2003). In contrast to that in traditional
Anglo-American federalism, the pattern of intergovernmental
relations in the European Union reflects the features of an
overlapping, interlocking, and cooperative type of federalism
that is generally identified with a distinct continental
European tradition of federalism. But many proponents of multi-
level governance argue that there are good grounds today for
applying this concept analytically to intergovernmental policy-
making structures outside the European Union, particularly to
the increasingly important supranational and local governance
structures in politically decentralized countries.

There is currently no one generally accepted definition of

multi-level governance. Among common strands, however, are the
following: first, the tendency over time towards increased
participation of non-state actors in governance functions;
second, the proliferation of overlapping decision-making
networks; third, a change in the role of the state from command
and control to steering, coordination and networking, and
fourth, the challenges faced by multi-level governance
structures in terms of democratic accountability (Bache and
Flinders 2004). Among the major criticisms of the concept are:
1) it is too descriptive and cannot explain or predict
governance policy outcomes; 2) its proponents exaggerate the
importance of sub-national policy actors and underestimate the
role of national governments at the implementation and outcome
stages of public policy-making; 3) its adherents exaggerate the
hierarchical nature of the intergovernmental relationship prior
to the emergence of multi-level governance patterns, and
overemphasize the extra-constitutional and non-institutional
nature of its networking processes; 4) the concept only applies
to particular policy sectors and levels, rather than being a
general feature of these processes (Jordan 2001).

-Ron Watts, former Principal of Queen’s University, Kingston,

Ontario and Fellow of the Institute of Intergovernmental
Relations, from Federalism Today, the background paper written
for the International Conference on Federalism 2002, Saint
Gallen, Switzerland, August 2002.

-Michael Stein, Visiting Professor at the Department of

Political Science, University of Toronto, Canada.
-John Kincaid, Professor at Lafayette College in Pennsylvania
and director of the College’s Meyner Center for the Study of
State and Local Government, from John Kincaid, Handbook of
Federal Countries: 2002, Introduction, Montreal and Kingston:
McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002.
 Federal government is a system of dividing up power
between a central national government and local state
governments that are connected to one another by the national
government. Some areas of public life are under the control of
the national government, and some areas are under control of the
local governments. It usually has a constitution that specifies
what areas of public life the national government will take
control over.

There are roughly 25 federal countries in the world today,

which together represents 40 percent of the world’s population.
They include some of the largest and most complex democracies-
India, the US, Brazil, Germany, Mexico. Their system of
government, while it can be complex, has made many federations
amongst the most prosperous countries in the world with high
standards of government services.

Federalism in the Philippines is a proposed form of

government in the country. Which 37% of Filipinos are in favor
of a federal system of government and 29% of the Filipinos are
not in favor of it. Federalism is a way to promote economic
prosperity in the regions and provide incentives for Filipinos
to Live and Work outside Metro Manila. Investors may also decide
to put up their businesses by setting up the right policies. It
is also a great way to propose change in the form of government.
From Unitary to full Federal-Parliamentary form of government.
In that way, No more excuse of delays in services or projects.
Constituents will not be forced or ask assistance from the rich
in exchange for services and allegiance for there will be Local
Government that can only collect real estate taxes and business
permit fees. Because in federalism they can retain most of their
revenue income collection and use them in programs and policies
according to their needs and create enough opportunities for
upward socio-economic mobility. Political dynasties will no
longer have the ability to pass the buck to the national
government and blame it for why their region is poor. Regions
will remain poor if their selected leaders are lousy and are
unable to set up pro-business economic policies that will create
enough economic opportunities for the people.
 In short, the best solution to all of the problems that are
haunting our country is Federalism. The Federal system of
government of the Philippines is the ultimate solution to
achieve a peaceful nation and economic prosperity in a diverse
society. With our 18 regions, 81 provinces, 144 municipalities,
and 42,026 barangays the most important systemic and fundamental
constitutional reforms that must be implemented in order to
improve the Philippines, Federalism is the reform that has the
most solid support among most ordinary Filipinos. Particularly
in the Visayas-Mindanao and even in the solid North, Bicol and
Muslim Mindanao regions, Federalism is widely appreciated and
understood even by ordinary citizen to be of utmost urgency in
order to fix the Philippines.