Three things Aristotle would have said about Federalism in the Philippines

"Those constitutions that aim at the common advantage are in effect rightly framed,” observed Aristotle in The Politics. “While those that aim at the rulers' own advantage only are faulty," he warned.

The Greek philosopher underscored the importance of making sure “any change of government which has to be introduced should be one which men, starting from their existing constitutions, will be both willing and able to adopt.”

After all, Aristotle explains, “there is quite as much trouble in the reformation of an old constitution as in the establishment of a new one, just as to unlearn is as hard as to learn.”

Ever the realist, the Greek philosopher also made it clear that constitutions should adjust to the circumstances of societies they govern, rather than the other way around. As much as laws are designed to realize heavenly harmony on earth, they should also be designed in accordance to the actual physics of power within a specific milieu.

Arguably, Aristotle provided history’s first systematic analysis of the dynamics of power between society and state, examining the just, the ideal and the possible.

The wisdom of Aristotle is eternal, for it cuts through time and space. And his works are very much relevant to us today, specifically in the context of our ongoing debate on charter change.

There are three things that we can derive from Aristotle’s works, which form the foundation of modern social sciences, particularly political science.

Checks and balances

First and foremost, who is pushing for and will oversee the process of Charter change? This is extremely crucial, especially in light of the fact that there are serious concerns over the prospect of Charter change being hijacked by vested interest.

Assuming Charter change is the best and only right way forward, how do we ensure, as Aristotle advised, that it will aim “at the common advantage” rather than “the rulers'” at the expense of the broader body-politic?

For instance, proposals to lift term limits; create new and overlapping offices; and abolish the Ombudsman office and other institutions of checks and balance under a new constitution raise concerns over the precise motivations of some of the Charter change advocates.

One is compelled to ask: Are political dynasties, which dominate the Congress, looking at ways to remove any constitutional constrains on their domination of political office and corrupt practices?

Thus, it’s important for the Congress to show goodwill and ensure the new constitution, if it ever comes into existence, brings about a more egalitarian, competitive and functional democracy — not surreptitiously reinforce the imperfections and maladies of the current system.

Smooth and effective transition

And this brings me to the second concern raised by Aristotle, specifically about “quite as much trouble in the reformation of an old constitution as in the establishment of a new one.”

In simplest terms, how do we ensure a smooth and effective transition to a new constitution, which will bring about a new structure of governance, particularly in tax collection and legislation (e.g. regional vs. federal)? Are local government units and prospective new regions/states prepared for taking more responsibilities for themselves?

This is crucial in light of the fact that our limited experiences, or ‘pilot projects’ of federalism/decentralization, have been far from encouraging.

Take for instance the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), which, two decades into its self-rule, still remains as among the poorest and most unstable regions in the Philippines. Greater political autonomy hasn’t necessarily created the dynamic, stable and prosperous self-governing state we hoped for.

In many ways, the ARMM should serve as a cautionary tale for those who seem more than excited to part ways with the National Government. Interestingly, a quick glance at revenue collection data reveals that most provinces fail to raise sufficient taxes on their own, thus their continued and large-scale dependence on the National Government, or, as some would put it, “imperial Manila.”

The bulk of the country’s industrial and financial power resides in Metro Manila and National Capital Region. A shift to, say, federalism will not automatically see the dispersion of such over-concentrated economic power, since, after all, major investors and corporations will continue to look at more developed and stable investment environments.

Under a federalist arrangement, “imperial Manila” will have more resources to spend on its own infrastructure and competitiveness, since other regions will be forced to depend more on their own revenues. In theory, federalism should create healthy competition among various regions and de-concentrate power away from the center towards the peripheries.

In practice, as we clearly see in federal countries like America, prosperous states such as New York and California have managed to only become evermore richer and more developed than their less well-endowed southern and Midwestern counterparts, which continue to lag behind throughout the centuries.

In fact, this was precisely the groundbreaking contribution of Swedish Nobel Laureate Gunnar Myrdal, who proved that inter-state competiton doesn’t necessarily create equilibrium in two influential works, “Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions” (1957) and the “An American Dilemma” (1944).

Myrdal showed that competition among highly unequal states often breeds a raise-to-the-bottom among less-endowed states, while reinforcing the advantage of the already-advantaged stats. Six decades since his influential works were first published, we can palpably witness how those structural inequalities have become even more pronounced in recent years, hence the “culture wars” and the populist revolt, which brought Donald Trump to power.

Form and substance

The final and most important contribution of Aristotle was the distinction between “form” and “substance”. A cursory glance at introductory text in political science (see Andrew Heywood, Politics) would show you that Charter Change is fundamentally about change in “form” of government rather than our political “system”.

As Aristotle explained almost two millennia ago, political systems are either the rule of one, few or many, and they can be either good or bad. The Philippines, by all measure, is what Aristotle would call an “oligarchy”, meaning the feckless and inept rule of the few at the expense of the majority.

A political system is the relationship between the ruling class and the broader society, and it can take either a highly democratic and accountable character, as in Scandinavian nations, or, conversely, a highly autocratic and unaccountable character, as in North Korea.

The “form” of government, meanwhile, could be structured along unitary/federal lines and expressed through a presidential/parliamentary form of representation. And there are many permutations in between.

Thus, as Aristotle and basic political science text would tell us, Charter Change is about changing our form of government, but not necessarily a change in our political system. The question, therefore, is: Will a change in our form of government create a more democratic system or simply reinforce the grip of the oligarchy? That’s the real debate that we should focus on.

Richard Heydarian is GMA Resident Political Analyst, and has taught political science at Ateneo De Manila University and De La Salle University.