OIC should be our ally for federalism

Federalism, besides being a long word, is unknown to us. We were schooled in political concepts like freedom and democracy the way Americans taught us. Strangely, it is a political idea at the heart of the American system of government. We learned about free individuals and free countries.  But not about free local communities that could manage themselves.

In simple terms what it means is to divide political power between the national government and local government. If we are one country why have such a division? It could lead to secession and is therefore unacceptable.

That is true of the Muslim struggle in the Philippines. Ir has been frustrating to peace talks from government to government. There was little difference between the MOA-AD for which former President Gloria Arroyo was vilified because critics said it was unconstitutional?

The former president was willing to call a spade a spade and knew that there was just no other way to satisfy the demands of MILF without constitutional reform.

The MOA-AD, drafted under Arroyo would have created a Bangsamoro homeland. The term used for the agreement was Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). It caused an uproar. Poor PGMA became the fall guy for the solution that was hammered in Kuala Lumpur. She was accused of just wanting “Charter change” to extend her term. Under the MOA-AD the MILF would have full fiscal, political and religious authority.

Today we are back in square one. This time it is not called “Bangsamoro Juridical Entity” but a substate. Can such a substate be created without violating the Constitution? President Aquino faces the same dilemma as former President GMA did if the government were to create a substate as demanded by the MILF.

I am not against a substate or a Bangsa Juridical Authority however it is called. The underlying premise is to give political power to the substate. The key then is to find a solution that will give them more political power without violating the Constitution.

That requires constitutional change, something that is being resisted by those who want to keep the status quo.

The task is to give Bangsamoro enough political leverage while remaining part of the Philippines.

Federalism is nothing new and has been around in parts of the world. Other countries like the Philippines have come to it only now because nationhood was the more urgent task earlier. But times change and we need to change with it.

 In my opinion, constitutional reform is needed by the Philippines to energize the country. At present it is hamstrung by the misconception that once federated, the Manila government loses control. This is not entirely true. But to organize the substate will be daunting. How do we achieve unity in diversity was another way of expressing it.

During discussions in the 2005 Constitutional Commission created by PGMA, one idea put on the table was to distinguish between the federal principle and a fully created federal state. With the distinction, between principle and fulfillment,  the group agreed to use the term “evolving” federalism.

If a parliamentary federalism were sought it should evolve slowly and taken in small steps. Among the different regions seeking more political power as a federated unit it would depend on how ready the region was to take up the responsibilities of a federated state.

Strangely, the MOA-AD was condemned by constitutionalists and provincial leaders alike. When the MILF Central Command declared they are conceding to “autonomy” rather than the original call for Bangsamoro “independence” from the Philippines, Kato accused the leadership of betraying the original cause of MILF founder Salamat Hashim. Hashim in turn had earlier broken away from the MNLF because it decided to accept ARMM.

Let us give credit where credit is due. A federated state, a substate or a Bangsa juridical entity has long been on the table even before either the Tokyo or Kuala Lumpur peace talks.

I will repeat myself by retelling what we found out when we went to the University of Marawi and met with leaders of the Muslim region. Not only was there a standing ovation for federalism among several Muslim groups, there was also a passionate declaration that “federalism” originated in the Muslim region. It was the only way to go if the Muslims wanted the freedom of religion, a shariah law and a homeland they can call their own without secession. Our ally to the resolution of the problem is the OIC and we must play it to the hilt.

At the time, when Misuari and the MNLF were the main players, the OIC was consulted and it said they would not give support if independence was sought. That gave federalism the push it needed. It would be the compromise between secession and an unsatisfactory local autonomy.

Critics of federalism said it would be dangerous to give political power (however it is called) because that would lead to secession. That is the exact opposite of what it means. Federalists reasoned that it is the solution because it would give political capacity without having to be an independent state.

I joined the Filipino delegation headed by then Speaker Jose de Venecia and Senator Aquilino Pimentel in a forum in Brussels.

In these forums, advanced federal states like Switzerland talked about its experience in organizing federalism as an effective toolf for governance. It had formidable requirements that must involve marginalized sectors not just politicians and notable personalities.

In the Brussels forum I was surprised to know of countries in both Asia and Africa who were interested in federalism and how it could be adopted in their own countries for ethnic and economic reasons. There I discovered a variety of ‘federalisms’ as there were of democracies and freedoms.  It is my own opinion that like democracy there is not one way of interpreting federalism.