Is the federal shift within reach?

TAGUM CITY — Like many Mindanaoans, the dream of better government to make use of their islands’ potentials clamors loudly as proposals to shift to a federal government are refreshed.

Federalism advocate Lito Lorenzana’s press conference at Malacanang last week proposed the federal – parliamentary formula. The proposal is not new.

Reviewing the history of Mindanao’s politics since the Martial Law, the federal shift was the rallying call of many Mindanaoan opposition politicians, under the banner of the federalist Partido Demokratiko ng Pilipinas Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-LABAN)- a response to what was deemed a longstanding neglect of the Manila government for Mindanao, from which a lot of resources were drawn.

The party’s call for a federal government differentiated it from the other manila based opposition parties such as the UNIDO, the Nacionalista and Liberal Parties- which sought to reclaim the old presidential form, with a Senate their party leaders were sure to win.

True enough, the LPs Jovito Salonga was the number one elected Senator in the 1987 senatorial elections, reprising his previous topnotch wins. Only 4 of the 24 elected came from Mindanao: Nene Pimentel, Nina Rasul, Tito Guingona and Mamintal Tamano.

In the years since, successive senates were filled with more movie actors than Mindanaoans, exacerbating the feeling of neglect and exclusion from mainstream manila politics.

Thus, the call for a federal structure remained strong until then Senator Pimentel filed a bill creating a federal government in 2008. Yet looking at the political landscape, the federal proposal is not without its objectors.

The first major argument against federalizing government is the possible rise of local warlords and dynastiesseen as fetters to democratic governance.

The second objection is that economic inequality will exacerbate uneven development. The objectors cite the presence of “chronically poor” regions forever steeped in conflict as areas where development is not likely to take root.

Firstly, those who cite the warlords and dynasties objection fail to see that such a condition is the reality at present, and have risen as a result of our current centralized, unitary political system from the time governance beyond tribes was born.

From tight fisted centralized Spanish rule, through to the American colonial period, the need to assert central control from Manila was paramount to the optimizing the gains from colonial rule.

Nowhere was this more acute than the capital’s relationship with Mindanao, where lush forests and untamed, typhoon free lands were logged for export and tilled into plantations by those close to the manila government.

Many American families and Japanese trading houses established hemp plantations around the Davao Gulf, Others would cultivate the Cotabato, Misamis and Lanao provinces, supplying other commodities.

Inequality, sadly, was bred and reinforced out of this relationship with Manila. Foreign and Manila based business interests amassed thousands of hectares of prime agricultural land, fattening their principals with Mindanaoan resources. Decades after, this enmity and sense of exclusion would help brew sectarian violence.

This outcome helps answer the second objection: the need to maintain this unequal economic relationship, enforce the inequality and suppress rebellions gave rise to warlords to do Manila’s bidding.

Those fearing a rise of warlords are unfortunately blind to the reality that even Metro Manila and Southern Luzon have its own warlords that we need not name due to the corruption and gangsterism they use to lord over their constituents. The governance record of these families are hardly exemplary.

Truth is, over the centuries, centralized government created and sustained the class of ruling warlords, who were needed to maintain Manila’s influence over everyone else. They were controlled through the flow of Manila’s largessethe disloyal barely got any, while the lapdog had the lion’s share.

In turn, this influence and resources were used by some to fool and oppress their people. These warlords will disappear when centralized power structures that maintain it are changed.

In the end, the dream for a better system of government to cater to the people’s demands is a Mindanaoan dream. Federalism is the vehicle many see as a means to this end.

Against prejudice If there is one thing so “un-Mindanaoan” in my book it is prejudice against others who do not share the same beliefs.

Being a multicultural island, discrimination and prejudice is taboo.The sensitivities of all faiths and creeds must be respected, lest they wake the tempest of hatred and conflict. This is especially observed among and between writers and academics.

Thus, it comes as odd when fellow writers seek to “blacklist” fellows who think differently. Here I share the excerpt from a social media post of Mindanaoan writer and journalist Christine Godinez-Ortega in reply to another writer calling for a blacklist of writers who continue to support the president over the “defunding” of the Commission on Human Rights:

“We have our beliefs, our opinions. Let us respect each other.The Inquisition is way past us. How come, a young writer, based abroad, is practicing what tyrants do?”

Perhaps others seeking to discriminate against others for their beliefs should look at themselves in a mirrorthey will see a tyrant. For reactions: