Viewpoint: The city state - an alternative democracy
- November 17, 2010
I have a simple, perhaps a naïve question. Does our current version of democracy possess any traction to direct us as we head off to our second century?
While many of us call ourselves democrats, the assurance of the tone with which it is expressed is not matched by the intellectual coherence and pragmatic outcome of what is being conveyed. After more than a hundred years, our economic future is still opaque to our political leaders and a better standard of living is still elusive for our people.
Why is this so?
For me this question is an instructive reflection on how Philippine democracy was constructed as a copy. As a copy, it is not just a copy but a poor copy of the original. The rendition of our democratic version is at least four-times removed from its source—the “American Democratic Experiment” whom Alexis Tocqueville characterized as uniquely favored by four kinds of conditions: the structure of its government, geographical accidents, historical accidents, and the culture of its people.
As things now stand, we are lost in translation! We do not have America’s federal system aimed at promoting a serious local autonomy; we do not have the virtually empty continent of North America to expand; we do not have America’s general equality of wealth before its democratic government was established; and we do not have the strong hold of Protestantism in America which provided a model of democratic self-government.
In contrast, we have a “cacique” government which normalizes dependence and mendicancy; we have an archipelago stripped of its resources and subjected to a never-ending agrarian conflict; we have a structure of social inequality where the rich and poor coexist side-by-side only separated by a lattice of 10-foot concrete walls; and we have a dominant medieval religion which exacts a hierarchical obedience and conformity to many outmoded beliefs and practices.
In the absence of those conditions, picture how far our image is removed from our reality. How then do we make sense of it? Why do we still make sense of it? Or can we really make sense of it? Like many of our compatriots, I have mulled over these questions and our country’s prospect for a long time.
After all these years of mulling over those questions, I have come to a disturbing observation that our current democratic subculture is structurally dysfunctional and fated to fail since its inception, unless we do things differently.
Although I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist, I believe that it would be a fundamental mistake for us to think that our condition is so hopeless that we cannot do anything about it.
Where does my hope lie?
My hope lies in the belief that we can better prepare ourselves to face the challenges of the future if we have a clear understanding of our natural strength and technocratic strength to guide our decision-making.
Our country has a distinctive strength in three broad formations: first, its archipelagic formation is conducive to maritime development, second, its geothermic proximity to the “ring of fire” is an inexhaustible source of energy, and third, its highly educated gentry class is endowed with new information, financial, and organizational capacity to succeed.
Unlike our predecessors, our strategies must be clear enough and founded upon these strengths. Yes, something can be done and salvaged.
If we are to do things differently and salvage our democratic subculture, first, our country must be crafted as a maritime society of territorial and functional city-states (provincial, regional, or island-centered). The existing notion of a nationally-centered democratic subculture is a notion of dystrophic sovereignty.
Given the global imperative, the incongruence is obvious: our realpolitik is still national; our sectoral development is regional; and our commerce is global. Metaphorically speaking, if the imagined nation-state is only as strong as its links, this means the relative de-emphasis and emaciation of the nation-state in favor of the city-state.
I am looking forward to a day when we will no longer tolerate a skewed national bureaucracy that has no bearing whatsoever to a serious regional representation. More so, a pork-barreled national bureaucracy that has no bearing whatsoever to cost and benefit analysis.
Consider this. Despite a national budget hitting more than one trillion pesos per year and climbing, much of the country is still thrown into economic darkness by reliable brownouts and blackouts. And worse, despite the more than one trillion pesos budget per year, our country is still plagued by poverty---33 out of 100 Filipinos are still living below the poverty line!
If our national bureaucracy is a private corporation, shouldn’t we abandon it a long time ago? Since it is still operating, shouldn’t we fire the management for continuing to tank our shares? Are we not still throwing away money out of the proverbial national window for costly political nonsense that our predecessors have spun over the years? I am afraid that the new administration might end up replaying the same music. I hope not.
Second, what sets the city-state model apart from what we have now is the re-rooting of our democratic experience to the origins of the city-state that the classical Greeks talked about. In fact, the success of Greece, Italy, Hong Kong, or Singapore can be traced to the application of the city-state model of development.
Such development also entails the making of maritime trade and tertiary and quaternary economies rather than cultivation of our limited land resources as our chief economic activity. For me, the latter is the main reason why our people have been (and still are) being fatigued by a never-ending agrarian conflict. And yet, land is not our main resource!
Third, our city-states must be designed as geothermal-based societies. We don’t have huge oil and natural gas reserves like other countries but we sit on the “ring of fire” traversing the globe.
Why are we not then energy-independent despite our intrinsic resource? Why are we still importing too much oil? Why do we still have politicians talking about coal and nuclear power? Why does our government keep talking about competitiveness, investment, and economic development without a reliable energy source?
If President Noynoy Aquino makes our country energy-independent in less than six years, just imagine the multiplier effects of a more reliable and cheaper energy to our competitiveness, FDI, and infrastructural development.
If he can do this, perhaps it will slow down the opinionistas from prematurely punishing him to set things right for stupid problems that we should have abandoned a long, long time ago. Heto si Noynoy. Hindi pa nakaupo ng isang taon, sabi ng mga pundits bagsak agad, kuno (Here he is, not yet president for a year and the pundits are already calling for his ouster).
Finally, these twin processes of societal development cannot be pursued with an “urong-sulong (forward-backward)” mind. We can craft and design a medium-range or long-range territorial, functional, and programmatic master plans for our selected planning corridors (i.e., in Moro Gulf Corridor, Davao Gulf Corridor, Lingayen Gulf Corridor, Panay Gulf Corridor, Albay Gulf Corridor, etc.). This is easy and can be done. And yet, the crux of the matter is the implementation. And not just implementation, but a single-minded and non-distracted implementation! And who can do this?
Let me offer some options.
First, the province needs a visionary and no-nonsense governor who will commit his/her life to the task of city-state building, no matter what. With this kind of leader, I believe we might have a palpable chance to enjoy the ideals of democracy in the Philippines, one province at a time.
Second, Congress must selectively replicate in the archipelago (especially areas with geothermal source) the existing special districts such as the Subic Bay Metropolitan Area (SBMA) and Clark Development Corporation (CDC). For now, if we do it right this is the closest we can get to our city-state model. With the intelligence of our gentry and educated class and a reliable and cheap source of energy, we can create better and more sustainable “Singapores, Hong Kongs, Monte Carlos, Macaus, and Caribbeans.” Maybe it’s just me but every time I look at the map of our islands this is what I see.
Third, there is the option that cuts through the national malaise—a constitutional restructuring of our national bureaucracy that will firmly lay down an honest-to-goodness regional and cultural representation.
No more gerrymandering of national leadership. Onli in da Pilipins where we have a political party and house representative for security guards but not for our Muslim brothers and sisters.
No more skewed structural representation of one island over another. Onli in the Pilipins where majority of our senators come from Luzon at the expense of Visayas and Mindanao.
Finally, there is the easiest and yet, the most painful option—we can simply maintain the status quo, romanticize our political atrophy, and kiss our people’s democratic chances a heart-breaking goodbye.
Can we change our future for the better? Yes, we can!
The author is an urban and regional planning consultant and a professor of sociology and city planning at California State University, East Bay. He has written books on the American Urban Regional Experience and Perspectives on Urban Society.
Read article: