The Federalization of the USA and the Practical Philippine Solution
By formally recognizing the importance of localized governance structures, the Philippines avoided the excessive centralization of power that has characterized the shift in the United States following
Decentralization is fundamental to any functional and systemically sustainable society, as central authorities, particularly government agencies and their agents, have an inherent propensity to lose touch with or fail to ever grasp the specific local contexts within the communities where people live.
The larger and more removed a governing body becomes from the day-to-day realities of the population, the less capable it is of formulating policies or implementing solutions that address the nuanced and regionally specific challenges faced by local communities. The bureaucratic structures that characterize centralized governance always lead to inefficiencies, a continual misallocation of resources, and an inability to adapt to the distinct economic, cultural, environmental, and social dynamics of a diverse and beautiful array of local populations.
The belief that a global system of governance can accurately understand, much less convey, the complexities of local contexts is not only impractical but fundamentally flawed. Even at a national level, governments struggle to accommodate the diverse needs of urban, suburban, and rural populations, let alone the unique conditions of different ethnic, linguistic, and socioeconomic groups.
When scaled up to a global level, this challenge becomes quite literally insurmountable simply due to the sheer volume of information, cultural diversity, and regional disparities.
Any attempt to impose universal policies or solutions on distinct local realities inevitably results in decisions that fail to serve the needs of the people affected. Policies designed in a distant, bureaucratic framework without firsthand knowledge of local conditions will not only lack effectiveness but may also cause unintended harm by disregarding the lived experiences and priorities of local communities.
Decentralization is the only viable approach to any global society, as it allows decision-making to occur at the level where it is most informed, relevant, and responsive to local needs. However, decentralization must be structured in such a way that it provides an enforceable voice at the local level. Without mechanisms for local populations to influence decision-making in a meaningful and binding manner, decentralization risks becoming an empty gesture rather than a functional system. Local governance structures must possess the authority to make decisions that directly impact their communities while remaining supported by broader logistical, financial, and infrastructural frameworks that facilitate coordination without imposing rigid, top-down control. Effective decentralization requires a balance between localized autonomy and systemic coherence, ensuring that policies and initiatives are informed by those who experience their consequences firsthand while maintaining the organizational capacity to implement large-scale strategies when necessary.
The very concept of a global community is delusional at best and quite likely even dangerous when it comes to the introduction of global governance with absolutely no grasp of the local context.
While international cooperation and cross-border collaboration are essential in addressing shared challenges such as environmental sustainability, trade, and humanitarian aid, the notion that a single governing body or set of universal policies could equitably and effectively govern the entire global population is not grounded in reality.
Cultural, historical, economic, and geopolitical differences create distinct societal structures that cannot be homogenized without erasing the identities and agency of local populations. Attempts at global governance without a deep and accurate understanding of local contexts will only ever become oppressive and authoritarian, disenfranchising communities, and concentrating power in the hands of distant, inaccessible, and unaccountable authoritarian government agencies and agents.
A global, systemically sustainable society can only function if it is built upon decentralized frameworks that respect local autonomy while maintaining broader structures for cooperation and support.
Decision-making authority must be distributed in a way that allows for adaptation to local realities, ensuring that governance is both relevant and accountable to the populations it serves. Without decentralization, the structural inefficiencies, detachment, and impracticalities of large-scale governance will continue to inhibit sustainable development, economic stability, and social cohesion, ultimately rendering any attempt at global governance both unworkable and counterproductive.
Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees that every state within the Union shall have a Republican form of government. This provision was essential at the time of the Constitution’s drafting, as it ensured that governance at both the state and national levels would be structured within a representative framework that preserved the sovereignty of individual communities and the respective independent but united States, while also maintaining a functional national government.
The system originally established by the Constitution reflected this principle by ensuring that the United States Senate was composed of individuals appointed by state legislatures, rather than elected directly by the general public. This structure maintained a balance of power in which the Senate functioned as a direct representation of the independent but united States as sovereign political entities, ensuring that their sovereignty was protected and that their interests were represented at the national level.
Under this framework, the House of Representatives was designed to function as the legislative body representing the population, with members directly elected by the people. The Senate, by contrast, was intended to serve as a check against federal overreach by representing the interests of the respective State governments, which were themselves responsible for appointing senators.
This distinction was crucial in maintaining the independence of the states while allowing for a united federal government that did not infringe upon state authority.
By requiring that senators be appointed by state legislatures, the original structure of the Constitution ensured that the independent but united States retained control over national legislative processes, preventing the federal government from consolidating excessive power and allowing for a form of governance in which the states remained sovereign entities within a federal framework.
The introduction of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 fundamentally altered this balance by mandating the direct election of senators by the general electorate rather than by state legislatures. This change significantly increased federal control over the formerly independent but united States, effectively transforming the Senate into an extension of the House of Representatives.
The original purpose of the Senate as a body representing state governments was nullified, as senators were no longer accountable to state legislatures but rather to the broader electorate, whose concerns were already, ostensibly at least, represented in the House.
This shift weakened the role of the states in national governance and centralized authority within the federal government. As a result, the Senate no longer served as a mechanism for protecting state sovereignty but instead became subject to the same political pressures as the House, eroding the structural safeguards that had previously prevented excessive federal intervention in state affairs.
This centralization of power allowed for the expansion of federal programs and the establishment of numerous regulatory agencies that were unelected, inaccessible, and unaccountable to the people.
These agencies were granted broad authority to create and enforce regulations that carried the full weight of federal law, often in direct opposition to the will of the people and without consideration for the local context. The loss of state representation in the Senate contributed to an environment in which federal policies increasingly prioritized the interests of a select few, while the general population was subjected to regulatory frameworks that had little to no connection to their specific needs or circumstances.
Without the protective mechanism originally provided by state-appointed senators, the federal government was able to introduce sweeping legislative and administrative measures that expanded centralized federal control, ignoring and completely bypassing the preferences and priorities of individual states and local communities.
The Philippines has circumvented similar challenges through the passage of the Local Government Code of 1991, which established a framework for local autonomy and decentralized governance. This law granted Local Government Units increased authority over administrative, financial, and regulatory matters, even to the extent of the capacity for local adjudication of small offenses, ensuring that decision-making processes remained responsive to local needs rather than being dictated solely by the national government without regard to the local context.
By formally recognizing the importance of localized governance structures, the Philippines avoided the excessive centralization of power that has characterized the shift in the United States following the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment. Through this legal framework, the Philippines has maintained a system in which local and regional authorities retain a significant degree of control over policies affecting their communities, preventing the unchecked expansion of national regulatory agencies that are detached from local realities.
The shift in the United States from a Senate that represented state legislatures to a Senate elected by popular vote has facilitated the expansion of federal authority at the expense of state sovereignty, leading to the proliferation of regulatory agencies and federal programs that lack direct accountability to the population.
In contrast, the Philippines has reinforced the principles of decentralized governance, ensuring that local government units maintain control over key decision-making processes, thereby preserving a system in which policies remain responsive to the specific needs of diverse communities. Thus, just one of many reasons that the ongoing efforts for the introduction of viable sustainability programs remains focused in the Philippines.