That exchange bugged me because something was amiss in the repartee. Both the good senator and myself were looking at federalism at the angle of politics and this was wrong. The politics was about who should own the charter change movement – the federalists or the parliamentarians which should not be the case. This is unfortunate because the answer is neither. The cause for charter change demands that we find the Filipino model, not copy or follow other countries or textbook prescriptions. I know that some advocates of federalism would have nothing to do with a shift to a unitary parliamentary government and that all they want is federalism. On the other hand, Speaker Jose de Venecia, a staunch advocate of constitutional reform for parliamentary government has come around to embracing the federalist cause as well and that is something to cheer about, not to deplore as some would have it.
The answer came to me at a dinner given by Canadian Ambassador Peter Sutherland in Mr. Rae’s honor later that evening. He said, federalism was less a political cause than it is an idea about how to live. There would be no confusion if it were understood in this manner. Nor would there be bickering on method. That was the meaning that Robert Rae wanted to impart on his Filipino audience and the lawmakers he met with that morning. When pressed for questions on how we would deal with the problems if the Philippines were to federalize, he said, he could not give any answer. There isn’t any model. Moreover it was a process, evolved rather than attained. That was for us to find out and do.
Most of us, Sen. Pimentel included, are already practicing ‘federalism’ if it were measured on a personal scale. There is no such thing as coming late to the federalist idea. If we want the freedom and the ability to live according to what we want our life to be individually, that is also true socially. Social groupings, whether ethnic or religious or any marginalized sector suffer and create problems because of frustration of not being free to run their lives. That is being sacrificed on the altar of big government. The challenge is how to organize governance around the idea. Too often this logistical problem is mistaken for the essence and true meaning of federalism.
I turn to what President Bill Clinton said in Mt. Tremblant, Canada at the first international conference on federalism in 1999. His brilliant speech saved the day for a conference which would have otherwise deteriorated into a political battle between secessionists and federalists of Canada. I cannot print many of the things he said for lack of space but I would recommend it to those who want to understand ‘federalism’. Suffice it to say that he saved the conference from the jaws of political nonsense of quarrelling factions by referring to its essential meaning. It could also save us from our own bickering. Here is what he said:
"Life is more interesting and fun when there are different people who look differently and think differently, and find their way to God differently. It’s an interesting time. And because we all have to grow and learn when we confront people who are different than we are, and instead of looking at them in fear and hatred and dehumanization, we look at them and see a mirror of ourselves and our common humanity.
I think if we will keep this in mind – what is most likely to advance is our common humanity in a smaller world; and what is the arrangement of government most likely to give us the best of all worlds – the integrity we need, the self-government we need, the self-advancement we need – without pretending that we can cut all the cords that bind us to the rest of humanity – I think more and more and more people will say, this federalism, it’s not such a bad idea."
No wonder the speech stole the thunder from the quarrelling Canadian federalists and secessionists. Instead of highlighting what a news account called "vapid rhetoric, re-fighting of old constitutional battles and puerile jostling for tomorrow’s headline", media finally saw that there was another way of seeing the problem. Since then its media was forced to look at how constitutional reform and federalism helped other countries with similar problems.
I think it has to do with being trapped in political game of one-upmanship instead of finding solutions to a war that has already cost more than 100,000 lives since 1970.
This is not to say that the government or other countries’ governments have not tried to help find solutions especially economic ones which are seen as the cause of the region’s discontent. But they miss the point. A manifesto issued by hundreds of thousands of Bangsamoro in separate rallies for peace and justice in Cotabato, Davao, Marawi Isabela, Basilan in 1999 clearly states their position that "the only just, viable and lasting solution to the problem of our turbulent relationship with the Philippine government is the restoration of our freedom, liberty and independence which were illegally and immorally usurped from us, and that we be given a chance to establish a government in accordance with our political culture, religious beliefs and social norms." But then there are also the Christians and intermarriages. We have the classic pluralist situation for unity in diversity offered by federalism. It would allow Muslims’ self-determination without needing to secede. The fear that this would only encourage secession is unfounded. Indeed it can be said that without a federal structure, the temptation to secede is stronger because it shuts the possibility of self-determination. That, is the core issue of the Mindanao problem.