A Federal Agenda? Jose Rizal and the Advocacy for Federalism

Jose Rizal was said to be a federalist
Photo courtesy of Library of Congress

Kincaid and Cole (2016) writes that federalism has been closely related with public administration. It is defined by Gamper (2005) as “a dual system that consists of the federation and the states.” More specifically, while there can be differences between nations with federal systems, Auclair (2005) cites the common structural characteristics of federalism as articulated by Professor Ronald Watts, which are the following:

1. Two orders of government, each in direct contact with its citizens.
2. An official, constitutional sharing of legislative and executive powers, and a sharing of revenue sources between the two orders of government.
3. Designated representation of distinct regional opinions within federal decision-making institutions.
4. A supreme written constitution that is not unilaterally modifiable but requires the consent of a large proportion of the federation members.
5. An arbitration mechanism to resolve intergovernmental disputes.
6. Procedures and institutions designed to facilitate intergovernmental collaboration.

Map of Spain and Portugal during the Napoleonic Wars
Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

Introduction

By the 19th century, federalism has spread both in America and in Europe. This includes the monarchial Spain. Peyrou (2007) notes that by this time, the Spanish state has been weakened by the Napoleonic Wars (1807-1814), South American Wars of Independence (1808-1833), the numerous pronunciamentos (rebellions or coups) launched by opposing military groups, and the civil wars among candidates for the Spanish throne. Despite these developments, the Philippines remained as Spain’s only major colony in Asia. When the monarchy collapsed after the Glorious Revolution (La Gloriosa, to distinguish the event from others of the same name), a federal Spanish republic was formed in 1873. Peyrou (2007) points out that the various problems faced by Spain, primarily the revolutionary experiences and the popular uprisings, have been related to the rise of federalism in the country. What is relatively significant to this study will perhaps be the first experience of the Philippines under a federal setup. However, while was recognized in the 1869 Spanish Constitution as an overseas province (provincia de ultramar), it was denied representation in the Spanish Cortes (Assembly). Perez Ayala (1999) writes that it was also not considered for elevation to statehood in the 1873 Draft Constitution, even though other Spanish colonies such as Cuba and Puerto Rico were listed as two of the 17 states of the federal republic. In addition, federal Spain proved to be short-lived. In 1874, the monarchy was restored through another pronunciamento. In relation to this, Elizalde (2013) narrates the experiences of one of the first Filipino representatives, Ventura de los Reyes. This representative illustrates that if an election was proclaimed in 1812, then it will take until 1814 for the elected to reach Spain. By that time, the Cortes must have concluded its session, making them unable to participate. Rizal may have had a background on these issues as well, since his grandfather, Lorenzo Alberto Alonso, was also a deputy in the Cortes when the Philippines still had representation. Thus, the conditions pertaining to distance and costs have burdened the Spanish colonial administration. Shortly after the Glorious Revolution, the completion of the Suez Canal in 1869 has reduced the distance between the Philippines and Spain, but it would still be take considerable travel time, and it would have still reduced the possible impact of a Spanish federal republic. Nevertheless, Agoncillo (1990) observes that the opening of the canal still facilitated a quickening pace of political and administrative ideas from Europe coming to the Philippines.

Emilio Aguinaldo
Photo courtesy of Getty Images

Meanwhile, the advocacy for federalism in the Philippines began as early as the birth of the nation (Brillantes & Montes, 2007; Cureg & Matunding, 2006). Indeed, Mojares (1999) writes that in 1898, the Visayas was organized as a federal republic, before eventually recognizing the First Filipino Republic headed by Emilio Aguinaldo as its president. Quimpo (2000) notes that even the framers of the 1899 Philippine Constitution had deliberations on what system will be adopted, and federalism was one of the systems being considered. There was a proposal from both Aguinaldo and his chief adviser, Apolinario Mabini, to have three divisions: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. As history goes, Mabini’s constitutional programme was not accepted. Nevertheless, it can be observed that the 1899 Constitution provides for the “broadest decentralization and autonomy of administration” (Article 57). What can be inferred is that the framers probably were still compelled to compromise, for if they meant federalism in laying the “broadest decentralization,” then the First Republic was purposed to be federal in all but name. However, in practice, government authority rested much on the president. For instance, half of the representatives in the Malolos Congress were actually appointed.

Rizal the federalist?
Meanwhile, proponents of federalism to this day has maintained the notion that Jose Rizal, one of the foremost national heroes of the Philippines, also advocate a federal agenda. A historical figure as a poster boy of today's federal initiatives? In a March 2011 Social Weather Stations survey on the "genuine Filipino hero," Jose Rizal ranked first with 75%, reinforcing his dominating popularity among our roster of Filipino heroes. President Rodrigo Duterte, himself an advocate of federalism, also believes in Rizal’s support. Considering this, it will make Rizal the forerunner of the federalist initiative in the Filipino context. The most quoted excerpt of “Rizal the federalist” is his essay “The Philippines a century hence” (Filipinas dentro de cien años), where he writes that:

Absence of any great preponderance of one race over the others will free their imagination from all mad ambitions of domination, and as the tendency of countries that have been tyrannized over, when they once shake off the yoke, is to adopt the freest government, like a boy leaving school, like the beat of the pendulum, by a law of reaction the Islands will probably declare themselves a federal republic. (Rizal, 1889)

However, this is apparently the only Rizal work cited when arguing the preference of the hero in terms of administering the independent nation of the future. Nevertheless, noting Rizal’s careful use of “probably,” is it possible that he is not referring to a preference but a pragmatic observation? While there may be instances of Rizal showing bias, as exhibited in his Annotations of Morga's Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, the essay leans more on the academic side of the spectrum. For instance, in the same essay, Rizal (1889) also writes that the United States may take interest in taking the Philippines, provided the European powers will allow her, which later on occurred in 1898. However, it is apparent that his preference is Germany, which took the Carolines in 1885, and then bought the neighboring isles in 1899. In his letter to his sister Trinidad, Rizal advises them to become more like German women. Besides, Rizal had no positive experience to write for post-Civil War and federal America, as he was determined to leave the continent as soon as possible. Guerrero (1963) mentions that Rizal, when he came back to the Philippines in 1887, was suspected to be a German spy. There were also talks that when he climbed Mount Makiling during the same year, Rizal planted a German flag on the top to proclaim German sovereignty. Of course, at this point, Guerrero (1963) saw this as a “fantasy.” Also, another look at Rizal’s essay would show a large part dedicated to how Spain may be able to keep the Philippines by giving it basic freedoms and representation, which may support the notion that he is not a supporter of independence. In sum, Rizal making predictions and citing the obvious may not necessarily display his preferences.

Mount Makiling
Photo courtesy of the Calamba City Government

Going beyond the essay, Rizal is known to have authored a number of works, and it is possible to integrate his overall idea of administration with them. While Rizal seemed to talk more about the church in his two novels, Noli Me Tangere (Noli) and El Filibusterismo (Fili), the government also takes a significant portion of the narratives. In the first novel, the returning Crisostomo Ibarra envisioned to build a school, but perhaps owing to his long absence from the colony, he sought the advice of the old philosopher named Tasio. While Tasio has expressed doubt about acquiring the government’s support, especially since even at the local level, government officials would have to “consult a head existing in another part of the globe” to settle matters, we see Ibarra’s differing view:

I can admit that the government does not know the people, but I believe the people know the government less. There are useless officials, bad ones, if you wish, but there are also good ones, and if these are unable to do anything it is because they meet the inert mass, the people, who take little part in the affairs that concern them. (Rizal, 1887)

Another dissenting view of the government in the novel comes from the Governor-General himself, who relates to Ibarra that officials “have to do and be everything,” emphasizing the highly centralized colonial administration. While faced by this Governor-General, Ibarra remained in his idea that the government and the people ought to help each other.

Emilio Terrero
Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

In the second novel, wherein Ibarra transforms into the dreaded Simoun, the tables seem to be turned. It is now Simoun who lacks the confidence in the government. Meanwhile, Ibarra’s concept of an existing “good official” takes human form in the sequel through an unnamed alto empleado (high official). There are multiple speculations on who this official might be. Anderson (2006) offers the personality of Jose Centeno, civil governor of Manila, and one of the principal aides of the liberal Governor-General Emilio Terrero (1827-1890). With his heated discussion with the new Governor-General, it seems that Rizal’s views of Spain in the essay still remains in the novel. The reasoning of the high official is clear: since the administration is not elected by the Filipinos, then all the more should the administration be treating the Filipinos well. To emphasize his point, the official says, “Let us put ourselves in the place of the Filipinos and ask ourselves what we would do in their place.” (Rizal, 1891). There is also the discussion between the cynical Simoun and Father Florentino, wherein the latter declares, “Like master, like slave! Like government, like people!” In another instance, the priest says, “With or without Spain they would always be the same, and perhaps worse! Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow?” This emphasizes that the transformation of the Philippines, either as a colony or as a country, will not come from the government above, but from the people below. More than representation, this shows a preference for participation. However, it also seems that participation would be useless if the people are uneducated, and does not have the capacity to actually participate in decisions that concern them. This can be observed in Rizal's letter to the Women of Malolos.

If the Filipina will not change her mode of being, let her rear no more children, let her merely give birth to them. She must cease to be the mistress of the home, otherwise she will unconsciously betray husband, child, native land, and all.

In any work of literature, the author knows he does not translate his ego into one or two characters only. Imagine wearing something like the Ring of the Nine Dragons, which causes oneself to be divided into various personalities. His voice can be seen in many of the characters, if not in almost every character, and Rizal does not seem to be an exception. From the two novels, which to this day are being used in high school and college as a requirement, it can be derived that Rizal sees the possibility of implementing “good” administration through “good” officials, whether it would be within the context of a colony or an independent country. There is also the education and the involvement of the people in general, because even with “good” officials, yet confronted with an uncooperative populace, there is little work done for any administration. The government in itself cannot do all things for all people, more so a foreign government. This people-centered approach reminds more of governance than traditional or “old” public administration. Nevertheless, at this point, it does not directly point anywhere near a federal agenda. Boix (2003) observes that a federal setup does not always lead to a participatory democracy, and vice versa. In a way, this explains the recent rise of “participatory federalism” as a response to the concept of a representative federal structure. Cheikbossian (2000) observes that even under a federal setup, the norm is the election of representatives, albeit lowered further from the national level to the regional level. Thus, federalism does not seem to fit well with Rizal's idea of administration, as far as his works are concerned.

Rizal the liberal?
Beyond his works, Rizal’s political activity might also give insight on how he preferred the Philippines to be administered. For the longest time, Rizal has been heralded as a typical Filipino liberal. Meanwhile, observing his actions, it would seem that Rizal preferred to work at the small scale. For instance, Anderson (2006) points that Rizal’s planned project to colonize Sandakan (a part of Borneo) was seen by some as a repeat of Tampa. At the time Rizal proposed the project to Governor-General Eulogio Despujol (1834-1907), Cuban immigrants have flooded Tampa, Florida and organized for the cause of independence. A few years later, they returned to Cuba, and waged a revolution. Bascara (2002) notes that this may be the genesis of what Antonio Luna called a “Revolutionary Club.” Other Filipino migrants in Europe expressed desire to be part of the project, with a few like Edilberto Evangelista wanting to even have some portion of land reserved. It is probable that both Rizal’s compatriots and opponents saw the project as an attempt to overthrow the colonial government. As expected, the governor-general did not grant Rizal permission to “exile” themselves. Guerrero (1963) points out that Despujol must have seen this as a bad signal both at home and abroad. This does not only mean movement of people already outside the colony, but the project also had plans to move people from Laguna. This mass migration, even at a relatively small scale, will show an image of dissatisfaction with how the colony is being administered. As a consolation, Despujol offered Rizal to continue the project anywhere in the Philippines. Apparently, Despujol’s hammer is not the only major blow to the project. Despite the approval of the British North Borneo Chartered Company, Rizal was having problems raising enough money to purchase a considerable amount of land to even start the project. Ultimately, the project was not pursued.

Eulogio Despujol
Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

One can only speculate how Rizal’s Sandakan colony could have been administered. However, an idea can be derived from Rizal’s experience in Dapitan. Shortly after the project floundered, he returned to the Philippines in 1892. Anderson (2006) observes that Rizal’s return to the Philippines seemed like a foolhardy move, as compatriots urged him not to go back at the time. Their fears are with reason, and soon enough, Rizal was arrested within a number of days. Guerrero (1963) sees Despujol’s move as one of the best by any governor-general in that century. Dapitan was part of the Jesuits’ jurisdiction, and who else can better rehabilitate Rizal than his beloved Jesuits? Besides, if the Jesuits succeed in reforming him, it will be a devastating achievement to put in the faces of the other religious orders. While Rizal did not write much on his political views, it seemed like his frustration at Sandakan led him to work it at Dapitan. Guerrero (1963) writes that when Rizal won 6,200 pesos at the lottery, he bought land by the sea, and developed it. By 1893, Rizal writes that he had grown some 200 trees, as well as coffee and cocoa. Besides agricultural work, he had also built a house, a school, a clinic, a dam, a system to produce clean water, and he had even installed oil lamps. Rizal was exiled for four years, and apparently, he was given much leeway for his development projects, something that Ibarra was unable to have. Still, Rizal alone cannot accomplish all these works. For instance, he had his students collaborate with him in the field. Despite the seemingly small scale of Rizal’s experience, Dapitan can be seen as Rizal’s ideas translated into practice, and it does not seem to deviate from the people-centered approach he had articulated before. In addition, he continued to operate within the context of a centralized colonial administration. It is possible that Rizal intends to display that reforms can be done even without independence, although it does not necessarily follow that Rizal is not supportive of independence. This is highlighted by Guerrero (1963) with the discussion between Rizal and the district governor, Ricardo Carnicero. All the freedoms Rizal sought seemed liberal, but the system with which he intends to implement them is not within the context of a liberal democracy.

Carnicero: Tell me, Rizal, what reforms seem to you convenient to introduce in this country?

Rizal: Well, I'll tell you. In the first place, give the country representation in the Cortes. This would put a stop to the abuses committed by some people. Then, secularize the friars, putting a stop to the tutelage which these gentlemen, together with the Government, are exercising over the country; and distribute the parishes, as they are gradually vacated, among secular priests, who could well be either natives or peninsular Spaniards. Reform the administration in all branches. Encourage primary instruction, eliminating all meddling by the friars and giving the teachers of both sexes better salaries. Divide government jobs equally between peninsular Spaniards and the inhabitants of this country. Make the administration moral. Create schools of arts and trades in provincial capitals with a population of more than 16,000. These are the reforms that I would propose. Once they are introduced in the manner I have stated, the Philippines would be the happiest country in the world.

Carnicero: Rizal, my friend, your reforms do not seem to me to be all bad, but undoubtedly you forget the very great influence the friars have both in Manila and in Madrid, for which reason it is almost impossible to put your reforms into practice just now.

Rizal the administrator?
Another of Rizal’s political ventures would be the Liga Filipina. Rizal (1892) writes that its purpose is creating a homogenous union, mutual protection, defense against violence, development of commerce and agriculture, and study and implementation of reforms. However, the league did not have an opportunity to prove itself when its organization collapsed after Rizal’s arrest. Was the league’s national structure similar to a federal setup? Or perhaps the league was intended to be a civic institution to work with the government in the context of federalism? For one, by “uniting the whole archipelago,” Rizal may well be talking about a centralized and unitary system. The league’s motto is more definite: “One is equal to all.” (Unus instar Omnium). Jandoc (2011) writes that Rizal saw institutions as a “social glue” to amalgamate a divided nation, as Filipinos tend to prioritize one’s self and one’s family than others. In Rizal’s view, the Philippines lacks cohesion, and fragmenting it further may not help. The structure of the league would agree to this notion. According to the league’s constitution, the national or supreme council is composed of the president, fiscal, treasurer, and secretary. Corpuz (2006) highlights the “popular base” of the league, which is exhibited by the creation of provincial and popular (local) councils with a structure similar to that of the national council. However, the councils are supposed to be “composed of the most influential members of the community.” As Asiniero (2013) observed, the term pueblo (bayan or town) is nowhere in the league’s constitution. This contradicts with Corpuz’s idea of a “popular base,” and suggests Rizal's preference for a limited democratic mechanism that does not solely rely on a candidate's popularity, because influence can be translated in multiple ways. For instance, influential in the academic sense, or in the monetary sense. When compared with the Katipunan, the similarities in administrative structure are so recognizable that it was said to be the “successor” of the league. In addition, some Katipunan members were also members of the league, among them being Andres Bonifacio. On the surface, it may seem that the league is indeed a harmless civic institution. However, Guerrero (1963) suggests that the league seemed more to be Rizal’s alternative, if not revolutionary, government than a simple association of friends. In this sense, it is not surprising for the Spanish to suspect the league.

Artist's impression of Bonifacio and the Katipunan
Photo courtesy of Bayani Art

In addition, the league’s structure reveals more than a possible connection with the Katipunan or a revolutionary government. The collapse of the league is not only because of the absence of Rizal the founder. He is not even the elected president of the league, even though he was the Katipunan's "honorary president" later on. While elections are enforced and local councils are organized, the structure shows an authoritarian tendency. For instance, provided the Katipunan has adopted the same structure, did not Andres Bonifacio had himself be Supremo (supreme leader), and did not Emilio Aguinaldo adopt the position of dictator? Yet, the Katipunan, and the Malolos Republic, also had a system of elections. This is due to the centralized and unitary system adopted both by the Katipunan and the league. Communications are usually top-down, and secrecy is the priority for the league’s operations. Did Rizal believe that one who acts in secret will also be rewarded in secret? Disputes and decisions are still brought up to the central government, even though the misgiving the league tried to remedy is the inability of the centralized system of Spain to administer from afar. This is in contrast with the emphasis of federalism to devolve decision-making to regional or local levels. Therefore, with the absence of an active national council, the league did not last. Nevertheless, this centralized and unitary system does not exactly contradict the participatory approach as shown from his works. Rizal himself would seem to be the sort of a model citizen when it comes to forwarding development even under the Spanish colonial government, and it may be inferred that he could have liked others to do the same. This can be observed in detail within Carnicero's and Governor-General Ramon Blanco's endorsements of Rizal's conduct. Acharya (2013) calls this administrative structure as “participatory centralism”, wherein the people are allowed to voice their opinions and implement their recommendations, but the government will still have the final decision on the matter. While Rizal’s political ventures did not seem to go well, and seemed to focus much on Rizal’s sole personality, these are the few instances wherein he was given the opportunity to translate theory into practice. However, it is yet to point anywhere near the notion of “Rizal the federalist,” nor that of "Rizal the liberal."

Francisco Pi y Margall
Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

Rizal the anarchist?
To pursue the purpose of the study to put a possible federal connection, it will have to go beyond Rizal himself, and observe the people around him. For instance, Anderson (2006) points out the personal friendship of Rizal with Spanish liberals and federalists such as Francisco Pi y Margall (1824-1901), second president of the federal republic of Spain, and Miguel Morayta (1834-1917), secretary-general of the federal republic. The liberal Governor-General Terrero, who turned out to be one of Rizal’s “hidden” defenders while residing in the colony, was sponsored to take the position in the Philippines by Praxedes Mateo Sagasta (1825-1903), second prime minister of the federal republic. All being Rizal’s seniors, their influence must be considered as Rizal (1889) apparently equates a federal republic to the “freest government” which the Philippines may take. However, when he mentioned a federal republic, did he mean that of the Spanish example? As it was then, liberals and federalists were seen to be of almost the same color. No wonder Rizal, who had these people in his company, may also be seen as such. As the saying goes, dime con quién andas, y te diré quién eres ("Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are."). For instance, Sagasta transferred to the Liberal Party when the monarchy was restored, and took turns on the prime minister position with the Conservative Party’s Antonio Canovas del Castillo (the turno system). Of course, other European nations such as Germany (1871) had also adopted a federal setup at around the same time, albeit there are differences with the American model. This development has been discussed by Ziblatt (2004) in comparison with the Italian experience (1861) of a unitary system. It also has to be considered that a number of political and administrative theories other than federalism flourished during the 19th century. Did Rizal also took notes on the German experience, as he had also visited the said country? Another country Rizal visited, Japan, also had attempts to introduce federalism during the 19th century, albeit it is not as lasting as that of the German example.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

While Pi y Margall was known to be a federalist, he is also known to be a disciple of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865). Proudhon is known for his philosophy of anarchism and mutualism, wherein the political and the economic structures coincide. Anarchism as articulated by Proudhon (1923) does not necessarily call for an armed revolution. The revolution it seeks is a transformation of society and economy, even if it meant destroying the current structures. That is, the creation of a “society without authority.” This Proudhonian paradox may well show why Rizal himself was being confused of being a revolutionary or a reformist, because the revolution he envisions will not be a conventional one. In the second novel, Isagani says, “The old system may convert the ruins of its castle into formless barricades, but we will take them singing hymns of liberty, in the light of the eyes of you women, to the applause of your lovely hands. But do not be uneasy - the struggle will be a pacific one.” Meanwhile, mutualism as articulated by Proudhon (2003) looked at capital and property as the perpetrator of oppression. To be free from economic oppression, Proudhon calls for the expansion of credit without interests, and the mutual sharing of possessions. Guerrero (1963) points out that Rizal was once suspected to be Proudhonian because of his friendship with Pi y Margall. In addition, observing the league’s constitution, it reveals an anarchist and mutualist nature. Three of the five goals of the league (mutual protection, defense against violence, development of commerce and agriculture), and the underlying statutes under these goals reveals much of its possible Proudhon heritage. The Sandakan project and the Dapitan experience also show Rizal’s preference of economic development as articulated by the league’s constitution. On the other hand, Bonoan (1992) writes that Morayta’s influence on Rizal leans more on Krausism, a philosophy named after Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781-1832). This philosophy emphasizes more on academic and religious matters than political and economic. However, it may point a possible influence to Rizal's views on the status of friars both in Spain and in the Philippines. In the first place, Rizal is not publicly in support of expelling the friars from the archipelago, something that Marcelo H. del Pilar would have preferred.

Anarchist activity during the 19th and 20th centuries
Photo courtesy of Fabius Maximus

The anarchist connection has also been discussed by Anderson (2006), who observes the second novel’s primary character (and anti-hero, if you may), Simoun, as the personification of “Rizal the anarchist.” While anarchism nor mutualism is mentioned nowhere in his novels, it can be inferred from Simoun’s chilling words to Basilio:

I have wounded the people in their most sensitive fiber; I have made the vulture itself insult the very corpse that it feeds upon and hasten the corruption. Now, when I was about to get the supreme rottenness, the supreme filth, the mixture of foul products brewing poison, when the greed was beginning to irritate, in its folly hastening to seize whatever came to hand, like an old woman caught in a conflagration, here you come with cries of Hispanism, with chants of confidence in the government, in what you cannot come to pass, here you have a body palpitating with heat and life, young, pure, vigorous, throbbing with blood, with enthusiasm, suddenly come forth to offer itself as fresh food! (Rizal, 1891)

Of course, it has to be considered that Rizal purposed Simoun to fail in the person of another character (Isagani), which may dampen the appeal of the notion of “Rizal the anarchist.” In Isagani's own words, “Ah, you do not know what we can do in a few years. You do not realize the energy and enthusiasm that are awakening in the country after the sleep of centuries.” This reminds of the concept of public energy oriented towards progress and governance. In addition, anarchism entails the destruction of the existing administrative structure, and as seen in the Fili, Simoun had no other plan beyond the exploding lamp scheme. What happens if Simoun succeeded? This shows that Rizal, despite his possible leanings to Proudhon, does not consider the absence of authority as the working solution to the archipelago’s ills. The most probable explanation to Rizal’s modifications is the existing conditions of the archipelago itself at the time. As Rizal wrote to Marcelo H. del Pilar in 1890, “If our compatriots are of a different mind, we should decline representation, but as we are now, with the indifference of our countrymen, it is good enough.” Of course, even to this day, we ought to ask if our people are ready, or if we would ever be ready.

Conclusion
One can only speculate what a Rizal administration may have looked like, but as far as this study goes, it does not seem to lead to a federal style of administration, neither to a form of liberal democracy. The most striking difference between Rizal’s administrative structure and the common federal structure is the absence of different levels of government both in contact with the people, and capable of policy formulation and implementation in the former. Meanwhile, Chato (2009) reveals a fragmented mentality among Filipinos, and this has caused problems with the undertaking of the Philippine Revolution. Brillantes (2007) shows in the continuum of the decentralization process that the premise is the existence of a strong centralized unit. If the nation, in this case the Philippines, had not been strongly centralized and unified, then the decentralization process may not go well. Dividing a half-baked pie perhaps? While Rizal can guess a federal future for the Philippines, it does not seem to be his preference or his recommendation. For instance, federal Spain collapsed not because it is not centralized to begin with, but because of having a weak center, a situation Chato (2009) observes for the Philippines as well. In turn, this leads to Rizal’s idea of redeeming the country through the unification of minds. “One is equal to all,” the league’s motto goes.

Jose Rizal Shrine in Dapitan
Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

Another departure of Rizal’s envisioned system from the common federal structure is the participatory or people-based approach, which he tried for himself while within the context of a centralized colonial administration. While he joined compatriots in calling for representation and basic freedoms from Spain, his works reveal that it is only a step towards participation and democracy. In both novels, an appointed, bloated, and corrupt government is portrayed trying to do everything, denying many freedoms, and yet has to consult and report to an administration half a world away. He also showed that the government exists as it is because of the people, and if it is considered “bad,” then the people are deemed accountable for it as well. While the sharing of responsibilities between different levels of administration is not present in Rizal’s ideas, the sharing of responsibilities between the government and the people is being emphasized. It seems that administrative change would be brought about through freed public energy oriented towards “good” administration. Rizal notes that we only have to find these “good” people. The common federal structure is representative, wherein regionally elected representatives formulate and implement decisions in accordance to their respective regions. The common liberal structure is also a representative democracy.

However, it also seems that this “popular base” undergoes redefinition considering Rizal’s centralism. The concepts combined results to a form of “participatory centralism,” a setup wherein popular initiative can exist with authority and power still resting on the government. Lastly, the administrative structure Rizal envisioned may be susceptible to authoritarian tendencies. The league was formed by a national or supreme council at the top, and then by provincial and popular (local) councils below. While it may not be intentional from Rizal’s view, the centralized and democratic nature of administration still emphasizes on the top figures as the key decision makers. This was evident in the “successor” organization in the form of the Katipunan. The mantle of leadership was focused first on the personality of Bonifacio as Supremo, and then on the personality of Aguinaldo as dictator. The desire for strong leaders figured during this era, and perhaps even beyond. Nevertheless, it did not seem to be the beginning the process of unification that Rizal would have liked. As history goes, the Revolution fell apart, and in the words of Jacques Mallet du Pan, “devoured its own children.” Of course, in any historical approach, conclusions are at best tentative. As for proponents of federalism who still see Rizal as their trailblazer, while Rizal may have not exactly theorize or practice a federal system, it could still possible to say that his centralizing agenda was to lay the foundation for a future federal republic. However, it will also become an admittance that the decentralization process may have begun prematurely, and as it stands, may not be corrected in this stage.

See the references here.