FORMS & STRUCTURES OF

GOVERNMENT
The existence of governments is a fact which is universally true to all societies of man.
This means that whenever there is a society there exists at least one form of
governance (be it primitive or modern).

Governments exist for it is better equipped to administer for the public welfare than any
private individual or groups of individuals.

THE PRINCIPAL FORMS

Primary governments

Most Scholars believed that it was Aristotle who first systemized the study of
governments (which the term “constitution” was used to refer to “forms of governance”.
For this reason, the government he used in his comparative study is considered the
primary forms of governments:

RIGHT PERVERTED
RULER/ CONSTITUTIONS CONSTITUTIONS
INTEREST OF Interest of the subjects Selfish Interest of the
RULING are prioritized; Ruling is Ruler is prioritized; ruling
based on virtues to rule is based on wealth; and
sheer number

One Kingship Tyranny

Few Aristocracy Oligarchy

Many Polity (the rule of the Democracy (rule of the

middle class) poor/ mob)

Note: Other scholars classified democracy as under right constitutions and its counterpart under the
perverted constitutions is mobocracy or rule of the mob.

Ruled by one:

Kingship of monarchy could be classified into two: Absolute and limited.

Absolute monarchy means that there is only one ruler: the King, queen, tzar or tsarina in
the case of Russia. He is the sole ruler here. He is the head of state and the
government at the same time.

Because of complexities of governance, the ruler; that is the King, thought it best to part
some of his powers; hence the limited monarchy which is similar to what we have as a
parliamentary system of government. The king becomes the head of the state and the
Prime minister in the case of England becomes the head of the government.

When Kings rule for people and their interest, it could be classified as a good
government ( monarchy ). If he rules for his own interest, it becomes a perverted or bad
government ( tyranny ).

We might as well consider dictatorship to be classified as a government ruled by one

under right constitutions. As what Adolf Hitler said, “a dictator is a protector of the poor
people during a state of war and state of emergency”. When these seize to exist, the
state goes back to its original situation. The counterpart of dictatorship is totalitarianism.
It was defined by the originator, Benito Mussollini, as “everything for the state, nothing
against the state, nothing outside the state”. When a dictator would insist of continuing
his power even when state of war or state of emergency ended, he is under a bad form
of government which is totalitarianism.

Rule by few:

These “few” are the best or the most noble in the state. They are the chosen few to rule
the state. If they rule for the interest of the people, they are under a good government. If
not, as when they form dynasties and empires for their families to satisfy their interest,
such is classified as a bad form of government.

These rulers are called, “aristocrats”. From the word, aristo, which
means best and kratia or kratos which means rule. Combining these etymologies,
aristocracy means the best rule.

Rule by Many:

The best form of Government according to Aristotle is the Polity, or the rule of the
middle class, because: “Where the middle class is large there is least likely to be
factions and dissensions”. The idea behind this is largely based on his

Nichomachean Ethics: The mean of both extremes is good: “Many things are best in the
mean.”
Let us be careful though in considering democracy as under the bad form of
government. To our common knowledge, democracy is indeed a good form ( that
makes some states choose to have such ). Demos means people and kratia or kratos
means rule. It means rule of the people. It becomes however, a bad government when
people are being fooled by the many. Thus, it become a rule of the mob.

For example, during campaign periods, politicians would be giving promises to people.
People easily believe on them and they now would give them their votes. After
elections, they would realize that things are not being realized. Hence, they become
here mobs. Politicians on the other hand, are being controlled by people, hence at times
become mob, for they listen, follow and give what the people demand from them in
exchange of the votes they need.

For our purpose, let us consider some other important ideas of Aristotle about politics
and governance.

Citizen and Citizenship

According to Aristotle, he who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial
administration of any State is the citizen of that State; Citizens differ under each form of
Constitution (Note: Constitution here is different from our modern idea of Constitution as
the fundamental law of the land, for the Greeks Constitution simply means the form of
government or simply the government)

However, the common business of all citizens is the salvation and preservation of the
commonwealth.

Good man and Good citizen

There is a distinction between good man and good citizen, good man is he who posses
the moral virtue, committed to the eternal and unchanging ideals of good and justice,
while the good citizen is he who posses civil virtues, who respects and obeys the law.

Hence, a good man is not necessarily a good citizen and vice versa: the good man
could be a bad citizen since he may resist to obey the law of the ruler which

he may perceive as contrary to good and justice, like wise, the good citizen may
become a bad man if he obeys the law that is contrary to moral good.

Note therefore that for Aristotle, the virtue of the good man and the good citizen may
coincide only if the ruler is good and a wise man.
Hereditary Government

Monarchy is a government which the supreme and final authority is in the hands of a
single person without regards to the source of his election or the nature and duration of
his tenure. There are two (2) general classification of Monarchy:

Absolute monarchy – one in which the rulers rules by divine right. The State is
identical with the ruling individual whose word is law. Thus, the ruler is the law and
above the law.

Limited Monarchy – one in which the ruler rules in accordance with a Constitution.
Thus, the powers of the ruler are provided by a constitution and are limited by a
constitution.(e.g. the present queen of Great Britain)

Representative Government

Democratic government is a government which the political power is exercised by a

majority of the People (i.e. Citizens). It is a political system which opportunity for
participation in decision making is widely shared by or among all adult citizens (Dahl,
1995). There are two (2) general classification of Democracy:

1) Direct or Pure Democracy – one in which the will of the state is formulated or
Expressed directly and immediately through the people in a primary assembly.
This classification of Democracy could be exemplified when one considers the
Athenian experience of Democracy. Athenians assemble in public places
whenever issues arise and call for their “informed” decisions. (e.g. declaration of
wars, establishment of an economic relations with other city-states, etc.) In his
book “The Apology”, Plato described how the Athenians assembled and decided
the fate of Socrates.

This could be illustrated through this paradigm:

Law-making
People process

2) Representative, Indirect, or Republican

Democracy – one in which the will of the State is formulated or expressed
through the body of person chosen by the people to act as their representatives.
The people’s representatives decide in their (people) behalf.

This could be illustrated through this paradigm:

 Law-
making
People Representatives
process

Under representative, Indirect or Republican Democracy, we have to distinguish three

major types: Presidential, Parliamentary and Mixed forms Republican Democracy. We
shall consider them in turn in the following pages.

A variant of indirect democracy is pluralism where there is the interjection of interest or

pressure groups. We commonly refer to them as lobbyists. And this could be illustrated
through this paradigm:

Interest/ Representatives Law-

People Pressure making
groups process
 Presidential Form of Republican Democracy

Presidential form of government is usually employed to refer to the American System of

government. According to professor Agcaoili, it refers to a political system which the
executive is independent from the legislature. This system focuses on the separation of
powers. The presidential model centralizes both political power and symbolic authority
in one individual, the president.

At this point, we have to digress a little bit further to take into account the notion of
Checks and balances. We can appreciate better the study of the different branches of
government if we consider or focus our attention on the Presidential Form of
Government. Here, the three branches are clearly divided and their respective powers
are clearly separated.

THE GOVERNMENT

EXECUTIVE LEGISLATIVE JUDICIARY

Vetoes Bills Overrides Vetoes Determines
Constitutionality of laws.
Suggest Legislations
Calls Special Sessions Impeaches and Removes Sets up lower Courts.
Official including the
President
Grants Pardons for Federal Regulates types of appeals
offenses
Sets up Agencies and
Programs
Enters into treatises Approves or denies Interprets Laws and
Treaties. treaties.
Appoints Judges. Impeaches and removes Declares actions of
Judges. President and Congress
unconstitutional
Fixes number of Justice
who sits on Supreme court.
Approves and rejects
Presidential Appointments.

The notion that centralized power is dangerous, thus power must be distributed and
checked, reached maturity in the eighteenth century, and its first full-scale application
was to be found in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. There,
delegates to the Federal Convention continuously cited “the celebrated Montesquieu,”
John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and other support of the
idea that political power, in order to be safe, had to be divided. The legislature needs to
have a check on the executive, the executive on the legislature, and so

on. Many of Johns Locke ideas were adopted and can be found in The Federalist
(especially no.47), among other places, and expressed the philosophy that the
executive force had to be kept separate from the legislative force. For example, the
president can veto work of the Congress, and Congress can refuse to pass the
legislative request of the president, but neither can force the other to do anything.

“A pure presidential regime or system”, or Presidentialism, in a democracy is a system

of mutual independence (Stepan & Skatch, 1993):
1. The legislative power has a fixed electoral mandate that is its own source of
legitimacy.
2. The chief executive power has a fixed electoral mandate that is its own
source of legitimacy.

Presidentialism has been a popular choice amongst many new democracies in the last
decade, especially in Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America (Mahler, 1995; Lawson,
1992). While the influence of the United States, the world's best known presidential
system, is probably partly responsible for this trend, recent experience has also
highlighted a number of advantages of presidentialism:

A directly elected president is identifiable and accountable to voters to a

high degree. The office of the president can be held directly accountable for
decisions taken because, in contrast to parliamentary systems, the chief
executive is directly chosen by popular vote. It is thus easier for the electorate to
reward or retrospectively punish a president (by voting him or her out of office)
than is the case with parliamentary systems (Mahler, 1995; Lawson, 1992;
Healey and Tordoff, 1995; Hyden, 1992).

Ability of a president to act as a unifying national figure, standing above

the fray of sectarian disputes. A president enjoying broad public support can
represent the nation to itself, becoming a unifying symbol between rival political
groupings. To play this role, however, it is important that the rules used to elect
the president are tailored so as to achieve this type of broad support (see the
following section on "Electoral Systems" for details).

In a presidential system, there is a higher degree of choice. The fact that

presidential systems typically give voters a dual choice - one vote for the
president and one vote for the legislature - means that voters can be

presented with a broader range of choice under presidential systems than

parliamentary ones.
 Closely linked to this is the presidential system’s stability of the office and
continuity in terms of public policy. Unlike parliamentary governments, a
president and his or her administration normally remains relatively constant
throughout their term, which can give greater stability in office and predictability
in policy-making than some alternatives. This leads, in theory at least, to more
efficient and decisive governance, making it attractive for those cases where
governments change frequently because of weak parties or shifting
parliamentary coalitions, or where hard political decisions, such as contentious
economic reforms, need to be taken (Lijphart, 1992).

Now, the problems of this system.

The presidential system has the propensity to be captured by one faction,

party or social group. This can create particular difficulties in multi-ethnic
societies, where the president can easily be perceived as the representative of
one group only, with limited interest in the needs or votes of others (Ibid.). This is
what we are dealing with in the difficult and bloody problem concerning the Moro
rebellion in Mindanao; or in Indonesia which lead to the successful independence
of East Timor and the on-going rebellion in the archipelago (Dejillas & Mamaclay,
1995); or in the case of Afghanistan, where a number of relatively coherent
groups are present; and Iraq, which is torn by three large ethic groups.

Other disadvantages include the absence of real checks on the executive.

This becomes even truer when there is a concordance between the president's
party and the majority party in congress. In this case (typified, for many years, by
the Philippines and Mexico) the congress has almost no real checks on the
executive and can become more of a glorified debating chamber than a
legitimate house of review. This problem can be exacerbated by the fact that a
president, unlike a parliamentary prime minister, can become virtually inviolable
during his or her term of office, with no mechanism for dismissing unpopular
incumbents – except through the difficult process of impeachment (in the
Philippines, this difficulty has already lead to two EDSA revolutions, in 1986 and
in 2001).

The presidential system lacks genuine flexibility. While impeachment of the

president by the legislature is a device built into many presidential systems, it
remains the case that the presidency is a much less flexible office than the major
alternatives. Salvador Allende's election as president of Chile in 1970, for
example, gave him control of the executive with only 36 per cent of the vote, and
 in opposition to the centre and right-dominated legislature (Mahler, 1995). Some
analysts have argued that

Chile's 1973 military coup can be traced back to the system that placed an
unpopular president in a position of considerable long-term power. In short, the
presidential system has contributed to the mergence of militaristic and
undemocratic system.

Parliamentary Form of Republican Democracy

The Parliamentary model is a split-leadership model. “split leadership” or “split

executive” means that there are two Heads or leaders of the political system:
1. The Head of Government (or the leader vested with executive power) is the
Prime Minister. Elected by the members of the parliament themselves.
2. The Head of State (or the leader with ceremonial or symbolic powers) can be a
monarch or a president.

Head of State Chief executive

Monarch Prime Minister
Receive Ambassadors, hosts reception A full-time politician, Chief Diplomat
and perform other ceremonial tasks of Chief Economist, Commander in Chief
government.
The Head of state is the Voice of the Chief Legislator and usually, the Chief
People, the symbol or personification of of the Party
the State prestige.

According to Alfred Stepan and Cindy Skatch (1993), “A pure parliamentary system or
regime” in a democracy is a system of mutual dependence: the chief executive power
must be supported by a majority in the legislature and can fall if it receives a vote of no
confidence, and the executive power (normally in conjunction with the head of state)
has the capacity to dissolve the legislature and call for elections.

The following are the countries possessing a Parliamentary form of government

Country Form Head of State Chief Executive

Australia Parliamentary Governor General Prime Minister
Canada Parliamentary Governor general Prime Minister
Israel Parliamentary President Prime Minister
Japan Parliamentary Emperor Prime Minister
 United Kingdom Parliamentary Queen Prime Minister
Germany Parliamentary President Chancellor
Russia (1991- Parliamentary President Prime Minister
present)

What follows are its advantages in terms of the general context of government
accountability.

A parliamentary system has the ability to facilitate the inclusion of all groups
within the legislature and the executive. Because cabinets in parliamentary
systems are usually drawn from members of the elected legislature,
parliamentary government enables the inclusion of all political elements
represented in the legislature (including minorities) in the executive. Cabinets
comprising a coalition of several different parties are a typical feature of many
well-established parliamentary democracies. In societies deeply divided by ethnic
or other cleavages, this principle of inclusion can be vital (Lijphart, 1992).

Parliamentary systems also have flexibility and capacity to adapt to changing

circumstances. Because governments in most parliamentary systems can
change on the floor of the legislature without recourse to a general election,
advocates of parliamentarism point to its flexibility and capacity to adapt to
changing circumstances as a strong benefit. A discredited government can be
dismissed from office by the parliament itself, in contrast to the fixed terms
common to presidential systems.

The parliamentary system is said to foster greater accountability on the part

of the government of the day towards the people's representatives because it
promotes "Checks and balances" by making the executive dependent, at least in
theory, upon the confidence of the legislature. Proponents argue that this means
that there is not only greater public control over the policy-making process, but
also greater transparency in the way decisions are made (Mahler, 1995; Lawson,
1992; Healey and Tordoff, 1995; Hyden, 1992).

However, the parliamentary system is not all together free from any disadvantages.

First, it exhibits a tendency towards ponderous or immobile decision-

making. The inclusiveness that typifies coalition governments can easily turn into
executive deadlocks caused by the inability of the various parties to agree upon
key issues. This was typified by the "immobilism" that affected Fourth Republic
France and that was partly responsible for General de Gaulle's assumption of
presidential power (Mahler, 1995).
 The Parliamentary system may also lead to some problems concerning
accountability and discipline. Critics argue that parliamentary systems are
inherently less accountable than presidential

ones, as responsibility for decisions is taken by the collective cabinet rather than
a single figure (hence, it is difficult to pin point who’s accountable). This is
especially problematic when diverse coalitions form

the executive, as it can be difficult for electors to establish who is responsible for
a particular decision and make a retrospective judgement as to the performance
of the government (Healey and Tordoff, 1995; Hyden, 1992).

It also shows propensity towards weak or fragmented government. Some

parliamentary systems are typified by shifting coalitions of many different political
parties, rather than by a strong and disciplined party system. Under such
circumstances, executive government is often weak and unstable, leading to a
lack of continuity and direction in public policy (Ibid.).

COMPARING PRESIDENTIAL AND

PARLIAMENTARY POLITICAL SYSTEMS

PRESIDENTIAL PARLIAMENTARY

Mandate Direct Indirect

The President is directly The Prime Minister is directly

responsible to the people who responsible not to the people,
directly elected him/her but to the Parliament which
has selected him/her

Separation of powers High Low

 Executive: Veto The Executive and Legislative
Legislative: Impeachment are fused in one body
Judiciary: Judicial Review

Speed and decisiveness Slow High

High incidence of gridlock The executive and legislative

are dependent to one another

Stability Stable Unstable

Fixed Term Prime Minister could be
dismissed any time e.g. vote
of no confidence

Tendency towards High Low

authoritarianism Studies show that
presidentialism has fallen into
authoritarianism in every
country it has been attempted,
except the United States.

Impediments to leadership High Low

change
Impeachment is usually Unpopular leader could be
difficult and protracted; may removed by a vote of no
result to ultra-legal and or confidence, a device which is
extra-constitutional means. a "pressure release valve" for
political tension.

Responsibility and Low High

Accountability
It reduces accountability by
allowing the president and the
legislature to shift blame to
each other.

Semi-presidential Form of Republican Democracy

The third executive type is sometimes called "semi-presidentialism". Under this model, a
parliamentary system and a prime minister with some executive powers is combined
with a president, who also has executive powers. The ministry is drawn from and
subject to the confidence of the legislature. This is a relatively unusual model - found
today in France, Portugal, Finland, Sri Lanka and one or two other countries - but
nonetheless is sometimes advocated as a desirable executive formulation for fragile
democracies (Mahler, 1995; Lawson, 1992; Healey and Tordoff, 1995; Hyden, 1992).

The primary advantages of this system lie on its appeal and ability to combine
advantages of presidentialism and parliamentarism: the benefits of a directly
elected president with a prime minister who must command an absolute majority
in the legislature. A move to semi-presidentialism has been recommended as a
 good "half way house" for some countries that want to combine the benefits of
both presidential and parliamentary systems. The semi-presidential system
also satisfies the so-called “mutual consensus requirement”. Proponents of
semi-presidentialism focus on the capacity of semi-presidentialism to increase
the accountability and "identifiability" of the executive, while also building in a
system of mutual checks and balances and the need for consensus between the
two executive wings of government. This mutual consensus requirement can be
particularly important for divided societies, as it requires a president to come to
an agreement with the legislature on important issues, and thus to be a force for
the "middle ground" rather than the extremes.

However, neither this form or system of government is perfect.

There is, and there remains, the propensity for deadlock between and within
the executive arms of government. Because a government's powers are
effectively divided between the prime minister and the president - for example,
foreign affairs powers being the preserve of the president while the prime
minister and the cabinet decides domestic policy - a structural tension exists
within the government as a whole. This can lead to deadlock and immobilism,
particularly if, as occurs relatively often, the prime minister and the president
come from opposing political parties. Closely related to this problem is the
observation that the benefits of compromise and moderation can degenerate into
a stand-off (Mahler, 1995). This is especially the case when the division of
responsibility between the two offices is not always clear (e.g., foreign policy in
the French system), and where the timing and sequencing of elections between
the houses differs (Ibid.).

STRUCTURES OF GOVERNMENT

This form of government is based on the extent of powers exercised by the central or
national Government:

There are two (2) classifications of this form of governments:

(1.) Unitary Government – one in which the control of national and local affairs is
exercised by the central or national government. Examples: Philippines, France,
Japan, etc.

In terms of levels of government, the relationship of the national/ central government to

the lower levels could be illustrated with this simple figure.
 Central/
National
Government

Lower levels of
government

The lower levels of government could be best understood by discussing the concept of
decentralization.

Decentralization means the delegation of powers, functions and responsibilities by the

national or the central government, known as the upper level, to the lower levels of
government.

The lower levels of government could be classified into three. These are the forms of
decentralization.

a. Deconcentration

This happens when the central or the national government shifts some
of its workload to its field organizations. It then delegates some of its

powers, functions and responsibilities to regional offices, provincial, district or division

offices. The beneficiaries then of the powers, functions and responsibilities of the
central/ national government are the field organizations.

b. Devolution

This happens when the central or national government delegates or

transfers some of its powers, functions and responsibilities to Local Government Units
( LGU’s ). They are the provinces, cities, municipalities and branagays. The
beneficiaries then of the powers, functions and responsibilities of the central/ national
government are the LGU’s.

c. Debureaucratization
 This happens when the central or national government delegates or
transfers some of its powers, functions and responsibilities to non-government
organizations ( NGO’s ), private organizations or entities or individuals. The
beneficiaries then of the powers, functions and responsibilities of the central or
national government are NGO’s, PO’s or private entities.

Why is there a need to transfer/ delegate some of the powers,

functions and responsibilities of the central or national government? The reasons
are:

There are functions and responsibilities in the lower levels of government

which the national or central government could not offer or do by itself. At
times, it is better to make the people in the local areas responsible of their
own affairs, make them decide, and push them to be self-reliant
communities. With this practice, they become truly the managers of their
own local areas.
There are concerns which are better done and accomplish by the local
officials than those in the central government because of familiarity of the
situations, the nature of the problems to be addressed to and the culture of
people in the vicinity and its general environment.
Delegating functions to the lower levels would unburden the national and
central government from the many international and other national
concerns, demands and pressures.
Making the lower levels attend to their local affairs could be done timely as
they are not to become so much dependent to the national or central
government. They would no longer go to the central offices to do the
processing of tasks.

Making them self-reliant, creative and resourceful would turn to less

dependence on the national budget; thus avoiding local officials become
beggars to the national or central government.

Lastly, it would lead to one point: that is, through decentralization, services are made
closer and timely available to the people.

(2.) Federal Government – one in which the power of government are divided between
two sets of organs, one for national affairs, and the other for State affairs. Each
organ being supreme within its own sphere. In the case of the United States of
America, individual states (e.g. Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.) has the right to make
their own local laws (e.g. taxation, etc.) but they cannot possibly conclude treaties
with other foreign states, declare war against other foreign states or recognize
other states. These functions are the functions of the federal government.
Examples: Germany, United States of America, Malaysia, etc.
 In the US, the State police (LADP, N.Y.P.D, etc.) has no jurisdiction over crimes
which are federal or interstate in nature, in cases like these the Federal Bureau of
Investigation will have the jurisdiction.

Federal Structure

Unitary
Structure
National Gov’t: 10%

National Gov’t: 90%

State Government: 90%

Local Government: 10%

It could also be illustrated this way:

National/
central Upper level/
government Sovereign state

Quasi- Eg. New York State

sovereign
states
 Local
areas/ cities Inter-state

It could be noted from here that there is the interjection of one level which is quasi-
sovereign, which are still under the central or national government. The central or
national government here is more concerned on international affairs, as the quasi-
sovereign states are concerned with their local affairs. In other words, the quasi-
sovereign states in a federal system act as the national or central government in a
unitary system of government as it concentrates in its own local affairs.

THE DIVISION OF FUNCTIONS BETWEEN THE NATIONAL & STATE

GOVERNMENTS IN A FEDERAL STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT

According to many observers, federalism improves governance through a new

division and specialization of government functions. There is usually a broad
devolution of power, authority, and the needed revenues and resources from the
national government to the States. Local governments are also closer to the people
and have greater impact on their lives.

The Federal Government

The Federal Government shall be responsible only for:

1. National security and defense,
2. Foreign relations,
3. Currency and monetary policy,
4. Citizenship,
5. Civil, political and other human rights,
6. Immigration,
7. Customs, the Supreme Court,
8. The Constitutional Tribunal, and the Court of Appeals, and
9. Other functions of federal governments.

The States

Most other government functions and services that impact directly on the lives
of the people shall be the main responsibility of States or regional
governments and their local governments. These include
1. Peace and justice;
 2. Agriculture and fisheries;
3. Energy, environment & natural resources;
4. Trade, industry and tourism;
5. Labor and employment;
6. Public works, transportation and communication;
7. Health and Basic education,
8. Science and technology;
9. Culture (language, culture and the arts);
10. Social welfare and development; and
11. Public safety and police.

OTHER ADVANTAGES OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

1. A federal republic will bring about peace and unity in ethnic, religious and cultural
diversity. This is especially true in Mindanao where for generations, the Christian
settlers have not found just and lasting peace with Muslim residents. The
traditional policy of assimilation and subordination has failed. On the other hand,
responsive federalism will lead to accommodation within the Republic and
discourage secessionism.

2. Federalism will empower state and local leaders and citizens throughout the
country. With policies, programs, and decisions made outside the national
capital, local leaders will assume greater responsibility for leadership and service
delivery. People will be more involved and will

demand better performance and accountability. As a consequence, they will be

more willing to pay taxes to finance government programs for their own direct
benefit.

3. Federalism will hasten the country’s development. Since planning and policy
decision making will be given to the States, there will be less bureaucratic
obstacles to the implementation of economic programs and projects. There will
also be inter-state and regional competition in attracting domestic and foreign
investments and industries. Resources will be better distributed among the
provinces/regions since government revenues will be devolved. States will have
more funds for infrastructure and other economic projects. Federal grants and
equalization funding from the federal government and the more prosperous
states will help support the less endowed and developed regions, and the poor
and the needy across the land. This will result in more equitable development.

4. Federalism will enhance democracy. The citizens will have more opportunities to
participate in state affairs beyond voting.
 ON TOTALITARIAN AND DICTATORIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT

Dictatorship is a political System in which the opportunity to participate in decision

making is restricted to a few. Political scientists coined the term Totalitarianism to refer
to Dictatorship’s Modern Version. Totalitarianism was first experienced in the Stalinist
USSR.

For our purposes, totalitarian form of government refers to a political system in which
the government absolutely dominates every aspect of the lives of its people.

Six (6) Distinct qualities of Totalitarianism

(1.) An elaborate ideology that covers each and every phase of an individual’s life.
(2.) A single party (political party) that typically led by an individual.
(3.) Widespread system of terror against external and internal enemy of the
regime.
(4.) Total control of the Mass Communication.
(5.) Monopoly over the weaponry and the Armed Forces.
(6.) Control over the direction of the entire Economy.