IS THERE A GLOBAL TREND TOWARDS AUTONOMOUS REGIONS?

IS THERE A GLOBAL TREND TOWARDS AUTONOMOUS REGIONS?

There is a fundamental difference between how the United States of America was formed and how the Republic of the Philippines came into being.

The American federal state was born from thirteen pre-existing colonies that decided to unite. In simple terms, the federal government became the “child” of the thirteen states. Residual powers—those not expressly granted to Washington—remained with the states.

In our case, it was the other way around. The Philippine nation-state emerged from a colonial transition—first from Spain to the United States, then through a Commonwealth, and finally into an independent republic. Provinces were created afterward. They are, so to speak, the “children” of the Republic. Residual powers were retained by the national government.

Now here is the provocative question: What if we reversed the logic?

What if, in a constitutional “reset,” the provinces or regions became the source of sovereign authority? What if residual powers belonged to them, and the national government retained only sovereign functions—national defense, foreign affairs, monetary policy, citizenship? Would that not be real autonomy?

Interestingly, the global mood in 2026 suggests we are not alone in asking these questions.

Across the world, there is a clear trend—not necessarily toward separatism, but toward decentralization. The European Union itself talks about “strategic autonomy,” trying to reduce dependence on major powers. Regions are asserting agency, not always independence, but control over their own affairs.

Look at Greenland. It governs almost all its internal matters, including natural resources, while Denmark handles defense and foreign affairs. The Faroe Islands operate similarly. In Asia, the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) has its own parliamentary government and fiscal block grant—an experiment in meaningful self-rule within our own borders.

Even in traditionally unitary states, autonomy is expanding. Scotland has its own legal and education systems under the United Kingdom. Catalonia enjoys significant tax and police powers within Spain. Meanwhile, places like Puerto Rico function as self-governing commonwealths under U.S. sovereignty.

What is the common denominator? The central government keeps the “glue” powers—military, diplomacy, currency—while the regions handle education, healthcare, culture, and local economic policy.

The “vibe” of 2026 is clear: one-size-fits-all governance does not work in a fast-moving, AI-driven, supply-chain-fractured world. Nations are realizing that resilience often comes from local flexibility.

But here is where we must be cautious.

Autonomy is not a magic wand. Greater regional power requires stronger local institutions, fiscal discipline, and political maturity. Without these, decentralization can simply multiply corruption instead of reducing it.

So I ask: If autonomy works for BARMM, why not for all regions? Why should only selected areas enjoy enhanced self-rule? If we truly believe in empowering our provinces, should we not design a system where residual powers are theirs by default?

On the other hand, would such a shift weaken national unity? Could it create economic disparities between richer and poorer regions? Would Metro Manila dominate even more, or would rural regions finally flourish under tailored governance?

The global trend suggests that autonomy is less about breaking away and more about building capacity. It is about agency.

Perhaps the real question is not whether there is a global trend toward autonomous regions. The evidence says there is.

The real question is this: Are we ready to trust ourselves—locally, provincially, regionally—with the powers we keep asking to have?

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/04-19-2027