The Voice of Overseas Filipinos
Once more with feeling
STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE
René B. Azurin
Once more with feeling
We’ve been over this road, in 2006 when the so-called “Peoples’ Initiative” to change the nation’s form of government to a parliamentary system was being railroaded by minions of the present administration. Fortunately for us, they got stymied then when a paper thin 8–7 majority in the Supreme Court ruled (on a suit filed by several parties) that the Initiative was bogus and characterized by deception. Many might remember that now Chief Justice Puno took the minority view then.
The President’s allies in the House of Representatives are now “fast-tracking” measures to make amendments to this nation’s charter. As I said last week, it doesn’t matter what the charter change (cha-cha) proponents say their intentions are. Their true object is the same as it was in 2006: to change our bicameral, presidential form of government to a unicameral, parliamentary one. Their basic argument is also still the same: the change to a parliamentary form of government will solve our nation’s problems and lead to greater economic progress.
Of course, they couldn’t logically explain then and they can’t logically explain now exactly how a parliamentary system – where the ruling majority in parliament exercises the powers of both the executive branch and the legislative branch – might solve this country’s problems and speed up economic growth. Given that graft in the form of overpriced government purchases, diversions of public funds, and bid riggings to award lucrative sweetheart deals to administration cronies are the really serious problems in this country, one wonders how the pro-parliament politicos can even argue that these will be solved if the “checks and balances” built into the presidential form will just be removed.
It certainly makes no sense, from a systems design point of view, to change from a system with strong formal controls to a system with weak controls when the problems besetting our society precisely revolve around the ease with which public officials and their business cronies seem to be able to plunder the nation’s resources. In an analogy I often used in debates in 2006, the correct response when one is already experiencing burglaries in one’s neighborhood is to install stronger locks and iron grills, not to remove the locks from the front door. Yet, that is exactly what pro-parliament politicos want us do: remove the locks and make it easier for thieves to ransack the national treasury.
I believe that it is essential that the “checks and balances” inherent in a system where the executive branch decides and implements while the legislative branch provides funding and oversight be retained because the powers already vested in government officials are enormous and easy to abuse. Logically, what this country needs are strong controls and a justice system capable of enforcing these controls.
As it is, even if we now have a theoretical separation between the executive and legislative branches of our government, the independence that gives this separation the desired elements of control is spectacularly absent. Huge presidential discretionary budget allocations and pork barrel funds for legislators make legislative independence an unfunny joke. When legislators depend on the executive branch for funding of their special projects and for the release of their pork barrel, those legislators will dance to any beat the president drums. Cha-cha, cha-cha-cha.
In addition, legislators especially like the change to a parliamentary form of government because it gives them more personal power over the national budget and, in their executive roles, they can more readily promote their special interests. They can also stay in power indefinitely – more personal power allows them to consolidate their control over their districts and keep opponents at bay – and this is a definite turn-on for hard-core politicos.
It is certainly not argued that our Constitution and our present system of government will not be better with certain reforms. As far as I am concerned, we need reforms in the judicial and law enforcement systems so that justice will be dispensed quickly, fairly, and effectively. We need to introduce stronger restrictions on the powers and prerogatives of public officials to minimize corruption and abuse of the system. This should include doing away with large discretionary budget allocations and removing pork barrel altogether, in both the executive and legislative branches. We need electoral reforms, to include measures to equalize opportunities in electoral campaigns (like provisions for campaign spending subsidies and limitations on campaign contributions) and better modes for removing fixed-term elected officials (like judicial impeachment and recall elections). On the economic front, we need to refine our economic incentives structure to make it more consistent with free competition, low barriers to entry, and less regulation. We also need more local autonomy and smaller central government.
We do not need to change to a parliamentary system.
Actually, given that political and economic power in this country is extremely concentrated, the proper action should be to adopt ways that disperse power, not ways that concentrate it further. What a shift to a parliamentary system does is concentrate power even more, instead of spreading and diminishing it. Further, it allows such concentrated power to be wielded more easily and more effectively than is possible in a presidential system where the executive and legislative functions remain separate and independent. Too much concentration of power effectively results in autocracy. In fact, even the British publication The Economist calls the British parliamentary system an “elective dictatorship”.
If the pro-parliament politicos eventually succeed, the democratic foundations of Philippine society will be substantially weakened. The special interests of the politicos and their economic backers will tend to dominate even more the government agenda and the interests of us ordinary citizens will inevitably suffer. Going by the lessons of history, this can be an explosive situation.
To say it once more with feeling, the moves to change the nation’s charter is really about the re-allocation of power: who gains? who loses? In the shift to a parliamentary system, the politicos who now rule will gain power. We ordinary citizens will lose what little power we still have. Now since our experience with our political leaders cannot exactly be described as wonderful, it does not appear likely that this is a development that the Filipino people would welcome.
We must hope now that when this cha-cha question returns to the Supreme Court, this time on what has been called the “Congress voting jointly” issue, Justice Puno – notwithstanding his vote in 2006 and his subsequent appointment as Chief Justice in 2007 by President Arroyo – can use his well-publicized “moral force” to sway his mostly-Arroyo- appointed colleagues to rule against what is clearly an immoral initiative.
René B. Azurin
Once more with feeling
We’ve been over this road, in 2006 when the so-called “Peoples’ Initiative” to change the nation’s form of government to a parliamentary system was being railroaded by minions of the present administration. Fortunately for us, they got stymied then when a paper thin 8–7 majority in the Supreme Court ruled (on a suit filed by several parties) that the Initiative was bogus and characterized by deception. Many might remember that now Chief Justice Puno took the minority view then.
The President’s allies in the House of Representatives are now “fast-tracking” measures to make amendments to this nation’s charter. As I said last week, it doesn’t matter what the charter change (cha-cha) proponents say their intentions are. Their true object is the same as it was in 2006: to change our bicameral, presidential form of government to a unicameral, parliamentary one. Their basic argument is also still the same: the change to a parliamentary form of government will solve our nation’s problems and lead to greater economic progress.
Of course, they couldn’t logically explain then and they can’t logically explain now exactly how a parliamentary system – where the ruling majority in parliament exercises the powers of both the executive branch and the legislative branch – might solve this country’s problems and speed up economic growth. Given that graft in the form of overpriced government purchases, diversions of public funds, and bid riggings to award lucrative sweetheart deals to administration cronies are the really serious problems in this country, one wonders how the pro-parliament politicos can even argue that these will be solved if the “checks and balances” built into the presidential form will just be removed.
It certainly makes no sense, from a systems design point of view, to change from a system with strong formal controls to a system with weak controls when the problems besetting our society precisely revolve around the ease with which public officials and their business cronies seem to be able to plunder the nation’s resources. In an analogy I often used in debates in 2006, the correct response when one is already experiencing burglaries in one’s neighborhood is to install stronger locks and iron grills, not to remove the locks from the front door. Yet, that is exactly what pro-parliament politicos want us do: remove the locks and make it easier for thieves to ransack the national treasury.
I believe that it is essential that the “checks and balances” inherent in a system where the executive branch decides and implements while the legislative branch provides funding and oversight be retained because the powers already vested in government officials are enormous and easy to abuse. Logically, what this country needs are strong controls and a justice system capable of enforcing these controls.
As it is, even if we now have a theoretical separation between the executive and legislative branches of our government, the independence that gives this separation the desired elements of control is spectacularly absent. Huge presidential discretionary budget allocations and pork barrel funds for legislators make legislative independence an unfunny joke. When legislators depend on the executive branch for funding of their special projects and for the release of their pork barrel, those legislators will dance to any beat the president drums. Cha-cha, cha-cha-cha.
In addition, legislators especially like the change to a parliamentary form of government because it gives them more personal power over the national budget and, in their executive roles, they can more readily promote their special interests. They can also stay in power indefinitely – more personal power allows them to consolidate their control over their districts and keep opponents at bay – and this is a definite turn-on for hard-core politicos.
It is certainly not argued that our Constitution and our present system of government will not be better with certain reforms. As far as I am concerned, we need reforms in the judicial and law enforcement systems so that justice will be dispensed quickly, fairly, and effectively. We need to introduce stronger restrictions on the powers and prerogatives of public officials to minimize corruption and abuse of the system. This should include doing away with large discretionary budget allocations and removing pork barrel altogether, in both the executive and legislative branches. We need electoral reforms, to include measures to equalize opportunities in electoral campaigns (like provisions for campaign spending subsidies and limitations on campaign contributions) and better modes for removing fixed-term elected officials (like judicial impeachment and recall elections). On the economic front, we need to refine our economic incentives structure to make it more consistent with free competition, low barriers to entry, and less regulation. We also need more local autonomy and smaller central government.
We do not need to change to a parliamentary system.
Actually, given that political and economic power in this country is extremely concentrated, the proper action should be to adopt ways that disperse power, not ways that concentrate it further. What a shift to a parliamentary system does is concentrate power even more, instead of spreading and diminishing it. Further, it allows such concentrated power to be wielded more easily and more effectively than is possible in a presidential system where the executive and legislative functions remain separate and independent. Too much concentration of power effectively results in autocracy. In fact, even the British publication The Economist calls the British parliamentary system an “elective dictatorship”.
If the pro-parliament politicos eventually succeed, the democratic foundations of Philippine society will be substantially weakened. The special interests of the politicos and their economic backers will tend to dominate even more the government agenda and the interests of us ordinary citizens will inevitably suffer. Going by the lessons of history, this can be an explosive situation.
To say it once more with feeling, the moves to change the nation’s charter is really about the re-allocation of power: who gains? who loses? In the shift to a parliamentary system, the politicos who now rule will gain power. We ordinary citizens will lose what little power we still have. Now since our experience with our political leaders cannot exactly be described as wonderful, it does not appear likely that this is a development that the Filipino people would welcome.
We must hope now that when this cha-cha question returns to the Supreme Court, this time on what has been called the “Congress voting jointly” issue, Justice Puno – notwithstanding his vote in 2006 and his subsequent appointment as Chief Justice in 2007 by President Arroyo – can use his well-publicized “moral force” to sway his mostly-Arroyo- appointed colleagues to rule against what is clearly an immoral initiative.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Cesar Lumba on -
Like many thinking Filipinos, I want President Arroyo to retire from politics after her term expires next year. There are just too many unanswered questions about the Arroyo family, too many instances when Arroyo herself stonewalled questions about the propriety and legality of many administration policies.
Yet, I cannot resist the lure of the parliamentary system. Imagine not having nationwide presidential and senatorial elections in the Philippines. Today, a serious presidential candidate has to raise at least a billion pesos to run for the presidency. Where do candidates get that kind of money? You said it, I didn't. They plunder the government treasury.
From the presidential candidate down to the senatorial candidates, everybody who runs for national office will either steal from the national treasury or mortgage their souls to the biggest power brokers - including smugglers, numbers racketeers, corrupt foreign governments - just to raise their campaign cash.
Now imagine a Philippines without elections for national offices. What do you see? People who have political ambitions run in much less expensive local races and do not have to raise enormous amounts of money to become eligible to be Prime Minister some day. Because elections are local, only those who have done something for their communities will be elected. The actor or radio broadcaster who has made his name in metro Manila will not necessarily win a seat in parliament because he/she will probably have to run against a local politician who is well-known and well-liked in the community.
Because elections are local and inexpensive, there will be no need to extort 20-40% "commissions" on World Bank national government contracts, which is currently what is happening according to a World Bank report.
And look at these other advantages of the parliamentary system:
* The Prime Minister will be elected by fellow parliamentarians and not by the barely literate farmers in the rural areas.
* It will not take days or weeks to find out who won the elections. The country will wake up the morning after Election Day and know who won every parliamentary seat because each district will have far fewer votes to count. The opportunity for massive vote fraud, as in the Hello Garci case, will be dramatically minimized if not altogether eliminated.
* The Prime Minister will form a government and when things go bad, the people will know which politicians are responsible. There will be no finger-pointing to escape accountability.
* If the Prime Minister messes up, a no-confidence vote can be called for and new elections can be scheduled. The country would not have to wait years before getting rid of an incompetent or corrupt government. If the country had a parliamentary system in 2005 during the Hello Garci controversy, Gloria's government would have fallen and new elections would have been held. Imagine the relief the country would feel, not having Gloria and the First Gentleman around all these years.
* It is not true that corruption will continue - at least not at the same level as it has in recent years. With the country's tradition of Edsa I, Edsa II and perhaps Edsa III, whoever sits as Prime Minister will think twice before engaging in corrupt practices. He/she will know that an Edsa IV, Edsa V, etc. will be enough to topple any parliamentary government. Thus, the power of the people will be enhanced by the parliamentary system rather than diminished.
* The Philippines, by becoming parliamentary, will be joining many Asian countries and can learn from those countries because of the similarity in their systems of government.
* Finally, many studies have confirmed that parliamentary systems are more stable than presidential systems because it is far easier to remove the corrupt and incompetent from office in a parliamentary system. The military does not have to resort to coup d'etats or Congress does not have to file and debate articles of impeachment, a move that is meaningless when the President's allies control Congress.
My recommendation is to change the system of government to parliamentary with a constitutional prohibition against sitting national government officials from benefiting from any changes in the constitution. This would rule out Gloria and his cabinet officials from benefiting from the shift to parliamentary.
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by Ramon Ignacio on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
