Why Shift To To A Parliamentary Philippines
It's time to think about the shift shouldn't only focus on federalism but also towards the parliamentary system. I've noticed that members of the Liberal Party and now #TindigPilipinas are voicing out their opposition towards the parliamentary system. If I'm not wrong Raissa Robles even had her fears that a parliamentary system would return Bongbong Marcos to power. What she may have ignored or doesn't know about is that a parliamentary system is not a popularity based system. Bongbong has to prove himself worthy of prime minister against other possible candidates.
Here's an interesting tidbit I got from CoRRECT Philippines on the parliamentary system and how competition is encouraged:
Notice also that in Parliamentary Systems, party leaders (who are in the running to become Prime Minister if their respective parties win majority of all seats or if their parties form coalitions where they have the most seats within the coalition) campaign using the pronoun “We.” They speak more collectively about their party’s platforms and their party’s past performance by always referring to “Our Party” or “My Party” unlike in Presidential Systems where presidential candidates use the pronoun “I” all the time.
Parties will be forced to compete against other parties by presenting their platforms to the public and showing that their platforms are more responsive to the needs of the people. More importantly, parties will be forced to compete against each other by choosing the best members among themselves to be the senior members of the party, the best of whom will be the party leader.
In a Parliamentary System, unlike in a presidential system, the Prime Minister and his majority bloc are always in competition against the Leader of the Opposition and his minority bloc. Active Debates ensue. The Leader of the Opposition tries to show that the Prime Minister does not know what he is talking about. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, must always be on his toes to show that indeed, he does know what he is talking about and has the facts to prove his point…
In a parliamentary system, there is an intense system of competition where the Majority’s “Government Cabinet” is always being challenged by the Minority’s “Shadow Cabinet.”
In short, you can see how the parliamentary system respects both the majority and the minority. It's not just a matter of majority wins. The minority have a voice as an opposition in this democratic system. It's not like the argument that if you don't agree with the majority then you're stupid. The problem of the presidential system is that the majority is always followed no matter how right or how wrong they are. Many stupid people enter into politics no thanks to a stupid majority who vote for them. Why do actors and athletes who know nothing about politics enter into the Senate? You can thank voters who vote according to popularity than to credibility.
In a parliament both the government bloc and the minority backbench should be composed of competent people. The #Senate6 that got knocked out deserved to be knocked out because they're incompetent. I mean, what has the current opposition called #TindigPilipinas do but derail President Duterte than oppose where he's wrong and agree on where he's right? While opposition is necessary for a healthy democracy but what the #Senate6 is doing is trying to get power. They are trying to derail rather than to correct the mistakes of the current administration.
You could consider how the parliamentary system would have worked against the Liberal Party. Let's assume that Noynoy Aquino were installed as prime minister instead of a president. You could consider what could have happened with him last 2010 if he were a prime minister. You can think of a lot of incidents where the minority bloc could have corrected his mistakes or even lead to his impeachment with some events that happened during his term.
Let's think of how a Minority Bloc could have prevented absolute Yellowtardism. The reason why Noynoy as a president got a lot of Liberal Party members into important positions was because of the lack of opposition. In a Parliamentary System, Noynoy would have to choose different people from different parties to run various posts. Instead, what he did inadvertently undermined the Liberal Party when he chose his friends instead of competent people. Noynoy was able to appoint almost everyone with very little opposition.
This would also in turn scrutinize any ally he has successfully installed. Let's take it that the Minority Bloc would end up pointing out the anomalies such as Joseph Abaya's mishandling of the MRT, the Bureau of Customs under Alberto Lina, the financial scandals under Florencio Abad, DSWD under Stinky Soliman, DILG under Mar Roxas, Commission on Human Rights decay under Chito Gascon and Etta Rosales, and the SAF-44 mishap under Alan Purisima's watch are but a few of the many cases that needed to be handled. This would probably have put Noynoy in a pickle - either he fires them now or he could risk getting kicked out by a vote of no confidence. If the opposition were also heard then maybe those idiots that Noynoy appointed would have not gotten their seats. Others more qualified would have occupied those seats because somebody could advice the prime minister against stupid decisions.
Let's assume that the Minority Bloc would have voiced out against Noynoy's poor choices. For instance, they could have appointed better people to handle those various government offices. A good example is that maybe Leila De Lima would have probably never become Justice Secretary considering her poor performance as the CHR's previous chairwoman. You could talk about how maybe somebody better than Bato Dela Rosa would have already been in Purisima's slot years ago. They may have appointed Atty. Persida Rueda V. Acosta or any competent lawyer to handle CHR or DOJ. This would have created more balance which prevents any party from having absolute domination. There would be different ideas to work out with in order to improve a current system.
On the other hand, a parliamentary system demands competence from those eyeing the throne. Let's have a scenario of possible nominees for the next Prime Minister or Supreme Chancellor. We could start off with an Alan Peter Cayetano vs. Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. scenario then we could add in Paolo Benigno "Bam" Aquino, Panfilo Lacson Sr. and Richard Gordon. Think about how Cayetano, Bongbong, Bam, Lacson and Gordon will all have to prove themselves not based on their popularity but based on their credibility,
Bam could lose his credibility by submitting stupid laws such as the pagpag bill or trying to reduce foreign investments then he loses credibility. You can talk about how Gordon and Lacson could argue about system change vs. foreign change. Cayetano could lose his credibility if he keeps attacking Bongbong with Ad Hominem. Bongbong could lose credibility if he keeps showing his weaker side of being somewhat of a braggart. The election will soon have to choose the most competent and the least weak instead of the most popular even if he's the least competent. It would be to weed them out to see who has done the best and install him in the new position.
It also reminds me of last 1998's Philippine elections. A presidential system is the reason why Joseph "Erap" Ejercito Estrada himself got the most votes even if he's not as credible. A parliamentary system would have installed either Jose De Venecia or Miriam Defensor Santiago as prime minister due to their competence. De Venecia may not be charismatic but he's definitely better than Erap. Erap may have been charismatic but he didn't have much of a brain. De Venecia himself could have know better on how to handle issues even if he lacks charisma.
This would also mean political dynasties would be greatly reduced. How can that happen? Do you even know why Noynoy got voted in the first place? It's because he was an Aquino and not because of anything he did. Bongbong looks like he was only voted because he was a Marcos. If President Duterte's children want to hold office then they have to prove they're competent. A political dynasty will be greatly reduced for this reason - children are not their parents. If there's one thing that's never passed down from parent to child it's experience. The children need to prove themselves that they are competent enough. Lee Hsien Long may be nowhere near his father Lee Kwan Yew (since the former didn't cause Singapore to rise to power) but he's certainly capable of at least running his position. Unfortunately, presidential system ignores that children and parents will never be exact copies of each other.
That's why if you want some real changes for the better then you must first throw out a system that allows incompetence. After all, how can competent people rule properly if the current system restricts their competitiveness?
No comments