I HAVE no objections, really, to turning the Philippines’ form of government from presidential to parliamentary, provided we learn from the best examples of parliamentary government around the world and pick their best features.
I will have strong objections, though, if Speaker Joe de Venecia keeps on misleading the public by implying that the parliamentary governments are unicameral in form.
Let me be blunt: The unicameral parliament that Speaker Joe de Venecia wants – that is, a legislature (Parliament) with one house only – is perfectly suited for a trapo who aspires to become prime minister. Trapos, you see, very rarely can win a national election which is what we require for president, vice president, or senator; but a trapo can easily win election in a district-level race, dominate that district with a dynasty, help fellow trapos win and voila! You have a trapo prime minister elected by a trapo unicameral legislature.
If President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in her desire to save her neck from impeachment, has surrendered to the forces that were begging (if not threatening) her to concede to a Constitutional Assembly that would put in place a unicameral legislature, then I am afraid her lasting legacy to the nation other than the unfinished "Hello Garci" business is turning us over to the trapos. What can we say? Hanggang sa kahuli-hulihan nandadamay pa!
Let’s try our best to put that aside for the moment and analyze the parliamentary form of government. How different is it from what we have?
The major difference of most parliamentary governments is the fact that the executive (the prime minister) is selected by fellow members of the lower house of the legislature from among their own. Naturally, it is usually the case that the leader of the majority party becomes prime minister. If no party has a majority in the lower house, then parties form coalitions and usually the leader of the biggest party becomes prime minister.
Because they elect the prime minister, the members of the lower house can also change him, usually through a "no-confidence" vote. When this happens it either means that the majority party no longer supports its former leader – or the majority party is no longer the majority.
In short, under this type of set-up, which is the case in most parliaments (examples such as the UK, Italy, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Australia, India, Israel, Portugal, Spain) the ordinary voter no longer directly elects the national leader. He is left with electing a representative from his district.
There are a few parliamentary forms that have presidential-style leadership, the best example being France. In France, you have a bicameral parliament (they still call the upper house the Senate) and a prime minister is elected by the lower house. However, the real power in France is the President, who is elected by all French voters – thanks to Charles de Gaulle’s Fifth Republic constitution. Now – how different is the de Gaulle/French parliamentary form from our presidential form? Not very, except that they don’t have a vice president while we don’t have a prime minister.
I think one of the biggest objections the ordinary voters will have to a shift to a parliamentary form of government is their loss of the right to directly elect their leader. I suspect that Filipinos value this right very much – notwithstanding presidential calls to notorious elections commissioners to discuss kidnapping, ballot stuffing and the like – and the proponents of a parliamentary form will have to deal with this objection, hopefully in an intelligent rather than a corrupting manner.
Again, though, let me return to a major issue about the proposed shift to a unicameral form of parliament: this is a unique animal in the world of parliamentary governments, and the reason why it is unique is because this form suits the interests of certain individuals. Your guess is as good as mine as to who these people are.
Come to think of it, if we want both a federal form of State – that is, with regions or states that have considerable levels of autonomy – and a parliamentary form of government, then there is no way a unicameral legislature can meet the bill. The different federal states should be represented at a higher level of governance – which will mean we will need a sort of Senate, only this time perhaps elected not on a nationwide basis but on a regional or state-wide basis, just like the Senate is in the United States. There, each of the 50 states elect two senators, which is why the United States Senate has 100 members. So why can’t we just change the way we elect our senators and have, say ten Senators elected from Luzon, eight from the Visayas and six from Mindanao?
And so I say again: there is nothing wrong with looking at a shift to a parliamentary form of government, but let’s be open and honest in discussing this form, as the unicameral form that Speaker Joe de V is dying to pass will even strengthen the dominance of trapo politics in this country.
Come to think of it, though, will a shift from presidential to parliamentary stop leaders from calling Comelec officials in an attempt to manipulate votes? I don’t think so. The problem that the President failed, or refused, to acknowledge was that our present crisis is caused not by the form of government but by the quality of leaders that we have. So why shift when it is the leaders themselves and not the form of government that is the problem?
Leaders who lie, cheat and steal will do so whether the government is presidential or parliamentary.
Gloria baba muna, then we talk about other more complicated issues like Cha-cha.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment