Parliamentary democracy in the Philippines would be a very bad idea

(1) Will a change in the constitution get rid of the corrupt system we have at the moment?
The idea that a superficial alteration of the political system could heal a rotten political culture could only take root in a country as addicted to the quick fix as the Philippines. The President herself does not believe it, and hardly mentioned political reform until it became politically expedient for her to do so. The country does not believe it—that much was clear as long ago as September 1997 when a quarter of a million people gathered in Rizal Park to protest then President Ramos’s “cha-cha” (charter change) plans. As has been said over and over again, it is not the system that is rotten but the political class that runs it.

(2) Will a parliamentary system make the Philippines more like the “progressive” neighbours identified by the president in her state of the nation speech?
The parliamentary flower takes on the flavour of the ground in which it is planted. The president was not clear which “progressive” neighbours she was referring to, but let’s take Malaysia and Singapore as examples.

In Malaysia, the system is largely driven by the executive branch. This was particularly the case in the last decade of Mahathir Mohamed’s prime ministership, when he rarely attended sessions of parliament, which was just democratic window dressing for autocratic rule.

In Singapore, as we all know, there is only ever one point of view. This dogmatic democracy is reflected in the parliament, where the Parliamentary Action Party (PAP) holds a majority the size of which has rarely, if ever, been achieved in other countries. Having obliterated the Worker’s Party and its courageous leader J.B. Jeyeratnam, in the late 1980s the PAP found itself in the ludicrous situation of holding every single seat in the Singapore parliament. The solution? Appointed “opposition” MPs of course. Appointed by whom? Appointed by the people they are supposed to “oppose”! I am not kidding, that’s what they did and, you know what, it wasn’t such a bad idea. A friend of mine. Walter Woon, was one of the first of the appointed opposition MPs and served with distinction for a number of years. Still, let's be honest, although a Philippine parliament will face many problems, lack of an opposition is unlikely to be one of them.

In the end it is not the seed that matters, but the ground in which it planted, and as for the stony ground in the Philippines I’ll leave you to fill in the blanks.

M_n_y p_l_t_cs
G_ons
D_nas_ies
F_lm s_ars
Vo_te b_y_ng

I can’t see these changing under a parliamentary system.

(3) Will parliamentary democracy lead to a more stable system?
No! If you can possibly imagine this, political life will be much more chaotic under a parliamentary system.

The principle of parliamentary democracy is that the leader of a party that is able to command a majority is asked to form a government (either because his or her party has an “absolute majority”, i.e., more than 50% of the seats, or because he or she has worked a deal with smaller parties so they will support his or her party and thereby enable coalition government). Now, given the balimbing nature of Philipine politics do you think that will be end of the story? Of course not! Politicians from minority parties holding the balance of power will be in an enormously powerful position, just like MPs from the religious parties that often hold the balance in Israel, another parliamentary democracy. In Israel, where political principles are more important than money, this means minority religious parties are able to exact political concessions from the larger party, usually Likud, in the coalition (more settlements on the West Bank, that sort of thing). In the Philippines the political class wouldn’t know a principle if it jumped up and bit it in the bottom, so the pay-off will be settlements in the Hamptons or other desirable neighbourhoods.

And who will pay to preserve these fragile political groupings? Got a mirror handy?

Let’s say that that a particular politician holds out for a price that is so outrageous even the most unscrupulous prime minister baulks at it. The government then “falls”, usually through a no-confidence vote. Other parties scuttle around like crazy trying to patch together strange and disparate coalitions. Sometimes they succeed, usually they fail. House prices in the Hamptons rise.

If all this activity proves fruitless there will be an election, in the hope that this will “clear the air” and strengthen one party or another so another can be formed. There will be almost no notice period; in Britain, for example, an election takes place 3 weeks after it is called. Which leads to my next point.

(4) Will elections be free, fair and well run under a parliamentary system?
Are you kidding? In May 1998 Comelec knew that the next election would be in May 2004. It had six years to prepare for elections that turned out to be a complete disaster (the chaotic conduct of which led directly to the current crisis). The Philippines’ performance in the 2004 election was a national embarrassment, particularly when compared with the smoothly conducted elections in India (13 times larger) the same year. Now if this was the result when the election date was known six years in advance, what is going to happen when Comelec has three weeks in which to prepare?

(5) Will a parliamentary system lead to stronger political parties and a move away from personality-driven politics?
This argument is often put forward by proponents of the parliamentary system but I am unconvinced. We live in a tacky, soundbite, TV-dominated age. Look at Britain, where a photogenic sleazeball like Tony Blair managed to get re-elected despite leading the country into an unnecessary and disastrous war, the results of which we all saw on TV a couple of weeks ago.

I am not even sure that stronger parties would be a great idea for the Philippines. Entrenched parties usually reflect the divisions in society. They sometimes help to perpetuate those divisons, as in Malaysia, where the three main parties (the United Malay National Organization, the Malaysian Indian Congress, and the Malaysian Chinese Association) mirror and reinforce the racial divisons in society. In the Philippines, the two main blocks will clearly be a “masa” party and a “conservative” or “status quo” party – with many variants and spin-offs that may play a critical role, as already noted. Under such a system, any hope of a “national” solution—recognizing that, at certain junctures, the interests of capitalists and the working class may coincide—will be lost for ever. Yet, it is that idea of a shared endeavour that lay behind the spectacular successes of Asian tigers like South Korea, Malaysia, and Singapore in the last quarter of the 20th century.

Parliamentary democracy also inevitably offers voters fewer choices. In the UK, for example, one reason for voter apathy is that there is little difference between the two main parties, both of which are now essentially conservative. You can say what you like about Philippine democracy, but at least it offers the electorate a choice.

(6) But isn’t the current system in need of a drastic overhaul?
The Philippines has quite a good political system. I know this is a minority point of view, but I think the way the current system has accommodated the different points of view on the phone tapes over the past few weeks is a sign of its flexibility and strength, not its weakness. There was public concern and the system allowed that to be expressed in well-organized rallies, with no violence (apart from a minor dust-up in Cebu) and, so far as I know, no arrests. The public concern has, however, not been sufficient to threaten the administration in any way and so proceedings have followed the procedures allowed for in the constitution. What is wrong with that?

(7) So nothing needs to be changed?
Comelec needs to be changed. Everything flows from that. Diverting attention from this open sore on the body politic by promoting comprehensive and unnecessary change is not the way to go.

Above all, results need to reported immediately, not two months after the election. This can be done without expensive computer systems. In the UK elections last year the first results were reported 40 minutes after the close of polling — and that was a hand count.

If the Philippines is able to enjoy free, fair and fast elections, many of its current political problems will heal themselves. Reforming Comelec rather than engaging in grandiose constitutional change is where the country should be going. In my view, anyway.

Comments

[carlos celdran]

Hmmm. I think the parliamentary system is worth a try - AGAIN.

Another way of looking at it is that power is too centralized in the Philippines right now. The current system is too dependent on "Imperial Manila" for all its decisions and dole outs - and Imperial Manila is where all the shenanigan happens.

Im for a parliamentary system if only to dilute the power (and taxes) to the countryside.

It wont change the corrupt system but it will abolish senate. And that is a huge step in abolishing corruption right there. :o)

And with a parliamentary system, we also we can kick out leaders (which apparently we loooove to do) without plunging the ENTIRE country into chaos. Just a vote of no confidence and we find someone else and move on.

It will also minimize personality politics.

Hopefully, with a parliamentary system, we can be just as chaotic - yet functional - as say, Italy.

And that ain't so bad.

[torn]

Hi Carlos -- Thanks for the interesting comments. Is it true that all the shenanigans happen in Manila? Garci wasn't operating here. I think that is an idealized picture of evil urbanites preying on innocent rustics.

Why is it every time I hear the word "federalism" a vision of Chavit Singson arises before me? I am an admirer of Chavit in some ways, but I don't think his brand of personalized strongman politics is the way to go. Yet that is the where some of the federalism proposals look like ending up.

To be honest, I don't really understand the federalism argument. The Philippines already has a federal system, with governors wielding significant power and budget. If there is a consensus that more power should be shifted to the provinces can't that be done within the existing system?

As for "minimizing personality politics", short of forcing candidates to wear hoods, I don't think that will ever be done. I think we have to forget that as a policy objective and concentrate on more attainable goals like collecting revenues and ensuring most of them are spent wisely. To be fair to her, Gloria was at least focusing on that unglamorous task.

[carlos celdran]

Yeah. Youre right. It's all truly hopeless. I don't see things changing anytime soon.

Sigh. I have to say though, save for the bryanboy entry, your blog has never failed to depress me these past few weeks. (You have four rants on the Philippines, a few on bombings and an obit).

Why so dark? :o)

[torn]

Sorry to be such a downer! I think my views on parliamentary democracy are fairly up/down neutral though. My view that the Philippines would be better improving its current system rather than setting up a whole new system is just my opinion on a fairly abstract question.

As for personality politics, the Philippines is not alone in this. This is a worldwide trend and we just have to live with it.

Despite all the pressures on the country, I don't think it is hopeless at all. It's an unpredictable place -- anything could happen. Will try to be more upbeat in future.

[urbanodelacruz]

I agree with this post's many points and yet there is one thing that appeals to me about the Parliamentary system -and that is, in the long view (20-50 years) a unicameral, parliamentary system has a better chance of stabilizing philippine politics than a presidential system.

why? a parliamentary system atomizes the elections - you elect a district representative. It offers the ability to blunt election by sheer popularity. for sure the actors and actresses will all run in the districts but they will be out-maneuovered in the party caucuses. parliamentary elections temper personality politics. (your example of Blair - he was elected on the Labor platform and local economic performance that neither the Tories nor the Liberals could sell against).

granted, this will mean joe deV and his ilk will have the run of the place for the next decade, atomizing the electorate's decision making means there are greater chances for cause oriented parties to get a seat on the table. (this is how the greens won leverage in many european parliaments) local elections have already shown that campaigns riding on local issues can beat popularity contests (i.e. - Rudy F losing to Sonny B in Q.C.) - by removing the national positions, the district level (MPs) are forced to discuss local issues and deliver on local issues.

the current presidential system, with its powerful executive department just encourages and entrenches patronage politics.

patronage politics, a feature of our personalistic, spanish molded culture, will not disappear overnight, but a parliamentary system offers a better chance of breaking the cycle.

[torn]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. It is true that a switch to a parliamentary system might eventually lead to the positive outcomes you identify. In my country, Scotland, for example, a distinctive political has emerged within the broader UK framework, characterized by a large proportion of seats held by smaller parties (the Scottish Nationalists and the Lib Dems) and, for a while, no Tory seats at all! Hooray. As you say, Germany provides an example of how a small party (the Greens) has made an impact nationally through the parliamentary system.

Still, as I mentioned in a comment on mlq a few days ago, I think proportional representation is a much fairer system than "first-past-the-post". In the UK for example, the Lib Dems regularly poll more than 20% of the vote yet end up with less than 10% of the seats (not sure of the exact figures, but it is of that order). Why? Because they often come in second and there are no prizes for that.

First past the post also leads to apathy. The fact that your vote "doesn't count" (because your consistency is solidly in the camp of an opposing party) is a major reason for the pathetic turnout in British elections. Despite the many criticisms of the Philippine electorate, I have found people here to be remarkably well informed and politicized. They may not always choose wisely, but they know who they are voting for and why. If there is to be a switch to a parliamentary system, care would have to be taken to ensure that that sense of engagement is not lost.

[jc]

Me myself is anti to what the government wants, Cha-Cha, whats the use of changing our present "Rotten" system of government when all of us knows that its pointless, i think its not a change in the system that we need. at this time, we Filipinos must unite, and by saying this, we must end our grudge with each other, stop corruption, start cleaning the image of the AFP, of the government. and by doing so, we can finally achieved the "change" that we are longing for. lets just think about our sons and daughters, what about their future?...the time is now for us to make the first move.

[neah]

i like the post on phil. parliament... wht can you say about the "people's initiative" to promote chacha..?