Another reason why parliamentary democracy is not the answer for the Philippines

The abuse of the powers of incumbency by President Arroyo (see post above) provides another strong argument against a move to a parliamentary system in the Philippines. Under the current constitution, there is a one term limit for the presidency. Because she was serving the remainder of deposed president Estrada’s term, Gloria was in the unusual position of being able to fight the election as the incumbent. She used the advantages of her office in numerous ways, legal and illegal. She appointed a crook as a commissioner at Comelec, funneled millions of pesos to him to fix the election in her favour, and used the Armed Forces of the Philippines to undertake blatantly partisan activities such as monitoring the phone calls of her political opponents.

Despite all of this, Mrs Arroyo is by no means one of the most venal of politicians. There are plenty worse than her who would be delighted to take of the absence of term limitations under a parliamentary system (where parties rather than individuals are elected). Under a parliamentary system, prime ministers go into elections in control of all the powers of the state. Now put your little hand on your heart and tell me that Philippine trapos will not use every trick in the book to maximize this priceless advantage to ensure they remain in office.

Look at Malaysia and Singapore. UMNO in Malaysia and the PAP in Singapore have used their control of the state apparatus during elections to keep a vicelike grip on power for over 40 years. A parliamentary system in the Philippines would be a recipe for a one party state and for that reason alone I think the country would be better sticking with its current system.

Comments

[benign0]

I think most of what people fail to mention in the debate on what kind of government the Philippines needs next is this: The nation failed to prosper both under authoritarianism and under "freedom". If it cannot make it now, what makes us think that changing hats will change things fundamentally?

In the first place, Filipinos do not *get* what democracy is all about. It is not about freedom as our hollow-headed politicians would like us to believe. I believe democracy is about the disciplines, structure, and rigour that people need to exercise to *earn* the freedom that it affords its practitioners. It is a concept I discuss at length in this article:

http://www.geocities.com/benign0/4-00_Leaders/freedom.html

This is what begs the question in the apparent paradox of the lack of "freedom" in "one-party" but PROSPEROUS states like Singapore and Malaysia. They are prosperous because they were not fixated on freedom, but on the more productive task of developing a coherent and harmonious society. AND THEN they can demand to be free -- when the hard work has yielded RESULTS and they have earned this privilege.

[Joey]

"Look at Malaysia and Singapore. UMNO in Malaysia and the PAP in Singapore have used their control of the state apparatus during elections to keep a vicelike grip on power for over 40 years."

Even if a country is ruled by a single party, it doesn't mean the ruler or politics will remain the same. This is so because even within a party, there is a wide political spectrum that can wrestle power away from an inutile party/national leader.

Mahathir was dumped in the 60's then resurrected UMNO in the 70's. Deng Xiaoping brought moderate economic policies to CCP in the 80's.

If Marcos hadn't been ousted, somebody could've replaced him within the party (when he died) that would've brought continuity to his visions while correcting those policies he had failed grandly upon (the economy mainly).

The one advantage of a single party rule to our current state of political affairs is that a single party rule can sustain achievements-our present system cannot.

[torn]

That's a good point. One party rule can allow for gradual incremental change and for good work to be continued, as in Singapore and Malaysia. Unfortunately it can also allow bad systems to be perpetuated, as in Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe and quite a few other countries around the world.