Democracy is NOT Mob Rule: Why Parliamentary Systems Are Actually MORE Democratic than Presidential Systems

It's very easy to confuse democracy with mob rule, right? I remembered an English class proverb by George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm, who also warned, "Beware lest democracies may become tyrannies." It was most likely the theme of Animal Farm when the pigs took over the farm and made it worse than their human owners. Now, how do we define democracy? Most people just say that it's the rule of the majority. However, the Council of Europe website would give us what democracy really means:

The word democracy comes from the Greek words "demos", meaning people, and "kratos" meaning power; so democracy can be thought of as "power of the people": a way of governing which depends on the will of the people.

There are so many different models of democratic government around the world that it is sometimes easier to understand the idea of democracy in terms of what it definitely is not. Democracy, then, is not autocracy or dictatorship, where one person rules; and it is not oligarchy, where a small segment of society rules. Properly understood, democracy should not even be "rule of the majority", if that means that minorities' interests are ignored completely. A democracy, at least in theory, is government on behalf of all the people, according to their "will".

Abraham Lincoln even said that democracy is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. However, the U.S. government is ruled by a presidential-federal while I'm an advocate for a federal-parliamentary similar to the ASEAN country, Malaysia. If we think about it, the people means that it includes minorities. The minority has a voice. 

Sure, one can claim that the presidential system is more democratic but it's winner takes all. In 2016, former Philippine president Atty. Rodrigo R. Duterte and former Philippine vice president Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo won. In 2022, Philippine President Ferdinand R. Marcos and Vice President Sara Duterte-Zimmerman both won. I've read on Facebook how they were complaining why Mrs. Robredo didn't win the presidency. I decided to explain to them that the problem with presidential systems is that it's based only on popularity. Instead, they played the whole Marcos Years card all over again (read here). Come on, a simple Google search today will tell you why the regime of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. wasn't a real parliamentary! That's why I even wrote my essay to prove, with facts, that the Marcos Sr. regime was anything but a real parliamentary.

An illustration of why a parliamentary system will benefit Philippine democracy more than the current presidential system

No gossip, no hearsay, face-to-face debates,
liars are slapped in the parliamentary system!

Back on the discussion. Let's discuss how the parliamentary system is actually more democratic than the presidential system. In the presidential system, Marcos Jr. won leaving Mrs. Robredo as the loser in the corner. However, a parliamentary system would be different for many reasons. Let's say that the party of Marcos Jr. won the government seats with 51% votes. However, Mrs. Robredo's party gathers a vote of a significant minority. Unlike the presidential system where Mrs. Robredo is forced to become a civilian hence she's referred to now as Atty. Robredo. In a parliamentary system, the Liberal Party of the Philippines will become the Opposition.

Marcos Jr. represents the majority bloc. However, Mrs. Robredo is the voice of the minority voters. Just because Marcos Jr. won (and some people on Facebook say there was cheating and some people alleged that Mrs. Robredo cheated last 2016, it's most likely gossip over facts) doesn't mean all Mrs. Robredo is forced to do is shut up and forget about it. Instead, Mrs. Robredo who heads the Opposition is given her sacred duty to hold Marcos Jr. accountable and offer alternatives. It's not just Mrs. Robredo but the whole Liberal Party is responsible to hold Uniteam accountable while they must also offer alternatives.

PARL

In contrast, the arrangement of the Batasang Pambansa of Marcos Sr. was anything similar to the one above. That's an example of the Singaporean parliament where both the Government (left) and the Opposition (right). It could work like if the 2016 Philippine parliament were PDP-Laban on the left side (led by Duterte) and the Liberal Party on the right side (let's say led by the late Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III). The late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. even addressed how can the Marcos regime have a parliamentary without a parliament Aquino Jr. compared the change of the constitution to Jules Vernes' 80 Days Around the World.

If we were in a parliamentary system right now, the Liberal Party under any chosen leader, would still have a voice. 2016 might've been the dawn of the Diehard Duterte Supporters (DDS) vs. Dilawan (since the Liberal Party uses yellow as its color code, dilaw is the Filipino word for yellow). 2022 might've been the dawn of the Uniteam vs. Kakampinks (since the Liberal Party used pink in endorsing Mrs. Robredo). Both sides would be required to say their piece. The Liberal Party would've been the representative of their voters and their duty to give out their alternatives.

A good example would be Marcos Jr.'s plan for the Maharlika fund. Right now, I'm skeptical about it. However, a parliamentary system would require Mrs. Robredo to scrutinize the proposal of Marcos Jr. voices his plan for the Maharlika fund. However, Mrs. Robredo as the minority floor leader would say otherwise. Mrs. Robredo can present her findings on why the Maharlika fund should never be pushed or how to improve the funding. Can you imagine if both sides had to discuss the funding? It would allow the Kakampinks to voice their concerns, not just write social media criticism like keyboard warriors. A productive formal debate will allow either scrapping the Maharlika fund if it's not good or improving it if it can be improved.

The real issue is the presidential system. How many times do we campaign to vote wisely? As the joke goes, who in the world is wisely on the ballot? Sure, there's no candidate yet named Wisely but we sure want to crack a joke to expose the absurdity. Instead, the parliamentary government requires strict systematic policies. It's not going to be easy to be a prime minister either. Sure, the prime minister isn't voted by a direct vote. However, the people voted for the party from where the prime minister will be voted for.

Liputan6.com

In a parliamentary system, there's the popular vote for a national symbol of unity. Singapore's Halimah Yacob is a ceremonial figurehead and the national symbol of unity. Call her Auntie Halimah if you want. Back then, the late Maria Corazon Sumulong Cojuangco-Aquino was called Auntie Cory. Mrs. Aquino was looked upon as a national symbol of unity and should've stayed that way. Mrs. Aquino was suited to represent the Filipino people but not to lead them. That's why I wrote why Mrs. Aquino was more fit to be the national symbol of unity.

The Singapore Legal Advice shares the powers of the Singaporean president which can be applied to the Philippine environment:

What are the role and powers of the Singapore President?

As stated on the Istana’s official website, the President plays 3 crucial roles:

Ceremonial role: As the Head of State, the President officiates at state events, and represents Singapore on the global stage in cultivating and enhancing relationships with other countries. 

Community role: The President may lend weight to and promote social and charitable causes, as well as attend community events. 

Constitutional role: The President has powers provided for under the Constitution which he or she may exercise. These powers can be classified into 3 categories, namely, financial powers, powers concerning the appointment of key office holders, and miscellaneous powers.

It would also be important to know the powers of the prime minister. In Singapore, the president is picked by the direct vote. However, the Prime Minister's Office of Singapore also states the symbolic president must now pick the prime minister and other appointees:

The Judiciary's function is to independently administer justice. The Judiciary is safeguarded by the Constitution.

The Prime Minister of Singapore is appointed by the President of Singapore under Article 25 of the Constitution. The President, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, also appoints other Ministers from among the Members of Parliament.

The Prime Minister is the effective head of the executive branch of government. The Prime Minister chairs the Cabinet, which is constituted under Article 24 of the Constitution. The Cabinet is the central decision-making body of the executive government. It is an organ of state and central to Singapore's system of government. In practice, all significant decisions or actions taken by the Executive are first discussed and collectively agreed by Cabinet. 

Just imagine if Mrs. Aquino remained a national symbol of unity, all the while she picked her best bets for the office of the prime minister. Maybe, it could be the late Fidel V. Ramos who was more than qualified for the job. It would've been better if Ramos did the executive duties while Mrs. Aquino carried her role of representing Filipinos around the world and lending weight to help the Philippines recover after the Marcos regime. Instead, letting Mrs. Aquino lead and represent at the same time wasn't exactly a smart idea. Mrs. Aquino should've remained a ceremonial head with a prime minister to call the shots.

How does the democracy here work better? There's a president based on a direct vote. There's the government based on the direct vote. Yet, the government isn't alone since there's also the opposition that lands in their spot by direct vote. There's the national symbol of unity, there's the prime minister who actually leads the government, and there's the opposition leader who makes sure the minority isn't ignored. These features actually all work better than the presidential system.