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.

Popular posts from this blog

Was Cesar Virata's Position as "Prime Minister" the Best Proof That a Parliamentary System Won't Work in the Philippines?

-
Image
Kahimyang Project It's often said by some of the now-old folks that the Philippines was once under a parliamentary system. I had some insults from a close-minded political scientist, some former dancer of an OFW, and others whenever I said, "We must shift to the parliamentary system!" They would say, "Look stupid! We already had a parliamentary system back in the Marcos Years!" I ask for the proof and they keep using Cesar Virata. By using insults, they start to make me doubt their credibility. It's because insults and other forms of Ad Hominem attacks are often the favorite tools of sore losers .  I would like to give this an example. One of their best sources is Cesar Virata. At first, it sounds like, "Okay, we had a parliamentary system." However, we must take note that not every country that has a prime minister, is under a parliamentary system. Some of them are still presidential in nature with parliamentary features . I wonder if Mrs. Raissa
Read more

Shifting to the Parliamentary System is Better than Banning Political Dynasties

-
Image
Some Filipinos who are totally against charter change (or constitutional reform) always use political dynasties as an excuse. It's not enough that some of them should keep saying that economic charter change will mean "selling the Philippines to foreigners". Please, if they realize it, developed countries allow 100% FDI ownership--allowing foreigners to own 100% of their business . Back on the topic, I would like to discuss political dynasties and why they're not necessarily bad . Some people keep talking about the anti-political dynasty law--that is one per family. It might be because they still think the first Marcos Administration was a parliamentary system. Please, evidence has been gathered that it was never a parliamentary system, to begin with (read here )!  It's easy to talk about political dynasties. Some people were citing President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. as a member of a political dynasty. Some people also cite the Dutertes. I even
Read more

REAL TALK: The Liberal Party of the Philippines Can ONLY Become The Genuine Opposition Under A Genuine Parliamentary Constitution

-
Image
PhilStar It's difficult to talk with people who are still comfortable with what they already know, right? However, the term Dilawan need not be drowned in negativity, but it can be drowned in negativity if the brand gets marred in a popularity-based political system. The Philippines currently uses the presidential system. If we were in a parliamentary system right now--chances are Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr. wouldn't be prime minister due to the difficulty involved as explained in  " How to Become Singapore's Prime Minister, Explained in 7 Steps ". That means all candidates would need to do the following: Study and specialize Wait for the call Tea sessions and panels Take a test Perform well as an MP Win the trust of your peers Prepare for office The Dilawans can call themselves the genuine opposition, march in their proud yellow t-shirts, and more. However, under a presidential system, there's no real opposition, and the platform of any party
Read more

Rare Interview Footage of Ninoy Aquino and Doy Laurel in Japan, Reveal Marcos Years Were NEVER a Legitimate Parliamentary System

-
Image
People who are afraid of shifting to a parliamentary system tend to use the Marcos Years as proof. Fearmongers on Facebook are still up to their old tricks, using the Marcos Years to say, "No to cha-cha!" Never mind that a new constitution had to be written after 1986. If anything, Article XVII was inserted in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines because it was never meant to be set in stone. Also, the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was illegal .  Here's a video of the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. and the late Salvador "Doy" Laurel. The words of Laurel here show the problem of Marcos' "parliament". Marcos' "parliament" lacked legitimacy . Where was the sporting chance of the Opposition? If it was a real parliamentary system, Ninoy would've been leading the Opposition in weekly debates against the Marcos-led government. That is if the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was the prime minister. If Cesar Vir
Read more

Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad: Just a Matter of Strong Leadership Without a Good System?

-
Image
Jakarta Globe It's very easy to talk about how we need character change only, not a charter change. I say that having a charter change (better termed constitutional reform ) will lead to character change. The old saying of some boomers goes, "It's common sense that nothing is wrong with the system, just the people running the system." However, when I ask something like, "If that's so then why do other nations have better leaders? What about Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew?" Their answer is, "Well, that's proof that the system isn't defective, it's just the leader." This can also come from people who believe what Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. said that there's nothing wrong with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, that it's the "best in the world". The arguments are clearly illogical at best . Some say that the parliamentary system worked in Malaysia and Singapore because those heading it aren't corrupt. T
Read more

The Vizconde Massacre and Trial by "Trust Me Bro"?

-
Image
As Christmas approaches, another case worth revisiting for history vs. gossip is the Vizconde Massacre. I watched Crime Investigation Asia uploaded on YouTube. I wrote about the documentary Give Up Tomorrow -- a documentary that explores the irregularities while pursuing justice for the late Chiong sisters, Jacqueline Jimenea Chiong and Marijoy Jimenea Chiong. I feel compelled to write about the Vizconde Massacre. For more than 10 years, I used to believe that Hubert Jeffry Pagaspas Webb, son of Freddie Webb, was guilty. It turns out that according to Crime Investigation Asia --it was really a trial by gossip . In my case, I want to call it a trial of Trust Me Bro.  I still read comments about how footage of Hubert in the States could've been "easily tampered". Yet, those who comment haven't presented the evidence. I guess if I asked for their evidence, they'll just say, "Trust me bro!" Granted, photo editing was still in its infancy back then so how cou
Read more

Was the Late John Regala Interviewed by the Directors of "Give Up Tomorrow"?

-
Image
The passing away of John Regala hit today. I remembered a film called Animal (2004) in  which the original title was originally Butakal meaning male pig. Regala starred as Jaco Lozano--an obvious caricature of Juan Francisco Gonzales Larrañaga aka Paco. Strangely enough, neither the Larrañagas nor the Osmeñas were heard to have ever filed a case against the late director Toto Natividad. Instead, it was the Chiong family that filed a lawsuit against Natividad. I did write about  whether or not Natividad himself was interviewed by the directors of Give Up Tomorrow . As mentioned, there was over 400 hours worth of footage and over 100 interviews done . Both Marty Syjuco and Michael Collins may have interviewed not only Natividad, the late Tony Calvento but also Regala himself since he played the film's main antagonist . In 2018, we had an incident when Niño Muhlach apologized to Paco for the portrayal in The Calvento Files . Apparently, Niño himself wasn't interviewed but was prob
Read more

Trust Me Bro: The 1987 Constitution is the Best in the World!

-
I may be no lawyer or constitutionalist but it's time to use common sense . I'm afraid common sense is hardly taught or even encouraged in schools. Right now, I want to do this provocative entry to ask, "Fact or gossip: Is the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines the best in the world?" Yes, you read that right. Hilario G. Davide Jr. said that last 2018 and I'm still laughing at it. I've decided to write this common-sense post to actually contest the idea that, "The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is the best in the world."  I'm laughing at some things Davide Jr. had said such as, "It' is the only institution in the world where the public office is a public trust." However, this man is terribly wrong because, around the world, we see the doctrine where public office is a public trust. Thomas Jefferson also said that public office is public trust -- way before Davide Jr. was born into the world! I really laughed at their claim o
Read more

Ifugao OFWs in Taiwan and Discovering More About One's Common Austronesian Roots

-
Image
I was doing some research on Taiwan finding out that the natives are indeed Austronesians . It seems that Indonesians and Malaysians may have also settled in Taiwan aside from the Philippines. A look at Mt. Alishan and Banaue Rice Terraces have a similarity. Taiwan has its famous tea terraces. Banaue has its famous rice terraces. Both are cultural heritages that must be preserved! I soon found an article which Ifugao OFWs in Taiwan. Not surprisingly, these Ifugao OFWs can point out several things that are pretty similar. An article called " A Gotad Picnic With Ifugaos Living in Taiwan " would tell of Armand Camhol, an Ifugao OFW, who met with other Ifugaos in Taiwan. Gotad is a thanksgiving festival for the Ifugaos. The News Lens International Edition What was noted by Armand at the end of the article is: The people of Ifugao value hospitality, and as a symbol of friendship, they shared their holiday with their invited guests, who, in return, sang, joined the dances, and made
Read more

Can Anti-Reformists Prove to the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy That the Marcos Regime was a Real Parliamentary?

-
Image
The previous comparison of the CoRRECT Movement was between the late businessman John Gokongwei Jr. and Hilario Davide Jr., a public policy expert. The comparison is pretty much apples and oranges which is why Kishore Mahbubani, founder and former dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) would make more sense. It's not enough to say something. If the source is just merely Merkado CTTO (read here ) then I have every right to doubt it. I tried asking for empirical evidence  they have that the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was a parliamentary government. The only evidence they have was that there was a prime minister and his name was Cesar Virata. However, further details reveal that Virata was a non-starter and a no leader. From Third World to First , Virata was even considered a candidate to replace the late Ferdinand E. Marcos, a president with powers . A challenge that I want to pose to people who still insist that the Marcos Years were indeed under a parli
Read more