 |
| Jakarta Globe |
As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him (Marcos) any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$ 8 billion of the US$ 25 billion owing. The hard fact was that they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered it that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped that the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a non-starter, a first class administrator, but no political leader, further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Enrile, was out of favor. Marcos was silent, then he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find such a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, "You are a true friend." I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.With medical care, Marcos dragged on. Cesar Virata met me in Singapore in January the following year. He was completely guileless, a political innocent. He said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was likely to be nominated as the presidential candidate. I asked how that would be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to be with "flow of money"; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and win the election. He added that if she were the candidate, the opposition would put up Mrs. Cory Aquino and work up the people's feelings. He said that the economy was going down with no political stability.
Just think the one fact. Virata was called a non-starter. LKY being a real prime minister over the "prime minister" that was Virata knew what was going on. Virata was nothing more than a state executive or assistant to Marcos Sr. How can Virata be a real prime minister when he was not even a non-star but no political leader? LKY was a real political leader and not the Singaporean president's assistant. As the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy said, "We had a parliamentary without a parliament." in his 1984 speech at Los Angeles. Ninoy knew what he was talking about especially when he called Marcos Sr.'s charter change as 80 Days Around the World. It went from Americn type to British type to French type. The modified parliamentary was nothing more than a bastardization
It's stupid when Filipinos want to have a LKY or Mahathir but no charter change at all? I would like to give an excerpt from an old article (in 2006) in the Philippine Star by Alex Magno. People want to have a Mahatir or a LKY without otherwise having a better constitution. It's not just a matter of leadership but of systematic leadership. The problem with having more bad leaders is systemic in nature. Here's the excerpt as I promised:
One keen observer of the sometimes bizarre conduct of our national affairs is former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad.
Although retired from government, Mahathir keeps tabs with unfolding events in the region. Revered by his countrymen for the great economic achievements of his period of rule, he keeps office at the penthouse of the Petronas Towers – the highest edifice in the region and probably the world. From there, he observes his bustling capital and contemplates regional developments.
Last week, House Speaker Jose de Venecia called on Mahathir in the course of a five-day visit to Malaysia, swinging across from Kuala Lumpur, Sarawak and Sabah. The visit was primarily intended to conduct consultations with Malaysian foreign minister Syed Hamid Albar on the future of the envisioned ASEAN Community and on de Venecia’s proposal to create an ASEAN Parliamentary Council.
Always forthright in his views, Mahathir was not shy about his opinions on the Philippines, even as he qualified those views with a polite disclaimer about non-interference in our internal affairs.
He bluntly told de Venecia that the "Filipino people need a break."
In the context of their conversation, that "break" is understood as a respite from the hyper-politicking that has plagued our country of late. That hyper-politicking has gotten in the way of our efforts to improve our economy, raise productivity and build a better future for our people.
Hyper-politicking has produced gridlock, endless bickering and neglect of urgent policy actions. It has undermined investor confidence in our economy and prevented willful leadership from being exercised – the same sort of leadership that Mahathir himself deployed in bringing Malaysia up from backwater economy status to that of an "Asian tiger."
Mahathir agreed with de Venecia that a parliamentary system of government could work better in the Philippines because it ensures "continuity in policy and the faster pace of approvals of development programs."
A major factor explaining Malaysia’s success story under Mahathir’s leadership is a responsive government enabled by the fusion of legislative and executive powers in a parliamentary system of government. The dominant role played by the major party UMNO ensured continuity of policy perspectives independent of the fates of individual power-wielders.
When Mahathir retired from politics, there was no uncertainty about the policy architecture that brought Malaysia to tiger-economy status. That policy architecture is not a personal legacy of Mahathir. It is the fighting faith of his party, UMNO, which continues to command the support of the Malaysian people.
If Malaysia had a presidential system of government, Mahathir might have never become its leader. Tough-talking, brutally frank and often abrasive, this man could not win a popularity contest.
Even if, hypothetically, Mahathir was elected president of a Malaysia under a presidential system, the man might not have accomplished what he did in a parliamentary setting. The legislature would have obstructed his most dramatic innovations. His team might have spent precious time and energy attending endless congressional investigations. Other aspirants to the top-post might have constantly conspired to cause his failure or smear him in the public eye as a means to undercut his base of public support.
The phenomenon of a Mahathir – or a Lee Kuan Yew, for that matter – would be difficult to imagine outside the framework of a parliamentary system of government. That system of government encouraged the full development of political parties that, in turn, built public support for innovative policies. The parliamentary form, along with the strong party system it fosters, ensure the cultivation of an ample supply of prospective leaders ready to take over and provide a consistent and reliable quality of leadership,
After all, the emergence of strong nations and strong economies is a process that requires generations of leaders. It is a process that takes longer than a single political lifetime.
It is, likewise, a process that requires the reliable institutionalization of political commitment to a strategy for progress. A national project of achieving a modern economy is, after all, a task that is too large even for the greatest of leaders to undertake singularly. It is a task that requires the sustained effort that only a committed party can ensure.
Without diminishing the personal qualities of great Asian leaders such as Mahathir or Lee Kuan Yew, it remains that their feats of statesmanship could not have been done without the strong network that only a stable political party could provide. The parliamentary form of government ensures superior conditions for evolving that stable network.
When Lee Kuan Yew, and later, Mahathir Mohamad, reached the point when it was best to withdraw from their leadership roles, the transition was never traumatic. The process was never uncertain. The continuity of the policy architecture was never in doubt.
When Mahathir endorses the parliamentary form for us, he is not offering an opinion from the ivory tower. He is speaking from the vantage point of a successful leadership episode. He is speaking with the richness of experience of what this form of government has made possible for him to accomplish despite the adversities his people had to face.
Great leaders do not fall from the heavens and perform overnight miracles of national development without a stable governmental platform.
At the risk of sounding tautological: great leaders can only emerge from political and institutional conditions that make great leadership possible. The most important characteristic of those conditions is that they do not rely on the mysticism of leadership and do not fall prey to the destructive tide of personal ambitions as well as personal jealousies – both of which are in abundance in our politics today.
With that in mind, why has the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines yet to produce leaders with the calibur of LKY and Mahathir? That's one question work asking to those who still insist it's the best constitution in the world or it's the best leadership. Some say the presidential system has better "check and balance". True, some presidential countries are better than the Philippines. Some say that it's a matter of voting for the right candidates. However, popularity-based elections are what allowed leaders like Marcos Sr. and Joseph Marcelo Ejercito to rise up. Also, may I emphasize that having the late Maria Corazon S. Cojuangco-Aquino as a state executive wasn't really the best idea? Mrs. Aquino was more fit to remain as a state representative like the late Queen Elizabeth II. Mrs. Aquino could've continued to serve as a national symbol of unity. Instead, Mrs. Aquino had no idea what to do especially in healing the nation from the fractures of the previous regime.
Did you vote for the right candidate? I'm afraid it's really almost impossible to vote for the right candidate. I did complain about how voters kept voting for know-nothings such as actors and athletes. Ironically, some are making fun of Senator Robinhood Padilla calling him Boy Sili (Chili) and a know-nothing. Never mind that after Padilla finished his sentence, he pursued criminology. Back then, why didn't the people vote for the more qualified Jose De Venecia instead of Estrada? Why didn't the people vote for well-equipped and qualified people such as doctors, economists, and lawyers? Why did they instead vote for actors and athletes? How far has the Vote Wisely campaign even worked?
Instead, the parliamentary system isn't an easy thing. Did you know it's never easy to become the next prime minister? It requires one to really (1) study and specialize, (2) wait for the call, (3) tea sessions and panels, (4) take a test, (5) perform well as a legislator, (6) win the trust of one's peers, and (7) prepare for office. If the process of becoming a prime minister was stricter--it means that there would be fewer useless leaders. Sure, there have been some idiot prime ministers but the chances are lesser. A presidential system could care less about how idiotic a leader is as long as he or she is popular. A presidential system would approve of winning by lying more often than not. Come on, the promise of rice prices being that low is just plain bad economics.
The problem of bad leaders is once again systemic or within the system. How can you have a systematic leadership if there's full of systemic problems? The presidential system only encourages role calls. The problem isn't political dynasties. If all the members of that certain clan are all good, why should we bar them from running for office because they're part of a certain family? The parliamentary system could care less about political dynasties if the members are all good. Lee Hsien Loong served as a member of the parliament while LKY was prime minister. Meanwhile, a presidential system has family members riding because of a famous relative regardless of competence. People will run for office due to blood relation than being a competent person. Even worse, necropolitics tend to play a lot such as how the death of a family member leads to the widow or a child to run in power.
Andrew James Masigan also writes about charter change. This can also help explain how a parliamentary system produces better lawmakers:
FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT
As mentioned earlier, the Duterte administration plans to a shift our form of government from a Unitary-Presidential form to a Federal-Parliamentary form. To better appreciate how a Federal-Parliamentary system works, it s best to look at it in contrast to a Federal-Presidential system.
A Federal-Presidential system offers no change to the current system where the President is elected through a national election and heads the executive branch. He has no sway on the judicial or legislative branches except through party-line influence. The United States operates under a Federal-Presidential framework.
A Federal-Parliamentary system , on the other hand, encourages people to vote according to political parties. Here, the citizens elect their Members of Parliament (their representatives), most often, based on the ideology of the party they belong to, not on their personalities. The party with the most number of elected representatives is declared “the parliament.” The parliament elects its Prime Minister (PM) from among themselves. The PM, in turn, selects the members of his Cabinet (his ministers) from among the member of the parliament.
There are multiple advantages to this. First, the system does away with expensive and divisive presidential elections. It puts an end to the vicious cycle of presidential candidates resorting to corruption and incurring political debts just to raise funds for their campaign.
Even the poor can run for office so long as they are capable. This is because elections are funded by the party. In a federal-parliamentary system, we do away with people who win on the back of guns goons and gold.
Moreover, since the members of parliament selects the Prime Minister, they can easily remove him through a vote of no-confidence should he fail to fulfill his mandate. We do away with the tedious process of impeachment. And since the ministers are selected from the Parliament, no one gets a free ticket to the Cabinet just because they are friends with the President or nominated by a political ally. The ministers all have mandates and are accountable not only to the PM but to their constituents.
The parliament is a unicameral legislative body. Thus, bills can be made into law faster and cheaper.
A parliamentary system is one where a “shadow Cabinet” exists. A shadow Cabinet is the corresponding, non-official Cabinet composed of members of the opposition. Each Cabinet minister has a shadow equivalent who is mandated to scrutinize every policy done by the official minister. The shadow minister may offer alternative policies which can be adopted if it is deemed superior.
In the end, the systems allows policies to be better thought out with appropriate safeguards to protect the interest of the people.
Among the seven wealthiest democracies (the G7 nations), only US and France follow a presidential system. the rest subscribe to a parliamentary system.
The intentions of charter change is good. Done right, it could be a game changer for the nation.
To say that it'll never work also because of the "unique Filipino DNA" is a fallacy. Filipinos are just as human as every other race. A bit of anthropology will link that most Filipinos are of Malaysian descent. The Filipino DNA is not very unique based on that discovery. If Malaysia can do it then why not the Philippines? Malaysia was once a poor country but it got better with a strong leadership system. Why do you think Filipinos tend to do better in a first-world country than in a third-world country? The answer has everything to do with strong leadership systems.