Skip to main content

Is the Parliamentary System "Non-Democratic" Because People Don't Vote for the Prime Minister?

It's crazy but some people say that a parliamentary system isn't democratic for this reason--it's because people don't vote for the prime minister. They argue that people will vote for the parties but the prime minister isn't voted by the people. It's different from the presidential system where the president is voted by the people. However, I'm afraid that the presidential system is very prone to mob rule. Meanwhile, I wrote why the parliamentary system would be more democratic than the presidential system. I'm also getting tired of similar people who still believe that the first Marcos Administration was a parliamentary. It had a parliamentary without a parliament, which means it was a fake.

The office of the prime minister

However, becoming prime minister has never been easy. It has seven rigorous steps that are not found in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. How can we expect better leaders if the system itself is lacking? Sure, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines isn't completely flawed. However, by not revising the necessary weaknesses (such as excessive restrictions) then it's really not as good as it should be. Even the first step really sounds intimidating, which is why people should see that it may have allowed President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. to sit in power, despite his questionable claim of a Harvard degree:

Step 1 

In order to become the prime minister, one needs to be an elected Member of Parliament (MP) and a member of the majority party. Considering that the PAP has formed the government, and has won every election since 1959, this article is going to assume that it is easier to rise to power with the PAP. 

But before even entering politics, certain factors increase the probability of success for someone with ministerial aspirations. A recent study of Singapore’s current ministers and their educational background found out that a typical minister is one who has:

  • Studied at an Independent or SAP secondary school
  • Went to Raffles, National JC or Hwa Chong for their tertiary studies
  • Read business or economics as an undergraduate
  • Gained a postgraduate degree, most commonly at the Harvard Kennedy School

Hence, candidates that follow this route seem to have a statistical advantage. 

In addition to this, the government’s dominant status and its access to the Public Service Commission – which gives out Singapore’s most prestigious scholarships – allows it to recruit scholars into politics. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew conceded as much, saying that “a person who has done well in Singapore’s scholarship system will eventually be spotted and headhunters from the party will look for him”. This focus on educational attainment seems to be grounded in the belief of Singaporean vulnerability. In other words, for a country where prosperity is “a result of a continuing act of will” the PAP believes that educated and capable leaders are able to come up with plans and measures to cope with a unique set of problems. An article in the Economist also contends that the PAP avoids the types of corruption seen in other one-party dominant states precisely because it constantly recruits, and in the process turfs out established figures “ruthlessly”.

One could complain all they want that the late Miriam P. Defensor-Santiago or Jose de Venecia were the best presidents, the Philippines ever had. Those people would never win by a popularity vote. Instead, we had the likes of Joseph Marcelo Ejercito aka Joseph Estrada who won instead of the more competent de Venecia. Estrada himself was a college dropout. That means the chances of Estrada becoming prime minister are very low. However, even if Estrada did finish college, read business and economic books in Ateneo de Manila, and may have gained some studies, he would still not last long. One can imagine if he faced off against de Venecia as the Opposition Leader. De Venecia may have wiped the floor out on Estrada for answering foolishly. Estrada may have already been removed by a vote of no-confidence.

Liputan6.com

For the Singapore-style parliamentary, people will elect the president. Whenever I read about the late Maria Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino, she was more fit as a symbolic head of state. Mrs. Aquino was the national symbol of unity for the EDSA Revolution. If it wasn't for the presidential system, EDSA-pwera would've never happened. In Singapore, the prime minister is selected by the symbol president, from the very dominating party:

The Head of State of Singapore is a President who is directly elected by the people, following fundamental constitutional changes in 1991. The President possesses certain veto powers over the government which the President can exercise with discretion in certain circumstances. Outside of those areas where the Constitution permits the President discretionary powers, the President must act according to Cabinet advice.

The Executive comprises the Cabinet, which is responsible for the general direction of the Government and accountable to Parliament.

The Legislature comprises the Parliament and is the legislative authority responsible for enacting legislation. More information on the history of Parliament, Parliament House and activities of the House can be obtained from its web site.

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.

In Singapore's case, the president continues to do this according to the Singapore Legal Advice:

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.

Other positions don't get the direct vote of the people, not just prime ministers

If you're reading a boat or an airplane, none of the passengers ever vote for the captain or the pilot. If I ride a boat, the captain is promoted based on his or her competency, not because the passengers voted for him. The captain is promoted based on his or her knowledge and competency in navigation. I wonder what people will have to say if they can't vote for the captain. Maybe, they'll say that it's a totally different issue.

The Philippines, being predominantly Catholic, may want to notice that voting for the next Pope isn't a direct vote by Catholics themselves. I was born during the reign of the late John Paul II. In college, I sat through the papacy of the late Benedict XVI. The Papal Conclave voted for Benedict XVI. When Benedict XVI resigned, the Papal Conclave's final votation was for Francis, the incumbent Pope. I was wondering why some Filipino Catholics are saying it's not democratic if it's not a direct people's vote. Never did Filipino Catholics cast their ballots for the next Pope! So why are they protesting at the idea that the prime minister is not by direct vote? 

In the corporate setting, the chairman of the Board of Directors is never voted by all the employees. Only shareholders with voting rights can vote for the chairperson. If certain employees are subject to the employee shareholder status--only they can vote. If not, the other employees who aren't in that status have no voting rights. Maybe, a branch manager can have a voting right but not yet for those who have just started working. Also, customers of a certain corporation have no voting rights either. I can eat in Jollibee all I want but I'll never have voting rights. I have to be a shareholder of Jollibee, in order to have that right!

With these in mind, why are some people scared that the prime minister isn't voted by the people and only the parties into the parliament? 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wrong Assumption: Those Who Wish to Reform the 1987 Constitution are Automatically Marcos Loyalists and Diehard Duterte Supporters

Orion Perez Dumdum, founder of the CoRRECT Movement was featured in the INQUIRER.net page. It's no surprise that there would be detractors every now and then. Some people still believe that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "inviolate". If that were so then why does Article XVII exist that the constitution is open for amendments ? It's no surprise that some idiot alleged that Orion is actually a Marcos supporter. The arguments by the anti-reforms are basically Nom Sequitur and Ad Hominem . The use of personal attacks and illogical conclusions are common argument flaws. In fact, one just needs to understand the poor Filipino logic . I remember all the stupidity going on. It's funny such people accuse me of Ad Hominems while doing Ad Hominems themselves! What I'd like to focus on is the Nom Sequitur. Its definition is: 1 : an inference (see inference sense 1) that does not follow from the premises (see premise entry 1 sense 1) specifically : a fallacy

Is the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the Only Constitution That Institutionalizes, "Public Office is a Public Trust"?

  It's time to revisit one of the favorite people for people against constitutional amendments or reforms, namely Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (read here ). Yes, the same guy who was also related by marriage to Mrs. Thelma Jimenea-Chiong. Davide's school of thought is in the "uniqueness" of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines as if it's the "best constitution in the world". Davide would mention that the 1987 Constitution is the only one he knows would be the best. A shame really that Davide himself, like Kishore Mahbubani, was once a United Nations representative, and he's saying such stuff.  Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines writes this in Section 1: Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Okay, I get it. However

Hilario Davide Jr.'s Still Quoted by Anti-Constitutional Reform Fools on Social Media

  People can falsely accuse me of colonial mentality because I've been quoting Kishore Mahbuban over Hilario G. Davide. I'm really sorry to say but I'm seeing various Facebook posts like La Verite (and the Pinocchio really fits it ), the Rule of Law Sentinel, Silent No More PH, and many more anti-reform Facebook pages (and very ironic too) quote Davide Jr. a lot. It's straightforward to say that Davide Jr. has been the favorite source of such people. An old man with a toga (who blocked me) also often quoted Davide Jr. Also, Davide Jr. turned 88 years old last December 20. I wish I had written this earlier but sometimes it's better late than never. In my case, it's better never late.  Davide Jr. also mentioned that the 1987 Constitution is "the best in the world". It's easy to spew out words but can he defend his claims? One of his old statements went like this: It’s not change of structures, [whether] it would be federalism or parliamentary. It is

Are People Who Say Systems Don't Matter Be Willing to Prove Their Claims for a Million Pesos?

People often argue that it's not the system but the people who run it. Some people have their examples like the late former Philippine president Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III and former Philippine vice president Atty. Maria Leonor "Leni" S. Gerona-Robredo. They would say that both Noynoy and Leni are "prime examples" why charter change isn't needed, just a change of people in power. Some people even say that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "inviolate". If that's so then what happened to Article XVII that makes it open to amendments? Why wasn't that even used? That means even making a new constitution isn't illegal per se--unless one did what Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. did during the martial law era! However, if we understand simple psychological science, we need to look at basic psychology. Please, I don't need a doctorate in certain degrees, in the Greenbelt Universities, to understand that there are mist

The Happy Aborigines Taiwanese Song

  While looking for an Aborigine song that gave me an earworm--I found this interesting aboriginal song. By looking at this video, I suspect that this song is actually a love song between a man and a woman,. It does sound very Ifugao-like as well. 

"Give Up Tomorrow" Deleted Scene: The Safehouse Where the Crime Supposedly Took Place

Give Up Tomorrow has been an interesting documentary. Why I was fascinated by it because of how it shook my mind. It turned out that it was a trial by publicity . It was also at that time when The Calvento Files aired a dramatization of Davidson Rusia's testimony. As Cebu City Vice Mayor Raymond Alvin Garcia said, it was a very unpopular move. People already thought Juan Francisco G. Larrañaga aka Paco (and the seven others) were guilty. People thought Davidson's story was worth believing. Some deleted scenes never made it into the final cut  This deleted scene talks about the owner of the place where the crime allegedly happened. David Gurkan now recalls his experience. According to Davidson, this was the story as recorded by the Supreme Court of the Philippines:  From the evidence of the prosecution, there is no doubt that all the appellants conspired in the commission of the crimes charged. Their concerted actions point to their joint purpose and community of intent. Well se

The Curious Case of Dayang Dayang, Not Dayang Daya

I remembered the song "Dayang Dayang" which had a parody cover called "Dayang Daya". Some people wondered if it was from India. Some say it was a Muslim song which makes more sense. It's because the beats almost sound like one from Filipino Muslim dances. Granted, a lot of Filipinos descended from either Malaysian or Indonesian settlers then it would make sense if Dayang Dayang is danced to the Pakiring. The song I just share comes from an Indonesian singer who probably popularized the song.  Many words from the Filipino language match up with Malaysian language or Indonesian language. The Filipino word for help (tulong) is tolong in Indonesian and Malaysian. The Malaysian (or Indonesian) term Dayang is said to mean a noble lady. It would make sense of the song "Dayang Dayang" would've come from Indonesia, Malaysia, or from Mindanao in the Philippines.  This was the most common version heard. I think the video maker wrongly attributed it to Bollywo

The Chiong Sisters Case Muddled by the Philippines' RAMBUNCTIOUS PRESS?

Here's a clip of the late Carlos P. Celdran and Teddy Boy Locsin Jr. from Michael Collins' YouTube channel. Until now, I still wonder if the director of that awful film Animal (2004) namely Federico "Toto" Natividad Jr. was also there during the Cinemalaya premiere. The film Animal (2004) was once entitled Butakal: Sugapa sa Laman in 1999, meaning Male Pig: Drunkard in Body . This clip talks about just how the whole media frenzy caused a double miscarriage of justice.   Celdran, a known reformist and vocal anti-Duterte critic, voiced out the unethical making of a Maalaala Mo Kaya episode. Did I miss something back in the 1990s? All I remember was broadcasting an episode in The Calvento Files.  Until now, the ABS-CBN YouTube channel hasn't uploaded it. How both Marty Syjuco and Collins got some clips of the film isn't specifically said. I believe Marty and Michael went to the late Tony Calvento, asked for his permission, and were given permission. I believe tha

The Late Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino Should've Remained a National Symbol of Unity Even After EDSA 1986

Well, it's time for another today in history  entry, right? I was trying to set up a WordPress site (which might be experimental at best, for now) and it's in. WordPress is that hard to use for someone like me. Back on topic, I was tagged to a post on Facebook on ABS-CBN News Facebook page. It's no surprise that I read people's comments can be very stupid . Some keep talking like, "The 1987 Constitution is the best in the world." or "Change the people. Not the constitution." Please, if that were true why was it that the defective 1973 pseudo-parliamentary government of the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. (and I wrote a rebuttal why it isn't ) had to be replaced with another constitution . Sadly, the 1987 Constitution was written almost in such a hurry which created a lot of mistakes.  The events of EDSA reveal this detail about the late Maria Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino. It was that Mrs. Aquino was hiding in a convent in Cebu at that time . In short, M

Very Easy to Say, "I'm Sure!' and Be Wrong, Am I Right?

  I guess that foolish old man did the right thing to block me on social media. The old man remained incorrigible while having his toga display, apparently getting a doctorate.  An earlier post I wrote was about the misuse and abuse of CTTO . I even wonder who in the world is Merkado CTTO? It's very easy to use CTTO to look smart. However, real studies need more than CTTO but several sources. It should be several valid sources and not just sources you agree with. I was laughing at this old man in a toga (who has thankfully blocked me after I tried to refute his errors as a  nobody ) who tends to use CTTO. I think he was also fond of saying, "I'm sure!" and then it ends up with several stupid claims. Such people would be in what might be best called the MARITES Pyramid of Learning (read here ). These people's best sources can be summarized as "Trust me bro" or "Just trust me". In the case of the meme I made, the peak of the pyramid is, "Jus