Japan PM Kishida's Stepping Down Due to Scandals vs. Philippine Politicians' Lack of Shame
TOKYO — Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said he will step down in September, ending a three-year term marred by political scandals and paving the way for a new premier to address the impact of rising prices."Politics cannot function without public trust," Kishida said in a press conference on Wednesday to announce his decision not to seek re-election as the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) leader."I will now focus on supporting the newly elected LDP leader as a rank-and-file member of the party," he said.His decision to quit triggers a contest to replace him as president of the party, and by extension as the leader of the world's fourth-biggest economy.Kishida's public support has been sliding amid revelations about the LDP's ties to the controversial Unification Church and political donations made at party fundraising events that went unrecorded.But he also faced public discontent over the failure of wages to keep track with the rising cost of living as the country finally shook off years of deflationary pressure.
Let me remind people that I'm not saying the parliamentary system, is a silver bullet. I believe that Israel still has some things to account for with its conflict with Hamas. However, the parliamentary system has better accountability measures that the presidential system doesn't have. Do I need to repeat the words that the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. said in the Los Angeles Speech? Ninoy said, "We had a parliamentary system without a parliament." Ninoy pointed out every irregularity such as when Marcos Sr. became president and prime minister. Later. Marcos Sr. made a semi-presidential government where the president was all-powerful. No wonder the late Lee Kuan Yew stated that Virata was definitely a non-starter.
The Constitution of Japan examined against the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
However, the very words of Kishida suddenly remind me of the outrageous claim made by anti-reform champion, Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. The statement in itself is really false. The Philippines' current constitution indeed emphasizes that public office is a public trust. However, a person born way before Davide Jr. namely Thomas Jefferson also said, "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property."Davide Jr. still needs to prove that the 1987 Constitution is the best in the world. Sure, the 1987 Constitution isn't the worst but it certainly has weaknesses that need to be resolved.
Kishida's statement, "Politics can't function without a public trust." disproves Davide Jr.'s claim. Yes, the 1987 Constitution institutionalizes the doctrine of public office as a public trust. However, it's not the only constitution. The 1987 Constitution needs to be amended. Even more, the Japanese Constitution (where there are no economic restrictions in the constitution, only in legislation) which was written on November 3, 1946, and came into effect on May 3, 1947, also says this debunking Davide Jr., writing this in the preamble:
We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the National Diet, determined that we shall secure for ourselves and our posterity the fruits of peaceful cooperation with all nations and the blessings of liberty throughout this land, and resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government, do proclaim that sovereign power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution. Government is a sacred trust of the people, the authority for which is derived from the people, the powers of which are exercised by the representatives of the people, and the benefits of which are enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind upon which this Constitution is founded. We reject and revoke all constitutions, laws, ordinances, and rescripts in conflict herewith.
We, the Japanese people, desire peace for all time and are deeply conscious of the high ideals controlling human relationship, and we have determined to preserve our security and existence, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world. We desire to occupy an honored place in an international society striving for the preservation of peace, and the banishment of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance for all time from the earth. We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want.
We believe that no nation is responsible to itself alone, but that laws of political morality are universal; and that obedience to such laws is incumbent upon all nations who would sustain their own sovereignty and justify their sovereign relationship with other nations.
We, the Japanese people, pledge our national honor to accomplish these high ideals and purposes with all our resources.
How does Davide Jr. intend to explain away that the much older Japanese Constitution already institutionalized the doctrine of sacred trust with the people? I'm really laughing at things Davide Jr. had said. The problem with the 1987 Constitution isn't its age but not being amended for the better. As mentioned earlier, the Japanese constitution separates the roles of the Head of State (the emperor) and the Head of Government (prime minister). In the case of the Philippines, it could still have had a president as a Head of State while having a separate Head of Government. The late Maria Corazon S. Cojuangco-Aquino could've served to represent the Filipino people while the late Fidel V. Ramos could've served to lead them.
The need to explain the parliamentary system's differences against the presidential system
 |
| Kyodo News |
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.
Let's say that we have a Filipino candidate who's pretty much like Mohamad. The experience Mohamad has given isn't based on an ivory tower, but his own experience. The same goes for LKY, who experienced a Singapore that was much worse than Tondo. Reading Third World to First made me think Singapore was once worse than Tondo. Unfortunately, some Filipinos still expect that "miraculous leader"--one that can only be born in a science fiction movie. Some still wait for that perfect leader, that's why I even challenge them, "Why don't you create me this perfect leader, so I too may follow him to victory!" Yes, that's a sarcastic remark, since it's scientifically impossible. As Magno points out, the achievement of Mohamad was the achievement of his party as well. Sadly, some people have become way more focused on canonizing the late Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III. Shouldn't whatever achievements Noynoy had, well better be credited to the fighting faith of the Liberal Party of the Philippines?
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.
What's it going to be? Are we still going to wish for Filipinos to magically become like the Japanese? If so, it's wishful thinking. The Constitution of Japan may be older but it's got a better framework. It's because of the parliamentary system. The other is because the economic restrictions are in legislation, making it easier to tighten or loosen when need be.
