What's the Use of Complaining About Celebrities and Political Dynasties Running for Politics While DEFENDING Presidential and Rejecting Parliamentary?
2025 is just around the corner for the midterm elections. People keep emphasizing the need to "defend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines" for any amendments whatsoever. If that were true then we really need to remove Article XVII entirely if the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines was meant to be set in stone (read here). Several camps whether it's PDP-Laban supporters, Liberal Party of the Philippines supporters, Uniteam supporters, etc.--I can expect social media mudslinging at its finest. I keep talking about the need to amend or even replace the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. However, they keep acting like it's the best constitution in the world, they cite Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (and others like the Monsods) to idolatrous levels, and when I talk about the parliamentary system--I can expect the whole, "Boohoo! It will never work because we already tried it under Marcos! The proof was Cesar Virata!" However, I wrote a refute on that issue because Virata wasn't certainly a political leader.
Popularity-based politics would explan why celebrities and political dynasties run for office like there's no tomorrow
There's the emphasis of the problems of (1) celebrities (which includes athletes) running for office, and (2) when political dynasties flourish like crazy (read here). How many laws are really left unenforced in the Philippines because of a faulty system? We have anti-corruption laws and human rights laws. However, how often are public officials held accountable? That's why I even asked an old boomer who demanded for Dr. Francisco Duque to resign, "How many times was Duque summoned to the legislative every week." He insists that parliamentary was "tried and tested" in the Philippines, using Virata as an example, and said that Singapore and Malaysia only worked because the late Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad weren't corrupt. Some say that LKY and Mahathir are proof that it's all about leaders, not systems. However, I'd like to say otherwise (read here).
 |
| The Cocky Rocky |
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.
If we want a leader like Mahathir, we need to have the same system that created leaders like Mahathir. Unfortunately, people kept screaming and shouting that parliamentary system is "nakakatakot" (scary) because a president would rule for more than six years. Please, LKY ruled Singapore for more than 20 years but look at the results. That's why I wrote an article that a long reign isn't necessarily tyrannical and neither is a short reign necessary benevolent. Do we need to remind such people Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge performed more human rights violations in just four years than the Marcos Years? Under a presidential system, Joseph Estrada (Joseph Marcelo Ejercito) is guaranteed better victory over the more credible (and smart) Jose de Venecia. That's why Estrada won over de Venecia. De Venecia could've made a better leader. However, people are prone to vote based on popularity than credibility. Take note Estrada (or Ejercito) was also a former movie actor. Even funnier, some people on Facebook even believe that Kris should run. Was it because her brother Benigno Simenon "Noynoy" Aquino III died last 2021? Take note Noynoy became president shortly after his mother, Maria Corazon S. Cojuangco-Aquino died in 2009. Atty. Maria Leonor "Leni" Gerona-Robredo most likely ran because of her husband Jesse M. Robredo's untimely demise.
Whether they like it or not, systems will always shape behavior
Whether we want to admit it or not--systems shape behaviour. Should I dare such people to present their studies that a parliamentary system will make things worse for the Philippines? By the way, an argument is a Slippery Slope and that fool I'll dub as Confused Kintanar hasn't responded. Should I dare them to present a study from top schools of psychology from developed countries, that systems don't influence behavior. I don't need a Ph. D. in psychology or business administration (and I no longer intend to get it) to understand that in operations management, systems shape behavioral patterns!
To quote, the Titanium Success also gives this insight on how systems shape behavioral patterns:
If your business requires that kind of a person, you’re always going to be putting too much out there because you’re going to be too people dependent and you do not want to build a people dependent system. You want to build a systems dependent company.And when you have a systems dependent company and then you put really great people on it and you give them really great training, imagine how good that’s going to be. What it does, it also takes some of the pressure off of your people. Because they are following a system where they know that slight errors aren’t going to cause this entire thing to fall apart.Those slight errors aren’t going to destroy the whole company. And so they come in, they’re more relaxed. And guess what, they make even fewer mistakes and isn’t that exactly what happens to you as you’re driving down the freeway?Because you know you all have this margin for error, most of you drive down the middle of your lane. Of course, that’s unless you’re talking on your cell phone which you shouldn’t be doing, don’t do that. So as you’re driving down the freeway, you have all this margin for error which puts you in a state of being relaxed and being comfortable and calm so you can focus on staying in the lane and end up getting even better results.But if the highway patrol has decided that they are going to give you 40% room for error as a professional driver and over 50% room for error as a normal driver, then imagine how much room for error you need to give your employee. This is a short episode because I want you to turn off this podcast.Then as soon as you do, I want you to make a list of the most critical systems within your business. And what are you going to do to be able to make the systems so good that as your employees make mistakes they’re still going to be able to get the desired results.It could be related to sales scripts, it could be recipes, it could be systems where things are done, it could be how many different people are involved in a process so that you have multiple eyes on something so mistakes are caught by other people.But either way, that’s your most important job. In terms of getting to that 70%, but if you can create a business where anything in your business can be done 70% as well as you and still get results, you got a business that is going to be able to grow, expand and do all of that without your day-to-day involvement.Just what you really want in a long-term because you don’t want to have a job where you’re working in a company that you own. What you really want is you want that freedom to have a business that doesn’t rely on you day-to-day.
In short, one of the major flaws of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is that its person dependent than systems dependent. When Pinoy Ako Blog (and I wonder what happened to the page and why Jover Laurio stopped writing) said, "Change the system." It also said, "Hold your anger until 2022!" Pinoy Ako Blog was dependent on regime change than system change. There's no real improvement in the system if your system is overly dependent on the right person. Instead, why not create a system that requires the right person and creates a set of rules that everyone will follow, regardless of who's in charge. Again, while the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is certainly not the worst, it's certainly not the best as Atty. Davide would want people to believe!
The same goes for presidential vs. parliamentary. Presidentialism does with the popularity-based systems. However, under a parliamentary system--people will be forced to either behave or be shipped out. Instead of focusing on personalities--the focus goes to the political parties. For example, if PDP-Laban goes head-to-head against the Liberal Party of the Philippines--the focus would be on PDP-Laban and the Liberal Party of the Philippines. If PDP-Laban becomes the government then the Liberal Party of the Philippines becomes the Opposition. If Uniteam is the government then the Liberal Party of the Philippines becomes the opposition.
 |
| PARL |
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.
If people insist that Filipinos don't have accountability in their DNAs--they need to study anthropology all over again. Most Filipinos (and other Southeast Asian nations) can point their ancestry also to Malaysia (read here). In fact, the Hokkien word huan-a refers to natives of Southeast Asia. That means most Filipinos share the same DNA with the Malaysians and Indonesians. As I showed photos of Tealive Asia's Facebook page--they commented how the models look like they came from Mindanao. Food in Mindanao, Malaysia, and Indonesia are rather similar. Several foods such as garajilu, dadar gulung, and onde onde are found in Muslim Mindanao. The reason why Malaysia succeeded isn't because of DNA. Most Filipinos and most Malaysians share the same kind of DNA. If anything, non-Chinese Malaysians are also called huan-a in Hokkien, by Chinese Malaysians! The difference is the system that runs the Filipino and the Malaysian.