REAL TALK: You're Going to LOSE MORE MONEY Than You Win Money, Betting People Will Vote Wisely Under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

Is it me or are many Filipinos addicted to betting? It's a common problem that Filipinos would rather gamble than invest. Gambling often offers that feeling of faster gratification than investing money in the stock market. Some people prefer day trading over investing in an individual stock or an index fund. Whether we want to admit it or not, gambling always sends this sense of a thrill. 

Along with the release of dopamine to the brain, gambling comes with other potential rewards, including money, social participation and enjoyment. While most of us are able to walk away when we lose and practice safer play habits, others may continue gambling to win back the money they have lost in a phenomenon known as chasing losses. These individuals may begin to develop problems with gambling.

Research conducted by Brain Connections explores how gambling can spiral from an enjoyable pastime into an addiction. When the brain’s rewards system becomes altered by problem gambling, new habits form that become hard to break. This can lead an individual to feel out of control. Watch the video below for more information on how this unfolds.

I always talk to people about the need for charter change. There are always excuses like, "But the late Noynoy Aquino was able to succeed without charter change!" Please, that kind of talk is similar to Nokia not adapting to recent change, all because it succeeded in the past! I talk about the need to shift to parliamentary system. They rebut me with stuff like, "But we had a parliamentary system back during the Marcos Years!" Okay, who was the source? Raissa Robles? Please, it's already been proven that the first Marcos Administration was still under a presidential system. Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. mentioned there was no parliamentary system. Salvador "Doy" Laurel even challenged Marcos' legitimacy, proving once again that there was no parliament.

The presidential system under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is practically gambling

Why is the presidential system gambling? It's because the chances of people voting wisely aren't that high. If one looks into history, the majority isn't always right. Let's think of this statement from the Nigerian Tribune:

This is so profound: a lie does not become truth, wrong does not become right and evil does not become good, just because it is accepted by the majority. Many years ago, I hosted some leaders to brainstorm a critical leadership issue that was causing confusion in the country. One of the leaders present said and I quote: “I believe something is true only when it is popular and accepted by the majority…” After taking the mentioned popular leadership stance, we deliberated on it intensely and ultimately, we were able to see eye to eye, taking an unpopular deportment and stance—that so far something is popular does not make it true.

It is also said that whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect). In every generation, this is the truth. Each time the majority is running with an issue, I like to pause and think through the issue. The truth is; the majority rarely embraces the truth. It takes only those who are in the minority to cuddle and run with the truth in every generation.

Many instances in history have proven the majority isn't always right. That's why it's not democracy when one defines democracy as a rule of the majority. Instead, democracy is defined simply as, "a government that's for the people, by the people, and of the people." If we talk of "the people"--that's not exclusive to the majority. However, presidentialism is pretty much winner takes all scenario. I've seen some people whining on social media (I will respect their privacy by not screenshoting them) that Atty. Maria Leonor "Leni" Gerona-Robredo lost to President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. during the 2022 election. Some are even reminiscing the "good old days" under either Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino Jr. (who died in 2021) or Atty. Rodrigo R. Duterte. That's why I refuse to side with those who identify as Dilawan or DDS. It's because both groups engage in political idolatry!

Going forward, let's discuss why presidentialism is really a form of gambling. Sure, people aren't told to place their bets on who will win the presidential race. However, it's more like horse racing than anything. Horse racing often has bets. The presidential system carries on the winner takes all scenario. When Bongbong won, Leni had no choice but to concede in 2022. When Leni won, Bongbong had no choice but to concede in 2016. What's irritating is several Filipinos still think democracy is a rule by popularity voting. The next thing that happens is that some people who believe in the popularity-based vote should win, are now whining that Senator Robin Padilla won as top senator! Come on, a popular vote caused Padilla to win! If they believe in popularity-based elections then why are they complaining that Padilla won? Why are they complaining that actors and athletes are winning government positions instead of lawyers and economists?

If we think about it, the president only has six years and no second term. Some people can oversensationalize what Noynoy did in six years. However, one must ask if Noynoy truly stabilized those reforms. What's the best bet that if Noynoy stepped down that people will vote for Manuel A. Roxas II and Leni? What's the best bet that if Noynoy's successor doesn't come from the Liberal Party of the Philippines, some of his unfinished projects will be carried over by the next president? Fortunately, Duterte carried on projects that Noynoy started! Otherwise, those would practically go to waste. Some can argue that Noynoy would be too dead to sit because he died in 2021, if he had a second term in 2016-2022. Well, what can you expect?

That's why I'm still fighting for a parliamentary Philippines

As I was reading the biographies of Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew (who died in 2015), they both come from parliamentary systems. Some people argue that the two are able to do what they did, because they are great leaders. However, Alex Magno of the Philippine Star wrote this timeless truth, even if it was written last 2006:

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.

Some people can say, "Well your article is old! It was written in 2006!" Sorry to say but some old textbooks remain relevant. True, we update our textbooks but we carry over old information along with the new one. For example, a history textbook has the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or the most recent edition. Old information verified to be true is carried over. Some things written are taken out if verified to be wrong. For example, history textbooks need to show why the Vizconde Massacre and the Chiong Sisters' case are still case unclosed. We can also discover new information hidden from the past. The irony is that people can say, "Your article is old!" while blindly adhering to the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Please, the current constitution needs to be updated. The Constitution is the operating system of the country! 

One needs to read From Third World to First cover to cover--not just use LKY to quote about the Marcoses! Please, LKY has more useful advice than just information about the Marcoses! As I read the book, LKY achieved more than Duterte or Noynoy did. I often ask, "Did Noynoy truly build the strong foundation to make it better?" Unfortunately, some people tend to look at politicians like they're fairies that drop from Heaven and solve the problems in just one term. Don't tell me the Philippines became a paradise at the end of Noynoy's term? It never did! LKY had more than one term. Mahathir had more than one term. Still, you've got people who gamble hoping for the perfect leader! The perfect leader is non-existent! LKY ruled Singapore for 31 years, transforming it from third world to first. How's that a scary idea to have someone rule for more than six years and make your country great? Please, Pol Pol (who died in 1998) only ruled for four years but that guy's casualty count defeats Marcos by miles!

The parliamentary system isn't a winner-takes-all contest either

PARL

The parliamentary system is based on parties over personalities. That means it would be Uniteam vs. Kakampink. That means the focus wouldn't be Bongbong or Leni. The prime minister is chosen by parliament. In the case of Singapore, the president is symbolic (voted by the people). To quote, I'd like to share Andrew James Masigan (a Duterte critic) with his statement on the parliamentary system:

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 members 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.

In short, it's actually that difficult to manipulate. It's not perfect, It still has its flaws. However, it listens to both sides. Under a parliamentary system, Vice President Sara R. Duterte-Zimmerman may have already been removed as deputy prime minister. Mrs. Zimmerman's attitude would've alreayd cost her the confidence of the parliament. Bongbong may have never become prime minister, or if he did, he would either (1) have to uphold confidence, or (2) be out of office if he loes the confidence of the parliament. I wonder if Mrs. Robles (or any likeminded person) is willing to prove this statement wrong in parliamentary countries. The chances are that she may get booed at by Members of the Parliament. 

If we want to stop gambling with the future, charter change done right is the answer. Systems will always shape behavior. The Constitution's purpose is to restrain the government's behavior first and foremost. Unfortunately, the current Constitution isn't doing a good job at that, despite its supposedly anti-corruption stand!