Don't Expect a Mahathir-Type Leader, Under the 1987 Constitution!

ABS CBN News

Happy 100th birthday, Mahathir Mohamad! It's something that not so many people live up to 100, or more. The late Fidel V. Ramos passed away on July 31, 2022, at the age of 94. Ramos's advanced age may be the reason why the Omicron variant (which isn't supposedly fatal) ended his life. I'm posting this image of Ramos and Mahathir for one reason--Ramos wanted charter change back in the 1990s. However, plenty of anti-charter change commercials came in, the late Raul Roco said we only need a change in people, and we have Hilario G. Davide Jr. (who's in his late 80s but still active), and the idea that having a president who will rule for more than six years, is supposedly scary. Please, have they even thought that the late Pol Pot ruled Cambodia for just four years, but carried millions of deaths, that would make the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s 20-year reign look tame (read here)?

I've read posts on Facebook saying the Philippines just needs leaders like Mahathir, not a change in the constitution. Of course, I always fire back with comments, whether or not (insert leader) could match Mahathir. Some of them say, "What about Noynoy Aquino?" That made me realize that the late Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III purchased certain projects late in his term. Do you think Noynoy could finish those projects he secured last 2015-2016 in such a short amount of time? That's why I raise the problem of term limits. Noynoy only had one term to rule. Former president Atty. Rodrigo R. Duterte finished what Noynoy couldn't finish, because of term limits. But what about Mahathir? Mahathir had a long reign in Malaysia from 1981-2003 and 2018-2020--a total of 24 non-consecutive years! Mahathir wasn't perfect, but he was indeed the architect of Malaysia's economic boom. Could Noynoy beat that in just six years and just one term? The same question can go to anybody before and after Noynoy, under the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines!

Why it's simply insanity to expect a Mahathir-type president for the Philippines, under the "holy" 1987 Constitution

Alex Magno, of the Philippine Star, wrote advice that a lot have been ignoring. I remember how some idiot (who I'll simply call Mukhang Tulak, to avoid shaming him directly) commented how "President" Mahathir Mohamad was better than Duterte. I can agree to that. However, Mahathir a president? I was laughing at how Mukhang Tulak argued. Now, to share the excerpt from the Philippine Star:

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.

Whenever I think about Jose de Venecia, it's a waste that he never led the Philippines. As I look back at the 1998 elections, why do you think Joseph Marcelo Ejercito, aka Joseph Estrada, easily won, despite his lack of common sense? It's because presidentialism is based on popularity-based elections. Presidentialism grants powers to the president, with almost no opposition. That may be the reason why Marcos himself decided not to go to parliament during his reign. Please, for the nth time, the first Marcos Administration was never under a parliamentary system (read here). The late Lee Kuan Yew even called Cesar Virata a non-starter. If you think about it, Estrada would've probably never made it to prime minister. If Estrada did, then he could've been ousted by a vote of no confidence. No need for EDSA!

As I was reading the decades-old (but meaningful) article by Magno in the Philippine Star, I still think about why Mahathir-type leaders would never win the elections. Let's face it, Mahathir is a brutally frank person. Such a trait reminds me of a teacher we dubbed as "our Miriam Defensor-Santiago style teacher". Honestly, I didn't find her terrible, just that she was temperamental, but she knew when to give way. A Mahathir-type leader would never win a popularity contest most of the time. Ramos was probably just "lucky" when he became president. However, Ramos got smeared when he called for charter change. Some even dance and say that the failure of charter change might be evidence that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, is indeed "holy and blessed". Is their best source the likes of Archbishop Socrates Villegas and Archbishop Roderick Pabillo?! These two men, by the way, are members of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines--Catholic priests who are okay with foreign priests entering their parishes, but not foreign businessmen, doing business in the Philippines, outside the 60-40 scheme!

Besides, one can notice this pattern in the Philippine elections. Ironically, Lico Reloj of Butthurt Philippines says, "The truth hurts." But can Lico really accept the bigger truth? I've already been blocked by Butthurt Philippines, after I addressed the need for constitutional reform, more than once. Apparently, the administrator Lico, may not be sarcastic when he said that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, is perfect the way it is. The same person who demanded accountability from both Duterte and Noynoy, may now be endorsing Atty. Maria Leonor "Leni"Gerona-Robredo, as if she's some kind of leader that fell down from Heaven. The same goes for Netizens like Gerry Cacanindin and Logie Kinko--still expecting some kind of political messiah instead of changing the system. That would fall under the Nirvana fallacy.

They could go ahead and talk about Mahathir's warnings to Duterte, about Chinese loans. I can make a u-turn and become neither DDS nor Dilawan. Back on topic, is this a case of cherry picking to defend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines? It's similar to people who quote LKY so much about the Marcoses, then ignore his economic advice. The same could be true that people would quote Mahathir about Chinese loans, then ignore his good advice. Good advice that could've helped the Philippines achieve better progress. That's why whenever people say, "Parliamentary will make things worse!", I dare them to tell Mahathir that it will! These people are just doing useless chit chat, all the while, they've been ignoring useful advice. Mahathir ran a parliamentary system, ran an archipelago with federalism, and he would be well-suited to direct the Philippines to a better direction.

Besides, if one were to think about it, it's not a matter of DNA either. If you do some research, Malaysians and Filipinos have similar DNA composition. Just think that many times, you may have thought that a Muslim man or woman (wearing the traditional attire) was a Filipino, but it was really a Malaysian! Malaysians and Filipinos are both descended from the Austronesian people. True, there's already a mix here and there due to colonial history. Mahathir would be as "huan-a" (meaning Southeast Asians of non-Chinese descent) as any "huan-a" politician in the Philippines. If anything that's helping Malaysia succeed, it's the system. Sure, it's not perfect, but it certainly helped the Malaysia to be better than the Philippines.

As said, no amount of EDSAs, prayer vigils (and prayer without action, is useless), vote wisely campaigns, etc. will bring a Mahathir-type leader. A Mahathir-type leader can only come from a real parliamentary system, not under the popularity-based presidential system! Deal with it!