Newly -minted National Security Adviser Clarita Carlos has recently aired a political preference as an alternative to the current political system in the country: a shift from presidential to parliamentary. The outspoken political scientist was both passionate and practical about it. It was also timely. The call or clamor for Charter Change is up on the surface—again, for the nth time.
Three things were In Carlos’ mind to consider in light of the myriad problems the country is beset with from, virus to debt, versus the political system that appears unable to properly and adequately respond to the difficult circumstances the nation is facing.
The intelligence of our political leaders or representatives may be it.In a parliamentary system, she opined, those who don’t have it, that is a higher level of intelligence as a opposed to a lower degree, will be found out or will not make it. If you don’t have something between the ears,or isn’t competitive, she essentially said, you will a hard time debating or defending your position on the Parliament floor during the question hour. . Or, as some newbie in the Phlippine Senate, complained, it’s hard to catch up with the legislative conversation.
Eventually, those who don’t have or doesn’t have enough of it will be weeded out. Ultimately, no “bobo”, as Carlos called a spade a spade, will make it in or to the Parliament.
The 18 th century British philosopher John Stuart Mills predicted that 200 years ago or so in his book on representative government. He pointed out that low intelligence is likely, though not always inevitable, in a representative government regardless of position.
Carlos, like Mills, seems to agree a parliamentary way is the better way forward.
There is, for another, the issue of political dynasty that has plagued our political system for far too long. Carlos promised: a parliamentary system will vanish it from the political landscape like a resident evil exorcised for good. That means, the party list system, which properly defines what is a democrazy, will be sad thing of the past, too.
Carlos’ third point is about a stronger, not necessarily bigger, bureaucracy. This applies to the nitty gritty of responding to public needs for services. Technocracy, and expertise more than connection and influence, are implied.
Basically, the issues between the two systems are power and flexibility. In a parliamentary, the executive is hoghly dependent on the legislature for support. The president is mere figurehead. the prime minister is the real deal. If his performance isn’t satisfactory for whatever reason, the Parliament can always ditch him anytime. The Philippine presidential system is the opposite.No less than Sen. Rolando dela Rosa has pointed out what’s wrong with it: Cabinet members can even defy the Senate in a power play between the executive and the legislative.
In the Philipp been ines, the presidential system has been tried and tested for a long time now, and it has been found wanting ,the definition of proverbial insanity of doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. The Tagalog old adage is more succinct: lumalaon bumubuti, sumasama kaysa dati.
On the other hand , does insanity learn from any experience at all? The last presidential election had it 31 million Filipinos who voted the 14 th Philippine president ,a only son of a former dictator, thrown into exile by a peaceful revolution and, lo and behold, buried in a hallowed ground for real heroes. “In individuals, insanity is rare, Nietzsche said, “ but in groups, nations, parties and epochs, it is the rule.”
Carlos is a professional and a political science expert. She makes his assumption on the basis of sanity, and tells us, kindly,impliedly why we are or where we are at this point, pandemic or no, although the virus and its unwieldy variants have partly something to do with our nightmares.
She thinks a parliamentary system might just do the “miracles” in our politics. It will be an antidote to Mill’s view of a representative government likely to elect people of low intelligence. In a parliamentary system, she argues, you have to show that there is something between the ears in a debate, not just complain about politicians talking (talk as the root word for Parliament) too fast it’s difficult for to others to follow.
A shift to federal system , which was supported by many, including former President Duterte, or a presidential one, will not do. Governance requires intelligence, and that’s where the competition should be, not on the political chest or popularity. The ningas- cogon like enthusiasm died down when it was shown that only a few regions,(Central Luzon was among them) were rich enough and more likely to succeed than the rest.
Our presidential system was inherited from the United States , but…
It was, first and foremost, a colonial imposition from the Americans, according to law professor Tony La Vina, who favors a Charter change because the one we have still has its colonial vestiges. It was more like a “consuelo de bobo ( literally translated as “ consolation of idiots}”, the historical mantra of the colonizers. The American Constitution, he says, is not the exact same system we have. In the former, the president is not as strong as Congress. In the latter, Congress is weaker, submissive if not
entirely subservient to the president. Ours is a constitutional democracy that has been more honored in the breach in more ways than one.
The 1987 Constitution, like phoenix rising from its ashes ,was an improvement it handcuffed the president in terms of declaring and implementing martial, introduced social reforms provisions to but allowed a self-serving party list system that gave life to political Frankensteins. And they’re all over the place. Political dynasties are supposed to have ended a long time ago; instead, they have popped like mushrooms. You know where fungi thrive, in the dark and where manure and decay usually are.
It’s no wonder,corruption is still the biggest cottage industry in the country.
Carlos’ idea should be welcome like fresh air to extinguish what has been choking this country for lack of clean oxygen. Never mind if she,like her boss, admires Machiavelli. Her idea is about solution, not absolution.
