.jpg) |
| No gossip, no hearsay, face-to-face debates, liars are slapped in 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.
How will a parliamentary system make discussing the current economic issues easier?
How will the pink opposition work? Mrs. Robredo is given the task of scrutinizing the Marcos Jr. Not only that, Mrs. Robredo has the entire Liberal Party of the Philippines with her to serve as her cabinet. Marcos Jr. will have his own cabinet of appointees. Each of Marcos Jr.'s appointees will be mirrored by Mrs. Robredo. Every minister of a specific function will have a shadow minister of a specific function. The scrutiny will be done on a weekly basis. The job of the Opposition is to offer alternatives that will be adopted if deemed superior. It means that the Opposition isn't going to be, "They make the solutions, not us!" Instead, the Opposition is, "Instead, we propose we do this instead."
The weekly question hour is aired live every week. It means screwing up on live television can be very embarassing. Looking at the news with Marcos Jr. makes me wish, "If only we were a parliamentary system." If only more Kakampinks will realize that a parliamentary system would've given them a better chance. Mrs. Robredo would have her mandatory duty to scrutinize Marcos Jr. because she's the Opposition Leader. Marcos Jr. would have the responsibility to show the Opposition that he's fit to be the prime minister of the Philippines. If a member of the Government fails to uphold confidence, the solution becomes to host a motion of no confidence on live television. That would be more efficient and effective than the tedious impeachment trial. Watching the impeachment of former Philippine president Joseph Marcelo Ejercito aka Joseph Estrada was very tedious. It would've been easier if Estrada was removed by a vote of no confidence.
We can think of Marcos Jr.'s failed promise of selling rice at PHP 20.00 per kilo. It's just absurd to aim for it but some people bought it anyway. It's stupid how some Kakampinks decided to sell at a loss instead of proposing solutions. In a parliamentary system, Mrs. Robredo would have her Shadow Minister of Agriculture scrutinize the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture may propose this plan to import. However, the Shadow Minister of Agriculture will say, "We can import but that is short-term. We must open agriculture to more foreign investment to learn new technology." We can make it so that importation will be done while we implement accepting more foreign investment to improve farming in the Philippines.
I could imagine what if Mrs. Robredo finally opened her superior solution. In a sense, the result of the debates can be in. We can have the best of Uniteam and the best of Kakampink sorted out. As mentioned earlier, importation will be allowed while new technology will be adapted. Maybe, the Philippines can learn from India's agriculture. I did write about if whether or not it was a coincidence that FDI-friendly countries sell cheaper onions. Maybe, one can learn from India's and Vietnam's pro-FDI agriculture stance to develop Philippine agriculture. India is a land that uses more onions than the Philippines yet they could fill the supply and demand. The Philippines can learn from it. The Opposition can throw that in as a better alternative than just importing onions.