Why Government Structures Or Political Frameworks Also Matter

I remembered writing some time ago a rather simple post on the fallacy of using "But we've already got 100 years or more experience in one and zero in another" to resist constitutional correction. I may not be a political analyst but some research on different political structures can help anyone without a political science degree understand why they matter. Some people continue to insist that all the Philippines (or any country) for that matter is just to change the leaders but not the system. They also insist that government structures or framework are merely wrappers and it's the content that matters.

Here's the problem with the argument and you don't need to get a four your degree in political science to understand it. If the wrapper isn't important then would you put your food in a dirty wrapper? If you have oily, greasy food like lechon baboy then wouldn't wrapping it in kitchen aluminum foil before putting it in plastic be the practical way to do it? In food preparation, it doesn't matter if you have the best ingredients in the world but if your equipment is faulty then expect a bad dish. You can't blame the ingredients there. It's like if you cook food with the best ingredients in an unsanitary container then you can't blame the ingredients why the people got sick.

Let's do a bit of history lesson to have examples that prove that the government structures do matter. Why do you think Nazi Germany and the Khmer Rouge systems were also overthrown even if their founders are gone? It's because the political structures of the Nazi Regime and the Khmer Rouge are dangerous. It doesn't matter who would have replaced Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot as long as their systems exist. the ideals of Hitler and Pol Pot would continue to be active as long as the Nazi Government and Khmr Rouge would have still ruled Germany and Cambodia today. The problems brought by both regimes will continue under different leaders. 

How to apply the political framework to the Philippine setting

Let's analyze how frameworks will matter to the Philippines and its current of the 1987 Constitution. Some argue that we just need to change people in power but the problem is the current constitution supports stupid voters. It doesn't take a political science graduate to understand that popularity based systems will vote for stupid people no matter how stupid they are out of their popularity. Why do you think actors and athletes instead of lawyers, businessmen and economists have way higher chances of winning the national elections? It's because the presidential system is based on popularity and not credibility. It doesn't matter if the stupid candidates lost the debates because their popularity will guarantee them a seat in power.

The presidential system of the Philippines is flawed. Do you realize six years is not enough for anybody with the highest potion or for senators to make effective laws? Also, a lack of vigorous discussion fails to weed out the weak from the strong. The whole six year is just a reset button. A good example is how after six years of a good president -- you may have six years under a bad president. Six years is too short for a good president and too long for a bad one. Sure, one can argue about impeachment but what if the vice president is even worse? What if we impeached former president Noynoy Aquino and everyone had to settle for a Binay presidency (which is worse) instead? It's like jumping from the kettle to the fire.

The parliamentary system provides more alternatives than just impeachment of an incompetent head of government. There's the option of the vote of no confidence. Now let's say that Noynoy were Prime Minister of the Philippines. Not only has he to be active in debating in the Senate or actively listening to both sides in a debate -- but he has to prove his competence over and over again. Certain events such as the way he handled the Manila Hostage Crisis or the MRT Crisis could have called for a vote of no confidence. The time he failed to complete the MRT as promised (which was by 2016) could have been handled by a vote of no confidence. The presidential system would just give Jejomar Binay a very short term. But under a parliamentary system, Deputy Prime Minister Binay will not automatically take over Prime Minister Noynoy as other members of the Senate will be nomimated -- which may have given the Philippines either Prime Minister Alan Peter Cayetano or Prime Minister Richard Gordon.

Federalism vs. unitary political frameworks do matter in efficiency

I don't want to deny some first world countries have a unitary system of government such as China and Japan. I do love Japanese culture (even when I'm not really Japanese) such as Anime and Tokusatsu but one thing I can't stand is Japan's unitary form of government. Japan has a parliamentary-free trade system. I don't want to deny that China rose to power because of Deng Xiaoping overthrowing the Maoist framework for the Dengist framework. Yet you can't deny that both countries do suffer from economic doldrums more often than they expect because of their unitary form of government. 

I could remember having my trip to China. Sure, China was a nice experience with eating Chinese food. But the worst part of the trip is Imperial Beijing. Traffic during dismissal hours are so bad. Did you even know China had a 14-day traffic jam in Beijing? Worse, I even read that as much as China's economy progressed but the rich and poor gap is increasing beyond it. Some people may want to blame free trade but the problem is China's structure makes it look like Beijing is still the imperial city. The Chinese emperors are no longer around but Beijing still rules like it's the Forbidden City. That alone is causing China's rich/poor gap and Beijing-centricness is causing so much pollution that canned air is already a reality.

I ended up reading from Forbes about Japan's need for federalism. Here's something interesting for Japan's current economic problem in spite of having an open market economy:

The best way to execute the third arrow is for Tokyo to devolve implementation to the discretion of the 47 prefectures. This is a federalist approach that requires a level of fresh thinking. Japan is a centralized “unitary state,” with all direction coming from Tokyo. Even the budgets, tax rates, and borrowing abilities of the prefectures are devised in Tokyo, with federal transfer payments comprising 70% of prefecture funds. By allowing structural reforms to be implemented at the prefecture level, the results will speak for themselves. Prefectures that can find the political will to implement reforms, will succeed and draw business and talent at the expense of other prefectures that do not. Fukushima Prefecture, for example, may choose to embrace the third arrow because recovery from the 2011 earthquake and tsunami far outweighs the inevitable pushback from protectionist local interests.

This power devolution proposal borrows on the most attractive feature of the U.S. economic system. The U.S. is comprised of fifty laboratories of economic stimulus and engineering. Each state is free to promulgate its own tax code, labor laws, and corporate subsidies. The decentralized approach creates a healthy competition for business and industry among states, which itself is a stimulus for progressive action. When Indiana’s taxes decline, Ohio businesses threaten to relocate, compelling Columbus to react with a competitive counter-offer (or to give in to special interests and watch residents move). It is exactly this sort of local rivalry that can benefit Japan.

Ironically, Tokyo just started toying with the concept of local economic control, through a system special economic zones (SEZs) known as tokku. While there are a few useful aspects to them, implementation has been a primer in what not to do. The tokku relax hiring and firing regulations, and curb restrictions on foreign access to markets, but only on an industry-specific basis. For example, medical technology companies receive breaks in the Kansai region (Osaka), while tourism companies receive preferential treatment in tropical Okinawa. However, choosing what industries should succeed and where is the essence of central planning. It opens the door for corruption and favoritism, nullifies the benefit of interstate competition, and needlessly stunts the efforts of those who do not fit the government’s prescriptive profile. The Kyoto entrepreneur with a great business plan for hotel development and job creation? Tough.

The tokku system reflects the patchwork of politically-motivated concessions that happen when a federal government negotiates transformative policies with local interests. This is what the third arrow would resemble if implemented from the top. In the Tokyo region, local politicians are even arguing for the rules to apply only to foreign firms, not Japanese ones (which ironically would put the foreign firms at a competitive advantage). So long as key economic reforms are decided on a politically motivated basis, the Japanese people will continue to lose, through higher unemployment and higher prices.

There is one benefit of the tokku: They set a precedent for locally unique economic systems, even if they are directed from above. The existence of these districts should at least make a prefecture-based economic system more palatable to a change-wary electorate. Japan’s economy is sorely in need of new thinking to shake the country out of a 20 year slump, and jumpstart innovation. Abenomics, and specifically the third arrow, are Japan’s last best chance to regain its economic dynamism and platform for global leadership. Devolving the third arrow to the prefecture level, which would create economic winners and losers based on merit and not politics, is the best means to allow these reforms to take shape.

The reason why the Philippines should consider going federal is because it's a huge area. Political analysts from the Philippines may want to see the tremendous difference between Indonesia and Malaysia in terms of efficiency. Indonesia is the largest archipelago but why in the world is it still stuck in a unitary system. Malaysia on the other hand uses federalism to make sure that it's decongested. One may consider looking at how both countries operate and how efficient they are before jumping into conclusions that federalism and unitary is just a matter of people in politics. 

___________

So here's the agenda. Why focus on just liberating the Philippine economy yet leave it as unitary-presidential or shift to federalism without considering shifting to better alternatives. Some people may say that yes -- open up the economy but at the same time use the "hundreds of years" fallacious thinking top defend the unitary-presidential. If some of them can embrace free trade which the current generation has no "hundreds of years" of experience they why reject parliamentary and federalism for the reason of having no "hundreds of years" of experience?