Changing Officials In A Defective Framework Is Just A Band Aid Solution

Image taken from IT Business.CA

There's the controversy of people who actually stick and defend the super defective 1987 Constitution to no end. They insist that the problem isn't on the system but the people in charge themselves. What they don't realize is that frameworks really do matter. Some of them say that nothing has to be changed while others merely want to make amends such as uplifting foreign restrictions or having a more decentralized form of unitarian government. 

It can be understood that replacing people in power is part of the solution. But changing people while adhering to a defective system is stupid for this reason. Sometimes, it ends up where people are simply changing people based on popularity and randomness rather than credibility -- especially when you are stuck in the popularity-based presidential system. How can you expect a better cycle of incompetence getting replaced by competent people if the presidential system is ran on a popularity-driven democracy rather than a credibility-driven democracy?

If you say frameworks don't matter then think again. The efficiency of a framework doesn't rely on the hundreds of years argument because so many governing bodies that lasted for centuries (hence giving the hundred years experience argument) are now gone. Egypt doesn't have a Pharaoh anymore, China doesn't have an emperor anymore, other countries run under a monarchy delegate the monarch as a head of state in a parliamentary system (ex. Japanese Emperor, Monarch of the British royalty) and others no longer even have a monarchy to even act as a unifying figure. Besides, how many constitutions ruled the Philippines? We've had the 1987 Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, the 1932 Constitution, the Malolos Constitution and nearly three centuries of Spanish rule. Judging by the hundred years argument then the Philippines should have stayed under Spanish rule, right?

The difference between presidential and parliamentary as well as federal and unitary are not insignificant. Somebody can say it doesn't matter if one is presidential and the other is parliamentary or if one is unitary and the other is federal because they are just wrappers and packaging. No, these are internal structures. So how can defective systems cripple down competent people who were meant to replace people in a defective system? I could give some examples. Please, you have to deal with the hypothetical before you can do the actual!

Let's talk about the presidential system and its popularity driven cycle. How can a competent president get things done if almost everyone around him or under him are stupid people who won because of their popularity? A lot of stupid people sit in the Senate because of popularity-based democracy. True, there is a competent president but how can he operate efficiently and effectively if almost everyone is so stupid? He wants to open up the economy to improve the Philippine economy but most senators are such economic neanderthals. He wants to fire certain people who are defective but it has to undergo through the cumbersome impeachment trial. If you think there's no difference between an impeachment and a vote of no confidence then you better do some research. A vote of no confidence will guarantee less hurdles in removing and replacing incompetent members of the parliamentent. 

Another would be the unitary vs. federal system. It doesn't matter how good a decentralization plan is if everything still has to depend too much on Imperial Manila. The difference between unitary and federal can be seen in some countries. China may be progressive but heavy traffic in Beijing and the widening rich-poor gap is a result of its adherence to the unitary system. The traffic in Imperial Manila suffers from the same scenario because of a lack of decentralization. A federal system would mean a give and take between the head state and the sub-states while they are united under one constitution. It doesn't matter how good the DSWD region head or main head is but a lack of autonomy would mean everything has to wait under Imperial Manila or to wait for approval for dire situations that need immediate relief. 

This would be the aim right now. Replacing the defective framework that has caused hurdles in the Philippines for years for better framework. No, I don't want top buy that idiotic "but we have no experience in federalism and parliamentary and 100 years experience in presidential and unitary" to defend the 1987 Constitution. Instead, I don't care about how much little or no experience there is in one area and more in another. It's all about what works and what doesn't and not about 100 years experience.