It's a shame really how many Filipinos tend to think of only the win-lose scenario than when there may also be a win-win scenario. True, we can't always have a win-win scenario but we can't always have a win-lose scenario all the time either. Now it's time to do a bit of a discussion of how the parliamentary actually looks at both win-win and win-lose scenarios on a case-to-case basis.
This is what we consider in a parliamentary setting. We have the majority bloc vs. the minority bloc. The problem of the popularity-based positions or saying that democracy should be based on popularity is stupid. Some stupid people say that the Philippines should just change the system or framework all because the country itself has more than a hundred years experience in the lousy presidential system than the more competent parliamentary system -- saying it doesn't matter which framework we get. Yet, it's popularity-based elections that turn democracies into democrazies or mob dictatorships.
Democracies shouldn't be that you should always agree with the majority or else type of rule. It gives the minority also their voice. The problem of presidential democracies is that the majority tends to be a tyranny to the minority. It's like if the majority voted for A and other minorities voted for B, C and D -- they have no say but to agree to A all the time. If anything, remember that there are other minorities who didn't vote for all the incumbent presidents. Right now, how many Filipinos didn't vote for President Rodrigo R. Duterte and how many Filipinos back then didn't vote for former president Noynoy Aquino?
The parliamentary set-up would put the majority and the minority with a more or less equal voice. You can see in this video an exchange between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Long and Opposition Leader Low Thia Khiang on a very important issue. Both sides must be heard to come up with the common goal of achieving the greater good. Now let's put a hypothetical scenario here of how it can be applied in the Philippine scenario...
Let's have the scene where we have Prime Minister Duterte at the Government Bloc where he will have Deputy Prime Minister Leni Loud Robredo. We will have Panfilo Lacson as the Opposition Leader in the Minority and Bongbong Marcos or Grace Poe-Llamanzares as the Deputy Opposition Leader. So let's put other arrangements where he can have Minister vs. Shadow Minister on the head on debate.
In a parliamentary setting -- we have both Prime Minister Duterte and Opposition Leader Lacson have important topics to discuss. A good example would be changes to make in the constitution or new rules to apply. Both of them want to focus on the national budget for certain programs such as national defense. Prime Minister Duterte must focus on his side while Opposition Leader Lacson must focus on his side. Both have the aim to create a feasible budgeting plan -- which both must criticize and complement one another whenever necessary. But it doesn't stop there.
A good example based on a current event would be what if we had Minister of Justice Vitaliano N. Aguirre Jr. and Shadow Minister of Justice Menardo I. Gueverra at the works. You can think of how Aguirre himself could have been kept at his toes if there was a justice secretary. Instead, it led to his blunder where he failed to get several drug lords that should have been convicted -- convicted. Although he had the decency to resign but I think he could have either done a better job or would have been dismissed for incompetence a lot earlier or the incident would have not happened in a parliamentary system. A shadow minister of justice would have kept Aguirre on his toes with the common goal of convicting big time drug dealers and uncovering all the anomalies within Bilibid Prison. They both have the common goal of fighting injustice all the while they must oppose each others' mistakes to come up with a feasible solution.
The issue of both sides is to present different ideas to work and trying to put different ideas. True, we can't have both sides winning all the time. Take for instance Chito Gascon himself would be removed from his post as the Minister of Human Rights if the Shadow Minister (take a pick between Harry Roque and Atty. Persida Rueda V. Acosta) finally exposed his laziness in performing his duty through a vote of no confidence. On the other hand, if both sides are competent then one can come up witha better solution by criticizing the mistakes from both sides and blending in the good ideas from both sides to come up with an even better idea. It's all about doing your contribution for a better country.
The issue of both sides is to present different ideas to work and trying to put different ideas. True, we can't have both sides winning all the time. Take for instance Chito Gascon himself would be removed from his post as the Minister of Human Rights if the Shadow Minister (take a pick between Harry Roque and Atty. Persida Rueda V. Acosta) finally exposed his laziness in performing his duty through a vote of no confidence. On the other hand, if both sides are competent then one can come up witha better solution by criticizing the mistakes from both sides and blending in the good ideas from both sides to come up with an even better idea. It's all about doing your contribution for a better country.
Waht you describe is the british system, not parliamentaris in general. It's unlikely that the Philippines hay have a british dual party system if they adopt parliamentarism. More likely will b a multi party system with larger and smaller parties but without two permanently dominant parties.
ReplyDeleteIn the British system usually one of the two dominant parties is in the opposition and forms the shadow cabinet. In a multi party system no party will have a majority, so they must form a coalition to get a prime minister elected.
Now have a look that france or germany where the opposition ranges from far left to far right. Unlikely that they reach an agreement to form a shadow cabinet.