If there's any reason why the Philippines has long resisted charter change or constitutional correction then it can be summed up to this according to Orion Perez Dumdum -- it's the fear of the unknown! There's always the problem using the hundred years fallacy where one says that the Philippines shouldn't shift from presidential to parliamentary and from unitary to federal because we've got more experience in one and zero in the other. Worse, some old fool even dares to say that the 1987 Constitution should be kept even a thousand years from now based on the hundred years experience in one and none in the other argument. It means, "Kapit lang sa nasanayan kahit mali." or "Holding on to what one is used to no matter how wrong it is."
Let's take a look at a number of stuff that existed years ago and will no longer sell because they're obsolete. Do you want a fax machine where anyone can easily get the document in your workplace or do you want to use email which is safer because user login is absolutely necessary? Do you want to continue sending mails via bottles and pigeons or do you want to use today's ever evolving express mail? Do you want the cumbersome typewriter or do you want to use the latest PC? Do you want to still use those unreliable floppy disks or do you want the more reliable USB flash drives? That's just a few questions. Sure, these stuff evolved but sooner or later -- some stuff will just stop from evolving because they can no longer evolve. It doesn't matter how you want to evolve the typewriter -- people are now making reports with desktops and laptops for the reason that they can proof read before printing. When it's defective then there's no room for evolution.
What's the problem of trying to evolve within the framework of the 1987 Constitution's use of the protectionist-presidential-unitary system in its framework? The protectionist system has further empowered the crony capitalism and reduced job opportunities. The presidential system is based on popularity and personalities rather than credibility and principles. The unitary system may work in smaller countries but bigger countries like Malaysia work better with the federal system. Some unitary countries may be progressive (ex. Japan, China) but the efficiency can be compromised. Their solution because of the fear of the unknown? Making changes only within the defective framework rather than change the whole defective framework.
Take for example trying to evolve with the stupidity called economic protectionism. There is the negative list that we must be careful of. It still continues to restrict job opportunities. A good example is that one could start to amend which foreign firms can only hold 40% of ownership. Sure, one can start removing certain firms and maybe start establishing more special economic zones but one can't deny that as long as there's too much restriction within the 60/40 framework then how will more jobs be produced? Sure, one can even propose a 40/60 proposal in reverse but requiring foreign investors to always have a Filipino partner can be cumbersome. I mean, sure selling of land is something the Philippines should think twice about but 60/40 or any restriction is not about the selling of land. It's that the foreigner can only own up to 40% of shares which in itself is restrictive. Why not open up the economy instead to allow foreigners 50% to 100% ownership -- all the while screening of investors should be done.
The problem of trying to evolve for the better with the presidential system is with its popularity-based system. Some idiots think that democracy is based on popularity. If your democracy is based on popularity then it's more of the totalitarianism of the majority. Isn't democracy supposedly a government for the people, of the people and for the people? Democracies are meant to respect both the majority and minority in all their views and hear them out, see who's right and get the rights done and the wrongs thrown out from both sides. The presidential system also lacks scrutiny and it's a more cumbersome process. The parliamentary system requires frequent discussion from both the majority bloc and the minority bloc with the common goal of national improvement. The presidential system hardly does that. Since when was the last time you saw the president and vice president engage in a debate with members of the legislative body compared to the prime minister and deputy prime minister? How can a system with so little scrutiny for errors evolve for the better? Some countries may be economically progressive under the presidential system all the while corruption is still sky high in presidential systems in contrast to parliamentary systems.
Lastly, trying to evolve with the unitary system when your territory is too big is a problem. Singapore can get away with it because it's a small country. However, big countries are a totally different issue. You can take a look at China and Japan with their use of the unitary system. The traffic in Beijing is even worse than the traffic in Imperial Manila -- think about how many Chinese bought cars during the rise of China's economy and it ended up aggravating the pollution and traffic in certain areas of China. Japan still has to address Japan's doldrums is because of the unitary system -- even if Japan still remains a big player when it comes to economics. What's the use of having senators from every region of the Philippines when the system is still Imperial Manila dictates everything? Such is not the case of federalism where delegation of authority is established in the form of states united under one flag and it's still one country. It should help ease down the congestion that was ever present in the unitary system.
Comments
Post a Comment