As the May 2019 elections draw near -- I feel like the need to talk about how presidential system and economic protectionism actually worsened corruption in the Philippines. We can't just forever blame the Marcos Years if we don't know why the Marcos Years were not the golden years of the Philippines either. After the Marcos Years then we have the 1987 Constitution Years. Then we can say that neither the Cory Years nor the Noynoy Years ever gave the promised progress or golden years after the so-called golden years of the Marcos Years. So what happened? It's all because of the presidential system AND economic protectionism.
How did the presidential system cause the Marcos Years up to the post-Marcos years to be that corrupt?
The presidential system is linked up to one issue -- popularity contests! Why do you think Cory Aquino ended up sitting and Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was ousted? Popularity contests! Then came the "blessed" 1987 Constitution which further promoted the popularity-based contests. We ended up having dictatorships of the majority or popularity-based democracies. Presidential systems hardly care about what the minority thinks and bullies it.
How is the popularity-based presidential giving in to more corruption? It's because people are voted based on their popularity than their credibility. Why do you think the current legislative is full of celebrities and athletes instead of lawyers and economists who could come up with better policies? It's because it doesn't matter how stupid a person is as long as they get many votes either by votes of plurality or majority (though plurality is more common due to a number of political parties in the Philippines) -- they get the seat. Worse, the tedious impeachment process (which is further complicated by a bicameral) makes it very hard to remove incompetent politicians from where they sat.
How does a parliamentary system fight off corruption BETTER than a presidential system?
The parliamentary system has a more defined framework where we have the Majority Bloc and the Minority Bloc. While the majority wins yet the voice of the minority is still heard. You have the Government Bloc and the Opposition Bloc. The presidential system hardly hears the voice of the minority but not in a parliamentary system. There's also the Weekly Question Hour where both Majority and Minority duke it out. The Majority wins the ruling seats yet the Minority is given the duty to do fault-finding and giving alternative courses of action.
One can always argue that there is the Ombudsman but is it enough? The Ombudsman is the public representative against corrupt officials yet there are too many rats (corrupt officials) and too little cats. The solution in the parliamentary system is to put an appointed watchdog in every agency of the government. This would be called ministries and there would be a series of ministers who were also elected by the people and appointed by the Prime Minister. Then for every minister there is a corresponding shadow minister from the Opposition -- they serve as a mirror to offer alternatives and reflect the mistakes of each other.
I did mention earlier about the tedious impeachment process because of the bicameral system. The parliamentary system has a better impeachment process in the form of a vote of no confidence. A unicameral system has the executive directly under the watchful eye of the legislative. The prime minister is directly under the watch of senators from one's political party to the Opposition side. Should there be a loss of confidence of the whole Parliament then a snappy vote of no confidence would've been raised. Can you imagine if Joseph Estrada and Noynoy Aquino were submitted to a vote of no confidence for the jueteng scandal or for the Mamasapano incident? A vote of no confidence would force the deputy prime minister to compete with other senators from various parties for the seat of prime minister. That means Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Jejomar Binay wouldn't be promised the seat of the prime minister just because Estrada and Aquino were voted out of their respective offices.
How does economic protectionism also help worsen corruption?
I don't want to deny that some countries with free trade also have high corruption but then again do you know economic protectionism is also a factor that helps worsen it? The Marcos Years was riddled with Marcos crony capitalism. Why do you think Imelda Romualdez-Marcos is the reason why we get the term "Imeldific" in reference to one's materialistic lifestyle? Why do you think some people fear of the Marcoses (and now the Aquinos included) of being in power? It's also because crony capitalism allows one to get rich at the expense of others.
So how is economic protectionism worsening the problem of crony capitalism? I previously wrote about how 60/40 should be condemned as a form of bullying -- now it's time to see how it actually worsens corruption. It's because economic protectionism doesn't bless anyone but the oligarchy. If there's too little competition then there's going to be a monopoly of power. Whoever says that 60/40 is not a big issue or that foreign investors is colonial mentality (while said person hypocritically lives in Australia for most of the year and claims to return in the Philippines four times a year) needs to listen to Mahathir Mohamad's speech about foreign investors and read the late Lee Kuan Yew's From Third World to First.
Limiting the competition means the oligarchy will be in your favor. The oligarchy can help influence both politics and voters. Having less jobs means that there will be more poor Filipinos who can be easily exploited -- such as the use the "economic miracle" called 4Ps. If there are less job opportunities for Filipino adults then that would be a golden opportunity to vote-buying. If any Filipino has been a long-time resident for at least two years AND of age -- they can vote regardless of educational attainment! Vote buying politicians will just need to pay impoverished Filipinos to help them get their votes or even use flying voters to artificially get their desired seats.
Worse, it also gives communist idiots like Teddy Casino and Neri Colmenares their desired power. It's doubtful that they are truly nationalistic. If there will be more jobs for Filipinos then Filipino communist party members will lose their manpower. If more Filipinos can get more high-paying jobs in their home country then the likes of Casino and Colmenares will lose their huge grip of power.
So how does economic liberalization help reduce corruption?
I mentioned it earlier that more jobs will mean less manpower and vote buying for corrupt politicians. Now let's focus on how economic liberalization will help reduce corruption even if it doesn't go down to zero. It's all because if there's more competition then there's much less monopoly of power, right?
Foreign investors are not only threats but also opportunities for Filipino businesses. I remembered writing about how foreign investors can actually help Filipino businesses grow better than in a crony capitalist environment. If you know what the SWOT analysis is then you know for every strength there is a weakness and for every threat there is a opportunity.
How could small and medium enterprises grow? It's because foreign investors can serve as either service providers, suppliers or potential customers which in turn will help create more jobs. While foreign investors aren't the only means jobs are created but they are part of the job creation process. You can imagine a Filipino businessman paying several transportation companies to help him get his supplies from various countries while he can also invite the foreign investors to be his customers. The foreign investors will create jobs not just by hiring Filipinos into their fold -- they can also help Filipino businesses grow hence the need to get more Filipinos employed into the fold of local businessmen!
This in turn helps depower the oligarchy. The oligarchy will have to improve their services in the face of competition. If they can't provide better services then the foreign investors will crush them. But if they can provide better services then they can benefit from foreign investors. They can benefit by providing their services to more than just Filipino customers. But they have to give up their unfair hold of power in the process to do so. They either must improvise or perish if they want to continue doing businesses.
________
So what are you waiting for? Let's shift to parliamentary and open up the economy!
Comments
Post a Comment