A Parliamentary System Could've Significantly Made Daang Matuwid And Change Has Come Real Over A Presidential System

It's really stupid to think that everything ought to be blamed on Noynoy Aquino as Dutertards would have it. It's also really stupid to blame everything on President Rodrigo R. Duterte as Noytards would have it. It's all because the two won not just by plurality but also by popularity. I don't really care how high approval ratings were for Noynoy or President Duterte would be. I really have to say that it doesn't excuse them from whatever mistakes they made. The biggest mistake of the Dilawans was when they decided to stick to the "best constitution in the world" (which it isn't) rather than accept the need for constitutional reform.

We need to take a look at the common problems between BOTH Noynoy and Duterte. Both of them are guilty of appointing friends out of utang na loob (sense of gratitude). Noynoy chose the idiot Alan Purisima and Duterte chose Mocha Uson. You may also consider Nicanor Faildon and Joseph Pabaya. People were expecting daang matuwid (straight path) and change has come but where are they? Rather than fully blame Noynoy and Duterte for these not really coming to real pass (and Noynoy hasn't turned the Philippines into the first world during his term either) - why don't we take a more crucial look at the SYSTEM itself first? If you happen to a SYSTEMS ENGINEER and you think nothing is wrong with the system - you ought to have your license REMOVED!

Both Noynoy and Duterte had a taste of having less opposition and more power. That's why term limits end up becoming necessary in a presidential system. Do you think the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. could've ruled unopposed if he were in a real parliamentary system? If Marcos shifted to parliamentary then consider this - he would have been ousted out of a vote of no confidence. The presidential system doesn't formalize the role of both majority and minority blocs. There's hardly any weekly questioning. Everything is based on popularity. Democracy does not mean for majorities to rule over minorities. Rather, it's a government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people - not a government only of the majority, by the majority, and for the majority. It's because both majorities and minorities are still PART OF THE PEOPLE just like majority blocs and minority blocs are still part of the legislature.

The Westminster parliamentary system would have a different approach. We can consider the issue that term limits are not a necessity if there are checks and balances done better. The reason why the late Lee Kuan Yew's decades-long rule wasn't like Marcos was this - his competence kept him in power. The parliamentary system limits your term not by a strict timeframe but by how you perform. The only real term limits in the parliamentary are when you get disqualified for politics for a valid reason. You can have many terms (consecutive or not) but you must prove yourself. Party members that either want to hop or skip are penalized. You can think of how getting kicked out of your party can mean your elimination from politics. The weekly questioning also screens things out. Also, you may consider that impeachment in the parliamentary (that is, a vote of no confidence) can remove anyone should legislators lose their confidence in anyone within the Parliament itself.

Can you imagine if both Noynoy and Duterte had to face off against opposing parties during their terms as prime ministers instead of presidents? You can imagine it if both Noynoy and Duterte as prime ministers would've probably accounted EVERY WEEK for EVERYTHING either one plans to do? Maybe, Noynoy would've apologized IMMEDIATELY to Hong Kong for the Manila Hostage Crisis fiasco out of fear of being impeached. Duterte himself would probably have fired several people faster because faults like Vitaliano Aguirre Jr.'s neglect will be easily revealed. The weekly questioning is just like a weekly inspection. The promise for fighting corruption and a better path couldn't happen as long as there's really a weak foundation. Under a parliamentary system - the opposition's real job is to point out flaws and offer better alternatives. An opposition leader like Antonio Trillanes IV would end up like Bill Shorten in Australia.

Why are Australia, Singapore, and Malaysia better than the Philippines? It's not just their economic policies. It's easy to say, "We can just remove the excessive restrictions on foreign investments. The rest of the 1987 Constitution can stay!" However, the system itself dictates how people should behave. You don't wait for people to learn to obey before you set rules. Rather, you set rules for people to obey. Children shouldn't be disciplined only after they learn to follow rules. Rather, children are disciplined so they will learn to follow rules. This would be the argument that the system itself is a much bigger problem than the people in the system. Just think that even the best race car driver will still LOSE TOO MUCH in a racing game if he has to compete against the best racers who have the best cars. You need both competent people AND a competent system. Get it?