We just need to take a look at the effects of the post-Marcos years. No, this isn't an effort to paint the Marcos Years as the Golden Years. Far from it. The Marcos Years were not the Golden Years of the Philippines. True, overthrowing Marcos is a good thing but did the Philippines REALLY BOTHER to do a massive change? Instead, the 1987 Constitution came out as a band-aid solution to the 1973 Constitution. Instead, some of Marcos' faulty provisions such as the Imperial Manila system, presidential system, and excessive restrictions to foreign investments were still on. The late Corazon C. Aquino DID return the businesses but that's not enough. Foreign investments had to be opened and certain sectors were eased down (eventually) from the reign of Fidel V. Ramos up to Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino. Yet, there are still excessive restrictions on other sectors such as electricity, media, and telecommunications companies. However, the system still encouraged voting stupidly than voting wisely. It's because the presidential system is treated like a beauty contest than a turn that could change the nation for the better (or worse) in six years.
A history lesson would be good. Try to remember who usually gets the seats in government. Voters tend to vote for actors and athletes instead of candidates who were more than capable of running a nation. Do you remember when Joseph Estrada became the president and other athletes followed? Who can remember when BASKETBALL PLAYER Robert Jaworski Sr. became a senator? Then we have Manny Pacquiao a BOXER as a senator. Actors and athletes tend to win elections more than lawyers, political analysts, and economists because they're more popular. More Filipinos tend to be interested in the next episode of a TV show than they are in discussing political and economic reforms. Also, it seems that lying is the best way to win. For example, who can remember Duterte's three to six months promise? I bet Mar Roxas and Antonio Trillanes IV would've won as president and vice president if they promised that they'd turn the Philippines into the richest country in the world in just a day. In short, it's all rooted in personality politics that leads to know-nothings leading the country. It's usually popularity over credibility when it comes to the current presidential system.
However, the parliamentary system would change the way elections happen. The big difference between the presidential system and the parliamentary system is the spirit of friendly competition. It's because the parliamentary system is party-based instead of personality-based. People vote by parties instead of personalities during elections. The parliamentary system encourages both the Government and Opposition to duke it out in the Weekly Question Hour to show the best they could to the people. The weekly debates are aired live and the results are always published. That means people will get to see which party deserves their votes or which party doesn't deserve their votes. There is also the vote of no confidence which places candidates under hot water one way or another. All it takes is for the Member of the Parliament to lose the confidence of the WHOLE parliament to get voted out. People get to elect parties based on their teamwork whenever the Government and the Opposition duke it out. The parties will show their best and will have to get rid of their worse if they expect to win the next parliamentary elections.
Comments
Post a Comment