2022 is just around the corner. There's so much talk from the IGNORAMUSES. I just thought of one article from Get Real Philippines sayst that a lack of a strong national identity is what led to a dog-eat-dog type of politics. However, I beg to differ from GRP and want to say it out loud - it's NOT that lack of strong national identity BUT the presidential system that gave way to dog-eat-dog politics. Dog-eat-dog is defined as a situation are willing to harm each other in order to succeed. Isn't that what happened last 2019 when #OtsoDiretso decided to literally bring out a jetski, dare President Rodrigo R. Duterte to ride it, just to get a vote? It's because they were trying to derail the president's popularity. They could've decided to focus on solutions. Instead, they decided to dare Duterte to ride his jetski while Noynoy Aquino hasn't fulfilled his hyperbole to be run over by a literal train. Isn't it obvious both Duterte and Noynoy were speaking HYBERBOLES?
The issue isn't much on the Liberal Party or the Nacionalista Party. Once again, it's the SYSTEM that's really problematic. Why do you think Antonio Trillanes IV would rather derail Duterte? Why do you think supporters of Vice President Leni Loud Robredo would malign Duterte on their favorite platforms like Twitter? These events are results of the presidential system actually encouraging DOG-EAT-DOG politics. It's because the majority wins and minorities are hardly treated with respect. The winner takes the platform and they disrespect the loser. That's not really a democracy anymore if the minority doesn't have a voice. Just think again about how is democracy defined. Democracy is a government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE. Minorities are part of the people. Majorities are part of the people. If minorities are always treated with disrespect then it's just a dictatorship of the majority.
Meanwhile, parliamentary systems will discourage dog-eat-dog politics. Do I need to keep stressing out that the Marcos Years were NOT a real parliamentary? Ninoy Aquino's speech in Boston wouldn't even be necessary IF it were a real parliamentary. Ninoy could've served as the Opposition Leader against Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. if it were a real parliamentary. It's because a real parliamentary system would have a formalized system of Government vs. Opposition. The Opposition has the job to find faults and offer alternatives to the government. In short, the Opposition in a parliamentary system is the minority with a voice. The Opposition is given the chance to prove the Government wrong by giving alternatives at the weekly question hour.
Under a parliamentary system, Opposition Leader Trillanes is required to prove himself by holding Prime Minister Duterte accountable at the weekly question hour. Duterte as the prime minister must answer to Trillanes. Trillanes as the Opposition Leader MUST provide alternatives. It would really require both their cabinets to face on against each other. Trillanes can have more of a legal space to chase Duterte (and vice-versa) during the weekly question hour. There's a real competition for attention yet there are also rules to follow. Each person is required to finish their piece in 7.5 minutes. The rules must be followed by formal competition. Failure to do can result in the removal of any Member of the Parliament by a vote of no confidence or any legitimate means.
If we want to greatly reduce dog-eat-dog politics then stop being presidential. A parliamentary system gives a better setup where competence wins over-popularity. People are watching them every week. Both majority and minority scrutinize each other while the people also scrutinize them. Popularity contests only care about winning. Credibility contests care about remaining credible.
Comments
Post a Comment