Parliamentary Philippines

It's good to talk about shifting the Philippines to a federal form of government and to allow free trade with reasonable restrictions. What could be left behind is the big need to shift from the popularity based system to a competence-based system.  So what makes the parliamentary system more competence-based than popularity based? Just read and find out to see the differences people should know between the two forms of government.

Presidential systems tend to breed stupidity by always going by what the majority says instead of considering both majority and minority 

So what's the problem with the "majority always wins" scenario in the presidential form of government? I could lead to some problems that the Philippines suffered because of that kind of thinking. The problem of presidency (and it's not exclusive to the Philippines) is that there's the tendency that it becomes a democracy of stupid people, by stupid people and for stupid people. Everything was done according to popularity and not to credibility. It's always by a majority wins vote.

Do you remember the the two presidencies that were a result of popularity over credibility? One would be the presidency of Joseph "Erap" Ejercito Estrada and the other would be the presidency of Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" Aquino Jr. People wanted to vote for Erap not because he was a good mayor when he was a mayor. The problem is he got voted because of his movie star career. Later, Noynoy was voted not because of whatever credibility he had but because of his parents Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" Aquino Jr. and Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino. When Cory died it set the stage for the Noynoy presidency. Not to mention, it's also common to keep voting for a dead politician's widow who usually knows nothing about politics. 

I could also mention the presidency that nearly happened and fortunately it never happened. Do you remember Fernando Poe Jr.? He knew nothing about running a country. Sure, his life was recorded as a movie star but his eulogy will always be that of a movie star. Being an actor and being a politician are two different things. Would he have won then I wonder how the Philippines will be ran by someone who has no idea on how politics is being done? The difference between him and Erap was on experience. Erap passed through being a mayor and a senator for many years. At least, Erap knew how to run politics while FPJ had nothing at all in his head about it.

Should it be mentioned that the problem of stupid voters happens so often because the presidential system encourages it through popularity based elections? We could consider about the number of unqualified senators that won during the reigns of Erap and Noynoy. Who are sitting in the legislative body? Many of those who sit in the Senate haven't passed through any political experience at all. You can name how the legislative body is occupied not by economists, lawyers, political scientists and the like but by actors and athletes who know nothing about the functions of a legislative function.

Perhaps one big example of the huge flaw of the presidential system has to do with how the United States of America is today. Perhaps, one could think about how American society today is so anti-intellectual. Everyone saw how crazy Donald J. Trump is but they voted for him because of his popularity never mind he's got a lot of offenses such as tax evasion and his inability to maintain good relationships. One could tell the difference how Trump is full of hot air and doesn't deliver any results. The problem is that people just love to listen to exaggerated promises and vote the same people to power - even if the promises can't be fulfilled at all. 

It reminds me of also one or two jokes that involve high technology. Japan could boast about how they invented a lot of stuff we enjoy today like the ever-evolving DVD technology, Blu Ray technology or rice cookers in the kitchen. In the same joke, the Japanese lost to the Americans and the Filipinos. The reason why Americans and Filipinos have become more technologically advanced (at least according to the said joke) is because they placed a man with no brain in the presidency and now everyone's looking for work. In short, the presidential system has encouraged no brainers like George W. Bush, Erap and Noynoy to get into power. Right now, it's safe to assume that Trump may also be responsible to why the Philippine peso to U.S. dollar depreciation is happening at a rapid rate.

The parliamentary system goes for credibility over popularity where both majority and minority blocs are considered 

Here's an illustration of how the parliament works. You can see there's the government (majority bloc) and the opposition (minority bloc) where they're all part of the parliament. How does this work? CoRRECT Philippines says the following:

Notice also that in Parliamentary Systems, party leaders (who are in the running to become Prime Minister if their respective parties win majority of all seats or if their parties form coalitions where they have the most seats within the coalition) campaign using the pronoun “We.” They speak more collectively about their party’s platforms and their party’s past performance by always referring to “Our Party” or “My Party” unlike in Presidential Systems where presidential candidates use the pronoun “I” all the time.

Parties will be forced to compete against other parties by presenting their platforms to the public and showing that their platforms are more responsive to the needs of the people. More importantly, parties will be forced to compete against each other by choosing the best members among themselves to be the senior members of the party, the best of whom will be the party leader.

In a Parliamentary System, unlike in a presidential system, the Prime Minister and his majority bloc are always in competition against the Leader of the Opposition and his minority bloc. Active Debates ensue. The Leader of the Opposition tries to show that the Prime Minister does not know what he is talking about. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, must always be on his toes to show that indeed, he does know what he is talking about and has the facts to prove his point…

In a parliamentary system, there is an intense system of competition where the Majority’s “Government Cabinet” is always being challenged by the Minority’s “Shadow Cabinet.”

The Minister of Finance from the Government Majority is always on his toes and must always prove himself as the Shadow Minister from the Opposition Minority always challenges him and questions his decisions. In fact, since every single decision that the Minister of Finance makes within the Ministry of Finance regarding budget and other concerns is always done in the presence of the Opposition Shadow Minister of Finance, everything is above board, everything is transparent.

In other words, the parliamentary puts real, serious competition for check and balance. You can take a look at this structure where you have a speaker's chair where both the government and the opposition are constantly on their toes. Let's put an imagined scenario of how things could have worked better if Noynoy were prime minister instead of president.

Let's put the Noynoy appointees vs. the opposition's appointees. A lot of problems arose in the Noynoy Administration because there was hardly any opposition against each other. We could think about Noynoy's appointees vs. the opposition. We could bring up a number of stuff that could have been avoided or lessening the impact of bad events would have there been an opposition. These incidents that I would like to bring up as examples are the DAP/PDAF scam, the Metro Railway Transit deterioration, the Dengvaxia vaccine incident, the DSWD incident under Corazon "Dinky" Soliman and the DILG under Manuel Araneta Roxas.

How would a shadow opposition kept things in check and balance? The opposition could have done some of these things. The DAP/PDAF scam could have been easily avoided or that any disbursement acceleration could have been improved so it doesn't become a scam. The MRT could have had received other alternatives that could have led to the establishment of the planned Baclaran to Bacoor expressway or could have opposed whatever mistakes Abaya had made. Somebody could have opposed against Dengvaxia or advised Noynoy and Janette Garin that there are still some complications and that they need another plan. Dinky herself could have been fired from her position if the opposition would bring up what she did during the Yolanda incident. 

There's always the fear that the opposition could misuse and abuse their power. We could think about the knocked out six senators with five from the Liberal Party and one from the Nacionalista Party (Risa Hontiveros, Leila De Lima, Bam Aquino, Franklin Drilon, Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan and Antonio Trillanes IV). The issue of the parliamentary is that it still believes in healthy opposition with only qualified people to sit in the Minority Bloc. The problem is that the six senators that were knocked out had shown how much incompetence. A good example is how Drilon underestimated the conflict in Marawi or how De Lima herself proved to be more of a nuisance than healthy opposition.

If almost everyone in the parliament were competent whether it'd be the Majority Bloc or the Minority Bloc then it's the Battle of the Brains and not the Battle of the Brainless. This would have everyone brainstorm while maintaining some healthy opposition.

In the end, there's going to be a much bigger clean-up done when there's frequent scrutiny. There would be much less room for idleness and corruption. Just imagine what if you've had a lot of garbage removed all in one day thanks to frequent scrutiny. 

The parliamentary system is more innovation-friendly than the presidential system

Innovation is something that pops out of competition. In the world of business, the best businesses seek to improvise their innovative thinking in order to survive. While innovation doesn't always guarantee success but it's definitely needed for success. I could now give a scenario of how the Majority Bloc and Minority Bloc would have to constantly innovate.

In the presidential system how can innovative thinking be enforced if there's no frequent competition and the president hardly has two sides? I thought about all the failures of the previous administration can be attributed to a lack of research and development. To understand this, I would use a diagram from the Iowa State University to further help explain things.

Innovation starts with the ideas. The ideas go with process, services, marketing, business model and product which would go to define what has to be done. There's the need for research in order to discover something that could be done. Development of solutions happen. The last question is that does the new innovative thinking deliver good results?

If innovative thinking were done with only one side then think of why Noynoy's administration was a failure. The plan for "Daang Matuwid" or "Straight Road" could have been better if there was some opposition to offer better ideas. A good idea would be how to fix problems like flood control, transportation system, slow Internet and the economy. Both the Majority Bloc and the Minority Bloc need to do some research and present all their results and find the best from both sides.

Let's think of some things what Noynoy could've done for sure if he were in a parliamentary system. For instance, let's talk about solving the flood problems and the transportation. If I'm not wrong, Noynoy ditched Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's proposal for flood control as a joke. If there were some opposition they may have told him that he should get it or provide alternatives that would do better than the flood project he ditched. Another example that we could name is the expressway from Baclaran to Bacoor. The Minority Bloc would have probably provided better solutions and more realistic expectations than what Abaya proposed.

The plan for a more decentralized government would also be good if there were both the Majority Bloc and the Minority Bloc to examine things out. It would challenge both ideas and both sides would present their plans to create a decentralized Philippines. One side will point out the plans while the other side is seeking out to find the pros and cons with the proposal. This would help to see how to make sure that the Philippines' traffic problem and delays will be greatly minimized while improving the quality of one's work.

This in turn will also help improve the way the prime minister thinks. If the Philippines were a parliament right now then think of how much responsibility Prime Minister Rodrigo R. Duterte has to answer for. For example, he wants to change the High School Math curriculum (by removing Calculus and Trigonometry) and abolish K-12 but the opposition will give him good reasons not to. The opposition could say that the K-12 and certain subjects should continue. Instead, he or she may advise Duterte to open up the economy so K-12 wouldn't be a burden to the parents. This way, Duterte's wrong decisions can be greatly minimized because there's some healthy opposition. You can see how Duterte is subjected to check and balance because he's only human and can make a lot of mistakes as well. 

Line of succession between presidential and parliamentary

Let's take a look at the events last term where Noynoy was president and Jejomar Binay was the vice president. Some events could have called for Noynoy's impeachment with the issues like his supposed indifference with the Manila Hostage Crisis, the DAP/PDAF issues, the SAF-44 mishap where he allowed suspended PNP Chief Alan Purisima to take charge or any anomalies he did. The problem is that calling for his impeachment. This would be the problem. Noynoy is the frying plan and Jejomar Binay is the fire.

The illustration can be seen like what if Lex Luthor (Noynoy) were president and Darkseid (Binay) were vice president. Let's say Luthor got kicked out the presidency because of some anomalies. It would call for celebration but the more dangerous Darkseid becomes the new president in the place of Luthor. It's no longer Lexcorp but Apokips that now rules the country. The issue is that while Noynoy himself has his issues but Binay himself is more dangerous. Neither leader is qualified to lead the country. Choosing between the two of them is like choosing between two supervillains who would still cause trouble to the world. 

But what if we were in a parliamentary. A vote of no confidence or snap election was called against Noynoy. This wouldn't guarantee Binay that he would become the new prime minister. Binay would have to prove himself against every other candidate. Let's consider the scene where Binay has to run against Alan Peter Cayetano, Richard Gordon and Grace Poe Llamanzares for the position of prime minister to replace Noynoy. Whoever comes out the most competent will be the new prime minister after a vote of no confidence was done.

This would also mean that Leni Robredo would not be assured of her position as prime minister even if she were deputy prime minister. Prime Minister Duterte's resignation would not mean Deputy Prime Minister Leni would be Prime Minister Leni. She would have to prove herself against all opponents in the area of competency and not popularity. This would mean a tough battle for any deputy prime minister to be officially installed as prime minister. She would need to prove herself or never get the position at all. If Cayetano proves himself the most competent then he will become Prime Minister Cayetano. 

In short, it's not all about having one spare tire only. It's making sure that competence succeeds competence in the parliamentary system.