Cha-cha sa Bubog

I haven’t heard a solid argument for shifting to a unicameral parliamentary system. I remain unconvinced that economic growth is possible only with charter change.

I think the President contradicted herself in her SONA.  On the one hand she says that the political system is in the way of economic take-off but earlier she outlined the economic growth achieved during her term.  

But for me, the best argument against the shift is the seemingly overwhelming support for cha-cha in the lower chamber during the SONA.  Surveys have shown that majority of the people want President to resign but their representatives want her to stay.  There is a disconnect between public will and the will of Congress.  This problem is more fundamental: the people’s power to influence policy (through the electoral process) is hardly exercised in a system where voters do not consider their Congressman’s record in the legislature but the number of projects he funds through his pork barrel allocation.  This system insulates members of Congress from political retaliation for making unpopular decisions but it also gives him the opportunity to ignore the will of their constituency.  Unfortunately, this won’t be addressed by the shift of the parliamentary system. 

Going back to cha-cha. Here are some of the reasons brought forward so far:

(a)  Legislative Efficiency.
(b)  Reduction of Corruption.
(c)  Political Stability.
(d)  Quality Control.

Legislative Efficiency.  Speaker De Venecia has claimed that frequent deadlocks between the Upper and Lower Houses slows down the legislative process.  He would rather have laws passed in 10 days instead of 10 months. 

I’ve seen the legislative process at work and I can confidently say that the level of debate at the Senate is superior than that in the House.  This leads me to conclude that the Senate is a safety check and quality control in the legislative process.  It may be frustrating for the House but I would rather have someone looking over their shoulder than none at all.  Besides, a law passed in 10 days only turns the House into a rubber stamp for the Executive.  What’s so good about that?

Reduction of Corruption.  I’ve heard this argument said but not explained.  My own interpretation is this - a parliamentary system does not require anyone to run for a national office.  Since the head of state runs in a local election for a seat in parliament, there are no national electoral campaigns.  This reduces the cost of elections overall.  

Let us assume that higher costs associated with national campaigns puts pressure upon the political system to raise funds for its use.  That pressure then drives politicians or their parties to engage in corrupt activities (i.e., think AC-DC, scams, jueteng pay offs) in order to raise the billions of pesos required to mount the national campaings of at least fourteen (14) candidates (i.e., President, VP & 12 senators).  By this logic, cheaper campaigns translate to less pressure to engage in corruption. 

Well, it’s a logical argument but one that doesn’t address the fundamental problem of corruption nor the issue of campaign finance reform.  Plus, there’s no guarantee that local campaigns will continue at their present rate.  It may very well rise in a parliamentary system, thereby creating the same pressures mentioned above. 

Political Stability.  Under a parliamentary system, a Prime Minister’s government may be brought down by a simple no-confidence vote from parliament.  This means that it would be easier to unseat the Arroyo administration. 

Theoretically. 

As I mentioned above, the present political crisis illustrates why this won’t necessarily happen.  For whatever reason, a hugely unpopular prime minister can continue in power and enjoy the full support of parliament.  In fact, in a parliamentary system, GMA’s hold to power would be more secure.

This  harks back to the disconnect  I mentioned before.  If public will can be translated more efficiently in the legislature, then it go further in promoting democracy than the shift to a different system. 

Quality Control. It is believed that the entertainment personalities who have managed to make their way to all levels of government, will be sidelined in a parliamentary system.  It is said that a Noli de Castro would never become a Prime Minister because he will never be able to get a sizeable number of votes in his favor. 

This assumes that there is a relationship between the ability to run a nation and the ability to build a political base in the parliament.  It’s already been said that Speaker De Venecia would be a Prime Minister under a parliamentary system. 

It’s not entirely clear to me if this process is necessarily better.  But of all the reasons for a parliamentary system, I’m neutral about this one.  It might just work in our favor.  Presumably, leadership skills will be tested in parliament and consensus-building ability of a PM would be honed by the time he takes on the helm. 

But our electoral process has not been unable to select a leader with impeccable qualifications.  GMA is a good example of how the electorate rejects popularity in favor of competence.  (Sorry.  Bad example.) So, it’s not entirely clear to me that the parliamentary system will give us better leaders or more effective leadership.

Having said all of the above, I have not closed my mind to supporting charter change.  I just want to be convinced.  I want to hear a sound argument that outlines concrete benefits for our people. 

In closing, I leave you with the sage words of Chikoy Pura of The Jerks,  who reminds us not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Kasinungalingan, isang kahangalan

Walang libereng kalayaan
Ito’y pinagbabayaran
Palabas na moro-moro
Ito kaya ay totoo?
EDSA ng pagbabago
Saan, kailan, kanino?

Sayaw, sayaw, sayaw sa bubog
Ang naglalakad ng tulog
Tiyak na mauumpog