Take a good look at the leadership struggles that occur in pursuit of the Speakership of the House and the Senate Presidency. It could give one a good glimpse of what might be in store for us under a parliamentary-federal form of government, and it doesn’t look pretty.
Proponents of Charter change have argued that it is better and more cost efficient to have a unicameral Congress under a parliamentary federal setup. Laws would be enacted a lot quicker without the billions needed to maintain two legislative bodies, which they claim practically duplicate each other’s functions anyway, never mind the concept of check and balance.
Forget about comparing the work of the current Congress with past Congresses or recent ones, or comparing the work of the House of Representatives with the Senate.
Let us just ask ourselves this: Is it the system that drags down the lawmaking process or is it the quality of people working the legislature or said process or system?
Just for the sake of argument, let us accept the reasons in favor of a parliamentary federal system, where we will have a unicameral Congress from which the future leader of this country—the Prime Minister—would be elected.
The Prime Minister would not be directly elected by the people. He or she would be elected by colleagues from the winning or the majority party sitting in Congress. Which parties and which politicians would be in contention for this future government? Well, practically the same ones we have jockeying for the leaderships and the choice committees in both Houses of Congress today.
Take a look at the kind of horse-trading going on now in the quest to be Speaker or Senate President. In past Congresses, there have been allegations of treachery, turncoatism, various forms of vote-buying in the Senate and the House.
Imagine the scenario if what is at stake is the leadership of not just Congress or Parliament but the leadership of the country, that of becoming Prime Minister. What more if the members of parliament are not just jockeying for choice committees but for choice departments. Remember, members of parliament are the ones who become ministers of various government departments. They are not just lawmakers but implementers of the administration’s programs and development projects. Politicians wise in the ways of pork-barrel commissions must be salivating even now at the prospects. (On a side note, former Rep. Neri Colmenares said there is a “pork-barrel provision” on page 1 of the draft Constitution of subcommittee 1 of the House of Representatives Committee on Constitutional Amendment).
A parliamentary-federal form of government is essentially a political party system of government. But what political parties are we talking about in this country? Do they even exist outside of elections? The answer quite clearly could be gleaned from the alliances formed between the political parties in the previous elections.
Once the elections are over and it is time to come up with power-sharing schemes, the alliances and coalitions made between parties begin to disintegrate. In the Senate Presidency and House Speakership bids, for instance, party lines become blurred or take a backseat in favor of deal-making or deal-breaking.
One of the major benefits of a parliamentary form of government is the discipline political parties can impose on their members, to follow the official party line or ideology. But are there really party ideologies to begin with in the Philippines? Are the politicians discipline-able?
Granting we can provide measures through legislation to make (or at least try to make) the political party system in this country stronger with the enactment of a law mandating political party reform, could we legislate a change of people populating these parties?
For anyone arguing in favor of Charter change, there is a counterargument for character change: that it might not be the system of government after all, but the politicians populating the system that are the problems.
Then it would be a wise but sad expectation that the future Prime Minister in a parliamentary-federal Philippines would be elected not because of his or her proven integrity, track record of performance or the specific skills needed to run the government machinery, but entirely something else.
Then it would be wiser for us to try to improve our political party system first under the current presidential setup and help ensure that those Filipinos wishing to serve the public with integrity and competence will have equal chances of winning under our electoral system.
Our people deserve better than a parliamentary government that promises good governance through fly-by-night political alliances that would surely disappear under the harsh light of post-election realities.
Image credits: Jimbo Albano