Centrist Democracy Political Institute - Items filtered by date: June 2022

THIS is a supplementary article to my series on "Centrist Democratic (CD) Agenda for President-elect BBM" which started just after the May 9, elections. My memo to president-elect BBM, was followed by "Political dynasties – party-lists" (May 22); Part 1 – "Centrist agenda for a Marcos regime" (May 25); Part 2 – "Replace the 1987 Constitution" (June 1); and Part 3 – "Institutionalize real political parties" (June 8). I received so many comments by email and FB that I thought I'd simply direct them to our website Centrist Democratic Political Institute, www.cdpi.asia, where all my columns, articles, speeches, essays and blogs are lodged.

The latest queries revolved around clarifications on the relative merits of a parliamentary-federal (Fed-Parl) over a presidential-unitary government. I have written extensively on this and many of my colleagues in the Fed-Parl movement have their essays and articles copied to this CDPI website. Links to excellent articles and books are provided particularly one authored by the incoming National Security Adviser (NSA) Clarita Carlos, Democratic Deficits in the Philippines: What is to be done? (KAS Publication, 2010). Secretary Claire has been my colleague during our salad days when together with our now departed comrades, 'Nene' Pimentel, 'Pepe' Abueva and 'Rey' Teves, we went nationwide spreading the Fed-Parl gospel under the auspices of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS) and country representative 'Willy' Frehner. KAS is allied with the CDU party of Germany.

The details of what makes Fed-Parl a superior system are extensively discussed in the CD websites. Another interesting link is to the "CoRRECT Movement" websites founded by a young OFW Centrist Democrat, Orion Perez, who has been championing an open liberal economy that welcomes foreign direct investments (FDI) as central to the solution of stark poverty in the Philippines. To detail the relative advantages of the Fed-Parl over the Pres-Unitary will take more than the 1,200 words allotted to this column. For simplicity and clarity, a matrix is provided.

Evidence of Fed-Parl superiority

The following are excerpts from my speeches and lectures in the course of several years in the formation of the Citizens Movement for Federal Philippines (CMFP), the precursor of many of the parliamentary-federal initiatives, mostly of NGO and civil society networks, that led to the establishment of the Centrist Democratic groups. The purpose of this matrix is to present at a glance a list of the world's governments practicing parliamentary, presidential, federal and unitary systems and some permutations thereof. These are by no means a comprehensive argument for the superior system, leaving the readers, perhaps latitude to do research on their own to understand better why the CD groups consider these structural changes primordial. All Philippine presidents understood the necessity for systemic changes from the very start of their regimes, only to falter somewhere in the course of their administrations when perhaps personal political interests or the vested interest of their patrons were inputted. Only the two Aquino governments sought to protect the status quo, post-1986 — advancing the classic arguments that systemic changes are unnecessary, you only need to choose the right leaders. The fallacy of these arguments has been exposed several generations back. Tongue in cheek, it has been advanced too that even if Jesus Christ sits on top of our Philippine government structure, he will fail.

Most corrupt countries

Evidence suggests how countries under the presidential system have serious problems of corruption, development, and peace.

TOP 10 MOST CORRUPT COUNTRIES

1) SOMALIA – FEDERAL-SEMI PRESIDENTIAL
2) NORTH KOREA – UNITARY-PRESIDENTIAL
3) AFGHANISTAN – PRESIDENTIAL
4) SUDAN – FEDERAL-PRESIDENTIAL
5) SOUTH SUDAN – FEDERAL-PRESIDENTIAL
6) ANGOLA – UNITARY-PRESIDENTIAL
7) LIBYA – PARLIAMENTARY-TRANSITIONED FROM TOTALITARIAN RULE
8) IRAQ – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
9) VENEZUELA – FEDERAL-PRESIDENTIAL
10) GUINEA BISSAU – SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL

1. From the 2015 Transparency International Corruption index (TIC), the most corrupt/least transparent countries are under a presidential system. These include Somalia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Sudan, South Sudan, Angola, Libya, Venezuela and Guinea-Bissau. Iraq, placed as the eighth most corrupt, is the only country with a federal-parliamentary form.

2. Five of these 10 most corrupt countries (South Sudan, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia and North Korea) are ranked among the 10 least peaceful nations in the world (TIC 2015 Global Peace Index). To recall, the above-mentioned nations have presidential systems except for Iraq.

TOP 10 LEAST PEACEFUL NATIONS

1) SYRIA UNITARY – SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL
2) SOUTH SUDAN – FEDERAL-PRESIDENTIAL
3) IRAQ – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
4) AFGHANISTAN – PRESIDENTIAL
5) SOMALIA – SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL
6) YEMEN – UNITARY-PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
7) CENTRAL AFRICA REPUBLIC – SEMI-PRESIDENTIAL
8) UKRAINE – UNITARY-SEMI PRESIDENTIAL
9) SUDAN – FEDERAL-PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM
10) LIBYA – PARLIAMENTARY-TRANSITIONAL (FROM TOTALITARIAN RULE)

3. Similarly in nations with the highest Terrorism Index, more have a presidential form (Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Central African Republic, Ukraine (70 percent) while the rest have a combination federal-parliamentary government.

TOP 10 LEAST CORRUPT NATIONS

1) DENMARK – UNITARY STATE-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
2) FINLAND – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
3) SWEDEN – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
4) NEW ZEALAND – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
5) NETHERLANDS – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
6) NORWAY – UNITARY-MONARCH-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
7) SWITZERLAND – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
8) SINGAPORE – UNITARY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
9) CANADA – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
10) GERMANY – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY

Least corrupt — the better ones

1. By contrast, all of those in the top 10 "least corrupt" nations list (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Singapore, Canada, and Germany) have parliamentary systems.

2. Moreover, these topnotchers in curbing corruption (Norway, Australia, Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, New Zealand and Canada), including the United States and Ireland, also have very high human development ranking in the 2015 UNDP human development index. Among these roster of highly developed countries, only the US adopts a presidential form, although a federal government.

TOP 15 MOST PROSPEROUS NATIONS

1) NORWAY – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
2) SWITZERLAND – FEDERAL REPUBLIC
3) DENMARK – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
4) NEW ZEALAND – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
5) SWEDEN – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
6) CANADA – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
7) AUSTRALIA – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
8) NETHERLANDS – UNITARY-MONARCHY-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
9) FINLAND – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
10) IRELAND – UNITARY-PARLIAMENTARY
11) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – FEDERAL-PRESIDENTIAL
12) ICELAND – CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC-PARLIAMENTARY
13) LUXEMBOURG – UNITARY-PARLIAMENTARY
14) GERMANY – FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY
15) UNITED KINGDOM – UNITARY-PARLIAMENTARY

Finally, in the list of the top 15 most prosperous nations (Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Finland, Ireland, United States, Iceland, Luxembourg, Germany and the United Kingdom), all except the US whose government is federal-presidential, have parliamentary systems.

This clearly indicates that a federal form may be better than a unitary one; but clearly it also suggests that a parliamentary system is superior to a presidential system in government performance.

President Makoy, the father, understood this only too well, instituting parliamentary government in the 1973 Marcos Constitution, which was abrogated by President Cory, and substituting her 1987 Constitution that enshrined a presidential-unitary system.

Will the Marcos son continue his father's legacy?

Published in LML Polettiques

Last of 3 parts

LAST week's article touched upon the revisions of the 1987 Cory Constitution toward a parliamentary government, among others. A case was made briefly differentiating between our current presidential versus parliamentary systems, also known as political party government. Empirical data suggests parliamentary systems do better for the citizenry economically than presidential ones. In fact, 60 percent to 70 percent of the economically and politically successful countries in the world are parliamentary governments — arguably the more superior system. Presidential systems, like that of the Philippines, rank among the poorest and less developed in the world.

But for parliamentary government to work well, putting in place real political parties is a must. It is unfortunate that such political parties do not exist in the Philippines. But the Centrist Democrats (CD) have been working with the Congress for decades to pass laws to develop political parties. It has not succeeded. But we are counting that the new BBM government, gleaned from the pronouncements of the Bongbong himself, may be successful in introducing much needed political reforms. A parliamentary form of government preferred by his father was written in the 1973 Marcos Constitution, before it was replaced by a revolutionary constitution and later, the 1987 Constitution of President Cory Aquino.

Political parties — what we have

Prior to his ascent to power, Ferdinand Marcos, and his martial law regime, governments had been dominated by two political parties — the Liberal and Nacionalista — different faces of the same coin. These two old groupings were the closest the Philippines ever had to a two-party system until Marcos, a member of both parties at certain times, imposed martial law in 1972 and President Cory Aquino, who did not believe in political parties, and detested everything Marcos, subsequently allowed the proliferation of a multiparty system in her 1987 Constitution. Since then, the subsequent administrations of FVR, Erap, GMA, PNoy and Duterte were characterized by elective officials jumping from one political party to another in a bizarre game of political musical chairs unflinching of their ideological underpinnings and platform of government, the primary consideration being their share of manna that flows down from the powerful office of the Philippine presidency — the hallmark of our traditional political practices.

This convoluted practice, a phenomenon almost exclusively Filipino, is derided as the "political butterfly" syndrome. In this context, switching political parties is akin to chameleons changing their skin color perfunctorily. This is descriptive of a paucity of ideological perspective and politicians bereft of moral compass anchored on patent expediency. These defections are rampant on the shifting winds of political fortunes and done purely for political survival. Politicians with the temerity to stay affiliated out of principles and values are rare. They are an endangered species.

Almost all of the political parties in the Philippines are structured in a manner that hew closely to the centuries-old patronage system. The patron (in this case the sitting president) who provides the resources makes almost all of the party decisions, especially with regard to those slated to run for elective positions; the party central/executive committees are usually manned by presidential allies and subalterns; and there are no real offices and party activities year-round except during election periods.

Invariably, political parties do not have a uniquely consistent set of beliefs that distinguishes one from the other; at most they proffer slogans and motherhood statements that pass for political doctrines. Their political agenda is predictably directed toward the preservation of the elective members' prerogatives, ensuring the continued accumulation of pelf and privilege for themselves, their families and their allies. Individual programs and family interest, perforce, have precedence over that of a political party's collective appreciation of society's needs. And once they are gifted the privilege to govern, public policies are instituted on the fly emanating from the framework of traditional political practices, their comprehension of national issues seen subjectively through the prism of personal and family interests, thus perpetuating the existing flawed political institutions. These are our aberrant political parties. They need to be transformed into real political parties as a harbinger of a truly working parliamentary government.

Political parties — what we want

Excerpts of my past columns on political party development:

"In more modern developed countries, political parties are the 'sine qua non' of a vibrant democracy. They are not vessels for personal electoral survival and perpetuation in power of dynastic political families. They exist because the citizenry, the wellspring and final arbiter of political power, have diverse issues and concerns that need to be articulated and amplified to a wider political domain. Political parties must provide them with real choices.

"Political parties are the primary vehicles to gain political power by engaging themselves in political contests, primarily elections. The members and their leadership are expected to adhere to a set of principles and strategies written in a platform unique to that party. This espousal of a vision of governance defines the ideological identity of that party — and therefore, the electorate must be permitted a patent choice — as to who must govern them based on what the candidates and their respective parties stand for."

President-elect BBM who is hammering out a supermajority government could persuade his allies in both houses of Congress to institute political reforms immediately, in parallel with constitutional revision initiatives. These reforms are achievable through the passing of the proposed Political Party Development and Financing Act (a bill that has been pending in Congress for several years) which will:

1. Penalize "turncoatism" (or the switching of political parties, "balimbing," "political butterfly") and expulsion from elective public offices and party membership if their acts are deemed inimical to party principles.

2. Enforce transparent mechanisms providing and regulating campaign financing to eliminate corruption and patronage (corporate and individual contributions).

3. Institute strict state subsidy that will professionalize political parties by supporting their political education and campaign initiatives (currently done in European countries).

...Then constitutional revisions

The four administrations following the President Cory regime took two years each before seeking to initiate changes in the 1987 Constitution. FVR's Pirma, Erap's Concord, GMA's 2005 ConCom and Duterte's 2018 ConCom were initiated late in their administration giving the enemies of change and champions of the status quo time to marshal their forces against such enterprises.

FVR's was opposed by Cory and Cardinal Sin; Erap was taken out of office before he could mount a momentum; GMA, beset with her election anomalies and scandals, was openly opposed by her erstwhile allies in the Senate; ditto Duterte, prompting him to "drop the ball" for constitutional revisions and political reforms.

It could be different this time with BBM. Armed with a fresh mandate of a majority vote never before seen since his father Makoy's 1969 election, and inheritor of the elder Ferdinand's legacy of a parliamentary government aborted by Cory through the EDSA People Power Revolution, it is logical for the son to go full circle — abrogate the 1987 Cory Constitution, the fertile soil upon which the many systemic ills of our country sprung forth. Perhaps Ferdinand Makoy's vision of a New Society will be realized through the son's ascendancy after all.

Published in LML Polettiques
Second of 3 parts

THIS is the second part on the Centrist Democrats (CD) agenda for the BBM government. Last week's column dwelt on the efforts of past administrations, from FVR to Duterte, to initiate changes in the 1987 Cory Constitution, save for PNoy — who vehemently opposed any amendments to his mother's constitution. Central to all these is the role of the Senate in blocking these changes. One of his more notorious subalterns, gatekeeper for the status quo, was the chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, Sen. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan, who averted at every turn considerations for serious changes in the Constitution. This contributed to the erosion of PNoy's legacy despite his economic gains. This intransigence left the once venerable party of Diosdado Macapagal and Jovito Salonga, now led by Kiko, in shambles. This obstinacy spilled over to Vice President Leni Robredo's psyche guaranteeing her political demise.

Senate — bastion of conservatism

The Senate is the main hindrance to why systemic changes cannot be put on stream. The past four administrations (FVR, Estrada, GMA and Duterte) were stymied in initiating changes in the Constitution. The three modes of constitutional change, prescribed in the Constitution — people's initiative (PI), constitutional convention (ConCom) and constituent assembly (ConAss) — need Congress' imprimatur. Even with the acquiescence of the lower house to the initiatives of the administration for constitutional and political reforms, the Senate more often than not, proves to be the stumbling block.

It is thus a breath of political fresh air that a much-vilified actor/politician topped the Senate slate riding on the issue of constitutional revisions. I followed Sen. Robin Padilla's pronouncements in the campaign connected with the masses on his ideas of systemic changes through a shift to parliamentary form of government, federalism and opening up of the economy to foreign direct investments (FDI). Using his formidable star power — which the elite tend to denigrate — his simple recounting of his experiences and his observation while living briefly in a federal-parliamentary government, like Australia, resonated with the ordinary voters. He came across as a sincere individual who saw the advantages of a parliamentary-federal system as an antithesis to the presidential-unitary one that has spawned many of the ills of Philippine society, from corruption to injustices, to the perversion of political power through the proliferation of political dynasties, party-lists and a host of abnormalities. Senator Padilla possesses the language of the ordinary mamayan and understands their plight.

At the same time, the outgoing president who failed in pursuing constitutional and political reforms has recently become vocal about the need for the abolition of the party-list system — which has become an appendage to corrupt party politics. And he calls for constitutional revisions as a parting advice to his successor.

Incoming president Bongbong Marcos may be receptive to his predecessor's suggestions as the original Cory 1987 Constitution was born out of a blind reaction to Makoy's martial law regime. Thus were entrenched a set of anti-martial law protocols and provisions — which in 1987 were generally acceptable as the remnants of the old regime still permeated the local governments and the entire bureaucracy then. Today the anti-Marcos constitution is obsolete and has run its usefulness. Who better to initiate the needed constitutional changes than the young Marcos — now in full control of the levers of political power. The parliamentary government which Ferdinand Makoy saw as a better system can once again be adopted, but this time a real president and prime minister be installed, unlike under the 1972 Marcos constitution where Ferdinand Makoy was both the head of state and government, installing Prime Minister Cesar Virata as simply tawo-tawo sa humayan, a figurehead. And the idea of a real unicameral legislature "Batasang Pambansa" should replace the current Senate and House of Representatives.

Presidential vs...

To understand a parliamentary government better, it is necessary to contrast it with the presidential system. Excerpted from my column (The Manila Times, March 8, 2018): "For almost 100 years the system flourished feeding upon the least desired facet of Filipino culture, the desire for and dependence on a benefactor from the datu and sultan, heading a clan, to the Spanish patron looking over the indios, to the American 'big brother'; morphing into the Philippine president, the 'father' of a people..."

"And in our presidential system, where the president is elected at large, he is expected to provide the wherewithal for an expensive election campaign. This opens an aperture for the oligarchy and the moneyed elite to influence the outcome. And we can only speculate at the quid pro quo.

"With the constitutional mandated term limits of elective officials, this deviant model of 'public service as a private business' becomes a strong impetus toward the perpetuation of this power base — thus the birth of powerful political dynasties and party lists. But the most glaring defect of the presidential system of government is that this is the embryo upon which patronage politics is nurtured (TMT, May 18, 2022, 'Political dynasties and party-lists')."

...Parliamentary government

On the other hand, "...parliamentary government is also called a 'party government' because of the pivotal role of political parties in parliamentary elections, governance and public administrations.

"In a parliamentary government, the legislative and the executive powers are fused and vested in a unicameral or bicameral parliament; and the head of government is the prime minister, with his Cabinet recruited from among the members of parliament. The republican concept imposed on us by America on the fictional independence of the three branches of the executive, legislative and judiciary is drastically modified in the parliamentary system.

"The president is the head of state, elected from among the members of parliament; and upon taking his oath, he ceases to be a member of parliament and any political party. He serves a term of five years. The head of state is meant to be the unifying symbol of the Filipino nation and his powers are largely ceremonial."

In our Centrist version, "...the two houses of Congress, the Senate and House of Representatives are replaced by a unicameral parliament. It is composed of elected members from the parliamentary districts, plus those chosen on the basis of 'proportional representation' (party list) by the political party according to the votes each party obtained in the preceding elections.

"The party list chosen within the political parties shall constitute 30 percent of the total number of members of parliament and the seats reserved solely for the 'less privileged' — farmers, fisherfolk, workers, etc. Party lists, as we have today under our anomalous 1987 Constitution, are not meant to run separately and outside of a nationally accredited party.

"A mechanism to replace a prime minister is for parliament to withdraw its confidence and choose a successor by a majority vote of all its members. This 'vote of no confidence' is a much easier process of replacing a head of government in a parliamentary system than the current impeachment process."

But a critical precondition to a parliamentary government is the institutionalization of real ideologically based political parties.

Part 3 on June 15, 2022
Published in LML Polettiques