quasi diarist: December 2005

============================================================================

Folks:

If you agree with the views expressed in the article below, please
disseminate it to you friends. There is a need to build opposition to
the move by politicos to acquire even more power for themselves
through the shift to a parliamentary system. Admittedly, given the
power and influence of politicos, the hope of defeating this
initiative may be slim but we owe it to our children to try.

Thanks,
Rene
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- (The article below appeared in the Philippine Star, Nov.30, 2005)

NO! TO A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

* René B. Azurin

(Dr. Azurin is Co-Chair of the ConCom's Committee on Form of
Government. He teaches Strategic Management at the U.P. Graduate
School of Business.)

Hop on board the express train to a parliamentary system, say our
politicos. Anyway, the shift is inevitable, one trumpets. If we change
our form of government to that of our better performing neighbors and
eliminate legislative gridlock, we shall reap the rewards of economic
prosperity, they all promise.

The advocates of the shift to a parliamentary system argue

that it is our form of government that is holding us back and
preventing us from keeping economic pace with our neighbors. They
argue that the "legislative gridlock" built into the presidential
system is the main problem and that eliminating this - which the
fusion into a single body of the executive and legislative branches of
government (the distinguishing feature of the parliamentary form) will
do - will speed up our economic growth and development.

These arguments are so weak it is hard to believe that
even
those making them actually believe what they are saying.

For every country with a parliamentary government that is racing ahead
of us economically, one can cite a country with a presidential system
that is doing as well or better. In Asia, for example, Malaysia and
Thailand (which are parliamentary) may be performing better than we
are, but so are South Korea and Taiwan (which are presidential) and
these latter two are even stronger economically. The economic
performance of a country is a function of its economic policies,
resource endowments, and certain environmental conditions, not its
form of government. (China, an economic racehorse, is not even a
democracy.) In fact, in a parliamentary system, it is much more
difficult for government to adhere to economic policies that are right
for the country as a whole because such are often in conflict with the
special interests typically represented by members of parliament. Of
course, all politicos represent special interests. This problem,
however, is compounded in a parliamentary system because the fusion of
executive and legislative power in the parliamentary form simply puts
too much power in the hands of politicos. They can do virtually
anything.

We can easily dispose of this issue of "legislative gridlock". It is
argued that the elimination of legislative gridlock as a result of
adopting the parliamentary form of government will solve the country's
problems and lead to accelerated economic growth. This argument is
based on the wrong premise that legislative gridlock is what has held
back the country's economic progress. This is simply not true. There
was no legislative gridlock at all during the Marcos years and yet it
was during this period that the Philippines fell behind its neighbors
in economic performance. There was hardly any legislative gridlock
during the Cory years and the Philippines fell even farther behind.
Our failure to keep pace with our neighbors is a consequence of
protectionist economic policies, too much regulation, and, basically,
too much government. Not entirely facetiously, one might even say that
legislative gridlock may sometimes help in that it prevents our
politicos from doing the country more harm.

In a parliamentary government, the Prime Minister and his ruling gang
decide what projects to implement, they allocate the funds from the
budget for these projects, and they are also in charge of executing
these projects. This gives the ruling cartel enormous power. This
effectively makes the entire national budget (except for debt
servicing, salaries, other fixed expenditures) one big 'pork barrel'.
In a parliamentary system, there is no check for the power of the
Prime Minister and his cabinet except to resort to the Judiciary, but
that assumes one can actually document and prove wrongdoing (which is
never easy to do). If we are now disturbed by the way politicos are
presently wielding more limited powers, what should we imagine will
happen after they've been given virtually unlimited powers? And, if
even the proponents of the parliamentary form now attribute many of
the nation's problems to politicos, why in heaven's name would they
propose a solution that gives even more power to politicos? If this
isn't completely illogical, it is at least terribly naive.

Parliamentary proponents might counter this by saying that

the Prime Minister and his cabinet can be changed at any time through
a no-confidence vote and that this constitutes the check against the
ruling coalition's abuse of power. They always cite this ability to
change leaders at the drop of a hat as a major virtue of the
parliamentary system. Actually, it is a very serious shortcoming with
easily predictable repercussions. The instability of the Prime
Minister's tenure and his utter dependence on the votes of the other
members of Parliament for his stay in office from one day to the next
means that he is forever hostage to the demands of every member of
Parliament. Thus, the decisions that can be expected to be made by a
parliamentary government will usually be short-term in nature, often
inconsistent, narrow in focus, and rarely congruent with the national
interest. The parliamentary system enshrines 'horse trading' as a way
of governance. The perceived 'transactional' decisions supposedly
being made by the President to win the support of Senators and
Congressmen is a pale preview of the constant and recurring
'transactional' decision-making that is inherent in a parliamentary
government.

Given that even those who advocate the parliamentary form concede that
political and economic power in this country is too concentrated (in
less than 1% of the population), the obvious appropriate response
should be to adopt ways that disperse power, not ways that concentrate
it further. Thus, a shift to a parliamentary system is a totally
inappropriate reaction to the country's present political and economic
realities. What it does is concentrate power even more instead of
spreading and distributing it. Moreover, it allows such concentrated
power to be wielded more easily and more effectively than is possible
in a presidential system where the executive and legislative functions
remain separate.

Certainly, we need some changes in our Constitution and in our system
of government. Such changes should include limitations in the powers
and prerogatives of public officials, electoral reforms, a better way
of impeaching or recalling elected officials, reforms in the Judiciary
to expedite judgments and make the system of justice more effective,
enhanced local autonomy, and the liberalization of the economy and the
removal of citizenship restrictions on the exploitation of natural
resources, the operation of public utilities, and the ownership of
land, mass media, advertising companies, and educational institutions.
We should also enshrine voluntary exchange, open market competition,
private initiative, and minimum regulation as the bases of national
economic policy. If we want to stop looking enviously while foreign
capital pours into our neighboring countries and creates the
employment that spurs their economic growth, these are things we need
to do. We do not need to change to a parliamentary form of government.

Those who still harbor the mindset that it is government that will
lead the country to economic prosperity should abandon this kind of
outmoded thinking. Only business - by creating products and services
that are competitive in a global marketplace - can do that. Government
doesn't create products. Government only creates costs. Government
should be viewed for what it is, and this is that it is merely a
support function. What we really need is for government to spend less
and tax us less.

In any event, it is obvious that momentum is building for the shift to
a parliamentary system. Most of the major players in our political
firmament are pushing it. We can expect these politicos to campaign
for the ratification and, with their personal constituencies, it could
already be a foregone conclusion that this shift will be ratified in a
plebiscite. The only (slim) hope for this not happening is if enough
concerned citizens make it their crusade to oppose this. Concededly,
this is not very likely because it is difficult to generate much
public interest in such an abstract and unexciting issue. Which is too
bad: giving unchecked power to politicos by shifting to a
parliamentary system has long-term consequences and future generations
should blame us for this mistake.

'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times....', Dickens
once wrote, and - if the shift to a parliamentary form of government
does come to pass for us - we may yet get to see what this means. It
will then be the best of times for the politicos and, potentially, the
worst of times for the rest of us.

Continuing, Dickens wrote, '...it was the age of wisdom, it was the
age of foolishness....' Well, when the shift to a parliamentary system
happens, the politicos will look very wise, and the rest of us very
foolish.