 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Transition to What? By Antonio C. Abaya September 24, 2003 Once again, political battle lines are being drawn towards the proposed shift to the parliamentary form of government, but this time with a new twist, to wit, whoever is elected president in 2004 will serve as a transition president only up to 2007, after which he/she will give way to a parliament which will elect a prime minister, either to serve out the balance of the six-year term to 2010, or to start an entirely new term as prime minister up to 2012 or 2013. (Proponents of this formula want President Arroyo to be that transition president.) As one who has batted for the parliamentary system long before the idea was picked up by the trapos of Jose de Venecia, I can go along in principle with such a formula, but with certain reservations. Paramount among these reservations is the concern that the trapos want to engineer this shift through the mechanism of a constituent assembly, meaning that the current members of the Senate and the Lower House will convene themselves into that assembly. This guarantees that the resultant document will be tailored specifically to preserve, protect and perpetuate the interests of the trapos themselves. Why should we bother to incur the expense and acrimony of a charter change when we will wind up with the same predatory trapos, or their kin and assignees, in power? To be meaningful, charter change should be the product of a constitutional convention, with its members elected or appointed or a combination of both. Trapos being part of the problem, they should not be part of the solution; otherwise the �solution� becomes compromised or tainted by the trapos� very participation in it. It is unthinkable, for example, that a constituent assembly populated by today�s trapos will ever do anything to dismantle political dynasties. A bill or bills towards this end was/were filed years ago but is/are languishing in some dark and dusty archive of the Batasan and Senate, unlikely to see the light of day ever. And yet the existence and proliferation of political dynasties is one of curses of the Philippine political system. Every election sees more dynasties emerging from the swamp. Politics has become not only a lucrative business, it has become a lucrative family business, with huge fortunes invested in election campaigns, to be recovered and multiplied several times over when Papa is senator, Mama is congresswoman, Kuya is governor, Ate is mayor, and the family idiot a not-so-lowly councilor doing his family duty exacting rent from the helpless electorate. It is also unthinkable that a constituent assembly of trapos will ever do anything to eliminate pork barrel. That is what many, even most, of them enter politics for, to amass fabulous personal fortunes in the shortest possible time, something that is physically impossible if one devoted one�s time and energy to running a business, managing a manufacturing enterprise or engaging in some humdrum profession. In the Philippine context, it is only in politics that one can win the equivalent of a lotto jackpot every week, and no trapo is going to give up that opportunity just for some silly changes in the political system. Which is why I have strong reservations about a shift to the parliamentary system as engineered by the trapos of De Venecia. A transition presidency preparatory to such a shift as crafted by such self-serving vultures would be a transition to More-of-the-Same. We might as well have a monarchy or a communist dictatorship of the proletariat if we were only after drastic change, for the sake of change, in the political system. Nothing has changed under the trapos, even after Edsa 1 and Edsa 2. Nothing will change under the trapos even if the Edsa count were to go up to 100. ***** And it is not just a matter of shifting to another system, even if the trapos were somehow strictly excluded from the process, even if political dynasties were somehow miraculously dismantled, even if pork barrel were somehow unexpectedly done away with. There have to be built-in mechanisms for the healthy growth of political parties that have clearly defined political and ideological platforms. That means we have to get away from the American two-party system which divides the totality of all human wisdom between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and move closer to the West European model of a multi-party system, with each party adhering to a clearly defined political line, from monarchist to communist. And because old habits will die hard, especially under a new, unfamiliar parliamentary system, there have to be built-in mechanisms for the prevention of that time-honored maneuver of Filipino politicians, whether trapo or non-trapo: political turncoatism. With clearly defined party platforms, there should be no credible reason for any politician to change parties; but leave it to Pinoys to think of something. Such habitual opportunism should be discouraged under a new parliamentary system by penalizing it. Not by imposing some meaningless fine on the erring trapo, but by making him/her suffer where it hurts the most: tenure. If a rule were established that a political turncoat would be automatically disqualified from running for any office in the next election, we would see a sharp decline in the incidence of this disgusting opportunistic behavior. For example, supposedly pro-administration senator Loren Legarda had been entertaining speculations that she would team up with opposition presidential wannabe Sen. Panfilo Lacson as his vice-presidential running mate. With the self-destruction of Lacson, Legarda has apparently been examining other options and has lately been entertaining speculations of a team-up with Danding Cojuangco instead, who will certainly be an opposition candidate in 2004 if he decides to go for the presidency then. Under the proposed anti-turncoatism rule above, Legarda would be free to change party from administration to opposition, but she would be disqualified from running for any office in the next (2004) elections. Opportunistic behavior would thus be discouraged. I realize these are severe restrictions by any standard, especially for Filipinos who have grown accustomed to inter-acting in an environment of anarchy or near-anarchy for generations. But if we are serious about making meaningful changes in our society, we have to move from anarchy to civilized order in everything, including our politics. Otherwise, we will just be transitioning from Moro-Moro to More-of-the-Same. ***** The bulk of this article appears in the October 05, 2003 issue of the Philippines Free Press magazine. Other articles are archived in the website www.tapatt.org. |
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Transition to What?� You mean you are just realizing this now?!!! Who else is going to get this passed except the trapos? And of course, the only time it is going to pass, is when it favors the dynasties. Yes, you put it just about right when you said "it might as well be a moarchy." I mean, like.... why else would they be for it? As (I think it was) Marcos said :"what are we in power for anyway?" What else do they have in their heads except to scheme on how to preserve power. Where else can you win at Lotto every week (Kudos, I liked that one :-) Peter Capotosto, [email protected] September 28, 2000 MY REPLY. No, I am not �just realizing this now?!!!� In my many previous comments on the parliamentary system, I have expressed the need to free the political system from the clutches of the trapos and their political dynasties. That�s why there is a need for the incumbent president, whoever he or she may be, to lead a social and cultural revolution against the trapos and their political dynasties. The alternative is a bloody and violent revolution led either by the communists, or by military adventurists like Gringo Honasan. Which one would you prefer? And no, it wasn�t Ferdinand Marcos who cynically asked �What are we in power for?� That dubious honor belongs to then Sen. Jose Avelino, who asked the rhetorical question in public in 1949. ............................................................................... The shift to parliamentary system will not cure the many problems that we have particularly, as you said, if the trapos engineered the change themselves through a constituent assembly. However because of the entrench corruption in our government, I am in favor of changing the political system to parliamentary form. I am not saying for the moment that the parliamentary system will eliminate corruption, in fact Neal Cruz always said that the parliamentary system will make it easier for a corrupt politician to become Prime Minister because all he/she has to do is bribe the members of parliament instead of the whole nation. This is basically why I want the change. The parliamentary system will make it cheaper to get elected and the temptation to steal money to finance the next election will be less. And because it is cheaper to get elected as a member of parliament instead of president, we may encourage honest people to run for office in the future. Under presidential form, good politician has no hope of becoming president unless he/she has billions and wants to spend that amount of money and becoming a martyr. Another impact of parliamentary system is the lessening of the influence of the so called religious vote�.4 million members nationwide may be enough to get a president elected but may fall short of electing majority members of parliament. We must start somewhere to fix our nation and we must start at the top and gradually to all levels of government. More power to you and your organization. Regards, Lito Diwa, [email protected] Sydney, Australia September 29, 2003 ������������������������������� Dear Mr. Abaya, Thank you for providing me with your article on the proposed transition to the parliamentary form of government. Your views coincide with those of my husband who is apprehensive of cha-cha, and very outraged with JDV's proposed con-ass. He says that JDV simplistically presents his con-ass as a "silver bullet"...no-pain/all gain solution; cites progressive economies of Malaysia and Thailand in Asia as having parliamentary forms of government. How about the economies of Korea and Taiwan? JDV should "tell that to the marines". It was nice of my classmate, Marisol, to furnish you my email address. I had always read your articles with great interest when they appeared at the Philippine Star. Will look forward to receiving more of your articles. Thank you again. Chit C. Simon, [email protected] September 30, 2003 54 Vienna, Merville Paranaque City (City Shamed by its Mayor) OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |