Toronto, Ontario
THE DUTERTE CONUNDRUM
by Oswald Magno
Under the seriously flawed Philippine Constitution, the president is safely ensconced for a fixed term of six years.
Short of a popular uprising, it is practically impossible for the body politic to get rid of an erratic, whimsical, incompetent and despotic president who is causing harm for much longer than can be tolerated.
Impeachment, the remedy provided in the Constitution for removing a wayward president, is a sham, because oftentimes he has control of the Senate, the only constitutional body that can remove him from office.
The people have to wait it out until he completes his term, is incapacitated, dies from natural or other causes or voluntarily resigns, although these eventualities are not satisfactory solutions in themselves, because he can pre-annoint someone who will continue his harmful policies and use the awesome powers of his office to get that person elected.
That a president can do whatever he wants and act with impunity is a troubling reality that is made worse by the fact that transparency in governance is virtually non-existent. The president cannot be questioned on a regular basis regarding government affairs and policy issues. He cannot be made to appear before a congressional committee to answer questions. No one can engage him in a debate. He hides behind a paid spokesman whose job, of course, is to spin, obfuscate and lie.
This malaise is further worsened by the fact that there is no effective political opposition under the current system, placing an undue burden on ordinary citizens to voice their opposition to detrimental policies in the streets.
Presidential system not conducive
The presidential system is not conducive to the development of strong political parties, and the reason for this is obvious – unlike parliamentary systems, political parties in presidential systems do not compete for the right to form a government. The presence of party lists gives voice to under-represented sectors in the social strata, but their numbers in the legislature are too few to make or influence public policy.
Our history as a democracy has shown that the presidential system has failed to consistently vet and produce competent and upright leaders, and rightfully deserves to be characterized as a “hit or miss” system.
The outcome of these serious flaws and weaknesses is lack of transparency and political accountability, which are responsible for the endemic corruption and mal-governance that we have been witnessing all our lives.
Can we afford to maintain this hit or miss system? Reports have it that the country is already indebted far beyond its means to repay, not to mention its being burdened with massive budget deficits. The interest on the foreign debt alone will significantly impair the country’s ability to make improvements to the lives of Filipinos, with much needed investments in education, industrial development, electrification, infrastructure, etc. that will boost the economy and allow the country to successfully compete with other countries in the region.
I have made it my personal advocacy to change our system to a more collegial and accountable form of governance – the parliamentary system – and I encourage anyone of like mind to take this up as his or personal advocacy as well.
While I am no political scientist, I am convinced that a shift to a system where elections are about choices between issue-based political platforms (and not between individual personalities), and where the electorate has the ability to remove power from the ruling political party that fails to implement its mandate, betrays the people’s trust, engages in corruption or otherwise no longer serves the people’s interest, is far superior to a system that is steeped in parochialism, prone to authoritarianism (and even dictatorship), breeds corruption and is largely unaccountable to voters.
There is a plethora of evidence that countries with parliamentary systems are more progressive economically because of better targetting of limited public funds and resources to projects that provide the greatest benefit and lower incidence of corruption. These countries dominate the list of non-corrupt jurisdictions according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, largely because of the collegial nature of governance under this system i.e. every member of a political party (especially the ruling party) having a personal interest in good governance, which is driven by the need to maintain the people’s trust and so to gain, or retain, the right to govern.
I enjoin my fellow expats and nationals to devote some of their energies to advocating constitutional reforms designed to make politicians more accountable for their actions and policies.
By adopting a more collegial and accountable system of governance, we improve our collective ability to end systemic corruption and mal-governance.
About the Author
Oswald Magno is a blogger who writes occasionally about Philippine politics. He obtained Political Science and Law degrees from the University of the Philippines, Diliman campus.