IF statistics are correct, that nearly half of the Philippine population of 85 million think of themselves as belonging to the category of "poor," which means a substantial number of school dropouts, and if approximately the same number of the population are young people 28 years old and below, it becomes an unfair exercise to ask them to decide whether this country should adapt a federated parliamentary form of government, and shift away from the current presidential system, as the cure to all our political and economic problems.
The choice is not only complicated but the exercise lacks extensive explanation and information.
It is as unreasonable as asking the youth and masses whether democracy or totalitarianism will solve the political and economic malaise of this country since both systems have had positive and negative histories all over the world, including democracy in the Philippines.
By 2007, under the existing system, if we ask the same sectors to choose their favorites, they are likely to elect more actors and comedians, such as, Joey de Leon and Vic Sotto, to the Senate, and Senators Bong Revilla and Lito Lapid to the presidency in 2010.
Now comes the anointed members of the Consultative Commission planning to fan out to the provinces to consult the "people" on their choice of governmental system.
This scheduled exercise is a dreadful waste of time and money.
Unless the ultimate objective is to perpetuate the status quo, and lay the issue to rest, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo may be misled into thinking that the status quo will save her regime. That would be fatal.
In brief, the complicated and highly emotional controversies, such as, governance, Con-Con or ConAss, parliamentarism, federalism, EVAT, land, media, and natural resources ownership by foreign investors, and population policy, are issues of the middle class, composed of the super elite of society down to the struggling lower middle classes of clerks, teachers, self-employed, and other professionals.
It is their collegial consensus on these issues that must be secured on the presumption that the advantages derived are also good for the rest of the people.
It is thus more pragmatic and expeditious for the national leaders and educated classes to decide "what is good for the people," instead of engaging in consultations, endless debates, and wasteful spending.
Truth to tell, neither the presidential system nor the parliamentary form nor democracy nor authoritarianism is a cure-all panacea.
Each to its own system, leadership, vision, experience, and destiny.
The main issue boils down to the choice between parliament and presidential if we are to save democracy in the Philippines as the latter system is too rigid, prone to corruption, wasteful and expensive.
The parliamentary form of government does not guarantee salvation. Neither is it a cure-all.
It is mitigating, more flexible, less corruptive, and adapted in nearly 95 percent of the world’s governments.
The fact is that there is no law that can force President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, as a democratically elected President, to resign voluntarily if she does not want to.
On the other hand, in parliamentary systems, the net advantage of this political structure, among others, is that there are no term limits.
A simple vote of no confidence will suffice to oust a party leader, replace the prime minister, and call for general elections at short notice whenever necessary.
In Japan, Prime Minister Kunichiro Koizumi called the bluff of the opposition on the issue of postal reforms by calling a general elections at short notice, and eventually won by a landslide and vindication.
As Edmund Burke would observe, "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation."
You be the judge. E-mail: chaff_fromthegrain@yahoo.com.ph
