Governance in Philippines

[frenzfries]

and speaking of governance, i think we badly need a change in constitution. Parliamentary system is way better than presidential system so that we can avoid those undeserving gov't officials to be elected.

[interxavierxxx]

and speaking of governance, i think we badly need a change in constitution. Parliamentary system is way better than presidential system so that we can avoid those undeserving gov't officials to be elected.

I couldn't agree more.

[kerouac82]

and speaking of governance, i think we badly need a change in constitution. Parliamentary system is way better than presidential system so that we can avoid those undeserving gov't officials to be elected.

How is that so? I like the current system since we can elect our officials directly. With the parliamentary system, we cannot choose the Prime Minister since the choice is left to the party which holds a majority. And we all know that we don't exactly have the strongest party system in the world.

[interxavierxxx]

How is that so? I like the current system since we can elect our officials directly. With the parliamentary system, we cannot choose the Prime Minister since the choice is left to the party which holds a majority. And we all know that we don't exactly have the strongest party system in the world.

Direct democracy is a very flawed system. What makes you think the amount of responsible voters outnumber the naive voters? A simple example: voting for NoyNoy only because his mother died; sympathy vote. Don't even get me started on Erap because I still don't understand how people are so stupid enough to vote for this guy (he came 2nd to Noynoy).

Indirect democracy is more proper, which is why it is used by many prosperous nations today, including the United States.

It is riskier to entrust the election of an executive official to the people because they cannot be trusted to vote wisely.

[kerouac82]

Direct democracy is a very flawed system. What makes you think the amount of responsible voters outnumber the naive voters? A simple example: voting for NoyNoy only because his mother died; sympathy vote. Don't even get me started on Erap because I still don't understand how people are so stupid enough to vote for this guy (he came 2nd to Noynoy).

Indirect democracy is more proper, which is why it is used by many prosperous nations today, including the United States.

It is riskier to entrust the election of an executive official to the people because they cannot be trusted to vote wisely.

I disagree with you about the role (or non-role) of the Electoral College in the U.S. I'm no U.S. citizen, but the Electoral College system tends to favor the states with bigger populations, e.g., California and New York State, in effect marginalizing the smaller states that depend mainly on agriculture for revenue.

But I'm sure you will agree with me about a strong, ideology-based party system being an essential ingredient in all systems that are based on the model of indirect democracy. Anyway, we are in the wrong thread.

[interxavierxxx]

I disagree with you about the role (or non-role) of the Electoral College in the U.S. I'm no U.S. citizen, but the Electoral College system tends to favor the states with bigger populations, e.g., California and New York State, in effect marginalizing the smaller states that depend mainly on agriculture for revenue.

But I'm sure you will agree with me about a strong, ideology-based party system being an essential ingredient in all systems that are based on the model of indirect democracy. Anyway, we are in the wrong thread.

This is my last post regarding this subject but the electoral college highlights the strength of representative democracy based on a strong party system. Elections in the US are not determined by states with bigger populations but by swing states, where it is impossible to call if this state will be taken by the candidate in the republican or democratic party. Apparently, I don't think the electoral college is gonna work for us considering the size of our country is peanuts compared to the United States. Should we go to indirect democracy, parliamentary system is the way to go.

[frenzfries]

The reason

How is that so? I like the current system since we can elect our officials directly. With the parliamentary system, we cannot choose the Prime Minister since the choice is left to the party which holds a majority. And we all know that we don't exactly have the strongest party system in the world.

Sir, since i don't want to lead this thread to nowhere, i will just put in a simple sentence.

In a Presidential system, people can elect idiots while in a Parliamentary system, parties elect intelligent people.

or maybe you're not down with that?just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWVtUmMS-5U

after this, let's move on.

[alien space bats]

guys, before you try to change the constitution, let me graduate first so i can hurdle the bar in 2012! the 1987 constitution's most notable flaw is its verbosity. its sheer length is hell to any law student trying to memorize and master it. if you change the constitution now, that means only one thing. all the time that i spent on memorization and mastery of its provisions will be all for naught.

anyway, why are you talking politics here. i'd rather read senseless basketball posts by jorgii and company than political rants. at least, they're entertaining. pare-pareho lng yan, imho, leftist, rightist, center.

[eindhow]

can we close this thread? this is going nowhere... you guys could settle your arguments in other forums... tnx

It's actually an interesting topic.. Though the wrong thread.. But it all started with basketball..

[Roseblade13]

This only shows that everything is very interconnected, Our National basketball team is a reflection of our nation

[interxavierxxx]

This only shows that everything is very interconnected, Our National basketball team is a reflection of our nation

You nailed it. Our nation is a mess as well as our basketball.

[donmar]

I agree that we need to change the entire system but I prefer a mixed of Federalism and Parliamentary... and yes, direct democracy is flawed where the ignorant majority outvoted the thinking minority.. I don't want to sound elitists or something but majority of Filipinos under direct democracy tends to vote who is the most popular or who can pay them money not based on merits and platforms..

But we can't change the system if we can't change the culture or the mindset of the people... just like kerouac82 pointed out, without a strong party system and loyalty, parliamentary democracy is bound to fail... another thing is voting... what's the use of changing a system if the people vote the same group of irresponsible elites and corrupt politicians..

I support charter change but we need to change the political mindset of the people at the same time..

About the electoral college.. I think it will work... based on population not on geography...

[kerouac82]

Sir, since i don't want to lead this thread to nowhere, i will just put in a simple sentence.

In a Presidential system, people can elect idiots while in a Parliamentary system, parties elect intelligent people.

or maybe you're not down with that?just watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWVtUmMS-5U

after this, let's move on.

Which brings us to the question: Does the Philippines really have a strong party system?

I brought up that topic in a previous post and I have asked it again just now, since many pro-ChaCha advocates seem to gloss over it. In the United States, which is not really run by a parliament, there are two major parties: the Democrats and their liberal ideology, and the Republicans and their conservatism. A voter identifies with a party and registers with either one or the other when he registers in the precinct where he will vote.

In the U.S., defections are very rare -- the biggest defection in recent history would be that of Jim Jeffords, a Yale-educated senator who left the Republicans to turn independent, voting with the Democrats since 2001. Here, with every new president (or candidate), politicians leave their parties and hop on the bandwagon. Except for some of the militant party-list groups, parties do not have well-defined ideologies and are open to raiding by other parties, if they do not do so themselves.

I have watched the video dozens of times before, so do not attempt to tell me anything I don't already know. True, India's success story is something to admire, and maybe emulate. But do we really have to imitate everything that works? China is in the middle of an economic boom. Does that mean we should go semi-Maoist, too? (My NatDem friends will be so happy if we do ). How about Singapore's draconian model?

India had well-educated leaders, yes. But we've also had our share of well-educated leaders, too: Ramos went to West Point and has an MBA and a master's degree in engineering from Illinois. GMA has a PhD in economics from U.P., although one may argue that she was not popularly-elected president (my family went for Raul Roco in 2004). Marcos was a bar topnotcher. So, clearly, Filipinos are capable of electing educated presidents; whether the educated presidents were able to foster universal access to education and health care and were able to lower the budget deficit is a matter of debate. It's not a matter of the parliamentary system being equivalent to good leadership.

Again, we've already established that we do not have a real party system, so that precludes party leaders being chosen on the basis of competence. The video says that in the parliamentary system, parties, not the people themselves, choose the nation's leaders. So saan tayo pupulitin niyan? One cannot just say "Let's go parliamentary and let the parties work themselves out". Indeed, a strong party system is a prerequisite for any political model to work, be it presidential or parliamentary. This is something that we don't have at the moment. Establish strong parties first, then we can talk about amending the Constitution. Or better yet, let's not amend the Constitution muna and see how a strong party system will work in the present form of government.

When the video claimed that "only the oligarchs do not want the parliamentary system", I almost spewed coffee all over my laptop screen. The "oligarch" card has been played ever since some people, including members of the ruling oligarchy, started calling for charter change in the late 90s. If there is one sector which will benefit from charter change, it will be the ruling oligarchy and their propensity to vote amongst themselves. The result will be a rigodon of the same old names, with little or no chance for smaller, unfamiliar names or parties to emerge.

Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I'm a member of a party-list group identified with the moderate left. Whenever we go on missions to depressed communities, people do not know about the fuss about charter change. There is little grassroots clamor for it. The video is a clear case of Astroturfing, if you ask me.

[alien space bats]

I agree that we need to change the entire system but I prefer a mixed of Federalism and Parliamentary... and yes, direct democracy is flawed where the ignorant majority outvoted the thinking minority.. I don't want to sound elitists or something but majority of Filipinos under direct democracy tends to vote who is the most popular or who can pay them money not based on merits and platforms..

But we can't change the system if we can't change the culture or the mindset of the people... just like kerouac82 pointed out, without a strong party system and loyalty, parliamentary democracy is bound to fail... another thing is voting... what's the use of changing a system if the people vote the same group of irresponsible elites and corrupt politicians..

I support charter change but we need to change the political mindset of the people at the same time..

About the electoral college.. I think it will work... based on population not on geography...

former senator nene pimentel during his incumbency proposed the creation of a federal philippine government but was unable to secure the support of fellow lawmakers and the people in general. he would have the philippines divided into 11 federal states, namely:

1. The State of Northern Luzon;

2. The State of Central Luzon;

3. The State of Southern Tagalog;

4. The State of Bicol;

5. The State of Minparom; (mindoro, palawan, romblon)

6. The State of Eastern Visayas;

7. The State of Central Visayas;

8. The State of Western Visayas;

9. The State of Northern Mindanao;

10. The State of Southern Mindanao; and

11. The State of BangsaMoro”

[donmar]

former senator nene pimentel during his incumbency proposed the creation of a federal philippine government but was unable to secure the support of fellow lawmakers and the people in general. he would have the philippines divided into 11 federal states, namely:

1. The State of Northern Luzon;

2. The State of Central Luzon;

3. The State of Southern Tagalog;

4. The State of Bicol;

5. The State of Minparom; (mindoro, palawan, romblon)

6. The State of Eastern Visayas;

7. The State of Central Visayas;

8. The State of Western Visayas;

9. The State of Northern Mindanao;

10. The State of Southern Mindanao; and

11. The State of BangsaMoro”

I read his proposal.. its not bad.. sadly, nobody tend to listen to him... charter change movement need to start from the grassroots.. they have to convince not just the politicians but the people also.. of course, its hard for them to understand charter change especially if many of them did not even read or understand the constitution that needed to be replace...