http://www.abs-cbnnews.

com/feedback/08/26/09/re-multi-party-system-philippinepolitics-must-be-abolished

RE: The multi party system in Philippine politics must be abolished

By Conrad S. Angeles, reader Posted at 08/26/2009 2:52 PM | Updated as of 08/26/2009 2:52 PM Because it only gives Filipinos problems when voting for the right candidate. Like in the 2010 elections each party want to field its own candidate. For example Liberal Party will field Sen. Mar Roxas, Nationality Party standard bearer will be Sen. Manny Villar, National People's Coalition Party might tap Sen. Chiz Escudero, UNO they have former President ERAP and Lakas-Kampi-CMD, either Vice-President Noli De Castro or Depense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro. Magulo at parang nasasalaula na ang takbo ng politika sa atin bansa ito ang naging pahayag ng kolumnistang si Mr. Jarius Bondoc kamakailan sa isang interview ng ABSCBN. Idagdag pa dyan sina Bro. Eddie Villanueva, Bro. Mike Velarde at si Father at Gov. Ed Panlilio ng Pampanga na pangarap ding maging lider ng ating bansa. Magulo ng masyado ang takbo ng politika sa atin kaya dapat alisin na uli ang multi party system. We must go back to two party system like in the previous decades. Today Filipinos couldn't concentrate because of too many politicians who want to run for president in the Philippines. What Filipinos can do at the moment is, this is the time to study the situation very well. Select a winnable candidate 9 months before the 2010 national election from the possible presidential aspirant I mentioned above. My prediction is this, if the highest position will be between Villar, Roxas, Escudero, De Castro. Sen. Villar might emerge the winner. Do you like that even if Senator Villar is close to the present alledged fake leader? Meaning there's no chance for Aling Gloria to answer her alledged wrong doings during her regime.

But if ERAP against any of the presidential candidate, ERAP might win again if he will not be disqualied by the SC. Aling Gloria must be given a disciplinary action once her term lapse in June 30, 2010. And this task could be done by ERAP. Philippines was devastated by Aling Gloria in terms of financial matters. I heard next month Aling Gloria is again about to fly to UK and KSA as a resumption of her World Tour. Conrad S. Angeles conradangeles[at]rocketmail.com

http://larlasavella.blogspot.com/2005/12/in-article-are-parliamentary-systems.html

DEVELO PME NT CHALLE NG E S IN THE 21S T CE NTU RY...M Y THOUG HTS ON PHIL. CONS TITUT IONAL REFO R M
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2005

In the article Are parliamentary systems better? author John Gerring, Strom Thanker and Carola Moreno compared the various characteristics of parliamentary and presidential systems. Parliamentary systems foster strong political parties, more centralized and party aligned interest groups, a more centralized decision making process and more centralized hierarchal administrative structures while a presidential system promotes fragmentation because of its veto powers. A parliamentary system is more decisive while a presidential system is resolute. The style of politics in a parliamentary system is more institutionalized and centered on political parties while a presidential system is centered on the individual politicians. Unification of power is emphasized in parliamentary system while diffusion is emphasized in presidential system. In terms of party organization, in parliamentary systems political parties serves as the linchpin for accountability and effective governance, while the existence of an independently elected executive with strong policy making

prerogatives weaken party cohesion in presidential systems. Since the chief executive is directly voted in a presidential system it promotes transparency between the elections and the outcome of the elections, while in a parliamentary system, coalition negotiations occur when a party fails to get a majority of the votes in the legislature. In parliamentary systems there is greater accountability in the national level because authority is vested to a single group while local accountability is greater in presidential systems because power is distributes to various bodies. In a parliamentary system power is monopolized by a party or coalition while in presidential systems conflict is prevalent and consensus is mandated in the constitution. Dissolution is normal in parliamentary systems and it done thru a vote of no confidence or dissolution, while a presidential system lacks mechanisms for the dissolution of elected branches in the government. Parliamentary systems cultivate a highly predictable form of politics and policy making because the participants are part of the establishment while in a presidential system, the president, legislators, interest group leaders and bureaucracies enjoy a degree of independence from the institutions that they are part of.

The article by Arturo Valenzuela discusses the crisis of Presidentialism. According to him, in the case of Latin America, the presidential system made the situation worse and contributed to the difficulty of democratic consolidation. This is due to the problems brought about by a presidential system which is its inability to secure cooperative majority which is more prevalent is a multiparty or segmented 2 party system and it doesnt have the ready solution to the political impasse that arises when a president cannot command majority support in the legislature. In Latin America there are several problems that they encounter due to their form government. First is the existence of a multipartisan and fragmented 2 party system and the emergence of surge candidates and that has no party affiliation contribute to the inability of their governments to secure majorities. Second, the governments, in order to address the impasse of presidentialism increased its use of presidential prerogatives, executive decrees as legislatures abdicated their prerogative and constitutional changes created strong executives. This failed because the role of the legislative for coalition building is reduced. And third problem is that there is no option for presidents who failed but still has to fulfill their term of office. There is a need to address the problem of fragmentation and the inappropriateness of the majoritarian system and the author of the article proposed several reforms. First is to schedule together the congressional and presidential election , voting straight for both the legislative and executive branches, have the power to dissolve congress, and shift to a parliamentary system. The shift in the form of government would reduce the difficulty in creating coalition, address the problem of surge candidates, encourage the formation of majority coalitions,

provide incentives or tools for structuring majority governments and it would eliminate gridlocks between the executive and legislative bodies.

Based on their research of various countries by the National Democratic Institute on second chambers, they conclude that most second houses were created to represent the interests of the state or provincial structures within a given country. Most of the members are indirectly elected by provincial or state legislations. Sometimes, they also seek to represent other interests such as of the minority groups in Malaysia. The second houses power to accept, amend or reject legislation is key to evaluating the relative potency and legitimacy of the second house. The strongest houses are that of Germany because it has the power of absolute veto in all fields. Most houses also has the authority to introduce legislation, and this ability is used to represent the interest of the province and it determines the relation of the second house to the congress. In some cases like Argentina, Brazil, Russia, this power has some limitations. The method of composition for the second houses determines to a large extent the relationship between national and regional bodies as well as the degree of accountability that exists. The second houses whose members are directly elected tend to have a negligible connection with their respective provincial or state legislatures. Countries with strong ties are Namibia, Germany and Russia, wherein members of the second house retain their roles on the provincial or regional level. In order cases like, Austria and Argentina, the second house is closely tied to the province through party organization. Consultation with provincial constituencies such as local governments, NGOs and interest groups are also done. In Russia, the members of the second house spend most of their time in the region enabling them to establish constant contact with their constituencies and therefore represent their interest effectively.

If you review and compare presidential and parliamentary systems in our readings, it can be concluded that parliamentary systems are better than presidential systems. Around the world, the most successful countries are parliamentary while struggling countries except for the United States have presidential forms of government. In the case of the Philippines would a shift to a parliamentary government help improve our situation? Yes, I think that a shift would be appropriate. One of the main problems of the Philippine government is the deadlock between the executive and legislative departments, by having a parliamentary system, this problem would be easily addressed because the legislative and the executive branches would be consolidated. It would also be easier for the government to deal with a chief executive who is not performing well since there are mechanisms in a parliamentary system that would enable to change the leadership quickly. But of course, this form

of government would not be successful if we dont have a strong political party system because parliamentary systems are party based. I think it would also be beneficial if we just have a unitary form of parliamentary system rather than having a bicameral system to avoid the problem of deadlock. The prospect for a parliamentary system in the Philippines is very promising because it seems that it is gaining a lot of support from the people and the time might just be right for us to do this.

References

Bergman, T., Muller, W., Strm, K. (2005). Comparative Parliamentary Democracy: A Project Report. [Electronic version]. European Political Science, 4(?), 42-54.

Gerring, J., Thacker, S., Moreno, C. (2004). Are Parliamentary Systems Better?: A Crossnational Analysis [Electronic version].

Haggard, S., McCubbins, M. (1999). Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy [Electronic version].

Metcalf, L. K. (2000). Measuring Presidential Power [Electronic version]. Comparative Political Studies, 33(5), 660-685.

National Democratic Institute. (1996). A Comparative Study of Second Chambers of Parliament in Selected Countries [Electronic version].

Prez-Lin, A. (2005). Democratization and Constitutional Crises in Presidential Regimes. [Electronic version]. Comparative Political Studies, 38(1), 51-74.

Valenzuela, A. (1993). The Crisis of Presidentialism in Latin America [Electronic version]. Journal of Democracy, 4(4), 3-16.