Besides providing a unique form of public theater, the seemingly endless string of political controversies in the Philippines also provides the opportunity for some politicians and would-be political experts to say the magic words “charter change” over and over again. In his insightful article “The Shawarma Effect” Benign0 very accurately describes the true source and significance of these regular crises, and given that none of them, at least since the well-engineered (and ironic, though appropriate) ouster of Joseph Estrada, have amounted to anything that could be mistaken for change, there is no real reason to fear that the country will attempt something as hare-brained as a shift to a Parliamentary system any time soon.
That is not to say that the Philippines should not fundamentally change its system of governance; on the contrary, ridding itself of the bizarre and unmanageable current structure is not only preferable, but is vital to any hope of progress or even survival for this nation. Yet to make that change now would be disastrous, and doomed to fail. From top to bottom, the people of the Philippines have only a tenuous intellectual grasp of the concept of representative democracy, or indeed of large-scale political systems of any kind. Even making the assumption that a democratic form of government is appropriate for this society is a potential error; that may indeed be the case, but until Filipinos develop the capacity and the courage to dispassionately and critically examine the needs and objectives of their society, nothing is certain. The Philippines has a long way to go before being able to make an informed choice about a system of government; debating the merits of a Parliamentary system at this point is, for the Filipino, like trying to fly the Space Shuttle with the skills acquired by learning to ride a bus.
For those who would take offense at having the natural right and privilege of the people to govern themselves questioned, they need only look to an example from recent history of the inadvisability of having an inappropriate system imposed on the country. Russia descended into chaos after the fall of Soviet rule and the embrace of democracy, because Russian society historically does not prosper in the absence of strong centralized authority. As a consequence, the government has shifted back towards authoritarian rule, first with the people’s election of the decidedly un-democratic Vladimir Putin, and their subsequent acquiescence towards his picking his own like-minded successor in Dmitri Medvedev. Filipinos are not like Russians, of course, but that is exactly the point: Filipinos are also not like Americans, or Chinese, or Australians, or anyone else. Without a clear understanding of the basic foundations, functions, and implications of any sort of political system, the Filipino’s simply aping someone else’s – or worse, attempting out of sheer hubris to “adapt” a political framework to the “unique circumstances” (read: cultural and systemic flaws) of the Philippines – is irresponsible and foolhardy. One aspect of the present-day political culture of the Philippines that does not bode well for a successful democratic system is the glaring lack of relevant and effective political parties.
Representative democracy cannot exist without strong and well-organized political parties that have clear ideologies and objectives. Political parties not only draw together people who have similar political philosophies and ideas, they are the means by which political power is exercised in a representative democracy, whether it is in the Federal form of the U.S., or the Parliamentary form of Canada, Australia, the U.K., or any number of other countries. Representative democracy works because the political structure takes precedence over personalities, and the only reason that is possible is because of the existence of political parties. The party system is much stronger in a Parliamentary government than a Federal government like the U.S., but in either system the voters do not elect people so much as they elect platforms or ideologies, because one person in a representative democracy does not rule the country, the system does. The direction that system takes is determined by the political party who holds the majority, or by parties in cooperation with each other. In the Philippines, by contrast, the executive does rule, from the Barangay Captain and Municipal Mayor to the President, and platforms and ideology are largely irrelevant. Thus, it is no surprise that most political parties in the Philippines do not even have a clear platform.
A casual Internet search for the party platforms of well-known political parties both here in the Philippines and abroad highlights the problem. The platform of the Democratic Party in the U.S. is available as a 59-page PDF download, along with several appendices. The Republicans’ platform is 67 pages. Similarly, the Canadian Conservatives have a 44-page policy document, and the Australian Labor Party outdoes them all with an incredibly-detailed, 319-page epic. Here in the Philippines, the Lakas-CMD coalition offers nothing at all (not even a website, actually), and the Nacionalistas offer a vapid reference to “achieving economic independence” on their FAQ’s page. The Liberal Party does little better, providing a policy sta
tement as “an alternative to traditional politics and to misguided populism” that is long on sentiment but short on details. Of all the Philippines’ political parties, only AKBAYAN seems to have grasped the concept of developing and publicizing a meaningful platform, offering points of view on the issues of jobs, education, health care, law and order, housing, corruption in government, and agrarian reform. The merits of those positions and how faithfully the party adheres to them are likely debatable, but that is beside the point; the fact that AKBAYAN has at least taken the first step on the path to being a legitimate political party is noteworthy. The rest are political parties in name only, and even that might be too generous a characterization.
“Charter change” is an eminently desirable goal for the Philippines, but is step number four or five or fifty in a process that the country has not really even started yet. But until it does, the solution to the important problem of governance will remain elusive. The first and most important step is recognizing that it is not simply a matter of politics, but of re-weaving the fabric of society: of providing proper education to the people so that they have the critical skills to seek sources of knowledge, and more importantly, to question them. It requires a common language, which in turn requires not simply education but practice and use. It requires an acceptance that the best advice and inspiration never comes from within: that Manuel Quezon’s famous declaration that he “would rather have a Philippines run like hell by the Filipinos than run like heaven by the Americans” is nothing more than a monument to his own and his country’s abysmal ignorance.
And most of all, it requires the recognition that the solution will not be an end, but a beginning. And until it happens, there will be no foundation upon which to build any specific ideas, even if they are good ones like abolishing the party-list system or turning the country into a commonwealth. It is long past time for the Philippines to stop trusting that God, luck, or the good intentions of wealthy criminals and publicity-seeking buffoons will put the country on the path to prosperity. So long, in fact, that perhaps the country should be asking itself if that’s really the path it wants to be on.
Perhaps the mental and physical effort and cooperation that requires is too much to expect. You do, after all, have a choice; either be a real country, or be a colony of servants and dissolute layabouts. Either way, at least be honest with yourselves – in other words, Get Real.
Comments
