Replay forward

AS the prospects of shifting to a parliamentary system become stronger, it's time we use some hindsight, replaying history and looking at why we have had such miserable experiences with politics. Armed with insights from the past, we might be able to move forward.

From 1935 (the Commonwealth government) through 1972, with a brief interruption during the World War II, we used a presidential system that was a carbon copy of Mother America's. We held elections every four years for a president, vice president, senators and congressmen (no gender-correct language yet at that time), with the president limited to two consecutive terms or a total of eight years.

The system of directly electing a president and vice president meant a focus on personalities, which created many problems. The incumbent president would end up using the last two years of his term politicking, looking toward reelection. And all for nothing, because until Ferdinand Marcos, none of the presidents succeeded in getting reelected.

Political parties had little meaning in our presidential system with the focus on personalities. In the pre-Marcos era, politics was a game of musical chairs involving two parties, the Nacionalista Party (NP) and the Liberal Party (LP), with elections focusing on personalities trying to outdo each other with campaign gimmicks. The merging of show biz and politics started even in the 1950s, with "Magsaysay Mambo" jingles, baby-kissing, singing and dancing. Matinee idol Rogelio de la Rosa made his way into the Senate and ran for president in 1957, withdrawing only a few weeks before the election to support his brother-in-law Diosdado Macapagal.

Dictatorship hybrids

Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos brought showbiz politics to new heights. They were young and full of charisma; between his eloquent speeches and her song-and-dance routines, they were able to capture Malacañang easily in 1965. Marcos was reelected in 1969, but that election was marked by fraud and massive spending of public funds.

As his second term was about to come to an end, Marcos convened a constitutional convention. Then, as now, presidential loyalists tried to steer the convention to create a constitution that would allow Marcos to retain power. Then, as now, there were scandals and exposés of payolas to constitutional delegates.

The Con-Con became moot when Marcos declared martial law in 1972. He rushed a new constitution, imposing a hybrid system with Marcos taking on the role of both president and prime minister, with a rubber-stamp parliament called Batasang Pambansa. In 1981, he did appoint Cesar Virata as prime minister, but retained absolute power as president, issuing presidential decrees that had the force of law.

Under Marcos, too, the political party system degenerated even more. There was one ruling party, Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (or KBL, which was re-translated to mean Kami ay Bayad Lang [We Are Just Paid] to emphasize their being nothing more than paid hacks) with a motley band of token parties, including the NP and LP.

New improved presidency

After we got rid of the dictator in 1986, we passed a new constitution that shifted us back into a presidential system with some modifications. Fearful of a new Marcos, we limited the president to one six-year term.

But we continued to face many problems with this new presidential system. The degeneration of political parties that began during the Marcos dictatorship continued, the parties' roles now confined to the running of election campaigns and guarding their officials' public image, much like studios and TV networks do with actors and actresses.

A few political parties today do have distinct visions and programs (e.g., Bayan, Akbayan, Aksyon Demokratiko), but with most of the others, a party platform is a stage you climb to sing and dance. Not surprisingly, these politicians have no accountability, having been voted into office on rhetoric and promises, plus guns, goons, gold and glitter, rather than on the basis of party programs. Think hard now: Do you know what the President's party affiliations have been, and what they stood for? More importantly, do you know what she and Vice President Noli de Castro stand for today, they having run as one team?
Which brings us to another problem with the presidential system. When Estrada fell, we ended up with his vice president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, even if, at that time, there were already serious doubts about her ability to govern. Now, if Ms Arroyo falls, we get Noli de Castro. All this is really absurd when you think about it: Governments fail not just because of a president but because of an entire slate of officials.

Prime Minister Arroyo?

A parliamentary system offers an alternative with its emphasis on political parties rather than personalities. People don't directly elect the head of state; instead, the country is divided into electoral districts, each one voting a representative to Parliament. Votes are cast for political parties and platforms, which means the politicians have to get their act together and show how different they are from each other. The political party that gets the most seats in Parliament, alone or in coalition with other parties with similar political platforms, assumes the reins of government, including electing the head of state.

There is much greater accountability in a parliamentary system. If the ruling party doesn't perform, or if there are scandals, parliament can go into a vote of no confidence, forcing the government to dissolve itself and call for new elections. No need here for banners like "Resign All!"

It isn't as tumultuous as it sounds; precisely, in a parliamentary system we'd have the mechanisms and procedures to dismiss an inept or corrupt government and elect a new one, with a stable transition period.

There are variations on the parliamentary system, but they generally work well, India, the world's largest democracy, being a prime example.

There's, of course, much more to parliamentary systems than can be written about in a column. Neither am I going to suggest that a parliament will solve all our political problems. We had peace with a compliant parliament under the Marcos dictatorship, but that, I feel, was far worse than what we have today, headaches and all, with our beleaguered presidential system.

House Speaker Jose de Venecia and other Arroyo loyalists are now proposing Charter change and a parliamentary system, a move that has been greeted with cynicism because in their plan, Congress will convene as a constituent assembly to amend the Constitution. The worst nightmares could come true, as we see headlines "President Arroyo resigns" followed shortly by "Prime Minister Arroyo sworn in."

What painful irony indeed, since a proper parliamentary system could actually save us from more Arroyos. In the final analysis, whether presidential or parliamentary, it is what we make of the form of government that determines our future. Political systems don't fail people; it's people who fail the systems.