Are we ready for a parliamentary system?

IN her State of the Nation Address (SONA) last Monday, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo reiterated what she had already said in previous pronouncements about how “our political system has degenerated” to become “a hindrance to progress” and how “we have strained it to its final limits” — premises for her calling on Congress to initiate moves to amend the Constitution and effect a change to the parliamentary form of government.

Arroyo did not stop at that and even prescribed the manner by which charter change is to be done — via Congress itself sitting as a constituent assembly, to the obvious delight of its prime proponent, Speaker Jose de Venecia.

Such a proposal for a shift to a parliamentary form, especially if one considers the timeframe set by former president Fidel Ramos, seems to overlook the fact that we don’t have strong, mature political parties, which are the lifeblood of a parliamentary setup. While people do not need convincing about this sad fact, findings of the international Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) mission that monitored the 2004 elections are worth a second look:

• Political parties remain weak institutions. While they have been in existence for more than half a century, they have never been more powerful than patronage systems.
• There is little incentive for politicians to cede his or her individual power to a political party.
• Political parties barely exist outside elections.

Evident in the character of the 2004 political campaigns and elections was this absence of a definable national political party system which, the International Republican Institute (IRI), a member of the CEPPS mission, said, “focused almost exclusively on personality and, particularly at the local level, one or another form of promised patronage.”

No clearly was this manifested than in the candidacy of Fernando Poe Jr., who was not a member of any of the parties in the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) coalition. But Pres. Arroyo was no different either as she ran under the banner of three different parties — Lakas, Liberal Party and her own Kampi, whose membership is said to shrink and expand at the slightest hint of an impending election season.

The IRI also noted the “generally poor quality of political debate during the campaign, and its lack of relevance to the most pressing social and economic problems of the nation.”

What is undermining the country’s capacity for sustained development within the context of liberal democracy, the IRI pointed out, is its failure to make significant progress to consolidate its party system.

It is highly likely therefore that no discernible improvements can be gained whether under the present presidential system or the proposed federal, parliamentary framework without a tectonic shift in our party system. It would similarly be naïve to expect our present crop of politicians and political parties to change overnight with a change in the form of government.

To give the present Congress, the House of Representatives under the leadership of Speaker de Venecia in particular, the authority to sit as a constituent assembly to tackle amendments to the Constitution is also bereft of any wisdom.

This is the same institution that has since its reconstitution in 1987 consistently sat on vital political and electoral reforms that could have at the very least arrested the degeneration of the present system that Pres. Arroyo now rues about and conveniently seeks to replace.

A reform-minded legislature should have long passed the anti-dynasty bill, which was introduced as early as the term of the 8th Congress to fully enable the Constitutional provision that bans “political dynasties” — monopolies of political power by a limited number of families. Such a law has failed to be enacted since many of the members of Congress, from the 8th to the current 13th, come from long lines of political families who refuse to legislate themselves out of public office.

Still pending in the legislature is what political and electoral reform advocates consider as the most essential piece of legislation, the Political Party Reform Act, which was introduced in 2003 in the 12th Congress. The law seeks to provide the needed impetus for the development of parties based on platforms and programs, rather than on individuals and infleunce. Among its salient provisions are:

• regulating the conduct of political parties, including the selection of leaders by party congress;
• minimum funding by the state to duly registered national parties;
• regulating campaign financing and spending, including restricting individual campaign contributions;
• banning “turncoatism” — the rampant practice of switching political affiliation that weakens party structures, confuses voters, and undermines the concept of a viable opposition (In fact, an anti-turncoatism bill was first filed in the 8th Congress.)

For a bill certified as urgent by the Legislative Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC), only one hearing has so far been conducted by the Senate committee chaired by Sen. Richard Gordon, while it still has to be calendared by the House committee chaired by Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr.

Though another important law, the Party List System Act, was passed in 1995, it was a compromised piece of legislation. No less than the Supreme Court pointed out its basic flaws: the prohibitive existing threshold of two percent leaving congressional seats vacant, and its lack of any clearly defined eligibility criteria.

Since being introduced last August, amendments to the law, which include clarifying eligibility requirements, lowering the threshold to 1.8 percent, and increasing the maximum number of seats per party from three to six, have only reached the committee level this May.

For Arroyo to ask Congress to preside over constitutional amendments now betrays a lack of seriousness in pursuing genuine reforms.