What sort of government?

If there is to be a presidential system where the leader is elected directly by the people, there should be a runoff of the top two if a majority (over 50 percent) is not reached in the first ballot. And the vice president should be from the same party, a close confidant, a like-minded individual. And there should be a vice president — a clear successor in case of calamity.

If a parliamentary system is adopted (which I much prefer), the same conditions should apply, although the same party becomes less essential.

I’ve long argued that a parliamentary system may well suit the Philippine culture better — in what, I venture, would be a more democratic system. No feudal lord to dictate (an elected president is that in his unchallengeable term), but a first among equals chosen by those equals and as easily removed by them.

The problem with the presidential system is that it panders to the Philippines’ hierarchical nature. There’s a reverence for the boss at a level not common elsewhere. A Philippine president is almost royalty. A parliamentary system somewhat levels the field. A prime minister is a first among equals, and may be taken out by a simple no-confidence vote if he or she doesn’t perform. In a parliamentary system, the majority decides; the prime minister can’t override it. That’s as it should be. There can still be a president elected by the people, as there is in a number of countries with a parliamentary system.

And probably a federal system, given the uniqueness of so many of the societies in the Philippines, and its archipelagic nature. Among a group of islands of different tribes and different cultures, a federal system giving more independence to each makes good sense. My concern is at the practical level. Too many provinces are run by incompetents, too many by the corrupt, and too many by dictatorial dynasties. And I don’t see this being adequately addressed in a constituent assembly. I think over time—and that could be generations — it could all stabilize and work well. It’s getting there, the transition, that will be the problem. It’s an important problem to address.

I frankly don’t know the solutions. Or, at least, solutions that would: 1) work, 2) be accepted by politicians, and 3) be accepted by the public. Dynasties should be easy; just ban them, or limit them strictly to one family member at the national level, and one local, with no continuity, a one-term break. But, as mentioned last week, the 1987 Constitution does ban dynasties, with no enabling law. The misuse of the power and pelf they generate is a problem we face already. How much more if they are given more autonomy?

Equally, who will judge incompetence, and by what criteria? Corruption should be easier, but history is not very reassuring. I hear endless stories of local government corruption. I read of negligible convictions for it. Can a constitution change that?

The problem is a federal system will be chaotic in its first years — nay first decades — of introduction as dynasties are somehow brought into control, and incompetent and corrupt state leaders are taught what honest, competent management is all about (I can dream can’t I?).

One decision that could limit the abuse, and make eminent sense, is to limit the number of states to be created. I’d even suggest just four: Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao (excluding the Muslim portion), and Muslim Mindanao. If this is too radical to accept, then an absolute max of eight. And the closer to four the better. The fewer states, the fewer the opportunities for abuse, and the more transparent it would be.

Federalism is an ultimate goal to achieve, but how to get there successfully is a detail that needs to be thoroughly addressed, and resolved. It’s a huge risk to give autonomy to people who don’t deserve it.

Read my previous columns: www.wallacebusinessforum.com. Email: [email protected]