Since parliament simply selects the prime minister, elections would cost significantly less compared to a presidential election in which presidential candidates spend millions on promotions and campaigning. However, the parliamentary system also has its elections. The elections for members of parliament occur after a fixed number of years, or whenever the Prime Minister decides to dissolve parliament, and are similar to the senatorial elections.
The problem with having presidential candidates spend a lot on campaigning is that we are not sure where exactly the candidates get their money. It is not a case of wasting money because the economy benefits from their spending. Since a president is elected by the ordinary people, the masses, candidates attempt to win their votes by promoting and advertising themselves, their achievements and/or their platforms; therefore, lack of good or widespread campaign materials or promotions would mean little chance of success for a candidate. Anyone serious about running for office would know that he or she would need a lot of money to win the race, and so the motivation to acquire additional funding, whether by legal or illegal means, is intensified.
The scandalously high cost of our political campaigns undermines the democracy and good government in the Philippines. It is one of the main causes of graft, corruption, and misgovernment. It has impoverished many defeated candidates and has discouraged competent and qualified men from aspiring for elective offices. It has brought about alien influence in governmental policies and decisions. Our present political campaign practices have converted our electoral contests into commercial ventures and economic competitions. (Romero)
The reason elections are less expensive in a parliamentary system is that there are over 200 members of parliament, and each are voted in districts rather than the entire country. Thus the amount of promotional materials required for parliamentary elections are a lot less because there is less ground to cover. The 2004 statement of election expenditures by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) showed that President Arroyo had spent over P141.7 million, with meetings and sorties (short visits for the purposes of campaigning) contributing 3.54% (P5 million), paraphernalia at 10.77% (P15.2 million), administrative at 14.43% (P20.5 million) and media at 71.26% (P101 million). Elections held in districts would lessen expenses on sorties (no need to travel long distances), paraphernalia (no need to produce as much promotional materials), and media (no need for nation-wide exposure). Accordingly, in a parliamentary system, a relatively poor but qualified candidate has a chance to become Prime Minister so long as members of parliament express their approval.
Argument #2: Presidential system does not ensure efficiency of a president after elections.
In theory, prime ministers are chosen by parliament because of their competency rather than their popularity with the masses. Elections in a presidential system are styled to be a popularity contest where the more well-known and publicized candidate gets the votes. The problem with this system is that, once the popular candidate has been successfully elected, there is no way to ensure that he or she does the job well. Take former president Joseph Estrada as an example. As an actor, he chose to play roles that portrayed him as a “champion of the masses,” which was an effective image as well as a platform for his eventual political career. As mayor of San Juan, he was able to live up to his promises of building public schools and roads, and improving the police structure. Eventually, he would become President of the Philippines, and the first in Asia to be impeached. Barely halfway into his presidency, a series of wrong decisions led to his downfall and impeachment, which was secured by the jueteng scandal. These events served as a wake-up call for everyone. Critics of his administration observed that Estrada was not prepared to handle the presidency, and despite his pro-poor campaigning, failed to motivate his administration to work towards these goals. He had no clear legislative plan, and no development strategy. (A. Laquian, E. Laquian 19)
Argument #3: Parliamentary ensures effective and continuous government.
After elections, the Prime Minister can be expected to work efficiently during the fixed term since the executive is directly answerable to parliament. The parliament has the right to cast a “vote of no confidence,” which forces the PM to resign. This way, there is a guarantee of an efficient and honest Prime Minster. Had the Philippines been a parliamentary government during the time of Estrada, it is probable that he would have been removed from office much sooner. It is the prime minister’s duty to ensure that his or her government receives the vote of confidence from parliament, and is therefore motivated to be efficient, to make policies and implement them in order to stay in office, whereas in a presidential system, there is no longer any responsibility attached to the winning presidential candidate because he or she is set for a fixed term, and can only be removed by impeachment, which, regardless of how often it is clamored for in the Philippines, is actually rare.
Moreover, in some parliamentary countries such like Spain and Germany, there is what they call a “constructive vote of no confidence” where parliament makes a decision on the replacement prime minister before they decide to issue a no-confidence vote. This ensures continuity in effective government administration, and it also prevents the opposition from simply grouping together and calling for a no-confidence vote, because they would have to decide on the replacement with the other members of parliament. In other words, the government would not be left unsupervised in the event that a prime minister is forced to step down, and this effectively prevents some members of parliament of the opposing party from casting a no-confidence vote for no better reason than to have their own prime minister appointed. (Causing)
Argument #4: Parliamentary system avoids potentially violent or nonviolent overthrow resulting from a failure of the impeachment process.
The ease of being able to get rid of an inefficient PM allows for a less violent way to overthrow one, unlike in a presidential system, where impeachment takes months to process, not to mention it is a long and bothersome process. Aside from that, there is still no guarantee that the president would be convicted, since impeachment is a process that would have to pass through court, where progress is still not guaranteed due to external factors. For instance, the recent impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona has been criticized because of its incompetent prosecutors and a poorly drafted complaint. According to writer and researcher Dina Racoma, though the congressmen have their law degrees, they are not practicing lawyers, which is why they cannot hold up in court against an expert of law like Lead Defense counsel Serafin Cuevas. As a result, the evidence is poorly presented. And because of the fact that the complaint was hastily drafted, some evidence was considered void simply because they were not providing evidence for something that Corona was charged with, based the complaint. Time is wasted on court, and regardless of whether Corona is guilty or not, the impeachment will not succeed. (Racoma) The drafting of an impeachment complaint is made somewhat simpler in a parliamentary system, because regardless of what has been explicitly determined as reasons for a no confidence vote, parliament will undergo the regular procedure.
Looking at how the EDSA II revolution began, we see that it was an 11-10 vote against the opening of an envelope that supposedly contained evidence of Joseph Estrada’s guilt due to the fact that it was not part of the impeachment complaint, again, a matter that could have been avoided in a parliamentary system because it is up to parliament by this time to decide whether or not the PM should step down. (Diaz)
Another way the parliamentary system avoids impeachments and overthrows is by avoiding the path that leads to it, or by providing the public with a government efficient through its policy-making.
Argument #5: Efficiency of government in parliamentary system in shown through effective policy-making.
Since the executive and legislative branches function in perfect correlation, it is a lot easier to pass legislation, or bills. Either the executive or legislative can propose a bill, but it will ultimately be decided on by the majority vote of the legislative. Since the majority party dominates the two branches (the PM is the leader of the majority party), they propose the majority of the bills, and, coming from the majority party, the bill has more votes in the legislative for it to be able to pass. Furthermore, the executive branch makes sure that it is administered successfully. And since the leader of the majority party in the legislative branch heads the executive branch as prime minister, there’s a smooth flow. In a presidential system, however, because of the separation of powers, there is a chance that the president and the legislators are from different or opposing political parties, and legislating would end in a deadlock, wherein no progress would be made. Some bills, such as the Freedom of Information Bill, that, if enacted, would have been useful. Last 2010, however, the bill was lacked enough votes from the House of Representatives and was killed. Since then, drafts and revisions of the Freedom of Information Bill have been sent to Congress. The Freedom of Information Bill, if enacted, would grant transparency to the government, allowing for judgment and criticism of the government’s policies. (Porcalla)
Moreover, a no confidence vote can be expressed not only to the Prime Minister as head of government, but also for the laws passed by the government, or lack thereof. Therefore, if the government desires a law that many believe is against public welfare, then parliament can do something about it. It is in this way that the parliamentary system prevents political overthrow (as stated in Argument #4).
Counter-Arguments
One may argue that since the prime minister is selected by the legislative, it is not, in the sense, democratic, nor is it guaranteed that the prime minister would deliver what the people want. The most basic definition of democracy is a government for the people by the people, giving the citizens the right to elect who they want as chief executive. But a parliamentary system is democratic in the sense that parliamentary elections are held for members of parliament (MPs). The members of parliament, usually from various political parties, make up the legislative, and every vote for a legislator (MP) is indirectly a vote for the leader of that party, which is also the leading candidate for Prime Minister. The fact that it is the “leader” of the party means that he or she is the most qualified and viewed as the best model of a party’s platform, and not necessarily the most popular in the party.
Moreover, the so-called “perfect correlation” between the executive and legislative branches of government could arguably also inspire corruption. According to American political theorist and President James Madison, each branch of government must be independent from each other in order to effectively create checks and balances within the government. The concept of creating checks and balances is to neutralize or balance influence within a government to ensure that political power is not concentrated anywhere. (Haggard and McCubbins)
In other words, because of the separation of powers, the executive and legislative branches in a presidential system are independent from each other and can “monitor” each other’s activities. The absence of a separation of powers in a parliamentary system gives rise to the idea that, with the closeness of the executive and legislative branches, there would actually be a greater chance of corruption. For example, with the executive depending on the confidence votes of the legislative, it wouldn’t be unusual for blackmailing to occur between the two branches. The legislative branch has certain leverage in the executive, and so it is possible for the government to be almost entirely controlled by the parliament.
The solution to these problems comes in the form of a shadow cabinet. The shadow cabinet, or shadow ministry, is an ever-present cabinet composed of trained members of the opposition whose purpose is to pass judgment on the current government. So basically, the executive is being monitored by the legislative, and in case they decide to crony up or work together, the shadow cabinet is there to monitor them as well. This is actually a much better monitoring system than that of a presidential system’s wherein the executive and legislative are on opposite sides.
Conclusion
The Philippines would benefit from a parliamentary government because it is more efficient and less prone to corruption. Should the Philippines adopt the parliamentary system and successfully implement it, corruption would be less prevalent, which would mean the country would have more to spend for government projects and so progress. Similarly, it would be easier to pass and enact bills so certain laws that would help the country further develop could be effectively implemented as soon as possible.
Works Cited and Bibliographies
Lijphart, Arend, ed. PARLIAMENTARY Versus Presidential Government. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1992. Print.
Romero, Jose E. Good Government, and Reducing Political Campaign Expenses.Manila, Philippines: [s.n.], 1963. Print.
Laquian, Aprodicio A., and Eleanor R. Laquian. The Erap Tragedy: Tales from the Snake Pit. Manila: Anvil Pub., 2002. Print.
Causing, Leopoldo T. Notes on the Parliamentary System of Government by Professors or Political Science of Iloilo City. Rev ed. [s.n.], 1996. Print.
Haggard, Stephan, and Mathew D. McCubbins. Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2001. Print.
Ballester, Richard Emerson, Michael Bartolazo, Melanie Calumpang, Bien Ganapin, and Sheryll Namingit. A Study on the Impact of Election Spending on the Philippine Economy. NEDA, 4 Oct. 2010. PDF.
Porcalla, Delon. "House kills Freedom of Information Bill." Philippine Star 05 Jun 2010, n. pag. 17 Feb. 2012. <http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=58
1474&publicationSubCategoryId=63>. Web.
Racoma, Dine. "Why we need to be hard on the prosecutors." Philippine Online Chronicles. N.p., 25 Feb 2012. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. <http://www.thepoc.net/poc-presents/blog-watch/360-impeachment-watch/14972-why-we-need-to-be-so-hard-on-the-prosecutors-part-12.html>.
Diaz, Perry. "The Court of Public Opinion." Global Balita . N.p., 01 Apr 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2012. <http://globalbalita.com/the-court-of-public-opinion/>.