|
Monday, July 11, 2005
Amante: Party people
By Isolde D. Amante
LET us resign ourselves to the notion that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will not resign. The bishops have decided to give her a break. The military—at least that part of it that doesn’t have a massive messianic complex—isn’t ready to force her hand. Besides, immunity is not an easy perk to give up.
I still think an impeachment, while slow and wearying, remains a viable tack. President Arroyo’s resignation, while painful and humiliating, would allow her to walk away—without our ever knowing how the elections of 2004 were manipulated, to what extent and on whose orders.
Her impeachment, on the other hand, may just afford us a chance to get some answers. Now that her Liberal Party allies have broken away, an impeachment might gain some credibility. Senate President Franklin Drilon, Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan and Senators Manuel Roxas II and Rodolfo Biazon were among the Liberal Party leaders who asked President Arroyo to step down.
The pressure is also on President Arroyo’s allies in the House. Their refusal to transmit the Articles of Impeachment is likely to send the crowds back into the streets. The body politic remains allergic to the “second envelope syndrome.”
What I find interesting is the ruling party’s attempt to offer constitutional reform as one reason for President Arroyo to stay. When former president Fidel Ramos rushed to President Arroyo’s side last Friday, he brought his prescription along: a constituent assembly this year, a new Constitution that forces a shift to a parliamentary system, new elections by 2006.
It’s a last-ditch survival tactic being made to appear like a pledge for reform. Certain civil society groups might even buy it, except that they would prefer to let a constitutional convention—not a Congress gripped by the President’s allies—-rewrite the Constitution.
I’m not convinced a shift to a parliamentary system will make much of a difference, although it will probably have some advantages. Our misfortune is that we have tried both presidential and parliamentary governments, but kept only their worst features: the instability of a parliamentary system and the inertia of a presidential one. (But then what else is new? We are an oligarchy pretending to be a liberal democracy.)
But, hey, if we’ve grown so fond of changing the head of government, we might as well pick a system that allows the most painless means possible, right? That’s one argument for a parliamentary shift.
Another is that such a system will force parties to coalesce for their survival, weeding out flakes, crackpots and extremists along the way. In theory, it will also compel parties to differentiate themselves from others, in order to win and hold on to popular support.
But it’s no accident that Lakas is avidly pushing for this shift while it remains the strongest (read: wealthiest, most well-entrenched) political party at present.
And that’s one of the reasons I’m not so sold on the idea of a parliamentary system.
The change may be systemic, but if the same parties and personalities are involved, it doesn’t guarantee that our political class will sober up in a year’s time and learn to see past their own purses. In a parliamentary government, the legislature enjoys primacy. It is the strongest arm of government. Going by what Congress has achieved so far, one would be wise to lower one’s expectations.
(ida@sunstar.com.ph)
(July 11, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
