|
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Speak out: British parliament
By Lindy C. Morrell
Why are staunch advocates of the parliamentary system not explaining to the Filipino electorate the distinctive features of the mother and model of all parliaments, the British Parliament?
Could it be because of the fear that the Filipino electorate might not buy our politicians’ sanitized version of a parliamentary system?
Is this the reason for the frenzied drive to “force-feed” the electorate to accept the Charter change (Cha-cha) train?
True meaning
If there is anything our politicians who advocate parliamentary governance fear, it is the clarification of what a parliament really stands for.
No less than the highly respected Sir Edmund Burke declared:
“Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests must maintain, as an agent and advocate against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good resulting from the general reason of the whole.”
Burke defined the duty of a representative of parliament in his address to his constituents in Bristol, England:
“Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative, to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents.
“Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention…
“But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice you, to any man, or to any set of men living.
“Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
British Cabinet
The Prime Minister is free to choose his Cabinet. The only constitutional limitation is that persons the Prime Minister chooses must either have a seat in parliament or get one without delay.
The linking of the Cabinet with parliament is vital to the British system of fusion of powers, differing radically from the American system.
The Cabinet furnishes direction and drive to the activities of civil service. They defend the actions of their departments in parliament, discharging their responsibilities to parliament by answering without demur the most trivial questions in minute detail.
No civil servant is ever asked or allowed to defend himself in parliament. The minister is responsible for every action, and he does not shirk it.
Collectively, they must coordinate the work of their separate departments, ironing out interdepartmental disputes.
As an executive committee of parliament, the Cabinet must organize the work that the House of Commons particularly is expected to do in a session.
They allot time to be spent on particular matters, prepare the budget, and the legislative program that the House is to consider. They pilot government bills through the House, explaining their purpose and meaning and defending them against criticism.
In brief, in England, Parliament rules but does not reign because it has no sovereignty and has a short life span.
Why parliamentary?
With such complexities of governance, why are we craving for a parliamentary system of government?
We already had four exposures of parliamentary governance: the Aguinaldo government, the Philippine Commissions under the control of the American governor-general and the US president, the Jose P. Laurel government during the Japanese occupation and the bastardized parliament of the Marcos administration.
Are we a glutton for punishment?
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (July 29, 2006 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
|
