THERE seems to be an indifference from the bigger public in assessing the systems of governance we are using today. Probably this is due to that fact that since we are relatively free to do what we want then our systems must be working. While that may be true, there are actually quite a lot of other frameworks to choose from and see for ourselves what best works with our culture and our maturity.
Few months ago I differentiated communism and democracy. Today allow me to differentiate parliamentary from a presidential system of government (both of which are democratic systems) on the same reason as I differentiated the former.
Democracy comes from the greek words “demos” which means an assembly of people and “kratus” which means to rule. Roughly put, democracy is a government ruled by the people. The defining characteristics of democracy these days are the people’s power to vote, without which a country cannot be considered democratic.
However, democracy can further be classified into a lot of forms. One of the many ways to classify it is through the relationship between its executive department and legislative department. If the executive branch of the government is the same or is interconnected with the legislative branch then such system is called parliamentary government. In this government, the parliament calls the shot.
The parliament is a body of representatives (which can be likened to our congress) who are voted by the people. In turn, they then vote amongst themselves who will be their prime minister; a person they task to head the country. Unlike our president, a prime minister does not have a fixed term; in fact he can be removed from power on the very same day he gets installed through a vote of no confidence. Through this, we can already see the advantages and the disadvantages of a parliamentary government. On one hand, making laws and implementing them becomes very fast since the legislative and the executive departments are interconnected. It is also easier to change the prime minister in case he is proven corrupt or inadequate for the job. We do not have to wait for the next election to have a new head like we do in our country. Yet on the other hand, there is a very weak if not no system of check and balance. If the executive department cohorts with the legislative department on corruption, there will be no other group to oppose or veto them. A fickle minded parliament would also result to a change of prime minister every so often.
On the other hand, if the executive branch is separate and is independent from the legislative branch such as ours in the Philippines, then such democracy is called presidential government. You see, there are three basic branches in a presidential government that are independent from each other; the legislative (makers of the law), the executive (implementer of the law), and the judiciary (interpreters of the law). In the Philippines, they are the congress, the cabinet headed by the president, and the judicial courts respectively. These branches are designed to veto each other allowing for a stronger check and balance. Any unsound laws made by the congress can be stopped by the president or the Supreme Court for that matter. In this system, the president is also directly voted by the people with a fixed term, making the government more stable. From here, we can also see advantages and disadvantages. Check and balance is a good thing but sometimes it can delay the enactment of laws that when delayed too long may become insignificant the moment it gets enacted. Too much political bickering on this system would also result to accomplishing nothing at all.
Putting into account our Filipino culture, what system would be more workable in our government? Is it our present presidential system or does a parliamentary system show promise? Take note that we have already exhorted all our efforts in making our present system work and yet it is still found wanting. Perhaps we should start exploring our other options and maybe it may just yield better results.