13 December 2005
OPINION: It's the rulers; not the system
THE PEN SPEAKS
Danny O. Sagun
PANGASINAN hosted two big events last week, an indication that this big and populous province is a factor to reckon with in the shaping of the country’s future. The first event on Tuesday was the tax roadshow on the expanded value added tax (EVAT) at the Leisure Coast Resort in Bonuan Binloc, and the second event, the Charter change consultations on Friday at the Regency Hotel in Calasiao.
The EVAT roadshow drew quite a big crowd forcing many participants to stay outside the main venue. We could have hoped for a bigger space, say, the People’s Astrodome, which could have accommodated up to 4,000 people.
The Cha-cha consultation did not have that big crowd as the participants were screened and selected by NEDA to represent the cross-section of society. The live coverage of Super Radyo Dagupan of the press conference before the consultation proper however brought the discussions right to the people’s homes and there they can decide for themselves if this is the time to tinker with the 1987 Constitution or maintain the status quo.
Collated reports show that the public, through the series of consultations held nationwide, favor the shift of government from the present presidential-unitary to parliamentary-federal. Unitary means powers are central to Imperial Manila. Federal means power is shared by the provincial/state governments. We have a powerful president under the present system, but the president under the parliamentary system is a mere symbolic head of state with very limited powers. The head of government is the prime minister.
Our own position on the issue? We do not really concern ourselves as to the type of government or structure we will have, whether parliamentary or presidential. It is unfair to throw the blame on the presidential system for the woes and turmoil this country has seen for years. It is also wishful thinking that this country gets out of the mess if we shift to the parliamentary system. Pros have taken this type of reasoning to convince others. They have cited progressive countries with parliamentary systems as their proof – Britain, Australia, and our neighbors Thailand and Malaysia, which reportedly overtook us in the last two decades or so.
But they seem to overlook the fact that the most powerful country in the world, the USA, has a president as its head of state and government. Ditto with Russia, South Korea, Taiwan and even France, with a powerful president under a modified parliamentary system.
This country was the envy of its neighbors some years after the War. Its rulers, all presidents, would have made this nation great. The greed for power of just one man, the dictator, halted that momentum though. And it was very hard for the country to make a turnaround. Cory did try but her efforts were not enough.
Then came the Pangasinan pride, Fidel Valdez Ramos. We never thought he would make things happen for the better being a former military man. But it was during his time that the country began to move from its lethargic state and could have fared much better if not for the 1997 Asian crisis. As they say malas talaga. Still, FVR and his economic team managed to fight off the crisis.
Erap won the presidency by a big margin over his closest opponent, our own JDV in the 1998 elections. That was a big mistake of Filipino electorate who opted for a showbiz, popular person over a man who could have pursued FVR’s programs and made this small country turn into an economic tiger, borrowing the term of speaker JDV. (FVR himself was linked to alleged irregularities and this corner does not condone such.)
Our point? The system of government is not the main problem here. It is the person governing. If we put the likes of Marcos or Erap in the presidency, then woe for us. But if we install men the caliber of Quezon, Magsaysay, and FVR (minus alleged anomalies, if you please), then this country will become great again.
Notwithstanding, proceed with the Cha-cha consultations and feel the pulse of the people. Anyway, it is they who will have the final say when the matter is tossed to them for final action and approval/disapproval.
Danny O. Sagun
PANGASINAN hosted two big events last week, an indication that this big and populous province is a factor to reckon with in the shaping of the country’s future. The first event on Tuesday was the tax roadshow on the expanded value added tax (EVAT) at the Leisure Coast Resort in Bonuan Binloc, and the second event, the Charter change consultations on Friday at the Regency Hotel in Calasiao.
The EVAT roadshow drew quite a big crowd forcing many participants to stay outside the main venue. We could have hoped for a bigger space, say, the People’s Astrodome, which could have accommodated up to 4,000 people.
The Cha-cha consultation did not have that big crowd as the participants were screened and selected by NEDA to represent the cross-section of society. The live coverage of Super Radyo Dagupan of the press conference before the consultation proper however brought the discussions right to the people’s homes and there they can decide for themselves if this is the time to tinker with the 1987 Constitution or maintain the status quo.
Collated reports show that the public, through the series of consultations held nationwide, favor the shift of government from the present presidential-unitary to parliamentary-federal. Unitary means powers are central to Imperial Manila. Federal means power is shared by the provincial/state governments. We have a powerful president under the present system, but the president under the parliamentary system is a mere symbolic head of state with very limited powers. The head of government is the prime minister.
Our own position on the issue? We do not really concern ourselves as to the type of government or structure we will have, whether parliamentary or presidential. It is unfair to throw the blame on the presidential system for the woes and turmoil this country has seen for years. It is also wishful thinking that this country gets out of the mess if we shift to the parliamentary system. Pros have taken this type of reasoning to convince others. They have cited progressive countries with parliamentary systems as their proof – Britain, Australia, and our neighbors Thailand and Malaysia, which reportedly overtook us in the last two decades or so.
But they seem to overlook the fact that the most powerful country in the world, the USA, has a president as its head of state and government. Ditto with Russia, South Korea, Taiwan and even France, with a powerful president under a modified parliamentary system.
This country was the envy of its neighbors some years after the War. Its rulers, all presidents, would have made this nation great. The greed for power of just one man, the dictator, halted that momentum though. And it was very hard for the country to make a turnaround. Cory did try but her efforts were not enough.
Then came the Pangasinan pride, Fidel Valdez Ramos. We never thought he would make things happen for the better being a former military man. But it was during his time that the country began to move from its lethargic state and could have fared much better if not for the 1997 Asian crisis. As they say malas talaga. Still, FVR and his economic team managed to fight off the crisis.
Erap won the presidency by a big margin over his closest opponent, our own JDV in the 1998 elections. That was a big mistake of Filipino electorate who opted for a showbiz, popular person over a man who could have pursued FVR’s programs and made this small country turn into an economic tiger, borrowing the term of speaker JDV. (FVR himself was linked to alleged irregularities and this corner does not condone such.)
Our point? The system of government is not the main problem here. It is the person governing. If we put the likes of Marcos or Erap in the presidency, then woe for us. But if we install men the caliber of Quezon, Magsaysay, and FVR (minus alleged anomalies, if you please), then this country will become great again.
Notwithstanding, proceed with the Cha-cha consultations and feel the pulse of the people. Anyway, it is they who will have the final say when the matter is tossed to them for final action and approval/disapproval.
