Public opinion versus party opinion

That was Ben Kingsley in “Gandhi” expressing a view Filipinos

with a colonial mentality have never understood. But now that
we’re independent, what happens if we have bad self-government?

Put another way, remember the old typing exercise? “Now is the
time for all good men to come to the aid of their party.” But what if
party politicians idea of help, is helping themselves? We’re
familiar with what Filipinos do, when party opinion stops
reflecting public opinion. But how do our neighbors handle it?

More on this when The Explainer returns.

I.

[thumbs up photo]

A Filipino politician was once asked what the difference was

between his party and the opposition. He replied, “the difference is
we are in power, and they want to be in power.” But we also know
that if governance is only about power, then it tends to make
people misuse their office; and it is when things go wrong, as they
often do, that citizens have to find every possible way to complain
and demand action. Our Constitution calls that asking for a
“redress of grievances.”

As citizens, we use different means to right what we think is

wrong.

[photo of villafuerte debating cayetano]

We play our politicians off against each other, which is easy,

because politicians will do anything to shine at the expense of
someone else.
[senate hearing with iggy arroyo]

So we have senators investigating bureaucrats. We have

congressmen doing the same. We have bureaucrats investigating
other bureaucrats, whether in the Commission on Audit or in the
office of the Ombudsman. We have the President ordering lifestyle
checks on people under her departments.

[lawyers filing appeal vs. eo 464 etc.]

We file cases before the Supreme Court, specially in cases which

seem to involved a grave abuse of discretion by officials. Most
recently, we saw how concerned citizens filed cases questioning
the policy of Preemptive, Calibrated Response, Proclamation 1017
and Executive Order 464.

[joe de venecia’s money, jpg.]

We also have elections, which are scheduled on a regular basis,

and which the politicians prefer as the only means to right wrongs.
There’s a saying a week is a long time in politics. By that measure,
an elected term is an eternity. And an eternity is useful if you want
issues to die down, or for you to build roads and bridges in order to
set aside any other issues. And if that fails, guns, goons, and gold
can help convince the electorate to cooperate.

And when all else fails, or when elected or appointed officials

don’t move fast enough, we go to media. We write letters, call in
on TV and radio programs. And if media fails us, we text, write, e-
mail and talk to each other. If no one wants to listen, then we
exercise our Constitutional right to freedom of assembly, that is,
we protest.
All of these activities, put together, make up what we consider
democracy. If that’s the case, with the proposals for unicameral,
parliamentary government, how do our neighboring parliamentary
governments handle these methods?

[tuta forever.jpg]

After all, these countries have what proponents of charter change

want to emerge here at home. Parliamentary proponents want
strong parties, a long period of continuity for prime ministers, and
the elimination of our present system of checks and balances.
Instead, they want what the consider the more rational system of
uniting the executive and legislative and subordinating the rest to
parliament.

[cha-cha.jpg]

These changes will, they claim, eliminate our country’s two major
problems: corruption and poverty.

So let’s see how our neighboring parliamentary governments

handle the questions of checks and balances, of independence of
the courts, of free and fair elections, of press freedom and freedom
of assembly. And let’s see if the parliamentary systems of our
neighbors are reducing both corruption and poverty.

How has parliamentary government had an impact on corruption

and poverty in our neighbors?

Let’s begin with a note on scale, which we tend to overlook.

[Singapore map, with pop. And length of ruling party in power]

We often hear admiration for Singapore, but it’s not a democracy,

and it’s population at 4.5 million, equals that of the Philippines in
1867. And yes, their economy is impressive, but Singaporeans
themselves are worried about the increasing gap between the haves
and have nots, as we’ll see.

[Malaysia map with pop. And length of ruling party in power]

Even Malaysia, at 24 million, which has the population the

Philippines had in 1956, which incidentally was around the time
we were 2nd to Japan, has been rocked by questions on corruption,
vote-buying, and rigging: but they have a controlled media, so the
news doesn’t get out, as we’ll see.

[Vietnam map, with pop. And length of ruling party in power]

Of the three countries with populations similar to ours, one,

Vietnam at 84 million, is a Communist dictatorship, in which
Transparency International says corruption is endemic and which
is forcing the Communist government to crack down or else suffer
diminished public confidence;

[Egypt map with Mubarak photo]

another, Egypt at 78 million is a presidential dictatorship, in which

the President is grooming his son to succeed him amidst
allegations of corruption;

[protests in mexico city photo]

and of the two democracies, one, Mexico at 107 million (the

population we’re expected to have in 2020) is a federal presidential
system with an election under protest,

[germany map, photo of kohl]

while Germany at 82 million, is a federal parliamentary system
which had one of its most famous Chancellors, Helmut Kohl, lose
power in disgrace over allegations of corruption.

[indoensia map with pres. SBY]

Indonesia, on the other hand, Malay, like us, and with a big
population like ours, is presidential but unitary, like us –and is
widely admired for pushing forward anti-corruption drives under a
popularly-elected president.

But what about checks and balances, independence of the courts,

free and fair elections, and public opinion in neighboring
parliamentary governments? More on this, when we return.

II.

That was a scene from the HBO biopic on Churchill, “The

Gathering Storm,” in which the Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin,
plots to destroy Churchill for daring to oppose his party’s policies.

Let’s take a look at how our neighbors handle things familiar to us,
and which we’ve come to expect: checks and balances and the
independence of the courts.

[Malaysia map, flag, pop, ruling party stats]

In Malaysia, their Constitution once had something

similar to our present, 1987 Constitution. Unlike the
British system, in which parliament is supreme, even
over the courts, the Malaysian constitution adopted the
US model saying the constitution, is supreme. The
Malaysian Supreme Court was given a power our
Supreme Court presently enjoys –that of judicial
review, which allowed it to do as our Supreme Court
did in the cases of CPR, EO 464 and Proclamation
1017. This power of the Malaysian Supreme Court was
even made part of the national ideology.

[Malaysian supreme court photo]

But in the 1980s, Malaysians started bringing cases to

their Supreme Court for the redress of grievances at a
time when the Malaysian parliament was expanding its
powers and limiting political and civil rights. In 1986,
the court struck down the government’s decision to
deport a foreign journalist. Other media cases were
lost. In 1987, the court banned United Engineers
Malaysia, a company in which the ruling party, UNMO,
was the majority owner, from signing a huge contract
with the government.

[mahathir]

Then the ruling party was split, and a fight began over
the huge financial assets of the party. Prime Minister
Mahathir’s faction moved swiftly to prevent
inconvenient court decisions. He swiftly passed a
constitutional amendment through Malaysia’s
unicameral parliament. The amendment removed, from
the Constitution, the stated powers and obligations of
the Supreme Court. Whatever powers the courts would
continue to have, would depend on parliamentary
legislation. The power of judicial review was also
eliminated.

When the case concerning which of the factions of

UNMO was a real one reached the Supreme Court,
Mahathir suspended the Chief Justice for a breach of
protocol. Mahathir set up a body to investigate the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court handed down an
injunction against the body; Mahathir suspended fife
supreme court justices. He filled the vacancies and the
government’s enjoyed favorable decisions ever since.

What about free & fair elections? Again, we can look at

several instances in our parliamentary neighbors that
would be familiar to us.

[map of sabah]

In Malaysia, the ruling party was accused of adding

tens of thousands of Filipinos and Indonesians to their
version of the electoral rolls in Sabah. A judge who
wanted to investigate the allegations was called by the
government-friendly Chief Justice and told to stop.
When he didn’t want to stop, the prime minister and
other officials attacked him. No serious investigations
have prospered.

And what about press freedom?

The tension between prime ministers and the press

revolves around press reports of government
corruption. The more controlled the press is, the less
of a chance embarrassing news about corruption will
reach the voters and the rest of the world. Because of a
relative absence of checks and balances. Let's take the
case of the country that serves as
The model for many of the parliamentary systems in
the world. How much freedom does the press enjoy in
england? in the UK, the British press is quite noisy
and eager to expose corruption. An American, Greg
Palast claimed he had audio tapes in which lobbyists
for American interests revealed how they paid bribes to
Tony Blair's government in exchange for favors. Blair's
administration demanded that the the tapes be played.
IT WAS a trap, a sucker punch. When the tapes were
played the government WAS ABLE to argue the law on
privacy was
violated, and that ended the controversy. So tony blair
avoided addressing whether the allegations were
genuine or not.

[get photo from online of book, “the best democracy money can
buy” by greg palast]

An American, Greg Palast claimed he had audio tapes in which

lobbyists for American interests revealed how they paid bribes to
Tony Blair’s government in exchange for favors. Blair’s
administration demanded that the the tapes be played. They were.
Which enabled the government to argue the law on privacy was
violated, which ended the controversy –but never addressed
whether the allegations were genuine or not.

[get screen cap of the nation of Thailand newspaper complaining

about harrasment from thaksin supporters]

Let’s look at freedom of the press. It’s important not because the
press should be privileged, but because access to information, even
inconvenient information for governments, is important for voters
to make an informed choice. Parliamentary Malaysia and
Singapore have anti-sedition laws with a colonial original like
ours, except theirs are even harsher. They have used their anti-
sedition laws to crack down on dissent and uncooperative
journalists. Thailand has seen Prime Minister Thaksin, who owns
some media outfits, attack the independent press.

[chee soon juan or pm hsien loong photo]

In parliamentary Singapore, the ruling party recently

suffered an 8 point drop at the polls last May. The
main issue was the opposition's allegation that the gap
between those getting richer, and those who aren't. In
response to the allegation, the government did a
couple of things. It filed charges against
oppositionists, such as Dr Chee Soon
Juan, who is being tried for allegedly defaming the
reputations
government leaders and for speaking in public without
a police permit. and it also imposed conditions on the
circulation of some foreign publications.

And yet, after the election, the Singapore government

had to admit that the income gap was bigger than at
any time since independence in 1965. The bottom 30
per cent of households have seen their income fall
since 2000.

Thing is, the Singapore government had to admit the election issue
was valid –but only admitted it after the elections. the
government revealed that the income gap was bigger
than at any time since independence in 1965. The
bottom 30 per cent of households have seen their
income fall since 2000.

But the point here is that Singapore isn’t beyond

holding back data inconvenient to the government
during election time, and from censoring foreign
coverage it doesn’t like. Singapore isn't beyond,
suppressing negative information, it has never
hesitated to censor local and foreign news reports it
doesn't like.

Let's take a look at freedom of assembly. It is an

essential part of democracy and let's not forget that.

[people power, mexico]

In Mexico which is presidential and federal, 100,000 have

protested the results of their recent presidential election. In Paris, a
mixed presidential-parliamentary system, a million students took
the street to protest the elimination of job security for young
people. In parliamentary London, 100,000 took to the streets to
protest Tony Blair’s Iraq policy. In presidential and federal
America, 100,000 in Chicago, half a million in Los Angeles,
10,000 in New York City and 100,000 in Arizona took the streets
to protest anti-immigration legislation.

[protests in spain]

In parliamentary Spain, two million protested in the streets against

the manipulation of investigations into the Madrid train bombing,
and a government fell. Hundreds protested in parliamentary
Malaysia against the persecution of Anwar Ibrahim. In
parliamentary Thailand, 20,000 took to Bangkok’s streets to
protest Prime Minister Thaksin’s alleged corruption and electoral
manipulation. So long as a system claims to be democratic, People
Power will always be there. Parliamentary regimes in Georgia,
with its Orange Revolution, and Kyrgzstan with its Tulip
Revolution, fell on the question of electoral fraud and dictatorial
tendencies of their rulers.

[Malaysia protests against mahathir]

In Singapore and Malaysia, you need a police permit to
protest. Anti-government protesters aren't given
permits. If they protest without a permit, they get the
water cannon and truncheon treatment familiar to
Filipinos. In Thailand, prime minister Thaksin tried to
stifle protests by adopting his own version of
preemptive, calibrated
response. But protesters in Bangkok were left
unmolested because the Thai military refused to bow
to pressure from above.

In all these and many more cases, specially in a

parliamentary system with fewer checks and balances,
public opinion serves as the ultimate check and
balance versus party opinion, which like all parties
everywhere, tends to be firmly of the opinion
governments should be run like the Mafia.

So how does party opinion versus public opinion work

in our
neighboring parliamentary democracies? My guest, will
help us find out more.

Interview:

Conclusion:

Local contests may be easier to grasp for the electorate, they’re

also easier to keep hold of for those used to holding office. I
remember an otherwise distinguished former Speaker thunder that
he would let someone else hold his seat over his dead body. He
made his daughter run for his old congressional seat. But was it his
seat, or the people’s? And by making his daughter run, was he
behaving democratically or not? I once heard another congressman
proudly say, by next year his family would have continuously
represented his province for a hundred years. And a colleague said,
“that’s a century too long.”

I think it’s fair to say that if any proposed change to our form of
government, included a provision to replace all our current
officials and replace them with new ones, who haven’t had the
chance to either inherit or learn old bad habits, we’d have a
unanimous agreement to try the new in order to bury the old. But
let me ask you: are the same officials in a new political system
simply not a case of old wine in new bottles?