Ground rules September 13, 2006
DON'T look now, but the seemingly charismatic Tony Blair is eyeing oblivion. Last week, pressured by his party and public opinion, he announced that he would resign by next year. It hasn't appeased the unions, the backbone of the Labor Party, which would rather he resign immediately.
The reason for this is that the longer he stays on as prime minister, the worse off the Labor Party becomes. Surveys show that Labor is losing its grip on voters, no small thanks to Blair who, like Margaret Thatcher before him, is seen as the American poodle. I know John Le Carre had much to say about Britain's fall from king to beggar after World War II, but I myself never thought Britain's leaders would allow themselves to look thispathetic: stooping to the level of Reagan and George W whose collective IQ cannot reach the diastolic reading of their individual BPs.
What has proved the wrecking ball in Blair's career apparently is a picture of him stooping down to a seated George W soon after the Israeli bombing of Hezbollah and giving advice to someone who wasn't particularly minding him. A picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, it is worth more than a thousand votes-lost.
I mention the affairs of a country that might as well be located in another planet as far as most Filipinos are concerned simply because they bear directly on something that looms upon us today. Which is a shift to a parliamentary system that Jose de Venecia's Mafia in Congress has been trying to foist on us. Blair's (impending) resignation shows why a parliamentary system works in a country like Britain and why it won't work in a country like ours.
First off, it needs real parties to work. A real party is one that advocates certain principles to which their members subscribe. You don't change principles like you change clothes, you don't switch parties like you switch ballot boxes. I remember the reaction of a Japanese political officer when I asked him if Japanese politicians have been known to switch parties. He was speechless, he could not grasp the concept. All he could say after a while was: "But if he did that, no one would vote for him."
By that definition alone, we do not have any political party, with the possible exception of the Communist Party of the Philippines, which you can desert only at risk of joining your comrades in the "killing fields." In this country, politicians join and leave parties with the ease with which they take up and leave mistresses. The kind of political parties we have is indistinguishable from the riotous parties kids have with the aid of beer and Ecstasy. At least the kids screw only themselves, the politicians screw the nation.
Indeed, in a country like Britain, you have a whole spectrum of political beliefs represented by the political parties. You even have Sinn Fein, a spin-off from the Irish Republican Army among them. Of course, in this country we also have a party-list party like Bayan Muna. But the difference is that Sinn Fein's members are able to campaign freely while Bayan Muna's members are being murdered freely by General Jovito Palparan's hordes.
A parliamentary system will not produce real parties, real parties will produce a parliamentary system. The only parliament non-real parties will produce is the parliament of thieves, or a crime syndicate not unlike the Mafia we now have in Congress. Only worse. Much, much worse.
Second off, a parliamentary system requires sensitivity to public opinion. Blair is not the first prime minister to resign from adverse public opinion, and he won't be the last. Indeed, closer to home, not too long ago, Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin also resigned and called for new elections because of charges of corruption. The system is predicated on "delicadeza," or sense of propriety, not on "pakapalan," or the possessionof a thick hide.
True, in a parliamentary system, you do not need to impeach a prime minister to kick him out, you just need a vote of no confidence. But the opposite is just as true, if not truer: You will have absolutely no way of getting rid of a monstrous prime minister if his allies continue to repose confidence in him notwithstanding that the public has long withdrawn it. Indeed, notwithstanding that the public detests him.
As the recent impeachment bid showed, that is the case in this country. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's allies can always ignore public opinion and move like gangsters to kill any bid to oust her. Thaksin was merely hounded by charges of corruption, Arroyo is hounded by charges of stealing the vote. Blair merely labors from a picture of him literally stooping down to Bush's level, Arroyo labors from a tape that shows her stooping down to Garci's level -- or the other way around (I don't know who between them will find it more unflattering). The surveys say Thaksin and Blair were slipping in public esteem, the surveys say Arroyo never had public esteem. Thaksin resigned and Blair is about to resign, but Arroyo is still there and threatens to rule forever.
A parliamentary system will not produce sensitivity to public opinion, sensitivity to public opinion will produce a parliamentary system. Contempt for public opinion will not produce a parliament, it will produce a tyranny.
Third off, a parliamentary system, like a presidential one, presupposes that votes will be counted. That is the reason real political parties worry that their "bata" [protégé], or "manok" [bet], or prime minister, will drag them down at the polls if he gets too unpopular. But what if votes are not counted in the first place? What if parties, real or unreal, can just steal them in broad daylight?
If that's the case -- which it is today -- who the hell cares whether we have a presidential or parliamentary system? It will be, as the Thais say, "sem-sem."
http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=20654
The reason for this is that the longer he stays on as prime minister, the worse off the Labor Party becomes. Surveys show that Labor is losing its grip on voters, no small thanks to Blair who, like Margaret Thatcher before him, is seen as the American poodle. I know John Le Carre had much to say about Britain's fall from king to beggar after World War II, but I myself never thought Britain's leaders would allow themselves to look thispathetic: stooping to the level of Reagan and George W whose collective IQ cannot reach the diastolic reading of their individual BPs.
What has proved the wrecking ball in Blair's career apparently is a picture of him stooping down to a seated George W soon after the Israeli bombing of Hezbollah and giving advice to someone who wasn't particularly minding him. A picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, it is worth more than a thousand votes-lost.
I mention the affairs of a country that might as well be located in another planet as far as most Filipinos are concerned simply because they bear directly on something that looms upon us today. Which is a shift to a parliamentary system that Jose de Venecia's Mafia in Congress has been trying to foist on us. Blair's (impending) resignation shows why a parliamentary system works in a country like Britain and why it won't work in a country like ours.
First off, it needs real parties to work. A real party is one that advocates certain principles to which their members subscribe. You don't change principles like you change clothes, you don't switch parties like you switch ballot boxes. I remember the reaction of a Japanese political officer when I asked him if Japanese politicians have been known to switch parties. He was speechless, he could not grasp the concept. All he could say after a while was: "But if he did that, no one would vote for him."
By that definition alone, we do not have any political party, with the possible exception of the Communist Party of the Philippines, which you can desert only at risk of joining your comrades in the "killing fields." In this country, politicians join and leave parties with the ease with which they take up and leave mistresses. The kind of political parties we have is indistinguishable from the riotous parties kids have with the aid of beer and Ecstasy. At least the kids screw only themselves, the politicians screw the nation.
Indeed, in a country like Britain, you have a whole spectrum of political beliefs represented by the political parties. You even have Sinn Fein, a spin-off from the Irish Republican Army among them. Of course, in this country we also have a party-list party like Bayan Muna. But the difference is that Sinn Fein's members are able to campaign freely while Bayan Muna's members are being murdered freely by General Jovito Palparan's hordes.
A parliamentary system will not produce real parties, real parties will produce a parliamentary system. The only parliament non-real parties will produce is the parliament of thieves, or a crime syndicate not unlike the Mafia we now have in Congress. Only worse. Much, much worse.
Second off, a parliamentary system requires sensitivity to public opinion. Blair is not the first prime minister to resign from adverse public opinion, and he won't be the last. Indeed, closer to home, not too long ago, Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin also resigned and called for new elections because of charges of corruption. The system is predicated on "delicadeza," or sense of propriety, not on "pakapalan," or the possessionof a thick hide.
True, in a parliamentary system, you do not need to impeach a prime minister to kick him out, you just need a vote of no confidence. But the opposite is just as true, if not truer: You will have absolutely no way of getting rid of a monstrous prime minister if his allies continue to repose confidence in him notwithstanding that the public has long withdrawn it. Indeed, notwithstanding that the public detests him.
As the recent impeachment bid showed, that is the case in this country. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's allies can always ignore public opinion and move like gangsters to kill any bid to oust her. Thaksin was merely hounded by charges of corruption, Arroyo is hounded by charges of stealing the vote. Blair merely labors from a picture of him literally stooping down to Bush's level, Arroyo labors from a tape that shows her stooping down to Garci's level -- or the other way around (I don't know who between them will find it more unflattering). The surveys say Thaksin and Blair were slipping in public esteem, the surveys say Arroyo never had public esteem. Thaksin resigned and Blair is about to resign, but Arroyo is still there and threatens to rule forever.
A parliamentary system will not produce sensitivity to public opinion, sensitivity to public opinion will produce a parliamentary system. Contempt for public opinion will not produce a parliament, it will produce a tyranny.
Third off, a parliamentary system, like a presidential one, presupposes that votes will be counted. That is the reason real political parties worry that their "bata" [protégé], or "manok" [bet], or prime minister, will drag them down at the polls if he gets too unpopular. But what if votes are not counted in the first place? What if parties, real or unreal, can just steal them in broad daylight?
If that's the case -- which it is today -- who the hell cares whether we have a presidential or parliamentary system? It will be, as the Thais say, "sem-sem."
http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=20654
posted by dqfan06 @ 9:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home