Blame the Constitution, Not Presidential System, for Our Protectionism and Poverty!
I was engaged in a Facebook discussion with a few fanatics of parliamentary system or parliamentarism. The issue is about Philippine’s protectionism and regulations that have been destroying the country’s economy and the rights and future of its people.
The main problem with these parliamentary fanatics is that they don’t understand what they’re talking about. They pay lip-service to economic liberalization without totally understanding and embracing the basic principles and foundation of free market capitalism. It turns out that behind their shallow pro-economic liberalization slogans and arguments is an intellectually bankrupt political agenda: a parliamentarian Philippines.
I have so many problems/issues with parliamentary system, a system of government invented in Europe, first established by royalists, and then supported and institutionalized by European globalists. I detailed, presented all my arguments against this ‘form of government’ here, here, here, here, here, and here.
This time, I had the opportunity to ask these parliamentary fanatics just one question: Should we fault our “PRESIDENTIAL” system for our protectionism?
Why did I ask this question? First, it’s because the group’s politically naive ‘dictator’ (according to some observers) has been making claims that the main cause of our political and economic tragedy is our presidentialism. Second, it’s because they naively, fanatically believe that only parliamentarism can save this country.
At least one fanatic emerged to confront the question with his out-of-context arguments.
Froi. The Philippine Presidential System is part of the reason why we are unable to get rid of it! If you have a President like Noynoy who does not want the constitution of his mother amended, he can use pork barrel pressure to withhold his allocations of funds to those who want to go through with it.56 minutes ago · Like
Joseph Solís AlcaydeFroi:Just the same, in a Presidential System, it is much more expensive because you need to have separate people doing the jobs. In a Parliamentary System, it is senior members of parliament who not only push for bills and create legislation, but these senior members of parliament also often hold cabinet positions. Parliamentary Systems are more cost-effective because of this. Froilan, it’s time for you to shut up and study. Learn what you do not know!THAT’S MY LAST POST TO SPOON FEED YOU ABOUT PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM.54 minutes ago · Like
Froi D. Vincenton@Joseph Solis, LOL at that… That’s NOT even responsive. I’m asking whether you’re going to FAULT our presidential system for our protectionism. If that’s how you think, then why is America, which is presidential, NOT too saddled with protectionism. Read this post to educate yourself… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/welfare-state-and-parliamentarism/ Don’t be a fool by simply accepting your parliamentary advocacy on FAITH…49 minutes ago · Like
Froi D. Vincenton”The Philippine Presidential System is part of the reason why we are unable to get rid of it!”– So are you trying to argue now that our presidential system is the cause of protectionism and regulations? Is that kind of argument (if that’s your argument) UNIVERSAL?Oh yes, in parliamentary regimes, the politicians can easily transport their country to socialism. Why? Because the system makes it easy for them to legislate their way to destruction.In our case, the CONSTITUTION sets the political and economic structure of this country– because of that we’re both presidential (form of government) and protectionist (economic).
I added the following:
Plus… RE this statement: “Just the same, in a Presidential System, it is much more expensive because you need to have separate people doing the jobs.”
— Ever heard of the term LIMITED GOVERNMENT? Did you not read what Mr. Oplas said? He said the Constitution should be composed only of at least 10 PAGES! What’s the implication of that? That means only motherhood provisions would be included in the charter and that the government would be small enough for it to focus only on the protection of rights. It means the following:
1. Limited/small political/governance structure. There should be three branches of government- executive, legislative, and judiciary. Remove all unnecessary executive positions like DOJ, DILG, DPWH, etc. The Congress would be composed of two houses. The partylist system should be abolished. We may cut the number of congressmen and senators according to the limited function of government. The judiciary should be retained to settle disputes, etc.
2. NOT EXPENSIVE as you claimed. Why? Because you’re thinking of our current presidential setup. It seems that you’re not aware that systems of government can be modified, changed, or even altered. If we design/tailor a presidential type of government according to the principles of LIMITED GOVERNMENT and of FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, the system would definitely NOT be expensive at all.
3. We need a bicameral presidential system in order for our politicians NOT TO EASILY PASS NEW LAWS. That’s the point. Laws should not be easily passed. That’s the BEAUTY of a proper presidential system.
So, for those who still naively missed the point, blame the Constitution and its framers for our protectionist economic policies and statist political programs, NOT our presidential system, which is just the structure of our government. Just imagine if America adopted a presidential system of government sustained by a statist Constitution (translation: a charter that explicitly allows economic protectionism and statist economic and political policies. It would not have reached its current economic status and we’d all be praising parliamentary and monarchical systems.