Dump American Democracy!

The Palace, Waterside

This is an exercise aimed at getting outside the box in thinking about government. It is strictly an academic exercise, not a proposal to overthrow the worthy established government of the Philippines. Indeed, it has about a snowball's chance in Pinatubo of even being useful. So consider it fiction, Joe's delusional ramblings, as if he were dreaming and typed it up.

The blog germinated from this bit of creative insight from Edgar Lores:

• 3. There should be a Santa clause in the Constitution: If the President is good, he should be allowed 2 terms. The determination of good should not be by referendum (which can be manipulated), but perhaps by a combination of several factors such as (a) internal benchmarks in the form of the President’s polling throughout his term and GDP growth; (b) external benchmarks in the form of economic ratings and extraordinary awards, for example the Nobel Prize award.

Clearly, Edgar is outside the box. And we want to join him there. That is, we want to set aside our preconceptions that government is supposed to be of ANY particular form. We know American form is broken by partisan acrimony, the Philippine try at dictatorship failed whereas Singapore's succeeded, the British bicker in their inimitable parliamentary style, and some governments are forever tossing themselves out of office.

If you wish to assure yourself that there are no hard and fast rules as to what makes a good government, merely read the Wiki descriptions of different kinds of government. The following excerpt makes the point, all governments are pretty much unique:

• Every country in the world is ruled by a system of governance that combines . . . [several] attributes (for example, the United States is not a true capitalist society, since the government actually provides social services for its citizens). Additionally, one person's opinion of the type of government may differ from another's (for example, some may argue that the United States is a plutocracy rather than a democracy since they may believe it is ruled by the wealthy). There are always shades of gray in any government. Even the most liberal democracies limit rival political activity to one extent or another, and even the most tyrannical dictatorships must organize a broad base of support, so it is very difficult "pigeonholing" every government into narrow categories

So that's were we want to start on this particular bit of brainstorming. There are no rules to follow. What we need to be concerned about more than form is need.

That is, if we consider the Philippines, what do we want government to accomplish? The Philippines is organized like the United States, but, in case you have not noticed, the Philippines is not the United States. The Philippines has millions of very poor people who are consigned to making it through the day. What do they care about the esotery of government, or even the particulars like  cybercrime (they don't have computers) or RH (they can't afford to go to a clinic) or even divorce (their marriages are common-law because they don't have needed documents or fees)? They vote with their stomachs for people with money and power. 

Not capability or character . . . necessarily.

The current Philippine form is democratic, or oligarchic, or plutocratic, or socialist democratic, or democratic republic depending on how you angle the civic-camera, like a well-oiled google-earth camera that rotates vertically or horizontally and spins 360 degrees. You can call it whatever you want, but it is what it is. A cracked plaster imitation of the failing US model.

Eventually, we idealists will have to figure out how to get from point A (where we are now) to point B (what we want our government to look like to be very, very good). But let's start by thinking about the peculiarities of the Philippines. We can do that through succinct bullet-points and let you overlay any elaboration needed.

• The island and regional layout of the Philippines makes for some profoundly different slices of the national pie. Different geographies and languages and histories and cultures and degree of commercial development. A host of different, prominent power players rule locally, generally family or clan based. They are like warlords without armies, although they may have police.

• The provinces are outside Manila's reach and operate on their own.  They are more autonomous, unique and separate from the federal government than American states. The nation is a federation in style,  with the House representing the regions in the national debate on laws. Somehow, these diverse views have to be melded into a harmonious and well-prioritized national agenda.

• The Manila region is highly urbanized and gigantic, representing much of the nation's economic might. Davao City and Cebu are large. Cagayan de Oro and Olongapo/Subic are substantial, and there are numerous fourth tier cities, getting bigger.

• Approximately 10 million Filipinos, or 10% of the population, work overseas, employed in jobs from domestic to professional. Their voice is strong, and the Philippines provides many services for OFWs. But perhaps they should they have a direct in things, like with their own representative(s) in the House. That is, be recognized as caring citizens, not as people who have abandoned their homeland or are somehow disloyal. They are, after all, one of the main legs of the Philippine economic stool. (Choose your definition of "stool" wisely.)

• The Philippine commercial base is predominantly agrarian (including forestry and fishing) and service-based (retail, medical, educational institutions, government). There's not much manufacturing. Tourism is building and will probably become substantial. Real estate and infrastructure construction are large components. Trade is minimal and needs based; there is not a strong manufacturing driver of exports or a wealth/purchase driver of imports. The economy needs to get deeper and the middle class significantly broader.

• The Executive branch of government is well-focused, staffed with capable people, and working earnestly and hard.

• The Legislative branch is packed with name and fame; it does a poor job of law-writing, both from the standpoint of not having a prioritized agenda (reps spew our hundreds of laws which they wave in voter faces), and from the poor quality of the laws that are written (which is why the Cybercrime law is in the courts). The Senate is regularly ponderous and political and rigid and old and a place of great interpersonal tension rather than purposeful and productive. The House a rabble of locally famous people who can't be bothered to show up at their Manila office.

• The Judiciary is a mess, not always adhering to law (cash and influence means more than justice) ; therefore case law is not solid and rulings get overturned frequently. Nor is the Judiciary efficient (the backlog is shameful) or open to any but those with money (court fees and lawyers block out Juan and his troubles). The Chief Justice is disliked by other justices which means that acrimony is the dominant mood of the top lawmakers of the land.

• Dynasties and connections with money, included among them a couple of well-established churches, heartily influence the governmental agenda. These moneyed interests lean on Executive and the Legislature. The failure to pass FOI is most likely connected to money and power because information, on it's own, has no political axe to grind.

• The nation's many divisions are extraordinarily demanding and seemingly beyond compromise. Opinion makers have one opinion, theirs, and it is firm and fast and defended to the death. Compromise is hard to reach because conceding on any issue subjects one to relentless ridicule from the howling masses.

So you get the picture. And I am sorry to report, it is not a pretty one. Feisty, sloppy, divided, self-involved, inefficient, undisciplined, economically thin, running on favors. The Senate and Judiciary are embroiled in personal issues rather than focused on the people's best interest.  

"But, Joe! You are our eternal optimist and you advocate a positive outlook on things! What's with this panning of governmental structure and result?"

Because I want to see the twinkling of hope blossom into flaming pile of opportunity. The Executive branch is fundamentally sound and working to instill better values and outcomes.  That's what I support.The Legislature may be waking up. We'll see later this year. I support that, too. The Judiciary knows reforms are needed but can't seem to get off the acrimonious dime. I support getting off the dime.

Besides, I'm not being negative here. Just describing the way things appear to my western-bent eyes. And, yes, the American governmental system is mightily screwed up, too. But that is not the subject of this discussion.

And so I ask "Idealist Joe": "What should the Philippine government be able to do to compete?"

• Executive needs to be executive. Driven by goals and performance measures. Skilled at delegation and follow-up. Like Mr. Aquino, but even more demanding and committed to results.

• Term limits are an artificial device to ensure no one person dominates government. Yet, when term limits mandate the removal of a competent President, the protection becomes self-defeating. It weakens government. The important measure is strength of performance and result, not time limit.

• Be smart. The legislature should be real lawmakers, not housewives and boxers. Legislators should be able to articulate laws that grant considerable autonomy to local regions while retaining strong national services that promote and protect the unified nation.

• Be flexible. The legislature should be small enough that people can actually talk to each other in a give-and-take dialogue rather than through speeches and committee reports and the endless circles of indirect dialogue. Today's process is mushy, slow and creates poor product. That is not a good way to compete globally.

• The judiciary needs to be firm, fair and efficient. It needs to be able to discern important deeds (mass murder) from unimportant (annulment) and relegate the former to judges that can push matters forward without delay and the latter to administrators who quickly grant or deny applications.

• Judges do not need to be independent if independence is an excuse for ineptitude. A "check and balance" should exist to make sure judges and the courts they manage are impeccibly fair, qualified and efficient.

So clearly we can see directions from this.

• Executive should do more of what it is doing. Like, beyond 2016. As Edgar said.

• Legislative needs to do a better job of writing law. More purposeful, more adept, bigger thinking and better writing.

• The Judiciary needs to grow up, learn to read and interpret the law firmly and fairly, and get efficient.

We academic idealists want a nation that is upright in values, serves people of different wealth, education, cultures, languages and religions, and works efficiently and fairly. There is much to be done. It is a competitive globe, and this divisive, sloppy favor-ridden approach is simply not up to par with nations that seek to gain and hold a dominant position in Asia, namely, China, Japan, and South Korea.

What do we have to do to get that to read China, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. Slop along, riding a cresting wave of honesty and little more?

I'd argue for more drive and better output from government.

Let's define a hypothetical new government better able to operate forthrightly and efficiently toward a healthier, wealthier Philippines. Here are some wildly idealistic ideas aimed at chipping the rust off your cranium.

• The legislature would work better if it is reduced in size and upgraded in law-making priorities and capability. 300 people is one unwieldy mass of humanity. The legislature should be able to agree on an agenda of priorities with Executive, and then write the laws to get the most important things done first. 

• Get rid of the Senate. Have one legislative body given the job of writing the national rules and supervising national performance, much like a corporate Board of Directors (crafting of bylaws and policies, and granting approvals or denials of Executive proposals).

• Reduce the House membership from 286 to, say, 21. Require that all be attorneys. Ban dynasties.

• Give the House more power to mandate strong performance by the Judiciary, including forthright removal of judges for cause.

• The Judiciary needs to be independent of external forces, either political or commercial, and focused on: (1) law and (2) efficient and fair renderings under the law. Case law is as important as the Constitution. Its development needs rigor and respect. End the current flaw that judges are not held to account.

• Set term limits for judges, 4-year terms, extensions subject to ratification by the House or delegated independent panels appointed by the House. No more than four extensions (five terms) per judge.

• Criteria for extension: opinions founded on objective law, efficient renderings, overturned cases below 25 percent. The House Judiciary committee would be charged with conducting the reviews of Supreme Court justices and making recommendations, subject to rebuttal by the respective judges.

• Executive needs to be relentlessly judged on performance, much as a CEO of a public corporation is held to accountability by shareholders. This is called the "Ed Lores Principle of Productive Presidents".

• Legislature sets the goals for the President expressed as 4-year targets: GDP growth, trade volumes, manufacturing employment, personal income levels, whatever. Executive must follow through to meet those targets.

• Make the President's term a renewable contract, based on performance. Rolling 4-year term, extensions subject to ratification by the House. No more than two extensions (three terms) allowed.

• National elections are called when the Legislature deems that a President's period in office will end.

Next we will re-design God and his various prophets, sons, disciples,  angels and opponents. No topic is too big for us.