Official Website of Dr. Jose V. Abueva

Electing "transforming leaders" to initiate "System change"  for good governance and nation-building.

By Jose V. Abueva*

We need much more than electing "good leaders" defined only as "honest and trustworthy." The 2010 election is not simply "a struggle between good and evil" candidates. These campaign slogans oversimplify a very complex reality. We need extraordinary leaders who can deal with our complex problems as a developing nation and an aspiring democracy, and improve the quality of life of our citizens.

System change based on "people power"

We need to change our system of governance and development. We have to restructure our obsolete political institutions through basic changes in our 1987 Constitution and new legislation that will greatly improve the effectiveness of our national and local governance and hasten the development of our economy. Our reformed institutions should empower our leaders and citizens alike in building a strong and progressive nation.

We need to pursue a radical paradigm of governance and development vaguely implicit in our "people power" revolt at EDSA in 1986, and therefore not understood. The "Superiority principle," our traditional, colonial, oligarchic, "top-down" and centralized development and governance of the country from "Imperial Manila" ("Pinatulo"), has basically failed us. Thus, since the 1960s, as our population swelled, we seem trapped in poverty, social inequality, mal-governance, corruption, injustice, and violent conflict.

Therefore, let us build and govern our country "bottom-up," with genuine and sustained "people power." This is the "Subsidiarity principle" ("Pinatubo") of organizing our government and our development from below with the citizens’ informed, enabled and inspired participation.

For the State is subsidiary to the people according to the Constitution: "The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanate from them" (Article II. Section 1). (I acknowledge my debt for these ideas to the International Subsidiarity Movement led by Sixto K. Roxas and Philip Camara.)

Since 1996 two presidents and many legislators and reform activists have tried and failed to amend our Constitution in one or the other of the three ways prescribed: (1) by the people’s initiative, (2) by Congress as a constituent assembly, or (3) by a constitutional convention.

Behind the repeated failure and frustration were serious flaws in the process; suspicions that the incumbent president and legislators merely wanted to extend their terms of office; and the opposition of many in and out of government, including the media and religious leaders, who have vested interests in the existing system of politics, governance, and economic policy.

Deep distrust of an unpopular president and her allies in the House of Representatives doomed Charter change which the political opposition and media demonized along with its advocates. Consequently, most citizens were denied their right to know the truth about Charter change which had been trivialized. In fact, many opponents of constitutional reforms have vested interests in preserving the existing political system.

In this tragic situation, we must elect transforming political leaders who are transparent and truthful to our people; who have the wisdom, courage and skills to bring about the basic changes in the institutions, policies, and processes of our governance with the people’s enlightened support. They will heed the demands of many thoughtful leaders and citizens around the country who have been demanding those changes.

Here are some of the urgent fundamental reforms proposed by our national leaders and constitutional reformers for the people’s approval as most involve constitutional change.

1.1. National elections for the President and senators are too costly and prone to corruption and fraud. Change our Presidential System to a Parliamentary System and elect members of Parliament (MPs) in parliamentary districts. Abolish the Senate or elect two senators in every autonomous region. Abolition of national elections plus automation will also make the district and local elections more efficient and less prone to fraud.

1.2. The 3-year term for House members is too short, costly and wasteful. Impose no term limits for members of the Parliament as in other countries. In practice, the term of an unwanted ruling political party and Government may be shortened by a parliamentary vote of no-confidence by a majority of the MPs.

1.3. The 3-year term of local government leaders is too short, wasteful, and costly. Increase their terms to 4 to 5 years. Synchronize all local elections including barangay elections. Reconsider the maximum term limits on these local leaders which are easily circumvented by the election of their relatives and proxies.

1.4. Grant government subsidies only to the three largest political parties in order to encourage the consolidation of our many political parties and the long-term development of an alternating two-party system. Penalize party-switching of MPs. All these will encourage the accountability of political parties and their leaders in the Parliamentary System.

1.5. Phase out the party-list parties that fragment our present system of representation in the legislature; and consolidate the party-list leaders and members in the regular political parties to enhance their effectiveness and accountability.

2.1. Our Presidential System has deteriorated very badly since its beginning in 1946 as provided in the 1935 Constitution. Thus, as far back as 1972, before Marcos destroyed our fragile democracy, the elected delegates of our last Constitutional Convention decided to replace our Presidential System with the Parliamentary System. But our 1987 Constitution restored the old Presidential System.

2.2. The national election of the President has become too costly and corrupting. And in the absence of a vision and a platform of government offered by a unified political party, the election of our President has depended largely on personal popularity and organization, celebrity status, big money, media advertising, religious support, and ‘win-ability" as reflected in the political surveys.

2.3. The incumbent President is not really accountable because he/she is assured of a full term with no re-election and may be removed only by impeachment which is almost impossible. This encourages extra-constitutional or unconstitutional means of removing an unwanted President and these lead to political instability.

2.4. The "separation of powers" among the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, in the absence of political parties united by common ideals, principles, and policies, has become too divisive and antagonistic. Excessive "checks and balance" result in gridlock and paralysis in the governance of the country. This perpetuates our politics of personality, showmanship, opportunism, and palakasan among our national leaders in Congress and Malacañang.

2.5. We need national political parties whose members and leaders are loyal, honest, competent, and committed to their party’s vision, ideals, and platform of government in competing for the people’s support and mandate. These modern Filipino political parties can develop only in a Parliamentary System where the majority party or coalition in the Parliament elects the Prime Minister who forms the Government with his/her Cabinet Ministers. An effective and popular ruling party in Parliament can give the country continuity in policy and governance.

2.6. A system of "proportional representation" (PR) in the Parliament will allocate additional seats therein to the various political parties according to their respective share of the total parliamentary votes cast nationwide. PR will encourage good party leaders, party-based campaigns, and sound political party platforms. Some 20 per cent or more of the MPs can be selected by PR. (Germany allows 50 %.)

2.7. The acknowledged leader of the leading political parties is the potential Prime Minister, if his/her political party gains a majority of the seats in the Parliament. So he/she is usually an experienced, trusted, and able national leader when elected as Prime Minister. Unlike in our Presidential System where the voters elect the President on factors other than the demonstrated leadership of the candidate for the highest office in the land.

2.8. Whoever may be our President and legislators, our divisive, personality-based, and unaccountable kind of Presidential System and our top-down Unitary System cannot deal effectively with our problems of massive poverty, unemployment, inequality, injustice, rebellion, corruption, inadequacy of public services, environmental decay, low global competitiveness, and a weak nation.

3.1. In the more than 60 years since 1946 our population has grown from some 40 million to over 90 million. The great majority of our people live in scattered islands and local communities mostly far from Metro Manila, the political and business capital.

3.2. Our people expect public services and assistance from their government through their local government leaders. But they don’t have the needed power and resources to respond, in spite of the Local Autonomy Code of 1991. Thus local government leaders spend a lot of time asking national officials in Metro Manila for national assistance and the release of their local government share of government funds. Political structures ensure local weakness and dependency.

3.3. Local governments have no control in the development of the natural resources in their own localities: the sea, water, forests, minerals, oil, and other forms of energy. They also lack the authority to mobilize the resources to invest in their local development. They should be given this authority. They should be entitled to a greater share of taxes or revenues collected in their jurisdiction. We should reallocate the tax bases of the National Government, the new Autonomous Regions to be established, and the local government units.

6.1. Admittedly, thinking of political leadership, democracy involves bargaining, exchange, and compromise, and leaders must reconcile conflicting interests and divergent beliefs and opinions. In this role, many politicians act mainly as transactional leaders who engage their followers and fellow leaders in bargaining and exchange for mutual personal benefit. Some of them use their office to accumulate power and wealth in a cycle of corruption, often with impunity.

6.2. This is why we need politicians who are also transforming leaders: the kind who challenge and inspire our citizens and leaders to raise their aspirations and goals to higher levels of morality, self-fulfillment, and national progress for the common good. By definition they inspire a change in the values and behavior of their co-leaders and citizens; together they achieve reforms in policies, structures, and institutions for good governance and nation-building.

6.3. The formation of transforming leaders and enlightened citizens is a crucial aspect of nation-building and democratization especially in our oligarchic and unjust society. This truth is not commonly understood. Our schools do not emphasize it. And it is lost in the glitter and excitement of our traditional, Machiavellian politics dominated by those transactional leaders who exploit the insecurity and vulnerability of our many poor citizens. In our anomic politics many religious leaders are actively partisan; they use their moral authority without being transforming.

6.4. Fortunately, more and more transforming leaders in various walks of life, like the many who are involved in the Gawad Kalinga movement, are demonstrating that tremendous social transformation and progress can be achieved together in thousands of communities: by the inspired cooperation of committed citizens and volunteers, and outstanding leaders in the local governments, the National Government, corporate business, civil society, foreign organizations, and overseas members of our Global Filipino Nation.

There is a pending proposal in the House of Representatives to elect delegates to a Constitutional Convention in October 2010. If it is approved in the House and the Senate, the 2010 Constitutional Convention will propose the needed reforms in the 1987 Constitution that can lead to "System change" in our national and local governance.

If the proposal is not passed, the President we shall elect in 2010 and the senators and representatives of the 15^{th Congress can lead us in initiating the long overdue "System change" sometime from 2010 to 2016.}