Why we need a semi-presidential form of government

TPart 1

HE ruling PDP Laban recently submitted a draft constitution to the House of Representatives. One of the proposals is to shift from the current presidential to a semi-presidential form of government. What is the basis of this proposal? How does it compare with a pure presidential and pure parliamentary in terms of their main features, strengths, weaknesses/risks, examples and the main reasons why countries choose a particular system over another. I discuss these in detail in the sections that follow.

All things considered, I would argue to 20 years), a semi-presidential form of government is most appropriate for our shift to a federal system. I arrived at this conclusion considering the strengths, risks and weaknesses of each system, our own political culture and experience, the history of other countries and most important of all, considering the challenges of a transition to a federal system. In the long term, when we have stronger political parties and much broader middle class, we can shift to a full

The main advantage of a semi-presidential form of government is that it brings together the strengths of both the presidential and parliamentary systems – - ability and familiarity, and cancels out their risks and weaknesses.

Presidential system

A presidential system, such as what we have now, has three main features. First, directly by voters. In a parliamentary system, government is selected by and is accountable to the parliament. Second, Third, the president is removed from

democratic governments worldwide are presidential systems, mostly found parliamentary systems. Large and very diverse countries tend to have presidential The constitution of most presidential or semi-presidential systems were usu Erdogan) or were drawn up by military - rea). In all cases, the demand for a strong president has come about during periods - munist insurgencies in Latin America). In fact, majority of presidential systems Colombia, Chile, etc.).

There are several advantages of a presidential compared to a parliamentary system – decisiveness, stability, checks and balances and familiarity to Filipinos. It is decisive because the president is directly elected by the people, the ultimate source of authority, and because the president latitude for decision-making. Likewise, it is stable because the president is elected elected by the people. Providing for the removal of the president only through impeachment and recall—costly exer Policy stability is also assured because of

Decisiveness is necessary to deal with national security, natural disasters, the war on drugs, powerful countries and global competition. A strong president is also necessary to deal with powerful vested interests—the oligarchy—in politics, business and media. Historically, there parliamentary system to a presidential system on grounds of national security and due to the gridlock, indecisiveness and initial instability associated with a parliamentary system. In France’s 20 governments . Overall, the stability and decisiveness of presidential systems make it appealing compared to parliamentary systems.

Disadvantages

On the other hand, a presidential system has its disadvantages. First, once in a president to account. We have tried multiple impeachments, coups d’etat and people power revolts to hold a president to account. There are certainly much better and less costly mechanisms of accountability than what we have gone through. For example, in a parliamentary system, the vote of confidence and question time are far more cost-effective mechanisms of accountability.

Second, the Philippine president is one of the most powerful presidents in the world – with vast powers of executive orders, appointments, budget, veto powers and supervision of local governments. Constitution, which was a copycat of the US system. These vast powers generate strong incentives for oligarchies to compete with each other for the right to control and allocate these powers. What we have is a system of spoils and a rent-seeking political culture. We need a system of checks and balances to control the vast powers of the presidency and prevent their abuse.

Third, an all-too-powerful president with little restraint can easily undermine our still fragile democratic institutions. It has taken us decades to build our system of checks and balances – the constitutional bodies, Congress, judiciary, police, military, the media, and the civil service. They remain fragile and can easily be destroyed by abusive politicians with long-term adverse effects. We need to build a system of checks and balances to prevent a president from destroying democratic institutions.

Fourth, and similarly, a disproportionately powerful president can undermine the shift to federalism. Federalism will involve the transfer of powers of the national government and even some of the powers of the presidency to the regions. A sitting president has little experience in decentralization has shown that we have been moving towards more centralization of powers. The experience of other countries also show that presidential systems tend to centralize powers.

Fifth, a centralized decision-making structure dependent upon the President is no longer appropriate today in a world that has become very demanding on the president’s time and abilities. Just consider the many problems that the president has to deal with on a daily basis – terrorism, drugs, criminality, natural disasters, US-China relations, peace process, not to mention the the president has to attend to. Inevitably, this will slow down the decision-making process and wear down any president. There is clearly a need for collective leadership—a president, prime minister, cabinet and regional governors—so that the burdens of governance are shared.