From executive turnover to conspicuous absence

WELL, Australia has installed a new prime minister, the chief executive of the country which can perhaps be characterized as the closest “Western” neighbor to Southeast Asia. To a country like the Philippines where a popularly elected single-term president serves as

of Australia’s premiership is perhaps a less than familiar political feature. But for countries, especially those members of the British Commonwealth (a conglomerate of former British colonies), that have more or less “inherited” the British Westminster parliamentary democracy system, what recently happened politically in Australia, and sometimes in the United Kingdom itself, is but perhaps the natural evolution of an otherwise “collegial” leadership methodology.

In the more “clear-cut,” somewhat American inspired political system such as that of the Philippines, there is a clear distinction between how the members of congress and the president are popularly elected. Sometimes the executive and legislative branches are helmed even by members of opposing political parties. While some political commentators may see this as creating an unnecessary impasse for the “healthy” running of the country — such as when in the recent past the US Congress and the

budgetary standoff which resulted in the shutdown of the government — I see this as a very healthy check and balance between different branches of government, lest one becomes dominant over the others, and hence conveniently dictatorial.

In the British Westminster (named after the seat of the British Parliament. The term “parliament” instead of “congress” is used to describe the legislative branch of the government in such jurisdictions) system, however, the legislative and executive branches of government are effectively “fused.” There is no separate popular election for the head of the executive branch, who is usually called the prime minister or the premier. Instead, popular elections are almost mainly held only for the members of the lower house of the parliament, and for members of the upper house only in some jurisdictions (such as in Australia, but not in the United Kingdom). The lower house member who commands the support of the majority of his parliamentary colleagues in the same house (loosely comparable to the house majority leader in a congressional system) would be invited by the nominal head of state (the Governor General who represents Queen Elizabeth II who is also Queen of Australia in this case) to serve as prime minister and “form a government” (appointing other cabinet colleagues from among members of both houses of parliament but not beyond).

The prime minister concerned would serve as long as he or she still enjoys the majority support in the lower house of parliament. When he loses such support,

is moved and passed against him, he must resign forthwith to allow for the installation of a successor who may or may not be from the same party as him (but usually is) who newly commands such parliamentary majority support. In more mature democ-

vibrant democracies can still be practiced out of such fusion of government branches. But as was the case of Malaysia until the recent unprecedented change of government, it could also be abused to consolidate oneparty hold on power for an extended period of time due to relative lack of checks and balances on governmental powers.

This sort of “fusion” between the two major branches of government is further complicated by party politics and the more stringent “party whip” system in the Westminster system. Whereas in a congressional system, the legislative members of a particular political party, while certainly being strongly persuaded by the party hierarchy to vote along the line taken by the mainstream of the party concerned, are nevertheless more or less free to cast their votes in congress according to their respective ideological bent or the interests of their various constituencies. This is not so under the Westminster system. Instead, parliamentary members of a political party are “whipped” into voting along the line of the party mainstream.

In the UK and Australia, when coupled with party politics, this translates into the majority party in the lower house having to hold “leadership contests” to choose a new parliamentary leader (and thus prime minister) when a sitting one no longer enjoys the majority support among his parliamentary party colleagues. The candidate who thus wins the majority support of his parliamentary party colleagues would then enjoy the total support of all his parliamentary party colleagues who are “whipped” into supporting him. That was

prime minister when David Cameron stepped down after unexpectedly losing the Brexit referendum. This is also how the new Australian prime minister Scott Morrison was recently elected after a revolt among his party’s parliamentary ranks against his predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull.

Well, Morrison wasted no time in getting in touch with the leader of not only Australia’s closest ally, but indeed of the free world, President Donald Trump of the United States. Morrison apparently invited Trump to come by Australia as part of his then expected Asian tour in November to attend the summits of both the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Asia

decided afterwards against coming to Asia in November, although he would still visit France in the same month to commemorate the end of World War 1.

Well, Trump’s absence from Asia in general, and Southeast Asia in particular, would certainly reinforce the viewpoints that America is no longer placing a lot of emphasis on this crucial part of the world which straddles the trade routes between the East and the West, a far cry from the “pivot to Asia” strategy under the Obama administration. The Trump administration trumpeted

But many of us in this part of the world are still wondering what the strategy entails, as neither economic (in the form of enhanced trade and investment) nor strategic (in the

- ment) resources have been routed here so far. Alas, only empty rhetoric abounds.