BPS Politics

Presidential and Parliamentary system: a comparison

by: Karla Katigbak

          Philippines is now facing challenges on what system of government can make a proggressive country. For you, is it a Parliamentary or a Presidential system?
          Parliamentary system is distinguished by the executive branch of government being dependent on the direct or indirect support of the parliament often expressed through a vote of confidence. A parliament is a legislative. The name is derived from the french parliament, the action of parler (to speak) in parliament is a talk, a discussion, hence a meeting where people discuss matters of parliamentary government. The authority is vested in a parliament and there is no clear cut in separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a lack of the checks and balances found in a presidential republic. In a parliamentary system, people vote the members of the parliament and from the members of the parliament they will vote for their prime minister and the vote of no confidence can be done by the members of the parliament if they thought that the prime minister is not capable enough to lead. There are many advantages of a parliamentary systyem. First is that it is easierand quicker to to pass legislation with in a parliamentary system. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislative. Second, the World bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated with lower corruptions. Lastly, parties in parliamentary system have had much tighter idelogy than in presidential system.There are also criticism of parliamentarism and the main criticism of many parliamentary system is that the head of the government cannot be directly voted by the people. In presidential system, the presidents is directly chosen by the people , or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people but in a parliamentary system the prime minister is elected by the party leadership. There are also many kinds of parliamentary system like the British Parliament which is often referred to as the ” Mother of Parliaments”. It is from England and it is the model form of other paraliamentary system.
          Presidential system, also called a congresional system, is a system of government where the executive branch exists and presides supports from the legislative. There are many characteristics of a presidential system of goverment. One is that the president is both the head of state and the government and he/she has a fixed term of office. The president has also the power to pardon or commute sentences of convicted criminals and he/she is directly elected by the people. The president can be removed from office through the process of impeachment. There are also criticism in a presidential system like it is not constitutionally stable that’s why it has tendency towards authoritarianism. It is also difficult to remove an unsuitable president from office before his/her term has expired. In a presidential system, the president usually has special privileges in the enactment of legislation, namely the possession of a power of veto over legislation of bills. In the enactment of legislation, the president has the power to directly propose laws or cast or vote on legislation. The central principle in presidential system is that the difference between legislative and executive branches of government. The executive, legislative and judiciary are performing their own duty and this is the separation of power but they must check each other to make sure if the other branches is performing their job properly and this is the check and balance.
          There are many difference between parliamentary and presidential system and they have their own disadvantages and advantages. Some of our government officials are pursuing for presidential to parliament and others are contented. But still the question is what is the best for our country and for the people? For me, any system will do as long as it will benefit the people. Any system can make our life better , the real problem is the character of our government officials.

Will Federalism work for the Philippines
by: Jacinta Enerio
 As we all know, Federalism is a form of government in which government powers are divided between the central government and its local government units as specified in the constitution.
      We face major issues today including the shift to federalism and some people are beginning to embrace the idea of federal system. But the question is: Federalism is a shift for what and a shift for whom? Will federalism work for the Philippines? Is it necessary today?
      Before we embrace federalism, let’s look for the factors that need to be considered first. First, we must have strong “states” that can ensure governance at the local level and deliver services. But part of that goal is to ensure that no single political group or dynasty will dominate. Many undesirable political links have consolidated themselves at the province and city/municipal levels. We need to ensure that they do not consolidate themselves further when we create the states. another thing is, without the central government who would be strong enough to oppose the local warlords? You might say the people. Yes the people! Fine, but people can be bought and intimidated. Yes, we can educate the people all we want, but when a gun is pointed to their families, it’s very hard to put principles before life. So, who would protect Juan dela Cruz, who is now being terrorized by his own provincial government?
     Personally, I dont see federalism as a magic cure-all for all the political and economic ills of any emerging country; that “federalism” would produce good, honest ledears. In addition, what’s the guarantee that it’s going to work? what’s the guarantee that the same old-style politicians will NOT be a part of the new “Federal Government Of The Philippines?” 

“Party System”

By: Arjay Calderon

A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate the voting in nearly all elections. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by the two major parties. Coalition governments occur only rarely in two-party systems, though each party may internally look like a coalition.

Under a two-party system, one of two major parties typically holds a majority in the legislature (or a legislative house in a bicameral system), and is referred to as the Majority Party. The other major party is referred to as the Minority Party. The leader of the majority party may be referred to as the majority leader, assisted by the majority whip, and the leader of the major opposition party may be referred to as the minority leader, assisted by the minority whip.

Two-party systems often develop spontaneously when the voting system used for elections disadvantages third or smaller parties, because the number of votes received for a party in a whole country is not directly related to the proportion of seats it receives in the country’s assembly/assemblies. While there is sometimes a coincidental relationship between votes cast and seats received in these systems, voters are not assured that their one vote will directly count toward an additional seat. The most widely-used system to have this effect, the simple plurality system (first past the post) often appears to pull systems into encouraging the survival of only two major parties, because it encourages compromising, where one insincerely votes for another party in the hopes that the other worse party will not be elected. It is also vulnerable to vote splitting. A third force can break in on the scene. The overall system re-stabilizes into two-party mode after a three-party interlude.

Some representation systems – such as those involving a single elected president or a mayor dominating the government – may encourage two-party systems, since ultimately the contest will pit the two most popular candidates against each other.

When constituencies (electoral) vote for candidates on the basis of a geographical constituency, all votes for candidates other than the winner count for nothing. This reflects another factor that encourages a two party system: smaller parties often cannot win enough votes in a constituency because they have smaller support and sometimes more scattered support than larger parties. Often a first-past-the-post electoral system and the election of candidates from geographical constituencies (districts) appear together in a single political system: this means that some smaller parties can garner a significant proportion of votes nationally, but receive few constituency seats and thus cannot realistically expect to compete overall on an equal footing with larger country-wide parties.

Advantages and disadvantages

The two-party system’s defenders argue that:

• Uncommon, unconventional ideas and ideologies remain non-influential, so policies and governments do not change rapidly. (Others dispute whether such innate conservatism provides advantages. While smaller parties find this exceptionally frustrating, proponents of the two-party system suggest that it enhances stability while eventually allowing for ideas that gain favor to become politically influential.)
• The dynamics of a two-party system drives both parties’ policies towards the position of a mythical median voter while remaining (hopefully) distinctive enough to motivate their core support. This “middle anchor” can work to prevent both parties from shifting too far to either side of the political spectrum.
• Two-party systems, especially those where power often changes hands, appear less prone to revolutions, coups, or civil wars.
• Two-party systems provide two distinct political parties that average people can choose between based on core principles and political ideology.
• Two-party systems encourage unity among individuals of similar but not identical ideologies rather than encouraging segregation based on minor differences of opinion. This unity and its inherent necessity of civil compromise work to combat the dissonance that can arise in multi-party systems.
• Bickering of narrowly based ideological factions in multi-party systems can lead to a torpid legislative process. These factions, if they gain enough influence via winning seats, can adopt a “by any means necessary” mentality of furthering their agenda which can include purposely blocking or delaying important legislation.
• Narrowly based ideological factions can force the major parties to help them in exchange for their support. This can create a chaotic and fluctuating system of alliances that intensifies confusion among voters. Additionally, this “tie-breaker” influence minor parties achieve can serve to undermine the true positions of the major parties.
• Narrowly based ideological factions can have a trickle down effect on a nation’s citizens. People can become so obsessed with the single issue parties they belong to (e.g. Environmental Party) that they begin to give very little thought to other issues that are of equal or even greater importance.
• Multi-party systems have fractionalized legislatures that encourage the same fractionalization among a country’s electorate. Hence, encouraging segregation in government has a trickle down effect. This can be devastating in developing countries where violence is often an attractive form of negotiation. In developed countries this fractionalization can weaken national unity and patriotism, both of which are vital to the strength and defense of a sovereign nation.
• The major parties are really broadly based coalitions that already represent a great diversity of views. By welcoming many different opinions and formulating positions based on those opinions, the major parties prevent themselves from becoming narrowly based ideological factions. At the same time however, as is the case in the United States, the major parties maintain an ideological and easily identifable identity. In the United States for instance, citizens do not have to be Political Scientists to identifty the ideological differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. Voters choose between the two major parties and find common ground with one another based on the party they support. Hence, encouraging unity and civil compromise rather than fractionalization in government encourages the same among the people.

Against the argument that the two-party system leads to more stable governance, critics of two-party systems argue that:

• It is impossible to nominate, let alone elect, a moderate candidate. Among non-moderates (for instance, Democrats or Republicans in the US), a candidate’s campaign can become extremely complicated if he chooses to break with his party’s ideology on any specific issue (or concede that he does not subscribe to the beliefs of some members of his party). For this reason, many argue that the two-party system is conducive to hardliner ideology and extremist politics.
• The ruling party’s majority may still be based on a smaller segment of the population than coalition governments due to lower turnout, and votes cast that do not lead to the desired representative. With lower voter turn-out plus only a chance of getting the representative voters want, the ultimate body of representatives were voted in with a rather small number of votes (such as 40%). The majority of this body (20% plus one) rules the nation.
• Stability is not desirable in itself. The two parties in power resemble each other so much on the major issues and in their wealthy power base that the two party system more resembles a one party system.
• Elections based on geographical district representation can become subject to gerrymander. Even without deliberate partisan gerrymander, legislative representation can skew wildly from the actual percentage of the vote a party wins.
• The two-party system does produce stable governments, but this comes at the expense of the preferred outcome of stable democracy.
• Two-party systems do not appear intrinsically more stable, citing such examples of stable democracies as Germany, that has representation through district elections, but becomes a multi-party system through a correcting format of the overall vote.

Observers also criticise two-party systems for the following alleged flaws:

• Simplified (virtual two-way) elections motivate candidates to run negative campaigns, pointing out the flaws in the “other person” (usually the leader of the other party). Parties in such situations tend to stake out only those positions that appear necessary to differentiate themselves from their primary opponent, and not to concentrate on policies constructive or beneficial to citizens.
• If one of the two parties becomes weak, a dominant party system may develop.
• Debate in the assembly of the country can often become adversarial and not constructive, sometimes revolving around narrowly-perceived policy ideas, rather than larger political issues. Sometimes adversarial politics can lead to the opposition disagreeing with everything the government proposes (and vice versa) for the sake of disagreeing. This can lead to the blocking of important legislation, especially reforms that may benefit the country.
• Campaing contributions can more easily corrupt a two-party system – since it has fewer players to receive donations.
• In an effort to attract voters, each party will adopt planks of the other party’s platform, leading to the appearance in some skeptics’ minds of a one-party system.
• First-past-the-post election systems tend to produce fewer female and minority representatives than proportional representation systems.
• District elections tend to deliver a larger economic gap between members within its society. The have’s tend to have more and the have-not’s tend to have less in these nations.