MANILA — By calling for an overhaul of the Philippines’ failed political system, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has tried to divert attention from her worst crisis and tap into deep discontent with the way things are.
But there is a major snag.
Even if Arroyo is serious about constitutional change — which many doubt — such a radical step needs to be approved and implemented by the dysfunctional system of today.
Winning support from politicians with a vested interest in the status quo will be tortuous at best, and many doubt it would be worth the effort without first tackling underlying problems of corruption, feudalism and flawed elections.
“You are improving the house but you are not improving the character of the people,” Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales said Tuesday, a day after Arroyo called for a “great debate” on shifting from the country’s US-style presidential system. “We are changing the laws, but we are not changing the people who make the laws.”
Few would argue that the current system, transplanted from its former colonial master, has failed in the Philippines. Hobbled by two decades of dictatorship under Ferdinand Marcos and chronic instability since his fall in 1986, the economy has gone from being second in Asia only to Japan in the 1950s to one long since overtaken by more dynamic neighbors.
US-designed checks and balances have more often produced gridlock in a system dominated by elite clans. Tens of millions of impoverished Filipinos are largely excluded, except for handouts of food and cash in exchange for votes during elections.
But would a British-style parliamentary system combined with federalism, which Arroyo seems to be pushing, fare any better? Former President Fidel Ramos, who often cites Thailand as a model, says stronger party loyalties would enable the nation to focus on policies and reduce the clout of political dynasties.
Proponents also say it would make it easier to topple incompetent governments legally through no-confidence motions, reducing the chance of more “people power” upheavals after those that ousted Marcos in 1986 and President Joseph Estrada in 2001.
Indonesia’s shift to choosing its president by direct elections showed that even relatively small reforms can have profound effects, said Stephen Wilford, Southeast Asia analyst for the Control Risks Group. “I’m slightly skeptical in the Philippine context because fundamentally the problems with Filipino politics boil down to the influence of entrenched elites inside the political process based around money and land,” he said.
“Ever since the fall of Marcos, what we’ve seen is very slow and incremental reforms in the Philippines largely resisted by these elite groups.” Steven Rood, country representative for the Asia Foundation, said there was nothing in the presidential system that prevented the Philippines from tackling its social and economic problems. “I don’t believe that a parliamentary system would necessarily be any better for the Philippines than a presidential system,” he said.
Greater federalism — which Arroyo hinted at by saying she wanted to “take the power from the center to the countryside that feeds it” — has broad appeal in provinces that chafe at Manila’s political dominance and control of the purse strings.
It could also help end a three-decade-old Muslim rebellion on the southern island of Mindanao by giving the rebels the stronger self-rule they desire. The risk is that by giving powerful local bosses more autonomy, federalism would worsen national disunity.
Rood said the federalism idea had promise but would face difficult hurdles such as how to push through with the abolition of some provincial governments to make way for fewer states. “It seems to me there are a lot of unresolved problems with federalism that crop up,” he said.
Another possible flaw in Arroyo’s plan is that ordinary Filipinos will be excluded from shaping the new system. In Monday’s speech, she suggested the best route for reform was turning Congress into a constituent assembly that would draw up a new charter.
That is popular with some of her allies in the House of Representatives but fiercely opposed by many senators who fear it would hand over too much influence to the lower chamber.
The alternative, a constitutional convention elected by national polls, would be more expensive and take longer but would help take power over the reforms from the traditional politicians blamed by many for the system’s failure.
Leaving reform to Congress could add to the cynicism and apathy with which many Filipinos already view the debate over charter change, or “cha-cha” as it is popularly known.
“I don’t really care about cha-cha,” said Henry Cabrera, a real estate dealer who works in Manila’s business district. “I just wish these politicians would do their job right and then there wouldn’t be a need for cha-cha.”
