The claim for wanting ‘real’ change is hollow because without Charter change there is no way to achieve the desired political and social reforms. Indeed what they have pointed out – corruption, lack of concern for the poor, the need for electoral reforms – have come about precisely because of the present presidential system. To say that we should not change the system which gave rise to these problems means they want us to have more of the same. For example, they want us to continue with national elections that give rise to the worst corruption and bad governance in the guise of giving voters the right to vote the president directly. They want to help the poor but are silent on how this is possible with a Constitution that stultifies the economy by discouraging investments.
A structural change will upset the status quo in which the vanguards are stakeholders to the levers of powers. A shift from a presidential system to parliamentary federal will open up the system that will eventually end the rigodon of alternating tribal elites. There will still be undesirable politicians, most of them not unrelated to these vanguards but it will be a different ballgame that will give a chance to desirable politicians. What they fear is its newness. They will have to face up to the challenge of more players. And because there will be more players with different capabilities and motives, it will not be so easy to control its dynamics, something they have been used to.
Debate is futile with those who have already made up their minds against Charter change. What I do not understand is why they keep killing Charter change even before it is put to a vote. If they are really democratic then the only way we can resolve the debate is through a plebiscite (election, by the way) especially now when about 10 million voters have signed in its favor. Or are they afraid to face the truth?
A plebiscite to vote whether or not we will have Charter change is the first election we should have. We must have a plebiscite (election on a fundamental issue) first to resolve Charter change before any election (for candidates of vested interests) if real change is really what is desired. If the people are truly in favor of no change they will register their vote.
True, elections are important in a democracy but unless we change the political structure, even if these are more honest, we will still be putting up more and more undesirable leaders as we are doing now. At present an election is a game of musical chairs which serves no purpose than to alternate with elitist tribes in power. Kayo ngayon, kami naman. We need to make fundamental changes to the structure before elections can serve the purpose these are meant for – to elect competent and efficient leaders accountable to their constituencies not because they are movie celebrities or super rich. That is not possible under the present system and they know it.
We need to change our political structure so that it will not be necessary to spend billions (better spent for housing and medical care for the poor) to campaign and the basic source of political corruption. As I have said often enough in this column the electoral reforms are desirable and necessary but if we retain the present political structure it will only mean we will have honest elections for the very popular (artistas or broadcasters) or the very moneyed (sons of former presidents or oligarchs who have the billions to campaign nationwide).
The structure of the system has so limited the choice of our leaders from an elitist pool constricting our political and social development. There are more talented, more patriotic Filipinos out there who cannot get into positions of leadership unless we change the system. We need to open it up to more players. That can only be done if we break up electoral constituencies into smaller and meaningful ones in which there is a more direct relationship between the voter and the voted. That is how we can develop more mature and politically aware voters. They will vote more intelligently, when they have access to the officials whom they vote to govern them.
In a parliamentary federal system, all elections are local. Elected officials are accountable to particular constituency of people who know them whether it be as a member of parliament or as prime minister. The Prime Minister is in direct touch with his constituency – the House of Parliament – at which he or she must answer questions on his or her program of government from day to day or be removed with a no-confidence vote if he/she is unable to explain his/her actions satisfactorily. Moreover the focus is on parties and programs not on personalities. It will eliminate slouches with no understanding of the job they have been voted for. I know of many more enlightened and competent Filipinos, who if given the chance could be elected as leaders of this country. If we do not change the system, we will be condemned to the status quo which favors only the very rich or the very popular backed by the very rich.
Advocates must take heart at the example of Copernicus who persisted with his vision even when the entire establishment and Church condemned him. It can be frightening when church officials demonize those who do not follow them. I have been through this before and I know it requires courage and a capacity for pain. But in the end it is a worthy effort. We have a choice whether to use our own minds or follow blindly those who claim moral superiority over us. We must trust our capacity to think and judge for ourselves because there is no greater homage to a Creator than that we use the intelligence given to us.
The changes are in tone rather than content but it will upset some who prefer language they have been used to. One of the changes is about the words exchanged between priest and congregation: "The Lord be with you." "And also with you." The new version reads, "The Lord be with you." "And with your spirit." Says Fr. James Martin, of the Jesuit weekly America "When do you say to someone, ‘I hope your spirit has a nice day today?’" He adds, "It just doesn’t translate." The bishops are said to be unhappy about the changes and at "at being treated like branch managers rather than ecclesial princes in their own right (or, er, rite)" according to this report. But it adds that there may be some fretting but their non-acceptance will be unacceptable.