Ooops. Do we already have a parliamentary government without Charter change? It seems to be with the opposition hurrying the completion of committee assignments so they can form a “shadow cabinet”. What?!? The opposition is free to call themselves anything they want to so long as they legislate constructively. But shadow cabinet is an essential feature of a parliamentary system of government.
The way I understand it, under a presidential system, there is no such thing as a shadow cabinet operating in Congress because the cabinet is the function of the executive department. The legislative is there to make, not implement, laws. Parliamentary government on the other hand is distinguished from a presidential system because it merges both the making and implementing of laws in Parliament. Ergo, a shadow cabinet becomes necessary in parliament.
I am afraid Senior Deputy Minority Leader Rep. Roilo Golez of Parañaque is out of line when he says committee assignments should be completed to “allow them to identify which congressman should “shadow” a particular Cabinet member and monitor that Cabinet member’s agency. Golez warns all and sundry that the opposition will select members of the minority to shadow concerned department heads of National Defense, Environment and Natural Resources, Justice, Health and Interior and Local Governments as priority areas of concern.
It may be argued that forming a shadow Cabinet will be used as a check and balance to the performance of Cabinet officials. However it is done within the context and structure of a parliamentary not a presidential system. There are important operational contexts to be considered. Moreover, the socio-cultural and institutional dynamics necessary for shadow government is completely absent in our presidential system. Without this context, I am afraid the shadow cabinet of the opposition is just another name for obstructing government. A shadow cabinet which is meant to help advance good governance does not happen by fiat or overnight. Formal political institutions have to be slowly developed and learned over time for it to be effective.
A shadow government literally means a “government-in-waiting”. It is in waiting until it takes control of government in response to some event such as a general election. Its primary objective is continuity so that an incoming government does not begin from scratch or operate in a vacuum. Shadow government prepares the opposition to take over government. It fosters stability, making it one of the strengths of parliamentary system. Changes of government through elections should not disrupt the overall economic and social well-being of a nation which is often the case with our presidential system.
In parliamentary governments, the largest opposition party often refers to itself as a shadow government. Opposition leaders are prepared to assume certain ministries should their party come to power. In Britain the largest opposition party’s Defense spokesperson is referred to as the Shadow Defense Secretary. More importantly, they are often in consultation with their counterpart in the incumbent government. Smaller parties have spokespeople but do not have shadow government designations.
* * *
I join many journalists around the world who mourn the death of Telegraph columnist and journalistic icon, W.F. Deedes, 94 in his house in Kent, Sussex. Prime Minister Gordon Brown paid him the highest accolade calling him a national institution. W.F. as he was generally called by friends witnessed many of the 20th century’s most important events as a journalist, served as a Cabinet minister in the 1960s and edited The Daily Telegraph for 12 years. His last column for the paper, written last August 3 compared the horrors of Darfur to Nazi Germany.
I met him personally while in exile in London. He sought me out after seeing me on television on those fateful days in 1986 after the EDSA people power revolution. Knowing I had written a book on Imelda Marcos he was eager to tell me that he had met her when he accompanied former CIA chief William Casey to Malacañang on the eve of their ouster. I will never forget the way he chuckled when describing Mrs. Marcos. According to him, he nearly fell off his chair when Casey brashly asked her if she went to bed with Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi. Imelda replied, no, no, I am a good “gel”.
The visit which they had thought would be an hour lasted until the wee hours of the morning. W.F. Deedes said she just talked and talked and he listened as best he could even if he was warding off his yawns. He rather liked her but thought it all so amusing that she should be regarded as a dragon lady. He would invite me to Paradiso, an Italian restaurant not far from Fleet Street, not just to talk about the Marcoses and EDSA but because he wanted to know more about the Philippines.
I often thought of him whenever the question came up of how a First Gentleman should behave. He was Denis Thatcher’s best friend and golfing crony and provided the companionship the prime minister’s husband needed. He became more known outside Fleet Street as the model for two fictional characters: the war correspondent hero of Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop and “Dear Bill”, recipient of the fictional letters from Denis Thatcher in Private Eye. Baroness Thatcher, who had known him for more than 50 years, said “Bill was a dear friend who will be greatly missed. He had a uniquely distinguished career in politics and journalism.”
* * *
Those following up the story on ‘kidnapped’ Filipinos should look into http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1432 for the sworn testimonies of Roy Mayberry and John Owen before the US Congressional Oversight Committee on the US Embassy project in Baghdad. The threat of a libel suit by First Kuwaiti or a denial by some Filipinos in a video tape conference does not close the story. American journalist David Phinney wrote that any threat by First Kuwaiti of a lawsuit in the United States would be very weak. Mayberry’s allegations were made under sworn oath. Two different witnesses claiming to be handed boarding passes for Dubai and landing in Baghdad are very compelling, along with the other experiences of many witnesses. Whether 11 or 51 Filipinos were on board that plane is not the point. We need to investigate the mechanism through which almost a thousand Filipinos are said to be working in Baghdad despite a government ban. We won’t know this through a video conference in which Filipinos deny they were mistreated. It is an affront on our government. Finding out how Filipinos are being treated is a separate question.
My e-mail is cpedrosaster@gmail.com