Weak institutions fan Filipino turmoil

Ronald Meinardus Manila

These days, the political class in the Philippines is not concerned with governing but preoccupied with other things.

Attention is focused on what one commentator has termed "the worst crisis any administration" has ever experienced. The opposition is orchestrating turmoil and openly calling for the ouster of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA).

To achieve this goal, the president's foes have discharged various poisonous attacks. Following allegations that her husband, son and brother-in-law are entangled in corrupt practices involving illegal gambling, audio recordings surfaced which according to the opposition substantiate claims the president cheated her way to power in the May 2004 elections.

As the opposition is not inclined to wait for the next presidential elections five years away, three alternative scenarios of bringing the GMA presidency to a premature end are debated: resignation, impeachment by Congress or a popular uprising supported by the military.

With neither the resignation nor the impeachment considered realistic options, the extra-constitutional formula has once more advanced to the forefront.

Most observers agree the situation today is not ripe for yet another popular uprising. While many Filipinos are unhappy with the president (who is very unpopular), the outrage needed for a political explosion seems to be missing.

As is often the case in extra-constitutional processes, the call for "people power" does not stem from the "people" but from self-appointed leaders without a popular mandate.

When the Filipino masses rose in 1986 against the tyranny of Ferdinand Marcos, the whole democratic world joined the celebrations. People Power became a synonym for democratic and peaceful transition, and the Philippines was hailed as a global trend setter. Compared with 1986, the popular uprising in 2001 which brought the incumbent to power, had far less splendor.

Once again, major political forces in the Philippines are advocating extra-constitutional methods to rid the country of what they term a corrupt and illegitimate leader.

On a more general note, this advocacy exposes a fundamental weakness of the Philippine political system and its institutions. The issue of the legitimacy of the electoral results of May 2004 stands at the center of the political turmoil. Up to this very day, the opposition has not conceded defeat insisting the president only won because of massive cheating.

Whether this is enough to mobilize the Filipino masses is questionable. The least a successful movement of the kind some of the armchair revolutionaries are dreaming of would need is a joint political blueprint for a better future. The lack of this enforces the widespread suspicion that the whole commotion is less about political direction and principles but solely about personal ambitions.

In the midst of the turmoil, the president announced her intention to initiate the process aimed at changing the constitution from the present presidential form of government to a parliamentary and federal system. Not a few observers saw this as a move to deflect public attention away from the negative headlines the scandal was producing.

To raise the constitutional question in this delicate situation is untimely and also premature. The problem is not the present constitution, but a lack of respect for the basic law. It is debatable, also, whether a shift from the presidential to a parliamentary system would improve the political situation. While it would strengthen parliament, it would at the same time weaken the executive. To solve the myriad problems, the Philippines needs strong political leadership. I am not convinced at all whether a leader based on a potentially fragile parliamentary majority would be better equipped to get things done than a chief executive with a popular mandate.

Apart from that, for a parliamentary system to work, you need an institutional framework with a functioning electoral system and strong political parties. Compared with other democracies, both the electoral and the party system of the Philippines are feeble and in dire need of reform.

Hardly anyone remembers today that in 2001 the political parties agreed in a political summit to enact legislation aimed at strong platform based and publicly financed political parties. Up to this day, nothing practical has come out of the well- sounding rhetoric. This shows that the political class is really not genuine in its desire to strengthen the political parties as democratic institutions.

I also miss political sincerity regarding electoral reform: Todays political turmoil is basically a consequence of the inadequacies of the electoral system. Had the 2004 elections been computerized and not conducted in what observers then termed the archaic system of manual counting, today's allegations of cheating and rigging would simply be baseless. It is disturbing (but also revealing) that hardly anyone is campaigning for election reform today. This leads to the conclusion that many in the political class seem content with an outdated electoral system that is not only open to manipulation but also extremely destabilizing.

The writer is the Resident Representative of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation and a commentator on Asian affairs. He can be reached at liberal@fnf.org.ph.