IT’S A democratic country that we have, and therefore any politician is free to say what he wants to say, and to promise whatever comes to his mind. My wish, however, is that all politicians will promise what is cast in stone in their party platforms rather than their own personal promises.
The fact is, the strength of our democracy depends on whether or not we could make our political processes flow, and the key to that is the active participation of the political parties in that process. That is not to say that independent politicians could not participate, because they could, but the mainstream so to speak should be composed of active party participants.
As it is supposed to be, Executive Orders (EOs) are not supposed to violate or supersede the laws, but it always happens and something should be done to stop it from happening. I am raising this as an issue, because the proliferation of EOs that violate or supersede the laws would actually abrogate the powers of the Congress, and in effect, it destroys the separation of powers between the three branches of the government.
As it is supposed to be, the judicial branch is only to interpret the laws, but in so many occasions in the past, we have seen how the judicial branch have in effect made laws by way of judicial legislation and, in doing so, has also destroyed the separation of powers.
As it is supposed to be, the Lower House and the Upper House are supposed to check and balance each other, but checking and balancing each other could result in paralysis analysis if there is no consultation and coordination with each other.
The remedy for that is to have party members at each House that could talk to each other and work with each other in line with their own party platforms, and obviously not in line with their own personal opinions. That is why it is important to have a majority President who could muster the majority votes in each House. The other extreme to that is a minority President who does not have any support in any of the Houses, and when that happens, paralysis could also happen.
As it is supposed to be, each political party is supposed to field their own candidates after going through a process of selection within their own ranks. That supposed process, or whatever we see of it, is supposed to tell us how weak or how strong a party is, or how sincere it is in practicing democracy within its own ranks.
In recent memory, however, we have seen how our political parties have chosen to bypass that process, choosing instead to choose their own candidates by way of anointment, or at best, by way of acclamation. One thing for sure, we could say that a party that does not mount a national convention is either not capable of doing so, or is not inclined to practice the internal democratic processes.
Only in the Philippines, as they say. And perhaps it is only in the Philippines that a candidate is “adopted” by several political parties at the same time, regardless of their respective ideologies, assuming that they have those. It is also only in the Philippines that several candidates can come from one political party, running on their own, seeking the same position, but seemingly mouthing only their own promises, without even mentioning the ideology of their political party, assuming that they have it. Sad to say, political contests in this country could be likened to a basketball tournament, wherein any player could just change teams by changing their uniforms.
While it is generally understood that there is supposed to be a separation of powers between the two Houses, but that does not mean that they could go their own separate ways and do their own separate actions. Perhaps it is just in the way that terms are being used, but nowadays, the term “Congress” is now being used to refer to the Lower House, and the term “Senate” is being used to refer to the Upper House. Of course, no one has to tell us that the term “Congress” refers to both Houses and the Senate is not an independent entity that is separate from the Congress. It may sound funny as it is now being used, but a senator is actually a congressman and he could be addressed as such, properly.
Obviously, it would be difficult to say that a democracy is strong if its executive branch is in effect making laws by way of overblown EOs, and its judicial branch is also in effect making laws by way of judicial legislation. What would make that even worse is if its legislative branch is also performing executive functions by implementing projects that are funded by the pork barrel.
It would also be difficult to say that a democracy is strong if its political parties are fielding candidates by way of anointment, rather than by way of conventions. What would also make that worse is if the voters are left with no choice but to choose on the basis of personalities, and not on the basis of platforms.
As it is supposed to be, the President is supposed to work closely with the two Houses of Congress to pass new laws that are needed for the country to progress. Without a strong party to back him up, the President could not do much if he could not influence both Houses, and what would make that even worse is if the two Houses are going their own separate ways, not having a dominant party that could bring them all together. As we know it, some mature democracies would even finance their own political parties to make sure that these would become vibrant and strong. That is how important political parties are to them. Up ahead, it is up to the citizens to decide whether we should strengthen our democracy or not, or whether we would just allow it to be watered down further./PN
