Onward to a Federal Republic!

Let me go straight to the point. Yes! The time is now for the pursuance of Charter Change because our present government system does not anymore help our country to go forward, and instead pushes us back. Yes, it may have worked during the past and our system has been patterned almost exactly from the Americans. However, the system has bogged down and has slowed down the progress of the country. An example would be the conflict between the Executive and Legislative branches of the government. Sometimes the President's programs are not favored by those in Congress, therefore the programs that are supposed to be implemented for the people's benefit are not pushed through. The people have always blamed the President for not hearing their voices, but they do not see that the President should not be blamed for all the woes the country has been facing.

Our present system of government, which is a Unitary-Presidential government, concentrates power at the national government in Manila and all decisions should come from Manila. Hence, the provinces outside Manila have few powers in order to initiate their own programs for their own constituencies. Because of that centralization of power, the provinces call this an 'Imperial Manila.' Presidential because the head of state and government is the President and there is a separation of powers between the three branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary) and sometimes conflicts between branches slows down the effectivity of government.

Changing the present system into a Federal-Parliamentary government would bring more advantages to the government. By being federal it means that the powers of the national government are dispersed or decentralized into state governments. The national government would more focus on broad issues such as foreign affairs, currency and monetary policy, national defense, immigration, and citizenship. The state governments would more focus on the needs of the people such as peace and order, trade and employment, health, education, social services, public works, and transportation and communication. There is mutual independence in a federal government, wherein each state would have their own constitution, courts, government. There is self-rule by the people in each state and shared rule between the national government and the state governments. One good thing in a federal government is that the people in each state can raise their standard of living and more active in the political affairs of their respective state since they no longer have to wait for the instructions of Manila and the budget; they already have the power, authority and the resources for the use in the development of their state. Federalism would further encourage healthy competition among states in attracting investors and enriching culture and a sense of nationalism.

In a parliamentary form of government, the Executive and Legislative powers are fused into one in a Parliament and the majority party holding seats in Parliament would elect a Prime Minister as the head of government. The Prime Minister appoints cabinet ministers from the Parliament in managing the different ministries of the government. The President would be reduced to a symbolic head of state, chosen by parliament and state assemblies, and he will symbolize the unity of all Filipinos as one nation. The Prime Minister is in power as long as the majority party holds the seats in Parliament, or unless through a vote of no confidence. What is impressive in a parliamentary government is that the people would vote for public officials not based on their personality but on the issues the party stands in. No longer would the people vote for the one who is smart, good-looking, and charismatic, but rather vote the political party who carries with them the programs they will pursue if they are in elected. Programs are implemented wisely since the majority party holds the seats. It is much better in a parliamentary government to change the chief executive. In a presidential government, the President can be removed through impeachment which is lengthy and further divides the society, or wait for the next elections. In a parliamentary government, as long as the majority party stays in power, the Prime Minister stays. If the majority party loses enough seats to hold a majority, a new Prime Minister will be elected by the new majority, or through a vote of no confidence. The Parliamentary system would further benefit the country since the formulation and implementation of programs for the country would be undertaken by the ruling majority and no longer will there be conflicts since the legislative and executive are fused into one. A parliamentary government would strengthen political parties since the people would choose the party that will benefit them based on the issues and programs they lobby for. If the ruling party does not provide the programs the public had been clamoring for, they will be removed from power through election and choose another party. Another would be the accountability issue since the responsibility now resides on the Prime Minister and the ruling party. No longer will the people blame one leader; the people would judge instead on the ruling party.

In conclusion, I believe that the time has come for the change of system from a unitary-presidential system to a federal-parliamentary system of government. Changing the system of government would greatly benefit the people, and it would further build up our strong democratic culture and a further sense of nationalism. The federal states would enable to shape the lives of their respective people and the parliament, through the Prime Minister and the ruling party, implement their programs based on the party's course action. Changing the system would change the way people perceive the government. The people should not look into charter change in a negative way but instead see it as an opportunity for them to actively participate in the country's future. I say yes to charter change! Yes to a Federal Republic of the Philippines!

Are people really that selfish?

In today's fast-paced world, every individual is tasked to keep up with society and pursue his or her own interests, in order to survive the urban jungle. Because of our animal instinct of survival, we might compete with other people over certain 'goods' so that we might benefit or satisfy from it. People may choose a certain 'good' that would benefit from it. "I like Coke more than Pepsi because it satisfies my thirst more than Pepsi." That person who chose Coke over Pepsi is an example of rational choice.

Yes, it might be true that people really do are selfish. Who ever in this whole wide world would say that he or she was not selfish in his or her lifetime, please raise your feet. (Haha!) See, you can't even to do that. Well, people do sometimes choose something in order to satisfy their desires or 'hunger' for a certain good. In the political arena, certain politicians will do anything in their power just to satisfy their lust for power and with that they have forgotten that they were there to serve the people in the first place. The market (not the stinking market in your local town), self-interest motivates certain companies in order to make their goods 'attractive' to the consumer. In the society, people would compete each other for their own self-interests. Rational Choice, as an approach, assumes that political players are self-interested and utility maximizers. While it may be true that every decision that we make might be self-interested, we cannot generalize that every one does the same thing. That would be unfair because that would mean that people are really that mean. Are we that too selfish? I think that the proponents of this approach are biased in a way, not putting into account the various reasons besides an individual's decision. Self-interest motivation is just a speck of a lot of possibilities.

Even though the rational choice theory may sound quite biased taking into consideration only economic self-interests and utility maximation, it is still a good theory in making claims on human behavior in society, in politics and in the market. In society, social interaction is seen as social exchanges. A person may prefer to buy Coke than Pepsi simply because since it is more satisfying and brings good value for money. The theory suggests that people are motivated by "rewards and punishments" of their decisions or actions. In politics, people join certain organizations in order to get the benefits of being in an organization. If I join a certain political party, whatever the party pursues should benefit only me. But the concept of "free rider" means that even though I join a political party, no certain incentive will be given to its members since everything the party pursues benefit all. In the market, companies would compete for a monopoly for a specific good since getting hold of it benefits them, therefore increase in profit.

Despite the self-interested individuals exisiting in society, we should also take into consideration the non-rational choices an individual would have in decision-making. There are many factors that affect an individuals decision or choice. Leaving only the rational choice and assuming that every one is self-interesed and utility maximizer is incomplete. So, in conclusion, people are not all motivated by self-interests and utility maximation, and there are non-rational choices that motivate individuals in decision-making, like emotions.


Sources:
1. POLIANA Lecture notes
2. Rational Choice Theory (check out: http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~scottj/socscot7.htm)
3. Rational Choice Theory and Irrational Motivations: The Uses and Abuses of History in Political Science (check out: http://www.fathom.com/feature/35616/)