another term has passed..

Second Term, SY 2005-2006 will officially end this coming Dec 20, with the Course Card Distribution.. hmmm i wonder if i'll get high grades in my Polsci subjects hehehe!!!

anyway, the term was a good one for Political Science majors.. we learned a lot from political theories of gone old ancient Greeks to comparative politics of countries to public administration to political analysis..

i would just like to thank Sir July (hi sir!) for a great term and for teaching us a lot about politics.. it's just the first step and a lot more steps have to be taken to reach our destination.. graduation! :)

to the POLIANA A51 class.. it has been a great term and thanks! see you all next term hehehe!!!

Animo La Salle!

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/)

gimme a piece of cake!

In my Food Tech days back in my HS in OBMC, we always prepare a variety of foods depending on the lesson given. Sometimes we bake pastries, cook international cuisine and prepare jams and jellies. Part of it is the ever important food evaluation. We take a taste of what we have prepared analyze it whether it is 'good' or 'bad.' The teachers need not to eat the whole item in order to evaluate it. A piece of cake will determine whether the cake is 'good' or 'not so good.'

Just like our food evaluation in our Food Tech class, a sampling of 1,200 respondents can represent the entire population of the country. If it weren't for behavioralism, politics can never be analyzed in a scientific way and study the political behavior of the society. Based on empirical data gathered by political scientist, we can get a picture of the society and generalize a theory or explanation. Behavioralism is defined as 'a post-World War II movement to make the study of politics scientific.' It follows that 'it emphasized quantification, computer analysis of data, a focus on individual political actors.. and the need for explanatory empirical theory.' Behavioralists use statistics in its analysis of political data. With statistics, we can get an accurate explanation on such social behavior among individuals and get patterns from it.

In the Philippines, there are two institutions that promote behavioralism in the study of politics and they are the Social Weather Stations (SWS) and Pulse Asia. Both institutions use statistics in generalizing political, economic and social behavior in the Philippines. They perform a random sample of 1,200 respondents, 18 years and above and they get their respondents in the four geographical areas: NCR, the rest of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. Sex and class stratification are included in the criteria. Random sampling is also called representative, or proportionate sampling, and with it we could get a proportionately represented sample of the population. The 1,200 sample size is good enough for a nationwide survey and allows a 95 percent confidence level with a plus/minus 3 percent marginal error. The bigger the sample size, the smaller the marginal error. Having a larger sample size other than 1,200 gives a more accurate estimation of the public sentiment, but it would be much more costly and more tedious work. An interviewer will ask the respondent certain questions and he/she would give a simple answer, commonly 'yes' or 'no.' In the last May 2004 elections, I was a part of the ABS-CBN/SWS Exit Poll survey. An interviewer from the SWS went in our house and on that day I just came home from voting. The lady gave me a set of questions to answer regarding on who did I vote for and the reason for voting and other questions. After the survey, the lady gave me a piece of paper stating that I was interviewed by the SWS.

In conclusion, the 1,200 respondents can represent the 80 million Filipinos in the country. The 1,200 respondents are randomly selected in the four geographical areas, that is 300 respondents each area, and sex and class stratification are included. Every one has the opportunity to be selected, whether you are a male or a female, and belong to either Class A, B, C, D or E. The sample size of 1,200 is large enough to have an accurate pulse of the public's sentiments, given a 95 percent confidence level and a +3 and -3 marginal error. With the 1,200 respondents the statisticians can able to get the entire population's sentiment, or the statistical inference.


Sources:
1. Go, Miriam Grace A. "Survey agencies on center stage." Newsbreak. 12 Apr. 2004. 8 Oct. 2005 <http://www.inq7.net/nwsbrk/2004/apr/12/nbk_4-1.htm.>
2. "Behavioralism." Glossary, Political Science and Public Administration at The University of Toledo. 8 Oct. 2005 <www.politicalscience.utoledo.edu/faculty/lindeen/glos3260.htm.>
3. Virola, Romulo A. "On Election Polls: Part III." NSCB - Statistically Speaking... On Election Polls: Part III by Dr. Romulo A. Virola. 4 May 2004. National Statistical Coordination Board. 8 Oct. 2005 <http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/050604_rav_polls.asp.>

is politics considered science? YES!

Politics is part of social science and it deals with the political behavior of individuals. Mixing science and politics can enable us to understand very well set of behaviors in a certain social phenomena, similar to other people. This question has been asked for years by social 'scientists' on whether or not politics be considered a science. But we must ask ourselves--what is science?

Science is defined as 'the observationn, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena' (from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language-Fourth Ed.). If that is the case, we include science in politics in observing, identifying, describing political phenomena and provide theories and laws about it.

Science has been a part of political science since time immemorial. Political 'scientists' use the scientific method in order to explain certain political behavior in individuals. However, despite the accuracy in giving us an explanation of political behavior in individuals, we should look into consideration that an individual's behavior change in time. Unlike in natural science, the variables are constant, the human behavior varies across time and cultures. In one session of POLIANA, we watched the pilot episode of the series, Numb3rs, in which mathematics is used in solving crimes in the United States. The mathematician has developed an equation that helped the law enforcers locate the residence of the serial rapist, given the evidences and locations of rape in the city. However, they weren't able to catch the offender because they didn't took in account the place the serial rapist works; they only considered his home and that he changed residences.

With the above example, it shows that despite the accuracy of mathematics in solving the crime, the authorities were not able to arrest the person on time because the serial rapist changed residences. Just like in political behavior, an individual's perspective or view about politics change. Certain factors may change one's stand. In our present political situation, the political groups that once favored GMA during the EDSA II have now changed sides and are now opposing the present administration. Science still plays a major role in political science because just like natural science, we collect empirical data, draw hypothesis in a certain political behavior, and analyze the information collected to draw up theories and explanations. But, these theories, for me, serves as a guideline and not as absolute truths that would stand for time. Even though human behavior change in time, science can still play a major role in politics. To keep up with the changes in society, new theories and explanations will be generated to explain man's political behavior.

So, if you will ask me whether politics can be considered a science, I say YES! Political science is considered a science where the scientific method is used to study political systems and behavior among individuals.

politics.. what the heck?!

Politics have been the issue these days. Everyone is talking about the impeachment and resignation of Presidet Arroyo, because she betrayed the people by cheating in the last May 2004 national elections. Street demonstrations have occured in Edsa and in Ayala calling for the president's resignation. In another country, the Americans have complained to President Bush for the slow response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. In Japan, a recent election was called and Prime Minister Koizumi's Liberal Democrats have the won the majority seats in lower house of the Japanese Diet (Parliament). The examples mentioned above demonstrated the use of politics. But what is politics?

Back in my POLIGOV days, two definitions of politics were presented. According to Harold Laswell, politics is about "who gets what, when and how." Another definition by David Easton tells us that politics is the "authoritative allocation of values and resources." Another definition points politics as "social relations involving authority or power" (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). Politics came to be during the ancient Greeks, particularly in Athens. There most ancient Greeks were interested in running affairs of the polis, hence they were called, polites. They collectively decided on certain issues and have compromises. There was social balance and harmony in the polis, and the people benefit from the participation of every individual in politics. Politics was and until now a social activity.

Despite the good nature of politics, it has been abused and misused by many people nowadays. Other countries such as USA, UK and Japan have developed a mature political thinking in every person. But in countries such as the Philippines, which ironically the first democracy in Asia, suffers in too much politics. Politics which should be concerned with the welfare of the state and of the people is now about the vested interests of the people in power. Corruption is very rampant in government institutions which hinders the country's development. Laws are written not for the welfare of the majority who are the poor, but for the protection of the elitist's interests. Instead of serving the people, the politicians themselves are being served by the people. It is sad but it is reality. Despite the rich democratic history and culture of the Philippines, we still need to be mature enough when we think of politics. The Filipinos should stop being apathetic and help in the development of the country. Let's stop the "Crab mentality" and "Bahala na" way of thinking. Just as the ancient Greeks were active in the affairs of the polis, so we must be with own country. Opposing sides should reach into a compromise, instead of bickering which would lead to further division. We still have a long way to go, but through cooperation and perseverance, we might be able to turn the tide and help the country move forward.

entering the realm of politics

new term.. new start.. now entering another phase in my life.. entering the realm of political science..

this blog.. as part of requirements for POLIANA (Poltical Analysis).. will post some insights or opinions about.. of course.. POLITICS..

this is just a test post.. more posts to come..