No To Cha-Cha

Get Real : Shall we dance?

Solita Collas- Monsod
Inquirer News Service

AT A FORUM entitled "Shall We Dance the CHA-CHA?" held at Miriam College, I gave a Power-Point presentation that may interest the reader. It at least provides a basis, which she can build on, for her decision on Charter change.

The presentation is simple and short. It starts with a restatement of the fundamental principle of rational decision-making, i.e., an action (to dance?) is worth taking if and only if it leaves the actor better off than before-and that happens if the extra benefits that arise from the action are greater than the extra costs. Nota bene: Since what is good for the individual is not necessarily good for society (beware the fallacy of composition), and vice versa, it will make a difference whether the perspective we take is the country perspective (social costs and benefits) or the individual (private costs and benefits). In this exercise, we look at it from the country viewpoint.

The second part of the presentation reviews the more recent (previous decade) efforts to change the Constitution. Three episodes are recalled, all of which shared the same articulated objective: removing the obstacles to economic reform and growth. In the first episode, during the Fidel Ramos administration, the main issue was term limits, particularly of the president, with the proposed shift to a parliamentary form of government. In the second episode, Joseph Estrada claimed that the obstacles were the economic provisions, particularly the limitations on foreign ownership and control, and gave assurances that he was not interested in the political provisions. The third episode is the present one, where, in contrast to the Estrada perception, the main obstacle to economic growth is perceived to be the system of government. In all three episodes, the exponents have been the incumbent presidents and members of the House of Representatives, although the latest episode sees the addition of local leaders because of the promise of federalism, which did not figure in the previous two.

For purposes of the discussion, Charter change, or "Cha-cha," refers to (as espoused by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Congress) a change in the system of government from a presidential, unitary, bicameral system to a parliamentary, federal, unicameral system, together with more liberal foreign ownership and control provisions than in the 1987 Constitution. All these to be done through a constituent assembly (Con-Ass).

What are the benefits of this Charter change, as claimed by its exponents? Not necessarily in the order of their importance, the list is as follows:

(1) A Con-Ass will be more efficient (less costly, faster) than a constitutional convention (Con-Con), what with talk of the work being finished by December, and a plebiscite by May;

(2) The parliamentary system will reduce gridlock (executive-legislative; House-Senate) and therefore delays in decision-making;

(3) There will be more power to the people at the grass-roots or local government level (because of the federal system), as "imperial Manila" loses its hold over the rest of the country;

(4) Elections will be less costly, since presidential elections will be no more, and therefore the need to recoup financial losses or to make political paybacks in exchange for financial support will be less-reducing incentives for corruption;

(5) We will have a more stable politico-economic environment, because there will be no more political crises of the sort that occurred during the Estrada regime and is occurring now: in the new system, all that is needed to change leadership is a vote of no-confidence by the majority of parliament; and

(6) As a result of 2, 3, 4 and 5, there will be faster growth and less poverty.

Then there are the disadvantages, which are basically the same points with a diametrically opposite twist:

(1) The cost savings from a Con-Ass will be more than offset by the cost of delays in the rest of the legislative agenda and/or a poorer legislative performance; if in three out of the past four years, the legislature could not even pass the national budget on time, what more damage will be wreaked when the legislature adds impeachment and Cha-cha to its plate?

(2) "Faster" decision-making means also a faster pace of making wrong decisions. Furthermore, there is no assurance that gridlock will be reduced; it will just arise in a different form-not one House against the other, but one political family or business power bloc against the other. Worse, easier deals can be made at the expense of the Filipino people.

There's more:

(3) The people will have less power, not more, because (a) national and state leaders are no longer elected directly but by national and state parliaments; and (b) it will be easier for local dynasties and political warlords to wield and retain political power.

(4) Elections will be more costly, what with each state in the federal system having parliaments, and each aspiring local governor or prime minister having to support a larger set of candidates.

(5) "Stability" may be more imagined than real, as shown by the numerous times leadership may change hands in a parliamentary system, what with only a majority required to bring a leader down, rather than the two-thirds for a conviction in an impeachment trial at the Senate.

And finally, there are certain problems which have been ignored, and which will exacerbate uncertainty: How will the national debt be divided among the states? How will the federal equalization fund be administered? How are the taxing powers to be allocated? How is a professional civil service to be attained? How is a strong party system, which is necessary for a parliament, to be achieved? No homework done here.

Shall we dance? No, thank you.