Methersgate Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 A useful pocket history of attempts at consitutional reform in the Philippines, in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_reform_in_the_PhilippinesI actually agree with these people:https://correctphilippines.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJReyes Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Didn't Gloria already try this? I believe it was President Ferdinand Marcos who experimented with a Parliamentary system of government. Of course, Marcos remained a dictator under the system he created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methersgate Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Didn't Gloria already try this? I believe it was President Ferdinand Marcos who experimented with a Parliamentary system of government. Of course, Marcos remained a dictator under the system he created. Marcos did indeed create the Batasang Pambansa, but that would be a bad reason to damn the parliamentary system for evermore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJReyes Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Marcos did indeed create the Batasang Pambansa, but that would be a bad reason to damn the parliamentary system for evermore. The parliamentary system started by Marcos was a cynical way to establish a dynasty with his son Bong Bong Marcos as the heir apparent. By the way, the United States is a federation, not a democratic or a republican system. The American Civil War was more than just a fight to terminate slavery as demanded by Abolutionists. An important issue was whether or not Southern states could break away and form a new Confederation. The Unionist said, "No." The Unionist won. Would the Philippines benefit from a parliamentary, democratic or another form of political system? I don't know. Edited January 26, 2015 by JJReyes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methersgate Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Yes, but my point is that there are many more sucessful representative democracies with a Parliamentary system than there are with a US type system: Parliamentary: Iceland (actually the oldest), Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand... and a lot more... US system:The USA, the Philippines,,,now I am struggling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJReyes Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Yes, but my point is that there are many more sucessful representative democracies with a Parliamentary system than there are with a US type system: I agree. The Parliamentary system is more suitable. I also like snap elections and the potential consequences of backfiring when the majority party miscalculates. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Glatt Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 As a lad a bit more than half a century ago, we were taught that the USA, all 48 states was a republic. Congressmen were citizens who would give up 2-4 years to go to Washington and write the laws and a budget to fund the government. Senators, who used to be appointed by the legislators of their states (may be a better system than popular vote) were more senior and tended to stay in office longer some would serve 3 terms (18 years) would debate, refine and give the yea or nae to the laws and budget sent them from congress. After both houses agreed the legislation was sent to the president for approval or veto. If vetoed it could be over turned by a 2/3rd s vote. It was difficult to pass a law. This was the intent of the founders, change could take a long time as could amending the Constitution. decisions and debates took time. These rules have been circumvented by both the House and the Senate because there was not enough time for them to both serve their nation and raise money, ever more money to get elected. They fight for jobs that were meant to be temporary, jobs that in the past would cost them money to do. Now they exit office as multimillionaires with pension that equal their foll pay even if they only served one term. Who would pass such an insane law as that? Who would give up the power to budget and govern the nation? Who would let a president rule the nation by decree? And people say the Philippines is corrupt. The Philippines is a poor imitation of corrupt I may be wrong but i doubt it!! I'm a JERRY. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert k Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Quote from a movie. "A certain amount of corruption is the natural order of things. One gang I will tolerate but when I return in 2 days time with 20 rangers there will be one gang or when we leave there will be no gang. Do I make myself clear?" I think the Philippines would be better off with one gang, a jealous gang that wouldn't tolerate any other gangs. As it is, with each looking the other way for the others looting, the common man can't catch a break. Maybe a dictator would be an answer. Certainly there is no national will to clean things up, you can probably find one man with the will, him getting elevated and surviving long enough to do what is needed would be problematical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methersgate Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Quote from a movie. "A certain amount of corruption is the natural order of things. One gang I will tolerate but when I return in 2 days time with 20 rangers there will be one gang or when we leave there will be no gang. Do I make myself clear?" I think the Philippines would be better off with one gang, a jealous gang that wouldn't tolerate any other gangs. As it is, with each looking the other way for the others looting, the common man can't catch a break. Maybe a dictator would be an answer. Certainly there is no national will to clean things up, you can probably find one man with the will, him getting elevated and surviving long enough to do what is needed would be problematical. That has been tried. Ferdinand Marcos. It did not work out too well.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert k Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Quote from a movie. "A certain amount of corruption is the natural order of things. One gang I will tolerate but when I return in 2 days time with 20 rangers there will be one gang or when we leave there will be no gang. Do I make myself clear?" I think the Philippines would be better off with one gang, a jealous gang that wouldn't tolerate any other gangs. As it is, with each looking the other way for the others looting, the common man can't catch a break. Maybe a dictator would be an answer. Certainly there is no national will to clean things up, you can probably find one man with the will, him getting elevated and surviving long enough to do what is needed would be problematical. That has been tried. Ferdinand Marcos. It did not work out too well.. Are you saying that Marcos rooted out all corruption than what was to his personal benefit? If not it has no bearing on what I posted. It was the wrong man. I don't think Marcos carried away the whole wealth of the country himself. What happens in the Philippines is not so different than what happens in the normal course of business for the US government, except its illegal to pick the nations pocket in the Philippines, but nobody enforces the law. Edited January 27, 2015 by robert k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now